HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20150120
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
January 20, 2015
4:30 PM Sister Cities Room
130 S Galena St, Aspen
I. SITE VISIT
II. ROLL CALL
III. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IV. MINUTES - JANUARY 6, 2015
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 500 Rio Grande Pl - Skate Park Expansion - Minor Amendment to a Detailed
Review
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. BOARD REPORTS
IX. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: Resolution #4, 2015
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clari fications of ap plicant
7) Public comments
8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014
1
LJ Erspamer, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with
members Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs, Keith Goode, Brian McNellis, and Jason Elliot.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Sara Adams.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Mr. Erspamer recommended postponing the election of a new chair and vice-chair which is typically
done at the first meeting in a new year. He confirmed it is acceptable to postpone to the next meeting
or address it if there is time at the end of the meeting with the City Attorney, Mr. James True.
Mr. Erspamer asked about the letters in front of the Art Museum. He agrees it is art, but asked how long
it can stay there until it becomes a sign. Ms. Jennifer Phelan stated if it is art, is not considered a sign.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES:
December 2, 2014 Minutes: Mr. Erspamer moved to approve the December 2 nd minutes with the
requested changes. All in favor, motion carried.
December 16, 2014 Minutes: Mr. Erspamer moved to approve the December 16 th minutes with the
requested changes. All in favor, motion carried.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were none.
Public Hearing – 730 E. Cooper (Buckhorn) – Base Lodge – Continued
from December 16, 2014
Mr. Erspamer opened the continued public hearing for 730 E Cooper – Base Lodge.
Ms. Adams, Aspen Community Development Planner, stated this is continuation for recommendation to
City Council regarding Base 1 located at 730 E Cooper St. P&Z is asked to consider the following reviews
which will be recommendations to City Council.
1. Commercial Design Review
2. Growth Management Review
3. Planned Development Project Review
P1
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014
2
She then reviewed the main points in the Staff memo to address the concerns of the commission.
1) Lack of public amenity space or the success of the proposed public amenity space. She explained
the definition of public amenity space and why Staff is supportive of the roof top deck to be
considered an alternative method of public amenity as well as the interior courtyard as an
alternative method of public amenity space. Mr. Erspamer asked for the section of code she is
referring to and Ms. Adams replied it was in the Commercial Design and the miscellaneous
section of the code. She then stated the code provides options for meeting public amenity
including on-site, off-site, cash in-lieu, and alternative method to meet the intent of public
amenity. The intent of public amenity is to provide a pedestrian experience. The space may or
may not be at ground level. For this property, staff feels it is important to consider the context
of the site. This site is directly across on Cooper Ave is City Market’s loading dock, located on a
busy intersection and residential sites directly adjacent to the property. Staff feels it is important
for public amenity space to respond to the context and to be meaningful and not just meet
required percentages by adding pieces of grass. The applicant has amended there proposal to
better explain some of the previously proposed space along with additions to demonstrate their
intent. The operable windows will add to the pedestrian experience but also be responsive to
the loading dock across the street as necessary. Staff is in favor of the proposed space and feels
it meets the intent while being respectful of the neighboring residences and addressing the
loading dock activity at City Market.
2) Parking. Ms. Adams referred to the draft resolution on p 46 of the packet, Section 13 which
addresses parking. She stated she has additional information from the City Manager’s office
regarding the Rio Grande parking garage if the commissioners need to hear it. In addition to
asking for parking at the Rio Grande, there may also be an opportunity to utilize City leased 20
parking spaces in the Benedict Commons garage located directly across the alley. This will be a
conversation for City Council, but P&Z could make a recommendation. She noted there is a
precedence for using the Benedict Commons parking for other projects. In Benedict Commons
there are five parking spaces for the 7 th & Main Affordable Housing Project. There are also six
parking spaces for the Draco Affordable Housing Project. For the Rio Grande Parking Garage, the
City Manager’s office has indicated there could be between 20-25 spaces available for both
lodges (Base 1 & Base 2) in the summer seasons and 40-50 spaces in the fall, winter and spring
seasons. She reviewed the language in Section 13 requiring off-site parking in the Rio Grande
garage, offer valet service or other similar off-site parking spaces for the lodge. This content was
drafted before the Benedict Commons space was known.
Ms. Adams stated in her experience with City Council, it’s most helpful for them if a commission passes
a resolution with conditions to give them clear feedback. The meeting minutes are also always provided.
She feels it is most effective identifying conditions the commission is acceptable of within the concept of
a lodge with the density.
Staff is recommending approval with the conditions identified in the packet.
She also referred to a letter received earlier in the day (Exhibit F).
Mr. Erspamer asked if there were any questions for Staff.
Mr. Gibbs referred to the second sentence of the last paragraph on p 57 of the packet. He asked if that
was to say the commission should not consider the guidelines or if the guidelines are overwritten by the
P2
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014
3
zoning. She replied it is up to the commission how they want to apply the guidelines. In Staff’s opinion,
they are just guidelines and in place to provide general design intent for an area. But they don’t always
apply to every project. She feels the commission has the ability to decide when they do or do not apply.
Considering the Commercial Lodge Zoning and surrounding zoning area, Staff felt it did not apply. Mr.
Gibbs then asked if you have a Lodge Overlay in a Mixed Use District, does the Lodge Overly apply. Ms.
Adams replied a Lodge Overlay is actual zoning. The Commercial Mixed Use Character Area is not really
a zoning, it is a design character area assigned to the parcel. It is challenging when doing commercial
design standards and character areas for parcels that don’t really fit in the box for the character area
which she feels this is a good example. Directly across the street is a neighborhood commercial for City
Market and the Aspen Square zoned a Commercial Lodge is in a different character area as well. The
code allows flexibility in how the guidelines are applied.
Ms. Tygre referred to the last sentence in the second paragraph on p 30 which stated City Market has no
public amenity space and the properties surrounding 730 E. Cooper are not required to provide public
amenity space. She does not understand what this means. Ms. Adams stated it is based on the zoning in
which some require public amenity space. Residential zoned districts do not require public amenity
space on-site. She stated City Market is zoned Neighborhood Commercial so it would be required to
have public amenity space and they don’t.
Mr. Erspamer referred to the lodges and parking listed on the bottom of p 31 of the packet. He asked if
the lodges met the code at the time or is Staff trying to show P&Z what the lodges should or should not
provide in parking. Ms. Adams stated she was trying to show parking situation at other lodges. A lot of
them were developed before there was a parking requirement. Most all of them have head in parking
located in the right of way so it doesn’t count as on-site parking. Should these lodges come in for
redevelopment, the code would allow them to maintain their existing deficit.
Mr. Erspamer asked if Staff was recommending to waive the impact fees defined on p 35. Ms. Adams
stated Staff was recommending to waive the fees, but acknowledged it is a City Council decision.
Mr. Erspamer then turned the floor over to the applicant Mr. Mark Hunt in attendance with Mr. Mitch
Haas and Mr. Charles Cunniffe.
Mr. Haas is happy with Staff’s recommendation and the proposed resolution. They feel they do address
all the code requirements.
Mr. Haas wanted to reiterate the building fully complies with the Commercial Lodge underlying zoning in
regards to its size. The only aspect where it doesn’t comply is the height of the restrooms on the roof
top deck. The restrooms are the same height as the other enclosures that do comply with the height
requirements. If the height for the restrooms is not granted, they will go away. The building looks the
same whether or not the restrooms are located on the roof top deck.
Mr. Haas reminded P&Z they will not nail down a solution yet regarding parking until they know they
have a project. They are fine with Staff’s recommendation to require off-site parking and they are
working on options. He previously worked on the affordable housing project in the Community Bank
Building located right next to the Rio Grande Parking Garage. At that time, the City would not entertain
the idea of letting anyone use the parking garage. He feels it would be better to allow those residents
the option of parking in the Rio Grande instead of the Benedict Commons. The applicant’s intention is to
provide parking.
P3
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014
4
Mr. Haas believes a recommendation for P&Z with conditions is more constructive than a denial.
Mr. Haas reiterated the southeast corner is not the best location for public amenity space because it is
right across from the City Market loading dock and the intersection of Highway 82. They also explored
moving the courtyard space to the street, but there is a functional reason for it to be located where it is
as defined in the proposal. All the internal rooms of the hotel will utilize the courtyard space for
windows and natural light. The team attempted to enliven the street with a pick up window, operable
windows and public access easements into the building.
In addition to the hotels mentioned by Ms. Adams in the memo in regards to parking required by similar
sized lodges on p 31, Mr. Haas wanted to add the Independence Square Hotel with zero parking,
Residence Hotel with zero parking, Chalet Lisl with zero parking on-site, and Hearthstone House with
zero parking.
Mr. Haas stated they are trying to fill the affordable lodging need the City has had for a long time. This
project is designed to be affordable and does not include any free market residences, time share units,
and fractional residences.
Mr. Haas stated it is odd we have a code and City goals to provide affordable lodging yet the code seems
to discourage affordable lodging. The smaller room sizes make the lodge affordable but the affordable
housing and parking requirements do not come down to match. If they had half the number of rooms,
they would have half the parking requirement. Building smaller rooms is more expensive to build than
larger rooms with more plumbing and HVAC. He feels they are being punished for trying to provide what
the City has been asking for years.
Mr. Hunt reiterated they are not asking for a parking waiver. He does feel the project having more
rooms is burdened as Mr. Haas explained earlier.
Mr. Hunt stated with all the studies that have been done, the City is a 60% occupied town. If he
considers the 60% occupancy rate with 40 rooms, there would be 24 rooms occupied at any time on
average. Using the high end of the average number of cars that drive overall of 40%, 9.6 cars would be
driving to his lodge on average. Although the project is tasked with providing parking for a normal sized,
not-affordable lodge, he is committed to doing it. Again, they are not asking for a waiver.
Mr. Hunt showed slides demonstrating the design inspiration and potential designs for areas of the
lodge. He showed where the take out window would be located and where there would be access to the
interior courtyard. He also showed slides of examples of interior courtyard designs. He then showed
example slides how they could further engage the streetscape. He showed the location of the operable
windows.
Mr. Hunt wants to be able to bring in the local community as well as the guests. He showed slides
demonstrating retail options including a barber shop.
Mr. Hunt showed slides of the building during the day and dusk to show the importance of having the
additional glass as demonstrated in the initial design presented. He feels having more glass will make
the rooms feel larger. The building is set back about 12 inches from the sidewalk and they added
P4
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014
5
landscaping to soften the area. He would prefer to stay with the original design instead of the other two
options provided at the previous meeting.
Mr. Cunniffe then pointed out options being considered in regards to the amount of glass and windows.
He mentioned awnings could be added to reduce the amount of glass and light. He also stated it would
help diminish the grid-like look to the building.
Mr. Cunniffe wanted to point out the newer popular lobby bar inside the Hotel Jerome as a public
amenity space not located on the edge of the building.
In regards to zoning, Mr. Cunniffe wanted to point out the area was zoned lodging and was changed to
residential. The Bell Mountain Lodge with 22 units was rezoned for free market.
Mr. Cunniffe feels the benefit of this project is that it adds more rooms to the community than a typical
project. Looking at what the other projects are providing in terms of new rooms:
• Hotel Lenado is going from 19 rooms to nine rooms
• Molly Gibson is adding nine rooms
• The Sky Hotel is adding seven rooms
• The Hotel Jerome is adding ten rooms
The net gain to the community is 16 new lodge rooms for these projects. The Base 1 Lodge adds three
times as many rooms with a far less impact and the foot print of the building is quite a bit smaller. None
of the other new lodge rooms are intended to be affordable and those projects have free market
components.
Mr. Cunniffe feels Mr. Hunt can propose this opportunity because he can combine it with his other
lodge project. It does not make financial sense by itself. He also feels City Market may benefit more than
other retail establishments. If the property was used as another retail space, such as a pharmacy, the
impact would be greater because the usage would be substantially more frequent than a lodge. Mr.
Cunniffe feels that no one else is coming forward with a project similar to this one. The only other
location he feels this could occur is the Hotel Lenado site. It could hold similar number of units, but they
are proposing to convert what is now a lodge to more free market units. He thinks it is an opportunity
for the community that will not appear very often.
Mr. Erspamer asked the commission for questions of the applicant.
Mr. Erspamer referenced Mr. Hunt’s terms of sensational, powerful and asked what he meant by them.
Mr. Hunt stated he was describing the sensation when you are in the smaller room, the design offsets
the size of the room by bringing the outside in.
Mr. Erspamer asked if angled parking would be allowed by the Parking Department. Ms. Adams stated
they are required to have parallel parking and did not think angled parking would be allowed due to
safety concerns.
Mr. Erspamer asked where Mr. Hunt obtained the statistic of the number of cars that drive. Mr. Hunt
stated it was done through the lodging survey and he believed it was done by the City and confirmed by
the hotels. Mr. Hunt recognizes it could range from 10% to 60%. Mr. Hunt states some of the other
P5
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014
6
hotels have amenities such as ballrooms that bring in hundreds of people which adds to the parking
needs.
Mr. Erspamer asked about the size of the coffee shop. Mr. Hunt did not know the sf, but stated it would
be small.
Mr. Erspamer asked in regards to the generation rate, if there was a final agreement by the Aspen \
Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). Ms. Adams stated APCHA prefers on-site mitigation or
housing credits. Mr. Haas recommend 0.6 FTE rate but stated APCHA’s mission is to provide affordable
housing. Ms. Adams added it is discussed on p 78 of the packet. Staff felt comfortable with the 0.3 FTE
based on the amenities and proposed operation similar to a typical lodge preservation hotel instead of
the 0.6 FTE used by the Little Nell and St. Regis Hotels. Mr. Cunniffe stated Mr. Hunt has a credit from
the replaced Gap Building. Mr. Hunt has not asked to use this credit at this point according to Ms.
Adams.
Mr. McNellis wanted to see the floor plan slide again which was provided by Mr. Hunt. Mr. Haas
remarked the cut out for the take out window would extend the entire height of the building. Mr.
Cunniffe stated the window will introduce there is a courtyard beyond and a pathway will be provided
on the exterior of the building back to the courtyard. Mr. McNellis asked if the courtyard was now
reduced in size at which Mr. Haas replied yes. Mr. Hunt stated it now connects to the restaurant, the
retail, the lobby and the outside. Mr. McNellis asked if the reduced size reduces it as a public amenity
space. Mr. Haas stated is reduced in size but is better integrated with the other parts of the building.
Mr. McNellis asked it was changed to meet a building requirement at which Mr. Hunt replied no. Mr.
Haas stated the public amenity requirement is 10-11% of the lot area. The roof top deck is more than
triple that amount. Mr. McNellis asked if making the courtyard smaller added more public amenity
space somewhere else in the building. Mr. Haas stated the building is the same, but they have added
some landscape to soften and engage the streetscape. Mr. Haas stated some layout changes occurred
on the second and third floors with an adjustment of room space.
Mr. Erspamer asked if the garage part of the Benedict Commons managed by the homeowners
association (HOA) and would require their approval to sell or rent the space. Ms. Adams cannot confirm
the management of the garage but added it could be added as a condition to the approval.
Mr. Erspamer then opened for public comment.
Ms. Katie Bartlett lives in the Benedict Commons. She has concerns the parking will add more traffic in
and out of their garage. She also feels there is a lot of impactful traffic in the area with a busy
intersection. Pulling out on to Original St from Hyman Ave is like an accident waiting to happen. The
structure of the building doesn’t blend with the other neighboring buildings. She works as a massage
therapist and her customers share what they like and don’t like. They do not like the Art Museum and
they complain about the parking.
Mr. Bruce Nethery lives in Benedict Commons. He understands the needs for developers to maximize
the value of the building, but as a 33 year resident he is concerned about the loss of vitality to the town
with this cube movement of boxes. He has seen the town grow to the point he can no longer see
Independence Pass. He thought the Gap Building was pretty well done. He feels the newer buildings
have too much glass and glare. He reiterated the failure is the box structure. He doesn’t like the hard
lines in a mountain town. He understands nothing can be done about the height.
