The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.su.707 E Hyman Park 2.A03003 08/19/2003 03:45 7138638727 WILLIAMS DEVELOMENT - - --- ~. ~ .U~OAA _. _~~ PAGE 02 ~ll Mountain Homeowners Association I 700 E. Cooper #1 . Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ph: 970.429.7478 August 19,2003 Chris Bendon I Planning and Zoning Comfission City of Aspen I Aspen, Colorado 81611 I I Planning af Zoning Commission Approval fur Construction of Parking Facility , I Dear Mr. Hendon: I Re: I am the President fthe Homeowners Association fur the five units located at 700 East Cooper, As you may kno ,these five units also have additional qualified residences associated with each dwelling. We nderstand that a developer has requested approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission construct B rwlti-Ievel parking facility behind our condominium property. As we further ntand, the parking facility would be located adjacent to the alley behind the Bell Mountain property and rise seveml stories above the alley. We have seveml concerns related to this cottructiOn, among which include the fullowing: I, It is higWy r:'kelY that a parking facility will emit noxious and offimsive odoa that would drift :away from the parking fucility onto the property of Bell Mountain causing pot ntial harm to the occupants of Bell Mountain, 4, GGOl 15. l)i068s/196P65,Ol 2. The parkin . fucility would increase ~in the area around the Bell Mountain property to the considerable detrime'i'ii"'Ol'" the Bell Mountain residents and the other reside, S of the properties around the Bell Mountain property If the acce to the parking fucility incorporates any portion of the.!lli;x. it is likely that s vere traffic jams and disturbances will result because the alleY'is only twenty feet ide and is often used as a holding area fur the City of Aspen trash hauling tnJ 3. We have se n no~study to depict how the parking filcility would impact the usage of around the Bell Mountain property. 5. We believe alter both property po t the construction of such a large facility would have a tendency to 'n water and snow run-off adversely affucting the Bell Mountain . lly causing ~JiR,\l.,~,~!!s..ne,e, and other sub-soil damage to the I I J 08f.l.~/_~~0~ _ .!l~;_'!.5_...__71386l!lZn~, ~ ~~_ oJ....... WILLIAMS DEVELOMENT r.n.'..u... ..."...JI ...,,"'I:tU.....L.O'A PAGE 03 Chris Bendon August 19, 2003 Pagc2 6. , , I , Bell M+in property. PllI'king~: to 99 vehicles in any f'a(;i!ity is likely to inCI'llSSC the risk of ~ lAP _'?.."J!!.21i.cm . to the other residents surrounding the proposed parking deck. In 'liiIiJrtloD;'< t only are potentially hundreds of automobiles located in close proll:imit , ' '''"... ~s;dellCes, but these same autolJlObiles will be elevated seveml stories in' air, making their potential fire and explosion risk even more realistic to the rcsi ents of Bell Moumain 7. te that the construction of such a facility wHUlimase tpe. yahli,von of untain properties to the detnment of the BelflJOuntam OwnefS as it was Il8V anticipated that such a major land use change would be auth!)rilIed so close to 11 Mountain. ction of the parking facility will likely cause the loss of views from the Bell Moumain property, 1111 to the detriment of the o~rsl. -- 8. We certainly ho developmem will be decision whether to !!Ill that the.(: concerns that Bell Mountain has l1lised to this proposed sldered by the Planning and Zoning Commission in weighing its the right to the applicam to constnu:t this facility. Should you have ry questions, please call me at the above referenced phone number. Very truly yours, 98011' snasU'tOQil5j.OI LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT S. KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.c. HERBERT S. KLEIN hsklein@rof.net LANCE R. COTE .. cote@rof.net MADHU 8. KRISHNAMURTI madhu@rof.net 201 NORTH MilL STREET SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Telephone (970) 925-8700 Facsimile (970) 925-3977 September 11, 2003 * also admitted in California Via Hand Deliverv City of Aspen Planning 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: I am again 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. At the last Planning Commission meeting, the applicant provided a report on the noise associated with the parking apparatus and a traffic study. Although the public hearing was closed, given the new information provided, we believe it is appropriate for the Commission to consider our comments on these reports. 1. The Noise Report. The applicant submitted a noise study dated Aug. 27, 2003, from Gary Ehrlich, Senior Acoustical Engineer. The report was done on, what we are told is, the only other facility in the U.S. using this technology. The equipment was located in a private parking garage and sound measurements were taken near the garage overhead door. The equipment was operated without any cars on the lift. On the last page ofthe report it states: "It can also be seen that the sound level in the garage was typically between 50 and 65 dBA, and occasionally reached 70 to 80 dBA." These sound levels exceed the maximum sound levels for this zone district allowed under the City's Land Use Code ("Code"), thus, this project cannot be approved. The relevant Code provisions are found in Article 18 (the "Noise Ordinance"). Excerpts of these sections are attached. Section 18.04.040 limits the maximum allowable noise in the Residential land use district (defined by Sec. 18.04.020( cc) as including the Office zone) to 50 dBA between the hours of !0:00PM and 7:00AM and 55 dBA between the hours of 7:00AM and !0:00PM. So when the report says the sound level is "typically between 50 and 65 dBA," it is saying that the garage will typically violate the Aspen Municipal Code noise ordinance! When the report says the noise levels "occassionally reached 70 to 80 dBA," it is saying that occasionally the noise reached levels that are City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department September II, 2003 Page 2 deemed harmfUl! I Viewing the charts submitted with the report makes it clear that the Noise Ordinance's night time 50 dBA limit is exceed at all times. (See Figure 1 attached to the report). The 55dBA daytime limit is exceeded most of the time and sound levels between 60 and 70 dBA are reached about half the time. To provide the Commission with some reference for these noise levels, a sewing machine operates around 60 dBA, a washing machine around 70 dBA and an alarm clock at 2 feet is about 80 dBA. 2 Front loaders, backhoes, tractors, concrete mixers, moveable cranes, generators and compressors operate in the 70-80dBA range.3 The proposed garage will queue cars at its entrance, thus requiring, the overhead doors to be open, allowing the noise generated to not only escape the building, but to be funneled directly across the street toward the residential townhouses at 700 E. Hyman Street. Furthermore, since the report was based on the lift being operated without a car, we can only assume that the noise generated from this equipment when it is under full load (e.g. when 5-6000 pound SUV's are on the lift) can only be higher, not lower. Because this project will violate the Noise Ordinance, it cannot be approved. The Commission must deny this project. 2. The Traffic Reoort. The applicant has provided a traffic study from Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, dated August 28, 2003. The report indicates that Hyman Avenue experiences approximately 3,500 vehicles per day ("vpd") in the summer and 2300 vpd in the winter. The report measures the increase in projected traffic generated by the project and finds that the increase in traffic is not significant. However, the report does not analyze the impact on traffic flows due to the operational characteristics of the garage. Clearly, 3500 vpd is a lot of traffic. The garage will require both right and left turning movements for cars entering and exiting the facility. The report is silent on the effect of these turning movements on traffic flow. Cars heading west on Hyman, will need to make a left turn into the garage. When cars are already queued at the entrance, these vehicles will either wait until the entrance clears, or they will circle the block. In either case, traffic flows will be adversely affected. Similarly, vehicles traveling east on Hyman will have to make a right ILevels of 75 dBA for outdoor activities and 65dBA for indoor activities are considered to generate "severe noise impacts" by the Federal Highway Administration. See: www.wsdot.wa.gov/regions/Northwest/rp&s/environmental/aae/policies.htm#anchor6 2 American Tinnitis Association at www.ata.org 'Reitze, Environmental Law, Chapter Three B-19 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department September II, 2003 Page 3 turn. The entrance is close to the intersection and when cars are backed up at the entrance, these vehicles waiting to enter will block traffic coming on to Hyman Avenue. The report attempts to evaluate queuing and states that the time required to park each car is 90 seconds "from the time the vehicle drives onto the lift to the time the lift returns for the next vehicle." However, this does not take into account the time it takes to unload people, skis, kids, etc., nor the time it takes to check in or to retrieve forgotten items. These activities are clearly part of the calculus of the time it takes a car to enter and clear the queuing area, but are totally ignored by the report. We estimate that these activities will take three to five minutes, depending on how busy the attendant is. Thus, the total time is more like five to seven minutes per car, not 90 seconds. The report suggests that payment will occur on pick up, however, that takes time as well and when the four spaces needed for queuing vehicles entering are full, cars cannot leave. The report also assumes that 80% of the users will be members of the public, not owners of the spaces, and that they will be parking for long periods of time, thus reducing the number of operations and the traffic generation of the facility. The applicant has not proposed a method of assuring 80% public use, only that it will sell spaces for over one-hundred thousand dollars and try to allow for public use when those spaces are not being used. At those prices, we can confidently assume that the buyers are not going to sacrifice their ability to use the spaces whenever they want in order to gain a few dollars per hour of parking revenue from public use, which income, is likely to be exceeded by the cost of tax accounting for these meager sums. The notion of long term use of the facility is not supported by any facts. These assumptions of the report are critical to its analysis and are simply made up, having no reliable foundation. We have previously expressed grave concerns about the location of this garage near the intersection and its potential for grid-lock, snarling traffic and blocking turning movements. The report has not alleviated these concerns and its failure to account for the interference with existing traffic flows by turning movements, the actual time needed by each parking operation, unsupported assumptions about the composition of users and the length of parking stays, renders its conclusions erroneous. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Very truly yours, HERBERT S. KLEIN & AS~IATES, P.C. /~ / ~.,;.""~ ~-H:rt S. Klein By: 700 E Hyman condo assn\bendrn-Lt4a.wpd Section 18.04.040 Use district noise levels. Page 1 of I Remove highlighting. Chapter 18.04 NOISE ABATEMENT*1 *2 Section 18.04.040 Use district noise levels. Maximum permissible sound levels. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any person to operate or permit to be operated any stationary source of sound in such a manner as to create a ninetieth percentile sound pressure level (L 90) of any measurement period (which shall not be less than ten (10) minutes unless otherwise provided in this chapter) which exceeds the limits set forth for the following receiving land use districts when measured at the boundary or at any point within the property affected by the noise: Iuse District IINight IIDay I 110:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. 117:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. 1 IResidential 1150 dB(A) 1155 dB(A) I ILodge 1155 dB(A) 1160 dB(A) I Icommercial 1155 dB(A) 1165 dB(A) I Ilndustrial IINot Applicable 1180 dB(A) 1 When a noise source can be identified and its noise measured in more than one use district, the limits of the most restrictive use shall apply at the boundaries between the land use categories. This provision shall not apply when the least restrictive use is a floating industrial district, in which case the limits applicable to the industrial district shall apply, notwithstanding the boundaries of the more restrictive uses, because of the temporary nature of the industrial use. If an area is zoned SPA, the use category will be determined by the predominant existing uses within that area. (Ord. No. 2-1981, !l1; Ord. No. 36-1989, !l1: Code 1971, !l16-4) http://www.ordlink.com/cgi-binlhilite.pl/codes/aspen/ _ OLD/Title _18/04/040.htrnl?noise 9/4/2003 Section 18.04.010 Declaration of policy. Page 1 of I Remove highlighting. Chapter 18.04 NOISE ABATEMENT*1 *2 Section 18.04.010 Declaration of policy. The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and to its visitors. Noise has an adverse effect on the psychological and physiological well-being of persons, thus constituting a present danger to the economic and aesthetic well-being of the community. Accordingly, it is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels. (Ord. No. 2-1981, ~ 1: Code 1971, ~ 16-1) http://www.ordlink.com/cgi-bin/hilite.pl/codes/aspen/_DATAlTitle_18/04/010.html?noise 9/4/2003 Section 18.04.020 Definitions and standards. Page 3 of 4 that is exceeded ninety (90) percent of the time in any measurement period (such as the level that is exceeded for nine (9) minutes in a ten-minute period) and is denoted L90. (v) Person. Any human being, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, company, contractor, supplier, installer, user, owner or operator, including any municipal corporation, state or federal government agency, district, and any officer or employee thereof. (w) Plainly audible noise. Any noise for which the information content of that noise is unambiguously transferred to the listener, such as, but not limited to, understanding of spoken speech, comprehension of whether a voice is raised or normal or comprehension of musical rhythms. (x) Premises. Shall mean any building, structure, land, utility or portion thereof, including all appurtenances, and shall include yards, lots, courts, inner yards and real properties without buildings or improvements, owned or controlled by a person. (y) Property boundary. An imaginary line exterior to any enclosed structure, at the ground surface, and its vertical extension, which separates the real property owned by one person from that owned by another person and separates real property from the public premise, or in multiple dwelling units from the adjoining unit. (z) Public right-of-way. Any street, avenue, boulevard, highway, alley, mall or similar place which is owned or controlled by a public governmental entity. (a a) Pure tone. Any sound which can be distinctly heard as a single itch or a set of single pitches. For the purposes of measurement, a pure tone shall exist of the one-third octave band sound pressure level in the band when the tone exceeds the arithmetic average of the sound pressure levels of the two (2) contiguous one-third octave bands By five (5) dB for frequencies of five hundred (500) Hz and above, by eighf(8) dB for frequencies between one hundred sixty (160) and four hundred (400)Hz, and by fifteen (15) dB for frequencies less than or equal to one hundred twenty-five (125) Hz. (bb) Repetitive impulse noise. Any noise which is composed of impulsive noises that are repeated at sufficiently slow rates such that a sound level meter set at "fast" meter characteristics will show changes in sound pressure level greater than ten (10) dB(A). * (cc) Residential district. An area zoned primarily for residential use as defined in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, including, but not limited to, areas designated R-6, R-15, R-15A, R-15B, R-30, R1MF, MHP, RR, 0, A, C, P, PUB, and as such designations may be amended. 0 ~ a ho (~ cieI (dd) Sound. A temporal and spatial oscillation in pressure, or other "'/ C:tW>" .l1rh-w1- physical quantity, in a medium with interval forces that causes compression /' ?;lk.teJ and rarefaction of that medium, and which propagates at finite speed to '1 E::::> distance points. http://www.ordlink.com/cgi-bin/hilite.pl/codes/aspen/_DATAlTitle_18/04/020.html?noise 9/4/2003 Section 26.425.040 Standards applicable to all conditional uses. Page 1 of I Remove highlighting. Chaoter 26.425 CONDITIONAL USES Section 26.425.040 Standards applicable to all conditional uses. When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable. A. 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 B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including vi Imp ts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service deliv ,noise, vi tions and odor on surrounding properties; and D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and The Community Development Director may recommend, and the Planning and Zoning Commission may impose such conditions on a conditional use that are necessary to maintain the integrity of the city's zone districts and to ensure the conditional use complies with the purposes of the Aspen Area Community Plan, this Chapter, and this Title; is compatible with surrounding land uses; and is served by adequate public facilities. This includes, but is not limited to imposing conditions on size, bulk, location, open space, landscaping, buffering, lighting, signage, off-street parking and other similar design features, the construction of public facilities to serve the conditional use, and limitations on the operating characteristics, hours of operation, and duration of the conditional use. http://www.ordlink.com/cgi-binlhilite.pl/codes/aspen/_DATAlTitle_26/425/040.html?noise 9/4/2003 k'ece-,'vul -.JM [Of2fO"J 704 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 September 26, 2003 City of Aspen, Colorado Planning and Zoning Board 130 South Galena Street 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Gentlemen and Mesdames: RE: 707 East Hyman Avenue Automated Car Parking System I have been out of the country and in the hospital for the past month and, therefore, have not been current on the procession of events relative to the proposed parking facility on East Hyman Avenue. What I have learned in the past week has made me appalled at the lack of consideration for the East Hyman Avenue tax payers, their children, grandchildren and the entire community that is so environmentally aware. Besides the toxins and fumes that will lather the downtown area, we will be dealing with increased and unnecessary traffic that will be drawn to the area by this monstrosity that will stick out like a sore thumb. Surely, there is a more appropriate site for the eyesore and disruption which will be caused by this parking garage. This area of town is known for the picturesque setting of Aspen it portrays. Why would you want to blight and destroy this image? Please add my name to the Alternative ideas need to Robert E. Baum LAW OFFICES FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE IN ASPEN COLORADO ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVIDJ. MYLER,P.e. L E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, P.e. I A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAl CORPORATIONS 106 SOUTH MILL STREET SUITE 202 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI FREILICH, LEITNER & CARLISLE ATIORNEYS AT LAW FACSIMILE (970) 920-4259 - TELEPHONE (970) 920-10] 8 ROBERT H. FREILICH, P.e. U' MARTIN L. LEITNER, P.C. ' RICHARD G. CARLISLE, P.e.' S. MARK WHITE '.' ROBIN A. KRAMER L.',' TYSON SMITH. JASON M. DIVELBISS l ADMnTED[Nm' ADMITTEDlNMO'.('A', NY",NC' fL' October 6, 2003 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/O Joyce Allgaier 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Application of Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC for Park Place Commercial Parking Facility at 707 East Hyman (the "Application"). Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Bell Mountain Residences Condominium Association (the "Association") in connection with the Application referenced above. The members of the Association own the Bell Mountain Residences Condominiums, which are located immediately to the south of, and across the alley from, the "Hannah-Dustin" building and the proposed parking structure (the "Parking Structure") which are the subject of the Application. For the reasons stated below, the Bell Mountain Association opposes approval of the Application as currently submitted. The applicant seeks subdivision, conditional use and consolidated Planned Unit Development approval from the City. The Application communicates the developer's desire for substantial variances from the dimensional standards of the "0," Office zone district. The developer justifies the granting ofthose variances by highlighting the substantial public benefits the project will bestow on the City. As discussed in Section 3, below, the "public benefits" offered by the developer are insufficient to justify the requested variances and are not definite enough to be relied upon by the City. As now conceived the Parking Structure will most likely be used primarily by second homeowners storing their vehicles for long periods of time. The developer is apparently unwilling to provide assurance that the City will actually receive the "public benefits" in a way which addresses the needs described in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the 1988 traffic study relied upon in the Application. I. The Proposed Rear Yard Setback Variance Will Prevent Full Use of the Association's Gara~e and Drivewav. FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2003 Page 2 Of more immediate concem to the Association, however, are the variances requested in the Application. The zero rear yard setback requested for the Parking Structure could actually prevent trucks and larger cars from using the underground garage which serves units in the Bell Mountain Residences Condominiums. Exhibit A, which is a rough site plan of the area, illustrates the point. The driveway serving the Bell Mountain Residences is located off the alley between the project and the proposed Parking Structure. The dark line indicates traffic flow from the driveway into the alley moving toward South Spring Street. (This is the only direction allowed as traffic in the alley is "one-way" from Original Street to South Spring.) As witnessed by the undersigned when an SUV recently left the Bell Mountain Residences driveway for South Spring Street, the passenger side of a truck or other large vehicle passes over or passes dangerously close to the space proposed for the Parking Structure. It may be physically impossible for the members of the Association to leave the garage if the Parking Structure is built to the property line! The problem will be worse during the winter when snow is pushed against the building, making the driving lane within the alley will be even more restricted. Because no other structures located on the alley exist within the setback, motor vehicles will have to move to the left when traveling in the alley. This movement, combined with the reduction in sight lines caused by the intrusion of the building into the setback, will cause a condition which could endanger pedestrians, vehicles parked in the alley and personal property located close to the roadway. Ice and snow on the newly-paved drive will only exacerbate the situation. This problem has been identified as serious by a member of the Association who is also president of a major automobile insurance company. From our review of the Application and notes and minutes of your previous meetings, little attention has been paid to the developer's request for a IS-foot rear yard setback variance. As described above, this issue is of critical importance to the Association. We ask that you seriously consider denying the request for this variance. At a minimum the developer should be required to provide a study which demonstrates that traffic in the alley will be unaffected by the rear yard setback variance and that members of the Association will have continued use of their driveway without inconvenience if the Parking Structure is built as now proposed. 2. A Floor Area Variance Is Not Warranted. To maximize its investment in the Parking Structure, the developer seeks a variance in the "external floor area ratio" which applies to its property from 0.75 to 1 to 1.3 to I. When all subgrade space is included in the analysis, the Parking Structure will encompass the equivalent of 36,000 square feet of development. This equates to six square feet of use for each square foot of surface area on the site. The Parking Structure will put the site to intense use. FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2003 Page 3 The external floor area ratio permitted in the Office zone district is .75 to 1. It may be increased to I to I only by special review. Ifit is increased, "sixty (60) percent of the additional floor area must be approved for residential use restricted to affordable housing.'" No increase bevond I to I is allowed in the Office zone district. To avoid this restriction, the developer seeks to rezone the property as a PUD. When determining the dimensional parameters ofa PUD, the requirements of the underlying zone district are the baseline from which decisions should be made.' Modifications of the dimensional parameters of the Office zone district should be allowed only if those parameters are compatible with existing development, do not exacerbate natural and man-made hazards and do not unreasonably impact "man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources.'" As discussed above, the zero rear vard setback proposed for the Parking Structure unreasonably impacts the Bell Mountain Residences by severely restricting use of its garage by members of the Association. That "dimensional parameter" cannot be permitted. Similarly, the extemal floor area ratio requested for the project unreasonably impacts the surrounding area, including the Bell Mountain Residences. Intense use of the property for a six-floor parking facility will have substantial impacts to neighbors in terms of noise, traffic and air pollution. As Herb Klein presents in his letter to you of September II, 2003, the developer has not demonstrated that the project adequately deals with these impacts. These concerns are magnified for members of the Association because the Parking Structure will be much closer to their properties (across the alley rather than across the street) and because the Bell Mountain Residences are located behind the Parking Structure where less noise-proofing will be installed. The developer's plan to operate the facility until at least I :00 a.m. leaves open the real possibility that noise and fumes from the Parking Structure will disturb the sleep of members of the Association and their children. To finalize the rezoning to PUD as requested here, the City's official zone district map must be amended. Consideration of a number of factors is required to approve any such amendment including: I Aspen Land Use Code, ~26.71O.180(D)(lO) (emphasis supplied). , Code, ~~ 26.445.040(C), 26.445.050(B). 'Code, S 26.445.050(B)(l). FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2003 Page 4 Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics' The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.' Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.6 None of these factors are met here. It is clear that intense use of the property as a parking facility is incompatible with the neighborhood, including the residential projects located across the alley and across the street. Comparing the Parking Structure with the Aspen Athletic Club-Coates, Reid & Waldron building is inappropriate because that structure was built many years ago and does not reflect recent development of the area. Recent changes in the neighborhood have made it more residential, not more commercial. The Parking Structure as proposed here is clearly incompatible with residential use. It is important to remember that the Bell Mountain Residences were approved by the City less than four years ago. Comparison with Benedict Commons is also inappropriate because that project was built as employee housing - a community benefit which is unequivocally an integral goal ofthe community as expressed in the AACP. The provision of parking in the commercial core to the public may also be an integral goal of the community. However, this Parking Structure does not meaningfully address that goal. 3. The Parking Structure Does Not HelD Solve Parking Problems In Aspen. The developer argues that he is entitled to the variances discussed above because the proposal addresses a "significant community goal" - the provision of parking in the conunercial core. The Application asserts that a 1986 study which focused on demand for short-term parking somehow supports his request to build a supply of long-term parking spaces. This represents a "logical disconnect" which has never been adequately addressed in the developer's Application, supplemental filings with staff, or in statements to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The developer appears to be unwilling to provide the City reasonable assurances that the Parking Structure will be actually used by the public. The developer says that 19 of the 99 parking 4 Code, Section 26.31 0.040(C) 5 Code, Section 26.310.040(0) 6 Code, Section 26.31 0.040(H) FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2003 Page 5 spaces will always be available for public use. Its traffic study assumes that "approximately 20% of the spaces would be used by part-time local residents to store their vehicles when out of town," and that the remainder, 80%, "would be used on a daily basis by local residents, merchants, employees and visitors.'" However, the developer has, thus far, been unwilling to commit to a plan which insures that these benefits are actually received by the public. Despite repeated requests by members of the P & Z, the applicant refuses to directly address this issue. In answers provided to date, the developer has said, essentially, that the City must rely on each unit owner's interest in maximizing his investment. "Each space owner will want to utilize the garage fully," said Mr. Fornell at the September 2, 2003 hearing.' Because a space-owner will receive income only when the space is being rented, the theory goes, each such owner will demand that the space be rented as much as possible. The reality is that anyone who purchases a parking space for over $100,000 will demand that the space be available when he wants to use it. As with the vast majority of Aspen real property, the rental income stream does not support the purchase price of the unit. Onlv wealthv oeoole who can afford not to receive rental income will be able to afford soaces in the Parking Structure. Only a mandatory program of sharing space with the public will insure that the public receives a meaningful benefit from the approval of this project. That approval must include substantial public use during busy times ofthe year, including "powder days" and the Fourth ofJuly. A mandatory program may be implemented only through covenants which "run with the land." The developer must provide a proposed set of such covenants to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its review and approval prior to receiving a recommendation of approval from the board. The developer's representative has complained that imposition of a mandatory program of sharing space with the public will unnecessarily fetter the owners' freedom in dealing with their property.' The covenants which are required here are no different in kind than employee housing deed restrictions which are routinely mandated for residential development. The City must take reasonable steps to secure for its residents and this neighborhood the benefits which have been promised by the developer. 'Letter of Jeff Ream, Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig to Stan Clauson, dated August 28, 2003, p. 2, last paragraph. 'Minutes of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sept. 2,2003, p. 3, middle of second to last paragraph. 'ld.,p.4-5. FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2003 Page 6 The Land Use Code allows the City to substantially modify a zone district's dimensional parameters if a proposal advances important community goals, such as the provision of affordable housing. A variance may not granted, however, if receipt of the promised benefit is uncertain or speculative. This developer has not yet provided reasonable assurance that members of the public will be allowed to use the Parking Structure at times and in sufficient numbers to make a meaningful contribution to the solution of Aspen's parking problem. Granting ofPUD approval is not warranted here. Sincerely, FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE IW E. Michael Hoffman Table of Exhibits Exhibit A - Diagram Illustrating Turning Radius Problem Exhibit B - Diagram Illustrating Traffic Diversion Problem . . " "' , u " ;:.,<:1) > - 0 .- c: eo~ ti r.I.l ~ " " " -"'.... ;::::::00 .... e._ o ;3 0 ",o..Z . Ii "lil: :;- ::=1. . ,!!...,. . >. j;I. .' . 1")':" '" , " I I Ell :< I ~"I If \H1111 ,I. ~ !~~ I I~ !I; l::"" I ii . [ ,.. I .~~ ~I i ~I . ., ,:'- ,*.'1 , ) -I " , . , \ r-l. t, rl' I"~ 1";:", 1'1). \\. .&I.. Ii t'" It,...,,!..... '11UFii 'Ci~~'k' ~l :f!i i ;ti~ il ~ ". .~ '~ ~ Ul ..t U AllM::>^!10 I !~ r "1 .. . I .-.:: i II ~I~ 1,.r '. i~I:'I./J: \( I~)' ",1 1'1"[.,.: ,~ . I( ~ l;~~ ~! I ' ,-'" ,- " g " ~ .... " g U '.".,' . ~_.,.'. \ \ ;:., ~ :< ...... lJ .1 J.i'lI~ ONllldB !W10:~ . . " .. , u " >-,CIl > - 0 '';:: ~- go 0: '" '" ~ .E! ~ e ;:::00 .... 2< ~ o ;3 0 ....~Z :Ii ' '1;1 . . \.3i, . .,.By'. , ~':'\\~.~.~',,' <'~"<; .".' I '. : -of; , .... ,.. \ I " '. I . ji;jl ~ ,:' ...... ...c. ~\~ ,/II'" ,,\..~ '.' ./ ',' .' . , '. '~ .:..... :;~~i.~'J:::,::;':~...:... ':\'. ~ '.. 1.,.~~'i!'X'1J"" . ,.,.". i,\' , "i, i.;.:I-iJ/,';" J:~~"~\~":;' ,'\ .111 '. "'~flII" ,'r r I.... ':'.','ii;":';~:~: ~~~fl~~":;:' .::.,'1;:.,' ~Il\; .. I '. ",' 'i'.~i';l~':j; ",~L'11:.~~-i".'",,~":' 11'1 ' .,"" .:, ,.'i"'" ""J""'" ....> 'W" , .'J'ft~..' .!,. ,'.,., '11.,' ,.,' . . - ~ '\ l' '" S"t"'./',.~" .."'>,,/ 'y:"" .' :,'~', ,.'1':_ ,_" ,1.';; "',rx:' ,- ' ..' I "f.-~ ,,".1 ',:" 'oJ ,': ,,'..,),....,' ~ '....~J.;.L~..\...I.._:.~:',..,,:-,_A-<>!-.- . no :', I .. ~;;, ',1'(, , /<",::\: . . : '.,:'JI \ I'!I 1m ~- "- " u ~~ OUllldll UJ.Jl.Ol: 2 :;;: AUM;JA!lG ,..)jUJIIJ;llllllL I . j Ii' !...\ \ '" i~'t' ,-l..( .. ",~> I; j .u.1,1( I ':",: ~,,,,,/_,i"'" f, I t'.'h .i\~.-'-i';;~"':-:~' ;l~H{'ili I.. ~ ~ ~JI i ~!~.~ - .1 ~ ,':l! , U~ " r u l' K' . ~. '''', " I "I "I " 5 > <: .... " 0.. o o U " v~() 0/;Y(O'7 September 2, 2003 Via Hand Delivery City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission C/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Bendon: Re: Park Place Why is the Commission even considering this project? I. The property in question is zoned "office". This is not an office. It requires a variance for "conditional use". It does not meet all the requirements for "conditional use". As evidenced by the following sections: 46.425.040 B & C. "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." 46.425.080 A3 - "The change will not affect the character of the neighborhood in which the use is located." 2. The proposed development exceeds the height restriction of 25 feet. It asks for 35 feet. 3. . The square footage of the lot is 6000 sq. ft. This means a one story building could be 6000 square feet. Ifit is a two story building, it could be 3000 sq. ft per floor. This is a 7 story building. How many square feet do we have? I could go on with other negative impacts for the neighborhood, but the codes and restrictions alone should bring a "no" vote on this project. Annette Daly 706 E. Hyman St Aspen, Co. 81611 Cc: Aspen City Council September 2, 2003 u} - I I( <::...-' - q\~O ? Via Hand Delivery City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission C/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Chris: Re: Park Place Aspen is unique. It's about ideals, preservation, consistency. We may not all agree that a certain miner's cabin should be preserved, but that's o.k.. That's not what it's all about. It's about consistency. Striving to preserve the best of the old and improve upon it if possible. Some changes are inevitable, but consistency is critical. Consistency is buttressed by zoning and codes. When one invests in Aspen with their time, money and their life, they have every reasonable expectation that the zoning and codes that are in place will be respected and maintained. For Aspen to do otherwise, would be contrary to everything that has been Aspen over the years. To overturn codes and exceed zoning restrictions for dubious gain, would be a disservice to the citizens of Aspen who have counted on stability. The proposed site of Park Place is in an essentially residential neighborhood. It is surrounded on three sides by private residences. There is no question that the neighborhood will be negatively impacted. I. Pollution - cars idling 2. Congestion - cars entering, exiting, waiting and cruising to see if a space is available. 3. Noise - Doors opening and closing, machinery running, engines starting. The garage operates 20/7, late night and early morning. 4. Lights - cars entering and exiting - signage. 5. Safety - garage entry and exit is positioned right next to the existing entry/exit for the Benedict Commons garage and it also crosses the pedestrian walkway. 6. Absentee ownership. Possibly as many as 99....a recipe for poor maintenance. 7. Insurance considerations. Possible increased insurance costs for the area due to the large number and density of stacked vehicles The above list of disadvantages could be extended. However, even more significant is that the private condominium garage would change the nature of the neighborhood. The proposal would benefit wealthy individuals living outside Aspen who can afford $125,000 to $150,000 for their private space; to do with as they please. It would be of questionable benefit to tourists because they would have to join with other cars driving around to see if a space is available. It would certainly have a negative impact on the quality of life for those Aspen residents living in the area. .... ~.______.__~.~W,~."__~_~_..~..~ . Aspen has invested a great deal of energy, research and money into building Benedict Commons as a premier, affordable, in-town housing development. To allow a private condo garage to be built butted up against this complex would work at cross purposes with the affordable housing program. The developer calls the neighborhood a mixed use area, and it truly is, in the best Aspen sense of the word, mixed. It is a neighborhood of expensive, moderate and affordable housing side by side, that has grown into a vital area of Aspen. Why endanger the nature of this neighborhood for the dubious gain offacilitating the wealthy. The probability ofloss to the community is so much greater. Why risk it? This is the wrong project, in the wrong place. Aspen needs less congestion. Aspen needs public parking - perhaps in the proposed Obermeyer Plaza area. Let's do it right. Reject this private condominium garage. ~y, ,j{~M 706 E. Hyman St. Aspen, CO. 81611 c ( 7 ~~J _ HOLT & ULLEVIG engineering paths to transportation solutions August 28, 2003 Mr. Stan Clauson, AICP, ALSA Stan Clauson Associates, LLC 200E. Main Street Aspen CO 81611 RE: Traffic Analysis Park Place Parking Garage FHU Reference No. 03-169 Dear Mr. Clauson: I"""- "'- Felsburg Holt & Ullevig has prepared this letter to summarize the traffic impacts associated with the proposed 99-space Park Place Commercial Parking Facility (Park Place garage) to be located at 707 East Hyman Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. This letter summarizes the existing land use and traffic impacts associated with the small office building and parking area currently on the site, the existing traffic volumes on Hyman Avenue in the vicinity of the site, the number of trips forecasted for the proposed garage, and the traffic impacts to the adjacent streets associated with those trips. Existing Land Use Currently, the site consists of a 927 square foot A-frame office building and small surface parking lot that can accommodate approximately 15 vehicles. On a typical day, this lot is used to capacity. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trio Generation, Sixth Edition was used to forecast the existing daily and peak hour trips associated with the office building. The existing parking lot trips were estimated based on information provided by the City of Aspen for the Rio Grande Parking Garage. In that garage during peak times of the year, each space is used approximately 1.5 each day, with the peak demand occurring between 11 AM and 2 PM, which is outside of the morning and afternoon peak hours of adjacent street traffic (one hour between 7 and 9 AM and 4 and 6 PM). Since traffic impacts are typically measured during the peak hour of street traffic, it was estimated that approximately 15 percent of the total daily traffic would occur during those morning and afternoon peak periods. These characteristics were applied to the existing surface lot on the site. Table 1 shows the number of daily and peak hour trips currently associated with the site. As the table indicates, the existing land uses on the site generate approximately 105 daily trips, 12 AM peak hour trips, and 12 PM peak hour trips. ,.,...,"'" 303.7211440 fax 303.721.0832 fhu@fhueng.com '- Greenwood Corporate Plaza 7951 E. Maplewood Ave. Ste. ZOO Greenwood Village, CO 80111 August28,2003 Mr. Stan Clauson Page 2 ~'''" Table 1 Existing Trips Generated by the Site Existing Traffic Volumes '"- Traffic volumes on East Hyman Avenue in the vicinity of the site were obtained from the City. Summer counts were conduced in 1997 and winter counts were conducted in 1994. These counts were factored to 2003 conditions based on the traffic growth factor calculated by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for Original Street (SH 82) immediately east of the site. Based on this factor, Hyman Avenue currently experiences approximately 3,500 vehicles per day (vpd) in the summer and approximately 2,300 vpd during winter. The summer volume on Hyman is1,700 to 1,900 vpd lower than the summer volume on either Cooper Avenue (4,900 vpd) or Hopkins Avenue (4,700), one block north and south of the site, respectively, and is approximately 3,000 vpd lower than the volume on Durant Avenue (6,500 vpd), two blocks north of the site. All four streets appear to have similar mixes of commercial and residential land use. Thus, it appears that Hyman currently experiences traffic volumes that are somewhat lower that the typical volumes on other local streets in the downtown area. _. Proposed Land Use As proposed, the site would be developed as a 99-space garage, with two affordable housing units. The garage is consistent with the land use identified for the site in the Aspen/Pitkin County TransiVTransportation Development Program, 1986-2000 (Leigh, Scott & Cleary, 1986), which identified a 300-space parking garage for the site. To maximize space usage, a mechanical system would be used to park cars. Drivers would park their car on one of two mechanical lifts, exit the car, and the lift would move the car into an available spot. Table 2 summarizes the trip forecast with the proposed land uses. ITE Trio Generation, 6th edition was used to forecast trips associated with the affordable housing. As for the garage, based on our understanding of the operation, all of the garage spaces would be available for purchase or long-term rental by local residents. It was assumed that approximately 20 percent of the spaces would be used by part-time local residents to store their vehicles when out of town and thus would generally be unavailable for use on a daily basis. The remaining 80 percent (80 spaces) would be used on a daily basis by local residents, merchants, employees, and visitors. These daily spaces would be in a manner similar to the Rio Grande garage; i.e., each space used approximately 1.5 time each day, with approximately 15 percent of the daily demand occurring during the morning and afternoon peak hours of the adjacent streets. Based on these - '-' August 28, 2003 Mr. Stan Clauson Page 3 assumptions, the proposed land uses would generate approximately 250 daily trips, 37 AM peak hour trips, and 37 PM peak hour trips. Table 2 Proposed Park Place Trip Generation 1 36 37 o 25 25 Traffic Impacts Table 3 summarizes the net trips generated by construction of the Park Place Garage. These trips represent the trips generated by the garage, minus the existing trips from the site. The total represents the new trips that would be added to Hyman Street. However, it should be noted that these trips are not new trips to the downtown Aspen area, but rather represent existing traffic that currently uses other parking locations. In fact, construction of the garage may result in a minor reduction in overall traffic in the downtown area, because some of the vehicles that wouid use the garage currently circle the area in search of on-street parking. With the new facility, these vehicles would drive directly to the lot and be removed from circulation. Table 3 Net Trip Generation from the Park Place Site Pro osed Park Place Gara e Existin Site Land Uses Net Total Tri 5 250 105 145 37 12 25 29 10 19 25 9 19 As the table indicates, Hyman Street in the vicinity of the site would experience approximately 145 additional daily trips as a result of the Park Place Garage. This represents a three percent increase over the existing daily traffic volume on that block. The total daily traffic volume of 3,645 vpd on Hyman Street would still be approximately 1,250 vpd less than the daily volume on Cooper Avenue and 1,050 vpd less than the daily volume Hopkins Avenue, one block north and south of the site, respectively. Therefore, the parking garage would not change Hyman Street's character as a lower volume local street in downtown Aspen. August 28, 2003 Mr. Stan Clauson Page 4 "i__ - Queuing The estimated total time required to park each car using the lift system would be approximately 90 seconds (from the time the vehicle drives onto the lift to the time the lift returns for the next vehicle); thus, with two lifts a total of 80 vehicles could be parked each hour (3600 seconds/hour /90 seconds/vehicle' 2 lifts = 80 vehicles/hour). A waiting area with room for four vehicles would be provided on the site for vehicles entering the garage and waiting for the lift. To minimize queuing, these entering vehicles would be given priority with the lifts, and drivers would pay upon exiting. Based on projected peak period arrival rates and the lift processing time, during the morning and evening peak hours of adjacent street traffic the maximum queue at the lifts would be two vehicles, which would be contained within the four-car storage area. During the busiest hour of the day (mid-day peak) during the busiest time of year, it is estimated that a maximum of half of the daily spaces (40 spaces) would turn-over (40 trips in, 40 trips out). During these periods, the maximum queue would be 4 vehicles, which also would be contained within the site. Conclusions Based on the results of the analysis, the proposed Park Place garage would generate approximately 145 net daily trips from the site. This represents a three percent increase over existing daily traffic volumes on that block of Hyman Avenue, but still would result in total daily traffic volumes there that are significantly lower than the adjacent local streets. The garage could also result in a lowering of overall downtown Aspen traffic by reducing the number of vehicles circulating for on-street parking spaces. Peak period queuing by vehicles entering the site would be contained within the waiting area provided on site. I trust this information is sufficient for you to make an informed decision on traffic impacts associated with the project. If you have any further questions, please call. Sincerely .FEL ~70LT ULLEVIG q4~E. Senior Transportation Engineer i 1v~ - SCOTT M. BROWN 710 E HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-920-4566 August 22, 2003 RECEIVED AUG n" "'" 2003 ~~ ~ VIA HAND DELIVERY City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Park Place Garage Project 707 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Bendon: I am writing this letter to express my concerns both as a neighbor of the Park Place Garage Project (the "Project"), and as a full-time resident of Aspen. Please distribute this letter to the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission as soon as possible. My concerns are as follows, and I believe, should be addressed fully by both the Community Development Department (the "Department"), and the Planning and Zoning Commission (the "Commission"). 