Letter: Base Village parking: pain or profit? | AspenTimes.com

Letter: Base Village parking: pain or profit?

Base Village parking: pain or profit?

Dear Editor:

I often live at Capitol Peak in Base Village. If the May 2015 version of Related’s parking plan (see http://www.TOSV.com for document) is implemented, it will double parking pain for Capitol Peak owners, allow Related to reduce the parking for Capitol Peak at Related’s discretion, and Related will profit.

Related touts average parking utilization as justification to reduce parking requirements. No sane town plans sewage treatment based on average occupancy. Why does Related expect the town to plan parking based on averages? Where are Christmas parking statistics? Or Tough Mudder statistics?

Before town approval, at least two changes are needed:

1. Mountain Club, Buildings 4 and 5, more employee housing and overflow Limelight parking must be entirely, physically separated from Capitol Peak’s present P-2 gated parking.

2. Any change in Capitol Peak parking must be approved by 100 percent of the Capitol Peak owners because any changes to our sold-as parking will further devalue our properties.

Today’s parking reality is a minimum of 33 percent below what we were sold as 0.75 spaces per residential unit pass. One-hundred three passes are issued for 52 full-size, non-handicapped, non-loading zone spaces or 0.50 space/pass. It is frequently difficult to find a space for our four-door sedan in both winter and summer. We used a local Base Village- experienced attorney to assist with the purchase. None of us were smart enough to ask how many spaces would fit a sedan.

If the Related May 2015 plan is implemented, over 355 passes will be issued for 107 full-sized spaces. The 0.30 space per pass is 60 percent below the 0.75 space per unit represented to us by Related when we bought at Capitol Peak. No provisions have been made for when the 228 Mountain Club members exceed their designated 57 parking spaces. Related has not recommended any policing or separation of the Mountain Club, Limelight overflow, etc.

A solution would be to place a solid floor-to-ceiling fence where the curtains exist at the end of the current gated P-2 Capitol Peak 82-space area. Mountain Club, Buildings 4 and 5, additional employee and Limelight overflow parking can be gated with their own access with a second transmitter pass gate directly from the commercial parking in the northeast area of P-2. If needed, there are another 135 commercial and residential spaces on this floor. These spaces can be utilized without causing further reductions in Capitol Peak parking ratios.

It is noteworthy that Base Village’s Hayden Lodge has 0.92 spaces for its 14 residential units. Why are Capitol Peak owners being squeezed into less parking?

It makes good town business sense to require Related to provide the needed parking to support their profitable development. I urge the town to keep the status quo for Capitol Peak gated parking, require that any changes to Capitol Peak parking be approved by the 100 percent of Capitol Peak owners and require that Related’s new development parking requirements be physically separate from present in-use parking.

Patricia Jayne (Pat) Keefer

Capitol Peak owner