P6
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014
7
Mr. Andrew Sandler owns Bootsie Bellows and Whiskey Rush, formerly the Regal. As an entrepreneur
and resident of Aspen he feels there is a lack of evolution in the town. He feels the businesses suffer due
to the lack of hotel rooms available in town. The town needs this type of an affordable hotel to bring in
younger demographics and the next generation. He feels the town focuses more on affordable housing
than affordable lodging sometimes. In regards to the structure, he understands Mr. Hunt is trying to
maximize the use of space. He likes the idea that guests can use the retail and restaurants provided in
the building as well similar to the Little Nell. He is concerned Aspen has lost the HBO Comedy Fest and
the Art Basels of the world and feels Aspen needs to grow in the right direction. He feels the current
structure at the corner is an eyesore.
Mr. Jon Fightlin lives in Benedict Commons. He feels messy vitality no longer counts in this town. He
does not feel comparing the parking to the St. Moritz and Hotel Lenado is a fair comparison. Those
lodges are away from downtown and this location is definitely downtown. His wife lives directly above
the garage door and they can feel when the door opens and closes. He feels it will be used constantly if
the hotel is allowed to use the garage. He is also concerned who would be responsible for the
maintenance and repair of the garage. He feels the alley if very congested now and is concerned about
the use of the alley impacting traffic. He asked how they plan to handle the pick-up and drop-offs. The
corner is a nightmare during the holidays. He is concerned how late at night the roof top deck will be
open.
Mr. Sam Hewins lives in Benedict Commons. He also runs a barber shop in the Buckhorn Arms building.
He is glad someone purchased the building and is replacing the current structure and sees an
opportunity for the impacts to the alley to be improved. He feels this type of hotel will bring more
business to town and is vital for Aspen to have lodging and become young again. He feels the fun part of
Aspen has been dying over the years. He doesn’t feel another developer will bring this type of
opportunity to Aspen.
Mr. Josh Landis was the listing agent that sold this property and is also the president of the Benedict
Commons HOA. They were not happy to find out the Benedict Commons garage space was being
considered for this project. He doesn’t think it is a commercially zoned parking garage. He does want
strangers in the garage and is concerned about the wear and tear. The City does lease 31 spaces from
the Benedict Commons and he would like to be included in any conversations regarding its use. His door
is on Original St and he has seen the traffic impacts during the seasons. He doesn’t see how the drop-
offs and pick-ups will work without issues. He is also concerned about changes to the one way alley
which serves as a front entrance to six affordable housing units. It also serves as the only access point to
the Brownstone underground parking garage on Hyman Ave, handicap access and utility access to the
Benedict Commons. He think the concept is great but feels it may be too much for this property.
Ms. Kim Raymond lives across Original St from the property and has similar concerns as Mr. Landis. She
likes the building design and the concept is good, but too much is being squished into the property. She
wonders how the parking will be handled for the restaurant and the retail which she feels will add
congestion. She saw three accidents at this intersection during the holidays. It is difficult to turn onto
Original in this area. She doesn’t feel the code is being addressed in regards to the public amenity space.
She asked if the public will know the roof top deck is there and available. She likes the coffee window.
She thinks this corner is the last vestige of messy vitality and folks like the small town feeling. Aspen is
not Chicago and not LA. Growth needs to be done properly and not at the expense of the residences and
code. She has not seen many changes to the proposal since the initial application.
P7
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014
8
Ms. Connie Daly agrees with Ms. Raymond.
Ms. Gail Price lives in the Benedict Commons. She said comparing this hotel to the Hotel Lenado is in
poor taste. The Hotel Lenado is subtlety blended with the landscape. This new building is a big block
with windows and could be a Walmart. She does not feel angle parking would work anywhere near this
building unless you cut the building back substantially. She doesn’t feel the unloading has been
addressed at all and the codes are gone. She hasn’t heard anything said about an employee unit or two.
She also wanted to know where the electrical boxes were going to be. She also asked why there isn’t
underground parking when other buildings have to have it. She doesn’t feel the building has a hint of
anything representing the mountains or landscape surrounding around Aspen. She feels the traffic is a
mess around the intersection. She is not against change, but keep it classy.
Mr. Peter Grenney has several questions. He does not understand how Aspen will get affordable lodging
if this project is rejected. The City is not going to provide affordable lodging, so the expectation is the
developers will provide it. The criteria set forth seems unrealistic and unfeasible for the private sector to
deliver. How can a developer deliver on every wish list item put forth, It’s easy to scrutinize this
application for more things the community wants, but those additional wants are coming at the expense
of what the community has clearly spoken that it needs in affordable lodging. He feels there has to be a
line drawn in the sand where everyone can agree on what to expect on a project offering what the
community desperately needs. He feels this proposal will bring the younger generation to Aspen and
provide the needed affordable lodging.
Ms. Molly Faath lives in Benedict Commons. She is concerned about parking and the congestion at the
intersection. She envisions traffic backed up down Original St and the alley consumed with people
coming in and out of hotel because she doesn’t see where the drop-off is located. In her experience
working with hotels, she says people need time to unload their bags and skis and she feels people will
use the alley for this. She likes the design, but feels the size is not going to work for such a small lot. She
doesn’t understand why we have a land use code if it doesn’t have to be adhered to.
Mr. Sid Devine lives in Benedict Commons. He ran the Mountain House for 18 years and feels the City
has not allowed smaller lodges to add more rooms in the past. He feels the City needs more affordable
lodging. He feels this area is already congested and parking is horrible. If a proposal like this is going to
be allowed, then there needs to be some response to the parking.
Ms. Alecia Smith lives in Benedict Commons. She thinks it’s great Mr. Hunt is bringing affordable lodging
to Aspen but doesn’t feel it belongs on this corner as proposed. She is concerned with noise, traffic and
parking. She feels the Benedict Common garage is already overused and in disrepair.
Ms. Alena Gauba lives in Benedict Commons. Her main concern is parking and the proposed entrance.
She does feel we need more lodging in Aspen but does not feel this is a good location. She would like to
see a check in, check out area addressed.
Ms. Karen Ryman’s son lives in Benedict Commons. She still feels the scale and congestion in this area is
not appropriate for this lodge. She feels the one foot setback in the alley is not appropriate for the
loading and unloading for the businesses in the building. She asked the audience how many people in
attendance are from the Benedict Commons. Fourteen people raised their hands. She said they don’t
disagree with the need, but they do not feel this is an appropriate location.
P8
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014
9
Mr. Mac Boelens asked for the plan for drop-off and pick-up.
Mr. Jim Farrey feels the proposed development cleans up some of the traffic issues by eliminating the
curb cuts. He supports the proposal and feels it will serve as a gateway building to Aspen. He feels
affordable lodging is paramount to the future of Aspen.
Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment session of the hearing.
Mr. Erspamer stated it did not appear there will be time for the second public hearing scheduled for the
meeting (212 Lake Ave) so he asked for a recommendation to continue to January 13, 2015. Ms. Tygre
motioned to continue the 212 Lake Ave hearing to January 13 th for a special meeting and Mr. Gibbs
seconded. There was not further discussion and all members were in favor, motion carried. Ms. Quinn
stated the applicant, Mr. David Kelly representing, is okay with the continuance.
Mr. Erspamer then reconvened on the Base 1 Lodge hearing and asked for Staff’s rebuttal and
clarification. Ms. Adams thanked the residents of Benedict Commons for providing comment and she
will reach out them to discuss the potential of using the garage or not. She also wanted to clarify the
requirements to include two loading spaces. The parking department will decide if the two spaces
should be on Original or Cooper. They are leaning toward Cooper because it has less traffic.
Mr. Erspamer then asked for rebuttal or clarification from the applicant.
Mr. Cunniffe agrees the current parking on the corner is a mess but a major contributor is the lack of
defined parking on the existing property. There is no control of the flow of traffic in and out of the
current parking area. Typically you would not be allowed to have a curb cut so close to an intersection.
The new building will clean this up with the elimination of curb cuts and defining the parking. The
proposed lodge will generate a lot less traffic than a commercial business.
Mr. Haas showed a slide and pointed out the current curb cuts and traffic flows as well as the planned
parallel parking. He doesn’t feel the City Parking Department and Colorado Department of
Transportation will allow the two loading spaces to be on Original St.
Mr. Haas stated everyone wants affordable lodging and it has been the plans since 1975. Nobody wants
it in their back yard, but it has to go somewhere. If this project was one block to the west the parking
requirement would be zero. Instead, the applicant is making a huge effort to address parking. Mr. Haas
stated the applicant is going to try to find a way to provide parking off-site.
Mr. Haas cringes when he hears other say why have a code. He feels they are compliant with the zoning
code. They are only asking for height on the restrooms which are no higher than the rest of the building.
Mr. Haas stated the electrical boxes will be on the building as required.
Mr. Haas stated he would be happy to work with Mr. Landis regarding the potential use of the Benedict
Commons parking garage. He felt it may be helpful to have another contributor to help pay for the
maintenance and repair of the building.
P9
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014
10
Mr. Hunt does not feel the proposed lodge will add to the traffic issues and people will be shocked at
the decrease in traffic. The numbers of a hotel equates to approximately ten cars and with two turns a
week, 20 cars would be added. The current business generate much more traffic in a smaller amount of
time. He is surprised the current traffic flows are allowed.
Mr. Hunt stated there is currently no defined area for trash and electric. The new building will define the
sidewalk and the entrance to the lodge. He understands further discussion is necessary to look into
possibly using the Benedict Commons parking garage. He is less concerned with the parking and believes
the Rio Grande parking garage is a good option. He feels this location is appropriate for a lodge and feels
the loading can be managed.
Mr. Hunt feels everyone has their own opinion regarding design. He really likes the original design and
feels it is authentic in look and materials. He wants the building to be noticed. He feels this building will
be similar to the athletic building with the setbacks and amount of glass. And just because it is a
rectangle, doesn’t mean it is the Art Museum. The way the code is written now lends itself to more
rectangle boxes. He feels they can work with the glare and light bleeding.
In conclusion, he is excited everyone believes in the need for affordable lodging and is looking for the
support with the conditions from the commission.
Mr. Erspamer closed the rebuttal part of the hearing.
Mr. Goode motioned to continue the meeting until 7:30 PM, seconded by Mr. Elliott. All in favor, motion
carried.
Mr. Erspamer opened for discussion from the commission.
Mr. Erspamer reviewed the criteria for the commissioners’ discussion.
1. Conceptual Commercial Design and Review, Chapter 26.412 – The recommendation goes to
Council
2. Planned Development Project Review – The recommendation goes to Council regarding an
increase in overall floor area, free market residential, lodge floor area and setbacks.
3. GMQS Review for lodge – The recommendation goes to Council regarding affordable housing
and commercial development and allotments. Council has final review.
Ms. Tygre stated she has four hot buttons.
1. Parking and circulation – This is the biggest issue for her. As a walker who walks in this area daily
for groceries at City Market, she feels this project will make the City Market parking lot even
crazier. She feel the hotel visitors will see and use the City Market parking lot. The hotel guests
will want to bring their cars because it is more cost effective for them to do this, regardless of
where a place is located. We have heard same stories for every project submitted asking to be
under parked and feel it’s not’s true regarding the need for parking for the project. You can’t
have them not bring their cars or close their blinds when you want them because they are
guests. It is unrealistic to pretend you shouldn’t have on-site parking. It negatively affects City
Market as well as the other commercial entities around City Market.
2. Public Amenity Space – She feels the public amenity space must be obvious to everyone and
right there for people to use. As an example of another public amenity space not on the ground
P10
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014
11
level, she referred to the Kandycom Building located across from the Fire Station. Their public
amenity space is on the second level and nobody ever goes up there. She doesn’t feel the
proposed walk up window at Base 1 will be successful. Boogies had one which did not do well
and it didn’t add to the streetscape. She does not like the interior courtyard and feels the roof
top amenity is basically a fourth floor.
3. Architecture – She is less concerned with the design and would be willing to forward on with the
recommendation.
4. Employee Housing – She recommends an employee generation rate of 0.6 FTE.
Mr. Goode would prefer a softer tone as shown in the second and third designs presented at the
previous meeting. The small windows would generate less light pollution, which is a concern for him. He
knows there are ways to soften the light as discussed by Mr. Cunniffe. He is pretty happy with the
application as proposed. In regards the traffic and circulation, he doesn’t believe there will be 40 cars
sitting there at one time. In regards to public amenity space, he doesn’t feel this is a corner where you
want a ton of people hanging out. He likes the proposed take-out window. He previously had a coffee
take out window at Explore with a fond, strong following. At one time, Boogies had a take-out window
for T-shirts and ice cream. He recommends an employee generation rate of 0.3 FTE.
Mr. McNellis thanked the applicant team and members of the public for participating. He feels this is a
debate encompassing larger issues impacting the City. Parking is not one of his hot buttons. As the
project moves forward, he would like something requiring parking somewhere. Mr. Erspamer and Mr.
McNellis stated something may be added to Section 13 of the resolution. He feels the hotel guests must
understand parking may not be convenient and should be encouraged to not bring or rent a car. It is his
understanding if the project does not have parking, it is not going forward.
Mr. McNellis stated his two hot buttons are the public amenity space and the architectural character. He
appreciates what Mr. Cunniffe has brought in regards to improving the expression of the building. He
agrees with the people from the Benedict Commons in that it just another box and feels people are
expecting to see something more especially in reference to some to the recent developments in the
core. He would like to see something with a little more articulation, angulation, and pockets of activity
space. Have walls go from property line to property line on such a prominent spot in town isn’t
acceptable. He appreciates the recent updates to the streetscape which allow the interior spaces to flow
to the streetscape, which energizes it immensely. If the interior court yard is going to be used as a real
amenity space, there needs to be something put in place to help show people it is there and to be used.
He is not sure the notch provides this or not, but feels there are ways to direct people to the space. He
feels the courtyards space must be at the original proposed size and offer more space than just four
chairs. No one will use it as currently proposed. He doesn’t discount the interior space as public amenity
space, but it doesn’t replace the need to enhance the pedestrian environment at the ground level.
Mr. McNellis is in favor of an employee generation rate of the 0.3 FTE. A hotel as proposed creates
significantly less employee generation needs than places like the Nell and Jerome.
Going back to the architecture, he feels there is a lot that can be done with it. He realizes the existing
structure is blighted and is a very important part of our town for individuals arriving from the pass. He
does not subscribe replacing an eyesore with something substandard.
P11
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014
12
Mr. McNellis would like the valet service to be mandatory and would like the staging location for the
shuttle to be finalized and does it take away from the guest staging areas.
Mr. Elliott stated his comments as related to Ms. Tygre’s comments.
1. Parking – He is okay as long as it is provided somewhere. He feels the applicant may have poked
a hornet’s nest with the discussion of potentially using the Benedict Commons parking garage
and feels the Rio Grande is a solid solution. He also feels eliminating the cut outs on the
property will clean up the intersection. He agrees with the applicant in that another type of
business at this location, like retail, would add more to the congestion than a hotel. He does feel
the hotel will be utilized at higher than average rates.
2. Employee Housing – He is fine with an employee generation rate of 0.3 FTE.
3. Public Amenity – He understands Mr. McNellis’s point regarding four chairs in the courtyard, but
feels this is an improvement over the current six people at a picnic table amenity. Four may be a
bit low, but it is an improved amenity space. He also likes the proposed cut out window.
4. Architecture – He understands the applicant may be receive feedback regarding the shape of
the building, but he also understands this is an affordable lodging space requires a design to
maximize the use of available volume of space. He doesn’t see how you make it affordable and
take away space that could be used for rooms.