1. Zoning Variations . Although several exemptions from various City rules or plans are required to approve the Project including specific language in the Aspen Area Community Plan, I would like you to thoroughly consider the impact of granting a zoning variation. Hyman Avenue between Spring and Original streets is primarily a residential street with well maintained residences occupied with few exceptions by full-time residents of Aspen. Building a garage would degrade the neighborhood in a way that certainly was not anticipated by any of us. When someone purchases a residence or other property in Aspen there is an expectation that existing zoning will remain or that at least there will be no substantial variation that will change the character of the neighborhood in a negative manner. I do not think full-time residents should have their neighborhood degraded for the benefit of non-residents for whom I believe the Project is being built. Your constituency is not the non-residents, it is us who live in Aspen. I believe it is the primary obligation of the Commission and the Department to protect our interests. Perhaps the most telling remark made at the last meeting was made by a gentleman who lives outside of Aspen. I paraphrase but his comment was that if you do not like the garage move out of town. Fortunately, many of us would rather try to prevent bad decisions from being made than move. Finally, what assurance does anyone in Aspen have that his neighborhood is safe from ad hoc zoning changes that will degrade the character of his neighborhood? Where will the next garage be built, for it surely will be, if you embark on this slippery slope? 2. Traffic The potential traffic issue needs to be addressed in detail. Nothing was submitted with the Department's memorandum from the TransportationDepartment analyzing the potential impact on traffic. Traffic issue also will influence noise and pollution. Consideration must be given to the number of cars using the Benedict Commons, the impact on Spring Street of added usage in addition to the heavy usage from RFT A and trucks going to City Market and the impact on Original Street which is also Highway 82. Without a detailed analysis, a traffic mess could be created that is not correctable after the fact. Consideration also must be given to pedestrian safety which is already problematic. A sidewalk is to be built to connect Spring to Original on the south side. How safe will it be for pedestrians if there are two new garage entrances adjacent to the existing Benedict Commons garage entrance? How less safe will crossing Spring, Original or Hyman become with the increased traffic0 Will the City address these issues in detaiP And can any decisions, preliminary or otherwise, be made by the Commission until they are addressed? 2 3. Experimentation a. Approval of the Project requires a leap of faith. We have only the manufacturer's sales pitch about the quality of the system to be installed. Do we really know that it is as good as the manufacturer claims? It is only being used in one building in the United States. b. What is known about the success of condominiumized garages particularly in small communities? What assurances are there that any public spaces will be available? Will public spaces only be available in the off-season when they are not needed? What assurances are there that the building will be maintained when the developer leaves? I have severe reservations that 99 owners who can afford to spend $125,000 to $150,000 for a parking space, and who do not live in the neighborhood will care too much about the appearance of the Project or its impact on the neighborhood. c. If the building is not successful what other uses can it be used for? Finally, the above comments address only certain of my concerns. Others were addressed by other attendees at the last Commission meeting, in the letter from Herb Klein and in the letter from the Bell Mountain Residents. I am confident that you will address our concerns thoroughly and not rely on vague assurances from the Developer. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, - ----- ~~ Scott M. Brown Cc.. Gn", COlA-Nc,\L 3 't' Aut,; 27 03 11:01p Gar~ Ehrlich MIDAMERICAN ELEV 703-534-2790 Phon. II FBX # 08/28/2003 11:13 17734862438 -- - ~ Post-it. Fax Note 7671 To ~ CoJDept Phonll1' ~ August 27, 2003 Mr. Jack Litschewskl Mid-American elevator Company 5701 General Washington Drive Alexandria, Virginia 22312 Keference: Sumrnit {;jrsnO pare - parKing Madline Noise Fa_ #7'7<:> '2t7 ..to"7'c;. Tl'iis letter summarizes the noise level measurements performed by Wyle Laboratories at the Summit Grand parc building in Washington, D.C. This building has a parking rnact1ille. The resident drives t/.eir vehfclt: jnto .rOQrn #2.w The parking machine is then engaged. The platform in the room rotates slightlv and the vehicle is lowered to the appropriate level of the garage. Upon exit, the resident calls for the vehicle. The parking machine uses a crane to retrieve the vehicle and place it on a dIfferent platform. That platform is then rolsed up to "room #1", and the resident driVe:! out. Overall A-weighted and one-third octave band sound levels were measured twice each second in the lobby and in the garage as the parking machine was operated. Sound levelS are often expressed in one-third oc:tqve bands. The range of human . hearing is approximately from 20 to 20,000 Hz. The A-weighted sound level ;s the most commonly Llsed noise metric. The A-weighting filter was designed to simulate the frequency sensitivity of the human ear at low to moderate loudness. Two sounds with the same A-weighted sound level should be judged equally loud by most people. Sound levels were measured during brief periods between ;1.0:30 and 11:30 a,m. on AUgust 27, 2003. The measurements were not performed when people were using lhe elevators or lobby. OccalOlona/ly, there was some noise from the reception desk and office area on the opposite side of the lobl:ly. Ambient noise was generatrv attributable to street traffic. ventilation systems, and the distant offiee workers. The garage measurements were performed in the pllrking garage "pp."oximetely ten feet from the overhead door at the entrance to room #2 (the room that drivers enter first before parklng). Sound levels were measured in the garaqe as the machine was operated in the exit and entrance cycles. No vehicle was on the platform during the tests. The lobby measurements were performed in the hallway between the receptIon desk and the elevators. The door l:letween that hallway and the garage was closed. Sound levelS were measured in each location during different cycles, not simultaneously. - '- WyJe L.abor.non.. lne. '.1101 Jet'l'erson ot;ldl'l HIIJlM:i1y, SuIte 70'1, Anln;lDtl1 VA .22.l202-3eG11 Tut 7U3141 !i-45!iO, ieleeooy. 103t1lt5-l558 08/28/2003 11:13 17734852438 MIDAMERICAN ELEV PAGE 02 . Rue 27 03 11:0tp Gar", Ehrlich ?o.a-5a"~27S0 p.'! -~ Mr. L1tschewski August 27, 2003 Page 2 Figure 1 shows the A-weighted sOl,Jnd level each half-second. It can be seen from Figure 1 that sound levels were essentially the same In the loObV wiJ:h the parking machine operating as without. It can also be seen that the sound level In the garage was typiC<llly betw/1!pn 50 and 6!'i dBA, and occasionally reached 70 1:0 SO dBA. figure :z shows ,he frequency speara averaged over the entire test period. aml Figure 3 shows the frequency spectra averaged over the loudest five-second pt!!r1od. Again, it ~an be seen that sound levels were nearly identical with the parking machine and without it in the lobby. Subjectively, the pelf'king m..cl1i11l;! was barely audible in tl)e lobby. Please can me at 703/415-4550 ext. 18 IT you require any additional information. Sincerely, L~~ Gary )Y.Ehrlic:h, P.E. Senior Acoustical Engineer ~ 08/28/2003 11:13 '- o 1 _ . 16 : 31 . 46 61 76 · 91 106 121 ; 136 151 c 166 CD _ II 181 : ~ 196 III ~ 211 ; f 226 .. 241 ' 256 271 286 301 - 316, 331 346 361 ~ 376 ' 391 ...........~ 17734852438 MIDAMERICAN ELEV PAGE 03 1 ~,'- E5 (0 v - o "" c Overall Sound Level, dBA 8 Cj ." ,s' c .., CD ~ :P E !2. ll:l ;t CD a. en c c =' D.- r III ~ Gl m ~ ~ !=l 0'1 en CD 1'1 o ::i t:I. L-' o ... o (h o I I ~ + bb'G)G') l:T"d"ml!! ~s.<t>& . f f CD CD P~bl? ~. ~~. ~', m ;a. (C m ;!. !!1~ j-< -< .----- --.... ~..... 08/28/2003 11:13 '-' I ~ 0 dBA 20Hz 25 Hz :3;2 Hz 40HZ 50Hz 0 63Hz ::I 80Hz III . -l :r 100 Hz a 0 125 Hz n -- iif 160 Hz '< - (II m 200 Hz III ::l 250 Hz g, C') ~ 315 Hz ::l ~. CI> 400 Hz ... "II ;j} 500 Hz ~ I: 630 Hz CD ~ ., ~ 800 Hz ~ 1k Hz 1k25 Hz 1k6 Hz 2kHz 2k5 H:z 3k15 Hz 4KHz _.~ "'- L_.. 17734852438 ~II DAMER I CAN ELElj Sound Level, dB ~, o '.:l o ~ ~ OJ o I j + + .r(;)G) ~ e. !11 l\) ---'~ :t:r' a'" m m -<<(Q!C , CD QI O~I C f;; ~ ~ 5.' ~.ar5.cS' rn;a.(Q~! j J ~J PAGE 04 -.,j o co <;;I :!.! jg t:: .. ... pol ~ II iil G:l ~ "1\ a i! III :::l n '< 01 "I:l CD n ... iil c c :s. ::l ll:l -l III III ... -~ .."'...._....._._... , M cinn : 11 EO 1..2 ~nH PI.....,. T 111':1 C:::..JI!!~ 08/28/2003 11:13 17734852438 MIDAMERICAN ELEV lJ"lY.lU~ r;.l"~ PAGE 05 dOC: II EO ..0:: :.:lnl:l SOUND PRESSURE Jet Take-Off p (25 m distance) ~ I-L a - -- 100000000 SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL 140 dB r 130 ~ ~ ~ ~ -1 ,~ .~ Firecra~ 120 100 ~ 10000000 Rock >)., ~ ~ 110 Group 1000000 - 100000 '- >HH 10000 Conversational Speech HH~ 1000 Bedroom > J > ~ ~ '" ", ; * 100 20 0 Noisy Workplace 90 ~ ~~'H~~ f(t~ 80 III 70 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ -1 Business Office 60 50 40 ~ ~ Living Room 30 20 ~~~~~"Wood 10 BrOel & Kjmr + LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT S. KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.e. - HERBERT S. KLEIN '....... hsklein@rof.net LANCE R. COT~ * cote@rof.net MADHU B. KRtSHNAMURTI madhu@rof.net 201 NORTH MILL STREET SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Telephone (970) 925-8700 Facsimile (970) 925-3977 October 1,2003 * also admitted in California Via Hand Deliverv Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Proposed Park Place Parking Garage at 707 E. Hyman Ave Dear Chris: Enclosed is a letter dated October I, 2003 to Herb from Kathleen 1. Krager, Transportation Engineer, in regard to the above referenced matter. Herb would like to have this letter included in the packet for the P & Z meeting on October 7, 2003. - Thank you for your assistance with this request. Very truly yours, HERBERT S. KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ByL~ . , Sue Gardner, Secretary Enclosure cc: Fred Martell (via fax w/enc.) Scott Brown (via fax w/enc.) 700 E Hyman Condo Assn\bendon-ltS.wpd '- . . . . . . . . . . . 1'I . . . ....:,!i~'~; Bow~ger, Inc. .,;., , .",,,,-,....,,,'" 0cl00er 1, 2003 Mr. Helbert s. Klein Herber I S. KIaIn & A- <';.;b, 201 North Mill Strest. SuiIB 203 Aspen, CoIon:lr:tl81611 970 925 8700 <!u' f25 9B~ RE: Pro,.~ Par1\:: p~ Par1t:irg ~ at 707 East HYI181 in Aspm, CoIoraOO 41JtJ1h1c.tJoc Dew Harb.: Per your II'!QI--et, J tv.e ~ fheFail: PIal:8 Cul,........... ~ Fa::ility App!iClJtion to de- termine pcb ltilIl traffic i~ ~y. the~iaJtioo is CXlIItJ:' J Iy Jedcj'll in inforn&. tioo regording tl8fficOlbdtiua, 8ld I &m LnlbJs fDofferMy P10~ 'OJ8I opinion bes9d 00 the lob".,., oo.,wed in 1heappJicatil.n To prcMdelWly fonn of traffic 19Yi8w,ltefollowing jnformatJon rnt.I5t be pt'OIIicled: 1. AnticipelBd siB trip ge, ""dliol"1 fOr mily and peak hour trips 2. Existing street baffle lIOlt.Irr-.at peek times of I~;' . , 3, lmteI of SeI.-ioe anaIyBes fOr a 4l..~ at peak pet iod.. 4. A IIerage time fi'cm ErIIBri'll the l):II'Vt l.I1tiJ the IlBld car em 81Ier the 1IiI18. .aJO. 5. 0taB s8Iysls of waiting lIl:t1icles t:Uiro peek pe. ~ 6. Panting l!U "'-1 of the rurtJer of "t - ..... pmvicIBd for 4a II..... 4fufr1O& UlllllS 8ld ElI~- eesofth!tQ8ll<v:r NltlotVlthetlpp/ic:ation providesllOO'e information 00 E!'<,- -.J dBily trips. it does not provide a oo.l~l* lP"'-"'.uJirllofthe~1.SBd fDdE*lI",ine1he&~~ ir . ldBily trips. Bo4h the Sl!BU'I1Jtioos S1d dBlB to fII wort the 8IlllU11Jtions need to be reveV8d. No peek tQ8'" b1p lP ""-'1 tmbeen JXOVided. whidl isaiticaJ in ~",ining both1hea"OjlaIdtk..188ld~d..._ leristics of the. FurlhenllOO~, I would Ibu..ol"'" rd that all baffle amI)'9E1& be co,,~ with 1he 8I!lIlUllltion that onebayis~~forlllgre.....S1dtheaherbByis.~ "J;; . ,t:lr~ Thepl~toOOld exiting \'EtIicJes while allowing whicIeB to81ler1he Q!lAV=will result in IUTIIlrOl.II OIbdtil", ~ ferns. induding the lilcBly pcb&! ttBt \oIehicles willl'lElBd to IEee the kility to nBe roan fOr ' erEring \otIIlidea. 899 Logpn Sbl:ct:, Sutte lJO J:)crn.oer, Co 802O}-jlJ't T(}o})++6-26l6 F0~)"'I-fb-.o270 Receivea Time Oct. 1. IO:39AM -.-- .-.--..-- '.-...-.'.--'.".---.- Mr. Herbert S. Klein Herbert S. KJe;n & Asscciates 4<J&hk,doc October 1, 2003 Page 2 Finally, the site plan should identify tre qt..8.Iing 8IE'e for waiting \OS/1icJes 10 ~fy that \OS/1icles waiting to enter the garage will not imp:d the sidewalk. 'v'\Ih3n this information bocot I es 8\.eilable from !he applicant, I will be happy to lE'Vie.v it. . Without the a::lditional inforrration, it is I"()t pctS5ible to deemine the traffic impoc;ls of this application, and the City of Aspen should not apprtTYe the p~1. PIE:e;:e feel free to call me ~ing this mat1er. Sif"(Srely, ~~ Kathleen L Krager, P.E., PTOE Transportation Engineer end mail LAW OFFICES FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS IN ASPEN COLORADO ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J. MYLER, P.c.' E. MiCHAEL HOFFMAN, rL I 106 SOUTH MILL STREET SUITE 202 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 IN KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI FREILICH, LEITNER & CARLISLE ATTORNEYS AT LAW FACSIMILE (970)920-4259 TELEPHONE (970)920-1018 ROBERT H. FREILICH. P.c. LH MARTIN L LEITNER, P.c.' RICHARD G. CARLISLE. P.c.' S. MARK WHITE '.' ROBIN A. KRAMER U.' TYSON SMITH' JASON M. DIVELBISS I ^I'MITTrl>rNn" AI>MITTWlI'M1".n'.NV'.NC'FL' October 6, 2003 . M ~ '{JiD ~~ _\ Jk~~' ,.' # Y " . ..:\ L. ~~V' IU.1 /' (!jJVlJfV\l...eq \V Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Joyce Allgaier 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Application of Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC for Park Place Commercial Parking Facility at 707 East Hyman (the "Application"). Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Bell Mountain Residences Condominium Association (the "Association") in connection with the Application referenced above. The members of the Association own the Bell Mountain Residences Condominiums, which are located immediately to the south of, and across the alley from, the "Hannah-Dustin" building and the proposed parking structure (the "Parking Structure") which are the subject of the Application. For the reasons stated below, the Bell Mountain Association opposes approval of the Application as currently submitted. The applicant seeks subdivision, conditional use and consolidated Planned Unit Development approval from the City. The Application communicates the developer's desire for substantial variances from the dimensional standards of the "0," Office zone district. The developer justifies the granting ofthose variances by highlighting the substantial public benefits the project will bestow on the City. As discussed in Section 3, below, the "public benefits" offered by the developer are insufficient to justify the requested variances and are not definite enough to be relied upon by the City. As now conceived the Parking Structure will most likely be used primarily by second homeowners storing their vehicles for long periods of time. The developer is apparently unwilling to provide assurance that the City will actually receive the "public benefits" in a way which addresses the needs described in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the 1988 traffic study relied upon in the Application. 1. The ProDosed Rear Yard Setback Variance Will Prevent Full Use of the Association's Garage and Drivewav. FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2003 Page 2 Of more immediate concern to the Association, however, are the variances requested in the Application. The zero rear yard setback requested for the Parking Structure could actually prevent trucks and larger cars from using the underground garage which serves units in the Bell Mountain Residences Condominiums. Exhibit A, which is a rough site plan of the area, illustrates the point. The driveway serving the Bell Mountain Residences is located off the alley between the project and the proposed Parking Structure. The dark line indicates traffic flow from the driveway into the alley moving toward South Spring Street. (This is the only direction allowed as traffic in the alley is "one-way" from Original Street to South Spring.) As witnessed by the undersigned when an SUV recently left the Bell Mountain Residences driveway for South Spring Street, the passenger side of a truck or other large vehicle passes over or passes dangerously close to the space proposed for the Parking Structure. It may be physically impossible for the members of the Association to leave the garage if the Parking Structure is built to the property line! The problem will be worse during the winter when snow is pushed against the building, making the driving lane within the alley will be even more restricted. Because no other structures located on the alley exist within the setback, motor vehicles will have to move to the left when traveling in the alley. This movement, combined with the reduction in sight lines caused by the intrusion of the building into the setback, will cause a condition which could endanger pedestrians, vehicles parked in the alley and personal property located close to the roadway. Ice and snow on the newly-paved drive will only exacerbate the situation. This problem has been identified as serious by a member of the Association who is also president of a major automobile insurance company. From our review of the Application and notes and minutes of your previous meetings, little attention has been paid to the developer's request for a 15-foot rear yard setback variance. As described above, this issue is of critical importance to the Association. We ask that you seriously consider denying the request for this variance. At a minimum the developer should be required to provide a study which demonstrates that traffic in the alley will be unaffected by the rear yard setback variance and that members of the Association will have continued use of their driveway without inconvenience if the Parking Structure is built as now proposed. 2. A Floor Area Variance Is Not Warranted. To maximize its investment in the Parking Structure, the developer seeks a variance in the "external floor area ratio" which applies to its property from 0.75 to I to 1.3 to I. When all subgrade space is included in the analysis, the Parking Structure will encompass the equivalent of 36,000 square feet of development. This equates to six square feet of use for each square foot of surface area on the site. The Parking Structure will put the site to intense use. FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2003 Page 3 The external floor area ratio permitted in the Office zone district is .75 to 1. It may be increased to I to I only by special review. Ifit is increased, "sixty (60) oercent of the additional floor area must be aooroved for residential use restricted to affordable housing.'" No increase bevond I to I is allowed in the Office zone district. To avoid this restriction, the developer seeks to rezone the property as a PUD. When determining the dimensional parameters of a PUD, the requirements ofthe underlying zone district are the baseline from which decisions should be made.2 Modifications of the dimensional parameters of the Office zone district should be allowed only if those parameters are compatible with existing development, do not exacerbate natural and man-made hazards and do not unreasonably impact "man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources.") As discussed above, the zero rear vard setback proposed for the Parking Structure unreasonably impacts the Bell Mountain Residences by severely restricting use of its garage by members of the Association. That "dimensional parameter" cannot be permitted. Similarly, the external floor area ratio requested for the project unreasonably impacts the surrounding area, including the Bell Mountain Residences. Intense use of the property for a six-floor parking facility will have substantial impacts to neighbors in terms of noise, traffic and air pollution. As Herb Klein presents in his letter to you of September II, 2003, the developer has not demonstrated that the project adequately deals with these impacts. These concerns are magnified for members of the Association because the Parking Structure will be much closer to their properties (across the alley rather than across the street) and because the Bell Mountain Residences are located behind the Parking Structure where less noise-proofing will be installed. The developer's plan to operate the facility until at least I :00 a.m. leaves open the real possibility that noise and fumes from the Parking Structure will disturb the sleep of members of the Association and their children. To finalize the rezoning to PUD as requested here, the City's official zone district map must be amended. Consideration of a number of factors is required to approve any such amendment including: I Aspen Land Use Code, S26.710.180(D)(10) (emphasis supplied). 2 Code, SS 26.445.040(C), 26.445.050(B). 3 Code, S 26.445.050(B)(1). FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2003 Page 4 Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.' Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.6 None of these factors are met here. It is clear that intense use of the property as a parking facility is incompatible with the neighborhood, including the residential projects located across the alley and across the street. Comparing the Parking Structure with the Aspen Athletic Club-Coates, Reid & Waldron building is inappropriate because that structure was built many years ago and does not reflect recent development of the area. Recent changes in the neighborhood have made it more residential, not more commercial. The Parking Structure as proposed here is clearly incompatible with residential use. It is important to remember that the Bell Mountain Residences were approved by the City less than four years ago. Comparison with Benedict Commons is also inappropriate because that project was built as employee housing - a community benefit which is unequivocally an integral goal ofthe community as expressed in the AACP. The provision of parking in the commercial core to the Dublic may also be an integral goal of the community. However, this Parking Structure does not meaningfully address that goal. 3. The Parking Structure Does Not HelD Solve Parking Problems In ASDen. The developer argues that he is entitled to the variances discussed above because the proposal addresses a "significant community goal" - the provision of parking in the commercial core. The Application asserts that a 1986 study which focused on demand for short-term parking somehow supports his request to build a supply of long-term parking spaces. This represents a "logical disconnect" which has never been adequately addressed in the developer's Application, supplemental filings with staff, or in statements to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The developer appears to be unwilling to provide the City reasonable assurances that the Parking Structure will be actually used by the public. The developer says that 19 of the 99 parking 4 Code, Section 26.310.040(C) 5 Code, Section 26.31O.040(D) 6 Code, Section 26.31O.040(H) FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2003 Page 5 spaces will always be available for public use. Its traffic study assumes that "approximately 20% ofthe spaces would be used by part-time local residents to store their vehicles when out of town," and that the remainder, 80%, "would be used on a daily basis by local residents, merchants, employees and visitors.'" However, the developer has, thus far, been unwilling to commit to a plan which insures that these benefits are actually received by the public. Despite repeated requests by members of the P & Z, the applicant refuses to directly address this issue. In answers provided to date, the developer has said, essentially, that the City must rely on each unit owner's interest in maximizing his investment. "Each space owner will want to utilize the garage fully," said Mr. Fomell at the September 2, 2003 hearing.' Because a space-owner will receive income only when the space is being rented, the theory goes, each such owner will demand that the space be rented as much as possible. The reality is that anyone who purchases a parking space for over $100,000 will demand that the space be available when he wants to use it. As with the vast majority of Aspen real property, the rental income stream does not support the purchase price of the unit. Onlv wealthv people who can afford not to receive rental income will be able to afford spaces in the Parking Structure. Only a mandatory program of sharing space with the public will insure that the public receives a meaningful benefit from the approval of this project. That approval must include substantial public use during busy times ofthe year, including "powder days" and the Fourth of July. A mandatory program may be implemented only through covenants which "run with the land." The developer must provide a proposed set of such covenants to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its review and approval prior to receiving a recommendation of approval from the board. The developer's representative has complained that imposition of a mandatory program of sharing space with the public will unnecessarily fetter the owners' freedom in dealing with their property.' The covenants which are required here are no different in kind than employee housing deed restrictions which are routinely mandated for residential development. The City must take reasonable steps to secure for its residents and this neighborhood the benefits which have been promised by the developer. , Letter of Jeff Ream, Felsburg, Holt & UlIevig to Stan Clauson, dated August 28, 2003, p. 2, last paragraph. , Minutes of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sept. 2, 2003, p. 3, middle of second to last paragraph. 9 Id., p. 4-5. FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2003 Page 6 The Land Use Code allows the City to substantially modify a zone district's dimensional parameters if a proposal advances important community goals, such as the provision of affordable housing. A variance may not granted, however, if receipt of the promised benefit is uncertain or speculative. This developer has not yet provided reasonable assurance that members of the public will be allowed to use the Parking Structure at times and in sufficient numbers to make a meaningful contribution to the solution of Aspen's parking problem. Granting ofPUD approval is not warranted here. Sincerely, FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE 1M E. Michael Hoffman Table of Exhibits Exhibit A - Diagram Il1ustrating Turning Radius Problem Exhibit B - Diagram Il1ustrating Traffic Diversion Problem v '" , u v >, CIl .::; "'2 .s ~O !:: .t:l V1 ~ '" v '" ;::l '" >-< :::::OQ :: P<_ o ;3 0 ""'~:z: w '" ~~ l:J:!i t;'" _8. u"" me .. '~'"'''''' ~ n (':0' ~,i w':.j .' ~..~.\ ~ ::I'i ..Jo '. ..,=~", 1 .."," ..~ 8 ~ . ',' ,L:;r:,rlL,l,S Dl\lmdS lunos I i ~ fgJ , , . ,A \ , >, ~ :< ~Ii~rr~~ ,i'od' ,;il:~~ I I II!! ~II, ('j'llil ' . i~ ,~;: r l';~i ,I 1.'f'"l,,,, i :Ii'~' . 1;~"liljil1ft !l: ," ;ra!~~u ;;;1 j~~ :~ 1~~ ", -"-''';1' I , It) , , ;1 't'," I" '1'''1 . '~' ," " , , '(~1 i~ .rl;~ l' ~M \1 m :'I'IIIi~' ~ ~_k_,j."":"; 9<t'; r"::.J :.~ ,J It ---.---- ,'..,,^',-. ~; u ~ A1!A\aA!lG ~; ai, .r -~ 'k !l; ;.._1~ '1 I!i 1.1 i~ , >, ~ :< h " .' I 'I , ~;~l p.--~-- , 'J ~ J ~ :! . , Jil, - .~:i~" It _, t.", I . _ ~~ (1 v ;::l ;::l v > -0:: >-< v 0.. o o U OJ -;; , " OJ ;>,'" :> - 0 ..c l=l .- go" en en :;: " OJ '" - en.... -00 :: fr..... o " 0 ~o...Z " '" !i'e.'" ~~ gg ~I , ilIv ,'CIl "t1'''''c., $ i , \ -- i~; ~~\\ ,~~l:.\ c......b'l .",,;;10'" "':~if 1 2 8 ~ I ....,.,.... JJI::iIlI.l$ :nHUdS H,1UOS ~--'" I ".d~b=-']" ,'~, "11 Il~lliir' . "I~i II" 1~1' 'rt~. !' I.;t'ii~ I i~! I ~ JIT .,1l iil l' ' (l]ll~ , !:l ~l jn!JJi!f ~ 1 l~ ,; ::~: " ,~~\ .t'il.! ~ 1I ~ I L~. }....Iii l~if~::.~ I~ I!~ I I:; 9"!~''"'' '1f ',.:il1;1 . ~l ! . I' 1!!J~,......".~:' ( ~ ~ if I AllMaAUQ ~i a f, 1 II 11~~~W="w""'" 11,;11 t~~,~ It.l.".,...,Clll:!~~!,,11 , . ,... 1 ~ l;~~i . '~ 11''lli''1 ~~ ~ tl.~_~ ~lt I, li!~i1! f=::::~;\ ,....T""ii:.. \ ..;'! ~:i!~4' i ,I 1'1','.'" t:1 L,......... i!' ~!~. J...........u........ ;>, ~ :;;;: . Ii ;':' " ,I ',". 1 ~~: OJ 11 OJ :> -0:: .... OJ 0.. o o U lAW OFFICES OF HERBERT S. KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.c. HERBERT S. KLEIN hsklein@rof.net LANCE R. COTE .. cote@rof.net MADHU 8. KRISHNAMURTI madhu@rof.net 201 NORTH MILL STREET SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Telephone (970) 925-8700 Facsimile (970) 925-3977 September II, 2003 .. also admitted in California Via Hand Deliverv City of Aspen Planning 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: I am again 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 comer of Spring St. and Hyman Avenue. At the last Planning Commission meeting, the applicant provided a report on the noise associated with the parking apparatus and a traffic study. Although the public hearing was closed, given the new information provided, we believe it is appropriate for the Commission to consider our comments on these reports. 1. The Noise Report. The applicant submitted a noise study dated Aug. 27, 2003, from Gary Ehrlich, Senior Acoustical Engineer. The report was done on, what we are told is, the only other facility in the U.S. using this technology. The equipment was located in a private parking garage and sound measurements were taken near the garage overhead door. The equipment was operated without any cars on the lift. On the last page of the report it states: "It can also be seen that the sound level in the garage was typically between 50 and 65 dBA, and occasionally reached 70 to 80 dBA." These sound levels exceed the maximum sound levels for this zone district allowed under the City's Land Use Code ("Code"), thus, this project cannot be approved. The relevant Code provisions are found in Article 18 (the "Noise Ordinance"). Excerpts of these sections are attached. Section 18.04.040 limits the maximum allowable noise in the Residential land use district (defined by Sec. 18.04.020(cc) as including the Office zone) to 50 dBA between the hours of !0:00PM and 7:00AM and 55 dBA between the hours of 7:00AM and !0:00PM. So when the report says the sound level is "typically between 50 and 65 dBA," it is saying that the garage will typically violate the Aspen Municipal Code noise ordinance! When the report says the noise levels "occassionally reached 70 to 80 dBA," it is saying that occasionally the noise reached levels that are City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department September 11, 2003 Page 2 deemed harmful! 1 Viewing the charts submitted with the report makes it clear that the Noise Ordinance's night time 50 dBA limit is exceed at all times. (See Figure 1 attached to the report). The 55dBA daytime limit is exceeded most of the time and sound levels between 60 and 70 dBA are reached about half the time. To provide the Commission with some reference for these noise levels, a sewing machine operates around 60 dBA, a washing machine around 70 dBA and an alarm clock at 2 feet is about SO dBA.2 Front loaders, backhoes, tractors, concrete mixers, moveable cranes, generators and compressors operate in the 70-S0dBA range.3 The proposed garage will queue cars at its entrance, thus requiring, the overhead doors to be open, allowing the noise generated to not only escape the building, but to be funneled directly across the street toward the residential townhouses at 700 E. Hyman Street. Furthermore, since the report was based on the lift being operated without a car, we can only assume that the noise generated from this equipment when it is under full load (e.g. when 5-6000 pound SUV's are on the lift) can only be higher, not lower. Because this project will violate the Noise Ordinance, it cannot be approved. The Commission must deny this project. 2. The Traffic RCDort. The applicant has provided a traffic study from Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, dated August 2S, 2003. The report indicates that Hyman Avenue experiences approximately 3,500 vehicles per day ("vpd") in the summer and 2300 vpd in the winter. The report measures the increase in projected traffic generated by the project and finds that the increase in traffic is not significant. However, the report does not analyze the impact on traffic flows due to the operational characteristics of the garage. Clearly, 3500 vpd is a lot of traffic. The garage will require both right and left turning movements for cars entering and exiting the facility. The report is silent on the effect of these turning movements on traffic flow. Cars heading west on Hyman, will need to make a left turn into the garage. When cars are already queued at the entrance, these vehicles will either wait until the entrance clears, or they will circle the block. In either case, traffic flows will be adversely affected. Similarly, vehicles traveling east on Hyman will have to make a right lLevels of75 dBA for outdoor activities and 65dBA for indoor activities are considered to generate "severe noise impacts" by the Federal Highway Administration. See: www.wsdot.wa.gov/regions/Northwestlrp&s/environmentaVaae/policies.htm#anchor6 2 American Tinnitis Association at www.ata.org 'Reitze, Environmental Law, Chapter Three B-19 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department September 11, 2003 Page 3 turn. The entrance is close to the intersection and when cars are backed up at the entrance, these vehicles waiting to enter will block traffic coming on to Hyman Avenue. The. report attempts to evaluate queuing and states that the time required to park each car is 90 seconds "from the time the vehicle drives onto the lift to the time the lift returns for the next vehicle." However, this does not take into account the time it takes to unload people, skis, kids, etc., nor the time it takes to check in or to retrieve forgotten items. These activities are clearly part of the calculus of the time it takes a car to enter and clear the queuing area, but are totally ignored by the report. We estimate that these activities will take three to five minutes, depending on how busy the attendant is. Thus, the total time is more like five to seven minutes per car, not 90 seconds. The report suggests that payment will occur on pick up, however, that takes time as well and when the four spaces needed for queuing vehicles entering are full, cars cannot leave. The report also assumes that 80% of the users will be members of the public, not owners of the spaces, and that they will be parking for long periods of time, thus reducing the number of operations and the traffic generation of the facility. The applicant has not proposed a method of assuring 80% public use, only that it will sell spaces for over one-hundred thousand dollars and try to allow for public use when those spaces are not being used. At those prices, we can confidently assume that the buyers are not going to sacrifice their ability to use the spaces whenever they want in order to gain a few dollars per hour of parking revenue from public use, which income, is likely to be exceeded by the cost of tax accounting for these meager sums. The notion of long term use of the facility is not supported by any facts. These assumptions of the report are critical to its analysis and are simply made up, having no reliable foundation. We have previously expressed grave concerns about the location of this garage near the intersection and its potential for grid-lock, snarling traffic and blocking turning movements. The report has not alleviated these concerns and its failure to account for the interference with existing traffic flows by turning movements, the actual time needed by each parking operation, unsupported assumptions about the composition of users and the length of parking stays, renders its conclusions erroneous. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Very truly yours, HERBERT S. KLEIN & AS/~,gPATES, P.C. By: ~~~ =---- Hetb~rt S. Klein 700 E Hyman condo assn\bendrn-Lt4a.wpd Section 18.04.040 Use district noise levels. Page 1 ofl Remove highlighting. Chapter 18.04 NOISE ABATEMENT'l *2 Section 18.04.040 Use district noise levels. Maximum permissible sound levels. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any person to operate or permit to be operated any stationary source of sound in such a manner as to create a ninetieth percentile sound pressure level (L 90) of any measurement period (which shall not be less than ten (10) minutes unless otherwise provided in this chapter) which exceeds the limits set forth for the following receiving land use districts when measured at the boundary or at any point within the property affected by the noise: luse District IINight IIDay I 110:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. 117:00 a.m.--10:00 p.m. I IResidential 1150 dB(A) 1155 dB(A) I 1 Lodge 1155 dB(A) 1160 dB(A) I Icommercial 1155 dB(A) 1165 dB(A) I !Industrial IINot Applicable 1180 dB(A) I When a noise source can be identified and its noise measured in more than one use district, the limits of the most restrictive use shall apply at the boundaries between the land use categories. This provision shall not apply when the least restrictive use is a floating industrial district, in which case the limits applicable to the industrial district shall apply, notwithstanding the boundaries of the more restrictive uses, because of the temporary nature of the industrial use. If an area is zoned SPA, the use category will be determined by the predominant existing uses within that area. (Ord. No. 2-1981, 91; Ord. No. 36-1989, 91: Code 1971, 916-4) http://www.ordlink.com/cgi-bin/hilite.pVcodes/aspen/_ OLDlTitIe _18/04/040.html?noise 9/4/2003 Section 18.04.010 Declaration of policy. Page 1 of 1 Remove highlighting. Chaoter 18.04 NOISE ABATEMENT*l *2 Section 18.04.010 Declaration of policy. The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and to its visitors. Noise has an adverse effect on the psychological and physiological well-being of persons, thus constituting a present danger to the economic and aesthetic well-being of the community. Accordingly, it is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels. (Ord. No. 2-1981, ~ 1: Code 1971, ~ 16-1) http://www.ordlink.com/cgi-bin/hilite.pllcodes/aspen/_DATAffitle_18/04/010.htm1?noise 9/4/2003 Section 18.04.020 DefInitions and standards. Page 3 of4 that is exceeded ninety (90) percent of the time in any measurement period (such as the level that is exceeded for nine (9) minutes in a ten-minute period) and is denoted L90. (v) Person. Any human being, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, company, contractor, supplier, installer, user, owner or operator, including any municipal corporation, state or federal government agency, district, and any officer or employee thereof. (w) Plainly audible noise. Any noise for which the information content of that noise is unambiguously transferred to the listener, such as, but not limited to, understanding of spoken speech, comprehension of whether a voice is raised or normal or comprehension of musical rhythms. (x) Premises. Shall mean any building, structure, land, utility or portion thereof, including all appurtenances, and shall include yards, lots, courts, inner yards and real properties without buildings or improvements, owned or controlled by a person. (y) Property boundary. An imaginary line exterior to any enclosed structure, at the ground surfa.ce, and its vertical extension, which separates the real property owned by one person from that owned by another person and separates real property from the public premise, or in multiple dwelling units from the adjoining unit. (z) Public right-of-way. Any street, avenue, boulevard, highway, alley, mall or similar place which is owned or controlled by a public governmental entity. (aa) Pure tone. Any sound which can be distinctly heard as a single itch or a set of single pitches. For the purposes of measurement, a pure tone shall exist of the one-third octave band sound pressure level in the band when the tone exceeds the arithmetic average of the sound pressure levels of the two (2) contiguous one-third octave bands by five (5) dB for frequencies of five hundred (500) Hz and above, by eight'(S) dB for frequencies between one hundred sixty (160) and four hundred (400)Hz, and by fifteen (15) dB for frequencies less than or equal to one hundred twenty-five (125) Hz. (bb) Repetitive impulse noise. Any noise which is composed of impulsive noises that are repeated at sufficiently slow rates such that a sound level meter set at "fast" meter characteristics will show changes in sound pressure level greater than ten (10) dB(A). * (cc) Residential district. An area zoned primarily for residential use as defined in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, including, but not limited to, areas designated R-6, R-15, R-15A, R-15B, R-30, R1MF, MHP, RR, 0, A, C, P, PUB, and as such designations may be amended. (dd) Sound. A temporal and spatial oscillation in pressure, or other physical quantity, in a medium with interval forces that causes compression and rarefaction of that medium, and which propagates at finite speed to distance points. http://www.ord1ink.com/cgi-binlhi1ite.pl/codes/aspenl_DATA/Title_18/04/020.htm1?noise 9/4/2003 Se~tion 26.425.040 Standards applicable to all conditional uses. Page I of 1 Remove hiahlighting. Chapter 26.425 CONDITIONAL USES Section 26.425.040 Standards applicable to all conditional uses. When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable. A. 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 B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development: and C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including vi Imp ts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service deliv ,noise, vi ations and odor on surrounding properties; and D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and E. The applicant commits to supply affordabie housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and The Community Development Director may recommend, and the Planning and Zoning Commission may impose such conditions on a conditional use that are necessary to maintain the integrity of the city's zone districts and to ensur,e the conditional use complies with the purposes of the Aspen Area Community Plan, this Chapter, and this Title: is compatible with surrounding land uses; and is served by adequate public facilities. This includes, but is not limited to imposing conditions on size, bulk, location, open space, landscaping, buffering, lighting, signage, off-street parking and other similar design features, the construction of public facilities to serve the conditional use, and limitations on the operating characteristics, hours of operation, and duration of the conditional use. http://www.ordlink.com/cgi-bin/hilite.pl/codes/aspen/ _ DA T Alfitle _ 26/425/040.html ?noise 9/4/2003 Page I of 1 From: ZGXC@aol.com Date: Fri, 14 Nov 200308:57:49 EST Subject: Chris, sorry for the tirst letter, i hit "send all" in error. corrected letter To: chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6024 X-MaiIScanner-lnformation: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Dear Sir. My name is Robert Baum. I live at 704 E Hyman Ave I have lived in Aspen since 1989. - I pay taxes in Aspen and I vote in Aspen. I began coming to Aspen in 1964. It was a wonderful community then and, in some ways, it is still great today. I sort of miss the esprit that the earlier Aspen had I am greatly concerned about the issue of a 99 car garage on E. Hyman Ave. I feel that the ~raffic flow and the car emissions, will be unhealthy and increased the already large amounts of accidents that we have In that area every year. Though this area is zoned commercial and residential, the building of a garage on these lots is unwarrented. I feel there is adequate oarking in the public qaraqe that has been built with public monies and as a voting taxpayer, we should do everything to increase the cash-flow of the public facilities and payoff our debts. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Robert Baum file:/IC:\DOCUME-I \chrisb\LOCALS-l \Temp\eudB.htrn 11114/2003 LAW OFFICES FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS IN AsPEN COLORADO ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID 1- MYLER,P_C' E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, P_c. I 106 SOUTH MILL STREET SUITE 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI FREILICH, LEITNER & CARLISLE ATTORNEYS AT LAW F ACSIMlLE (970) 920-4259 TELEPHONE (970) 920-t018 ROBERT H. FREILICH, P_c. ',M MARTIN L. LEITNER, P,c.' RICHARDG. CARUSLE, r.c.' S, MARK WHITE '.' ROBIN A. KRAMER I,,"' TYSON SMITH' JASON M. DIVELBISS I ADMlTTEDlNCO' Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 II;r>t'I't:~ECiiv;~". December 2, 2003 ) rC 0, 10, ~~,~ Re: Application of Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC for Park Place Commercial Parking Facility at 707 East Hyman (the "Application"). Honorable Helen Klanderud and Other Members of City Council: We represent Bell Mountain Residences Condominium Association (the "Association") in connection with the Application referenced above. The members of the Association own the Bell Mountain Residences Condominiums, which are located immediately to the south of, and across the alley from, the "Hannah-Dustin" building and the proposed parking structure (the "Parking Structure") which are the subject of the Application. For the reasons set forth below, the Bell Mountain Association opposes approval of the Application as currently submitted. A. Overview. The dimensional elements of the proposed PUD are not consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan ("MCP") or the residential nature of recent development in the neighborhood. Specifically, the following "variances" from the dimensional requirements of the "0" office zone district should not be adopted. The applicant seeks a IS-foot setback variance at the rear of the parking structure. As proposed, the building will be located on the lot line immediately adjacent to the alley which separates the proposed structure and the Bell Mountain Residences. Placement of the building on the lot line will degrade safety and convenient use of the alley. These concerns are discussed at greater length in Section B, below. FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen City Council December 2, 2003 Page 2 A ten-foot height variance is requested. On the side of the parking structure facing the Bell Mountain Residences, the building will present a solid far;ade 35-feet high and 50 feet long. In contrast, the 0 zone district imposes a 25- foot height limitation. The applicant plans to make intense use of the Property. It proposes a floor area ratio of 1.29 to 1.0, far in excess of the maximum 0.75 to 1.0. FAR allowed in the 0 zone district. A FAR variance is allowed in the Office district, up to 1.0 to 1.0 upon special review, but only if the additional floor area is used for the provision of affordable housing. Nothing in the Aspen Land Use Code ("Code") or in the applicable master plan supports the approval of aFAR of 1.29 for this application. The applicant attempts to justify the variances requested above by suggesting that the parking structure will solve a longstanding problem in Aspen - the availability of short-term parking. In reality the aoolication does not address this problem. The parking structure is designed to house 99 cars. Ofthis total, the applicant is willing to dedicate 19 to public use. The remaining 80 spaces will be used by wealthy individuals for long- and short-term storage of vehicles. As discussed in the attached letter from TDA Colorado, Inc. attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "TDA Letter"), approximately 23 cars now use the property for parking or vehicle storage. The applicant's willingness to provide 19 public spaces in the parking structure actually represents a decrease of four spaces from what currently exists. As discussed in Section 3, below, the "public benefits" offered by this proposal do not justify 1he requested variances and are not definite enough to be relied upon by the City. B. The Prooosed Rear Yard Setback Variance Will Prevent Full Use of the Association's Garage and Drivewav. The variances requested in the Application are of immediate concern to the Association. The garage servicing the Bell Mountain Residences is accessed from the alley between Cooper Street and Hyman Avenue. As discussed in the TDA Letter, the zero rear-yard setback requested for the Parking Structure will have detrimental impacts on safety and congestion in the alley. Like most alleys in the Downtown area, this alley is used by vendors and others on a short-term basis. They park along the sides ofthe alley for periods oftime ranging from just a few minutes to several hours. Construction ofthe Parking Structure on the alley boundary line will limit the area available for this type of use If this project is approved, the effective driving surface of the alley will be reduced to an unsafe seven to eight feet when vendors and others are utilizing the alley. Prohibiting parking in the alley will not solve the problem. Strictly speaking, parking in alleys is already illegal. t 1 Aspen Municipal Code, 9 24.04.020(b )(E)(l). Short-term parking is permitted by delivery vehicles qualified under Section 24.20.