Mr. Gibbs does not have any problem with the planned development aspect and feels the proposed
building meets the underlying zoning. He does have continued issue with the fact this property is in the
central mixed use district and under the requested commercial design review, P&Z must pay attention
to the design guidelines and criteria for the commercial character area. From his perspective, he does
not believe this building complies. As heard from a number of neighbors, he feels the proposed building
is too much for this location.
The very first design objective for the commercial character area is to reflect the transition in character
between the commercial core and outlying residential neighborhoods. He feels it does not meet this
objective. If the building was on the other end of the block, he could perhaps see a fit, but feels this is in
the middle of the transition.
In regards to the employee housing generation rate, Mr. Gibbs feels the project already has enough of a
consideration in the fact they only have to do ten percent, so he favors the 0.6 FTE rate. He doesn’t feel
P&Z should take a requirement from an unrelated zone district and apply it to this project.
Mr. Erspamer agrees with Mr. Gibbs regarding the design, but he understands design is in the eye of the
beholder. He also agrees with Mr. Haas in that the design is in the code. He noted Mr. Haas’s earlier
reference to the Athletic Club building and thought that would be more tolerable because it has less
glass and the setbacks are more compatible with neighboring buildings. He could tolerate a three story
building if the setbacks were more and the building was more dimensional.
In regards to public amenity space, he stated he is not a fan of roof top decks. He knows it is in the code,
but feels there should be a timeline. He is not sure of its impacts and could become a real problem over
time. But he understands the demographics the applicant is trying to appeal to with the design.
Mr. Erspamer stated he would not go for the override for the restrooms.
P12
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014
13
Mr. Erspamer doesn’t think P&Z should tell the applicant where to satisfy the parking requirements. He
feels P&Z should state parking has to be provided for prior to approval.
Mr. Erspamer favors a 0.3 FTE employee generation rate. He feels this is not a luxury hotel and will not
require the number of employees as a luxury hotel.
Mr. Erspamer then referred to Section 13 – Parking Department of the resolution in the packet (p 46).
He asked if a statement should be included to clarify there should be two assigned parking spaces on
Cooper St. Mr. Gibbs thought it should just state that parking must be provided. Mr. Goode stated it
should state the applicant shall provide parking spaces. Mr. Erspamer suggested adding that valet
service be provided and remove the portion mentioning another similar parking situation. He
recommended it state the applicant shall secure parking spaces and provide valet service.
Mr. Gibbs asked if they could first look at Section 1 of the resolution to try to get a sense if the
commission approves or not of the requested reviews.
Ms. Adams offered to help the commission work through the resolution. Mr. Erspamer asked if anyone
opposed her assistance and no one stated any concerns.
Ms. Adams reiterated the three reviews to be voted on for the project. According to her notes, she sees
support for the dimensional variations and parking provided off-site. The location of parking is to be
determined, but must be provided. She added parking is part of the Planned Development Review which
she sees support for approving that aspect of the memo.
Mr. Elliott stated if the Rio Grande parking garage was not going to be part of the resolution, then he is
not in favor of using residential parking.
Ms. Adams stated for the Growth Management review, she sees a majority of four members supporting
the 0.3 generation rate.
Ms. Adams stated the Commercial Design Review is the big issue with the commission including the
architecture and the public amenity space. She suggested the commission could recommend a re-study
of the architecture and public amenity space to comply with commercial design.
Mr. Gibbs stated is not just the architecture and public amenity space, but the fundamental character.
He does not necessarily care what the building looks like from an architecture perspective, but he wants
it to be a transitional building. Ms. Adams stated that could be included in their recommendation to
Council. She wants to focus the conversation to the part of the review that need conditions specified to
provide clear direction to Council.
Mr. Erspamer suggested stating in the resolution the building must be transitional in size, scale and
zone. Mr. Gibbs felt that statement would make it comply with the design guidelines for this district and
commercial character area.
Ms. Adams suggested the commission focus on some conditions for commercial design review.
Mr. Gibbs made a motion to extend the meeting until 7:40 PM, seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor,
motion carried.
P13
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014
14
Ms. Adams then suggested the commission could have two resolutions. Mr. McNellis stated he agreed
the commercial design standards is in question for different reasons from the members. He stated he
would vote to deny the application based on his concerns of the commercial design standards if the
commission is unable to break out the reviews. Ms. Quinn reiterated the commission is just making
recommendations to Council at this point.
Mr. Erspamer asked the members if they would support language stating the building must be
transitional in size, scale and design to fit the zone district. Mr. Goode and Ms. Tygre felt that statement
would not give Council any direction. Mr. Erspamer stated if they give any more direction, there will not
be consensus because all the commission members feel something different. Mr. McNellis feels the
concerns of Mr. Gibbs definitely include the design. He feels the majority of the commission would vote
down the commercial design component. Ms. Quinn stated they could recommend denial of the
commercial design component.
Mr. Elliott stated he would pass it as is.
Mr. Erspamer suggested they go forward with the language in the parking section.
Mr. McNellis suggested they get a straw vote on each of the three reviews.
Mr. Erspamer asked who was in favor of the planned development review including height, dimensions,
restrooms and parking. Four voted in favor and two voted against. Mr. Gibbs feels they don’t have
criteria to reject the PD review, but also feels it completely conflicts with the commercial design review.
Mr. Erspamer asked who was in favor of the GMQS review. Four voted in favor and two voted against.
Mr. Erspamer then asked who was in favor of the commercial design review. Two voted in favor and
four voted against.
Mr. Gibbs then stated the resolution could recommend approval of the PD and GMQS reviews and
recommend denial of the Commercial Design Review.
Mr. Erspamer asked if they need to vote no to the resolution as provided in the packet and Ms. Quinn
replied there has been no motion on the current resolution.
Ms. Adams suggested the resolution could state P&Z recommends City Council grant project review
approval and growth management approval and denial of the conceptual commercial design approval.
She would amend Section 1 to include this language. She added it would include the 0.3 generation rate,
required parking with a valet service. She suggested eliminating Section 16 which discusses the public
amenity space. Mr. McNellis stated the resolution would include any approval associated with PD or
growth management as drafted by staff including the changes to Section 13 are acceptable by the
majority of the commission.
Mr. McNellis made a motion to approve Resolution 1, Series 2015 in accordance of approval of the
planned development and growth management as drafted by staff along with the conditions in
accordance of those approvals and denial of the commercial design standards review. This includes the
P14
IV.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 6, 2014
15
adjustments to the parking section including requiring valet service, removing the Rio Grande Parking
Garage portion and excluding residential parking.
Mr. Gibbs made a motion to extend the meeting until 7:45 PM, seconded by Mr. Elliott. All in favor,
motion carried.
Mr. Erspamer continued stating there was a motion, a second and an explanation of the motion. He
asked if any further discussion was required on the motion. There was none so he requested a roll call.
Roll call vote; Tygre, no; Gibbs, yes; McNellis, yes; Goode, yes; Keith, yes; Erspamer, no. Motion passed
with a total four (4) yes – two (2) no.
Mr. Erspamer closed the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P15
IV.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planning Technician
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: January 20, 2015
RE: 500 Rio Grande Place – Minor Amendment to Detailed Review
BACKGROUND: The subject site is located in the Public (PUB) zone district, with a PD
overlay.
APPLICANT /OWNER:
City of Aspen Parks Department, City
of Aspen
REPRESENTATIVE:
Steve Cronin, City Parks Dept.
LOCATION:
500 Rio Grande Place
CURRENT ZONING & USE
This property is located in the
PUB/PD zone district. This space is
used as a public park containing both
passive and active recreation use
opportunities.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The park will continue to be used as a
public park with both passive and
active recreation opportunities.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant is proposing to expand
the existing skate park by removing
the adjacent basketball courts and
extending the skate park into that area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the application for a Minor
Amendment to a Detailed Review approval. Staff finds
the application to meet at required criteria.
Figure A: Photo of subject property
P16
VI.A.
2
The skate park and
basketball court is part
of the Rio Grande
Specially Planned Area
(SPA, now Planned
Development or PD),
which received its
rezoning via Ordinance
No. 54, Series of 1977.
The SPA later received
approval for a Master
Plan via Resolution No.
42, Series of 1993
which guided the
intended improvements
to the park over time.
Under this plan the
skate park was designed
and developed in 2000.
In 2006 City Council
adopted the Civic
Master Plan (Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2006). This
document provides guidance for the future use of publicly
owned properties within the City of Aspen, including Rio
Grande Park. This document supersedes the City of Aspen Rio Grande Master Plan of 1993.
In July 2013, the City’s Parks Dept. held an open house to gauge interest in an expansion of the
skate park. Respondents to the follow up survey overwhelmingly supported an expansion and
expressed desire “street skate” features. The survey questionnaire results are included as Exhibit
C to this memo.
EXISTING/PROPOSED CONDITIONS: The skate park at Rio Grande Park is located east of
the large playing field, at the Rio Grande Trail park entrance off of Rio Grande Place. The skate
park offers a number of bowls and a few other features for users to practice their skills.
The basketball court is adjacent to and northwest of the skate park. The court features five
basketball hoops. The paved court is cracked and uneven.
The Applicant is proposing to remove the basketball court and expand the skate park to
encompass that space. According to the Applicant’s studies and observations, the court is
underutilized, with many survey respondents indicating their preference for using other
basketball facilities in the City. Issues of overcrowding and safety within the existing skate
park are the primary drivers of this expansion request, as well as the desire of users for more
“street skate” features that are commonly found in skate parks around the country. The
Figure B: Vicinity Map with skate park
and basketball court highlighted with star
Rio Grande Park
N
P17
VI.A.
3
Applicant is working with Team
Pain, designer of the current skate
park, on crafting a plan that will
meet user expectations for a
modern facility while also
creating a safer environment for
users of all ages and abilities.
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the
following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval. Pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.445.110.E, an application that is generally consistent with the allowance
and limitation of a Detailed Review approval or otherwise represents an insubstantial
change but does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment
requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve,
approve with conditions or deny the minor amendment request.
STAFF REVIEW: Staff has reviewed the application against the relevant criteria, and finds
the following:
Approval of this application is reliant on the project’s consistency with the 2006 Civic Master
Plan. In regards to the Rio Grande Park and surrounding area, the Civic Master Plan focuses
primarily on issues of pedestrian movement, borders to the park, and urban edges, all variables
that have been previously resolved for Rio Grande Park and the subject skate park. However, the
Civic Master Plan does encourage quality uses within the park to draw users to the area. The
skate park is an active use, and an expansion of the skate park will enhance the active use of the
park by providing additional opportunities for users.
No new vehicular access points are proposed with this application. The entrances to the park
will remain unchanged as they currently exist – which includes an at-grade ADA-compliant
accessible trail entrance on Rio Grande Pl. This trail is wide enough to accommodate
emergency, maintenance and service vehicle access.
The Applicant has proposed the installation of additional bike racks to accommodate the
anticipated increase in skate park usage.
The skate park addition will utilize the same concrete material as currently exists, but will
include various colors to enhance the visual aspects of the features. The Applicant has indicated
that this is the new standard for skate parks throughout the country, which has been confirmed by
Staff through online research. This color, combined with the newly proposed features, will
Figure C: Basketball court adjacent to skate park
P18
VI.A.
4
provide visual interest to the Rio Grande Park. Additional proposed materials include boulders
and native landscaping. The Applicant plans to maintain most of the existing vegetation on the
site, including several cottonwood trees located along the edge and center of the proposed
expansion area. With a referral from the City Forrester the Parks Dept. Director has approved
the removal of some smaller shrubs currently on the site. A landscape plan has been developed
that will serve to blend the expanded skate park section with the existing skate park, and the
remainder of the Rio Grande Park.
Snow removal is not performed on the skate park itself; however, storage of snow cleared from
the trail is accommodated on or near the playing field directly across from the skate park.
The Rio Grande is a public park that is owned and maintained by the City of Aspen. The City’s
Parks Department will be responsible for maintaining the skate park and its proposed expansion.
The Engineering Dept. has requested that the ground water level be investigated at this location
to determine the appropriateness of dry wells due to the proximity of the river to the proposed
expansion area. There are currently two dry wells associated with the skate park that are located
within the proposed expansion area. The Applicant has indicated drainage plans will be
designed to ensure on-site containment. An additional dry well will be built in this location if it
is found to be necessary. Maintenance for the dry wells may be accessed via the man holes on
the adjacent trail.
The proposed application is a plan to upgrade and expand existing public infrastructure and to
provide a space that is larger, state-of-the-art, and safer for users of all levels. Staff finds the
expansion plan will serve to active the park and is in compliance with the 2006 Civic Master
Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department Director recommends the
Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for a Minor Amendment to a Detailed
Review approval, with the following condition:
1- A ground water level investigation is performed at this location to determine the
appropriateness of using dry wells for water retention at this location
2‐ If this study shows that an additional dry well is required, plans are submitted for the
installation of an additional dry well prior to Building Permit.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend
approval for the request the following motion may be used. “I move to approve the request for a
Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval for Rio Grande Park at 500 Rio Grande Place.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Site Plan
Exhibit B – Review Criteria
Exhibit C – The City of Aspen Civic Master Plan
Exhibit D – Rio Grande Skate Park Survey Questionnaire Results
Exhibit E – Application
Exhibit F – Public Notice
P19
VI.A.
1
RESOLUTION No. __
(SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO A DETAILED REVIEW FOR
THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN
THE SW ¼ OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH
P.M., CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO; COMMONLY
KNOWN AS RIO GRANDE PARK AT 500 RIO GRANDE PLACE, CITY OF ASPEN
PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 2737-073-06-851
WHEREAS, The City of Aspen, as owner of Rio Grande Park at 500 Rio Grande Pl.,
submitted a request for Minor Amendment to Detailed Review approval for consideration by the
Planning and Zoning Commission for a land use review; and
WHEREAS, the property is located in the PUB Public zone district with a Planned
Development overlay; and
WHEREAS, the Rio Grande Park is part of the Rio Grande Specially Planned Area
(SPA) which was rezoned via Ordinance No. 54, Series of 1977, and later received master plan
approved via Resolution No. 42, Series of 1993; and
WHEREAS, City Council approved the City of Aspen Civic Master Plan via Ordinance
No. 46, Series of 2006 which was adopted as a regulatory document and supersedes the 1993
Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the request and has
submitted a recommendation of approval of a Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review to the
Planning and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 20, 2015, upon review and
consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department, presentation
from the Applicant, and consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission
approves the review as requested by the Applicant, finding that it meets the criteria as described
in Subsection 26.445.070 of the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers
and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review
approval permitting the removal of the basketball court and expansion of the skate park within
P20
VI.A.
2
the vacated area at Rio Grande Park, 500 Rio Grande Pl., as indicated in Exhibit A, with the
following conditions:
1. The ground water level must be investigated to determine the appropriateness of drywells
for handling stormwater runoff; and
2. If drywell storage is found to be appropriate, the site must be studied to determine if the
two existing drywells are adequate to handle storm water runoff, or whether a third
drywell must be implemented on-site.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 20th day of
January, 2015.
______________________________
Ryan Walterscheid, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_______________________________ ______________________________
Linda Manning, Records Manager Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A: Site Plan
P21
VI.A.
Exhibit A
Site Plan
*Note: Yellow indicates
approved area of
skate park expansion
P
2
2
V
I
.
A
.
1
Exhibit B
Review Standards
26.445.070. Detailed Review Standards.
Detailed Review shall focus on the comprehensive evaluation of the specific aspects of the
development, including utility placement, and architectural materials. In the review of a
development application for Detailed Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the
Historic Preservation Commission as applicable, shall consider the following:
A. Compliance with Project Review Approval. The proposed development, including all
dimensions and uses, is consistent with the Project Review approval and adequately addresses
conditions on the approval and direction received during the Project Review.