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code. FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen City Council December 2, 2003 Page 3 When cars are parked along the alley, drivers exiting the Bell Mountain Residences garage will be forced to execute a dangerous three-point left turn. Backing up in the alley and garage will create an even more dangerous situation. As currently designed, an emergency egress door at the back of the proposed Parking Structure opens onto the alley. This design creates an unsafe condition which should not be approved. Because no other structures located on the alley exist within the setback, motor vehicles will have to move to the left when traveling in the alley. This movement, combined with the reduction in sight lines caused by the intrusion of the building into the setback, will cause a condition which could endanger pedestrians, vehicles parked in the alley and personal property located close to the roadway. Ice and snow on the newly-paved drive will only exacerbate the situation. This problem has been identified as serious by a member of the Association who is also president of a major automobile insurance company. The applicant has passed off the Association's concerns about the rear-yard setback as being of no consequence. As described above, this issue is of critical importance to the Association. We ask that you seriously consider denying the request for this variance. At a minimum the developer should be required to provide a study which demonstrates that traffic in the alley will be unaffected by the rear yard setback variance and that members of the Association will have continued use of 1heir driveway without inconvenience if the Parking Structure is built as now proposed. C. A Floor Area Variance Is Not Warranted. To maximize its investment in the Parking Structure, the developer seeks a variance in the "external floor area ratio" which applies to its property from 0.75 to I to 1.3 to I. When allsubgrade space is included in the analysis, the Parking Structure will encompass the equivalent of 36,000 square feet of development. This equates to six square feet of use for each square foot of surface area on the site. The Parking Structure will put the site to intense use. The external floor area ratio permitted in the Office zone district is .75 to 1. It may be increased to I to I only by special review. If it is increased, "sixty (60) percent of the additional floor area must be approved for residential use restricted to affordable housing."2 No increase bevond I to I is allowed in the Office zone district. To avoid this restriction, the developer seeks to rezone the property as a PUD. 2 Aspen Land Use Code, ~26.71O.180(D)(10) (emphasis supplied). FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen City Council December 2, 2003 Page 4 When determining the dimensional parameters of aPUD, the requirements of the underlying zone district are the baseline from which decisions should be made.3 Modifications of the dimensional parameters of the Office zone district should be allowed only if those parameters are compatible with existing development, do not exacerbate natural and man-made hazards and do not unreasonably impact "man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transi1, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources.'''' The Association does not object to the creation of a PUD or use of the PUD review process in this case. It does, however, object to the dimensional parameters reques1ed for 1his proposed PUD. As discussed above, the zero rear vard setback proposed for the Parking Structure unreasonably impacts the Bell Mountain. That "dimensional parameter" cannot be permitted. Similarly, the external floor area ratio requested for the project unreasonably impacts the surrounding area, including the Bell Mountain Residences. Intense use of the property for a six-floor parking facility will have substantial impacts to neighbors in terms of noise, traffic and air pollution. The developer has not demonstrated that the project adequately deals with these impacts. These concerns are magnified for members of the Association because the Parking Structure will be close to their properties, the structure presents a four-story wall to the alley and because the Bell Mountain Residences are located behind the Parking Structure where less noise-proofing will be installed. If the facility is to be used late at night, there is a real possibility that noise and fumes from the Parking Structure will disturb the sleep of members of the Association and their children. To finalize the rezoning to PUD as requested here, the City's official zone district map must be amended. Consideration of a number of factors is required to approve any such amendment including: Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.5 The effect ofthe proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety." 3 Code, 99 26.445.040(C), 26.445.050(B). 4 Code, 926.445.050(B)(1). 5 Code, Section 26.31 0.040(C) " Code, Section 26.31O.040(D) FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen City Council December 2, 2003 Page 5 Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.7 None of these factors are met here. It is clear that intense use of the property as a parking facility is incompatible with the neighborhood, including the residential projects located across the alley and across the street. Comparing the Parking Structure with the Aspen Athletic Club-Coates, Reid & Waldron building is inappropriate because that structure was built many years ago and does not reflect recent development of the area. Recent changes in the neighborhood have made the neighborhood more residential, not more commercial. The Parking Structure as proposed here is clearly incompatible with residential use. It is important to remember that the Bell Mountain Residences were approved by the City less than four years ago. Comparison with Benedict Commons is also inappropriate because that project was built as employee housing - a benefit which is unequivocally an integral goal of the community as expressed in the AACP. The provision of parking in the commercial core to the oublic may also be an integral goal of the community. However, this Parking Structure does not meaningfully address that goal. D. The Parking Structure Does Not Helo Solve Parking Problems In Asoen. The developer argues that he is entitled to the variances discussed above because the proposal addresses a "significant community goal" - the provision of parking in the commercial core. The Application asserts that a 1986 study which focused on demand for short-term parking somehow supports his request to build a supply of long-term parking spaces. This represents a "logical disconnect" which has never been adequately addressed in the developer's Application, supplemental filings with staff, or in statements to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Joint Growth Management Commission. The developer is unwilling to provide the City reasonable assurances that the Parking Structure will be actually used by the public. The developer says that 19 of the 99 parking spaces will always be available for public use. Its traffic study assumes that "approximately 20% of the spaces would be used by part-time local residents to store their vehicles when out of town," and that the remainder, 80%, "would be used on a daily basis by local residents, merchants, employees and visitors.'" However, the developer is unwilling to commit to a plan which insures that these benefits are actually received by the public. The developer has asked the City to rely on representations made in the developer's Operations Prospectus for assurance that the project will provide substantial public 7 Code, Section 26.31O.040(H) 8 Letter of Jeff Ream, Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig to Stan Clauson, dated August 28, 2003, p. 2, last paragraph. FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen City Council December 2, 2003 Page 6 use. That document reads as a marketing tool, not as a promise to actually address public concerns. If the developer wishes to have the project approved for its public benefit, the promise ofthat benefit must be made concrete in a declaration of protective covenants or similar document recorded in the public record. In answers provided to date, the developer has said, essentially, that 1he City must rely on each unit owner's interest in maximizing his investment. "Each space owner will want to utilize the garage fully," said Mr. Fornell at the September 2, 2003 hearing: Because a space-owner will receive income only when the space is being rented, the theory goes, each such owner will demand that the space be rented as much as possible. The reality is that anyone who purchases a parking space for over $100,000 will demand that the space be available when he wants to use it. As with the vast majority of Aspen real property, the rental income stream does not support the purchase price of the unit. Onlv wealthv people who can afford not to receive rental income will be able to afford spaces in the Parking Structure. Only a mandatory program of sharing space with the public will insure that the public receives a meaningful benefit from the approval of this project. That approval must include substantial public use during busy times ofthe year, including "powder days" and the Fourth ofJuly. A mandatory program may be implemented only through covenants which "run with the land." The developer must provide a proposed set of such covenants to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its review and approval Prior to approval by City Council. The developer's representative has complained that imposition of a mandatory program of sharing space with the public will unnecessarily fetter the owners' freedom in dealing with their property.lO The covenants which are required here are no different in kind than employee housing deed restrictions which are routinely mandated for residential development. The City must take reasonable steps to secure for its residents and this neighborhood the benefits which have been promised by the developer. The Land Use Code allows the City to substantially modify a zone district's dimensional parameters if a proposal advances important community goals, such as the provision of affordable housing. A variance may not granted, however, if receipt of the promised benefit is uncertain or speculative. This developer has not yet provided reasonable assurance that members of the public will be allowed to use the Parking Structure at times and in sufficient numbers to make a meaningful 9 Minutes of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sept. 2, 2003, p. 3, middle of second to last paragraph. 10 Id., p. 4-5. <..".~-_...........,-....._~...,-~-_._>~~-",._......q FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen City Council December 2, 2003 Page 7 contribution to the solution of Aspen's parking problem. Granting ofPUD approval is not warranted here. Sincerely, FREILICH, M R & CARLISLE c;'/A E. Michael Ho Table of Exhibits Exhibit A - TDA Letter EXHIBIT TDA I A Transportation Consultants COLORADO INC. December 1,2003 Bell Mountain Residences Association c/o Freilich, Myler, Leitner & Carlisle 106 S. Mill St. #202 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Park Place Parking Facility, Traffic Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, As agreed, we have prepared this access and circulation opinion of the proposed Park Place Commercial Parking Facility near the Aspen commercial core. The site for the 99-space automated parking facility is a 60' x 100' portion (Lots C & D) of the Hannah-Dustin parcel situated between the Hannah-Dustin office building at the comer of Hyman and Spring Street and the Benedict Commons Condominiums, see Figure I. A two-story A-frame structure with surface parking lots that abut the front and rear will be removed for the project. Vehicular access to the automated, mechanized parking facility would be via two garage door type entrances facing Hyman A venue. The rear of the structure is along the one-way alley (zero lot line) that runs from Original Street to Spring Street. A rear service door that would open into the alley is depicted on the applicant's plans. Our review addresses two areas of concern expressed with the present proposal. I. Residents on the opposite side of the alley (Bell Mountain Condominiums) that access their below-grade parking from the alley anticipate problems with accessibility and normal operation of the 20-foot wide alley. 2. Others in the area that use Hyman Avenue are concerned that motorists waiting their turn to enter one of the two enter/exit bays may queue out onto Hyman Avenue and interfere with normal traffic and pedestrian flow. Our assessment included a site visit and extended observation of alley operation on Thursday November 19th, plan review with Chris Bendon, City senior planner, and review of the project's traffic impact analysis 1 We also conducted a web search of similar existing automated parking facilities. Alley Operation Impact Existing Alley Operation The Block 105 alley serves the usual functions of an urban alley: access to parking, short-term loading/unloading/service, trash removal and access to utilities. I Letter to Stan Clauson, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, 8/28/03, 4p. 820 16th Street Moll. Suite 424 . Denver, Colorado 80202 . (303) 825-7107 . FAX: 825-6004 . E-Mail: TDAColo@aoicom Bell Mtn. Residences Ann. Page 2 December 1,2003 E HYMAN AVE ~ Parking U> o ;u Gi Z ,. ~ U> --< ... "' " z " "- "' "' E COOPER AVE .~: 25 F~ 50 I Thls mapldrawingllmage is a graphical repn,sentatlon of the features depicted and Is not a legal representation. The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction. Copyright 2003 City of Asperv'Pitkin County Figure 1 Existing Alley 105 Access & Parking Conditions BeD Mtn. Residences Ann. Page 3 December 1, 2003 The subject A-frame lot has eight head-in parking positions (two of which are interior stacked spaces) accessed from the alley. The Hannah-Duston office has three on grounds parallel parking stalls along their alley building face. There is one parallel space on the Benedict site marked for Handicap parking. A 6-foot cedar security fence runs along the property line of the remainder of the condo site with an opening near Original Street for dumpster access. Around noontime all 12 spaces along the north side of the alley were occupied. There was some turnover of the A-frame spaces and the office spaces during the afternoon. The handicap space was vacant from about one o'clock through 4:00 PM. Along the south side of the alley the turf area along the Bell Mountain condos setback was used by a number of visitors, workers, residents and tradesmen through the afternoon. Observed were workers from the sandwich shop restaurant at the Cooper/Original corner, a delivery to the office building, a tradesman servicing a Bell Mountain residence, a couple taking dry cleaning into a Benedict Commons unit and an electrical contractor retrieving supplies from his truck. These parkers straddle the alley right of way staying clear of a line of young trees planted on the Bell Mountain property. This leaves an effective l2-foot driving lane for the occasional alley motorist. At no time did an unattended vehicle block the drive lane. The important short-term parallel parking operation that occurs along the Bell Mountain Condo frontage works well today for a variety of users because alley traffic can easily pass by these parked vehicles. Alley Operation with Project Placing a 50-foot long, 35-foot high structure along the alley right of way will cause disruption to the current alley operation. During construction of the project's four-level foundation and super structure there will likely be a construction easement and fenced area extending into the alley public way. This would be opposite the ramp entrance to Bell Mountain underground parking. It's not clear how vehicles will pass through and park along the alley with a construction encroachment or how Bell Mountain residents will access their garage. A building with the normall5-foot setback from the alley would not have this encroachment problem. Post-construction, the shear presence of the formidable parking garage wall will cause motorists to stay well to the left as they drive by. The presence of a service door that may swing open into the public travelway at any time will induce some motorists to swing well left of the wall. If a vehicle were parked along the south side opposite the proposed structure, as is the case frequently, the comfortable travelway is reduced to seven or eight feet. This leaves little buffer for a passing vehicle. Also, if a short-term vehicle were parked within five feet of the Bell Mountain ramp intersection a resident exiting the ramp would have to perform a deliberate three-point turn (one backing maneuver) to safely clear the parked vehicle and the wall. Any maneuver that requires backing in tight quarters involves a higher incidence of accidents. Suggested Alley Mitigation We understand the applicant will pave the current gravel surface alley as part of the project. Accordingly, the applicant's site improvement plans should be expanded to include the full width of the alley and existing features along the south side of the alley. We suggest the improved alley design include a flared connection to the Bell Mountain Condo concrete ramp to discourage parking close to the ramp. As an added measure, shrubbery or other BeD Mtn. Residences Assn. Page 4 December 1,2003 landscape material should be placed for ten feet on either side of the ramp to discourage short-term parking close to the ramp. Hyman Avenne Traffic Flow Existing On-site Parking Currently, the Hyman yard frontage of the A-frame site is used for daily parking and vehicle storage. Cars are parked head-in along the east and west boundaries and straight ahead, three abreast and two deep off Hyman Avenue. About 15 cars can park off street in this close-knit fushion. Presumably, these 15 vehicles and the eight in the rear will be parked in the planned garage. The current low number of cars parked and the low rate of turnover produces little if any traffic problem to Hyman Avenue. Planned Parking Operation The applicant's traffic study discussion on queuing at the Hyman Avenue entrance/exit roll up doors states that the maximum queue at either door would be two vehicles each for a total of four on-site vehicles waiting to be processed. The report assumes a 90-second cycle for processing entering vehicles. On this basis it states that there will be no off-site queuing even under the busiest conditions (concurrent 40 entering, 40 exiting per hour). A report on the new Garden Street (Hoboken NJ) Automated Parking Garage that employs the newest Robotic Parking MAPS automated system states a retrieval time (measured from the time a patron's car is located to the time the car and pallet reach the exit bay) to be I Y, to two minutes. Accordingly, the cycle time (interval between successive cars exiting a bay) would easily be closer to three minutes when the time added for a driver to enter the bay, start their car and clear the area is factored in with the vehicle retrieval time. If actual cycle times approach three minutes the resulting queues could ex1end onto Hyman Avenue and impede traffic flow. The Hoboken Garage is a monthly parking garage for local residents and uses E-Z pass detection (not cash) to activate door openings and vehicle retrieval. The Aspen proposal will serve short-term public users as well as daily and monthly users on a cash basis. This varied market will no doubt produce some familiarity problems and delays not experienced at the Hoboken facility. Hyman Avenue Congestion Mitigation We believe the potential for waiting vehicles queuing onto Hyman A venue at busy times is greater than represented to date. More information on the actual vehicle retrieval and vehicle entering operation and system reliability of this particular installation should be gathered, presented and made available by the applicant. If the informed conclusion is that queuing onto Hyman A venue may well be a recurring problem appropriate mitigation measures should be offered. BeD Mtll. Residences Assll. Page 5 December 1, 2003 I trust these opinions of the current Park Place Commercial Parking proposal will be useful in your ongoing discussions with the City and the applicant. If we can be of further assistance please give me a call. Sincerely, TDA Colorado, Inc. w David D. Leahy, PE Principal SCOTT M. BROWN 710 E HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-920-4566 VIA HAND DELIVERY August 22, 2003 RECEIVED AUG ?" ." 2003 --~ City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Park Place Garage Project 707 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Bendon: I am writing this letter to express my concerns both as a neighbor of the Park Place Garage Project (the "Project"), and as a full-time resident of Aspen. Please distribute this letter to the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission as soon as possible. My concerns are as follows, and I believe, should be addressed fully by both the Community Development Department (the "Department"), and the Planning and Zoning Commission (the "Commission"). 1. Zoning Variations . Although several exemptions from various City rules or plans are required to approve the Project including specific language in the Aspen Area Community Plan, I would like you to thoroughly consider the impact of granting a zoning variation. Hyman Avenue between Spring and Original streets is primarily a residential street with well maintained residences occupied with few exceptions by full-time residents of Aspen. Building a garage would degrade the neighborhood in a way that certainly was not anticipated by any of us. When someone purchases a residence or other property in Aspen there is an expectation that existing zoning will remain or that at least there will be no substantial variation that will change the character of the neighborhood in a negative manner. I do not think full-time residents should have their neighborhood degraded for the benefit of non-residents for whom I believe the Project is being built. Your constituency is not the non-residents, it is us who live in Aspen. I believe it is the primary obligation of the Commission and the Department to protect our interests. Perhaps the most telling remark made at the last meeting was made by a gentleman who lives outside of Aspen. I paraphrase but his comment was that if you do not like the garage move out of town. Fortunately, many of us would rather try to prevent bad decisions from being made than move. Finally, what assurance does anyone in Aspen have that his neighborhood is safe from ad hoc zoning changes that will degrade the character of his neighborhood? Where will the next garage be built, for it surely will be, if you embark on this slippery slope? 2. Traffic The potential traffic issue needs to be addressed in detail. Nothing was submitted with the Department's memorandum from the Transportation Department analyzing the potential impact on traffic. Traffic issue also will influence noise and pollution. Consideration must be given to the number of cars using the Benedict Commons, the impact on Spring Street of added usage in addition to the heavy usage from RFT A and trucks going to City Market and the impact on Original Street which is also Highway 82. Without a detailed analysis, a traffic mess could be created that is not correctable after the fact. Consideration also must be given to pedestrian safety which is already problematic. A sidewalk is to be built to connect Spring to Original on the south side. How safe will it be for pedestrians if there are two new garage entrances adjacent to the existing Benedict Commons garage entrance? How less safe will crossing Spring, Original or Hyman become with the increased traffic? Will the City address these issues in detail? And can any decisions, preliminary or otherwise, be made by the Commission until they are addressed? 2 I 3. Experimentation a. Approval of the Project requires a leap of faith. We have only the manufacturer's sales pitch about the quality of the system to be installed. Do we really know that it is as good as the manufacturer claims? It is only being used in one building in the United States. b. What is known about the success of condominiumized garages particularly in small communities? What assurances are there that any public spaces will be available? Will public spaces only be available in the off-season when they are not needed? What assurances are there that the building will be maintained when the developer leaves? I have severe reservations that 99 owners who can afford to spend $125,000 to $150,000 for a parking space, and who do not live in the neighborhood will care too much about the appearance of the Project or its impact on the neighborhood. c. If the building is not successful what other uses can it be used for? Finally, the above comments address only certain of my concerns. Others were addressed by other attendees at the last Commission meeting, in the letter from Herb Klein and in the letter from the Bell Mountain Residents. I am confident that you will address our concerns thoroughly and not rely on vague assurances from the Developer. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, J- ---- ~~ Scott M. Brown Ce.. Gny CO\A.NC\L 3 LAW OFFICES OF .. HERBERT S. KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.e. HERBERT S. KLEIN hsklein@rof.net LANCE R. COTE .. cote@rof.net MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI madhu@rof.net 201 NORTH MILL STREET SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Telephone (970) 925-8700 Facsimile (970) 925-3977 September II, 2003 .. also admitted in California Via Hand Deliverv City of Aspen Planning 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: I am again 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. At the last Planning Commission meeting, the applicant provided a report on the noise associated with the parking apparatus and a traffic study. Although the public hearing was closed, given the new information provided, we believe it is appropriate for the Commission to consider our comments on these reports. 1. The Noise Report. The applicant submitted a noise study dated Aug. 27, 2003, from Gary Ehrlich, Senior Acoustical Engineer. The report was done on, what we are told is, the only other facility in the U.S. using this technology. The equipment was located in a private parking garage and sound measurements were taken near the garage overhead door. The equipment was operated without any cars on the lift. On the last page of the report it states: "It can also be seen that the sound level in the garage was typically between 50 and 65 dBA, and occasionally reached 70 to 80 dBA." These sound levels exceed the maximum sound levels for this zone district allowed under the City's Land Use Code ("Code"), thus, this project cannot be approved. The relevant Code provisions are found in Article 18 (the "Noise Ordinance"). Excerpts of these sections are attached. Section 18.04.040 limits the maximum allowable noise in the Residential land use distric1 (defined by Sec. 18.04.020(cc) as including the Office zone) to 50 dBA between the hours of 10:00PM and 7:00AM and 55 dBA between the hours of 7:00AM and 10:00PM. So when the report says the sound level is "typically between 50 and 65 dBA," it is saying that the garage will typically violate the Aspen Municipal Code noise ordinance! When the report says the noise levels "occassionally reached 70 to 80 dBA," it is saying that occasionally the noise reached levels that are City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department September 11, 2003 Page 3 turn. The entrance is close to the intersection and when cars are backed up at the entrance, these vehicles waiting to enter will block traffic coming on to Hyman Avenue. The report attempts to evaluate queuing and states that the time required to park each car is 90 seconds "from the time the vehicle drives onto the lift to the time the lift returns for the next vehicle." However, this does not take into account the time it takes to unload people, skis, kids, etc., nor the time it lakes to check in or to retrieve forgotten items. These activities are clearly part of the calculus of the time it takes a car to enter and clear the queuing area, but are totally ignored by the report. We estimate that these activities will take three to five minutes, depending on how busy the attendanl is. Thus, the total time is more like five to seven minutes per car, not 90 seconds. The report suggests that paymenl will occur on pick up, however, that takes time as well and when the four spaces needed for queuing vehicles entering are full, cars cannot leave. The report also assumes that 80% of the users will be members of the public, not owners of the spaces, and that they will be parking for long periods of time, thus reducing the number of operations and the traffic generation of the facility. The applicant has not proposed a method of assuring 80% public use, only that it will sell spaces for over one-hundred thousand dollars and try to allow for public use when those spaces are not being used. At those prices, we can confidently assume that the buyers are not going to sacrifice their ability to use the spaces whenever they want in order to gain a few dollars per hour of parking revenue from public use, which income, is likely to be exceeded by the cost of tax accounting for these meager sums. The notion of long term use of the facility is not supported by any facts. These assumptions of the report are critical to its analysis and are simply made up, having no reliable foundation. We have previously expressed grave concerns about the location of this garage near the intersectiori and its potential for grid-lock, snarling traffic and blocking turning movements. The report has not alleviated these concerns and its failure to account for the interference with existing traffic flows by turning movements, the actual time needed by each parking operation, unsupported assumptions about the composition of users and the length of parking stays, renders its conclusions erroneous. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Very truly yours, HERBERT S. KLEIN & AS~IATES, P.C. , --/ ~,.~/.>/ ,-~~ ./ .0--- H ert S. Klein By: 700 E Hyman condo assn\bendm~Lt4a.wpd ~ectlOn UL04.0lU DeclaratIOn otpolicy. Page 1 of 1 . Remove highlighting. Chapter 18.04 NOISE ABATEMENT*l *2 Section 18.04.010 Declaration of policy. The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and to its visitors. Noise has an adverse effect on the psychological and physiological well-being of persons, thus constituting a present danger to the economic and aesthetic well-being of the community. Accordingly, it is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels. (Ord. No. 2-1981, ~ 1: Code 1971, ~ 16-1) http://www.ordlink.comlcgi-binlhilite.pl/codes/aspenCDATAlTitle_18/04/010.html?noise 9/4/2003 Section 26.425.040 Standards applicable to all conditional uses. Page I ofl Remove highlighting. Chapter 26.425 CONDITIONAL USES Section 26.425.040 Standards applicable to all conditional uses. When considering a development application for a conditionai use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable. A. 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 B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including vi Imp s, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service deliv ,noise, vi ations and odor on surrounding properties; and D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and The Community Development Director may recommend, and the Planning and Zoning Commission may impose such conditions on a conditional use that are necessary to maintain the integrity of the city's zone districts and to ensure the conditional use complies with the purposes of the Aspen Area Community Plan, this Chapter, and this Title; is compatible with surroundin9 land uses; and is served by adequate public facilities. This includes, but is not limited to imposing conditions on size, bulk, location, open space, landscaping, buffering, lighting, sign age, off-street parking and other similar design features, the construction of public facilities to serve the conditional use, and limitations on the operating characteristics, hours of operation, and duration of the conditional use. http://www.ordlink.comlcgi-binlhilite.pl/codes/aspen/ _ DA T A/Title _26/425/040 .html ?noise 9/4/2003 SCOTT M. BROWN 710 E HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-920-4566 VIA HAND DELIVERY August 22, 2003 RECEIVED AUG · ? 6 2003 --~ City of Aspen PI arming and Zoning Commission c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Plarmer City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Park Place Garage Project 707 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Bendon: I am writing this letter to express my concerns both as a neighbor of the Park Place Garage Project (the "Project"), and as a full-time resident of Aspen. Please distribute this letter to the members of the Plarming and Zoning Commission as soon as possible. My concerns are as follows, and I believe, should be addressed fully by both the Community Development Department (the "Department"), and the PI arming and Zoning Commission (the "Commission"). I. Zoning Variations Although several exemptions from various City rules or plans are required to approve the Project including specific language in the Aspen Area Community Plan, I would like you to thoroughly consider the impact of granting a zoning variation. Hyman A venue between Spring and Original streets is primarily a residential street with well maintained residences occupied with few exceptions by full-time residents of Aspen. Building a garage would degrade the neighborhood in a way that certainly was not anticipated by any of us. When someone purchases a residence or other property in Aspen there is an expectation that existing zoning will remain or that at least there will be no substantial variation that will change the character of the neighborhood in a negative manner. I do not think full-time residents should have their neighborhood degraded for the benefit of non-residents for whom I believe the Project is being built. Your constituency is not the non-residents, it is us who live in Aspen. I believe it is the primary obligation of the Commission and the Department to protect our interests. Perhaps the most telling remark made at the last meeting was made by a gentleman who lives outside of Aspen. I paraphrase but his comment was that if you do not like the garage move out of town. Fortunately, many of us would rather try to prevent bad decisions from being made than move. Finally, what assurance does anyone in Aspen have that his neighborhood is safe from ad hoc zoning changes that will degrade the character of his neighborhood? Where will the next garage be built, for it surely will be, if you embark on this slippery slope? 2. Traffic The potential traffic issue needs to be addressed in detail. Nothing was submitted with the Department's memorandum from the Transportation Department analyzing the potential impact on traffic. Traffic issue also will influence noise and pollution. Consideration must be given to the number of cars using the Benedict Commons, the impact on Spring Street of added usage in addition to the heavy usage from RFT A and trucks going to City Market and the impact on Original Street which is also Highway 82. Without a detailed analysis, a traffic mess could be created that is not correctable after the fact. Consideration also must be given to pedestrian safety which is already problematic. A sidewalk is to be built to connect Spring to Original on the south side. How safe will it be for pedestrians if there are two new garage entrances adjacent to the existing Benedict Commons garage entrance? How less safe will crossing Spring, Original or Hyman become with the increased traffic? Will the City address these issues in detail? And can any decisions, preliminary or otherwise, be made by the Commission until they are addressed? 2 3. Experimentation a. Approval of the Project requires a leap of faith. We have only the manufacturer's sales pitch about the quality of the system to be installed. Do we really lmow that it is as good as the manufacturer claims? It is only being used in one building in the United States. b. What is lmown about the success of condominiumized garages particularly in small communities? What assurances are there that any public spaces will be available? Will public spaces only be available in the off-season when they are not needed? What assurances are there that the building will be maintained when the developer leaves? I have severe reservations that 99 owners who can afford to spend $125,000 to $150,000 for a parking space, and who do not live in the neighborhood will care too much about the appearance of the Project or its impact on the neighborhood. c. If the building is not successful what other uses can it be used for? Finally, the above comments address only certain of my concerns. Others were addressed by other attendees at the last Commission meeting, in the letter from Herb Klein and in the letter from the Bell Mountain Residents. I am confident that you will address our concerns thoroughly and not rely on vague assurances from the Developer. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~~ ~. Scott M. Brown Ce.. GVT-Y COlA.rJc..\L 3 ~/VA ...- SCOTT M. BROWN 710 E HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-920-4566 August 22, 2003 VIA HAND DELIVERY City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Park Place Garage Project 707 East Hyman A venue Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Bendon: I am writing this letter to express my concerns both as a neighbor of the Park Place Garage Project (the "Project"), and as a full-time resident of Aspen. Please distribute this letter to the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission as soon as possible. My concerns are as follows, and I believe, should be addressed fully by both the Community Development Department (the "Department"), and the Planning and Zoning Commission (the "Commission"). I. Zoning Variations Although several exemptions from various City rules or plans are required to approve the Project including specific language in the Aspen Area Community Plan, I would like you to thoroughly consider the impact of granting a zoning variation. Hyman A venue between Spring and Original streets is primarily a residential street with well maintained residences occupied with few exceptions by full-time residents of Aspen. Building a garage would degrade the neighborhood in a way that certainly was not anticipated by any of us. When someone purchases a residence or other property in Aspen there is an expectation that existing zoning will remain or that at least there will be no substantial variation that will change the character of the neighborhood in a negative manner. I do not think full-time residents should have their neighborhood degraded for the benefit of non-residents for whom I believe the Project is being built. Your constituency is not the non-residents, it is us who live in Aspen. I believe it is the primary obligation of the Commission and the Department to protect our interests. Perhaps the most telling remark made at the last meeting was made by a gentleman who lives outside of Aspen. I paraphrase but his comment was that if you do not like the garage move out of town. Fortunately, many of us would rather try to prevent bad decisions from being made than move. Finally, what assurance does anyone in Aspen have that his neighborhood is safe from ad hoc zoning changes that will degrade the character of his neighborhood" Where will the next garage be built, for it surely will be, if you embark on this slippery slope" 2. Traffic The potential traffic issue needs to be addressed in detail. Nothing was submitted with the Department's memorandum from the Transportation Department analyzing the potential impact on traffic. Traffic issue also will influence noise and pollution. Consideration must be given to the number of cars using the Benedict Commons, the impact on Spring Street of added usage in addition to the heavy usage from RFT A and trucks going to City Market and the impact on Original Street which is also Highway 82. Without a detailed analysis, a traffic mess could be created that is not correctable after the fact. Consideration also must be given to pedestrian safety which is already problematic. A sidewalk is to be built to connect Spring to Original on the south side. How safe will it be for pedestrians if there are two new garage entrances adjacent to the existing Benedict Commons garage entrance? How less safe will crossing Spring, Original or Hyman become with the increased traffic? Will the City address these issues in detail? And can any decisions, preliminary or otherwise, be made by the Commission until they are addressed? 2 3. Experimentation a. Approval of the Project requires a leap of faith. We have only the manufacturer's sales pitch about the quality of the system to be installed. Do we really know that it is as good as the manufacturer claims? It is only being used in one building in the United States. b. What is known about the success of condominiumized garages particularly in small communities? What assurances are there that any public spaces will be available') Will public spaces only be available in the off-season when they are not needed? What assurances are there that the building will be maintained when the developer leaves? I have severe reservations that 99 owners who can afford to spend $125,000 to $150,000 for a parking space, and who do not live in the neighborhood will care too much about the appearance of the Project or its impact on the neighborhood. C. If the building is not successful what other uses can it be used for? Finally, the above comments address only certain of my concerns. Others were addressed by other attendees at the last Commission meeting, in the letter from Herb Klein and in the letter from the Bell Mountain Residents. I am confident that you will address our concerns thoroughly and not rely on vague assurances from the Developer. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, .,-<.-:~ C;;;-c...c Scott M. Brown Cc.. Gl\'y' CO\A..NC\L 3 ~eCl1on HS.V4.VLV lJerIDmOns ana stanaaras. Page 3 of4 . that is exceeded ninety (90) percent of the time in any measurement period (such as the level that is exceeded for nine (9) minutes in a ten-minute period) and is denoted L90. (v) Person. Any human being, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, company, contractor, supplier, installer, user, owner or operator, including any municipal corporation, state or federal government agency, district, and any officer or employee thereof. (w) Plainly audible noise. Any noise for which the information content of that noise is unambiguously transferred to the listener, such as, but not limited to, understanding of spoken speech, comprehension of whether a voice is raised or normal or comprehension of musical rhythms. (x) Premises. Shall mean any building, structure, land, utility or portion thereof, including all appurtenances, and shall include yards, lots, courts, inner yards and real properties without buildings or improvements, owned or controlled by a person. (y) Property boundary. An imaginary line exterior to any enclosed structure, at the ground surface, and its vertical extension, which separates the real property owned by one person from that owned by another person and separates real property from the public premise, or in multiple dwelling units from the adjoining unit. (z) Public right-of-way. Any street, avenue, boulevard, highway, alley, mall or similar place which is owned or controlled by a public governmental entity. (a a) Pure tone. Any sound which can be distinctly heard as a single itch or a set of single pitches. For the purposes of measurement, a pure tone shall exist of the one-third octave band sound pressure level in the band when the tone. exceeds the arithmetic average of the sound pressure levels of the two (2) contiguous one-third octave bands by five (5) dB for frequencies of five hundred (500) Hz and above, by eighf(8) dB for frequencies between one hundred sixty (160) and four hundred (400)Hz, and by fifteen (15) dB for frequencies less than or equal to one hundred twenty-five (125) Hz. (bb) Repetitive impulse noise. Any noise which is composed of impulsive noises that are repeated at sufficiently slow rates such that a sound level meter set at "fast" meter characteristics will show changes in sound pressure level greater than ten (10) dB(A). * (cc) Residential district. An area zoned primarily for residential use as defined in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, inchJding, but not limited to, areas designated R-6, R-15, R-15A, R-15B, R-30, R/MF, MHP, RR, 0, A, C, P, PUB, and as such designations may be amended. (dd) Sound. A temporal and spatial oscillation in pressure, or other physical quantity, in a medium with interval forces that causes compression and rarefaction of that medium, and which propagates at finite speed to distance points. http://www.ordlink.comlcgi-bin/hilite.pl/codes/aspen/_DAT Affitle _18/04/020.html?noise 9/4/2003 ::iecuon j lLU4.U4U Use dIStrIct nOIse levels. Page 1 of J . Remove highlightina. Chapter 18.04 NOISE ABATEMENT*l *2 Section 18.04.040 Use district noise levels. Maximum permissible sound levels. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any person to operate or permit to be operated any stationary source of sound in such a manner as to create a ninetieth percentile sound pressure level (L 90) of any measurement period (which shall not be less than ten (10) minutes unless otherwise provided in this chapter) which exceeds the limits set forth for the following receiving land use districts when measured at the boundary or at any point within the property affected by the noise: luse District IINi9ht II Day I 110:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. 117:00 a.m.--10:00 p.m. I IResidential 1150 dB(A) 1155 dB(A) I ILodge 1155 dB(A) 1160 dB(A) I Icommercial 1155 dB(A) 1165 dB(A) I Ilndustrial IINot Applicable 1180 dB(A) I When a noise source can be identified and its noise measured in more than one use district, the limits of the most restrictive use shall apply at the boundaries between the land use categories. This provision shall not apply when the least restrictive use is a floating industrial district, in which case the limits applicable to the industrial district shall apply, notwithstanding the boundaries of the more restrictive uses, because of the temporary nature of the industrial use. If an area is zoned SPA, the use category will be determined by the predominant existing uses within that area. (Ord. No. 2-1981,91; Ord. No. 36-1989, 9 1: Code 1971, 9 16-4) http://www.ordlink.com/cgi-bin/hilite.pl/codes/aspen/ _OLD/Title _18/04/040.html ?noise 9/4/2003 ~ City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department September II, 2003 Page 2 deemed harmfUl! 1 Viewing the charts submitted with the report makes it clear that the Noise Ordinance's night time 50 dBA limit is exceed at all times. (See Figure I attached to the report). The 55dBA daytime limit is exceeded most of the time and sound levels between 60 and 70 dBA are reached about half the time. To provide the Commission with some reference for these noise levels, a sewing machine operates around 60 dBA, a washing machine around 70 dBA and an alarm clock at 2 feet is about 80 dBA. 2 Front loaders, backhoes, tractors, concrete mixers, moveable cranes, generators and compressors operate in the 70-80dBA range.3 The proposed garage will queue cars at its entrance, thus requiring, the overhead doors to be open, allowing the noise generated to not only escape the building, but to be funneled directly across the street toward the residential townhouses at 700 E. Hyman Street. Furthermore, since the report was based on the lift being operated without a car, we can only assume that the noise generated from this equipment when it is under full load (e.g. when 5-6000 pound SUV's are on the lift) can only be higher, not lower. Because this project will violate the Noise Ordinance, it cannot be approved. The Commission must deny this project. 2. The Traffic ReDort. The applicant has provided a traffic study from Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, dated August 28, 2003. The report indicates that Hyman Avenue experiences approximately 3,500 vehicles per day ("vpd") in the summer and 2300 vpd in the winter. The report measures the increase in projected. traffic generated by the project and finds that the increase in traffic is not significant. However, the report does not analyze the impact on traffic flows due to the operational characteristics of the garage. Clearly, 3500 vpd is a lot of traffic. The garage will require both right and left turning movements for cars entering and exiting the facility. The report is silent on the effect of these tuming movements on traffic flow. Cars heading west on Hyman, will need to make a left turn into the garage. When cars are already queued at the entrance, these vehicles will either wait until the entrance clears, or they will circle the block. In either case, traffic flows will be adversely affected. Similarly, vehicles traveling east on Hyman will have to make a righl lLevels of75 dBA for outdoor activities and 65dBA for indoor activities are considered to generate "severe noise impacts" by the Federal Highway Administration. See: www.wsdot.wa.gov/regions/Northwest/rp&s/environmental/aae/policies.htm#anchor6 'American Tinnitis Association at www.ata.org 'Reitze, Environmental Law, Chapter Three B-19 '" .Itt~ ~ ~ ~~ j{7fl1t1IW~' CJt1~ J:)M{o~tfniW1vYlrM ... I II ,. I .1 I ~ I I I I I . I . I I I I I " SCOTT M. BROWN 710 E HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-920-4566 December 2, 2003 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mayor Helen Klanderud City Council Members: Terry Paulson, Rachel Richards, Tim Semerau and Torre City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Park Place Garage Project 710 East Hyman Avenue Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I wish to express my opposition to the Park Place Garage (the "Garage") both as a neighbor across the street from the proposed Garage and as a full-time resident of Aspen. As you know, the Planning and Zoning Commission after five lengthy meetings did not approve the Garage. I am hopeful that you will make the same wise decision. I. Impact on Nei!.!hborhood The block on Hyman Avenue between Spring and Original Street, where the Garage is proposed to be located, is primarily a residential street with two comer office buildings. Over 50 full-time residents of Aspen live on the block. In choosing to live on the edge of the city commercial core, I and others made that decision for convenience expecting a certain amount of noise and traffic congestion. However, we certainly did not expect a Garage to be built on the street as existing zoning ordinances and other regulations would not allow it. You will note that numerous zoning variations and other exceptions from existing regulations are required for the Garage to be built. It is my understanding that the Cily Council wishes to encourage people to live within the City core. By allowing the Garage to be built in an area that is primarily residential, you will be discouraging that goal. You will also be denying the reliance that people in Aspen, wherever they live, place on existing zoning laws and other regulations. ,. b. What assurances are there that the building will be maintained when the developer leaves? I have severe doubts that owners who can aflord to spend $125,000 to $150,000 for a parking space will care very much about the impact of the Garage on the neighborhood. c. If the proposed Garage is not successful what other uses can it be used for? In addition to the above concerns, I philosophically oppose private garages being built in the City center. The proposed Garage which could be the first of several if it is approved is an ad hoc approach to the parking issue in Aspen. [1' more parking is a goal of Aspen rather than encouraging public transportation usage, bicycle usage and walking. I believe that the City Council must carefi.Jlly consider where and what type of a garage should be built for the general public. Finally, please consider the impact of your vote on the neighbors of the proposed Garage. By voting NO, you will not only encourage us to stay in the City core but also encourage others to do the same, making it a desirable and viable place to live. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, ~~~ Scott Brown " .) SCOTT M. BROWN 71 0 E HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-920-4566 December 2, 2003 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mayor Helen Klanderud City Council Members: Terry Paulson, Rachel Richards, Tim Semerau and Torre City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Park Place Garage Project 710 East Hyman Avenue Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I wish to express my opposition to the Park Place Garage (the "Garage") both as a neighbor across the street from the proposed Garage and as a full-time resident of Aspen. As you know, the Planning and Zoning Commission after five leng1hy meetings did not approve the Garage. I am hopeful that you will make the same wise decision. 1. Impact on Nei~borhood The block on Hyman Avenue between Spring and Original Street, where the Garage is proposed to be located, is primarily a residential street with two comer office buildings. Over 50 full-time residents of Aspen live on the block. In choosing to live on the edge of the city commercial core, I and others made that decision for convenience expecting a certain amount of noise and traffic congestion. However, we certainly did not expect a Garage to be built on the street as existing zoning ordinances and other regulations would not allow it. You will note that numerous zoning variations and other exceptions from existing regulations are required for the Garage to be built. It is my understanding that the City Council wishes to encourage people to live within the City core. By allowing the Garage to be built in an area that is primarily residential, you will be discouraging that goal. You will also be denying the reliance that people in Aspen, wherever they live, place on existing zoning laws and other regulations. 2. Public Good The developer of the proposed Garage emphasizes the benefits that the Garage will provide. Of the 99 parking spaces in the proposed Garage only 19 will be reserved for public use. Between 15 and 20 cars park at the existing location and they will be displaced. They will either use the available "public spaces" in the proposed Garage or will need to park on the street. There will be little or any net public benefit from the 19 spaces reserved for the public. The remaining spaces are to be sold for $125,000 to $150.000 probably mainly to people who are not full-time residents of Aspen. There is absolutely no requirement that any of these owners will make their spaces avaiiable to the public. 3. Traffic Congestion and Noise The traffic study and noise study that the developer provided are flawed as outlined in the letter to you from Herb Klein. It is clear to all of us who live on the block that the proposed Garage will create traffic congestion with the concomitant noise and pollution. The developer overstates the speed of the parking mechanism and does not focus on the amoLlnt of time people will need to leave and enter their cars. A car load of skiers in the winter can take five to ten minutes to pack and unpack their equipment. In the sunill1er, bikes and strollers will take time to be removed and replaced. At both times of the busy seasons, children will need to be put in car seats which is a lengthy process. As people are packing and unpacking, cars will back-up on Hyman Avenue and will cause back-ups on Spring and Original Streets. The developer and the City Community Development Department downplay the congestion concerns. They have not given any suggestions as to how congestion can be alieviated if our concerns are correct. 4. Experimentation a. Approval of the proposed Garage requires a leap offaith. We have only the manufacturer's sales pitch about the quality of the system to be installed. Do we realiy know that it is as good as the manufacturer claims? If it is so good why is it only being used in one building in the United states? 2 b. What assurances are there that the building will be maintained when the developer leaves? I have severe doubts that owners who can atlord to spend $125,000 to $150,000 for a parking space will care very much about the impact of the Garage on the neighborhood. c. If the proposed Garage is not successful what other uses can it be used for? In addition to the above concerns, I philosophically oppose private garages being built in the City center. The proposed Garage which could be the first of several if it is approved is an ad hoc approach to the parking issue in Aspen. If more parking is a goal of Aspen rather than encouraging public transportation usage, bicycle usage and walking. I believe that the City Council must carefully consider where and what type of a garage should be built for the general public. Finally, please consider the impact of your vote on the neighbors of the proposed Garage. By voting NO, you will not only encourage us to stay in the City core but also encourage others to do the same, making it a desirable and viable place to live. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, ~.., (2- --, \~ Scott Brown 3 LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT S. KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.e. HERBERT S. KLEIN hsklein@rof.net LANCE R. COT~ . cote@rof.net MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI madhu@rof.net December 3, 2003 201 NORTH MILL STREET SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Telephone (970) 925.8700 Facsimile (970) 925-3977 .. also admitted in California Via Hand Deliverv City Council, City of Aspen c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Park Place Parking Garage Conceptual PUD, Subdivision, Conditional Use, etc. Dear Honorable Members of the City Council: 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. The Association opposes this project for many reasons, all related to the unacceptable impacts it will impose on the residential properties which surround it. The City Planning & Zoning Commission heard our concerns during their consideration of this application and, in response to the neighborhood outcry against this project, voted to recommend denial of this application.' We wish to inform the Council of the significant and incurable conflicts this parking structure will create in its neighborhood and to remove the gloss that the application casts on the warts of this project. Our primary concerns relate to five threshold issues: 1. Traffic and Pedestrian Imoacts: There are functional problems posed by the site plan, which places six stories (three above grade and three below grade) with almost lot line to lot line coverage on a 6000 square foot lot, leaving insufficient space on the lot to accommodate arriving and departing vehicles. It is clear that there will be a problem with cars queuing across the sidewalk and onto the street, creating gridlock and obstructing pedestrian usage, especially during peak times. tThe project was also vigorously opposed by the neighboring Benedict Commons residential project and the Ben Mountain Residences Association as well as several other neighbors. , City Council, City of Aspen c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner December 3, 2003 Page 2 of8 2. Noise: We also have serious concerns about the noise generated from the project. The noise study submitted by the applicant does not report the noise levels at the property line, where measured by the City Land Use Code (the "Code"). However, it does report that the noise levels within the structure, if they were present at the lot line, will exceed the permissible levels established by the City Noise Ordinance. 3. Illegal Subdivision Reauest - Creation of a Non-conforming Use: The two lots on which the Hannah Dustin Office Building condominiums are located are proposed to be subdivided from the two lots on which the parking garage will be located. No parking for the Hannah Dustin Building users is provided in the application and if approved, the Hannah Dustin Building will become a non- conforming use, without any Code mandated parking. 4. Mass. Bulk. Aesthetics and Incompatibility with the Neighborhood: The applicant is seeking PUD approval for almost twice the allowable FAR, resulting in a 16,000 square foot building on a 6000 square foot lot. The parking garage use is incompatible and disruptive to the neighborhood. The parking structure is simply a large box, with little articulation of design elements, lot line to lot line coverage and no open space. While this project might have merit in another location on a larger lot, it is a disaster as proposed. 5. Lack of Discernable Public Benefits to Justify Private PUD Benefits: Although the application touts the benefits to the City in providing parking for owners of the condominiumized spaces and the public, the applicant only commits to guaranty that 19 of the 99 spaces will be available for public use. The remaining spaces will be sold for prices between $125,000- $150,000.00 each. While we have no objection to the free market system, one would expect a compelling demonstration of substantial public benefit to justify sacrificing this neighborhood and bestowing a windfall of close to $12 Million on the developer. Furthermore, 20 parking spaces, presently used by the Hannah Dustin Building office workers, will be lost, further reducing any perceived public benefits. Our objections are more fully set forth in the following sections of this letter, together with factual and legal support and our own traffic and noise studies. 1. The Traffic ReDort. The applicant has provided a traffic study from Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, dated August 28, 2003. The report indicates that Hyman Avenue experiences approximately 3,500 vehicles per day ("vpd") in the summer and 2300 vpd in the winter. The report measures the increase in projected traffic generated by the project and finds that the increase in traffic is not significant. However, the report does not analyze the impact on traffic flows due to the operational characteristics of the garage. Clearly, 3500 vpd is a lot of traffic. The garage will require both right and left turning movements for cars entering and exiting the facility. The report is silent on the effect of these turning movements on traffic flow. The application indicates that this f City Council, City of Aspen c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner December 3, 2003 Page3 of 8 small site only has the capacity to queue four cars at one time and this assumes that all available space is used for arriving vehicles, with no consideration of departing vehicles. When cars are already queued at the entrance, arriving vehicles will either wait until the entrance clears, or they will circle the block. In either case, traffic flows will be adversely affected. The entrance is close to the intersection and when cars are backed up at the entrance, these vehicles waiting to enter will block traffic coming on to Hyman Avenue. The Association has engaged Kathleen Krager of the firm of Bowers & Krager, Inc., traffic engineers, to evaluate the applicant's report. Her analysis is attached hereto at Exhibit A and it identifies the deficiencies that render the applicant's report meaningless with respect to traffic conflicts caused by the operational realities of this project. The applicant's report attempts to evaluate queuing and states that the time required to park each car is 90 seconds "from the time the vehicle drives onto the lift to the time the lift returns for the next vehicle." However, this does not take into account the time it takes to unload people, skis, kids, etc., nor the time it takes to check in or to retrieve forgotten items. These activities are clearly part of the calculus of the time it takes a car to enter and clear the queuing area, but are totally ignored by the report. We estimate that these activities will take three to five minutes, depending on how busy the attendant is. Thus, the total time is more like five to seven minutes per car, not 90 seconds. The report suggests that payment will occur on pick up, however, that takes time as well and when the four spaces needed for queuing vehicles entering are full, cars cannot leave. When questioned about this at a recent Planning Commission hearing, the applicant stated that during peak times arriving cars would have a priority and people picking up their cars would have to wait. We do not believe that people paying well over one hundred thousand dollars for their parking space will be so accommodating. Our traffic report also addresses this from a purely functional perspective and correctly points out that: "The proposal to hold exiting vehicles while allowing vehicles to enter the garage will result in numerous operating problems, including the likely potential that vehicles will need to leave the facility to make room for entering vehicles." The applicant's report also assumes that 80% of the users will be members of the public, not owners of the spaces, and that they will be parking for long periods of time, thus reducing the number of operations and the traffic generation of the facility. The applicant has not proposed a method of assuring 80% public use,2 only that it will sell spaces for over one-hundred thousand dollars and try to allow for public use when those spaces are not being used. At those prices, we can confidently assume that the buyers are not going to sacrifice their ability to use the spaces whenever they want in order to gain a few dollars per hour of parking revenue from public use, which income, 2During the City Planning Commission review, the applicant offered to gnaranty that only 19 of the 99 spaces will be available for public use. , City Council, City of Aspen c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner December 3, 2003 Page 4 of8 is likely to be exceeded by the cost of 1ax accounting for these meager sums. The notion of long term use of the facility is not supported by any facts. These assumptions of the report are critical to its analysis and are simply made up, having no reliable foundation. Simply put, the project raises grave concerns about the location of this garage near the intersection and its potential for grid-lock, blocking turning movements, snarling traffic and creating inconvenience and safety problems for pedestrian use of the sidewalk. The report does not address these at all and its failure to account for them along with its unsupported assumptions about the composition of users and the length of parking stays, renders its conclusions erroneous. 2. The Noise Report. The applicant submitted a noise study dated Aug. 27, 2003, from Gary Ehrlich, Senior Acoustical Engineer. The report was done on, what we are told is, the only other facility in the U.S. using this technology. The equipment was located in a private parking garage and sound measurements were taken near the garage overhead door. The equipment was operated without any cars on the lift. On the last page of the report it states: "It can also be seen that the sound level in the garage was typically between 50 and 65 dBA, and occasionally reached 70 to 80 dBA." If these sound levels exist at the property line (where measured under the Code), they would exceed the maximum sound levels for this zone district allowed under the Code, and the project could not be approved. The relevant Code provisions are found in Article 18 (the "Noise Ordinance"). Section 18.04.040 limits the maximum allowable noise in this land use district to 55 dBA between the hours of 10:00PM and 7:00AM and 65 dBA between the hours of 7:00AM and !0:00PM. So when the report says the sound level is "typically between 50 and 65 dBA," it is saying that the garage will, depending on the hours of use, typically violate the Aspen Municipal Code noise ordinance! When the report says the noise levels "occasionally reached 70 to 80 dBA," it is saying that occasionally the noise reached levels that are deemed harmfUl! 3 Viewing the charts submitted with the report makes it clear that the Noise Ordinance's night time 55 dBA limit is exceed most of the time and sound levels between 60 and 70 dBA are reached about half the time. (See Figure 1 attached to the report). Furthermore, since the report was based on 'Levels of75 dBA for outdoor activities and 65dBA for indoor activities are considered to generate "severe noise impacts" by the Federal Highway Administration. See: www.wsdot.wa.gov/regionslNorthwest/rp&s/environmentaVaae/policies.htm#anchor6 City Council, City of Aspen c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner December 3, 2003 Page 5 of8 the lift being operated without a car, the noise generated from this equipment when it is under full load (e.g. when 5-6000 pound SUV's are on the lift) can only be higher, not lower. To provide the Commission with some reference for these noise levels, a sewing machine operates around 60 dBA, a washing machine around 70 dBA and an alarm clock at 2 feet is about 80 dBA.4 Front loaders, backhoes, tractors, concrete mixers, moveable cranes, generators and compressors operate in the 70-80dBA range.s As previously mentioned, the noise report was not done at the property line and the applicant has stated in prior public hearings that the garage lift will operate with the doors closed. Without a study of the noise that escapes the building, all we know is that the lift equipment exceeds permissible noise levels. The Association has engaged its own noise consultant, Jeff Geiler, P.E. of Gwynfyd Consulting, LLC. His report is attached hereto at Exhibit B and supports our opposition. He points out that important and relevant information on the noise generation of the proposed facility is absent and that although the applicant's report is largely useless in determining the noise levels of the proposed facility, it did demonstrate that significant noise levels are generated by this technology. To the extent the applicant will offer to be bound by a condition requiring sound mitigation after the facility is built and operating if needed to comply with the City Noise Ordinance: Mr. Geiler states that "Our experience is that remedial noise mitigation is typically 10 times more expensive than having addressed the noise mitigation requirements in the project design phase. There is also the possibility that due to design constraints, remedial noise mitigation cannot be effectively implemented." 3. Subdivision - Creation of a Non-conforming Use - Insufficient Parking. The Application also seeks subdivision approval to separate Lots A and B, which contain the existing Hannah Dustin Building Condominiums, from Lots C and D, the lots on which the parking garage is proposed and which presently contains an A-frame and is used as a parking lot for the office uses on all four lots. We have observed that approximately 20 cars are parked on Lots C and D during normal business hours (about 15-16 on the front part of the lots and 4-5 on the rear adjacent to the alley). Other than a couple of spaces parallel to the alley at the rear of Lots A and B, there does not 'American Tinnitis Association at www.ata.org 'Reitze, Environmental Law, Chapter Three B-19 "This was suggested as a condition during the P&Z's review. City Council, City of Aspen c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner December 3, 2003 Page 6 of 8 appear to be parking for the Hannah Dustin Building Condominiums anywhere other than on Lots C and D. If the subdivision request is granted, Lots A and B will be non-conforming insofar as parking requirements, as no parking will be available. Not only does this violate the Code, but as a practical matter, these cars will add to the existing parking needs of the City and the suggested public benefits of the parking garage will be further reduced. The Code is quite clear that subdivision approval cannot be granted if the result of the subdivision is the creation or expansion of a non-conforming use. Please see Code Sections 26.480.020 and Section 26.312.060. The Code requires 3 parking spaces per each 1000 square feet of net leasable office space. According to the application, the Hannah Dustin Building would require 16 spaces (5157 sq. ft. net leasable) and the A-frame, 3 spaces (927 sq. ft. Net leasable). Allowing the subdivision of Lots C and D from Lots A and B, will leave Lots A and B without the parking required by the Code and render it a non-conforming use. This cannot be approved as presently proposed. 4. Mass, Bulk, Aesthetics and Incompatibility with the Neighborhood. Essential to an award of PUD benefits as well as Conditional Use approval is a finding of compatibility with the neighborhood. 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 and diminishing neighborhood quality. It exceeds the height limits in its zone and is not compatible architecturally, or with respect to its mass and scale, with neighboring properties. Its mass will block views looking towards Aspen Mountain. The site design provides virtually no open space since the site is almost entirely covered by the building and its placement, with hardly any setback, directly next to Benedict Commons, will shut out light and air from many residential units.7 Most importantly, the operational characteristics of this project are not accommodated by this small site. Circulation is neither efficient nor safe as incoming and outgoing vehicles need to cross the sidewalk and, as discussed in detail above, are likely to be parked across the sidewalk and line up onto the street during peak usage. Although the application says that pedestrian safety will be enhanced by the construction of new sidewalks, the parking garage use and the operational problems associated with it will render the sidewalks unsafe and frequently unusable. 5. Lack of Discernable Public Benefits to Justify Private PUD Benefits. The application seeks PUD designation so that underlying (0) office zone district requirements can be modified to accommodate the unique needs of this development, like greater lot coverage, floor area and height. Neighborhood compatibility of the proposed use and structure should be the paramount concern in 7 As ifto accentuate the deficiency of its design, the separately processed GMQS application for this project states that there is no room on the site for a trash area and its dumpster will be located on the adjacent property. City Council, City of Aspen c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner December 3, 2003 Page 7 of8 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. The PUD variations are sought for an additional floor of height and a/most 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). Based on the plans submitted, the gross square footage is about /6,000 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? 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 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. 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 also 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. 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 $12 million in sales of parking spaces with no corresponding public benefits. Its suggested community benefits are speculative, however, its negative impacts will be very real. City COWlcil, City of Aspen c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner December 3, 2003 Page 8 of8 We appreciate your consideration of our concerns and thank you for your time in reviewing this letter. Very truly yours, HERBERT S. KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: ~ /.' / ~</ "")\./>/ ~ - --". V - Herbert S. Klein Atlaclunents 700 E Hyman ccndo asso\OOJJJciDtr-l(hk1203-1).wpd Bowers &> Krager,lnc. RECEIVED on (J 6 7i1;;, October 1, 2003 Mr. Herbert S. Klein Herbert S. Klein & Associates 201 North Mill Street, Suite 203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 970 925 8700 fax 925 3977 RE: Proposed ParK PIaoo Parking Garage at 707 East Hyman in Aspen, Colorado 406Ihk.doc Dear Herb: \ Per your request, I haw reviewed the Park PIaoo Commercial ParKing Facility Appl ication to de- termine potential traffic impacls. Unfortunately, the application is completely lacking in informa- tion regarding traffic operations, and I am unable to offer any professional opinion based on the information conlained in the application. To provide any form of traffic review, the following information must be provided: 1. Anticipa1ed site trip generation for daily and peak hour trips 2. Existing street traffic volumes at peak times of operation 3. Level of Service analyses for entrarmlexit at peak periods 4. Average time from enlering the garage until the next car can enter the same elevator 5. Queue analysis of waiting vehicles during peak periods 6. ParKing summary of the number of spaca; provided for ~office US9IS and employ- ees of the garage Although the application provides some information on expected daily trips, it does not provide a complete unders1anding of the assumptions l.I9Sd to determine the anticipated daily trips. Both the assumptions and da1a to support the assunptions need to be reviev.ed. No peak hour trip generation has been provided, which is critical in determining both the CK"( : : : operations and queuing charac- teristics of the site. Furthermore, I would reoommend that all traffic analyses be completed with the assumption that one bey is designated for ingressand the dher bey is designated for egress. The proposal to hold exiting vehicles while allowing vehicles to en1er the garage will result in numerous operating prob- lems, including the likely polential that vehicles will need to leave the facility to rM<e room for entering vehicles. . . , . J EXHIBIT A 899 Logan Street, Suite 210 Denver, CO 8020)-)1)+ T()O))-t+b-2626 f(0))-t+b-0210 Mr. Herbert S. Klein Herbert S. Klein & Associates 406/hk.doc October 1, 2003 Page 2 Finally, the site plan should identify the queuing area for v.raiting vehicles to verify that vehicles v.raiting to enter the gaJage will not impact the sidewalk. wren this information becxxnes available from the applicant, I will be happy to review it. Without the additioral information, it is not pcssible to detennine the traffic impacls of this application, and the City of Aspen should not approve the proposal. PIea3e feel free to call me regarding this matter. Sil"109rely. 44~ Kathleen L. Krager, P.E., PTOE Transportation Engineer fax and mail ,/ . RECEIVED NQV ? l 2003 GWYNFYD CONSULTING, LLC Consultants in Acoustics and Presentation Technologies November 21, 2003 Mr. Herbert S. Klein Herbert S. Klein & Associates, p.e. 201 N. Mill Street, #203 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Opposition to Park Place Parking Garage Acoustic Review and Comments Dear Mr. Klein: We reviewed the Wyle Laboratories August 27, 2003 report tided "Summit Grand Parc - Parking Machine Noise" and Park Place Commercial Parking Facility design information. Our comments are as follows: 1. The Wyle Laboratories report measured noise levels within the garage area that were above the City of Aspen noise ordinance, if they were measured at the property line. Neither the report nor any other information we have reviewed provided an expected property line noise level, nor stated whether or not the garage noise would be attenuated to a level consistent with the requirements in the City of Aspen noise ordinance. . ' , 2. The Wyle Laboratories testing was conducted without any vehicles on the parking garage equipment We would expect the generated noise level to be higher when the parking garage equipment is operating in a loaded condition. 3. There is no information in the Wyle Laboratories report or the design information we were supplied with that identified that exact layout of the Summit Grand Parc facility, the type of equipment and how it compared to the proposed Park Place Parking Garage. Reviewing the manufacturer's information indicated that there are many variations on the layout and conEguraii'Ju3 [vi the ~-";i".)fgc. and- the eq~pr.u.wt The cor..ce:n is the variations in. the size and layout of the parking equipment, its mechanical characteristics (horse power, motor sizes, etc.). All of these factors can impact the resulting noise level from the proposed Park Place Parking Garage. 4, The Wyle Laboratories report noted that there was audible background street noise during testing. The presence of this street noise indicated that exterior noise was audible in the Summit Grand Parc garage. If the street noise were audible within the garage, we would expect that the Summit Grand Parc generated noise would be audible outside the garage. The path for the transmission of the garage equipment noise would be out through the garage doors to the exterior. Garage doors are typical1yof lightweight construction and poorly sealed, and therefore provide a minim.! level of sound isolation. ' , - . . EXHIBIT B 4 f 18012 E. LOYOLA PLACE. AURORA, COLORADO 80013 . PHONE: (303) 766-7100 . FAX: (303) 766-7104 I"' , . November 21, 2003 Page 2 5. The Wyle Laboratories report noted that testing was conducted while the " machine was operated in the exit and entrance cycles". It is unclear whether these tests included the opening and closing of the parking garage doors as a part of these "cycles". The opening and closing of the garage doors could be a significant source of noise at adjacent property lines. Our understanding is that these doors would be operated for each vehicle entering or leaving the parking garage. 6. The Wyle Laboratories report Figure 2 shows the measured spectral levels during their sound test. Tbis figure shows a noise level spike at 63 Hz. Tbis noise spike could be related to the garage parking equipment (electric motors, mechanical drives, etc.). Unfortunately, the report does not indicate the noise source. The data does show that this noise spike is present in the garage and lobby with little variation in the noise level. Due to the 10 dB differential between the noise spike and remaining noise spectrum, this noise spike would clearly stand out and be noticeable. Conclusions The Wyle Laboratories report does not appear to have been done with the intent of detprmining the exterior noise impact of the "Summit Grand Parc". It does not provide sufficient infonnation to detPrmining the resulting exterior property line noise levels. The lack of a comparison between the actual garage equipment for the existing Summit G=d Pare and the proposed Park Place Parking Garage make a comparison even more difficult The Wyle report indicates that there is noise generated by the parking garage with which to be concerned about; it does not address what the exterior noise impact from the parking garage would be or how it is to be mitigated to comply with the City of Aspen noise ordinance. To determine the expected noise impact of the proposed Park Place Parking Garage, additional detailed infonnation on the actual parking garage equipment would need to be supplied and a further defined sound test of similar parking facilities would need to be done to provide a baseline for comparison. It is our understanding, that the Park Place Parking Garage may be constructed with the understanding that all noise issues would need to be addressed before it would be permitted for use. Our experience is that remedial noise mitigation is typically 10 times more expensive than having addressed the noise mitigation requirements in the project design phase. There is also the possibility, that due to design constraints, remedial noise mitigation cannot be effectively implemented We recommend addressing noise mitigation issues in the project design, not as remedial fixes after the facility is built. Please call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Jeff Geiler, P.E. Principal/Acoustician rt t>'l"" Ave... pro;?o:ed Parking Garage Problems First and Foremost - City zoning laws are in place to preserve the quality of life in Aspen. In order to gain exemption from these regulations, a project must represent a substantial benefit to the public. This project provides no real guarantees of any true benefits to anyone other than the 2nd home Real Estate developers who will have yet another amenity for those that only live here 1 or 2 months out of the year. The project developers try to put a beneficial spin on this request for 3 separate exemptions by saying that they "envision" that the purchasers of these spaces will want to rent these spaces to the public. What happens if these space owners decide that they do not wish to do so in the future and also wish access to their cars after 12 midnight? This appears to be yet another endeavor to force the rich to do something that they may decide not to do and may embroil the City in a legal battle should they decide to keep their spaces sacrosanct as do the owners ofthe spaces near Little Annies Restaurant and the Weinerstube. The developers have tried to "tweak" this project over and over again to make it palatable to city officials but still cannot guarantee a substantial public benefit. City Impact - IN the past, our elected officials (Rachel Richards) have championed the "Auto Discencentive" program in Aspen for years. How does this project fit in with that philosophy? Aspen is a pedestrian town. This project will bring more cars through town making for more congestion and a less attractive experience for visitors. Recently, 2 council members both spoke out at a recent meeting about Aspen being "proactive environmentally". Without a comprehensive, well studied traffic management plan, how does the impact of this garage weigh upon that resolve? More parking spaces, more cars and no intelligent traffic flow overview will degrade the quality of life in this town yet again. Also, those people that utilize the Rio Grand parking facility now have an excuse to drive through town first to see if they can park closer to town. Failing that, they will have to drive back over to the Rio Grand lot. And how will a drunken tourist or local react when they cannot get their car out should the facility close at midnight? This area was zoned for office space for a reason as that is what will work in conjunction with the residentiai buildings already in place. Technical Problems - Before talking about traffic studies, has anyone involved with this project or have any council members actually taken a day to observe the traffic conditions on this section of Hyman or how traffic flows on adjacent streets may be affected? We are told by the developer that there will not be any que-jng. Once again, we are supposed to take that on faith. And what happens if this project does cause traffic problems? l-f71at else could this structure possibly be used for and what kind of legal battle would result from an attempt to correct this once built? To recap excerpts from the past Planning & Zoning: I) How many times has this project been tweaked by the developer to make it appear more palatable!' 2) How will actual covenants be installed to truly guarantee spaces available to the public beyond the 19 which only make up for those lost in this constructioni) :-\) ~rhat will the true load/unload time be in a sport.,; minded town and what impacts will this structure cause at this specific site!' 4) How will performance to a contractual agreement be monitored and who/how will enforcement require and at what expense to the City. .'J) What are the actual noise levels both interior and exterior associated with this structure. 6) What ,lre the potential impacts of such a facility located on this side of town during special events? 7) \Vhat legal battles may result should the owners decide they do not wish to rent their parking spaces out? 8) \l\Ihat expense will the City incur should it become necessary to suspend operations due to a m,~jor tratlic impact? 9) What impact will there be should the owners not wish to pursue a speciiic 10 or 12 midnight closing schedule in this, mostly residential area. 10) What impact will this create on pedestrian and bicycle tratlic in what is supposed to be a pedestrian friendly town? One close look at the propspectus will reveal a great many words like: intended; will be implemented; expectations; generally; should be sullicient; rates may increase; It is possible. It is clear that there are f<lr too many unanswered questions associated with this project. The potential negative impact on the town of Aspen as a whole is on a scale so large that it borders on the insane to proceed simply on the "visions" and "beliefs" that the developers have of what the future owners will want to do. November 25,2003 Aspen City Council 201 N. Mill Street Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Council Members: The proposed private condominium parking garage on Hyman Street would negatively impact the quality of life of Aspen residents for the benefit of a relatively few wealthy individuals living outside of town. The proposed site is surrounded by townhomes on two sides, an office building on one side and butts up against Benedict Commons, a quality affordable housing complex. This is not an appropriate site for a private condo parking garage. This block on Hyman Street is intersected by heavily trafficked Original Street (Highway 82) and Spring Street, with its bus routes and truck deliveries. This makes Hyman ill suited to accommodate more traffic, pollution, noise, and lights, (garage doors opening, garage lights on/off, automobile lights on.) Once the original developer removes his profit, the long-term sustainability of this private parking operation is questionable. Absentee ownership by as many as one hundred is virtually guaranteed by the nature of the proposal. This will present problems such as under funding of operational and maintenance expenses. This brings into question safety concerns regarding a large number of autos stacked in a heavily populated block in Aspen. The proposed project requires numerous variances from existing codes that have served Aspen well over the years. The lot is not zoned commercial. Height restrictions are 35 feet; this project requires 45 feet. Square footage exceeds lot size allowances. There is very little benefit from the proposal. Parking for the public mayor may not be available depending on the wishes of the owners of the parking spaces. The degrading of this Aspen neighborhood is not justified. This is the wrong project, in the wrong place. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted against this proposal. Thank you for your consideration. 708 East Hyman Street Aspen CO, 81611 LAW OFFICES FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS IN AsPEN COWRADO ATIORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J MYLER, P.C. . E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, p_e ' 106 SOUTH MILL STREET SUITE 202 ASPEN, COWRADO 81611 TN KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI FREILICH, LEITNER & CARLISLE ATIORNEYS AT LAW FACSIMILE (970) 920-4259 TELEPHONE (970) 920-1018 ROBERT H. FREILICH, p_e ;',l.. MARTIN L. LEITNER, p_e " RICHARD G. CARLISLE. p.e " S. MARK WHITE:U ROBIN A. KRAMER ,'"-"' TYSON SMITH. JASON M. DIVELBISS' ADMlTTWINCO' ADMlTTI'DINW.CA'.NV'.NC'R." December 2, 2003 RECFIVED Ute 0 J 2003 8U1LfH~~~~ ",-, '-"'I'"I'!If1JfNi Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Application of Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC for Park Place Commercial Parking Facility at 707 East Hyman (the "Application"). Honorable Helen Klanderud and Other Members of City Council: We represent Bell Mountain Residences Condominium Association (the "Association") in connection with the Application referenced above. The members of the Association own the Bell Mountain Residences Condominiums, which are located immediately to the south of, and across the alley from, the "Hannah-Dustin" building and the proposed parking structure (the "Parking Structure") which are the subject of the Application. For the reasons set forth below, the Bell Mountain Association opposes approval of the Application as currently submitted. A. Overview. The dimensional elements of the proposed PUD are not consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan ("AACP") or the residential nature of recent development in the neighborhood. Specifically, the following "variances" from the dimensional requirements of the "0" office zone district should not be adopted. The applicant seeks a 15-foot setback variance at the rear of the parking structure. As proposed, the building will be located on the lot line immediately adjacent to the alley which separates the proposed structure and the Bell Mountain Residences. Placement of the building on the lot line will degrade safety and convenient use of the alley. These concerns are discussed at greater length in Section B, below. FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen City Council December 2, 2003 Page 2 A ten-foot height variance is requested. On the side ofthe parking structure facing the Bell Mountain Residences, the building will present a solid fayade 35-feet high and 50 feet long. In contrast, the 0 zone district imposes a 25- foot height limitation. The applicant plans to make intense use of the Property. It proposes a floor area ratio of 1.29 to 1.0, far in excess of the maximum 0.75 to 1.0. FAR allowed in the 0 zone district. A FAR variance is allowed in the Office district, up to 1.0 to 1.0 upon special review, but only if the additional floor area is used for the provision of affordable housing. Nothing in the Aspen Land Use Code ("Code") or in the applicable master plan supports the approval of aFAR of 1.29 for this application. The applicant attempts to justify the variances requested above by suggesting thatthe parking structure will solve a longstanding problem in Aspen - the availability of short-term parking. In reality the application does not address this problem. The parking structure is designed to house 99 cars. Of this total, the applicant is willing to dedicate 19 to public use. The remaining 80 spaces will be used by wealthy individuals for long- and short-term storage of vehicles. As discussed in the attached letter from TDA Colorado, Inc. attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "TDA Letter"), approximately 23 cars now use the property for parking or vehicle storage. The applicant's willingness to provide 19 public spaces in the parking structure actually represents a decrease offour spaces from what currently exists. As discussed in Section 3, below, the "public benefits" offered by this proposal do not justify the requested variances and are not definite enough to be relied upon by the City. B. The Proposed Rear Yard Setback Variance Will Prevent Full Use of the Association's Garage and Drivewav. The variances requested in the Application are of immediate concern to the Association. The garage servicing the Bell Mountain Residences is accessed from the alley between Cooper Street and Hyman Avenue. As discussed in the TDA Letter, the zero rear-yard setback requested for the Parking Structure will have detrimental impacts on safety and congestion in the alley. Like most alleys in the Downtown area, this alley is used by vendors and others on a short-term basis. They park along the sides ofthe alley for periods oftime ranging from just a few minutes to several hours. Construction of the Parking Structure on the alley boundary line will limit the area available for this type of use If this project is approved, the effective driving surface ofthe alley will be reduced to an unsafe seven to eight feet when vendors and others are utilizing the alley. Prohibiting parking in the alley will not solve the problem. Strictly speaking, parking in alleys is already illegaL' t Aspen Municipal Code, S 24.04.020(b )(E)(I). Short-term parking is permitted by delivery vehicles qualified under Section 24.20.