Staff Response: The proposed project must be found consistent with the Civic Master Plan,
adopted by Council in 2006 as a regulatory document. In relation to the Rio Grande Park and
surrounding area, the Civic Master Plan focuses primarily on issues of pedestrian movement,
borders to the park, and urban edges, all variables that have been previously resolved for Rio
Grande Park and the subject skate park. However, the Civic Master Plan does encourage
quality uses within the park to draw users to the area. The skate park is an active use, and its
expansion would increase on that active use. The expansion would remove the existing
basketball court directly adjacent to the current skate park. Parks Dept. survey results indicate
the basketball courts in this area have a tendency to be underutilized, while the current skate
park experiences frequent overcrowding and conflict between different skill level users. An
expansion of the skate park will enhance the active use of the park, complementing the passive
use space that is found elsewhere throughout the Rio Grande Park. Staff finds this criter ion
to be met.
B. Growth Management. The proposed development has received all required GMQS
allotments, or is concurrently seeking allotments.
Staff Response: No new growth management allotments are required as part of this
application. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable.
C. Site Planning and Landscape Architecture. The site plan is compatible with the
context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be
used:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designed 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. Vegetation removal, protection, and
restoration plans shall be acceptable to the Director of Parks and Open Space.
Staff Response: The Applicant has plans to maintain much of the existing vegetation on
the site, including several cottonwood trees located along the edge and center of the proposed
expansion area. With a referral from the City Forrester the Parks Dept. Director has
approved the removal of some smaller shrubs currently on the site. A landscape plan has been
P23
VI.A.
2
submitted that includes native vegetation for the site. The landscape plan will serve to blend
the expanded skate park section with the existing skate park, and the r emainder of the Rio
Grande Park. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Buildings and site grading provide simple, at-grade entrances and minimize extensive
grade changes along building exteriors. The project meets or exceeds the requirements of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and applicable requirements for emergency,
maintenance, and service vehicle access. Adequate snow storage is accommodated.
Staff Response: There are no buildings associated with this application. The entrances
to the park will remain unchanged as they currently exist – which includes an at-grade ADA
accessible trail to the skate park. The current entrance on Rio Grande Pl. accommodates
emergency, maintenance and service vehicle access. Snow storage is accommodated on or
near the playing field directly across from the skate park. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into the landscape in a manner
that enhances the site.
Staff Response: The skate park expansion proposal consists of outdoor hardscape
features and do not require energy to the site. However, the Applicant has indicated that the
Parks Dept. will use local materials that include boulders, plans and concrete for the skate
park expansion and in the surround landscape. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. All site lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any
kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City’s
outdoor lighting standards.
Staff Response: There is no outdoor lighting proposed as part of this application. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
5. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in compliance with Title 29
– Engineering Design Standards and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
Staff Response: There are currently two dry wells associated with the skate park that are
located within the proposed expansion area. Drainage plans will be designed to ensure on-site
containment. An additional dry well will be built in this location if it is found to be necessary.
The Applicant has indicated maintenance access to the manholes for the dry wells is via the
Rio Grande Trail. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Design Standards and Architecture. The proposed architectural details emphasize
quality construction and design characteristics. In meeting this standard, the following criteria
shall be used:
1. The project architecture provides for visual interest and incorporates present -day details
and use of materials respectful of the community’s past without attempting to mimic
history.
Staff Response: The skate park expansion will include various colored concrete to
enhance the visual aspect of the park. The Applicant has indicated that this is the new
P24
VI.A.
3
standard for skate parks throughout the country, which has been confirmed by Staff through
online research. This color, combined with the newly proposed features, will provide visual
interest to the Rio Grande Park. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Exterior materials are of a high quality, durability, and comply with applicable design
standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards,
Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic
Preservation.
Staff Response: The materials for the skate park expansion will be colored concrete,
boulders, and native landscaping. There are no buildings or fences being proposed with this
application, therefore the Residential Design Standards and Commercial Design Standards do
not apply. Furthermore the Rio Grande Park is not a historic property or within a historic
district, therefore the Historic Preservation chapter of the Code does not apply. Staff finds this
criterion to be not-applicable.
3. Building entrances are sited or designed to minimize icing and snow shedding effects.
Staff Response: There are no buildings associated with this application. Furthermore,
the skate park is not used when there is ice and snow on the features. Staff finds this criterion
to be not-applicable.
4. Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into structures in a manner that
enhances the architecture.
Staff Response: There is no energy efficient or energy production features proposed as
part of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable.
5. All structure lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of
any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City’s
outdoor lighting standards.
Staff Response: There is no structure lighting proposed as part of this application. Staff
finds this criterion to be not-applicable.
E. Common Parks, Open Space, Recreation Areas, or Facilities. If the proposed
development includes common parks, open space, recreation areas, or common facilities, a
proportionate, undivided interest is deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner
within the Planned Development. An adequate assurance through a Development Agreement for
the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities
together with a prohibition against future development is required.
Staff Response: The Rio Grande Park is not a common park, open space, recreation area or
common facility that requires deeding in this nature. This is a public park that is owned and
maintained by the City of Aspen. The City’s Parks Department will be responsible for
maintaining the skate park and its proposed expansion. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P25
VI.A.
4
F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular
facilities and improvements. Any new vehicular access points minimize impacts on existing
pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities.
Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during
Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of the Project Review and as otherwise
required in the Land Use Code. These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the
design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements and to determine any
required cost estimating for surety requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction
documents.
Staff Response: There are no new vehicular access points proposed with this application. The
Applicant has proposed additional bike racks to accommodate the anticipated increase in skate
park usage. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering
design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to
comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design
Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP).
Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during
Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 –
Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP).
These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept
complies with the intent of the requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction
documents.
Staff Response: The Engineering Dept. has requested that the ground water level be
investigated at this location to determine the appropriateness of dry wells due to the proximity
of the river to the proposed facility. Access to the dry well for maintenance purposes will be
through man holes on the adjacent trail.
H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall
upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be
at the sole costs of the developer.
Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during
Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 –
Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Managem ent Plan (URMP).
These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept
complies with the intent of the requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction
documents.
Staff Response: The proposed application is a plan to upgrade and expand existing public
infrastructure, and to provide a space that is larger, state-of-the-art, and safer for users of all
levels. Public improvements are proposed in the form of ground wells for increased water
detention on-site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P26
VI.A.
5
I. Phasing of development plan. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each
phase shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on
subsequent phases. Phasing shall insulate, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases
from the construction of later phases. All necessary or proportionate improvements to public
facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly
by residents of the Planned Development, construction of any required affordable housing, and
any mitigation measures shall be completed concurrent or prior to the respective impacts
associated with the phase.
Staff Response: Phasing is not proposed for this development plan. Staff finds this criterion to
be not-applicable.
(Ord. No. 9-2002, § 8, 2002; Ord. No. 36-2013, §4)
P27
VI.A.
THE CITY OF ASPEN CIVIC MASTER PLAN
Adopted by the Aspen City Council in December 2006
To remember Aspen’s history is to recognize a heritage
of innovation – Aspen is always at a crossroads that has
never been encountered.
– Civic Master Plan Advisory Group
P28
VI.A.
If imitation is the ultimate fl attery, then other mountain
communities have steadily and relentlessly paid Aspen the
highest respect. As others have tried to re-create the model,
Aspen continues to reinvent itself.
Our powerful resort environment has sometimes over-
whelmed a sense of local community, and the City of Aspen
has responded over the years by adopting an ambitious set of
civic obligations.
Aspen was the fi rst mountain resort to establish a major
aff ordable housing program, and the fi rst to establish a sales
tax for child care. We’ve subsidized Th e Th rift Shop and
local arts groups, and found a way to help redevelop locally-
serving businesses in the downtown area.
To remember Aspen’s history is to recognize a heritage of
innovation – Aspen is always at a crossroads that has never
been encountered. We need to fi nd out what’s going on in
the city’s trajectory, and should – once again – have a clear
intention to do new things fi rst. Aspen is about memory
and prophecy.
In the Civic Master Plan process, we have used the 2000
Aspen Area Community Plan and eight Core Principles
as a guiding compass. If we can implement goals and prin-
ciples at many sites around the Civic Core, we can realize
a cascading series of seemingly small steps that add up to
great strides.
We can take steps to overcome the pedestrian barrier that
our Main Street has become; we can create a new and pedes-
trian-friendly Galena Street Extension that invites people
to Galena Plaza and Rio Grande Park; we can revitalize the
un-used open space at Galena Plaza; we can help fi nd a new
home for the Aspen Art Museum in the downtown that
reaffi rms our identity as a leader in the arts; we can expand
the popular Th rift Shop; we can renovate our downtown Fire
Station to improve public safety and maintain the invaluable
culture of the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department.
We can strike a balance to reach a myriad of goals. We are
now learning that projects such as Obermeyer Place can
preserve locally-serving businesses and bring aff ordable
housing to the downtown area. We can create a respectful
edge which frames the beautiful picture that is Rio Grande
Park and bring complementary uses to the Park; we can
clean storm water and re-create the riparian environment
along the Roaring Fork River with streams & waterfalls; we
can retain the traditional civic functions of local government
in the downtown and maintain a year-round feeling within a
powerful resort environment; we can explore the possibilities
for the Wheeler Parcel that show the community is alive and
evolving – and continuing to celebrate its core identity as a
center for arts and culture.
As the Civic Master Plan Advisory Group has applied its
Core Principles to one site after another – grounded in the
Aspen Area Community Plan – it has steadily built a larger
vision. Th e Advisory Group has explored numerous ways for
the community and the City of Aspen to live up to its civic
obligations: To maintain a world-class resort and a healthy
year-round community.
“We hope the Civic Master Plan will become a powerful hybrid
– not just a spoken philosophy, and not just a brick and mortar
exercise, but a working vision and a strategy in progress. “ —
Civic Master Plan Advisory Group.
Preamble The Aspen community has a rich history of generating powerful ideas that are well ahead of their time – and an equally compelling
history of individual passion, energy and risk-taking that broke new ground, and created a one-of-a-kind community.
From the Goethe Bicentennial to the Aspen Institute and Aspen Music Festival, from the campaign to establish unparalleled
Wilderness Areas to the seeding of a wide range of now-vital arts institutions, the Aspen Idea took hold and defi ned the community
as a model for innovation – a community that dreams bigger and reaches further to create a unique sense of place.
THE CITY OF ASPEN CIvIC mASTER PLAN
Ph
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
s
b
y
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
B
r
a
n
d
s
P
h
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
|
D
e
s
i
g
n
b
y
K
e
n
y
o
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
W
o
r
k
s
Introduction ............................ 2
Section I ................................. 5
Locally Serving, Locally Owned Business
Section II ................................ 7
Th e Arts in Aspen
Section III ............................. 11
Local Government
Section IV ............................. 15
Public Open Space
Section V .............................. 18
Pedestrian Movement
Supporting Documents .......... 21
Resolution No. 31 and Ordinance No. 46
Appendix .............................. 27
Purpose
Th e Civic Master Plan provides guidance for the future use
of publicly-owned properties between Aspen Mountain
and the Roaring Fork River. Th e Civic Master Plan Advi-
sory Group relied upon the 2000 Aspen Area Community
Plan, and eight “Core Principles” to generate and adopt
numerous fi ndings and recommendations.
Th e Civic Master Plan attempts to sketch out a series of
memorable places – and ultimately paints a “big picture” for
the civic core of Aspen that is intended to be greater than
the sum of its parts. Future land use applications for any
site evaluated in the Civic Master Plan must demonstrate
“consistency” with the Civic Master Plan, pursuant to Sec-
tion 26.100.104(A) of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.
T
a
b
l
e
o
f
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
s
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
1P29
VI.A.
The people who have served as members of the Civic Master
Plan Advisory Group (CMPAG) represent a wide array of
government agencies, non-profit groups and locally-serving
businesses. To understand why this particular mix of groups
was chosen to generate the Civic Master Plan, it’s important
to briefly explore the meaning of the word civic.
Civ-ic
Latin: civicus, derived from civis, meaning “townsman”
or citizen.
1. Relating to the government of a town or city.
2. Relating to the duties and obligations of belonging to a
community; civic pride.
The first definition of civic, above, is the strict definition,
relating only to the functions of local government, and the
functions and duties of citizens within that government.
Historically, those civic functions have been located in
Aspen’s urban core, including the Courthouse, the original
City Hall on Durant Street, the Fire Station on Hopkins
Street – and Armory Hall on Galena Street, which became
City Hall in the 1950s.
After Aspen became a world class ski resort in the second
half of the 20th century, the downtown sprouted lodges,
condos and shops that cater to tourists – but the functions
of local government, the courts and public safety remained
in the heart of the downtown.
While those who live here may take them for granted, the
presence of these buildings and the activity that surrounds
them has become an important part of the community’s
year-round character. Many communities build a “glass box”
outside of town and call it a Civic Center. In Aspen, those
civic functions are integrated into the downtown, retain-
ing the traditional elements of a small community within a
powerful resort environment.
But there is a broader meaning of the word civic, as found
in the second definition: “The duties and obligations of
belonging to a community; civic pride.”
Over many years, the Aspen community has created a
unique set of civic obligations – the City and the County
have steadily taken on responsibilities beyond simply pro-
cessing building permits and dog licenses.
In a very general sense, this unique set of civic obligations
are intended to maintain a healthy year-round community
and a world-class resort at the same time.
Over the years, the City has bought and operated the
Wheeler Opera House; provided low-cost space to a wide
range of arts and cultural groups; provided low-cost space
to the Aspen Chamber Resort Association and the Visi-
tor Center; subsidized affordable housing and daycare;
provided low-cost space to The Thrift Shop; entered into a
public-private partnership to redevelop space for locally-
serving non-retail businesses; and established public parks
& pedestrian paths. And this is only a partial list.
The Civic Master Plan was generated by a 24-member Ad-
visory Group made up of local organizations that represent
many of these different interests. The overriding goal was to
ensure that all of these interests remain healthy and capable
of continuing to play the vital roles they play in forming
and preserving the identity of the Aspen community – to
live up to the civic obligations the City has established for
itself.
The Civic Master Plan was based on a representative com-
mittee process: Each CMPAG member provided updates to
the board and/or constituents they represented, and subse-
quently brought feedback to the CMPAG as a whole. This
representative process literally encompassed hundreds of
people as part of the development of the Civic Master Plan.
In addition to the members of the CMPAG that repre-
sented specific groups, there were seven citizens-at-large
who served as members: Charles Cunniffe, Pat Fallin, Jackie
Kasabach, Bill Lipsey, Sue Smedstad, Bennett Bramson and
Stan Clauson.
The Civic Master Plan Advisory Group
INTRODUCTION: PEOPLE
Helen Klanderud, Mayor of Aspen
David McClendon, Theatre Aspen
John Rowland,
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Tim Belinski and Dwayne Romero of
Obermeyer Redevelopment Co.
Brian Pettet,
Pitkin County
Blake Fitch, City of Aspen Parking
Operations Manager
Heidi Zuckerman Jacobson,
Aspen Art Museum
Kathy Chandler, Pitkin County Library
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
2 P30
VI.A.
Starting in 2000, the Civic Master Plan process was lengthy
and unpredictable. Each organization had a different vision,
schedule and financial capability. Each site had unique assets
and liabilities. Issues of timing sometimes created delays in the
work of the Advisory Group.
Perhaps most importantly, the CMPAG recognized early on
that it could not simply tell any given organization what it
should do. Instead, the CMPAG steadily grew into a valuable
role – as a catalyst. During its six-year tenure, the CMPAG
grew skilled at creating the context for organizations to make
informed decisions.
One of the most valuable elements of the Civic Master Plan
was its ability to spawn important civic projects almost from
the very beginning. It has been a living plan – a work in
progress.
Not long after the CMPAG adopted its Core Principles in
2000, the Advisory Group offered its input to the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) Master Plan, for its
headquarters property on N. Mill Street. In 2005, when the
City Council approved the ACSD Master Plan, it reflected
the CMPAG’s input regarding bike/pedestrian paths and the
restoration of natural grades along the Roaring Fork River.
In 2001, the CMPAG identified the Obermeyer Place area not
only as a dilapidated neighborhood badly in need of renovation
and redesign – but as a non-retail, locally-serving business
park that was critically important to preserve as part of Aspen’s
year-round community. In addition, the CMPAG found that
due to the low rents inherent in this non-retail business park,
a public-private partnership would be needed if a renovation
project were to proceed. By simply providing this context, the
CMPAG acted as a catalyst for the City of Aspen and Ober-
meyer Redevelopment Co. to form a public-private partnership
that resulted in the construction of Obermeyer Place.
Similarly, the CMPAG focused on the need for an expanded
and more visible Visitor Center, and staff outreach resulted
in an opportunity for the City to gain free space for a new
Visitor Center on Main Street. Although a public referen-
dum ultimately defeated this proposal, the CMPAG again
acted as a catalyst, and helped create a unique opportunity
for the civic core.
In 2005, the CMPAG recommended an information-gathering
effort entitled the Arts Sector Facilities Analysis to help answer
the question: Is a new shared-use arts facility needed in Aspen?
Again, this represented a catalytic effort by the CMPAG.
Rather than establishing philosophical guidance – which is
already provided by the Aspen Area Community Plan – the
CMPAG has been a working group, using its Core Principles
to focus on a wide range of actual sites in the civic core. And
this document is intended to be a living and working document,
continuing to provide important context for informed decision-
making in the future.
The Civic Master PlanAs Catalyst
INTRODUCTION: CATALYST
Laura Thielen, Aspen Filmfest
Loren Ryerson, Aspen
Police Department
Citizen representatives were (l. to r.) Charles Cunniffe, Jackie Kasabach, Bill Lipsey,
Sue Smedstad and Bennett Bramson. Stan Clauson not pictured.
Darryl Grob,
Aspen Fire Protection District
Don Bird, Pitkin County Jail
Lisa Consiglio,
Aspen Writers Foundation Gram Slaton, Wheeler Opera House
Lynda McCarthy,
The Thrift Shop
Debbie Braun,
Aspen Chamber Resort Association
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
3P31
VI.A.
Regulatory Application
On Dec. 11, 2006, the Aspen City Council passed Ordi-
nance No. 46, Series of 2006, approving the Civic Master
Plan.
Pursuant to Section 26.100.104 and Section
26.100.104(A) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Civic
Master Plan is a regulatory document that requires
future land use applications for any site evaluated in the
Civic Master Plan to demonstrate “consistency” with its
findings and recommendations. If a land use applica-
tion cannot demonstrate consistency with the findings
and recommendations, the application must demonstrate
consistency with the eight Core Principles, and the rel-
evant portions of the Aspen Area Community Plan cited
in the Civic Master Plan.
How to Read the Document
In each of the five sections, the reader will find a sum-
mary that includes a reference to relevant portions of the
2000 Aspen Area Community Plan.
Following the summary are two or more sub-sections
that address specific sites. These sub-sections reference
the relevant Core Principles relied upon by the CMPAG.
The findings and recommendations for each site are
embedded into the narrative, along with photographs and
renderings.
In these sub-sections, the report often says, “the CM-
PAG found that …” This refers to a finding, which is a
statement based on Core Principles that was adopted by
the CMPAG.
In the sub-sections, the report often says, “The CMPAG
recommended that …” This refers to a recommendation
that was adopted by the CMPAG.
Instead of prescribing only one use for each site, the
Civic Master Plan may identify a range of appropriate
uses. The findings and recommendations in the Civic
Master Plan may also indicate priorities for various sites
that can be found in the main narrative. When multiple
uses are identified, the reader will find a NOTE ON
MULTIPLE USES.
The Civic Master Plan focused on the civic core – from
Aspen Mountain to the Roaring Fork River. Within that
region, two sub-areas emerged – north of Main Street,
and south of Main Street.
South of Main Street, the focus was on those vital civic
buildings such as the Fire Station, the Wheeler Opera
House and the Wheeler Parcel. With most of the urban,
compact downtown already built and largely following
the principles of sound urban design, the CMPAG spent
a great deal of time on the area north of Main Street.
Historically, the City of Aspen treated the land along
the Roaring Fork River no differently than most other
American cities and towns treated their riverfronts – it
was an industrial zone, including an old dump. Over the
last several decades it has been rehabilitated, largely with
Rio Grande Park and associated pedestrian/bike trails
through the river corridor.
Beginning with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Dis-
trict headquarters site and Obermeyer Place, the CM-
PAG discovered there are further steps that can be taken
to create memorable places in this important area between
Main Street and the Roaring Fork River.
A 19th-century view of the Rio
Grande Railroad terminal area
in what is now Rio Grande Park.
Civic Master Plan Core Principles
1Civic & Arts/Cultural uses belong in the heart of town.
Many communities develop a “big glass box” on the outskirts
of town surrounded by parking and a drainage feature and
call it their Civic Center. Aspen has the fortune of an inte-
grated civic core in the heart of downtown and the substan-
tial community character that has resulted. This planning
effort builds on that tradition.
2Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use areas create vibrant,
memorable places. Single-use buildings, depending upon
their use, can have periods of little activity. Repeated on
a large scale, whole single-use areas can see little activity.
Civic Centers dominated by government institutions, for ex-
ample, are vacant during weekends. Integrating complimen-
tary uses can result in a more active and more interesting
environment.
3Focus on Creating Great People Places. Great public
places give identity to cities and instill a sense of pride in
the community. These public places become the backdrop
for social interaction, memorable experiences, and can be a
source of energy for the district.
4Affordable Housing and Affordable Commercial space
ensures viability of civic functions and vitality of town. Each
decision concerning civic institutions should involve a dis-
cussion about affordable housing and the long-term viability
of the institution. Affordable Commercial space addresses
the continued viability of the local economy and contributes
to a vital mix of uses. Housing has the ability to increase
vitality of an area and of the public spaces throughout the
civic area.
5Civic planning must address the need for parking while
not inducing additional traffic. The ability for the City to
facilitate the convenient conversion of the driver to the pe-
destrian is extremely valuable to the character of the Civic
area. Ignoring the various parking demands may result in ex-
tra traffic from cars circling the area and visitor frustration.
6Partnerships among and between the public and private
sectors can be very advantageous in achieving civic goals.
Private enterprise may significantly extend the public’s abil-
ity to reach public goals. While each circumstance needs
to be individually considered, the possibility of “win-win”
scenarios are worth exploring.
7Pedestrian orientation creates connections between
neighborhoods. The design, programming, and implementa-
tion of civic projects should focus on the pedestrian qual-
ity of the district. Connections to and through the district
should be enhanced.
8Arts and Culture is an intrinsic asset. The pursuit of
excellence in the arts and culture is an integral part of As-
pen’s historical character. The display and presentation of
arts and cultural events is a core element of Aspen’s identity
as a unique community in a competitive resort environment,
and Aspen should build upon this intrinsic asset at every
opportunity. A sustained cultivation of the arts and culture
in Aspen will further enrich the Aspen community, reinforce
its international profile and strengthen its economy over the
long-term.
Implementation of the Civic Master Plan
Geography
INTRODUCTION: CORE PRINCIPLES
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
4 P32
VI.A.
SECTION I: LOCALLY SERvING, LOCALLY OwNED bUSINESS
Th is section focuses on a sector of the business commu-
nity that has steadily drained out of the City of Aspen,
often to the Aspen Airport Business Center, but also
further downvalley.
Th ese are the painting contractors, auto repair shops,
glass repair, landscaping fi rms and commercial bakeries –
non-retail service businesses that are often owned by local
people and tend to serve either local people or other local
businesses.
Certainly, some of these businesses may serve tourists, but
they are largely locally serving.
Within the civic core, there are only two non-retail small
business parks remaining – they are located in two Ser-
vice/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) Zone Districts. One is
at Obermeyer Place, which is now being completed. Th e
other is described as “SCI West” in this document. SCI
West is located on N. Mill Street between Puppy Smith
St. and the bridge over the Roaring Fork River. Th is
parcel of land is the only privately owned property that is
evaluated in the Civic Master Plan.
In addition to the SCI Zone District, the Land Use Code
off ers a second zone district for locally serving busi-
nesses: Th e Neighborhood Commercial Zone District.
Th is district allows for retail stores, restaurants and other
uses, but only those intended to serve the neighborhood
area. Retail stores targeting the tourist population are
not permitted. Obermeyer Place includes a small piece
of Neighborhood Commercial zoning, closest to Rio
Grande Park.
SECTION ONE WILL REVIEW THE
FOLLOWING THREE SITES:
+ Obermeyer Place
+ The SCI West parcel
+ The City-Owned Parking Lots
at Rio Grande Place
When the Civic Master Plan Phase I Report was issued
in 2001, the Obermeyer and adjacent properties featured a
haphazard street and parking layout interrupted by a series
of dilapidated buildings. Th e Phase I Report described the
area as a pedestrian barrier between Main Street and Rio
Grande Park. Because the relatively low rents in the SCI
Zone District would not be able to fi nance a major rede-
velopment, the Phase I Report suggested a public/private
partnership that could provide a number of public benefi ts.
In 2001, CMPAG member Bill Lipsey met informally with
city staff and Klaus Obermeyer. All parties recognized a set
of shared goals for the Obermeyer property and neighbor-
ing SCI-zoned properties.
In April 2002, the City Council voted to form the Ober-
meyer Place Task Force, made up of citizens and a va-
riety of stakeholders. The Task Force worked with City
staff and Obermeyer’s planning and architectural team
to design a project via a public/private partnership. In
April 2003, the City Council unanimously approved the
redevelopment project, which included:
• the redevelopment of 38,000 square feet of SCI space;
• two levels of underground parking
(including 20 spaces for City use);
• a series of pedestrian ways, including a connection
between Main Street and Rio Grande Park;
• 22 free-market residential units;
• 22 deed-restricted aff ordable housing units.
Obermeyer Place is a strong example of designing “urban
edges.” Th e redevelopment created “positive” interior space
via the lay-out and the shape of fi ve buildings on the site;
it created clear pedestrian pathways both internally and
through the site (between Main Street and Rio Grande
Park); and it created a defi ned edge for Rio Grande Place.
Th is well-defi ned edge creates a stronger identity for both
the urban site on one side and for the adjacent Rio Grande
Park and riverside trail.
Of course, Obermeyer Place is not only about shapes and
layout – the mixed uses at the sites will create a sense of
vitality, fi lling the ground-level pedestrian walkways with
people, and creating the kinds of interactions that make for
a distinct and interesting neighborhood.
Pedestrian-only walkways in the interior of Obermeyer Place.
Eddie Liebowitz, owner of Ski Service Center / Board
Werks, will be located at Obermeyer Place in the Service/
Commercial/Industrial Zone District.
ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN
Encourage a more balanced
permanent community.
Local ownership of business helps
maintain our community’s unusual
character, tends to return more money to
the local economy, and provides additional
opportunities for upward mobility of
working people.
Locally serving businesses … should be
supported because they make commerce
more convenient and strengthen the local
economy by causing transactions to take
place in the community that otherwise
would take place elsewhere.
Obermeyer Place, before & after: The renderings at right
show how the fi ve new buildings at Obermeyer Place cre-
ate a distinct “positive” interior space, which establishes
strong pedestrian routes. At the same time, the buildings
relate directly to Rio Grande Place and to Rio Grande Park,
creating a well-defi ned “edge” between the urban block
and the park.
Summary
RELEVANT CORE PRINCIPLES
· Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use
areas create active, vibrant and memorable places.
· Aff ordable Housing and Aff ordable Commercial
space ensures the viability of civic functions and
vitality of town.
· Civic planning must address the need for parking
while not inducing additional traffi c.
· Partnerships between and among the public and
private sectors can be very advantageous in achieving
public goals.
Obermeyer Place
Before
After
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
5P33
VI.A.
At the intersection of Rio Grande Place and N. Mill Street,
the CMPAG examined the future potential of the City-
Owned Parking Lots in front of the Aspen Chamber Resort
Association and Community Banks buildings.
Th e CMPAG found that the City-owned parking lots
currently serve as “an unraveled edge that does not clearly
demarcate the end of an urban block and the beginning of a
public park.”
Th e CMPAG also found that this site may be ideal for uses
defi ned in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone District,
including retail stores intended to serve the neighborhood.
A tourist-oriented retail store would not be allowed in this
district.
Th e CMPAG found that, “Neighborhood Commercial
(NC) zoning is a rare commercial use in the City of Aspen
and is primarily intended to serve the local, year-round
population. Neighborhood Commercial uses tend to be
successful in areas that locals frequent, including the North
Mill Street corridor.” In addition, the 2002 EPS Housing
Study rated this site #1 out of 11 sites for the development
of aff ordable housing, largely because of reduced costs due to
City ownership and because of its walk-to-work potential.
Th e CMPAG recommended a mixed-use project with
Neighborhood Commercial uses on the ground fl oor and
aff ordable housing on upper fl oors.
Th e CMPAG also found that there is no “compelling need”
to develop the parking lots in the short-term, adding that
the replacement of the short-term parking now provided
on the site would need to be addressed as part of any future
development.
NOTE ON MULTIPLE USES: Th e CMPAG has identi-
fi ed more than one potential use for this site. In Section II,
the CMPAG identifi ed a shared-use arts facility as a poten-
tial use, if it is determined that such a facility is needed.
RELEVANT CORE PRINCIPLES
· Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use areas create
active, vibrant and memorable places.
· Affordable Housing and Affordable Commercial
space ensures the viability of civic functions and
vitality of town.
· Partnerships between and among the public
and private sectors can be very advantageous in
achieving public goals.
The CMPAG found that the City-owned parking lot in
the foreground currently serves as “an unraveled edge
that does not clearly demarcate the end of an urban
block and the beginning of a public park.”
While Rio Grande Park contributes to a positive
pedestrian experience along Rio Grande Place, the
presence of parking lots on the other side of the
street detracts from that experience.
SCI West
Th e SCI West parcel is located on N. Mill Street, between
Puppy Smith St. and the bridge over the Roaring Fork River.
It is home to dozens of non-retail, service-oriented business-
es including a landscaping fi rm, a stone and tile business, an
interior lighting design studio and a consignment shop.
Th e property is privately owned and its condition is similar
in several ways to the former Obermeyer Place property: Th e
placement of the buildings, interior roads and parking areas
is somewhat haphazard, the relationship to N. Mill Street is
not well defi ned and the pedestrian experience is subpar.
Th e SCI West parcel is located on sloping land, which may
mitigate the impacts of additional building height and
may allow for underground parking as well. Th e CMPAG
found that, “Th e Obermeyer Place project was a successful
public/private partnership that could be used as a model
for redevelopment at SCI West.”
Th e CMPAG recommended that, “City staff should hold
discussions with property owners in the SCI West area to
determine if there is interest in a redevelopment project,
using Obermeyer Place as a model. Public benefi ts identi-
fi ed by the CMPAG could include:
• the renovation of SCI space
• underground parking
• pedestrian links
• aff ordable housing
• aesthetic improvements
Looking up N. Mill Street,
with SCI West at right.
RELEVANT CORE
PRINCIPLES
· Mixed-use buildings and
mixed-use areas create active,
vibrant and memorable places.
· Affordable Housing and
Affordable Commercial space
ensures the viability of civic
functions and vitality of town.
· Partnerships between and
among the public and
private sectors can be very
advantageous in achieving
public goals.
City-Owned Parking Lots
SECTION I: LOCALLY SERvING, LOCALLY OwNED bUSINESS
Inside SCI West, looking
toward N. Mill St.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
6 P34
VI.A.
SECTION II: THE ARTS IN ASPEN
The Wheeler Opera House
PRESERVING CHARACTER,
CELEBRATING VITALITY
Th e CMPAG found that, “As a signature historic building,
the Wheeler Opera House engages people by creating a pow-
erful sense of character that refl ects Aspen’s roots and history.