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code. FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen City Council December 2, 2003 Page 3 When cars are parked along the alley, drivers exiting the Bell Mountain Residences garage will be forced to execute a dangerous three-point left turn. Backing up in the alley and garage will create an even more dangerous situation. As currently designed, an emergency egress door at the back of the proposed Parking Structure opens onto the alley. This design creates an unsafe condition which should not be approved. Because no other structures located on the alley exist within the setback, motor vehicles will have to move to the left when traveling in the alley. This movement, combined with the reduction in sight lines caused by the intrusion of the building into the setback, will cause a condition which could endanger pedestrians, vehicles parked in the alley and personal property located close to the roadway. Ice and snow on the newly-paved drive will only exacerbate the situation. This problem has been identified as serious by a member of the Association who is also president of a major automobile insurance company. The applicanl has passed offlhe Association's concerns about the rear-yard setback as being of no consequence. As described above, this issue is of critical importance to the Association. We ask that you seriously consider denying the request for this variance. At a minimum the developer should be required to provide a study which demonstrates that traffic in the alley will be unaffected by the rear yard setback variance and that members of the Association will have continued use of their driveway without inconvenience if the Parking Structure is built as now proposed. C. A Floor Area Variance Is Not Warranted. To maximize its investment in the Parking Structure, the developer seeks a variance in the "external floor area ratio" which applies to its property from 0.75 to 1 to 1.3 to 1. When all subgrade space is included in the analysis, the Parking Structure will encompass the equivalent of 36,000 square feet of development. This equates to six square feet of use for each square foot of surface area on the site. The Parking Structure will put the site to intense use. The external floor area ratio permitted in the Office zone district is .75 to 1. It may be increased to I to 1 only by special review. If it is increased, "sixty (60) percent of the additional floor area must be approved for residential use restricted to affordable housing.'" No increase bevond I to I is allowed in the Office zone district. To avoid this restriction, the developer seeks to rezone the property as a PUD. , Aspen Land Use Code, S26.71O.l80(D)(1O) (emphasis supplied). FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen City Council December 2, 2003 Page 4 When determining the dimensional parameters of a PUD, the requirements of the underlying zone district are the baseline from which decisions should be made.3 Modifications of the dimensional parameters of the Office zone district should be allowed only if those parameters are compatible with existing development, do not exacerbate natural and man-made hazards and do not unreasonably impact "man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources.'''' The Association does not object to the creation of a PUD or use of the PUD review process in this case. It does, however, object to the dimensional parameters requested for this proposed PUD. As discussed above, the zero rear vard setback proposed for the Parking Structure unreasonably impacts the Bell Mountain. That "dimensional parameter" cannot be permitted. Similarly, the external floor area ratio requested for the project unreasonably impacts the surrounding area, including the Bell Mountain Residences. Intense use of the property for a six-floor parking facility will have substantial impacts to neighbors in terms of noise, traffic and air pollution. The developer has not demonstrated that the project adequately deals with these impacts. These concerns are magnified for members of the Association because the Parking Structure will be close to their properties, the structure presents a four-story wall to the alley and because the Bell Mountain Residences are located behind the Parking Structure where less noise-proofing will be installed. If the facility is to be used late at night, there is a real possibility that noise and fumes from the Parking Structure will disturb the sleep of members of the Association and their children. To finalize the rezoning to PUD as requested here, the City's official zone district map must be amended. Consideration of a number of factors is required to approve any such amendment including: Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.5 The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.6 3 Code, ~~ 26.445.040(C), 26.445.050(B). 4 Code, ~ 26.445.050(B)(1). 5 Code, Section 26.31O.040(C) 6 Code, Section 26.31 0.040(D) FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen City Council December 2, 2003 Page 5 Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.7 None of these factors are met here. It is clear that intense use of the property as a parking facility is incompatible with the neighborhood, including the residential projects located across the alley and across the street. Comparing the Parking Structure with the Aspen Athletic Club-Coates, Reid & Waldron building is inappropriate because that structure was built many years ago and does not reflect recent development of the area. Recent changes in the neighborhood have made the neighborhood more residential, not more commercial. The Parking Structure as proposed here is clearly incompatible with residential use. It is important to remember that the Bell Mountain Residences were approved by the City less than four years ago. Comparison with Benedict Commons is also inappropriate because that project was built as employee housing - a benefit which is unequivocally an integral goal of the community as expressed in the AACP. The provision of parking in the commercial core to the oublic may also be an integral goal ofthe commuuity. However, this Parking Structure does not meaningfully address that goal. D. The Parking Structure Does Not Helo Solve Parking Problems In Asoen. The developer argues that he is entitled to the variances discussed above because the proposal addresses a "significant community goal" - the provision of parking in the commercial core. The Application asserts that a 1986 study which focused on demand for short-term parking somehow supports his request to build a supply of long-term parking spaces. This represents a "logical disconnect" which has never been adequately addressed in the developer's Application, supplemental filings with staff, or in statements to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Joint Growth Management Commission. The developer is unwilling to provide the City reasonable assurances that the Parking Structure will be actually used by the public. The developer says that 19 of the 99 parking spaces will always be available for public use. Its traffic study assumes that "approximately 20% of the spaces would be used by part-time local residents to store their vehicles when out oftown," and that the remainder, 80%, "would be used on a daily basis by local residents, merchants, employees and visitors."g However, the developer is unwilling to commit to a plan which insures that these benefits are actually received by the public. The developer has asked the City to rely on representations made in the developer's Operations Prospectus for assurance that the project will provide substantial public 7 Code, Section 26.31 0.040(H) g Letter of Jeff Ream, Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig to Stan Clauson, dated August 28,2003, p. 2, last paragraph. FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen City Council December 2, 2003 Page 6 use. That document reads as a marketing tool, not as a promise to actually address public concerns. If the developer wishes to have the project approved for its public benefit, the promise of that benefit must be made concrete in a declaration of protective covenants or similar document recorded in the public record. In answers provided to date, the developer has said, essentially, that the City must rely on each unit owner's interest in maximizing his investment. "Each space owner will want to utilize the garage fully," said Mr. Fornell at the September 2, 2003 hearing.9 Because a space-owner will receive income only when the space is being rented, the theory goes, each such owner will demand that the space be rented as much as possible. The reality is that anyone who purchases a parking space for over $100,000 will demand that the space be available when he wants to use it. As with the vast majority of Aspen real property, the rental income stream does not support the purchase price of the unit. Onlv wealthv people who can afford not to receive rental income will be able to afford spaces in the Parking Structure. Only a mandatory program of sharing space with the public will insure that the public receives a meaningful benefit from the approval of this project. That approval must include substantial public use during busy times of the year, including "powder days" and the Fourth ofJuly. A mandatory program may be implemented only through covenants which "run with the land." The developer must provide a proposed set of such covenants to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its review and approval prior to approval by City Council. The developer's representative has complained that imposition of a mandatory program of sharing space with the public will unnecessarily fetter the owners' freedom in dealing with their property. to The covenants which are required here are no different in kind than employee housing deed restrictions which are routinely mandated for residential development. The City must take reasonable steps to secure for its residents and this neighborhood the benefits which have been promised by the developer. The Land Use Code allows the City to substantially modifY a zone district's dimensional parameters if a proposal advances important community goals, such as the provision of affordable housing. A variance may not granted, however, if receipt of the promised benefit is uncertain or speculative. This developer has not yet provided reasonable assurance that members ofthe public will be allowed to use the Parking Structure at times and in sufficient numbers to make a meaningful 9 Minutes of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sept. 2, 2003, p. 3, middle of second to last paragraph. 10 ld., p. 4-5. ) FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE Aspen City Council December 2, 2003 Page 7 contribution to the solution of Aspen's parking problem. Granting ofPUD approval is not warranted here. Sincerely, FREILICH, M C;'fh E. Michael Ho Table of Exhibits Exhibit A - TDA Letter EXHIBIT TDA I .. A Transportation Consultants COLORADO INC. December 1, 2003 Bell Mountain Residences Association c/o Freilich, Myler, Leitner & Carlisle 106 S. Mill St. #202 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Park Place Parking Facility, Traffic Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, As agreed, we have prepared this access and circulation opinion of the proposed Park Place Commercial Parking Facility near the Aspen commercial core. The site for the 99-space automated parking facility is a 60' x 100' portion (Lots C & D) of the Hannah-Dustin parcel situated between the Hannah-Dustin office building at the comer of Hyman and Spring Street and the Benedict Commons Condominiums, see Figure 1. A two-story A-frame structure with surface parking lots that abut the front and rear will be removed for the project. Vehicular access to the automated, mechanized parking facility would be via two garage door type entrances facing Hyman A venue. The rear of the structure is along the one-way alley (zero lot line) that runs from Original Street to Spring Street. A rear service door that would open into the alley is depicted on the applicant's plans. Our review addresses two areas of concern expressed with the present proposal. 1. Residents on the opposite side of the alley (Bell Mountain Condominiums) that access their below-grade parking from the alley anticipate problems with accessibility and normal operation of the 20-foot wide alley. 2. Others in the area that use Hyman A venue are concerned that motorists waiting their turn to enter one of the two enter/exit bays may queue out onto Hyman Avenue and interfere with normal traffic and pedestrian flow. Our assessment included a site visit and extended observation of alley operation on Thursday November 19th, plan review with Chris Bendon, City senior planner, and review of the project's traffic impact analysis 1 We also conducted a web search of similar existing automated parking facilities. Alley Operation Impact Existing Alley Operation The Block 105 alley serves the usual functions of an urban alley: access to parking, short-lerm loading/unloading/service, trash removal and access to utilities. I Letter to Stan Clauson, FeIsburg HoII & UlIevig, 8/28/03, 4p. 820 16th Street Mall. Suite 424 . Denver. Colorado 80202 . (303) 825-7107 . FAX: 825-6004 . E-Mail: TDAColo@aol.com Bell Mtn. Residences Assn. Page 2 December I, 2003 EHYMANAVE l ~ '" o ;0 Gi Z ,. ~ '" -; t; " z " a. <n <n E COOPER AVE .~ 25 F~et 50 I This mapldrawinglimage is a graphical repn:jsenlation of the features depleted 'and Is nol a legal representalfon. The accuracy mey change dependlngontheenlargemenlorreduclion. Copyright 2003 City of AsperJPltldn County Figure 1 Existing Alley 105 Access & Parking Conditions BeU Mtn. Residences Ann. Page 3 December 1, 2003 The subject A-frame lot has eight head-in parking positions (two of which are interior stacked spaces) accessed from the alley. The Hannah-Duston office has three on grounds parallel parking stalls along their alley building face. There is one parallel space on the Benedict site marked for Handicap parking. A 6-foot cedar security fence runs along the property line of the remainder of the condo site with an opening near Original Street for dumpster access. Around noontime all 12 spaces along the north side of the alley were occupied. There was some turnover of the A-frame spaces and the office spaces during the afternoon. The handicap space was vacant from about one o'clock through 4:00 PM. Along the south side of the alley the turf area along the Bell Mountain condos setback was used by a number of visitors, workers, residents and tradesmen through the afternoon. Observed were workers from the sandwich shop restaurant at the Cooper/Original comer, a delivery to the office building, a tradesman servicing a Bell Mountain residence, a couple taking dry cleaning into a Benedict Commons unit and an electrical contractor retrieving supplies from his truck. These parkers straddle the alley right of way staying clear of a line of young trees planted on the Bell Mountain property. This leaves an effective 12-foot driving lane for the occasional alley motorist. At no time did an unattended vehicle block the drive lane. The important short-term parallel parking operation that occurs along the Bell Mountain Condo frontage works well today for a variety of users because alley traffic can easily pass by these parked vehicles. Alley Operation with Project Placing a 50-foot long, 35-foot high structure along the alley right of way will cause disruption to the current alley operation. During construction of the project's four-level foundation and super structure there will likely be a construction easement and fenced area extending into the alley public way. This would be opposite the ramp entrance to Bell Mountain underground parking. It's not clear how vehicles will pass through and park along the alley with a construction encroachment or how Bell Mountain residents will access their garage. A building with the normall5-foot setback from the alley would not have this encroachment problem. Post-construction, the shear presence of the fonnidable parking garage wall will cause motorists to stay well to the left as they drive by. The presence of a service door that may swing open into the public travelway at any time will induce some motorists to swing well left of the wall. If a vehicle were parked along the south side opposite the proposed structure, as is the case frequently, the comfortable travelway is reduced to seven or eight feet. This leaves little buffer for a passing vehicle. Also, if a short-term vehicle were parked within five feet of the Bell Mountain ramp intersection a resident exiting the ramp would have to perform a deliberate three-point turn (one backing maneuver) to safely clear the parked vehicle and the wall. Any maneuver that requires backing in tight quarters involves a higher incidence of accidents, Suggested Alley Mitigation We understand the applicant will pave the current gravel surface alley as part of the project. Accordingly, the applicant's site improvement plans should be expanded to include the full width of the alley and existing features along the south side of the alley. We suggest the improved alley design include a flared connection to the Bell Mountain Condo concrete ramp to discourage parking close to the ramp. As an added measure, shrubbery or other Bell Mtn. Residences Assn. Page 4 December I, 2003 landscape material should be placed for ten feet on either side of the ramp to discourage short-term parking close to the ramp. Hyman Avenue Traffic Flow Existing On-site Parking Currently, the Hyman yard frontage of the A-frame site is used for daily parking and vehicle storage. Cars are parked head-in along the east and west boundaries and straight ahead, three abreast and two deep off Hyman Avenue. About 15 cars can park off street in this close-knit fashion. Presumably, these 15 vehicles and the eight in the rear will be parked in the planned garage. The current low number of cars parked and the low rate of turnover produces little if any traffic problem to Hyman Avenue. Planned Parking Operation The applicant's traffic study discussion on queuing at the Hyman Avenue entrance/exit roll up doors states that the maximum queue at either door would be two vehicles each for a total of four on-site vehicles waiting to be processed. The report assumes a 90-second cycle for processing entering vehicles. On this basis it states that there will be no off-site queuing even under the busiest conditions (concurrent 40 entering, 40 exiting per hour). A report on the new Garden Street (Hoboken NJ) Automated Parking Garage that employs the newest Robotic Parking MAPS automated system states a retrieval time (measured from the time a patron's car is located to the time the car and pallet reach the exit bay) to be I Yz to two minutes. Accordingly, the cycle time (interval between successive cars exiting a bay) would easily be closer to three minutes when the time added for a driver to enter the bay, start their car and clear the area is factored in with the vehicle retrieval time. If actual cycle times approach three minutes the resulting queues could extend onto Hyman A venue and impede traffic flow. The Hoboken Garage is a monthly parking garage for local residents and uses E-Z pass detection (not cash) to activate door openings and vehicle retrieval. The Aspen proposal will serve short-term public users as well as daily and monthly users on a cash basis. This varied market will no doubt produce some familiarity problems and delays not experienced at the Hoboken facility. Hyman Avenue Congestion Mitigation We believe the potential for waiting vehicles queuing onto Hyman A venue at busy times is greater than represented to date. More information on the actual vehicle retrieval and vehicle entering operation and system reliability of this particular installation should be gathered, presented and made available by the applicant. If the informed conclusion is that queuing onto Hyman A venue may well be a recurring problem appropriate mitigation measures should be offered. Bell Mtn. Residences Assn. Page 5 December 1, 2003 I trust these opinions of the current Park Place Commercial Parking proposal will be useful in your ongoing discussions with the City and the applicant. If we can be of further assistance please give me a call. Sincerely, TDA Colorado, Inc. ~ David D. Leahy, PE Principal Page 1 of 1 From: ZGXC@aol.com Date: Fri, 14 Noy 200308:57:49 EST Subject: Chris, sorry for the first letter, i hit "send all" in error. corrected letter To: chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6024 X-MaiIScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MaiIScanner: Found to be clean Dear Sir. My name is Robert Baum. I live at 704 E. Hyman Ave. I have lived in Aspen since 1989. I pay taxes in Aspen and I vote in Aspen. I began coming to Aspen in 1964. It was a wonderful community then and, in some ways, it is still great today. I sort of miss the esprit that the earlier Aspen had I am greatly concerned about the issue of a 99 car garage on E. Hyman Ave. I feel that the traffic flow and the car emissions, will be unhealthy and increased the already large amounts of accidents that we have in that area every year. Though this area is zoned commercial and residential, the building of a garage on these lots is unwarrented. I feel there is adequate parking in the public garage that has been built with public monies and as a voting taxpayer, we should do everything to increase the cash-flow of the public facilities and payoff our debts. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Robert Baum file://C:\DOCUME-I \chrisb\LOCALS-I \Temp\eudB.htm 11/14/2003 APPLICATION Park Place - Commercial ParkingF acility 15 September 2003 Applicant: Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC Location: 707 East Hyman Avenue in Aspen (PID# 2737-182-27-001) Zone District: Office District A Growth Management Application for Commercial and Office Development Represented by: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC 200 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-2323 15 September 2003 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning. Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management Chris Bendon, Senior Long-Range Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 FAX: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL: clauson@scaplanning.com WEB: www.scaplanning.com Re: Request for GMQS Allocation of Commercial Square Footage for the Park Place Parking Facility Dear Community Development Staff: On behalf of Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC, we are writing to request that the City of Aspen conduct the necessary reviews to provide a GMQS allocation of commercial square footage for the Park Place Commercial Parking Facility, for the property described as Lots C and D of Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen, located on East Hyman Avenue between Spring Street and Original Street. The site currently contains an A-frame structure housing office uses. That structure bas an existing commercial net leasable of927 s.f.. The Park Place Parking Facility is a rack- storage facility, without muhiple floors. Our analysis was reviewed with the Community Development Zoning officer and determined that the proposed facility would have a commercial net leasable component of approximately 4,836 s.t: The additional commercial net leasable would therefore be 3,909 s.f. Since we are currently in the review process, and minor changes may be dictated by that process, we are requesting a commercial net leasable allocation of 4,000 s.f., with the provision that the exact allocation would be determined as part of the final PUD process for this facility. This application is intended to supplement our earlier application for Conditional PUD approval and other related approvals for Park Place, along with subdivision of Lots A and B from Lots C and D. The PUD is intended to provide for the redevelopment of Lots C and D as an automated commercial parking facility that will entail the use of mechanical elevators and platforms to store cars in designated compartments. The structure will accommodate 99 vehicles total. It will also contain a small office space and two (2) deed restricted affordable housing units with a total of four (4) bedrooms. It is understood that this further application is submitted only for the GMQS allotment of commercial square footage. Any approvals granting the requested allocation of commercial square footage through the GMQS process will be contingent on the parking facility receiving approval through the PUD and Conditional Use process. However, PUD approvals relating to the subdivision request will not be contingent upon this subsequent GMQS review. PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CUENTS Chris Bendon, Aspen Community Development Department 15 September 2003 Page 2 This project has previously gone through Sketch Plan Review pursuant to Section 26.304.060 B2 of the Aspen Land Use Code on 21 October 2002, at which time the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council had an opportunity to preview the project and provide comments. It is also in the process of being heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission fur its Conditional PUD and related approvals. Several supplementary reports recently provided to the P&Z, but not in the original application, are provided as appendices to this application. These include a traffic study and noise analysis. The 1986 Aspen/Pitkin County Transitlfrans,portation Development Plan which supports parking development in this area, has not been included here. Please refer to the Conditional PUD application fur this document. The proposed Park Place Commercial Parking Facility will bring the subject property into compatibility with the mixed use development that has occurred in the neighborhood The property is currently under-utiIized and without streetscape amenities along Hyman Avenue. Moreover, sur1iIce parking on the property adds a chaotic appearance to the area. The proposed fuciIity would correct these issues, while the entire downtown core would benefit from additional parking in this location. The parking fuciIity will reduce demand for the limited on-street parking in Aspen and will compensate for employee generation by incorporating two affordable rentaI units. We look furward to an opportunity to present this application, which we believe will enhance the downtown Aspen experience fur tourists and residents alike. We remain ready to answer any questions that you or the review boards may have regarding the application. Very truly yours, Stan Ia:uson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Attachments: A Land Use Application Form, Dimensional Requirements Form, Project Overview, and Standards Report B. Traffic Study, prepared by FeIsburg, Holt & UIlevig C. Noise Analysis, prepared by Wyle Laboratories D. Vicinity Map E. Property Survey F. ArchitecturaI Plans and Elevations G. Landscape Plan H. Architectural Rendering I. Letter of Authorization J. Legal DescriptionlProof of Ownership K. Pre-application Conference Summary, dated 3 June 2003 PRoJeCT: lAND USE APPlICATION A TT ACHMENT A APPLICANT: Name: Park PIace-comU&;n;ial P . Fac' Location: 707 East H Avenue; Lots C & D, Block 105, Townsite dieate street address, lot & block number, I desc" where a . te Name: John Coo , Address: 402 MidJand Avenue, Phone #: 970379-3434 Partner; H Avenue Ho CO 816Il LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC Address: 200 East Main S!reet, A<men. CO 8161 I Phone #: 970 925-2323 TYPe OF ApPLICATION: o Conditional Use o Special Review o Design Review Appeal ~ GMQS Allotment :=! GMQS Exemption =:J ESA - 8040 GreenIine, Stream Margin, HaIJam Lake Bluff, Mountain View Plane ] Lot Split ] LotLineAdjustmern Iease check an that apply): o CODcq>tuaI PUD o Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) o Conceptual SPA o Final SPA(& SPA Amendment) o Subdivision o Subdivision Exemption (includes condominiumization) o CODcq>tuaI Historic Devt. o FinalHistoricDevelopmem o Minor Historic Devt. o Historic Demolition o Historic Designation o Small Lodge Conversion! Expansion o TemponuyUse o Text/Map Amendment o Other: )osTING CoNDITIONS: . tion of . . , uses, vious vaIs, etc.) E " ro consists of Lots A, B, C, & D; Townsite Block 105. Lots A & B contain an office Known as the Hannah-Dustin B . Lots C & D contain an A-fuune structure in office use and surfBce roPOsAl: . ion of sed lISeS, modi1ications, etc.) Lots A & B would be subdivided from Lots C & D. Lots C & D would be developed as a rack-storage commercial parking file" . ve you attached the follOwing? Pre-Application Confurence SlIDllIlary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreemem Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards fur Your Application FEES DuE: $ 2.520.00 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Park Place - Commercial Parking Facility Applicant: John Cooper, Managing Parlner; Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC Location: 707 East Hyman Avenue; Lots C & D, Block 105, Aspen Townsite Zone District: Office (0) Lot Size: Lots A, B, C, and D ~ 12.000 s.f. to be subdivided into 2 lots of 6,000 s.f. each Lot Area: Lots C & D = 6,000 SQ. ft. (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Number of residential units: Number of bedrooms: Existing: 927 sf. Existing: .J2 Existing: .J2 Proposed: 4.836 s.f. Proposed:-1 Proposed:~ Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Principal bldg. height: Access. bldg. height: On-Site parking: % Site coverage: % Open Space: Front Setback: Rear Setback: Combined FIR: Side Setback: Side Setback: Combinep Sides: Existing: 927 sf. Existing: 20 ft. Existing: N/A Existing: 20-30 Existing: N/ A Existing: N/A Existing: 10ft. Existing: 15ft. Existing: 25ft. Existing: 5ft. Existing: 5ft. Existing: 10ft. Allowable: 6.000s.f. Allowable: 25ft. Allowable: 21ft. Required: 6 Required: N/A Required: N/A Required: 1 Oft. Required: 15ft. Required: 25 ft. Required: 5ft. Required: 5ft. Required: 10ft. Proposed: 7.773s.f. Proposed: 35 ft. Proposed: 21ft. Proposed: 99 Proposed: NIA Proposed: N/A Proposed: 6.5 ft. Proposed: Oft. Proposed: 6.5 ft. Proposed:...ffL Proposed: -1ft. Proposed: 8ft. Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Parking: areas encroach in setbacks and on City prooertv. Variations requested: Floor area. height. front setback. rear setback. and side yard setbacks. Project Overview Park Place is a project that will address an essential need for off-street parking in Aspen's commercial core. The Rio Grande parking garage is often full, while other off-street parking in the business district is limited to private lots or spaces associated with commercial buildings. It is evident that parking still remains an issue in Aspen today. Park Place is intended to address this issue and offer some relief for the current downtown parking situation. As part of a 1986 study, the City adopted a plan to alleviate on-street parking by constructing various facilities that would provide parking and would allow easy access to Aspen's commercial core. The Rio Grande parking garage was built as a result ofthat plan. Although intended as a comprehensive solution with several components, the remaining aspects of that plan were never realized, including the construction of a parking garage within the block surrounded by Cooper, Spring, Hyman, and Original. The proposed Park Place-Commercial Parking Facility is located within this designated block. Park Place will make 99 parking spaces available near Aspen's commercial core and within walking distance to the Silver Queen Gondola. The facility will be a state-of-the- art fucility that will use an automated vertical lift to stack vehicles within an enclosed grid. This system will enable Park Place to achieve the most efficient use of space on a modest sized property. Each space will be available for purchase, making parking available to the owner whenever it is needed. When that space is not utilized, it will become available and rented to the public. Not only will this help to satisfy the parking needs oflocal business workers and long term visitors, but it will relieve on-street parking congestion in the city limits. As demonstrated in the following GMQS application, Park Place will provide an essential community benefit. The structure will acconnnodate two deed restricted residential units, with a total of four bedrooms, situated along the streetscape to emphasize the residential components of the surrounding area. The project will also provide a sidewalk along the front of the property, complete with full landscaping and ornamental tree plantings. This will alleviate a current gap in the pedestrian infrastructure, which will integrate the project as part ofthe neighborhood and create cohesiveness. Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 1 Land Use Code Standard Report Offered below are responses to relevant standards as identified in the Land Use Code: 1. Resoonses to Section 26.480.080 (0 (1) Develooment allotment and auuljcation urocedures a. How the proposed development shall be connected to the public water system, including information on main size and pressure; the excess capacity available in the public water system; the location of the nearest main; and the estimated water demand of the proposed development. Response: The proposed development will connect with the city water system via Hyman Avenue, which according to the City of Aspen Water Department is operating at a pressure of approximately 70 PSI This is well above the typically required 35 PSIfor development in the area. The Water Department did not anticipate a problem providing the required water supply to the Park Place project, as the daily demand would be generatedfrom the residential units only and a public restroom available to patrons and employees. b. How the proposed development shall be connected to the public sewage treatment system; the access capacity available in the public sewage treatment system; the nearest location to the building site of a trunk or connecting sewer line; and the expected sewage treatment demand of the proposed development. Response: Park Place will be connected to the public sewage system located along Hyman Avenue. The applicant will pay any necessary connection fees associated with the proposed development. The structure will contain two residential units, with a total offour bathrooms and two kitchens, along with a public rest room serving the office facility. Additionally, drainage from parked vehicles will be accommodated with appropriate oil and silt separation. This demand can adequately be accommodated by the existing City of Aspen sewage system. c. The type of drainage system proposed to handle, sur1iIce, underground and runoffwaters from the proposed development, and the effect of the development on historic drainage patterns. Response: The Park Place facility will provide drywell drainage systems for building and surface run-off in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineering Department. The building will have a flat roof and cover the greater part of the lot, with no significant effect on drainage patterns in the area. d. The type offire protection systems to be used (such as hydrants, sprinkIers, wet standpipes, etc.); and the distance to the nearest fire station and its average response time). Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 2 Response: Park Place will be located less than four blocks from the nearest fire station, which means that average response time in case of an emergency will be almost instantaneous. The nearestfire hydrant is located at Hyman Avenue and Spring Street, which is less than 100 feet from the proposed Park Place facility. Internal fire suppression systems will be provided as required by the NFP A and the City Fire Marshall. Standpipes will be provided on site. Constru!:tion will be subject to more stringent 3-Hour fire ratings. The interior and exterior walls of the parking structure will be fire proof to meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and a fire wall will be placed between the parking area and the residential units. An emergency generator will be installed as part of the system to protect against electrical failure. Approved sprinkler systems, illumination systems, evacuation/roof access, hose bibs, and alarms will be implemented and installed to the satisfaction of the Aspen Fire Protection District. Appropriate ingress/egress will be providedfor both residential units as required by the Uniform Building Code. e. The total development area of the proposed development, the type of housing development proposed; total number of units and bedrooms, including employee housing; and a tabular analysis outlining the proposed development's compliance with the dimensional and use requirements of this title. Response: The development will include a Category 1, one bedroom rental unit as well as a Category 3, three bedroom rental unit. The dimensional requirements of the units meet the standards of the PUD application submittedfor this development. f. The estimated traffic count increase on adjacent streets resulting from the proposed development; and description of the type and condition of roads to serve the proposed development; the total number of vehicles expected to use or be stationed in such development; the hours of principal daily use on adjacent roads; the on- and off-street parking to be supplied to the proposed development; location of alternate transit (bus route, bike paths, etc.); any automobile disincentive techniques incorporated in the proposed development; whether roads or parking areas will be paved; and methods to be used fur snow and ice removal on streets and parking lots. Response: It is important to understand that a parking facility is not considered a traffic generator, considering people do nat designate a parkingfacility as a point of destination. Traffic generation for the Park Place facility will only result from the affordoble housing components of the project. The total trlflJic generation is estimated to be less than 5 trips per day per residential unit, which is actually less than is generated by the offu:e space that currently occupies the lot. Trips will be reduced further if these residential units are occupied by employees of Park Place. A trlflJic analysis has been appended to this application. Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 3 g. The method by which affordable housing will be provided, in conformance with the provisions of the Aspen/Pitkin County Affurdable Housing Guidelines, and a description of the type and amount of housing to be provided. Response: Affordable housing will be provided on site and situated along the streetscape to enhance the residential aspects of the neighborhood As mentioned above, the Park Place development will include a Category 1, one bedroom rental unit as well as a Category 3, three bedroom rental unit. At least one unit is intended for occupancy by employees of Park Place. ResDonse to Section 26.470.100 Growth Manallement Scorinll Criteria- Commercial and office develoDment la Criteria. A development application requesting development allotments for commercial or office development shall be assigned points by the Growth Management Commission pursuant to the following standards and point schedules: 1. Quality of design (maximum eighteen (18) points). Each development shaII be rated based on the exterior quality of its buiWings and the quality of its site design, and assigned points according to the fuIlowing ~andards and considerations: o - A totally deficient design I - A major design flaw 2 - An acceptable (but standard) design; or 3 - An excellent design The fuIlowing features shall be rated accordingly: a. Architectural desi~n (maximum three (3) points). Considering the compatibility of the proposed development (in terms of scale, siting, massing, height, and building materials) with existing, neighborhood developments. Response: The proposed Park Place facility was designed to enhance the aesthetic qualities of the neighborhaod by incorporating modern architectural features with a variety of materials to compliment existing development of the area. The office and residential units will be built along thefGfade of the building to enhancing the mixed uses that already exist in the neighborhood Since the utility components of the Park Place facility will be almost entirely hidden from the streetscape, a score of 3 is requested b. Site desilm (maximum three (3) points). Considering the quality, character, and appropriateness of the proposed layout, landscaping, and open space areas, the amount of site coverage by buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation, including access fur service, increased safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage areas. Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 4 Response: The space requiredfor the parkingfacility allowed no additional square footage for open space. However, the property will be greatly improved by adding a sidewalk with landscaping (including cottonwood trees) along Hyman Avenue. All utilities will be placed underground and access will be provided from either Hyman Avenue of the rear alley. Snow storage may be accommodated on the adjacent property, which will be formalized in an access agreement. The applicant would request a score of 2 for this section. c. Energv conservation (maximum three (3) points). Considering the use of passive and/or active energy conservation techniques in the constroction and operation of the proposed development, including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient wood burning devices; and the proposed development's location with regard to the potential fur solar gain to result in energy conservation. Response: The northern orientation of the site does readily lend itself to solar utilization. The residential units will be designed to comply with the Aspen/Pitkin County EffICient Building program and will incorporate efficient low flow fIXtures, lighting, heating systems, as well as energy efficient glazing and insulation systems. The applicant requests a score of 2. d. Amenities (maximum three (3) ooints). Considering the provision of usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways, beuches, bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other common areas for users of the proposed development. Respanse: As mentioned previously, the applicant is committed to incorporate a sidewalk along Hyman Avenue. Pedestrian safity will be improved and the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood will be enhanced with the incorporation of a sidewolk incorporating landscaping and tree plantings. A score of 3 is recommended since the propased development will result in a significant visual enhancement of the area. e. Visual impact (maximum three (3) points). Considering the scale and location of the building(s) in the proposed development to prevent infringement on designated scenic viewplanes. Respanse: The previously submitted PUD application for Park Place requests a height variance to 35 fiet for the parking structure, which will be similar to that of the adjacent Benedict Commons building. The residential units situated along Hyman Avenue will comply with the City's height limitation of 27 feet. f. Trash and utility access areas (maximum three (3) points). Considering the extent to which required trash and utility access areas are screened from public view; are sized to meet the needs of the proposed development and to provide for public utility placement; can be easily accessed; allow trash bins to be moved by Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 5 service personnel, provide users with recycling bins, and provide enclosed trash bins, trash compaction or other unique measures. Response: Most of the trash generated from Park Place will be associated with the two proposed residential units and therefore the need for trash services will be minimal. The applicant is willing to provide an easement for the placement of a Park Place dumpster on the adjacent Hannah Dustin building site. A score of 2 is requested for this section. 2. Availability of public facilities and services (maximum ten (10) points). Each development application shall be rated on the basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by the assigning points according to the following standards and considerations: o - Proposed development requires the provision of new public facilities and services at increased public expense; I - Proposed development may by handled by existing public facilities and services, or any public facility or service improvement made by the applicant beneftts the proposed development only, and not the area in general; or 2 - Proposed development improves the availability of public facilities and services in the area without increased, undue public expense. In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. a. Water supoly/flre orotection (maximum two (2) points). Considering the ability of the water supply system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any water system extension or treatment plant or other fuciIity upgrading required to serve the proposed development. Fire protection facilities and services shall also be reviewed, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide services according to established response time without necessary of upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity fur providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the proposed development. Response: The existing water supply for the property isfeed by a main on Hyman Avenue, which will provide adequate supply for the project. The current pressure at this location is 75 PSI b. Sanitarv sewer (maximum two (2) points). Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development and the appIicant's commitment to install any sanitary system extension or treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. Response: The project will be cOlUlected to the City of Aspen sewer system. Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 6 c. Public transportation/roads (maximum two (2) voints). Considering the ability of the proposed development to be served by existing public transit routes. The review shall also consider the capacity of major streets to serve the proposed development without substantially altering existing automobile and pedestrian traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems, overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network and consider the applicant's commitment to install the necessary road system improvements to serve the iucreased usage attributable to the proposed development. Response: The Park Place development will be served by Hyman Avenue, which can adequately accommodate the users of the parkingfacility. It has been cited in a City of Aspen parking analysis, that vehicles have been observed to travel up to four times the minimum length of a trip in a prolonged effort to find available parking space. It was estimated that during peak hours, half the number of cars traveling on the street in Aspen are searchingfor parking. More readily available parking can reduce traffic by reducing the number of cars that are roaming the streets in search of on-street parking spaces. The additional parking amenities will be provided to public at absolutely na cost to the City of Aspen. The applicant requests a score of 2. d. Storm d:raina1!e (maximum two (2) points). Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, the review shall consider the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. Response: The existing drainage on the site will not be negatively affected in any w~. Additional drainage intakes will be constructed in accordance with the requirements and standards of the City of Aspen Engineering Department. The applicant requests a score of2. e. Parkin!! (maximum two (2) points). Considering the provisions of parking spaces to meet the commercial, oftke, and/or residential needs of the proposed development as required by Chapter 26.515, and considering the design of the parking spaces with respect to their visual impact, amount of paved surfuce, convenience, and safety. Response: The Park Place porkingfacility will accommodate 99 vehicles, including thase associated with the residential units and offICe spoce. This will serve a4jacent uses and those internal to the project while, at the same time, provide additional parking opportunities for businesses, residents, and visitors in the Commercial Core. A score of 2 is suggested for this section. 3. Provision ofaffordabIe housing (maximum fifteen (15) points). Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 7 a. General. Each development application shall be assigned points for the provisions of housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and the provisions ofthe Alfurdable Housing Guidelines. b. Assignment of points. Points shall be assigned as follows: (I) Zero (0) to sixty (60) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development: One (I) point for each six (6) percent housed; (2) Sixty-one (61) to one hundred (100) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development: Ten (10) points fur the first sixty (60) percent housed, plus one (I) point fur each additional eight (8) percent housed. Response: The employment generated by this proposed development is about 5 year- round FTE personnel. The proposed residential units include a total of 4 bedrooms thus accommodating 4 people. The applicant should be awarded 12 points for this section. 4. Bonus Points (maximum four (4) points). Bonus points may be assigned when it is determined that a proposed development has not only met the substantive standards of Sections 26.470.100 (A) through (C), but has also exceeded the provisions of these Sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition. An award of additional bonus points shall not exceed ten (100 percent of the total points awarded under Section 26.470.100 (A) through (C). Response: No points are requestedfor this section. Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 8 A TT ACHMENT B HOLT & UllEVIG engineering paths to transportation solutions August28,2003 Mr. Stan Clauson, AICP, ALSA Stan Clauson Associates, LLC 200E. Main Street Aspen CO 81611 RE: Traffic Analysis Park Place Parking Garage FHU Reference No. 03-169 Dear Mr. Clauson: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig has prepared this letter to summarize the traffic impacts associated with the proposed 99-space Park Place Commercial Parking Facility (Park Place garage) to be located at 707 East Hyman Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. This letter summarizes the existing land use and traffic impacts associated with the small office building and parking area currently on the site. the existing traffic volumes on Hyman Avenue in the vicinity of the site, the number of trips forecasted for the proposed garage, and the traffic impacts to the adjacent streets associated with those trips. Existing Land Use Currently, the site consists of a 927 square foot A-frame office building and small surface parking lot that can accommodate approximately 15 vehicles. On a typical day, this lot is used to capacity. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Sixth Edition was used to forecast the existing daily and peak hour trips associated with the office building. The existing parking lot trips were estimated based on information provided by the City of Aspen for the Rio Grande Parking Garage. In that garage during peak times of the year, each space is used approximately 1.5 each day, with the peak demand occurring between 11 AM and 2 PM, which is outside of the morning and afternoon peak hours of adjacent street traffic (one hour between 7 and 9 AM and 4 and 6 PM). Since traffic impacts are typically measured during the peak hour of street traffic, it was estimated that approximately 15 percent of the total daily traffic would occur during those morning and afternoon peak periods. These characteristics were applied to the existing surface lot on the site. Table 1 shows the number of daily and peak hour trips currently associated with the site. As the table indicates, the existing land uses on the site generate approximately 105 daily trips, 12 AM peak hour trips, and 12 PM peak hour trips. 303.72 Ll440 fax 303.721.0832 fhu@fhueng.com Greenwood Corporate Plaza 7951 E. Map1ewood Ave. Ste. 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 August28,2003 Mr. Stan Clauson Page 2 Table 1 Existing Trips Generated by the Site Existing Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes on East Hyman Avenue in the vicinity of the site were obtained from the City. Summer counts were conduced in 1997 and winter counts were conducted in 1994. These counts were factored to 2003 conditions based on the traffic growth factor calculated by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for Original Street (SH 82) immediately east of the site. Based on this factor, Hyman Avenue currently experiences approximately 3,500 vehicles per day (vpd) in the summer and approximately 2,300 vpd during winter. The summer volume on Hyman is1,700 to 1,900 vpd lower than the summer volume on either Cooper Avenue (4,900 vpd) or Hopkins Avenue (4,700), one block north and south of the site, respectively, and is approximately 3,000 vpd lower than the volume on Durant Avenue (6,500 vpd), two blocks north of the site. All four streets appear to have similar mixes of commercial and residential land use. Thus, it appears that Hyman currently experiences traffic volumes that are somewhat lower that the typical volumes on other local streets in the downtown area. Proposed Land Use As proposed, the site would be developed as a 99-space garage, with two affordable housing units. The garage is consistent with the land use identified for the site in the Aspen/Pitkin County TransitfTransportation Development Program, 1986-2000 (Leigh, Scott & Cleary, 1986), which identified a 300-space parking garage for the site. To maximize space usage, a mechanical system would be used to park cars. Drivers would park their car on one of two mechanical lifts, exit the car, and the lift would move the car into an available spot. Table 2 summarizes the trip forecast with the proposed land uses. ITE Trio Generation. 6th edition was used to forecast trips associated with the affordable housing. As for the garage, based on our understanding of the operation, all of the garage spaces would be available for purchase or long-term rental by local residents. It was assumed that approximately 20 percent of the spaces would be used by part-time local residents to store their vehicles when out of town and thus would generally be unavailable for use on a daily basis. The remaining 80 percent (80 spaces) would be used on a daily basis by local residents, merchants, employees, and visitors. These daily spaces would be in a manner similar to the Rio Grande garage; i.e., each space used approximately 1.5 time each day, with approximately 15 percent of the daily demand occurring during the morning and afternoon peak hours of the adjacent streets. Based on these August 28, 2003 Mr. Stan Clauson Page 3 assumptions, the proposed land uses would generate approximately 250 daily trips. 37 AM peak hour trips, and 37 PM peak hour trips. Table 2 Proposed Park Place Trip Generation 1 36 37 Traffic Impacts Table 3 summarizes the net trips generated by construction of the Park Place Garage. These trips represent the trips generated by the garage, minus the existing trips from the site. The total represents the new trips that would be added to Hyman Street. However, it should be noted that these trips are not new trips to the downtown Aspen area, but rather represent existing traffic that currently uses other parking locations. In fact, construction of the garage may result in a minor reduction in overall traffic in the downtown area, because some of the vehicles that would use the garage currently circle the area in search of on-street parking. With the new facility, these vehicles would drive directly to the lot and be removed from circulation. Table 3 Net Trip Generation from the Park Place Site As the table indicates, Hyman Street in the vicinity of the site would experience approximately 145 additional daily trips as a result of the Park Place Garage. This represents a three percent increase over the existing daily traffic volume on that block. The total daily traffic volume of 3,645 vpd on Hyman Street would still be approximately 1,250 vpd less than the daily volume on Cooper Avenue and 1,050 vpd less than the daily volume Hopkins Avenue, one block north and south of the site, respectively. Therefore, the parking garage would not change Hyman Street's character as a lower volume local street in downtown Aspen. August 28, 2003 Mr. Stan Clauson Page 4 Queuing The estimated total time required to park each car using the lift system would be approximately 90 seconds (from the time the vehicle drives onto the lift to the time the lift returns for the next vehicle); thus, with two lifts a total of 80 vehicles could be parked each hour (3600 seconds/hour / 90 seconds/vehicle. 2 lifts = 80 vehicles/hour). A waiting area with room for four vehicles would be provided on the site for vehicles entering the garage and waiting for the lift. To minimize queuing, these entering vehicles would be given priority with the lifts, and drivers would pay upon exiting. Based on projected peak period arrival rates and the lift processing time, during the morning and evening peak hours of adjacent street traffic the maximum queue at the lifts would be two vehicles, which would be contained within the four-car storage area. During the busiest hour of the day (mid-day peak) during the busiest time of year, it is estimated that a maximum of half of the daily spaces (40 spaces) would turn-over (40 trips in, 40 trips out). During these periods, the maximum queue would be 4 vehicles, which also would be contained within the site. Conclusions Based on the results of the analysis, the proposed Park Place garage would generate approximately 145 net daily trips from the site. This represents a three percent increase over existing daily traffic volumes on that block of Hyman Avenue, but still would result in total daily traffic volumes there that are significantly lower than the adjacent local streets. The garage could also result in a lowering of overall downtown Aspen traffic by reducing the number of vehicles circulating for on-street parking spaces. Peak period queuing by vehicles entering the site would be contained within the waiting area provided on site. I trust this information is sufficient for you to make an informed decision on traffic impacts associated with the project. If you have any further questions, please call. Sincerely ULLEVIG Je , P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer Au~ 27 03 11:01p Gar~ Ehrlich MIDAMERICAN ELEV 703-534-2790 A TT ACHMENT C 08/28/2003 11:13 17734862438 GoJOept. Phon. II FBJll ~ Post-it" Fax Nole 7671 To ., Phon",e August 27, 2003 Mr. Jack \..itschewskl Mid-American elevator Company 5101 General Washington Drive Alexandria, Virginia 22312 Keference: Summit I;;iran(:l pare - parKing Machine Noise """ '., 7C> 2fT 67'(;, T1'1is letter summarizes the noise level measurements performed by Wyle Laboratories at the Summit Grand Pare building in Washington, D.C. This building has a parking machine. The resident drives their vehIcle into "rOQrn #2.w The parkIng machine is then engaged. The platfonn in the room rotates Slightly and the vehicle is lowered to the appropriate lev!:1 of the garage. Upon exit, the resident calls for the vehIcle. The parking machine uses a crane to retrieve the vehicle and place it on a different platform. That platfonn is then rolsed up to "room #1., and the resident drives oul:. Overall A-weighted and one-third octave barad sound levers were measured twice each second in the lobby and in the garage as the parking machlne was operated. Sound levels are often expressed in one-third oct'lve bands. The range of human hearing is approximately from 20 to 20,000 Hz. The A-weighted sound level js the most commonly used noise metric. The A-weighting fitter was designed to simulate the frequency sensitivity of the human ear at low to moderate loudness. Two sounds with the same A-weighted sound level should be judgell equally loud by most people. Sound levels were measured during brief periods between ;1.0:30 and 11:30 a.m. on August 27, 2003. The measurements were not performed when people were using the el"vator'S Dr lobby. occaslonally, there was some noise from the reception desk and office area on the opposite side of the lobby. Ambient noise was generalfy attributable to street traffic. ventilation systems, end tM distant office workers. The garage measurements were performed in the pl!lrking g;!lrage E1pproximately ten feet from the overhead door at the entrance to room #2 (the room that drivers enter first before parking), Sound levels were measured in the garaqe as the mad'llne was operated in the exit and entrance cycles. No vehide was on the platform during the tests. The lobby measurements were performed In the hallway between the reception desk and the elevators. The door between that hallway and the garage was closed. SOund levelS were measured il'1 Elach location during different cycles, not simultaneously. Wyll ~".., lne.. ~ JIIIl'I'erson D~" "'IDl'Iw:lryj Suite 101, ArllnglDl'l, VA .222D2-35D1 Tet 7D3I41~5RO. TelEalO'r. 103I41.s.a558 A~~ 27 03 11,OIp Gar", Ehrlich 703-53-1-2750 PAGE 02 p.4 08/28/2003 11:13 17734852438 MIDAMERICAN ELEV Mr. L1tschewski August 27/ ;2003 Page 2 Figure 1 shows the A-weighted sound level each half-second, It can be seen from Figure 1 that sound levelS were essentialfy the same In the rOtltlV Wi1:tl the parking machine operating as without. It can also be seen that the sound level in the 9:lrage was typic<llly betw~n 50 and fi!> dBA, and occasionally reached 70 to SO dBA. figure Z shows the frequency spectra averaged over the entire test period, aml Figure 3 shows the frequency spectra averaged over the loudest five-second pEriod. Again, it (Can be seen that sound levels were nearly identical with the parking machine and without it in the lobby. Subjectively, the parking mClcllhltl was barely audible in the lobby. Please call me at 703/415-4550 ext. 18 If you require any additional information. Sincerely, L~~ Gary p:-'€hrlich, P.E. Senior Acoustical Engineer --- 08/28/2003 11:13 17734852438 MIDAMERICAN ELEV o 1 - , 16 : 31 . 46 61 76 ' 91 106 121 . 136 151 " 166 I'D - 3 181: ~ 196 ~ 211 ~ 10226 ... 241 " 256 271 286 301 ;'16 , 331 346 361 ~ 376 391 - o I'.) o Overall Sound level, dBA 8 cl PAGE 03 8 to '-' ... o ... o ,n o ~ c' c .., CD ~ . ;p ~ !2. = i!: CD c. en o c :l Q. r \II ;g iP m ~ = P 01 c:n CD l"I o ::J g, I I ~ + bbG)G:l. c- l:l' ~ !!l ~S",,jg .' I CD CD C ~ . 0 c: 0 r:: :-1. c: ,a.... :::Ii -. - <<J CD S" I m ;a. (C m ;!. ~ ~ .-< - I -< L-- I , ..-._.. 1..-. ~ ._c-. toInn ~ T T !:"n J.:=! :lnt:! 08/28/2003 11:13 17734852438 I ~ 0 dBA 20Hz 25Hz :32 Hz 40HZ 50Hz 0 63Hz ::l 80Hz III . -I :=: 100 Hz a. 0 125 Hz n Dr 160 Hz l1i aJ ZOO Hz III ::l 250 Hz g, (') ell 315 Hz :I - III 400 Hz ., "1\ Gl 500 Hz .SJ E:: 630 Hz ell ~ .., ::c: 800 Hz ~ .... 1kHz 1 k25 Hz 1k6 Hz 2kHz 2K5 Hz 3k15 Hz 4KHz L I'J o I 1 + + r-r-G)(i) o 0 !II OJ tr C'" ..., """ t:3'" E:.'S'" m CD '<<1010 I . co CD 0):>' C &i g. ~ 5.' 5* ....... ...., ';::l' lD (]) 5" co m;a. {l:J ~! ~.. j ~J MIDAMERICAN ELEV Sound Level, dB (oJ o ~ ~ m o -J <;) . PAGE 04 ~ :l! ~ t:: .. ... ~ ~ III ... ~ "' "1\ iil .g 1Il ::I n ~ fn 'a CD n i3 D s:: :l. ::l ~ -I CD III .... .~ -."."..-....-.....-. , .. doO:tt EO ~Z 2n~ U:>IT-lU3 R-les 08/28/2003 11:13 17734852438 MIDAMERICAN ELEV PAGE 05 Lloq.ll.f3 f;.J"El dOO: 1I &0 l.il: 21'11:l SOUND PRESSURE Jet Take-Off.. p (25 m distance) r Jl a 100000000 -~~- -,~..",~,.d\~~>;"'+~_"-:,_ 10000000 ROCk"HH Group 1 000000 100000 )>HH . . 10000 Conversational Speech 100 SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL 140 dB r 130 .-!ifJI' ~ ~ ~ 1 " 1 Firecra~ .... 120... ~ ,;r';t . . ~"C"~ '. 110 100 ~ 80 70 ~ ~ ~ ~ .. .. Business Office 60 :^~ d. 50 40 ~ ~ Living Room 30 20 ~~~1.1Wood 10 20 0 Bruel& Klcer+ A TT ACHMENT 0 300 South Spring Street Vicinity Map "iji I;J.tOPl(, 1~"'1I1; w I- Z w :t: J: U '< l- I- '< '" iii "" o I % ~ . Q . z i < I i .~ . ro-. -,~... ~ i.... Q<;.;:ii z ~ ~f..l ~ :.n!ii~ iii ~l"~ · f-1 ?l ! ~ ,.. ~ oS, \ 0 . . , ~ ! . I ~ I " ~ , . ~ . :<:. '<: " ~. :.. . ::r::' ;... '" '<: '" '" :::; :<: '" ~ '<: , '" !I: ilil;;... ;'1: '0 :l CJ ... :<: ;... ... CJ~ ... 0 Q~ "'0 :<:CJ '" o ---- . f ---.. -- CJ ---- ---- ---- '" '" '" ~ -~ ---- ---- " z Cl ...., - 8 0" .. . ~liIi ~~ I< CJ o : ..., . '" . ~'IS, :.. '" ..., ..., '<: . ..; ~1111.~ ... '" o '"ISI , , Jl'l\-~.~ o J.i/i/'U QJ. S t , .. i '''-O'~ .lSe'lJ [) , IV III <l S If.t.h.oS ......... . Ii ~!I' ",.,. \:I~! lI!;}, ;1 Ifilli' limit . ~~ w Ii I~ I ..~ I - . ~o i ~~ I .&- . ... 0.__ II; ;~ :; diD ~~ ir!i , i I I I ..:: :~.. I ~. ..U ; :. 4:.. . ll:n D.. D.. ~ t') I - IL I- Z w :t: J: U ce l- I- ce I I t - I I I I ....J <( I I I U I I z I ((\ N ((\ <( ....J ....J ....J I U I I I I ill I L ~ I I ~ ! I I I I I I L LJ~ I .L.... " I i I - ~- w j ~i I ...- ~o l ~i I . - .. ..- I; .... -.-- I I ;" ;"11 ~ i I IE:< . I ...= :~.. <..J flgl .. .-11 I :.lI: ~:.. :: e:U n.n. colli - I I I I -i-i-Tl I -l <:{ o ~ I ~ I ~ I I o ill I L I ('f\1 -l I "'- ~ ; ~ < ~~ w! It I ..-- i . - .. ~o ~ ~I -"- Ii ~. o. a_ I I =W = dll ~ i I ~~ ifst I ""= :~.. -- 8<111 I ~.. - - ...... ~ Il:U Q.Q. CO ...,.. -i-ill -l 1 '<1:1 0 rC) N rC) ~ -l -l -l 3: I 01 ill r: ~ '........ ~ ~ I I J I -i-i-Tl ~I I ....J I -<:[ o Z ~I ~I ~ I o ill 4,,-! I ~ ~ ; - - J - -1 1\ ~, " , I I " , d I EJ (LI os on: r\ I I 3JI.:LJO 1\ < 880l V ~ ~ ~ t, , II f- 6- ,,~v ,0 , '-- I 1\ ~ I llX3 / ^d1N3 llX3 / ^(J1N3 I/I~ (J3MOl QQ (JIV lS - ~ I I V3(JV W^I(J13(J 3lJIH3^ I "O-S l' _ ,,~8 ,617 V'U1S^S CD GJ ~NI>1(JV d - I I 3lJIH3^ 01 I , I I I llllln S\f (Jl '-- I U I < "o-,Z 17 _ "r~ ,~ <------- '"t-- o ~l ll^ll I 31(JJ S '8~"18 3JVld )1CJV d L ,,0-,09- r "O-,Z ~ I 01 I l ~l ~ o o I o .......... 17 -"r8-, It; lJ^ll ClNOJ1S ,8=,,1(0 3JVld >1 eN d ,,0-,09 17 ,,~8-,lg r I ~ .;?OS gL9 I ~ ~OO~038 D 131\31 OMl '----- V3t1V ~NI^11 U 1 Nn 1 V'UdV dV 13^31 OMl ,N3HJ11" f-- ~ - " - liNn lN3VHdVdV ~ f--- , f-- - o. f u = I G 8 - - ~OO~Hl '18 ~OO~038 ~OO~Hl03 ED I I d3MOl I II n dlV lS ./p .or t- .0 ,0 ~ ,,~8 - ,6t- I I I I 0 b: V'OlSAS ~NI)jdVd I , 3lJIH3^ I I , I I r o o I o "- T3^ II OCJIHl /8=// T 0) 3J\fld >1~\fd ,,0-,09 I \: ^~~ I r--- V3~fv' ~NI^1l IX - - - - I^IOOH 9NIAI ClOl VAJ1J - - u OS Z89l - - liNn lN3v'UdVdV == - 13^31 OMi - - liNn lN3VHdVdV - I u G - D[ I ~ ~OO~038 OO~Hl~8 <:E N3HJ11>l Jl I I I I I l I I VIJ31SAS ~NI>1dVd I 3lJIH3^ I I I v "f~-'~ o o I o 63' I v----- ~ II 22' -3' ~ D ~ ( \ 13'-10' t 49'-9" . ) ~ ~ \ 16'-4" t I I JI 63' r 9" t 18'-]' Not to Scale -':1-., l) I- Z w I: J: U e( l- I- e( . , ~~5 . c' u....... uo"'~'-- ::;t2~~ za..._.... . , . . ~ 0'. ua~ :c f~~fi ..;0-&.5 "I..-..f ~t~"'~{) i; o~<if"," k~;i~S5: ~lJu3uu" ~:r;,.;.,~~: ~1.L.!..c:.J,~ ! " < , ! f 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , F . ~1 @f "" ( , . o ~ jj , ~ f3 ~ ;;.. "'" <: ~ ::-.. ::r; E-. C/) iJ . . " ,~ .~ ...:;5> ~~~ @.r~ "' , -~... ", ?'..... " ~ ;.. 8 5 ' . , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,!:"- . 0 .' . . . . ~ g u" ", ,:.: ~ '" '" :I: (fJ , I ~ g Q N -00 ~z ~o ~ ~ 00 ~ ;;: ~ 8! ~ ! : c . o , . , , ~ , , ! . I ~ , ! c !! 8 . " ! ~ ~ m ....... 0... t , ~ . t r ~'" " " " "'0 ~ m <::1 Z El Cl) ......,;> ...... en b . b N Cl) p.. m c..J rJl "'0 ~ m ~ ~ ~ ," . rJ"'l ....t.. ~~ ~ ~i p ~~; ~ _ ,..."u [~ f~-g~ .. 1 . b " '" ''-'' 'D 0 -. +' <l> fJ Cl) ~ +' c..J (fJ 0 ii m .. ....... .5 0 0... .. "" ::-.. ""'" (fJ .. ~ 0 ~ .<: '0 +' " U "'" ~ 0 '" m (fJ d "0, 0 <l> 0... "" 0 '" ." <<: , . I , '~ ""'''<Q, J,a:>!" czJ,S o QN/(j ciS 1[J,!10s ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ :'i~ zi:!:::B I &ll;;~' I j;?;~p ~~ffi III 1;;8ill. .. ....< fo'::P, ~ \ii " :1100' ii'" , ""\ 'J "~ -\ :c I- Z UJ L :c u ~ . r- I- ~ .. ~ "'~ ,- .... I I I I Y. )' I I 'r"'-' q o u ...__.-r s j \ \ ,.\ " \ \\~ \ \ . \'\ . \ . \ ! \ ..... .~ , ., .1 ~. ~ ~ ~ I I :/. . I I I I , ~ ,-.. 'r', I I I I I ATTACHMENT I 12 June 2003 Mr. Stan Clauson Stan Clauson Associates 200 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom it may Concern: As the Managing member if Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC, I give Stan Clauson Associates, LLC and his staff permission to represent us in discussions with the City of Aspen regarding the development of the Park Place garage at 707 E. Hyman Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. We have retained this firm to assist us in the planning phase of project. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Sin ~ J Cooper, Managing Partner Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC A TT ACHMENT J CITY OF ASPEN WRETTPAlD CY_:;5sDAJ1 ~9 NO. )q0~3 1;/ry OF ASPEN HRErr PAlO ClATE REP NO n . 02 -Jbur~ I Qr..,0S WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Name: Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC C/o Krabacher Sanders, PC 201 N. Mill Street, Ste. 201 Aspen, CO 81611 Address: OF .$ &;00 .0) WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made this 28th day of February, 2003, between George A. Vicenzi Trust, as to an undivided 25% interest and Alan J. Goldstein, as to an undivided 75% interest of the said County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, grantor, and Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company whose legal address is C.B. Management, PO Box 1747, 605 Sherman Parkway Springfield, MO 65801-1747 of the said County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, grantee: U1 \) ~ WITNESSETH, that the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the said County of Pitkin and State of Colorado described as follows: Lots A, B, C and D, Block 105 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN 111I~RI'III'JI~1I1111 :;;~~! :I:eep SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 21. M D 6M. Ie also described as follows: THE HANNAH-DUSTIN CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Plat thereof recorded October 2, 1985 in Plat Book 17 at Page 78 as Reception No. 271969 and as defined and described by the Condominium Declaration for HANNAH-DUSTIN CONDOMINIUM recorded October 2, 1985 in Book 496 at Page 375 as Reception No. 271967. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO also known by street and number as: 300 S Spring St., Aspen, CO 81611 File Number. 00030095 Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. Wananty Deed - Photographic Record (Extended) Page J of2 m~7crcLARATION RECEIVED 82128/2883 ."- -_.-..._~-_._------- TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said Buyer, his personal representatives, successors and assigns, forever. The said Seller covenants and agrees to and with the Buyer, his personal representatives, successors and assigns, to WARRANT AND DEFEND the sale of said property, goods and chattels, against all and every person or person whomever. When used herein, the singular shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the SeHer has executed this Bill of Sale this ~5 day of F e/1yvI1Mll , 1-0(1 ":1 .~ ;$ /(ff ~~I / George A. VIC!lnzi Trustee ofG eA. Vicenzi Trust ~ STATEOF (O\(,)'t-adQ COUNTYOF f';J,.~iA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -;y"}., day of _r-.p :h atfry by George A. Vicenzi, Trustee of the George A. Vicenzi Trust My commission expires Witness my hand and official seal. IlnrlJ7}; Ii,~/Af/ Notary Public: \","~~~, "^,,, ~ I, ~.., ~V "..... ')';.~'''' " ,p" '11.::" ... I !~.OT:..".J':.=.: ~~ -C( : . :-1_ =ui io,= ;. :;r-;..f(JB\..'~Q ~ ~ "~....,...,....\" ~"C' ...~ '#,,0,. co\"o,,"'''' "'fI"'\' 111 COMMISSIOH EXPIRES AIJOUST 1, 200& File Number: 00030095 Stewart Tille of Aspen. Jnc. Bill ofS.10- (Extended) Page 2 of2 "II~IIIIIIII~I~ II =~~A~ :1:_ SILYIA DAYIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 21.88 D ...... STATE OF rr /) ~, d~ COUNTY OF YYl,o 11 YO e.- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .;z S- day of 7-~ ~~ , by Alan J. Goldstein My commission expires Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public: ~Jol\'f' THEReSABOYCE .......... ~ Mi co'.",.. ISSIOIUCC936270 .. .. ~"',:J1!=lES:May25,2004 ol).; .# ~~"'vu~*"*'YSIlmcee ""'crp;\.~.= .~ File Number; 00030095 Stewart Tine of ASpcn,lnl;, Acknowledgement - Seller Page 1 of) 111"""" ~~~~. Y CO It 21... f1:l/2a~2~ 81:_ ......... EXHIBIT 1 EXCEPTIONS 1. Distribution utility easements (including cable TV). 2. Inclusion of the Property within any special taxing district. 3. The benefits and burdens of any declaration and party wall agreements, if any. 4. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents, or an act authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 5. Taxes for the year 2003 and subsequent years not yet due and payable. 6. Exceptions and reservations as set forth in the Act authorizing the issuance of the Patent for the City and Townsite of Aspen recorded March I, 1897 in Book 139 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156. 7. Tenns, conditions, obligations and provisions of Agreement by and between the City of Aspen and Hannah Dustin Building Associates, a joint venture as set forth in instnunent recorded October 2, 1985 in Book 496 at Page 371 as Reception No. 271966. 8. Tenns, conditions, obligations, provisions and easements of Easement Agreement recorded August 24, 1972 in Book 266 at Page 229 as Reception No. 153522. 9. Tenns, conditions, obligations and provisions of Condominium Declaration for Hannah- Dustin Condominiums as set forth in instrument recorded October 2, 1985 in Book 496 at Page 375 as Reception No. 271967. 10. Tenns, conditions, obligations and provisions of Subdivision Agreement as set forth in instrnment recorded October 2,1985 in Book 496 at Page 409 as Reception No. 271968. 11. Easements, rights of way and other matters as shown and contained on Plat of Hannah- Dustin Condominiums recorded October 2, 1985 in Plat Book 17 at Page 78 as Reception No. 271969. File Number: 00030095 Stewan Title of Aspen, Inc. Warranty Deed - Exhibit I (Excepti011S) Page I ofl IIIIIIIIIII~IIIIII :;;~~:~ :1:. SILYIR DAYIS ~ITKIN COUNTY CO R 21." De..... .. "---"'----'-"- --"-' -------. PLANNER: PROJECT: REPRESENTATIVE: OWNER: TYPE OF APPUCATlON: DESCRIPTION: A TT ACHMENT K CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY James Lindt, 920.5095 DATE: 9.15.03 "Park Place" - Commercial Parking Garage GMQS Application Stan Clauson, Brian McNellis, Jeffery Halferty Peter FomeII GMQS Scoring Applieation Owner is in the PUD review process to construct a rommercial parking facility and associated affordable honsing at 707 E. Hyman Avenue. The fuciIity will use a fully automated mechanical system fur parking vehicles. In conjunction with the PUD, Subdivision, and Conditional Use portions of the application that have already been submitted, a COIuuI<;1Cial GMQS application is required Land Use Code Section(s) 26.470.080 GMQS Development A1Jobnent and Application Procedures 26.470.100 Growth Management Scoring CrIteria- Commercial and Office Development Review by: Staff, Growth Management Commission (PH), City Council (PH), Board of County Commissioners Yes, at both the Growth Management Commission and City Council. Applicant must post property and mail notice at least 15 days prior to hearing. App/U;ant will need to provide proof of posting and mailing with an affidavit at the public hearings. Housing (other referral agencies are reviewing the PUD portion of the application). Planning Deposit, Major ($2,520 for 12 bours of staff time) Housing Major was included in PUD Application $2520 (additional Planning hours are billed at a rate of $21 Olhour) 30 Public Hearing: Referral Agencies: Planning Fees: Referral Agency Fees: Total Deposit: Total Copies: To apply, submit the following infonnation: I. Proof of ownership. 2. Signed tee agreement. 3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 4. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonslIating the owner's right to apply fur the Development Application. 5. Total deposit for review of the application. 6. Required Copies of the complete application packet and maps. 7. An 8 112" by II" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Additional materials as required by the specific review. (Rerer to cited code sections) 9. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. 10. Applications shall be provided in paper funnat (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the fullowing digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)-preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text furmat easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Notes: I. An estimate on employee demands should be included in the conceptual application in I'''l''''ation fir the GMQS applieatioo. A refurral front Housing will be sought. A Housing Board meeting may be required. l>iselaimer: fhe furegoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, whicb is mbject to change in the future, and upon Iilctual representations that mayor may not be accurate. The SWDmary does not create a egaI or vested right. APPLICATION Park Place - Commercial Parking Facility 26 June 2003 Applicant: Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC Location: 707 East Hyman Avenue in Aspen, including the Hannah Dustin Building at 300 Spring Street. (PID# 2737-182-27-001) Zone District: Office District An application for Subdivision, Conditional Use, and Consolidated Planned Unit Development Represented by: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC 200 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-2323 26 June 2003 STAN CIAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning. Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management Chris Bendon, Senior Long-Range Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 8 1611 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 FAX: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL: dauson@scaplanning.com WEB: www.scaplanning.com Re: Request for Subdivision, Conditional Use, and Consolidated PUD for the Park Place Parking Facility Dear Community Development Staff: On behalf of Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC, we are writing to request that the City of Aspen conduct the necessary reviews to provide Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use approval for the Park Place Commercial Parking Facility, and for subdivision of the property described as Lots A, B, C and D of Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen, located at the corner of Spring Street and East Hyman Avenue. This application is intended to subdivide the Lots C and D from Lots A and B. The two resulting lots will conform to the minimum lot size requirements of 6,000 feet for the (0) Office zone district. However, because of the situation of the existing Hannah Dustin Building on the Townsite lots, a side yard setback variance will be required. For this reason, the Hannah Dustin Lots A and B are included in our Consolidated Planned Unit Development (POO) request. The application proposes POO zoning that will vary some of the underlying zoning dimensional requirements of the newly configured lots. The PUD is intended to provide for the redevelopment of Lots C and D as an automated commercial parking facility that will entail the use of mechanical elevators and platforms to store cars in designated compartments. The structure will accommodate 99 vehicles total. It will also contain a small office space and two (2) deed restricted affordable housing units with a total of four (4) bedrooms. Because of the relatively straightforward issues presented as part of this POO application and the other reviews required to complete the entire approval process, we are requesting that the Community Development Director approve a consolidated POO review, bringing together Conceptual and Final POO reviews. It is understood that a further application will be submitted for the GMQS allotment of commercial square footage. Any approvals for the parking facility through the POO and Conditional Use process will be contingent on receiving the required allocation of commercial square footage through the GMQS process. However, PUD approvals relating to the subdivision request will not be contingent upon the subsequent GMQS review. This project has previously gone through Sketch Plan Review pursuant to Section 2 .304.060 B2 of the Aspen Land Use Code on 21 October 2002, at which time the PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS Chris Bendon 26 June 2003 Page 2 Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council had an opportunity to preview the project and provide comments. In this application, we have responded to those comments and the criteria in Sections 26.445 of the Aspen Land Use Code. The proposed Park Place Commercial Parking Facility will bring the subject property into compatibility with the mixed use development that has occurred in the neighborhood. The property is currently under-utilized and without streetscape amenities along Hyman Avenue. Moreover, surface parking on the property adds a chaotic appearance to the area. The proposed facility would correct these issues, while the entire downtown core would benefit from additional parking in this location. The parking facility will reduce demand for the limited on-street parking in Aspen and will compensate for employee generation by incorporating two affordable rental units. We look forward to an opportunity to present this application, which we believe will enhance the downtown Aspen experience for tourists and residents alike. We remain ready to answer any questions that you or the review boards may have regarding the application. +- Stan lauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, u.c Attachments: A. Land Use Application Form B. Aspen/Pitkin County, TransitlTransDortation DeveloDment Plan. prepared by Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc., 1986 (Section 5, Parking) C. Park Place Entrance Level Plan D. Vicinity Map E. Property Survey F. Architectural Plans and Elevations G. Landscape Plan H. Architectural Rendering 1. Letter of Authorization 1. Legal Description/Proof of Ownership K. Pre-application Conference Summary, dated 3 June 2003 lAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: Location: ApPLICANT: Name: John Coo Address: 402 Midland Avenue; Phone #: 970 379-3434 Partner; H CO 81611 Avenue Ho . S, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC Address: 200 East Main Street; A~ CO 81611 Phone #: 970 925-2323 TYPE OF ApPLICATION: (please check an that apply): ~ Conditional Use ~ Conceptual PUD D Conceptual Historic Devt 0 Special Review 0 Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) 0 Final Historic Development 0 Design Review Appeal 0 Conceptual SPA D Minor Historic Devt 0 GMQS AIIo1ment D Final SPA(& SPA Amendment) 0 Historic Demolition 0 GMQS Exemption ~ Subdivision 0 Historic Designation 0 ESA - 8040 GreenIine, Stream 0 Subdivision Exemption (includes D Small Lodge Conversion! Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumizaton) Expansion Mountain View Plane 0 Lot Split D Temporary Use 0- Other: 0 Lot Line Adjustment D TextlMap Amendment ExIsTING CONDmONS: de . tion of e .. buiI' s, uses, vaIs, etc. Existing property consists of Lots A, B, C, & D; Townsite Block 105. Lots A & B contain an office building, known as the Hannah-Dustin B '. Lots C & D contain an A-frame structure in office use and surfuce PROPOSAL: d . tion of ro sed buiI' s, uses, modifications, etc. Lots A & B would be subdivided from Lots C & D. Lots C & D would be developed as a commercial parking file" . Have you atlached the following? ~ Pre-Application Confurence SIlIIIIIIlIIy ~ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ~ Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form ~ Response to Attaclurent #3, M'mmnnn Subnission Contents ~ Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents ~ Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards fur Your Application . FEES DUE: $ 3.440.00 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF ASPEN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEE POLICY The City of Aspen, pursuant to Ordinance 57 (Series of 2000), has established a fee structure for the processing ofIand use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. Referral fees for other City departments reviewing the application will also be collected when necessary. One check including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required application fee. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for Administrative Approvals which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. The fee is not refundable. A deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff review is required, as hours are likely to vary substantially from one application to another. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Several different staff members may charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Staff time is logged to the case and staff can provide a summary report of hours spent at the applicant's request. After the deposit has been expended, the applicant will be billed monthly based on actuaI staff hours. Applicants may accrue and be billed additional expenses for a planner's time spent on the case following any hearing or approvals, up until the applicant applies for a building permit. Current billings must be paid within 30 days or processing of the application will be suspended. If an applicant has previously fuiled to pay application fees as required, no new or additional applications will be accepted for processing until the outstanding fees are paid. In no case wiU Building Permits be issued until aU costs associated with case processing have been paid. When the case planner determines that the case is completed (whether approved or not approved), the case is considered closed and any remaining balance from the deposit will be refunded to the applicant. Applications which require a deposit must include an Alrreement for Pavrnent of Development Application Fees. The Agreement establishes the applicant as being responsible for payment of all costs associated with processing the application. The Agreement must be signed by the party responsible for payment and submitted with the application and fee in order for a land use case to be opened. The current complete fee schedule for land use applications is listed on the next page. ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2003 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CATEGORY HOURS Major 12 Minor 6 Staff Approvals Flat Fee Board of Adjustment Exempt HP Certificate of No Negative Effect Minor HPC Significant HPC <1000 sq. ft. Significant HPC >1000 sq. ft. Demolition, Partial Demolition, Relocation Referral Fees - Environmental Health Major Minor Referral Fees - Housing Major Minor Referral Fees - City Engineer Major Minor Hourly Rate DEPOSIT 2,520.00 1,260.00 525.00 525.00 1260.00 2520.00 2520.00 FLAT FEE 290.00 170.00 00.00 300.00 355.00 185.00 355.00 185.00 355.00 185.00 210.00 ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Park Place - Commercial Parking Facility Applicant: John Cooper, Managing Partner; Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC Location: 707 East Hyman Avenue; Lots C & D, Block 105, Aspen Townsite Zone District: Office (0) Lot Size: Lots A, B, C, and D = 12.000 s.f to be subdivided into 2 lots of6,000 s.f. each Lot Area: Lots C & D = 6,000 sq. ft. (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Number of residential units: Number of bedrooms: Existing: 927 s.f. Existing:..Jl. Existing:..Jl. Proposed: 4.836 s.f. Proposed:...l Proposed:...J, Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: 927s.f. Allowable: 6.000s.f. Proposed: 7.773s.f. Principal bldg. height: Existing: 20 ft. Allowable: 25ft. Proposed: 35 ft. Access. bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: 21ft. Proposed: ...lJ.ft. On-Site parking: Existing: 20-30 Required: 6 Proposed: 99 % Site coverage: Existing: N/A Required: N/A Proposed: N/A % Open Space: Existing: N/A Required: N/A Proposed: N/A Front Setback: Existing: 10ft. Required: 10ft. Proposed: 6.5 ft. Rear Setback: Existing: 15ft. Required: 15ft. Proposed: .f)jJ" Combined FIR: Existing: 25ft. Required: 25 ft. Proposed: 6.5 ft. Side Setback: Existing: 5 ft. Required: 5ft. Proposed:...J.J!." Side Setback: Existing: 5ft. Required: 5ft. Proposed:-1ft. Combined Sides: Existing: 10ft. Required: 10ft. Proposed: ...M,. Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Parkinl! areas encroach in setbacks and on City property. Variations requested: Floor area. heillht. front setback. rear setback. and side yard setbacks. ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Hannah Dustin Building - Commercial Parking Facility Applicant: John Cooper, Managing Partner; Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC Location: 300 S. Spring; Lots A & B, Block 105, Aspen Townsite Zone District: Office (0) Lot Size: Lots A, B, C, and D = 12.000 s.f. to be subdivided into 2 lots of 6,000 s.f. each Lot Area: Lots A & B = 6,000 sq. ft. (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Number of residential units: Number of bedrooms: Existing: 5.157 s.f. Existing:~ Existing:~ Proposed: 5.157 s.f. Proposed: -1J. Proposed:~ Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): Nt A DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: 5. 157s.f. Allowable: 6.000s.f. Proposed: As deemed auorovriate and allowed in current zoned district or as adoDted in the Drooosed "Mixed-Use" zone district. Principal bldg. height: Existing: 25 ft. Allowable: 28ft. Proposed: 28 ft. Access. bldg. height: Existing: N/ A Allowable: 21ft. Proposed: ...llft. On-Site parking: Existing: 4 Required: 4 Proposed:....1. % Site coverage: Existing: N/A Required: N/ A Proposed: N/A % Open Space: Existing: N/A Required: N/A Proposed: N/A Front Setback (Spring Existing: Oft. Required: lOft. Proposed: 10 ft. Street): Rear Setback: Existing: lOft. Required: 15ft. Proposed: JJ!ft. Combined FIR: Existing: lOft. Required: 25 ft. Proposed: 20 ft. Side Setback: Existing: Oft. Required: 5ft. Proposed: ..Jlf1,. Side Setback Existing: 26ft. Required: 6. 6ft. Proposed: 6. 6ft. (Secondary Front Setback; Hyman Ave): Combined Sides: Existing: 26ft. Required: JJ. 6ft. Proposed: 6. 6ft. Existing non-conformmes or encroachments: Buildinll: encroaches within front yard and rear vard setbacks. Variations requested: AoDlicant reauests a variance in rear vard setback from 15 to 10 feet and a side vard variance from 5 feet to 10 feet to accommodate existinll: condition. Introduction Park Place is a project that will address an essential need for off-street parking in Aspen's conunercial core. The Rio Grande parking garage is often full, while other off-street parking in the business district is limited to private lots or spaces associated with commercial buildings. It is evident that parking still remains an issue in Aspen today. Park Place is intended to address this issue and offer some relief for the current downtown parking situation. As part of a 1986 study, the City adopted a plan to alleviate on-street parking by constructing various facilities that would provide parking and would allow easy accesS to Aspen's conunercial core. The Rio Grande parking garage was built as a result of that plan. Although intended as a comprehensive solution with several components, the remaining aspects of that plan were never realized, including the construction of a parking garage within the block surrounded by Cooper, Spring, Hyman, and Original. The proposed Park Place-Commercial Parking Facility is located within this designated block. This application will attempt to address the continued need for off-street parking in that specific location and highlight the economic benefits that could result from approval of this project. Park Place will make 99 parking spaces available near Aspen's commercial core and within walking distance to the Silver Queen Gondola. The facility will be a state-of-the- art fucility that will use an automated vertical lift to stack vehicles within an enclosed grid. This system will enable Park Place to achieve the most efficient use of space on a modest sized property. Each space will be available for purchase, making parking available to the owner whenever it is needed. When that space is not utilized, it will become available and rented to the public. Not only will this help to satisfy the parking needs oflocaI business workers and long term visitors, but it will relieve on-street parking congestion in the city limits. The existing downtown parking program is designed to acconunodate short term parking for customers who wish to shop, dine, or do business in a timely fashion. To encourage the quick turnover of parking in the downtown core, the City of Aspen charges more for the fourth hour of parking than the first hour. The goal of Park Place will be to attract vehicles that intend to park for longer time periods, the cost schedule will be designed make parking less expensive the longer a vehicle is stored. The two systems will compliment one another by encouraging people to park on the street for short visits and prompting people to park in the facility for longer visits. Aspen is an innovative conununity that should promote innovative solutions. Although examples of this type pfparking system can be found throughout Europe, Park Place will be the first parking facility of its kind in the westem United States and would be a community amenity provided at absolutely no cost to taxpayers. Aspen deserves such an opportunity and your consideration of this project is appreciated. Park Place Conunercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page I Attachment A Land Use Code Standard Report Offered below are responses to relevant standards as identified in the Land Use Code: 1. ResDonses to Section 26.480 Subdivision 26.480.050 An application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Response: A major component of the Park Place development application is the proposed subdivision of the existing property consisting of Lots A, B, C and D of Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen. The subdivision would result in two equal proportionate lots of 6,000 square feet each (comprised of Lots A and B and the other of Lots C and D). The Hannah-Dustin building is situated on the western portion of the property that will consist of Lots A and B. The application is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan as the subdivision can be considered an incremental step towards the goal of infill The resulting 6,000 square foot lots will be equal in size to the East Hyman Avenue Condominium duplex parcels located directly across the street. The proposed subdivision willoot adversely qffect the future development of the surrounding areas but may result in a positive irifluence by stimulating commercial growth. It is important to note that the Hannah-Dustin building located on the property line of proposed Lot A and B which will result in a non-ronformity with setbacks on that parcel. It is therefore requested that this setback be modified as part of the PUD. Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 2 B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. 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. Response: The proposed subdivision will not be located on land which is considered unsuitable for development. No portion of the property is susceptible to flooding, poor drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche, snowslide, nor is the property located near steep slopes or other natural hazards. C. Imorovements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. Response: Most of the required improvements listed in Chapter 26.580 are not applicable to this subdivision since they are mostly existing (i.e. curbs, street names, service lines, easements, etc.). The applicant is willing to provide an electrical transformer upgrade if it is determined to be necessary for the proposed development. The applicant has also committed to landscaping and sidewalk installation alang Hyman Avenue in compliance with City of Aspen landscape guidelines as illustrated in Attachment H. D. Affordable Housin2. 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. Response: This requirement is nat applicable since no dwelling units are proposed other than qffordable, deed restricted rental units. No existing housing units are being removed or replaced E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Response: No such requirement is necessary for affordable deed restricted housing. F. Growth Mana2ement Aooroval. 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-POO) without first obtaining growth management Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 3 approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. Response: The subdivision component is exempt from Growth Management. Responses to the exemption criteria are provided here in. Growth Management allotments will be requested for the redevelopment of Lots C and D as a commercial parkingfacility. 2. ResDonses to Section 26.445 ConceDtuaI Planned Unit DevelODment 26.445.050 A. General Requirements I. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Conununity Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempted from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to acconunodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to: or in combination with, the final POO development plan review. Response: The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan since it furthers the goal of infill in downtown Aspen. As pointed out in the City's i11fill studies, one of the factors preventing infill development is that there is greater value in using vacant lots for commercial surface parking than there is for new development. The provision of attended, ownership parking, with its income generating potential for owners, will encourage redevelopment of existing surface parking lots for better uses. The City of Aspen Infill Report includes this property within the "Eastern Periphery Commercial Area" that is proposed to be rezonedfrom (0) Office to (C-1) Commercial to support a greater intensity of development. The proposed facility will accommodate nearly 100 cars, which will have a positive irif/uence on the Aspen's resort economy. It is important to recognize that a 1986 City of Aspen study characterized the parking system in downtown as: 1) very limitedfor employees, 2) almost totally dependent on the streets themselves, 3) marginally effective in terms of enforcement, and 4) sparse in the areas of highest demand Although parking problems have been somewhat relieved since the completion of the Rio Grande parking garage, the City of Aspen has TWt fully implemented the remaining recommendation of that study and it is clear that many problems still remain. The "Cooper, Spring, Hyman, and Original Block" where the Park Place facility is proposed was identified in the study as one of the primary locations for constroction of additional parking in Aspen (see Attachment B). The report mentioned that, "this facility will be closest to the base of Aspen Mountain, it will be an attractive parking option to day skiers wha arrive by car. It will also be convenient for Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 4 drivers destined to the Pedestrian Mall area." The report also stated that construction of additional public parkingfacilities, such as those proposed in this application, may well be a necessity if Aspen is to maintain its reputation as a world class resort. The Park Place project intends to further the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the Aspen Infill Report. By using modem technology, nearly 100 cars can be accommodated in the proposed commercial parkingfacility while limiting the amount of space that would be required to accommodate the same number of cars otherwise. These parking spaces will promote the economic vitality of Aspen by providing a sqfe and reliable place for shoppers and skiers to park their vehicles. The property currently contains a 927 square foat A-frame structure that is used as an office. It is evident when viewing the property from East Hyman Avenue, that the lot is underutilized and the development vastly out of character with other more urban style development that occupies adjacent properties. It is the applicant's intent to build a structure that is consistent with the density of surrounding lots (as also intended by the Aspen Area Community Plan and Infill Report) while improving the aesthetic quality of the area. The Park Place project will further strengthen the office and residential components of the neighborhood by incorporating an office space as well as low income rental units along the streetscape of East Hyman Avenue. The landscape will include an allee of cottonwood trees to compliment the vegetation that already exists along the street. The Park Place project will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area, but will enhance the economic vitality of Aspen's resort economy at absolutely no cost to taxpayers. The project will compete for GMQS approval pursuant to Section 26.470.060 of the Aspen Land Use Code upon receiving Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final POO development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the POO as described in the General Provisions, Section 26.445.040 above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the POO. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: I. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of; and compatibility with, expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 5 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. Response: As mentioned previously, the character of the area will be improved with the removal and replacement of the existing A -frame strocture with a carejillly designed building that will compliment the fabric of the urban surroundings. There are no natural or man-made hazards on the properly (including vegetation and/or landforms) that would pose any sort of difficulty in developing the parcel. It is important to realize that a parkingfaci/ity is not a trqffic generator, but will accommodate up to 99 vehiclesfor other traffic generating attractions in the downtown area. The strocture will likely attract less automobile traffic than a high density office space in the same location. The system will be able to internally queue up to four vehicles entering the facility at any given time which will minimize the likelihood traffic congestion occurring on East Hyman Avenue. The internal elevator system will produce the same amount of noise as a common residential elevator. The proposed dimensional standards of the Park Place lot are as follows: Minimum lot size (square feet): Six Thousand (6, 000) Minimum lot width (feet): Sixty (60) Minimumfront yard setback (feet): Six point six (6.6) Minimum East side yard setback (feet): Five (5) Minimum West side yard setback (feet): Three (3) Minimum rear yard setback (feet): no requirement Maximum height (feet): Thirty Five (35) Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): Ten (10) Percentage of open space required for building site: no requirement Externalj/oor area ratio: /.3/1 The proposed dimensional standards of the Hannah-Dustin.1ot are as follows: Minimum lot size (square feet): Six Thousand (6,000) Minimum lot width (feet): Sixty (60) Minimum West (primary) front yard setback (feet): Ten (10) Minimum North (secondary) front yard setback (feet): Six point six (6.6) Minimum East side yard setback (feet): no requirement Minimum rear yard setback (feet): Ten (10) Maximum height (feet): Twenty Eight (28) Minimum Distance between buildings on the lot (feet): Ten (10) Percentage of open space requiredfor building site: no requirement Externalj/oor area ratio: same as (0) Qffice zone Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 6 Note: The only dimensional standard of the Dustin-Hannah property for which the applicant is requesting a variation is the east side yard setback. 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 POO and of the surrounding area. Response: Park Place will be similar in scale to the Hannah-Dustin building located to the west and the Benedict Commons building located to the east. The front yard setback will be exactly the same as Benedict Commons. These buildings accommodate either office or residential space which will also be components of the Park Place development. 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 conunon 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. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the conunercial core and general activity centers in the city. Response: The proposed development will require no off-street parking spaces since parkingfor the office and residential units will be included as part of the commercial parkingfacility. 4. The maximum allowable density within the POO may be reduced ifthere exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a POO may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Response: Since the residential and office components of the property will expand only slightly, it is anticipated that development should require approximately the same amount of water pressure and drainage capabilities that are currently provided on site. The mechanical operations of the facility will require approximately 100 amps (at 460-480 volts) of electricity which may necessitate a transformer upgrade for adequate power supply, which the applicant is willing to include as part of this application. 5. The maximum allowable density within a POO may be reduced ifthere exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a POO may be reduced if: Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 7 a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls 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 in 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. Response: The subject parcel is flat and perfectly stable. The applicant will provide a drainage plan upon building permit submission which will detail the collection system that is designed to capture all hazardous materials (i. e. oil, gasoline, radiator fluid, etc.) that may leak from vehicles while stored in the facility. The applicant is committed to properly disposing of such materials to the satisfaction of the Aspen Environmental Health Department. Although it may be perceived that a parkingfacility may generate air pollution (as can be expected with a traditional self service design), this particular system will fWt generate air pollution since the engines of vehicle will be turned off upon reaching the facility. There are no critical or natural features in jeopardy of being disturbed on site. 6. The maximum allowable density within a POO may be increased ifthere exists a significant conununity 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 ofa POO may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the conununity as expressed in the Aspen Area Conununity 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 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. Response: This PUD application is requesting an increase in the maximum allowable density as a significant community goal will be achieved if approval of the Park Place project is granted This project will establish commercial infillon a site that is substantially underutilized and will accommodate public parking where it has been previously identified as appropriate by the City. The site can certainly accommodate additional density since no physical barriers exist on site. Park Place Conunercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 8 The proposed design of the Park Place development will be consistent with and complimentary to the character of the surrounding ef1lJironment. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the POO 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: I. Existing natural or man-made features on 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. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. . 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. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Response: There are no significant natural or man made features on the property that require preserving. The property is flat, contains approximately 26-30 unmarked spaces in surface parking on the front and rear of the parcel, and has minimal landscaping. Alley congestion will be considerably reduced through the removal of alley-accessed parking, which currently requires moving of vehicles to access tandem parking. There exists a two story A -:frame residence, built in J 960, that has been cOf1lJerted to an office space. Unfortunately, the strocture has grown greatly out of character with development that has occurred in the area more recently. The Park Place facility is designed as a single strocture and is therefore already clustered to the greatest extent possible. Development will be similar in height, scale and mass to that qf surrounding development. Setbacks from the street will be the same as the Benedict Commons building and the street amenities will be similar as well. Unlike the existing strocture, the Park Place development will be oriented towards the street to allow for emergency vehicle access from East Hyman Averme and the alley behind The Applicant will provide for adequate pedestrian and handicapped access. Site drainage shall meet the standards of the City of Aspen. The strocture will allow for ample space between existing buildings on either side for proper ingress/egress. Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 9 D. 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: I . The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and made-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. Response: Approval of this application will actually enhance the surrounding environment by bringing development on the property into compatibility with streetscape development that has already occurred on East Hyman Avenue between Spring and Original Streets. The design and style of the proposed structure will compliment the existing mixed use development by introducing attractive architectural elements that will contain additional residential and office space along the street. There are na significant natural or man-made features on the property that need of preservation. The design of the building incorporates landscaping along its faf(lde which will enhance the pedestrian experience along East Hyman Avenue. The site, as well as the adjacent Hannah-Dustin Building, lacks sidewalks and street tree plantings along Hyman Avenue. This situation would be considerably improved through the continuation of sidewalks and street tree plantings in the design motif established by the Benedict Commons development. The property is essentially void of vegetation exceptfor some shrubs surrounding the A- frame strocture. E. 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 based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility 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. 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 Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 10 suitable for, and indicative of the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 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. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate maDDer that does not require significant maintenance. Response: This project will exceed the height requirements of the zone district but will be designed to compliment the mass, height and orientation of buildings in the area. There are no historical or cultural resources located near the property. The property does not provide an opportunity for solar utilization due to its lWrthem orientation. It is not anticipated that storage or shedding of ice/snow will be an issue on the property since the structure will cover a majority of the lot and will be flat roofed F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard is to ensure that the exterior of the development will be lighted in appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: I. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind 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 POO documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Response: All lighting will be compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards and the applicant will malre every effort to assure that it will not interfere with a4joining streets or lands. The Applicant is committed to incorporating lighting that that will not divert undue attention to the property. G. 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 POO, the following criteria shall be met: I. 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, Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 11 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 POO. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all conunon park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the POO or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through aI legal instrument for the pennanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, conunercial, or industrial development. Response: The site is too small for the incorporation of common park, open spoce, or recreation area in the Park Place development proposal. H. Utilities and Public Facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an 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. I. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by 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. Response: The proposed development will require only those services that are currently provided on site. The electrical power required to operate the system may necessitate a transformer upgrade, which the applicant is willing to contribute as part of this application. Access and Circulation. 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 POO has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. 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. Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 12 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 rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The reconunendation ofthe 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. 5. Streets in the POO 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 POO, or lots within the POO, are minimized to the extent practical. Response: The Park Place project will have adequate access from East Hyman Avenue which is a public road within the City of Aspen. The proposed parking facility can adequately queue up to foor (4) cars at any given time which will diminish the possibility of congestion on East Hyman Avenue. This project will provide ample parking for occupants of the office space and residential units within the facility. Because of its size and location, this particular property does not provide an opportunity to dedicate public trails. 3. Resnonse to Section 26.710.180 Office (0) 26.710.180 Office (0) Response: A commercial parking lot is listed as a Conditional Use in the Office (0) zone district. The dimensions of the stnJcture will in several instances exceed the dimensional requirements of the zone district, as previoosly ootlined in the Dimensional Requirements section of this application. The lot meets the minimum lot size of 6, 000 square feet for the zone district and meets the minimum lot size for multi-family units. The proposed strocture will exceed the maximum height limitation of 25 feet and does exceed the setback requirements of the zone district. 4. ResDOnse to 26.425.040 Conditional Uses When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable. A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Conununity 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. Park Place Conunercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 13 Response: The Park Place development will further the goal of irifill, which is recognized as a primary objective in the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed development will be built with the intent of completing the character of the neighborhood by integrating development that is similar in mass, height, and architecture style to that of the surrounding area. The proposed commercial parkingfacility will comply with the intent of the Office (0) zone district by establishing a commercial use that will ultimately support commercial activity in downtown Aspen. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The Park Place project will replace the existing A-frame structure with development that is more compatible with l!Xisting development on East Hyman Avenue. The proposed structure will be similar in height, mass, and architectural style to surrounding buildings which will help solidify a coherent feel of the neighborhood. The integration of residential and office space in the structure situated along the streetscape will strengthen the type of uses that currently define the area. C. The location, size, design of the operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. Response: Park Place may actually increase the efficiency of vehicular circulation in the downtown area by reducing the number of cars searching for parking. The development is not anticipated to any additional trash than is currently generated on site. Noise associated with the facility will only be vehicular in nature. An undetectable level of noise will be produced by the mechanical operations of the facility (similar to that of a passenger elevator). D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: There are adequate public faculties and services available in the area to support the proposed development in terms of roads, water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, drainage, and schools. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 14 Response: The facility will employ an average of 5 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) for which the applicant will mitigate more than 60 percent. Park Place will contain a single (category J) one-bedroom rental unit in addition to a single (category 3) three-bedroom rental unit that would account for 4.75 employees, pursuant to Table V in the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. This proposed employee mitigation is well beyond what is typically required for new development in the Aspen Land Use Code. 5. ResDonse to Section 26.310 Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District MaD 26.310.040 Standards of Review In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. 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 public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Response: This application is requesting approval of an amendment to the official zone district map for the City of Aspen to include the proposed and newly configured Park Place property as a PUD Overlay District subject to the dimensional requirements listed previously. Approval of this requested amendment allows the Park Place development to proceed as a step towards the City's goal of assisting infill. As part of that goal, the City of Aspen Infill Report has suggested the rezoning of the subject parcel and surrounding properties Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 15 from (0) Office to (C-l) Commercial. The report states that this area "can support a higher intensity of development" for which this application is requesting approval. The property is currently improved with a single 927 square foot A-frame strncture that accounts for an existingfloor area ratio of 0.15/1. When compared to the floor area ratios of other developments in the vicinity, including the Benedict Commons (1.08/1 FAR) and the Aspen Athletic Club building (1.82/1 FAR), it becomes evident that the property is significantly underutilized At approximately 7,733 square feet, the Park Place project proposes an FAR of 1.3/1 which is comparable to the FARs of a4jacent and nearby properties, and substantially below the FAR suggested in the Aspen Infill Report. The neighborhood on East Hyman Avenue has incrementally grown more and more urban since the A-frame structure was constrncted. This amendment will allow for development that will compliment the evolved urban character of the neighborhood. The proposed amendment would compliment the character and zoning of the surrounding area to a greater extent than would the underlying (0) Office zone, which only provides a floor area ratio of 0.75/1, which may be increased to 1/1 by special review. The proposed amendment will enable the constrnction of a parkingfacility that will not generate traffic, but will help to reduce traffic generated by other entities in the downtown area. As referenced in the 1986 City of Aspen parking analysis, vehicles have been observed to travel up to four times the minimum length of a trip in a prolonged effort to find available parking space. It was also estimated that during peak hours, half the number of cars on the street at '"!Y time in Aspen are searching for parking. Needless to say, more readily available parking can reduce traffic by reducing the number of cars that are roaming the streets in search of on-street parking spaces. The proposed amendment will accommodate a development plan that will incorporate two residential units with a totaloffour (4) bedrooms. The residential component of the Park Place development will require approximately the same amount of utility services (i.e. water and electricity) as is currently provided on site. On the other hand, the mechanical components of the outomated facility will require approximately 100 amps (460-480 volts) of power to operate. According to the City Of Aspen Electric Department, this electrical demand may require a transformer upgrade which the applicant is willing to contribute as condition of this application. The proposed amendment would nat result in adverse impacts on the natural environment since there are no such amenities on the subject property. This application argues that '"!Y sort of development that promotes the economic growth and vitality is in the best public interest of its community. 6. Resoonse to Section 26.470.070 GMQS Exemotions 26.470.070 (J) Affordable Housing Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 16 All affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee shall be exempt from the competition and scoring procedures. The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include: 1. A determination of the city's need for affordable housing. 2. The proposed development's compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, housing sections, and addendum of said plan. 3. The proposed location, number, type, size, rental/sale mix, and price/income restrictions of the affordable housing units. 4. The phasing of affordable housing unit production in relation to impacts being mitigated through such provision. Response: The applicant proposes a category 1, one bedroom deed restricted rental unit and a category 3, three bedroom deed restricted rental unit as part of the Park Place project. The needfor qffordable housing in the City of Aspen is evident as large scale qffordable housing projects such a Burlingame are ongoing. The units proposed in this development will provide high quality housing located within walking distance to a majority of employment establishments in Aspen's commercial core in compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Optimally, the units will provide housingfor employees of Park Place. Park Place promotes "good city form" and will enhance the character of Aspen by placing aesthetically pleasing housing units situated along the streetscape to enhance the residential components of the neighborhood. 7. Suoolemental Information As part of the original Sketch Plan Review, several questions were raised about the proposed development in regard to the safety of its mechanical operations. This portion of the application is intended to provide information from the manufacturer assuring that all aspects of the system are entirely foolproof. Wohr Parking Systems has constructed over 50 parking facilities around the world similar to the one proposed at Park Place. It is a company that established itself as the innovator automated parking design and has no record ofserious safety issues related to any of their fucilities in operation. In order to understand the system more fully a brief overview of the parking operations and procedure may be helpful. Vehicles will enter the facility from East Hyman Avenue where they will park on the staging area. The attendant will open the platform bay doors at which time red or green light will indicate if the driver or an attendant can proceed forward into the platform bay and onto the vehicle pallet. Large text display will assist the vehicle, which is monitored with special sensor technology to assure that the vehicle is properly situated on the pallet. The driver then exits the vehicle and the platform bay. When it is determined that all people are safely clear, the mechanical doors to the platform bay will close and the parking system becomes active. The platform bay is checked for people for approximately five seconds by sensory alarms and photoelectric Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 17 barriers. If no movement is detected, the door to the facility will open and the pallet will move the car forward in to the retrieval area. The platform will lower or rise on a vertical lift to the appropriate row and then horizontally to a vacancy in the parking grid "shelves" (see Attachment C). The platform will then move the vehicle forward into the vacant spot and return to the staging area to service another vehicle. Upon retrieving a vehicle, the platform will rotate 180 degrees to assure that all vehicles leaving the facility are traveling forward to eliminate traffic/pedestrian conflicts with backing vehicles. Delivery of cars to departing customers will be secondary to acceptance of new vehicles to make sure that the flow of incoming vehicles is not stymied. There will be an on-site office that will provide a comfortable place for customers to wait for their cars to be delivered. Customers will be encouraged to call ahead so that their vehicle is ready when they come to pick it up. Pursuant to the request of the Engineering Department, a Traffic Management Plan will be submitted prior to building permit submittal. The applicant will test the site to assure that there are no issues in regard to groundwater on the site. Seepage from the facility will be eliminated by collection bays placed at the bottom of the facility where leaking materials will be captured and disposed of in a proper manner. All interior and exterior walls of the parking structure will be fire proof to meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and a fire wall will be placed between the parking area and the residential units. An emergency generator will be installed as part of the system to protect against electrical failure. Approved sprinkler systems, illumination systems, evacuation/roof access, hose bibs and alarms will be,implemented and installed to the satisfaction of the Aspen Fire Protection District. Appropriate ingress/egress will be provided for both residential units as required by the Uniform Building Code. Park Place Commercial Parking Facility Land Use Code Standards Report Page 18 ATTACHMENT B ~ j ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY TRANSIT/TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 1986 - 2000 Prepared for the C!TY OF .~SPEN, COI.ORADO PITKIN COUNTY ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY Prepared by LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY. I~C. Denv(-~r. Co lot'ucla in assoc:iation with SG ASSOCIATES, INC. .~\nnandale. Vi.rginin November, 1986 L LSC #27-86 , iJ --...... SECTION 5 PARKING ELEMENT As parking demand in central Aspen has grown with the development of the city. it has largely been met with a strategy of making more on-street puhlic parking available. The effects of this strategy are evident from even a cursory walking tour of the central commercial area of Aspen during peak seasons: inadequate parking supply in many areas. widespread illegal parking, traffic congestion caused in part by drivers searching for elusive spaces, and a significant degradation of the overall pedestrian environment and streetscape. The impact of the current parking system on the attractiveness of Aspen as a resort is significant: parking was a commonly-mentioned source of frustration among lodgers surveyed In the Aspen In Room Survey: 1982-83. In summary, problems associated with the existing parking policy have grown to the point where alternative solutions are warranted. EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS Before alternative solutions to the parking problems of Central Aspen can be analyzed in sufficient detail, it is necessary to understand fUlly the existing conditions and to answer the following questions: How much parking is presently available? What is the use of that parking?, and. What is the present need? Surveys conducted in the late winter of 1986 provided answers to these questions. Parkin!! Supply Current parking facilities in the Aspen central core are presented in Figure 5-1. A total of 1664 public parking spaces are provided in the area: 180 in the two off-street lots at the Rio Grande site. and 1484 on-street. In addition, 1300 private off-street spaces are prov.ided in the area which have restricted use or are. otherwise not available to the general public at large. Figure 5-1 also indicates the current time restrictions on the publiC spaces. At the time of the survey. 8 spaces were posted with 5-1 ) ~ l~=;,d UU W!U~ D@'~~., ei~~/80;H@ ~U8g 8~ H<ID ... 0 .... 0 00 ....... ... o 0 9/'11010/0 0 0 d ;;; 00 0 0 610/0/010 ON 9/9 Q/O/D fD/Ol I 01019/010 I 1010 i ;I:~I;! ~ ~ 08':'! !!;ra/:o n8~H ., ~. ~~. . ~ ci~ -g . ~ 0 0/0/6/0/0 0 0 0 0 o :!o -:_ <ID <i) ~ H3.LNnH 0/0/01/0/00/0/. 10 0/0/01/ ~ @) · . m~ 'f';:~~I;]!!RHI~I~t' ~ t6\ .l1. ... ... '=1 ....... , ... ... ....... c; ~ \sJ -11. 0 1010l1l1 00 00 00 !? .0 Go ~ ~ CL VN31YO ~ O/D/O/UIO DIDIO/BID ~ :;'~9~O/a..' . . ...", . fT'. ....,. ;.'.'.' ~ @Hell@~~@ @ ~@ a a ~ c; ~ ;;; 0/019/0/0 0 O( 01 ",..., 01010t910 9/0/0 01 8.. ~~~ @80 II ~I.I'~ ! ~~r~ 1l@."'.'U'O/%lol o 00 0.. 00 0/6/0/0/0 . 0"0 ~D:jgf~DfOIO ~ ~8H~~~:I:'~~ ~ ~~0:0':8~/~ o~ ~~"0 oa/o::~0~0~::g/80/0/0 ~ ~:8o:0Ig: - ~ ~~~ @~~@@~~@@~~ee~~@ ;; a ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ s: . 0 l/D/O/OI 0 00 0 0 0 0 J . ottO/OIO/O aHO/O 0 0 0110/0/0/0 ~/O/O/O/O - I "' .. ~ ~ ~ u. >>;; G C.I 0.- ::l en 0) c ~ ... <<S a.. Cl c +-0 -en X W - o .. - e ... = - . .. .. .. .. "- " .. - .. .. e .. (I):; 0') "0 " .: z c ~..... ~ ~ ~ .. ~ .. ... = ... .. 2.... . ;; ~ ~ ... .0 ~ ~ = ... - - - o .. '0 ~ .c e-r"'1N . .0 _ .0 e ~ e ~.c ~ z........ z Q Z W " W ... : o " ., ~ .. .. ... 5-2 a IS-minute limit, 186 spaces with a 3D-minute limit, 672 spaces with a I-hour limit. 132 with a 2-hour limit, and 666 with no time lImit. Parkinlr Oemand Before the merits of the various parking strategies can be evaluated, it is first necessary to assess the parking demand created by the various land uses in the commercial core. and to analyze the location of parking supply surpluses and deficits. On one level, this factor can be evaluated by observing current parking utilization. Surpluses and deficits in the parking supply can also be calculated. on a block-by-block basis, by determining the parking demand generated by the various land uses based upon observed parking generation rates in other, similar areas. As documented in Technical Memorandum Number 4. an extensive series of parking surveys were conducted during peak midweek ski days in March, 1986. Besides an accumulation count of parked vehicles in the various subareas of the central core, information was collected regarding parking turnover (i.e., tbe length of time which individual vehicles were parked), as well as vehIcle registration by county. Summaries of the information collected for the central core as a whole are presented in Figures 5-2 through 5-4; a complete presentatlo~ of the count data by subal'ea is presented In Appendix E. Parkin~ Accumulation - Total vehicle parking accumulation for the central core over a peak ski day is depicted graphically in Figure 5-2. As shown. parking accumulation grows through the morning hours to an initial peak around 12 noon, when approximately 90% of the core area's public parking spaces are utilized. Accumulation drops slightly in the early afternoon. then rises again to an equal peak between 4 PM and 5 PM. when parking demand resulting from Aspen employees and Aspen Mountain skiers coincides with the "apres-ski" surge from the outlying ski areas. 5-3 , ) .....~- .,/ W '--, -- ,- er:: lJ '1) '- ~) .~ r'J) ,., ,. .... .:) I- () <: / >. .. L- {I . <: .. "\,/ . (.I ~ -"'-- Q. " er:: ::l .. U .. ~r u , ~ C) -, CL \J '1) :> '- L- '1) 1,1 W .J:l 0 CL { ("" .j ,J ~-r .. ~ L .,:. <( r-, ~ ~,~ ~...~ ~,., ~.~ ~. ;;.,~ 6'~ ~,. ~,~ ~ -- I:!."'~ ., 0 0 0 (] 0 ,=, CI Cl CI (] CI 0 'IJ) OJ roo. (0 lO ~ r') ('.j ~ ~ p;;;ldn;)~IJ s;;;;~1[1ds ;0 lU;;;;)J8Id 5-4 ((I I.() ~ r-r. .-, V' '- ~ (',j '- 0 ..... l!) ..., ,-\J ~ :J V 0... ~ 0 (L I :J Z ".-J 0 0 p >'0 0 0 z o~ c ..... .1) ~ 0 (.) ~ '- .1) f- ECl. 0 I- ~ I 0) ID u . .: ~ . .! u .. - o u III ... ~ . .. L (" ..-..' +, I.,.) L_ ~ _i 0 1.)1 r- ~ .- . . ~ - ..... L I~') W U "-~ u.. t) I... '0 () . . ....:::- \:I .,' V W I... ft .t> . .. ........ c -, / . ..- E ~ cr: :0 .. {) ... ~) () I'" t"l \:I I... I..' .. ..... ,- ( p. 'fl I C) .___" --". Q ./ ~ ..... () \.~' ,- -L CL _or ""-- -, u.. .......~ .- w u.. ( (') ~.~ d. D ..f .,.. -.. -~. ~B" ..------..----- ---_.~-_.- ---_...---' _..--- --.-..-- .... ,po i i .0 ~ "'~. I il """.,1 ;; t r"-. ~r. [I ,n - : (f1 I- (0 V"I [- ~ ~ ,I, l() i~~ ~ f- ll~ I .,.. " ~ f-.,.. J , I i (1\ ,/i" ,. d ~,~ ~.~ in Cl !- l("! ! rn I I ~- ~.-: -..' ~:>l f- ('.j ~~ L~ I ~ :j ID 'ZI I... ::i () I c n ...' ,) I... ::i L:; u C ~ . .! u oll ~ . u <II ... .. j I I ul I I I ~f, li'~ ~... ~'-~ ~.~ ~.~ " In D lO CI lO D tr) 1"":1 C--,J ('.j ~ ~ S~PI4~l\ p~l'J~SqC) 40 % 5-5 .. I .. . ~ " .. ... r- ~ 1)1 >- L (-) iD ( ':1 '-' >- (- iD .........:- / ? ,.-, [( ./" ~/ '1 dJ ( ~' ~ I d b... ::fJ l rl t ""r //' ~ t ~ o ID ~~ o r-.. I ~ o (0 /.,. .~.....~ ~ , o .~ ./" ....~.... ..... I I ~ ~,~ o 0 ~'") .,j- :..:>. ." ", ! + , , f , l + { I +. 't \ } ""1 L ...... '. ""'T J \ l 1 ,./ " "i.,'\ " ...", ~./ '>> +/ // I l~ +~ .... ", ... .... <:;" + ~ , ,.,......" f'/ { * ~ " i , t 4 " '\ .../~. ~~. ~ , ~~ o I") '. "\. +.: .~........ f- ff) - i- ,n i- i-.,j- i- i- t<J i- i- c.j i- i-~ i- i-N ~ "'j ~~ ~2 I I.. ~ '." t I)) , l\ 2: c.... Cl () 'v :>. -.. n ....'1 OV '.L1 "- O~j .~ 'D '-- .~ ,~) ~~ '- Q (~) ~ 4' \i + '- 'v ~ (J Z'O u = ~ 'J'l W '.-, '0 --. '- ...- (I Wo -----";. \) ?' .-- {) '- ,....~/. LL '0 ,- c -.., --' - t {') () ( t"') '... " (r) Q ~_' -f-I o I- "'-- ~\.~.,/ ...::.- cr ~.]'- " ....-.. LL ~ ..' ~ w CL (.n ~ , <( " I ~-': o ',. 0'. o N ~ Sdl;)14dl\ Pd)jJ Dd ID~ol 40 % 6~~ CI - ::; ~ . .! u .. 0;-:1 () c ~ ~ ~ o u <II ~ ~ 1 ~ 0.. o 5-6 Parkin~ Duration - Figure 5-3 depicts parking duration for vehicles parking in the core area. This data was developed by recording license plates for each vehicle parked within fIve representatIve sampling areas every half hour. When these lists were compared. the rough parking duration for vehicles parked within each subarea were determined. The subarea data was then factored up to result in the information presented in Figure 5-3. (Data for each sampling area are presented in Appendix E.) Examination of Figure 5-3 reveals the high proportion of vehicles which are parked in the core public parking spaces for relatIvely short periods: approximately 60% of all vehicles are parked for only one hour or less. while a total of about 80% are parked for two hours or less. Parking durations in the areas adjacent to the Pedestrian Mall which are regulated for two-hour parking or less have even higher percentages of short-term parkers. When factored by the length of stay. these parking duration figures indicate that approximately 45% of the cars parked at anyone time are parked for two hours or less; the remainder are parked for more than two hours. Ori~ins of Parked Vehicles- The vehicle license plates recorded as part of the parking duration survey also indicate the county of registration of the vehicles parking in the central core area. As shown in Figure 5-4. approximately 65% of the total parked vehicles over the entire day are registered in Pitkin County. An additional 10% are registered in the Down Valley counties (Garfield and Eagle). while the remaining 25% are registered elsewhere. The proportion of Pitkin vehicles remains relatively constant between 60% and 70% over the workday. tailing off into thn evnning hours as non-Valley visitors enter Aspen for dining and shopping. Parkin~ Demand Based on Land Use - Analyses of parking demand based upon the accumulation counts discussed above arC li~..ited in that they define the location of where parkers are forced to park by the availability of spaces. rather than where drivers would desire to park. To fully 5-7 evaluate the parking demand in the various subareas of central Aspen, it is necessary to conduct an analysiS of demand by land use type. As the basis for this analysis, existing land use information was provided for each block In the central area by the Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department. These land use quantities were then multiplied by parking generation rates derived from two sources. For the ski area, the rate was based upon actual concurrent counts of skiers and parked cars at Snowmass on a peak ski day in March, 1986. The other rates are drawn from the widely-accepted publication entitled Parking Generation: An Informational Report, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1985). These rates are based upon average rates observed in an extensive series of parking accumulation counts conducted at various sites across the country. Aspen. however, is not like most of the country. To define parking generation rates applicable to Aspen. it was necessary to account for two factors: 1. Reductions for the unusually high use of transit and carpooling, and the high percentage of trips made on foot. These rates were based upon previous studies and surveys. and on actual parking accumulation counts. 2. Reduction for shared parking. The ITE rates discussed above identify the maximum parking accumulation over the span of an entire day. In actuality, of course, these peaks occur at separate times. (For instance. residential parking peaks at night, while retail parking peaks in the afternoon.) For an area of mixed land use such as the central core, It is necessary to identify the peak parking demand for all land uses as a whole. This exercise was accomplished using a computer program based upon the methodology presented in Shared Parking. publishedhy the Urban Land Institute in 1985. which assesses the parking demand for each land use type for each hour of the day. These rates and factors were entered into a computer spreadsheet and used to identify various measures of parking demand. The~measure most critical in assessing potential parking plans is the peak period parking demand. as shown in Figure 5-5. These figures indicate that the single area with the 5-8 J ':' 'O~ .. C 0 ~ as 0 " - .. 'Om ... c-'= aso Eas CJ)w Oc 0)0 C ~~ "- .- as= o...g ~= as as CJ)> 0..< 0) C - CIJ o- X W ~ J L .!...-:. -..0- .ao__,.,. :-c... .00-; -. -I. 0..1_ _: .....a. :~:!:.. e..~: ~~ ~,. c -.0 ..." ... "C.o ...0 Q.I~- -. .. 01> .. ...:: ::~- E. .. "...0 .. ZCD . I> Z w CI w ... .. .. - .. .. lJUUUL UJrTIITJ0 DNllldS [] 0 [HI] 113~NnH . IT] OJ OJ VN31VD . . . 1~lrn ., "1" [0 IT] IT] ~ .. - - . .. .. .. , - . ... . ... - - .. .. '" , - '" . - .. .. - . - o . .. , - . '" .. . ... , - - - .. - .. .. .. - - .. .. 0: W '" .. Z 0: - CI .. - .. .. 0 ;= ... - @ o ~D' ~Di!:ITJHOll:NOW~OJ" ~0" ~Q]" ~0" ~ w ..< ..... Q. ..... ::I .... 0 _ cr.... < ~ 2::: 0: > .0 G :)0 X m x % 0 Q n'nnnnnGi o l'i 5-9 highest parking demand is the base of Aspen Mountain, followed by the Pedestrian Mall area. Also shown in Figure 5-5 is a block-by-block'notation of the current parking space surplus or shortfall. The second number presented on each block indicates the number of parking spaces available to the public on the block or on-street immediately adjacent to it after the spaces represented by the parking demand generated by the block have been subtracted. A negative number indicates that parking demand for a particular block exceeds the parking supply. The location of the areas of parking surplus and shortfall is indicative of current parking conditlons, many of the drivers bound for the ski area or the Pedestrian Mall are forced by space inavailability to park to the west of Mill Street, to the east of Hunter Street, or in the Rio Grande area. Existing Parking Need Aspen is currently faced with a serious parking shortage. Long-term parking spaces aTe not readily available and the convenient short-term spaces are utilized in large part by parkers who violate the time limits. (For example, a survey of a two-block-long section of Galena Street indieated that 75% of the cars parked on-street at anyone tIme had exceeded the half-hour parking limit.) The loss of these spaces forces many short-term parkers to use the unregulated spaces at the fringes of the core area. resulting in long walk distances and a shortage of long-term spaces in some areas. As is presented in detail in Appendix E. analysis of current conditions indicates that the parking situation could be improved to acceptable levels by an increase in parking regulation enforcement coupled with the provision of no less than 220 additional publiC spaces. These spaces are required both to prOVide parking for drivers currently parking illegally in the short-term spaces and to make increased enforcement acceptable to both Aspen's residents and visitors. 5-10 FUTURE PARKING CONDITIONS Commercial and ski area development over the next 15 years in central Aspen will have two dramatic effects on Aspen: (1) the total supply of off-street private parking supply will decrease, and (2) peak period parking demand will increase. The forecasts of future parking supply. demand and need are discussed in the following paragraphs. This discussion is also summarized in Table 5-1. Future Parkine Supply The fnture parking snpply, like today's supply, will consist of private and public spaces. Private spaces are those regulated spaces that are controlled by assigned users and are not availahie to the puhlic at large. Private Parkine - Continued commercial development over the next 14 years could result in the loss of up to 295 of the 1,300 privately-owned parking spaces in the central area of Aspen. Many of the 295 spaces exist in several small scattered parking lots or as a few spaces on partially developed land. As the eXisting Aspen Municipal Code does not require the provision of any amount of off-street parking spaces for development within the central commercial core, these spaces could potentially be developed without any offsetting parking provision. As presented later in this section in the "Aspen Central Area Parking Plan." it is recommended that a Downtown Development Aut.hority (DDA) be created, in accordance with existing Colorado statutes, to become the "parking authority" or parking management. body of the City. Among other dut ies. the DDA would be gi ven the res pons i b i lity of issuing bonds to provide for off-street parking facilities to accommodate existing unrnet demand and future parking demand occasioned by fut.ure residential and commercial development within the Central area. For all property owners within the DDA area, the Authority would have t.he charge of providing off-street parking spaces based on agreed~upon and reasonable parking space standards. Thus, inst.ead of many small private 5-11 TABLE 5 - 1 YEAR 2000 PARKING SPACE CALCULATIONS Public PARKING SUPPLY On- Off- Sub- Street Street total ===================================================================================== Existing Spaces Lost to (Re)Development New Spaces Provided by Private Developers Total Spaces in 2000 Assuming No Increase in Pubiic Parking Supply 1485 60 180 1665 35 95 o 1425 145 1570 =~=================================================================================== 2640 PUBLIC PARKING DEMAND Private Sub- total TOTAL 1300 295 65 1070 Number of Spaces Existing Parking Demand (Peak Parking Accumulation plus Unsatisfied Demand) EXisting Parking Demand (With Transit and Pedestrian Improvements In Place) Increase in Demand Generated by Future Development Without Transit and Pedestrian Improvements With Transit and Pedestrian Improvements 1695 1575 645 605 , , Increase in Demand from Loss of Private Spaces (70% of 230) Without Transit and Pedestrian Improvements 160 With Transit and Pedestrian Improvements 160 Total Future Increase in Demand Without Transit and Pedestrian Improvements (645 + 160) With Transit and Pedestrian Improvements (605 + 160) 805 765 PUBLIC PARKING NEED Existing Parking Space Need: Without Transit and Pedestrian Improvements (1695 / .9) 1885 With Transit and Pedestrian Improvements (1575 / .9) 1750 Total Future Increase in Need due to Future Develop- ment and Loss of Spaces due to Development Without Transit and Pedestrian Improvements (805 / .9) 895 With Transit and Pedestrian Improvements (765 / .9) 850 Total Future Need Without Transit and Pedestrian Improvements (1885 + 895) 2780 With Transit and Pedestrian Improvements (1750 + 850) 2600 PUBLIC PARKING SPACE DEFICIT Existing Deficit Without Transit and Pedestrian Improvements (1885 - 1665) 220 With Transit and Pedestrian Improvements (1750 - 1665) 85 Total Future Deficit Without Transit and Pedestrian Improvements (2780 - 1570) 1210 With Transit and Pedestrian Improvements (2600 - 1570) 1030 5-12 2965 390 65 developments trying to provide their own parking, the DDA could pool the demand and provide a few larger off-street parking facilities enabling joint use and shared use of a larger parking supply, Based upon projections of future parking demand that is caused by new development. and project!ons of existing private spaces lost because of that new development. it is estimated that private development will Increase parking demand by a total of 645 parking spaces by the Year 2000. The DDA could not, and prObably should not have the responsibility for prOViding all of these spaces. It is anticipated that some of the larger development projects, particularly those that include residential or lodging units, may be reqUired by the DDA to provide their own private off-street parking. A reasonable assumption Is that about 10 percent of the private demand will be prOVided on-site by private developers; therefore about 580 development-related spaces, consisting of the 295 formerly private spaces lost by new development and 385 new development-related spaces, could be required of the DDA. Taking both the loss of parking to development and the provision of new onsite parking into consideration, the number of private parking spaces is forecast to fall 230 spaces from the current number of 1300 spaces to a Year 2000 total of 1070 spaces. Public Parkin!! - By the Year 2000, some eXisting public parking spaces will also be lost. As discussed in the Pedestrian Pian, the removal of angled parking along Galena, Cooper. and Durant would result in the loss of 60 on-street spaces. The extension of Spring Street north and west through the iower Rio Grande lot would result in the loss of another 35 off-street spaces. Thus, the total number of publiC spaces which would be available in the Year 2000 not counting the provision of any additional spaces, would equal the existing 1665 spaces minus 95, or 1570 spaces. , Future Parkin!! Demand To quantify future parking demand, it is necessary to adopt a number of assulIlptions: 5-13 \ / , ! , ) . Growth in the commercial land uses will occur at the rate of 20,000 square feet per year. which is the maximum allowable under the Aspen Growth Management Plan. This growth will he located in proportion to the amount of currently-unused zoned capacity on each block in the core area. . As is currently planned. Aspen Mountain will grow to an area capacity of 4300 skiers per day. No further improvements to the ski area are assumed. . In the absence of pedestrian and transit improvements, parking generation characteristics for the various land use types will remain as they are today. . The provision of the improved pedestrian connections between the central core and the adjacent lodging areas will reduce peak parking demand in the core by approximately 25 vehicles. . The implementation of the recommendations pre.ented in the Transit Element will reduce parking demand for the' land uses In the central core area by an average of 5% in the first year these improvements are provided. As the community adjusts travel patterns and car ownership patterns to take advantage of this alternative to the automobile, this percentage reduction is expected to grow by 2% per year. These estimates are in line with the reductions in traffic volumes discussed in the Vehicular Element. Under these assumptions. public parking demand generated by the central core area in the year 2000 Is forecast to be approximately 605 vehicles greater than at present. an increase of approximately 40% over current levels, If the reductions associated with tbe pedestrian and transit improvements are not considered. parking demand is found to be 40 vehicles higher. To identify total public parking demand, It is neces.ary to assess the impact of the loss of private spaces discussed above. Because of the restrictions on the use of private spaces. utilization during peak periods never exceeds about 70%. The loss of the 230 private,spaces would thus increase demand for pUblic spaces by apprOXimately 160 vehicles during peak periods. Summing the increase In demand resulting from development and the increase stemming from the loss of private spaces, total public parking 5-14 L demand in 2000 will be 765 vehicles greater than at present if the pedestrian and transit recommendations are implemented, and 805 vehicles greater than at present in the absence of pedestrian and transit improvements. Figure 5-6 depicts the parking demand and parking surplus/shortfall on each block in the central core in the Year 2000. When compared to Figure 5-5, Figure 5-6 indicates the number and location of blocks which are forecast to change from a net parking surplus condition to a net parking shortage condition over the next 14 years. The area of net parking shortage, currently confined in large part to the Pedestrian Mall area, is expected to grow to the east and particularly to the north to encompass the bulk of the central core area. Future Public Parking Need If parking supply exactly equals parking demand. unacceptable parking conditions will inevitably result. Drivers are forced to make extensive searches to find the last rew spaces. resulting in high levels of traffic congestion and driver frustration. Historically, parking planners have found that utilization rates which remain at or below 90% of the total number of spaces result in acceptable parking conditions. Thus, to provIde acceptable conditions for an increase in parking demand of 90 cars, it is necessary to provide an additional 100 parkIng spaces. Using this 90% utilization rate as a planning guideline, approximately 850 public parking spaces will be required to accommodate future growth in parking demand if the pedestrian and transit recommendations contained in this plan are implemented; 895 additional spaces will be needed if pedestrian and transit conditions remain as they are today. Including the estimated present need of 1.885 (a present shortage of 220 spaces), 2780 spaces would be required in the absence of the pedestrian and transit improvements. With the implementation of these improvements, the current parking need would effectively fall to 1750 spaces: thus total Year 2000 5-15 , J .. "O~ , ., co . aso ~ ~ 1 2 "Om ... c,c aso Eas Q)W Oc 00 c .