“As the city’s focal point for arts and culture, the Wheeler
conveys an equal sense that the community is alive and evolv-
ing, and continues to celebrate its core identity as a center for
arts and culture.”
Th e CMPAG recommended the following concepts to build
upon the character and vitality of the Wheeler Opera House:
• Th e use of temporary banners on the Wheeler Opera
House that enhance the historic nature of the building,
create a sense of vitality and celebrate upcoming events.
• Th e installation of a modest lighting array on the Wheeler
building to call attention to the historic structure at night,
and celebrate its iconic status.
• Th e continuation of commercial uses, and/or support
for future commercial uses adjacent to the Wheeler that
contribute to the vitality of the area both during the day
and at night.
• Improvements to public spaces around the Wheeler,
including sidewalks, streets and the pedestrian mall,
which enhance the pedestrian experience.
Summary
A variety of recent reports, studies and initiatives regard-
ing the arts sector in Aspen represent a rare opportunity
to improve the function of the Aspen arts community as
a whole.
“Th e Economic Impact of the Arts on Aspen and Snow-
mass,” prepared for the Red Brick Center for the Arts
in July 2004 found that the direct expenditures of arts
groups and their audiences totaled $53.1 million in 2003
– approximately 1/3 of the value of construction in the
City of Aspen that same year.
According to three separate surveys conducted since
2004, an overwhelming majority of people indicated that
arts and cultural events in Aspen play a critical role in
their decision-making process.
Arts and culture infl uenced or greatly infl u-
enced decision to visit Aspen (summer) = 83%
Arts and culture infl uenced or greatly infl u-
enced decision to visit Aspen (winter) = 68%
PitCo 2nd homeowners who believe arts and
culture are important or very important = 69%
PitCo 2nd homeowners who intend to increase
the use of their property = 61%
PitCo 2nd homeowners who intend to retire
here = 14%
SECTION II REVIEWS
THE FOLLOWING TOPICS:
+ The Wheeler Opera House
+ The potential for development of
the Wheeler Parcel
+ The potential for a new arts facility
in Aspen
+ The potential relocation of the Aspen
Art Museum to a downtown location
ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN
Arts, culture, and education are acknowledged as
essential to Aspen’s thriving year-round economy,
its vibrant international profi le, and its future as a
unique place to live, work, and learn.
Ensure the provision of public facilities and
services to sustain arts, culture and education in
the community.
Poet Christopher Merrill, Aspen Writer’s Foundation
Aspen Summer Words 2003
RELEVANT CORE
PRINCIPLES
· Focus on creating
‘great people places.’
· Improving pedestrian
orientation.
· Arts and culture is an
intrinsic asset.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
7P35
VI.A.
The Wheeler Opera House, with the vacant
Wheeler Parcel at left.
Th e Wheeler Opera House staff and Board of Directors are
currently working on a 21st Century Master Plan, which
includes a needs assessment of arts organizations regarding
their use of the Wheeler.
In 2005, Th e CMPAG recommended that City staff gen-
erate an “Arts Sector Facilities Analysis to gather informa-
tion on the space/seasonal needs of local arts organizations,
and the existing supply/capacity of performing arts venues.”
Th is eff ort was coordinated with Wheeler staff , and began
with a survey of local arts groups and event producers to
evaluate existing arts facilities and explore the need for a
new facility. Th e survey was completed in February 2006,
and showed a relatively low score regarding the “availability”
of existing arts venues: 60 out of 100.
Th e Wheeler Opera House hired arts consultant Michael
Strong to complete the Arts Sector Facilities Analysis,
which included the following statement: “Any plans to ex-
pand the Wheeler into the ‘Wheeler Parcel’ should only be
done in conjunction with a comprehensive plan for explor-
ing all possible redesign and expansion of the existing facil-
ity, and with an eye towards partnerships that will severely
limit or eliminate the threat of signifi cant dark periods for
all of its performance and usage spaces.”
In addition to studying the needs of arts groups, the
Wheeler’s 21st Century Master Plan will also examine po-
tential development on the Wheeler Parcel; a vacant 3,000
square foot City-owned lot located directly adjacent to the
Wheeler Opera House.
In 2005, the CMPAG found that, “A downtown loca-
tion for arts-related events and activities tends to reinforce
Aspen’s identity as a center for arts and culture, and tends to
make such events more economically viable.”
Th e CMPAG recommended that the development of the
Wheeler Parcel should:
• Accommodate as many additional needs of the local arts
community as possible.
• Improve the operational function of the Wheeler
Opera House.
• Contribute to improvements in the daytime
administrative offi ce and box offi ce.
• Contribute to the Wheeler’s ability to present more
live performances and to improvements in production
capabilities.
Th e CMPAG found that, “Future development at the
Wheeler Parcel may increase operational fl exibility and
the number of annual productions at the Wheeler Opera
House. Increased production capability could add a new
element to the upcoming Arts Sector Facility Analysis.”
If there is determined to be a need for a new performing
arts facility, that need may be met – at least in part – by
potential development of the Wheeler Parcel.
Th e CMPAG recommended that, “In the event that a new
shared-use facility is deemed necessary, the Civic Master
Plan Core Principles should be used as guidelines to evalu-
ate proposed locations.”
RELEVANT CORE PRINCIPLES
· Civic and arts/cultural uses belong in the
heart of town.
· Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use areas
create vibrant, memorable places.
· Focus on creating ‘great people places.’
· Partnerships among and between the
public and private sectors can be very
advantageous in achieving civic goals.
· Arts and culture is an intrinsic asset.
As part of the Civic Master Plan process, at least three local
non-profi t arts groups with representatives on the CMPAG
expressed interest in a new, shared-use performing arts facil-
ity. Th e three groups were Th eatre Aspen, Aspen Filmfest and
the Aspen Writers Foundation. Informal discussions with
other arts groups and event producers showed potential inter-
est in a new downtown arts facility.
During the Civic Master Plan process, the CMPAG dis-
cussed the potential of locating a performing arts facility
between Rio Grande Place and Galena Plaza.
Civic Master Plan consultant and architect Gilbert Sanchez
conducted a feasibility study and found there was adequate
space and structural capability to locate a performing arts
venue with at least one theatre as well as classrooms and of-
fi ces in this location.
Th e CMPAG recommended that, “Th e north edge of
Galena Plaza be considered in the future for a shared-use
arts facility, with the bulk of the building extending down to
Rio Grande Place, pending the outcome of the Arts Sector
Facilities Analysis.”
Th e CMPAG found that “Future development at the
Wheeler Parcel may increase operational fl exibility and the
number of annual productions at the Wheeler Opera House.
Increased production capability could add a new element to
the Arts Sector Facility Analysis.”
(Toward the end of the Civic Master Plan process in 2006,
the three arts groups mentioned above stopped pursuing a
new performing arts center at the Galena Plaza/Rio Grande
place site, and Th eatre Aspen began focusing on replacing its
existing tent.)
NOTE ON MULTIPLE USES: A potential performing
arts facility on a portion of the City-owned parking lots
along Rio Grande Place is one option for the parking lot
site. Another option is for Neighborhood Commercial uses
and aff ordable housing. (See Section I).
A performing arts facility at the north edge of Galena Plaza
is one option for this site. Th e CMPAG recommended that,
“If a shared-use arts facility is not constructed at Galena
Plaza/Rio Grande Place, a one-story building at the north
edge of Galena Plaza could be a welcoming and interactive
destination point that capitalizes on the vista, creates vitality
and could feature a range of civic and/or cultural uses.”
Th e CMPAG further recommended that either a shared
Public Meeting Hall or a future Visitors Center would be an
“appropriate” use for the north edge of Galena Plaza.
RELEVANT CORE PRINCIPLES
· Civic and arts/cultural uses belong in the
heart of town.
· Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use areas
create vibrant, memorable places.
· Focus on creating ‘great people places.’
· Civic planning must address need for parking
while not inducing additional traffi c.
· Partnerships among and between the public
and private sectors can be very advantageous
in achieving civic goals.
· Arts and culture is an intrinsic asset.
SECTION II: THE ARTS IN ASPEN
Potential New Arts Facility Galena Plaza & Rio Grande Place Location
A sectional rendering of a potential arts facility. Rio
Grande Place is at left; Galena Plaza at top right.
Existing garage in yellow.
The Wheeler Opera House
Future of the Wheeler Parcel
“Bubble map” showing
potential art center between
Galena Plaza and Rio
Grande Place.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
8 P36
VI.A.
SECTION II: THE ARTS IN ASPEN
The Aspen Art Museum
Th e Aspen Art Museum has been contemplating a major
expansion for several years.
An expansion would allow for a substantially larger exhibi-
tion space, an expanded lobby and reception area, space for
classrooms, a larger bookstore and food services such as a
small café.
All of these amenities would help bring the Aspen Art Mu-
seum into a more competitive position with its peer institu-
tions regarding its ability to attract world-class exhibits.
Th e Aspen Art Museum staff and Board of Trustees have
explored locations in or close to the downtown, including
publicly-owned and privately-owned sites. A downtown
location would allow for the design of a new “signature”
building that could result in a stronger identity and interna-
tional profi le for the Aspen Art Museum.
Th e Civic Master Plan Phase I Report stated in 2001 that
the museum “should be relocated to, or in, downtown Aspen.”
In 2005, the CMPAG made the following recommenda-
tion: “Th e CMPAG supports the Aspen Art Museum’s
exploration of downtown locations in collaboration with
the City of Aspen.”
Th e CMPAG recommended that, “If the Zupancis
property is not used for civic purposes, the site would be
appropriate for arts and cultural uses or a mixed-use build-
ing with aff ordable housing.” (See Section III regarding the
recommended civic uses for the Zupancis Property.)
Th e CMPAG recommended that, “If a shared-use per-
forming arts facility is not constructed at Galena Plaza/Rio
Grande Place, a building at the north edge of Galena Plaza
could be a welcoming and interactive destination point that
capitalizes on the vista, creates vitality and could feature a
range of civic and/or cultural uses.”
Th e CMPAG recommended that, “the former Youth Cen-
ter building be considered for renovation or replacement in
the future. A new or renovated building could be a welcom-
ing and interactive destination point that capitalizes on the
vista, creates vitality and could include mixed uses and/or a
range of civic and/or cultural uses.”
Th e CMPAG has also recognized that a downtown site
may not be viable, and that the Art Museum may seek to
expand at its current site.
When the Art Museum was exploring the potential of
expanding at its current site in 2003, the CMPAG recom-
mended the implementation of various pedestrian improve-
ments to increase the viability of the current Art Museum
site. Th e CMPAG reiterated its support for a range of
pedestrian improvements to encourage more movement
between the downtown and the Roaring Fork River/Art
Museum site. Th ese improved pedestrian movements are
fully outline in Section V, including:
• Th e implementation of the N. Mill Street corridor
redesign, to improve aesthetics in the area and to
encourage pedestrian movement;
• Th e implementation of the Rio Grande Master Plan,
including aesthetic improvements and pedestrian
amenities;
• Th e implementation of pedestrian improvements in
conjunction with the future redevelopment of the
Zupancis Property, Galena Plaza and the City-owned
parking lots to improve the north-south movement of
pedestrians.
Th e CMPAG also anticipated possible future uses of the
Aspen Art Museum site, if the Art Museum relinquishes its
lease in the future.
Th e CMPAG recommended that if the Art Museum
relinquishes its lease in the future, the City “should identify
a new use that allows for public interaction; that builds on
the intrinsic assets of the site and the building; and that
recognizes the challenges of the site.
RELEVANT CORE PRINCIPLES
· Civic and arts/cultural uses belong in
the heart of town.
· Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use areas
create vibrant, memorable places.
· Focus on creating ‘great people places.’
· Civic planning must address need for parking
while not inducing additional traffi c.
· Partnerships among and between the public
and private sectors can be very advantageous
in achieving civic goals.
· Arts and culture is an intrinsic asset.
The Aspen Art Museum in winter.
An exhibition at the Aspen Art Museum from December 2002
to February 2003; Louise Bourgeois: The Early Work.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
9P37
VI.A.
SECTION III: LOCAL GOvERNmENT
Summary
“Aspen was a traditional mining town that ultimately
evolved into a resort, and the traditional functions of a
small municipality still remain in the heart of the down-
town.” — CMPAG Finding.
As discussed in the introduction of this report, this state-
ment is one of the key elements of the Civic Master Plan.
Th e CMPAG went on to make the following fi nding,
“As noted in Core Principle #1, a primary goal of the
Civic Master Plan process is to build upon the intrinsic
asset of a civic core that remains integrated into down-
town Aspen.”
Core Principle #1 (at right) is at the heart of the “Local
Government” section, and is the guiding philosophical
position of the CMPAG today and for the future. Th e
upcoming narrative explores the need for local govern-
ment offi ces and public meeting space, but also examines
some non-traditional civic functions such as Th e Th rift
Shop and the Visitors Center.
SECTION III REVIEWS THE
FOLLOWING TOPICS:
+ Space Needs
+ Shared Meeting Hall
+ Zupancis Property
+ Former Youth Center
+ Aspen Fire Protection District
Headquarters Station & Thrift Shop
+ Pitkin County Library
+ Visitors Center
+ Aspen Sanitation District
Offi ce & Housing
CORE PRINCIPLE #1
Civic and arts/cultural uses belong in
the heart of town. Many communities
develop a “big glass box” on the
outskirts of town surrounded by
parking and a drainage feature and
call it their Civic Center. Aspen has
the fortune of an integrated civic
core in the heart of downtown and
the substantial community character
that has resulted. This planning
effort builds on that tradition.
Space Needs & Current
Planning Efforts:
Pitkin County
& The City of Aspen
In recent years, both the City of Aspen and Pitkin County
have remodeled and renovated the interior of their primary
offi ce buildings (City Hall and the County Plaza Build-
ing), continually creating smaller offi ces for staff . In some
cases, staff are working out of what used to be closets. At the
same time, both the City and County have moved staff and
some departments to other locations due to a lack of space.
Th is creates ineffi ciencies both internally and with regard to
customer service.
In 2005, Pitkin County began a Facility Feasibility Study,
led by county staff and RNL Design of Denver. Questions
to be answered were: 1) Does the County need a new facil-
ity? 2) If so, where should it be located?; and 3) Assuming
that some county agencies will be split up, where should
each county agency be located?
Also in 2005, Th e CMPAG found that, “Th e City of As-
pen’s space limitations require a long-term solution to ensure
quality service.” In early 2006, the City of Aspen began to
coordinate with Pitkin County to explore a possible shared
facility.
Providing adequate offi ces for the City of Aspen and
Pitkin County was not the only space issue discussed
by the CMPAG.
Th e CMPAG made the following fi ndings:
1. Th e existing meeting space for the City of Aspen and
Pitkin County is not adequate.
2. Th e design of meeting space currently used by the
City and the County do not refl ect the importance of
the discussions, debates and decisions being made.
3. A City-County Meeting Hall is an appropriate
shared use, considering the existing need and the
similar purpose of the use. A shared Meeting Hall
would avoid a duplication of costs.
4. A Civic Meeting Hall should be close to downtown
government offi ces, adjacent to outdoor public
space and at a prominent site that conveys a sense
of signifi cance.
5. A Civic Meeting Hall should be designed so that it
can be available for a variety of uses by the general
public as well as government meetings.
6. Logistical issues between the City and the County
regarding a shared Meeting Hall will need to
be addressed.
Th e CMPAG recommended that, “As part of the
collaboration between the City of Aspen and Pitkin
County regarding civic space needs, the City and
County should identify an appropriate downtown
space and design a shared-use Meeting Hall,
considering the following Desired Elements:
• Inspirational
• Design of space should refl ect the importance
of discussions and decisions made there
• Dignity aff orded to the public
• Elevate the debate
• Flexibility
• Appropriate technology”
Considering the fourth fi nding (above), the CMPAG
recommended the following sites as “appropriate for a
Meeting Hall”:
• Th e former Youth Center
• Th e north edge of Galena Plaza
• Th e Zupancis Property
Th e CMPAG also recommended that “a meeting room
could be located on the ground level of the library ex-
pansion, to allow for public access to the meeting room
at any time, and to increase the use and vitality of Galena
Plaza.