- >- ~- '-= as.- o..g ~= as as Q)> 0.<( 0 0 0 (\I '- as Q) >- ,1 ~ \ . ) u.,,~. =.c::o- -.00--'0 ~.ctDc'U a.a.oo..! "OCD.-e; 0__-- .~-::Q. ,a.ae= u"co e....~ ::lI.~-- zo.c:< ~ c.c ~"O "c..M: ... u a. E:J 0 . - ocrom c. .....c: .--'- "'0 e." ~'"... z'" . o z ., w .., " , w .. .... N IJUUUL QJ[JCIJ[D llNIt:fdS fTl OJ~ Ifl \Tl ~ ; ~ ~ t:f3J.NnH [IHTI OJ VN31Vll. U I [I] 1111'1 OJITJ[] '" ~ , .. .., '" .., I , .. '" .. '" ~ , '" ~ I , '" N o .", , , ... ... ~ o N ~ , , ~ ... ~ OJ .., , .. ~ o '" OJ I , .. o .. ~ N , .. N m o 20' ffiD []HOt:fVNOW riITJzQJ0:0>-0 < ~. Z G _ lO <( .. w .. z_ j . we:! f - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .:1 ~ ~ : ~ CD 8 10 S tD n'nnnnn~i . - . o l'! '" ~ I , '" .., 0: W " .. Z 0: ~ " < ' < lL 0 ;t 5-16 public parking needs with these pedestrian and transit improvements would equal 2600 spaces. Figure 5-7 depicts the future trends in public parking supply and need, assuming that no changes are made in the public parking supply. The trends depicted in this graph assume that the pedestrian improvements and the extension of Spring Street through the lower Rio Grande lot will occur in 1987, and that the alternate transit improvements will occur in 1991 (This date represents a pessimistic assumption; in reality, strong community support could result in an operational system by 1989.) As shown. the gap between public parking supply and public parking need in the absence of increased supply is expected to grow to 1030 spaces given that all pedestrian and transit recommendations are implemented. CONSIDERATIONS IN PARKING PLAN DEVELOPMENT I " Aspen is currently faced with a serious parking shortage. Evidence of the eXisting lack of adequate parking can found in the widespread violation of parking regulations both in terms of timed duration and legal spaces, the congestion caused by drivers searching for parking, and the oft-voiced complaints by visitors of the inadequacy of parking. Through extensive analysis of existing parking demand. parking snpply, and parking utilization patterns. the magnitude and nature of the current parking problem have been defined. In general terms, the parking problems in the centrai area of Aspen can be characterized as foilows: (1) Very limited parking spaces available for employees. (2) almost total dependence on the streets themselves to provide parking spaces, (3) marginally effective enforcement of on-street parking regulations. and (4) very few available spaces in the areas of highest demand. In the core of the central area. the parking problem is manifested primarily by the unavailability of short-term (less than 2 hours) parking spaces with resulting congestion caused by circulating traffic and illegally or improperly parked vehicles. Utilization rates in this central core area wlthin 2 blocks of the pedestrian mall were observed to reach 97% of the total on-street supply 5-17 ,. --- Cl CI (l.") C.l CI .:of .~ _D c\ " D " (.j '-~. I)J', , , " t- t .\ _ 01 ("'.J " 0, .', \ \ l-L- \ ('" _. \ _ ,)) ;..) \J .\ --'- .1) \\ , 1J) ,~ (L \ \ .>-' r-"', --' \ c ( t', .... I. _ to. 0 ,:,>) \ I)) (:I ,_, I U C I~') LL 0 " Q " -~ '(I T'i "- -l :0' f- \ .'1 (n -' '~ r \ .-~ ~ r- ~.,1 u. .J ~ ~, I::t;J \ \,' "- to ~ t) "- 'l Q Q. (I) IJ) Q 0:'.1 " ::l ll.. \1) " ll.. fl) Ql " (L \ ,t c Po T" -\ .... err rj) "- , U Q \ \ ,ZJ C U. ",-,' C .. ., c en IJ) " '\ ", . n :s: v .:0( _ try ~ ... \~ ,- "- '.' ~ 11> \ I- Q (I) ~ .. \J "D I, ll.. Q ... v '1) " ~..' 'll L- "t: 'l) .%~ "'J _ (,.j ll.. , (I) "-~ ..:::.. " , -0 {) \ / 'l) "- Ii> ~ ~t ll.. -0; \) L .c \\ 'll .... \" .c j- =:. '. ..... ,', _ D, '- -;.\- 3: -'1-" \\ ";;1 (}) ~ 0 _J ',\ '.... 'I.', .t) t., _ rJ) LL 't\ .t' leI ,)) '.....z 'II ~ \J - ,)) .' OJ \ ,I lO /. lO (D t" , I)) (j) - OJ ,........ I)] ~ ""_. -r-- ~ (Q t I I i"--, I , " iD try Ij) I)) t~ (0 lO + tr:' (.j ~ C.l ("I) OJ t., 'D lD + - - - - 0j c.j c..j c.j C.l (.j (.1 ('.l (.l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u c ;. ~ . . u oll Si';'!;J[1dS (spu [1;; no 41" C'IJIl1JDcf ~ll1qnd' 40 J:;Jq wnN - - o . '" .c .. 'i ... ..... 5-18 a level which inevitably produces excessive searching and driver frustration. Approximately 45% of the vehicles parking in this area exceed the posted parking duration regulations. In turn, the many vehicles illegally parking in the core area for long durations (2 hours or more) deny convenient spaces to other short-term parkers. Many of these short-term parkers ultimately find spaces in the unregulated fringe areas of the central area and thereby reduce the number of on-street spaces available to long-term parkers. The end result is very high rates of utilization in the fringe areas os well as the core areas. As is presented in the Circulation Element of this plan, the current parking practices contribute in large part to the traffic congestion .in the central commercial zone south of Main Street. Vehicles have been observed to ~ravel up to four times the minimum length of a trip in this area in a prolonged effort to find an available parking space. It is estimated that during peak hours. half of the total number of cars on the streets at anyone time are searching for parking. Parked cars seriously degrade the pedestrian environment in Aspen, due to: . angled parking. which allows the vehieles to extend over the curh onto the sidewalk and makes them look menacing as one walks towards them. . the fact that parking is allowed close to the intersections, . the size of the cars in Aspen (there are a relatively large amount of Bronco's, Wagoneers. etc.). These factors combine to produce, with the exception of the mall area, a pedestrian environment dominated by the automobile. The parking situation in Aspen is unusual in that the parking demand often completely overwhelms the on-street parking supply. ~n most cities. parking is regulated largely by parking meters. In Aspen. however. the strong demand and relatively small size of the downtown core make simple parking duration regulations and enforcement a reasonably effective and efficient 5~19 L \ means of managing parking. Where most municipalities can malFlge parking demand in various areas by raising or lowering parking meter rates, Aspen has the opportunity to manage demand for on-street central parking spaces by increasing or decreasing the level of parking reguliltion enforcement. On-Street Parkin~ Alternatives. Given the shortcomings of Aspen! s present parking strategy. there nre numerous options which could be utilized as portions of a future parking plan: a. ParkinS! meters -- Across the nation, this form of parking control is the typical solution to the type of parking problem currently faced in Aspen. The use of parking meters provides a readily-understandable and readily-enforceable means of traffic control. Their use can also generate a substantial amount of revenue. The presence of parking meters on many or all streets in the central commercial area, however, would not be in keeping with the image which Aspen wishes to project. (Indeed, it Is to avoid such things as parking meters that many people choose to visit or live in Aspen.) The use of meters would also have a significant "edge effect," as drivers wishing to avoid the meters would park outside the metered area. b. Parking- Permit Plan -- The imposition of a parking permit proeram is not warranted by the extent of the Gurt'ent parking problem, would be politically difficult, ..md would have an even greater "edge effect" than would the installation of parking- meters. c. Cham~es in the current parkinv. c:.mtrol plan -- Examination of parking utilization indicates that the current plan is working as well as can be expected given current parking demand and supply. AddItionally, any changes In regulation can l)t-~ expected to have only minor effects on parking availahi I ity. In I ight of the existing and future public parking supply shortfalls described above. improvements stemming from alterations of the prescnt parking regulations will be minor at best. d. The provision of additional on-street spaces -- With the exception of the short section of Garmlsch which ClIrt'ently has no angle parking, it would be difficult to prOVide additional on-street spaces (and thus reduce the effective travel width of the street) without seriously impacting traffic circulation. particularly during periods of heavy snowfall. Inevitably. the provision of 5-20 ~dditional on-street spaces would lead to an increase in circulating cars searching for available on-street parking, adding to the already considerable level of traffic congestion within tIle central core. Finally, the addition of more cars to the Aspen streetscape will reduce the overall attractiveness of the town. This alternative would thus be in conflict with many of the goals and objectives of this Plan. Off-Street ParkinE Alternatives Aspen is fortunate to have several potential parking facility sites adjacent to the commercial core. Provision of additional off-street parking would have the following benefits: . Would allow for improved enforcement of eXisting parking laws, as parkers would be provided with a convenient alternative to illegal parking; . Would allow replacement of angled parking with parallel spaces, which would reduce the perceived bulk of cars and reduce the number of parked cars which could be seen on a block-long street segment by approximately 40%; . Would allow for additional pedestrian space (about 8 feet) along some streets by the removal of angle parking; ! . Could significantly reduce traffic congestion in the central commercial area. The availability of convenient off-street parking would convince many driver's to abandon their continual search for rare on-street spaces. A survey of central Aspen revealed six potential parking facility sites. Three of these sites (Paepcke Park, Rubey Park. and a jOint-use structure in the lodging district to the south of Durant Street) were determined to have significant disadvantages and no compensating advantages when compared to the remaining three sites (the Rio Grande lot, Wagner Park. and the Bell Mountain Lodge Block bounded by Cooper, Spring, Hyman and Original.) The former three sites were therefore dropped from consideration. _Extensive analyses were then conducted regarding the'feasibility of various sizes of parking facilities on each of the three remaining sites. Discussions of each of these sites are presented in Appendix E. Based upon 5-21 the information presented in Appendix E. relative values were determined for each of the sites. and combinations of the sites. for a variety of factors. Members of the Technical Advisory Committee were then surveyed to identify the weight which should be given to each of the factors. Summing the weight of each factor multiplied by the value of the factor for each site(s). relative rankings for each site and combination of sites were identified. As preseuted ill Figure 5-8. the Rio Grande site tended to score highest in this scheme. Details regarding this ranking process are contailled in Appendix E. ASPEN CENTRAL AREA PARKING PLAN The Celltral Area Parkillg Plan is depicted in Figure 5-9. It has four primary components: new off-street parking structures; increased enforcement of on-street parking regulations: required implementation of the transit and pedestrian improvement plans; and creation of a "downtown development authority" (DDA) for cOllstructillg. maintailllng alld operating parking facilities in the central core of Aspen. The overall intent of the Parkillg Plan is to accommodate but Ilot encoura~e use of the automobile. Construct Additional Off-street Facilities Forecasts of future increases in parking demand within Aspen's central core indicate that the provision of off-street parking structures will be necessary if the attractiveness of the area is to be mallltained or improved. Without additional public parking. increases in parking demand will result in serious worsening of traffic congestion. extensive spillover of parking into nearby lodging and residential areas, increased noise and air pollution problems. and an overall significant reduction in the attractiveness of the core as both a commercial area and as a resort destination. Construction of additiollal publiC parking facilities may well be a necessity if Aspen is to maintain it's reputation as a world class resort. 5-22 " P,. I, i ~ -"- ~ .... L- o--r'- <...1... .. 't/ L.~ ,j') - - , , cn W ~- '1) "::.- ~ I (....1 ITt ! " " ~ ~ ( P'I C \) ,,---,' ll::: ~ / - ,:,') .. ~ , " '.f! '" " ..' ..D -~ . E ~ Cr. " 'v .. :::.r ""='.:'. "- .0.- .'. .. (L '.. <f ~ ..J L () r .< v .... ';I) ~ ~,) ;;'J LL ill ,./ LiJ CL Lt) ~ ....1 '.....J L o Cl .q- o WJ r"":l I (!.-:-J r-. o t.f'') tor") o o ~. ".' I I I 0 0 0 Ct 0 0 Ii) CI 10 CI ~, (',j ('oj ~ ~ ;;uo;:.s 5 UD.jUDtj 5-23 ... ...~ .. . ~OlL i.~ -. ~ - .... ..... al o~ .... . .. .. ... 0 ....... .. ~o .- 2" 'i .. .... . c. .. .0 .. ", :2; .j') - .=. .. ,tt ..... ~ K"~ If! . ::-7' ... ~ ~ . ~~ ~ " 0 C'.. i .... ~.. .c ... ~ l;" Co .- .11: ~.. ... ~ . lL ~ . C . . ~ " .: .. = . u .. - .. u III ... !! . .... '1' c: "' cu ~ a. '" ... Cl c: .:t:. '- CU a. CU Q) '- <( cu '- - c: Q) () ~ L lJ ;(lD ;0 o tl3.LNnH iD III'''''' I !OiID D ~Dil---I~r'~m~-i~--- iOiO n'nnn ~~~nG " ozo. 1&1 IItC!JZ · o...~5 ~ _:>>fZ A. :> " . '" w o z :> w " C '" C " W o C ... .. .. o. -"' .. wo ..... c_ %:> A.. I- o ... w o z c '" " o '" z o ,. I I I I I I I I I I I w o z c Z -w 0", "'0 00 "... zc ;;0 "'''' cw A.2 1-2 00 cO Zz w_ 5-24 w...w 0..." cwo A..O "Z'" .. 00% o - : ~:g~~" U L . co ...<:)<:1 C -"'00 :c ~c ... CL. IDCJSca ----------. D DO o If> Z ...0 0;: I-C z'" w:> 2" em "I- Cw Ww "'", 01- ~.. I Z o I ~ ~ ;. . . v U oil - o ~ ('~ ... Conversely, the construction of these parking structures, if carried out in an inappropriate or insensitive manner, could do substantial harm to the attractiveness of the central core. The parking facilities plan has been designed to minimize the size of the facilities and their impact on the visual environment. whiie stiii pr~viding an adequate amount of parking In the core. As shown in Figure 5-10, this plan recommends the construction of parking facilities in three phases, Detailed descriptions of each parking site are included in Appendix E. Phase 1 (1987): Construct a 450-space parking garage on the Rio Grande Lot - This structure should be located as far south as possible on the lot. both to minimize walking distances to the Pedestrian Mall area, and to take advantage of the natural topography to minimize the perceived bulk of the structure. Construction would require relocation or removal of the horse stables. the upper Rio Grande lot. and Caps Auto Parts. The garage may well be part of a larger structure which could ~ncorporate other uses such as a bus terminal, a relocated Pitkin County library, or an in-town airline terminal. Approximately 65 existing spaces would be taken for the garage site. An effective increase of 385 spaces would thus result from this phase. Access should be provided from Mill Street opposite Bleeker Street, and from the Spring Street extension. This facility should be managed to maximize it's attractiveness to longer~term (greater than 2 hours duration) parkers. Phase 2 (1989): Construct a 300-space gara~e as part of a mixed-use structure on the 8ell Mountain Lodge Block -. ThIs block, bounded by Cooper, Spring, Hyman, and Original, is currently underutilized. The opportunity currently exists to work with a private developer to redevelop this block with a 300-space garage on two levels wholly or partly below grade. Access to the garage should be prOVided from Original Street. As this facility will be the closest to the base of Aspen Mountain, it wili be an attractive parking option to day skiers who arrive by car. It will also be convenient for drivers destined to the Pedestrian Mall at'ea. Because of the legal process wh.!ch must be followed to init.!ate this private/public project, .!t is env.!sioned that actual construction will not be completed unt.!l 1989. Phase 3 (1995): Construct either a 300-space ~arage beneath Wa~ner Park or a 350-space addition to the Rio Grande Garage - A Wagner park parking garage would prObably consist of two levels under approximately half of the park. The ramps down to the structure would 5-25 o t-r:r , I I I I try 0) I)) ~-, (fJ 10 + t""J - - - t.! t.! Co! t'l t.! t'.l t.j '\, p~ ,I ~ " 1\ lO ;l_c~ '0 ~-'---. Ci) \ ---~~ ~ " --..... .\ -r ~ __. '0 _ ~ rJ~ ... (0 ~ '~.'--..... ~ '" "1 . "'., '. j I ",1-:. I I ('oj ~ r..! 0) 0:) ~~ c-.~ C"~ r-..- T- - CI C:l 0 t.j ~ l~? .0 'f! I.JJ >;J .t) - I)) '1) 0) Z .~..~.) ~--. c ~) - (i) -:) {) ,'i) \J \:) u. ({) ,t) IJ) - fj') en lO' -::i.. + - 'J) (n Ql + c - r]) '- 0.. t'T") I}) - (1) ,:,( 0 - s~ 'l) CL I.J. ,,---' '- -0; 0 .t) 7,J , 1,:1 ,.- .- _0 0.. I)J 0.. :::; - (j) (II ')) I~'l 'l' - I)) n 0 0) 0.. (f1 - ~~ ,)) .; 0 .: 'D .: I I)) . . + . 'D "-, U ~ ~ ~ oil ~ . u Ul " ~ . ... J lO .- . ~'-'-"I CL (':- ~ "'_:' , .) C 1,), 0 CL -t) ~ll C .p -~-, 0 0 D Lt. 0 TI ;;::n ~ .~ I OJ c ., . rp ~ . '- " " tJ '" CL /' ... ...::~ L +' m :3: L -, _:' +.' ~ LL t.j .r [~ ... \ ..V " , [ '\ \ t \\ [!\., T - , '.'--.1 ('.j T,'-,- t.j '\- '-lLI \ \ \. 10 l{":1 (spU Dsn04J) s~::JDdS 5UI)1JDd Jllqnd 40 J~q wnr'l 5-26 best be provided on existing Monarch Street between Hyman and Cooper. such that access to the garage is only possible from Monarch at Hyman Avenue. This I-block section of Monarch would thus be closed to through traffic. Four or five stairwell and ventilation structures would be necessary around the periphery of Wagner Park, but the utility of the park would not be compromised. As approximately 25 existing spaces along Monarch would be lost, the total increase in spaces resulting from this garage would be 275. Alternately in 1995, the Rio Grande Garage could be expanded to the north to provide an additional 350 spaces. 275 net spaces would be created, as this expansion would take approximately 75 existing spaces. The resulting structure would be quite large; if three levels, it would cover most of the existing Rio Grande lots. At present, the level of uncertainty inherent in the planning process indicates that it is prudent to maintain the two options for Phase 3. Over the next several years. differences in actual development rates and patterns from those assumed in this analysis and information gleaned from the operation of the first two garages will provide a sound basis for future decisionmaking regarding Phase 3. Yearly Parking Surplus/Shortfall - A crucial consideration in the design the parking facilities is the balance between resulting parking supply and parking need for each year through the year 2000, On one hand. it is desirable to bring the supply lip to close to the need for each year to avoid the parking problems that are now prevalent. On the other, it does not make economic sense to provide a significant excess of parking supply. As shown in Figure 5-11, the recommended plan balances these two factors as best as possible conSidering the fact that the economics of parking indicate that supply can only be efficiently increased in relatively large amounts. As this figure depicts, the plan is designed to eliminate the current shortage as quickly as is prudent (by the summer of 1989.) Beyond this point. need and supply are kept in as close a balance as is possible. Parkin2 Facilities Cost - To estimate the cost of implementation of the parking facilities plan, an extensive review was conducted of recent parking facility construction costs throughout Colora,do. In addition. architects and construction contractors with recent experience in Aspen and Snowmass were contacted. Based upon the resulting information, the construction costs listed in Table 5-2 were estimated. As shown, enlarging 5-27 C) CI Cl (.j (t, , (t, I IX) t Ci) r.. l (i) ll-j 0-, V:-, Ci) .,j- ()) '- t') Q O~. ,t) '- .,. (.,j 0) ~ f]') Ct 1J) fj") I)] I)] 0) r-, /)') t., t''J 1):1 (.J:l t)J CI t... ~~ ! rI) ~ " -' -"~ U L ~ t... " (.., C (.J I,) ,.I Q .....- LL + " "...,- ll> //J 'V t)1 .... - n .;..) .~ Q +-' U_ L \). ~ (" 1 j C ., ./ r- ~ . '- ~ ~ " C....) \7 ClI 0_ ... .c .... I._,n :5: r- ~ .....~. -L L t) (l. rrl I .; . I. I ., CI CI Ct C) CI Ct Ct Ct CI Ct CI Ci Ct Ci Ct CI Ct Ci Ct Ci Ct lO .,j- t.r') ('.J N t.r) .,j- to I I I < srqdJrts S3~)'v'dS ;;;J5Df.J04~::; '. --- .. . . . u .. o u III .Ji ~ . .. '-'\ ) 5-28 . the Rio Grande Garage as Phase 3 indicates a net present cost of the program (i.e., the amount of funds in-the bank today which would pay for the entire program) which is approximately $600.000 less than if a Wagner Park Garage were to be constructed. Table 5-2 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF THE THREE-PHASE PARKING FACILITY PLAN Year Alternate (With Wagner Park System Costs 1 Garage) Alternate 2 (With Rio Grande Expansion ====================================================================== 1987 1989 1995 $ 5,000,000 3.900,000 4,500,000 $ 5,000.000 3.900,000 3.300,000 Total Cost $13,400,000 $12,200,000 Total Net Present cost at 10% Interest $10,300.000 $ 9,700,000 Source: Leigh. Scott & Cleary, Inc. Need for Si~na~e. - During each phase clear signage should be provided on-street to direct drivers entering Aspen to the appropriate parking facility. These signs should be of a bold design. and should be provided such that first-time visitors to Aspen will be directed along their entire path from the edges of the community (such as the Castle Creek Bridge) to the garage(s). Upon completion of Phase 2, these signs should direct skiers towards the Bell Mountain Lodge Block facility while directing drivers bound for the commercial core to the Rio Grande facility. Increase Enforce.ent of On-street SDaces Equally vital to the improvement of short-term parking conditions as the provision of addi,tional public parking spaces is an increase in enforcement of the on-street spaces. No matter where a parking garage is located. the majority of drivers will find on-street spaces immediately adjacent to their destination to be most convenient. Without effective enforcement of 5-29 L parking regulations, conditions in the future will inevitably mirror the conditions of today; there will be many vehicles overstaying the time limit in the short-term spaces, making the close-in spaces unavailable for legitimate short-term parkers. To make effective use of the valuable close-in spaces, parking enforcement actIvities should be Increased. Consideration should be given to increasing the parking fine schedule and/or instituting a multiple tickets polley. Under such a polley, a car parked in a one-hour-limlt space would receive an additional ticket for each additional hour it is overparked. Institution of this policy would dramatically affect those drivers who currently consider the single parking ticket they receive in a day as an acceptable cost for using a close-in parking space. Impact of Increased Parkin~ Reeulation Enforcement - To date more stringent parking regulation enforcement has not been a realistic alternative. The conception has been that, as a resort community, a strict parking regulation program, along with the concomitant tickets and fines. are not in keeping with the total "hassle-free" experience which the city should provide to it's visitors. The historical lack of adequate parking facilities has lent credence to this view. For example, it is easy to sympathize with a visiting driver who has searched 5 minutes to find a space and then 45 minutes later returns to his vehicle to find a ticket. This visitor would currently feel frustrated that he had no acceptable alternative to parking in the space and receiving the ticket. He would tend to blame the City for not providing an acceptable alternatIve to receiving the parking ticket. The end result is a negative impression of Aspen as a resort. The prOVision of an adequate parking supply, however, would change this situation. If an adequately sized and conveniently located parking suppiy is available and drivers are made aware of it through on-street signs or publicity campaigns, drivers receiving a parking ticket tend to blame themselves for parking in the wrong area, rather than blaming the city. The 5-30 end result is a change in parking behavior. rather than a negative image of Aspen. There is an additional consideration which bears on the impact which increased parking regulat.ion enforcement would have on the resort experience provided by Aspen: a minority of the vehicles parked on-street are visitor's vehicles. For instance, of the cars parking on Galena Street between Cooper and Hopkins over a day, only about 30% were registered outside of the the Roaring Fork Valley or were rental cars. For Cooper Street between Hunter and Original. the percentage of visitor vehicles was observed to be approximately 20%. A strict parking regulation program would therefore not affect the town's visitors nearly as much as it would the town's residents and employees -- exactly those driver1s who should be using the parking garage or fringe on-street parkIng spaces. \ ./ Increased enforcement will be particularly vItal during Phase 1 of the parking facilIties plan. The Rio Grande parking faCility is more than a five-minute walk (1,000 to 1,200 feet) from many of the destinations within the central core. Thus. construction of this facility in and of itself will do little to improve parking conditions for short-term parkers destined for the southern part of the core. To make short-term on-street spaces available, it will be necessary to make the Rio Grande facility more attractive to longer duration parkers. such as employees within the central core. I.ple.ent the Pedestrian and Transit Ele.ents of this Plan. The implementation of the recommendations contained in the Pedestrian and Transit Elements of this Plan are crucial in reducing public parking need to the point where the proposed. facilities will be adequate. As discussed above, the pedestrian improvements are forecast to reduce parking need by 25 spaces, while the construction of the transit imp:ovements. particularly the cable suspended transit system, will reduce parking demand by approximately 165 spaces. These spaces, which would otherwise have to be constructed to provide acceptable parking conditions. would impose a cost 5-31 on the Ci~y of $12,000. Pedestrian improvements thus reduce parking construction costs by approximately $300,000; the transit improvements effectIvely reduce parkIng costs by $2,000,000. [n addItion, these reductions in parking need allow the parking facilities to be smaller in scale, and thus have a reduced impact on the Aspen streetscape. Establish a Public Entity to Construct. Maintain and Operate Parkin~ Facilities in Central ASDen. Institutional arrangements designed to finance, construct and operate new off-street parkIng facllitIes take many forms. The options which were considered as potentially applicable to Aspen are presented below: . Capital ImPl'ovements Budg-et Item - A special capital improve- ments budget item could be established by the City for the construction of new off-street facilities. This presumes that the City could find sufficient funds to pay for the facilities through an annual bUdget process. . General Obli~ation Bonds - The City. after having received a favorable vote of the people. could issue general obligation bonds for construction of parking facilities, . Parkin~ Revenue Bonds - The City could issue parking revenue bonds prOViding a SUfficiently attractive. fully secured package could be presented to investors. A City-wIde vote may not be required If there were no pledge of ad valorem taxes to ensure the bonds. . Downtown Development AuthorIty/General Improvement District - The City of Aspen could establish a Downtown Development Authority or a General Improvement District for the central area of' Aspen and that DDA or GID could then issue bonds for off-street parking facIlities. If thIs authority or distrIct were to Issue bonds, there would have to be an election, but. only wi thin the bOlln"darics of the district itself. . Lease/Purchase or Sale/Leaseback AJ!reements -These agreements would be between the City and pr[v<1te investors or developers in which the City would eIther lease land on which to construct pat'king facil ities or the City would sell publicly-owned land to private investors and lease it back for th~ construction of parking facilities. - 5-32 . Joint Venture A~reements - The City would enter Into an agreement with a private developer for the joint construction of parking facilities, utilizing both public and private funds. Of all the options mentioned above, the one that is recommended for Aspen is the establishment of a Downtown Development Authocity. Colorado law provides for the creatio.n of downtown development authorities within municipalities (see Title 31, Acticle 25, Pact 8: Downtown Development Authocities) foe the pucpose of assisting the municipality in the development and/oc redevelopment of its ccntcal business distclct. Among the public facilities that may be pcovided by a DDA are packing facilities. The special advantage of the Downtown Development Authocity approach is that it may be established for a defined area of the City of Aspen within which off-stceet packing facilities ace needed. This ace a would be the central commeccial district of the City, generally bounded on the north by Bleeker Stceet, on the east by Original, on the south by Dean, and on the west by Monarch. The Board of Directocs of a DDA is appointed by the City Council, so that ultimate contcol of the authocity is in the hands of the elected body. 'j In Aspen. the cost of opecating a Downtown Development Authocity for the pcimacy pucpose of constcucting and opecating off-stceet packing facilities and the cost of a lacge subsidy to cetice any bonded indebtedness would be bome by the pcopecties within the authod ty distcict in the focm of an ad valorem property tax. However, 1n terms of benefits to properties in the central area, the provision of nearby adequate pal'king would far outweigh the cost of the taxes associated with the DDA. In addition. the lodge areas succounding the proposed district in which individual lodges gene cally prOVide their own off-street parking are not burdened by the cost of providing off-street parking facilities in the commercial core area. 5-33 63' 22'~3' fillJ1 D ~ 13'~1O' f 49'-98 16'-48 f ~ 63' 18'-7' Not to Scale Attachment C 98 ATTACHMENT 0 300 South Spring Street Vicinity Map rg}1 L ~ ~ c? w I- Z w ~ :I: U 0( l- I- 0( ., ... 6 i Z ~ . Q . :z < ~ i i;;~ I ; r,!"i I ~ ;." Q ~ .. ...... t Z~'~~!~ ... · p f'~ (,) ~. I" d -~~~ ... . ." . ~ ! ;: ~ ~ oS, 10 . , , ~ / . i i ~ I ~ < ~ ~ i . ~ " . '" :::> ~ '" :.. '<<: ~. "'C: ~. !>.. . :x: ' !... ., '<<: '" ."Ie" ".~. . " ,',~:,:, '.."'_ _.'_, "'i'- .. ~.. " .,......:. .;:.. _;/1)'#',' '~".M.' .' '_.'_0"'" .....,'._.. ..._..";:.....".,.,'_.;;_;f,';.'<,.~~::,., '.';"'.: o ., 2; ~'" ~"... . :JfS 0... C,)~ I-t ~ C,)~ "'Q Q~ "'0 ~C,) '" (j Q ~-. .-- -- ! , ~ ----... ~- -- -- -- '" '" <> ~ (,) I< Z C,) - 0 . Q .., 0 . t-~I ..... '" k - ~ . ::> !>.. -.a:lS '" ...! .., .., u' '<<: - 0 '" '" 0 . -- "~ ~ ><0, ~ ~ "S, ,,... ,"" o .I.i1i1lt .I.s I ~ .-o.~ .lSt fJ " NIlt <Is 1i.I.1I Os ~ W L 'I . l,in ~:ll' !!!~ ~3; !'o!'~ !i~~ I!f. d !! l t! ,i ill .~- W Ii It I I ..- I - . ~o - ~t . ..- Ii .... ..-- a: l I I :W =dll , i I ...: :~.. c~ fisl I -. .-11 ; ". . - "A.' D..D.. 1(1) ~ Il:EE IL I- Z w ~ :I: U 0( l- I- 0( I I I I D l' D I I D D ...J <[ I L) I I I D I z r<'\ N r<'\ <[ I D ...J ...J ...J I L) I I I I ill I r: ~ ~ I I ~ ! I I I I I L LJ~ ...... ..,.. I I -.. - _'m __._ _H !i! I ~i - ~~ wI. I ..- I - . ~O 'Iii ~.2 . - .- Ii .... ...- I I =,. = 011 a: :0.. 8 , i I -< . I lh= :~.. -<-J If il -. .-11 ; ".. - - 4",.. D.. D.. :I ~ Il:EE ...... I I I I -i-i-Tl r<'\1 ...J , ...J <[ L) ~ 1 ~ I ~ I I L) ill I r: I ~ j::: ! iiI i !i! I c ~~ w I ~1 I ..- I - . ~o 'Iii ~t . ..~ Ii a... _.1:_ I I :w = dn , i I :~&d I a.= :~.. -. .-11 I ". - .. ""0. ~ Il:U ..,.. iill r<'\ ...J N ...J ...J I <[ I L) ~ ~ I I L) I ill r ~ ~ ~ . -- w s It I I ..- I - . ~ 0 ! ~t .. ..- Ii .... 0.._ I I :W =dll , i I I --= :~.. <~ if~1 -. .-11 I ". - - "ea... ~ Il:U D.. D.. · I I I I -i-i-Tl ~I I ...J I <[ L) z ~ I ~I ~ I o ill r: I ~ ~ ili ii1 i T'I^ II I :J3tJ1S ,8=,,18 3JVld )1 eN d L ,,0-,09 r "O-,Z 1-- "O-,Z rl- T 01 I Er_ r "L z... ,:z.. "O-,~ll "l-,~ll 1\ ~, p EJ LU OS OLl '\ I I 3JI.:L::I0 \ / 880l ~ ~ ~ 17 , II -6~ ,,~v ,u , - - ~ - - I ii ~ I llXJ / Ad1NJ llX3 / AdlN3 d3MOl QQ dlV1S - ~ ~ I I V3dV hV^ldUd 3lJIH3^ I ,,0-'<; t ,,~g-,6t ~31S^S CD LN ~NI~dVd I I 3lJIH3^ 01 I , I I llllln SVdl - I ~ t ,,~g-y;; 1 ~ o o I o l3^3l ONOJ3S ,8=,,1 C0 3J 'v'l d >kJ'v'd ,,0-,09 r ,f---- -v ,,~g-, lC; I ~ "'JOS C;L9 I [8J "'OO~038 D 13^31 OMi 'v'3~V 9NI^ll U 1 Nn 1 ~: V'UdV dV 13^31 OMi ,N3HJil~ , liNn lN3V'UdVdV " ,- ., I u = I 0 - 0 L- - ~OO~Hl va "'OO~038 t"lOOClH10] to [ I d3MOl I I n dlV1S .t ,Ot -V .O,OL ,,~8 - ,6'\7 I I I I ~ ,- 0, ~31S)5 ~NI>1d\fd I 3lJIH3^ I I I I o o I o l3^ II Cll1lHl /8=//1 8 3JVld )1 eN d ,,0-,09 I 17 ,,[i:-,i: I ~ ^~lV I ~ - V3C1V' 9NIAIl - ,---- ,---- c-- ~OOCl ::INIAl c-- OS Z89l C101'v'A)1] f-- 1.:1 f-- - liNn lN3V'Ud\id\i - - 13^31 OMi - - - - liNn IN3~Hj\id\i - - - I u G c- D I Vioo~a38 OO~Hl '1'8 a N3H:ll'" n I I I I I I I ~3lS^S :lNI>kNd I 3lJIH3^ I I I o o I o \J I- Z w E :c U 0( , r- I- 0( I . < - 'j' e..~: ~~ e~'& If" >'" ",.. -. o ~ ... u..."'" 'o~a -.o'tl" -,Il.~~", ~b~t... r:~: f~~ ~e~~ee: ~.:,.;..,~'::: 1'1J...!.'{'';''~ I , o , . , o ~ o ~ ..1 ~r " ,. .,. , ~:: ,< .- ....:;.3 ,00 ..'-$ e:?L ~.,:;/\l rB i i ~ 8 j ! e ? ;; .j . .:, I (:j ;;-; !;! "7; ;;-; ~ ;;:: ~ E-.. V) ;J \ ~ - , , , - , < o , i ~ , i g 1 ~ ~ o ~ , ~ . ~ .j I ~ ~CrJ :::~ ~::5 0- u~ ...::> uO qff: !to ",u ,0, o ~ e . " , , , . . \ ; . 0' . , ; 1 o - ~ ~ ~ Q. o 0 to . , . 0 0 , , 0 ~~ ..!.~ u ~ ~t. e e ,= eaoo'l ~~ ~s"'~ 0 ....;" ,~...u I I .. ~ "",. I j ~ "'- - '.. "'" -, 1....."", ~ J,:g:g (/J,S; 011//(/ dS; 1IJ,f) Os; - - - - - ! 1 ~ (f) a ..... -- ", ::.: 0 $, 0 -J , CQ ~ , - '-J -J ~ -J -- "7; ~ ... '" ;;;,'" __ ~?E ::;Q ~g- "",0, :s - ii. - I i ^ o I , "'..~ ~ ~ o - I e::::::]z ~ " M o N " ;" " ,:; ,I w w :r: rn g o N ~ U) ; z ~ 0 w ~ U) ... ;; " '" '" a: ~ C',) ...- 0... 0) ....., ....-. Cf) "0 ~ C',) " F 0) 0... C',) u if) "0 ~ C',) .....:l ~ ~ 0) U C',) ...- 0... ~ '" '" ~ ~ if) OJJ .5 0 ~ "'" 0- " if) ~ o 5 "0 " u o if) ..::s:: ;.... C',) 0... ci o '" o 0- M ~ c j :or; >. :J".l- -f.l.l.i ;<. ~ _:'l ~ ~t-:::;:;=: t ~ or.;;C:l" i 2~?-~1! ~w~ !~: i;i ~ ~ i Ii ~ .1-..::: ~ ..., r ~ . ! ,'i't \ 11' I !, . ::c I- .. Z w ... ..~ ~ I: ::c ~ u ... '. 0( . r- , I- <C " , ;- .. I I I I "- .~ ":"'; - ",..~.rl' ) ~ 'il - ..-- :s . ~ :\. \ \\ \ \\ :\\\\ ! . \ ! .. .... I t ". ~ ~ . <' ".', , i \ '\ , \ \ i \. ATTACHMENT I 12 June 2003 Mr. Stan Clauson Stan Clauson Associates 200 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom it may Concern: As the Managing member if Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC, I give Stan Clauson Associates, LLC and his staff permission to represent us in discussions with the City of Aspen regarding the development of the Park Place garage at 707 E. Hyman Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. We have retained this firm to assist us in the planning phase of project. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. J Cooper, Managing Partner Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC ATTACHMENT J CITY OF ASPEN WRETT PAlO 6?_:ssDAJs ~9 NO. )ct&>03 r;rry OF ASPeN I-lRE:rr PAID OATS "'lEP NO Ol-;:;EL.Y-~ I~V'0S WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Name: Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC C/o Krabacher Sanders, PC 201 N. Mill Street, Ste. 201 Aspen, CO 81611 Dr # ~OO.W Address: WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made this 28th day of February, 2003, between George A. Vicenzi Trust, as to an undivided 25% interest and Alan J. Goldstein, as to an undivided 75% interest of the said County of Pitkin and State of Colorado. grantor, and Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company whose legal address is C.B, Management, PO Box 1747,605 Sherman Parkway Springfield, MO 65801-1747 of the said County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, grantee: ll1 \) ~ WITNESSETH, that the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confmn, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the said County of Pitkin and State of Colorado described as follows: Lots A, B, C and D, Block 105 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN 111J~njll~I~~MII~III~n~~11 ~;;~~~! :I:e.p SILVIA DAVIS PITkIN COUNTY CO R 21,ee 0 B..... also described as follows: THE HANNAH-DUSTIN CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Plat thereof recorded October 2, ] 985 in Plat Book] 7 at Page 78 as Reception No. 27] 969 and as defined and described by the Condominium Declaration for HANNAH-DUSTIN CONDOMINIUM recorded October 2, ]985 in Book 496 at Page 375 as Reception No, 271967. COUNTY OF PlTKIN, STATE OF COLORADO also known by street and number as: 300 S Spring St., Aspen, CO 8161 I File NlImber: 00030095 Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. Warranty Deed - Photographic Retord (Extended) Page I of2 ~37orCI.MATION RECEIVED 02/28/2803 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said Buyer, his personal representatives, successors and assigns, forever. The said Seller covenants and agrees to and with the Buyer, his personal representatives, successors and assigns, to WARRANT AND DEFEND the sale of said property, goods and chattels, against all and every person or person whomever. When used herein, the singular shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Seller has executed this Bill of Sale this (t:J'Yl/111/-1l1 ,~ 0 ti ""< ,.5" day of , / STATE OF (o)(n.ado COUNTYOF ~)~'hi{\. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this rr~ day of _r-l" h 8tOq by George A. Vicenzi, Trustee ofthe George A. Vicenzi Trust My commission expires Witness my hand and official seal. JmldJ &4/11/ Notary Public: ,""'"'''' " ~ B4Jt', ~~'O......".... 'l~" ~ l~.OTM1:\. "i~ :c(~ . 5""": :, ~A io : -:. A-;.....~(JB\..\~J'O ~ .o;"'~""'U"'. iF'" """ o~ co\"o ,......, "",.....,..' fIf COIOIISSlON EXPIRES: AUOUST 1, 200e File Number. 00030095 Stewan Tille of Aspen. (ne. Bill of Sol<- (Extended) Page 2 of2 II~ IIIIIIIUI~ II =~~~~ :1:58P SILYIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 21. ee D ... Ie STATEOF no;, d~ COUNTY OF fY\,o 11 v {) !.- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .;l.s:- day of 7-~ ~<l>O:z, ,by Alan J. Goldstein Witness my hand and official seal. .P'~;,~ 1'HPBOYCE ~ MYCO'.v.lISSlCflICC936270 . . c"~RES:May25,2004 ~~OFV.(fc~ '-\u!l~,.",~BudgttNolarySllI'ricM -:"':~ -~ ll"'flllllI ~~~~. Y co It 21 ee 1/12/28/2"3 '1' lIeF . D -,ee' File Number. oo03009l Stewart TIde of Aspen. lnc. Acknowledgement. Seller Page I of3 EXHmIT I EXCEPTIONS 1. Distribution utility easements (including cable TV). 2. Inclusion of the Property within any special taxing district. 3. The benefits and burdens of any declaration and party wall agreements, if any. 4. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents, or an act authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 5. Taxes for the year 2003 and subsequent years not yet due and payable. 6. Exceptions and reservations as set forth in the Act authorizing the issuance of the Patent for the City and Townsite of Aspen recorded March I, 1897 in Book 139 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156. 7. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Agreement by and between the City of Aspen and Hannah Dustin Building Associates, a joint venture as sel forth in instnunent recorded October 2, 1985 in Book 496 at Page 371 as Reception No, 271966. 8. Terms, conditions, obligations, provisions and easements of Easement Agreement recorded August 24, 1972 in Book 266 at Page 229 as Reception No. 153522. 9. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Condominium Declaration for Hannah- Dustin Condominiums as set forth in instrument recorded October 2, 1985 in Book 496 at Page 375 as Reception No. 271967. 10. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Subdivision Agreement as set forth in instnunent recorded October 2, 1985 in Book 496 at Page 409 as Reception No. 271968. 11. Easements, rights of way and other matters as shown and contained on Plat of Hannah- Dustin Condominiums recorded October 2, 1985 in Plat Book 17 at Page 78 as Reception No. 271969. IIIIII'IIII~'I~II =;;~~:~ :1:- SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COlMy co R 21.88 D S88 ,Ie File Number: 00030095 Stewart Title of A!ipen, Inc. Warranty Deed - Exhibit I (Exceptions) Page 1 of I -"--'---'-"'-'. PLANNER: PROJECT: REPRESENTATIVE: OWNER: TYPE OF APPliCATION: DESCRIPTION: ATTACHMENT K CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY Chris Bendon, 920.5072 DATE: 6.3.03 "Park Place" - Commercial Parking Garage Stan Clauson, Brian McNellis, Jeffery Halfa1y Peter Fornell concqltual PUD Plan Review, Subdivisioo - Two Stq> - P&Z, City Council. Owner is considering development of a "",on,,,,, cial parking fucility within the Office (0) Zone District - Hyman A veoue. The use is pemritted as a oonditionaI use in the Office Zone. The owner has completed a Sketch Plan Review with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Connnissioo. The fucility will use a fully automated mecbanical syskm fir parking vehicles. Approximately 99 parking spaces on multiple levels. An attendant is expected. The building will also house an office for the operation and two affordable housing units (1 and 3 bedrooms). A PUD is necessary to establish dimensions fir the project. Applicant is iute. e.1t:d in subdivisioo to divide the 12,000 squarefuot~intotwo6,000 s.t: parcel'!, ooe maintaining the "Hannah Dustin" Building and the second to house this new parking fucility. The applicant is expecting to submit an application for the 2003 commercial GMQS OIl September 15. Conceptual PUD is not required for a GMQS application. However, staff encourage; the applicant to obtain cooceptuaI PUD prioc to GMQS submi<;sioo to ideoli1Y and resolve basic development issues. This should avoid having to re-score an amended GMQS application. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.710.180 Office District 26.445 Conceptual Planned Unit Development 26.480 Subdivision 26.304 Common Review Procedures Review by: Public Hearing: Staff, Development Review Committee (ORC), P&z (PH), City Council (PH) Yes, both P&Z and City Council. Applicant must post property and mail notice at least 15 days prior to hearing. Applicant will need to provide proof of posting and mailing with an qffidavit atthe public hearings. City Engineer, Streets, Water, Electric, ACSD, Fire, Building, Env. Health, Housing, Parking. Planning Deposit, Major ($2,520 for 12 hours of staff time) Engineering, Major ($355); Env. Health, Major ($355); Housing, Major ($355) $3,440 (additional Planning hours are billed at a rate of $2 I Olhour) 30 Referral Agencies: Planning Fees: Referral Agency Fees: Total Deposit: Total Copies: To apply, submit the following information: 1. Proof of ownership. 2. Signed fee agreement. 3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 4. Street address and legal description of the parcel OIl which developlllt'm is proposed to occur, consisting of a ClIITl:IIt certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments. liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 5. Total deposit for review of the application. 6. Required Copies of the complete application packet and maps. 7. An 8 1/2" by II" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. 9. Draft subdivision plat. 10. Additional materials as required by the specific review. (Refer to cited code sections) 11 . A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. Notes: I. Applicant should address planning and operation issues identified in pre-app meeting: emergency accessIsecurity/safety of the mechanical system; expected employee generation of facility; an operational plan for high demand periods. A traffic circulation study is reconnnended to address issues of estimating daily use demand cycles and vehicle staging. 2. An estimate on employee demands should be included in the conceptual application in preparation for the GMQS application. A referral from Housing will be sought. A Housing Board IllPAing may be required. 3. Staff suggests the application identifY other necessary reviews to be included in the final review: GMQS, conditional use, subdivision (for residential units), condominiumi7ation, rezoning (for PUD overlay), residential design standards (should be combined with final PUD). 4. Check Hannah Dustin building for any noo-conforming dimensions created by the proposed subdivision. 5. Draft Infill regulations for commercial parking facilities and commercial design review may be useful. Staffis interested in applicant's suggestions for these draft regulations. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon fuctuaI representations that mayor may nol be accurate. The summary does not aeate a legal or vested right.