NOTE ON MULTIPLE USES: Th e former Youth Center,
the north edge of Galena Plaza and the Zupancis property
are sites that have been recommended for more than one
possible future use.
Former Youth Center
· Appropriate for a Visitors Center
· Appropriate for a range of civic and/or cultural uses
North Edge of Galena Plaza
· Appropriate for a Visitors Center
· Appropriate for a range of civic and/or cultural uses
Zupancis Property
· Priority for a civic building
· Arts and cultural uses as second priority
· Mixed uses and aff ordable housing as third priority
A civic meeting
hall in Washington
State.
The CMPAG found that a meeting hall should
be“adjacent to outdoor public space and at a
prominent site that conveys a sense of signifi -
cance.” This is a view of Rio Grande Park.
Shared Civic Meeting Hall
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
10 P38
VI.A.
In 2000, at the beginning of the Civic Master Plan process,
all local government agencies conducted space needs stud-
ies. Both the Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD) and
Pitkin County identified a significant need for additional
space, with the City of Aspen also identifying a need for
additional space.
In 2001, the City of Aspen bought a 27,500 square-foot
lot called the Zupancis Property, directly adjacent to the
County Plaza Building on Main Street. The City informally
gave the AFPD the first option to buy the property for a
new Headquarters Station – while also recognizing Pitkin
County’s space needs.
In 2005, the AFPD and the City of Aspen jointly an-
nounced that the AFPD Headquarters Station would
remain at its current location on Hopkins Street. Also in
2005, Pitkin County began a Facility Feasibility Study and
expressed an interest in the Zupancis Property.
In December 2005, The CMPAG recommended that, “the
City of Aspen collaborate with Pitkin County during the
Facility Feasibility Analysis process in order to review and
evaluate the scope of potential civic uses at the Zupancis
property.”
NOTE ON MULTIPLE USES: The CMPAG further
recommended that, “If the Zupancis property is not
used for civic purposes, the site would be appropriate
for arts and cultural uses or a mixed-use building with
affordable housing.”
The wording in these two recommendations shows that
the CMPAG’s priority for the Zupancis Property is for a
civic use, with a specific focus on a City-County facility. In
March 2006, the Aspen City Council and Pitkin County
Board of County Commissioners directed staff to collabo-
rate in order to explore the use of the Zupancis Property for
a joint civic facility.
Zupancis Property
The Nature of a Civic Building
The CMPAG conducted an exercise in 2005 to
identify the elements that a new civic building
should include. They are:
Humanistic
Inclusive
Inviting
Welcoming
Inspirational
Functional
Easy to navigate
Customer oriented Contains civic symbols
Handicapped accessibility General accessibility
Approachable
Sense of pride
Community spirit
Projects professionalism
Reflects professionalism
Former Youth Center
The former Youth Center is a City-owned building
that currently houses City employees, including the
Asset Management Department and the GIS Depart-
ment – with meeting space on the top floor. (The
ground floor is leased as a restaurant.)
The CMPAG found that, “The former Youth Center
building was designed as a Youth Center and is rela-
tively inflexible in accommodating new uses. The future
renovation or replacement of this building could allow
for new uses that could increase vitality at Galena
Plaza. The size of the building was limited by funds
available, and a future structure could be larger, if funds
are available to address engineering issues related
to topography.”
The CMPAG recommended that, “the City of Aspen
collaborate with Pitkin County with regard to the
Facility Feasibility Analysis process in order to review
and evaluate the scope of potential civic uses in the
downtown area, including but not limited to the
Zupancis property and the former Youth Center. “
Although the joint City Council-County Commis-
sioners vote in March 2006 did not request that the
former Youth Center be explored as a joint civic facil-
ity, one of the options generated by the Pitkin County
Facility Feasibility Analysis in January 2006 included
the former Youth Center as a potential County
building site.
NOTE ON MULTIPLE USES: The CMPAG
also recommended that, “A new or renovated Youth
Center building could be a welcoming and interactive
destination point that capitalizes on the vista, creates
vitality and could include mixed uses and/or a range
of civic and/or cultural uses.” The CMPAG further
recommended that both a Public Meeting Hall or a
Visitors Center were “appropriate” uses for the former
Youth Center.
The former Youth Center,
top right, the east edge
of Galena Plaza.
The Pitkin County Facility Feasibility Analysis has gener-
ated an alternative option that would locate a substantial
amount of County offices just west of the Aspen Airport
Business Center, along Highway 82.
The CMPAG found that, “Removing civic functions from
the downtown will tend to reduce the kind of community
character that still makes the core of Aspen a ‘traditional’
downtown, surrounded by a resort environment.”
The CMPAG also found that, “The City of Aspen and
Pitkin County have a long history of considering both
quantitative measurements and qualitative elements in their
decision-making processes – both function and character
are important in shaping the future.”
The CMPAG recommended that, “the Pitkin County
Facility Feasibility Analysis consider qualitative elements as
well as quantitative measurements. For example, in addi-
tion to measuring the quantity and length of car trips and
the cost of land and construction, the study should consider
the qualitative impacts of various alternatives on the charac-
ter of the civic core in downtown Aspen.”
Relocating County Offices Out of Town
At left is the County Plaza Building;
at center is the Zupancis Property.
View is from across Main Street.
SECTION III: LOCAL GOvERNmENT
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
11P39
VI.A.
In 2005, the Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD) and
the City of Aspen agreed to conclude their joint planning
efforts regarding the potential relocation of the AFPD
Headquarters Station from Hopkins Street to the Zupancis
Property on Main Street.
In March 2006, the City Council approved a conceptual plan
to replace the Hopkins Street Station and approved a new
40-year lease. When this document went to press in February
2008, the Council was scheduled to consider final approval.
The CMPAG found that, “The civic nature and iconic
quality of the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department – and
its location in the downtown core – is an immeasurable
asset to both the year-round community and visitors.” The
CMPAG recommended that, “during the design process
for the renovation of the Hopkins Street Headquarters Sta-
tions, the AFPD should consider:
• The civic nature and central location of the building;
• The iconic quality of the AFPD and its members;
• The value of pedestrian and public interaction.
Volunteers sort donations
at The Thrift Shop.
SECTION III: LOCAL GOvERNmENT
Aspen Fire Protection District
Headquarters Station
A current view (above) of the Fire Station and The Thrift Shop, at right.
Below is an architectural rendering of a new Headquarters Station at the existing Hopkins Street site for the Aspen Fire Protection
District and The Thrift Shop. This rendering, by Studio B Architects, was scheduled for final approval by City Council in March 2008.
The Thrift Shop
For many years, The Thrift Shop has been interested in
expanding to include a second floor, based on the consis-
tent high volume of business it enjoys. The Thrift Shop
currently re-distributes a substantial amount of clothing to
other groups, such as The Salvation Army, because it has no
room for additional displays. By adding a second floor, The
Thrift Shop could keep a much larger inventory on-site, and
believes it could substantially increase its business – and
the amount it donates to local non-profits and for student
scholarships. The project to replace the fire station includes
replacing The Thift Shop building, and adding a second
floor.
The CMPAG found that:
• The Thrift Shop is an Aspen institution that provides
an important service for lower income residents and
workers that no one else provides, while donating
proceeds to local non-profits and student scholarships.
• The central location of The Thrift Shop supports
its overall mission, as many of its customers use
public transit.
• The Thrift Shop relies on subsidized rent and could not
carry out its mission if it had to pay retail rental rates.
• The simultaneous renovation of the AFPD
Headquarters Station and The Thrift Shop is an
opportunity to create a vibrant mixed-use area.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
12 P40
VI.A.
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD)
agreed in 2002 to consider Civic Master Plan Core Princi-
ples as it drafted a Master Plan. The CMPAG endorsed the
Sanitation District Master Plan in May 2003. The Sanita-
tion District Master Plan was approved, with conditions, by
City Council in 2005.
The ACSD is a quasi-municipal organization responsible
for wastewater treatment for Aspen’s urban area. It is located
on a 3.8-acre property at the base of N. Mill Street. The
property includes a 400-foot stretch of the Roaring Fork
River and section of the Rio Grande Trail. It is adjacent to
the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies
(ACES) property.
The existing condition of the District’s river corridor fea-
tures a series of man-made berms on the south side of the
public river trail, as well as non-native plants. The north side
of the trail, directly adjacent to the river, is a more natural
riparian environment.
The District’s Master Plan would establish a sense of con-
tinuity on both sides, removing the berms, planting native
grasses and reaffirming the elements of an open, natural
river corridor on both sides of the trail.
There are currently nine affordable housing units on the site,
with the District Master Plan calling for a total of 14 units.
The area between a series of proposed new townhouse units
and the river corridor would feature a lowered stormwater
retention area, including native plantings. This aesthetic buf-
fer zone ranges from 120 feet to 180 feet, greatly exceeding
the city’s 100-foot stream margin requirement.
Following the November 2004 ballot election that defeated
the proposal to relocate the Visitor Center to the Galena/
Main intersection, no further discussions regarding a new
location have taken place.
Although the Aspen Chamber Resort Association signed a
five-year lease with the City in 2005 for its current site on
Rio Grande Place, several problems remain. The CMPAG
found that:
• The constrained office space and lack of basic amenities
remain challenges at the existing Visitor Center.
• The lack of visibility, lack of wayfinding and
inconvenient location of the existing Visitor Center
remain major obstacles to providing optimal services
to visitors.
In addition, The CMPAG found that, “An optimal loca-
tion for a Visitor Center would be close to parking and the
downtown, and recommended that appropriate sites for a
Visitor Center include:
• The former Youth Center
• The north edge of Galena Plaza
NOTE ON MULTIPLE USES: The former Youth Center
and the north edge of Galena Plaza are sites that have been
recommended for more than one possible future use.
Former Youth Center
· Appropriate for a Shared Meeting Hall
· Appropriate for a range of civic and/or cultural uses
North Edge of Galena Plaza
· Appropriate for a Shared Meeting Hall
· Appropriate for a Performing Arts Facility
· Appropriate for a range of civic and/or cultural uses The Aspen Chamber Resort Association
Visitor Center on Rio Grande Place.
When the Rio Grande Garage was built in the mid-1990s,
the City of Aspen and Pitkin County exchanged land at the
Galena Plaza site.
Part of that agreement set aside 44-feet of land to the
east of the library – into Galena Plaza – for a future
library expansion.
The Pitkin County Library had not planned to expand
for 5-10 years, but the Board of Directors has expressed
concern that if the roof of the garage is replaced in the next
several years, the library may need to coordinate the instal-
lation of additional support pillars to accommodate
future expansion.
The CMPAG recommended that, “Staff representatives of
the Pitkin County Library, Pitkin County and the City of
Aspen meet to discuss the Library’s short-term infrastruc-
ture planning and long-term facility goals, and identify an
appropriate public review process that will address both
short-term and long-term goals.”
The CMPAG supports an expansion of the Pitkin County
Library to the east, and recommended that “the design of
the building be coordinated with other built edges around
Galena Plaza, to the extent possible.”
The CMPAG also recommended that “a meeting room
be located on the ground level of the library expansion, to
allow for public access to the meeting room at any time, and
to increase the use and vitality of Galena Plaza.”
The Pitkin County Library
on N. Mill Street.
SECTION III: LOCAL GOvERNmENT
Visitors Center
Pitkin County Library
This rendering shows
the Master Plan for the
Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District site,
located at the base of
N. Mill Street.
Aspen Sanitation District Office and Housing
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
13P41
VI.A.
As part of its focus on the area north of Main Street, the
CMPAG examined two public open spaces: Rio Grande
Park and Galena Plaza.
Th ere is a fundamental diff erence between rural open
space and urban open space. Urban parks or plazas are not
just about the open space itself, but about the borders that
defi ne them – including quality streets, and the buildings
and uses surrounding the open space.
Th e public open space contributes to the identity of the
buildings around it, and the surrounding buildings con-
tribute to the identity of the public open space.
For both Rio Grande Park and Galena Plaza, the
CMPAG made fi ndings and recommendations intended
to better defi ne these important public open spaces by
creating stronger edges. Th at could mean improved bor-
dering streets, pedestrian ways and/or built edges.
In the picture above, the Mountain Chalet creates a
border, or built edge, that helps defi ne Wagner Park,
while creating a varied and interesting visual experience
for pedestrians walking on Durant. Pedestrian pathways
and buildings also create an edge for Wagner Park at its
northeast corner, as shown at right.
Imagine if instead of the Mountain Chalet, or instead of
the pedestrian malls, there was a parking lot next to Wag-
ner Park. Th is would signifi cantly alter the identity of the
Park. Today, this is the case for Rio Grande Park, where a
City-owned parking lot forms one of the important and
prominent boundaries of the park.
A beautiful picture deserves an attractive frame.
Th e CMPAG found that, “In the downtown area south
of Main Street, both urban blocks and public parks have
clearly defi ned edges and are easily recognizable. … Creat-
ing a clear edge and demarcation between urban blocks
and public parks is a widely recognized and sound urban
design concept.”
When the Civic Master Plan process began in 2000, the se-
ries of buildings at what is now Obermeyer Place refl ected
an unraveled southeast edge for Rio Grande Place and Rio
Grande Park. Th e buildings and parking areas were located
on the site in a haphazard manner, with no defi ned interior
space and little relationship to the street or the park.
At the southwest edge of Rio Grande Park, Th e CM-
PAG found that, “the City-owned parking lots along Rio
Grande Place are an unraveled edge that do not clearly
demarcate the end of an urban block and the beginning of a
public park.” Would the Aspen community tolerate a park-
ing lot next to Wagner Park?
Finally, the west edge of Rio Grande Park is bordered by a
relatively thin sidewalk along N. Mill Street, with a mini-
mal buff er between pedestrians and the busy traffi c along
the street. Again, this does not represent a strong edge or
border for the park.
Th e CMPAG made a series of fi ndings and recommenda-
tions that would better defi ne these three edges of Rio
Grande Park.
Southeast Edge
Th e design and placement of the new buildings at Obermeyer
Place create a stronger and more defi ned southeast edge to Rio
Grande Park. Th e park contributes to the identity of the build-
ings, and the curving building fronts respect the street and park
edge and contribute to the identity of the park – much like
the frame around a picture. In addition, the interior pedestrian
routes and descending stairs at Obermeyer Place lead directly
to the Park.
Southwest Edge
Th e CMPAG recommended various potential uses for the
City-owned parking lots that would establish a demarcated
southwest edge for Rio Grande Park, creating a visually
compelling and inviting pedestrian experience in this area.
Potential uses include an Arts Center (See Section II), or
Neighborhood Commercial uses with aff ordable housing on
upper fl oors (See Section I).
The West Edge
An urban-park edge does not have to be a building. For ex-
ample, the hard-scaped pedestrian walkway just to the west
of Wagner Park creates an interesting and defi ned edge.
Th e CMPAG found that a redesign of N. Mill Street could
include “ … a larger buff er between pedestrians and traffi c
that will increase safety and improve the pedestrian experi-
ence and visual aesthetic of the area.” A wider sidewalk
area treated with landscaping would form a more visually
interesting border to the west edge of Rio Grande Park.
Conceptual rendering of N. Mill St. redesign.
THIS SECTION REVIEWS
THE FOLLOWING TOPICS:
+ Improved edges around Rio Grande
Park & Galena Plaza
+ Future uses surrounding Galena
Plaza & Rio Grande Park
+ Internal improvements to Rio
Grande Park
SECTION Iv: PUbLIC OPEN SPACE
Summary
Rio Grande Park
Urban Edges
Wagner Park, with the Mountain
Chalet in the background.
ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN
‘There is widespread agree-ment that open space is vital to Aspen’s sense of itself. … The natural
environment is one of the community’s greatest assets and the reason many people choose to
visit or make the Aspen area their home.’
The northeast corner of Wagner Park.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
14 P42
VI.A.
The Galena Plaza site played a critical role in the formation
of the Civic Master Plan process: While a leak in the roof
of the Rio Grande Parking Garage demanded attention,
a clear consensus was emerging that the plaza was a failed
public space.
After extensive discussion, the CMPAG reached a consen-
sus to maintain open space at the center of the plaza, while
supporting “built edges” that would frame the open space
and introduce new uses to the site – increasing the vitality
and enjoyment of the plaza.
The West Edge
The CMPAG supports an expansion of the Pitkin County
Library, and found that, “in combination with other new
‘built edges’ the library expansion would contribute to a
vibrant and memorable mixed-use area.”
The library expansion was anticipated as part of a transfer
of land between the City and the County in 1995 (See
Section III).
The CMPAG recommended, “that the design of the build-
ing be coordinated with other built edges around Galena
Plaza, to the extent possible.”
The North Edge
The CMPAG found that, “A built north edge, with a
medium-high intensity use, would increase vitality at
Galena Plaza.”
Preliminary engineering studies have shown that the Rio
Grande Garage could support a one-story building without
the need for any additional pillars or support structures
inside the garage.
The CMPAG recommended that, “the north edge of
Galena Plaza be considered in the future for a shared-use
arts facility, with the bulk of the building extending down
to Rio Grande Place, pending the outcome of the Arts
Sector Facilities Analysis (please see Section II). However,
the CMPAG anticipated that a new arts facility may not
become a reality.
In Section III (Local Government), The CM PAG recom-
mended that the north edge of Galena Plaza is an “appropri-
ate site” for a Visitor Center or a shared Public Meeting Hall.
But the CMPAG did not rule out other uses, and also
recommended that, “If a shared-use arts facility is not
constructed at Galena Plaza/Rio Grande Place, a building
at the north edge of Galena Plaza could be a welcoming
and interactive destination point that capitalizes on the
vista, creates vitality and could feature a range of civic and/
or cultural uses.”
The East Edge
Today, the east edge of Galena Plaza is largely open, with
the exception of the former Youth Center building at the
northeast corner, and the stairwell/elevator feature.
The CMPAG recommended that, “The former Youth Cen-
ter building be considered for renovation or replacement in
the future. A new or renovated building could be a welcom-
ing and interactive destination point that capitalizes on the
vista, creates vitality and could include mixed uses and/or a
range of civic and/or cultural uses.”
The CMPAG also recommended that the east built edge
should extend “to the existing stairwell/elevator feature, and
feature compelling architectural elements intended to draw
pedestrians across Main Street.”
Open Space
During its deliberations, the CMPAG considered simply
building over the entire Galena Plaza site. However, the
CMPAG ultimately reached a strong consensus that what is
now a failed public space could become a vital and interest-
ing public space.
The CMPAG recommended that, “In conjunction with fu-
ture built edges at Galena Plaza, the open space at the center
of Galena Plaza should be designed to animate the site in
relation to new uses.”
Pedestrian Movement
The CMPAG recommended that, “the design of a dramati-
cally improved pedestrian way from Main Street, through
the Galena St. Extension, Galena Plaza and stairway down
to and through Rio Grande Park.”
Please see Section V (Pedestrian Movement) for more infor-
mation on the CMPAG’s findings and recommendations for
a pedestrian route through Galena Plaza.
Short-Term Planning
Although the CMPAG supports future “built edges” for
Galena Plaza, these structures may not be built in the near
future. Therefore, the CMPAG made several “short-term
recommendations,” as follows:
• As part of the garage roof repair and replacement, the
design of the new Galena Plaza use materials that
are easily removed in the future, especially in areas
anticipated for built edges.
• The Parks Department should work with the Asset
Management and Parking departments to design
an interim open space use for Galena Plaza that is
consistent with the values and philosophy of the
Aspen community, to be implemented following the
replacement of the garage roof.
• The City should consider methods for accommodating
tents at Galena Plaza as part of the replacement of the
garage roof, to increase vitality at the site (see rendering
above).
• As part of planning for the garage roof repair,
City staff should explore potential infrastructure
improvements related to future uses, especially along
potential built edges.
SECTION Iv: PUbLIC OPEN SPACE
Galena Plaza
Urban Edges
Galena Plaza on a
typical afternoon.This
public open space is not
well used.
Du
n
n
e
t
t
D
e
s
i
g
n
G
r
o
u
p
,
I
n
c
.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
15P43
VI.A.
Towards the end of the Civic Master Plan process, after
the CMPAG had evaluated more than a dozen sites, a
theme emerged regarding the creation of “urban edges.”
Although the CMPAG did not formally adopt this as
a Core Principle, the Group supported the concept of
creating urban edges at several critical sites. The concept
is perhaps best described in the book Pattern Language,
which is paraphrased here:
• Buildings are not merely placed into the outdoors,
they actually shape the outdoors.
• Buildings create two fundamentally different kinds
of outdoor space: negative space and positive space.
• Outdoor space is negative when it is shapeless, the
residue left behind when buildings are haphazardly
placed on the land.
• An outdoor space is positive when the buildings
around it create a distinct and definite shape, as
definite as the shape of a room.
• People feel comfortable in spaces which are “positive”
and tend to use these spaces; people feel relatively
uncomfortable in spaces which are “negative” and
such spaces tend to remain unused.
For example, the downtown core of urban blocks cre-
ated a defined grid – “a distinct and definite shape” –
where people feel comfortable walking the sidewalks.
In cities across the modern world, successful down-
towns often feature a piazza or a town square – these
features form a distinct shape where people tend to
gather.
Another important element of such spaces is an easily
recognizable entrance and exit, creating a path through
the space, from one side to another.
These concepts were utilized by the CMPAG during its
review of Galena Plaza, the City-Owned Parking Lots,
Rio Grande Park and other sites.
This public square, in Gaithersburg,
Maryland, is an example of a suc-
cessful urban open space. The build-
ings contribute to the identity of the
park, and the park contributes to the
identity of the buildings. Also, there is
a clear pedestrian route into and out
of the park, at right.
The corner of Hyman and Monarch illustrates the concept of the urban edge in a grid layout.
Rio Grande Park
Internal Improvements
In 2001, the CMPAG reviewed the Rio Grande Park
Master Plan, which sought to implement new federally-
mandated drainage and water quality improvements in an
aesthetic and environmentally sensitive manner.
Today, untreated storm water runs into a series of brackish
ponds in the Park, and then into the Roaring Fork River.
The new design would treat the storm water in under-
ground “vaults,” and then release the treated water into the
Roaring Fork River through water quality outlet structures
that have been designed as “park architecture.”
The playing field would be slightly lowered, providing de-
scending edges where people can sit on the bank to watch
sporting events.
The plan also featured the development of more formal
entryways for various sub-areas of the park.
The character intent of the wetland ponds will be riparian,
similar to the backwaters and low areas within the Roaring
Fork River meanders prior to mining and town development
in the late 1800s.
The CMPAG endorsed the Rio Grande Park Master Plan
in 2001.
This rendering shows a
new pedestrian bridge
as part of the new ripar-
ian area planned at Rio
Grande Park.
This rendering shows a
proposed entrance to the
John Denver Sanctuary.
SECTION Iv: PUbLIC OPEN SPACE
Creating Urban Edges
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
16 P44
VI.A.
Previous sections have included recommendations on
pedestrian and bike paths connected to specifi c sites.
Th is section is intended to paint the “big picture,” show-
ing how pedestrian/bike paths at diff erent sites combine
together to improve pedestrian movement in the civic
core. Th e overall focus is improving pedestrian movement
between the downtown, across Main Street and down to
Rio Grande Park and the Roaring Fork River corridor.
A theme running throughout this section is the need to
establish pedestrian routes that are both clearly visible
and inviting to pedestrians.
The Big Picture
Th e CMPAG recommended that the piecemeal recom-
mendations in the Civic Master Plan should be collected
and outlined in a Pedestrian Connections Map that
shows existing conditions, and proposed pedestrian con-
nections included in various sub-area master plans and
in CMPAC recommendations.”
SECTION v: PEDESTRIAN mOvEmENT
Summary
PEDESTRIAN ROUTES
+ Obermeyer Place Route
+ Galena Plaza Route
+ N Mill Street Route
Obermeyer Place Route
Viewed from the south side of Main Street and Hunter
Street, there are no visual cues that suggest a pedestrian
route to Rio Grande Park. In past years, a limited number
of locals used a narrow alley just west of the Concept 600
building to get to the Obermeyer/Smith/Galen properties,
which were a jumble of buildings and parking lots with no
obvious pedestrian route to Rio Grande Park.
As part of the redevelopment of Obermeyer Place, a 10-
foot easement was established, starting on Main Street and
running along the east edge of the Zupancis Property. Th e
easement joins up with a clear pedestrian-only route through
Obermeyer Place and into Rio Grande Park.
Th e CMPAG recommended that, “the easement estab-
lished as part of the Obermeyer Place approval be used to
improve north-south pedestrian movement between Main
Street, Obermeyer Place and Rio Grande Park.”
Th e CMPAG found that Main Street itself is “intimidat-
ing to pedestrians and has become a barrier to north-south
pedestrian movement.”
Th e CMPAC recommended that the City of Aspen
work with the Colorado Department of Transportation
to explore design changes to Main Street to make it more
pedestrian friendly, including but not limited to:
• Stamped/colored concrete x-walks
• Raised x-walks
• Bulb-outs
• Refuge Islands
In addition to addressing Main Street itself, the Civic
Master Plan calls for physical improvements that would
create three visible and inviting pedestrian routes across
Main Street to Rio Grande Park and beyond: Th e Ober-
meyer Place Route, the Galena Plaza Route and the N.
Mill Street Route.
Main Street As Barrier Pedestrians scurry across Main Street traffi c.
The crescent building at Obermeyer Place forms
a border of the pedestrian route between Main
Street and Rio Grande Park.
ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN
Aspen’s future should be one in which the automobile plays a smaller role in people’s
everyday lives. Other modes of travel should be made as safe and convenient as
possible to facilitate that goal. … the level of investment in … more and better bikeways
and walkways should increase.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
17P45
VI.A.
Viewed from Main Street and Galena, the Galena Street
Extension is not visually inviting to pedestrians – there is
little indication that this is a pedestrian route.
Th e CMPAG recommended, “the design of a dramatically
improved pedestrian way from Main Street, through the
Galena St. Extension, Galena Plaza and stairway down to
and through Rio Grande Park.”
One of the primary visual barriers to pedestrian movement
from Main Street and Galena Street through the Galena St.
Extension is the extensive parking of public safety vehicles
on the Galena St. Extension. If another location is found
for these emergency response vehicles, there would be a
strong opportunity to transform the Galena Street Exten-
sion into a more pedestrian-friendly area.
In Section III of this report, Th e CMPAG recommended
that the City and County collaborate to “review and evalu-
ate the scope of civic uses at the Zupancis Property.” One
advantage of the Zupancis Property is the opportunity for
extensive underground parking, which could accommodate
public safety vehicles. If emergency response vehicles can be
accommodated underground at the Zupancis Property, this
could allow the Galena Street Ext. to be redesigned as a pe-
destrian-only area, with the exception of the Galena Street
shuttle. Th is could “dramatically improve the pedestrian way
from Main Street through the Galena Street Extension … ”
With regard to creating visible and inviting pedestrian
routes, Th e CMPAG also recommended that, “Th e design
of buildings within the civic core should incorporate ele-
ments that are inviting and welcoming, and enhance the
quality of the pedestrian experience.”
At the east edge of Galena Plaza, the CMPAG specifi -
cally cited an opportunity to make the design of buildings a
method of inviting pedestrians through the Plaza.
Th e CMPAG recommended that, “In conjunction with
the future renovation or replacement of the former Youth
Center, the CMPAG recommends that the east edge of
Galena Plaza be considered in the future as a built edge,
extending to the existing stairwell/elevator feature, and in-
cluding compelling architectural elements intended to draw
pedestrians across Main Street.”
A future one-story building at the north edge of Galena
Plaza might also serve as an architecturally compelling
visual element that could draw pedestrians into Galena
Plaza. Th e CMPAG recommended that, “ … a building at
the north edge of Galena Plaza could be a welcoming and
interactive destination point that capitalizes on the vista
(and) creates vitality … ”
Another key element of the pedestrian route through
Galena Plaza is the stairway down to Rio Grande Park.
Th e CMPAG recommended “a dramatically improved
pedestrian way from Main Street, through the Galena St.
Extension, Galena Plaza and stairway down to and through
Rio Grande Park.
Th e existing pedestrian experience along the sidewalk next
to the City-owned parking lots is less than welcoming.
Referring to this area, Th e CMPAG found that, “Creat-
ing a clear edge and demarcation between urban blocks
and public parks is a widely recognized and sound urban
design concept.”
Replacing these parking lots with an urban edge would
create a more visible and inviting pedestrian experience that
would serve as an important link between Galena Plaza
and N. Mill Street.
View of the Galena St. Extension from across Main St.
Sidewalk on the east side of the Galena St. Extension.
“Every fi ne street … is one that invites leisurely, safe walking. It sounds simple and basically it is.
There have to be walkways that permit people to walk at varying paces, including most importantly
a leisurely pace, with neither a sense of crowding nor of being alone, and that are safe, primarily
from vehicles.”
- From Great Streets, Allan B. Jacobs
The existing stairs at
Galena P laza.
This photo shows a pedestrian perspective, walking along Rio
Grande Place, with Rio Grande Park on the right and the City-
owned parking lots to the left.
SECTION v: PEDESTRIAN mOvEmENT
Galena Plaza Route
This “bubble map” shows an ex-
tended east edge, at right, including an
improved stairwell/elevator feature to
attract pedestrians to Galena Plaza and
the Park. This rendering also shows a
potential building at the north edge of
the plaza.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
18 P46
VI.A.
Pedestrian Movement in
Rio Grande Park
Another element of encouraging pedestrian movement
between downtown and the Roaring Fork River are the
improvements planned inside Rio Grande Park, as described
in Section IV. The Rio Grande Park Master Plan includes
more formal and visually compelling entryways to different
portions of the Park, including the John Denver Sanctuary.
Pedestrian amenities in relation to the new ponds and water-
falls will also contribute to an improved visual aesthetic and
will invite pedestrians to move throughout the Park.
SECTION v: PEDESTRIAN mOvEmENT
A rendering of a pedestrian bridge and
water feature planned for Rio Grande Park.
This conceptual ren-
dering illustrates one
method of establishing a
larger pedestrian buffer
on N. Mill St.
A pedestrian navigates N. Mill St.
next to the SCI West site.
N. Mill Street Route
Looking up N. Mill
Street, with SCI West at
right. This is not an in-
viting pedestrian route.
Another method of improving the north-south pedestrian
experience is the redesign of N. Mill Street, from Mill
Street to the Aspen Art Museum.
The CMPAG found that, “Providing a larger buffer
between pedestrians and traffic will increase safety, and
improve the pedestrian experience and visual esthetic of
the area. These changes will encourage more pedestrian use,
and improve conditions for events and public/private sector
users located in this area of town.”
The CMPAG recommended that, “City Council direct
relevant public agencies and private parties to collabora-
tively generate a proposal to design, fund and implement
a plan for the improvement of North Mill St., to focus on
the following:
• A wider buffer between pedestrians and traffic for
the purpose of improving the pedestrian experience,
consistent with Aspen’s historical streetscape pattern;
• Accommodating existing traffic flow;
• Improving safety for pedestrians and vehicles;
• Coordination with the local pedestrian-bikeway system;
• Improving the visual aesthetic of the area.
The SCI West site shows a poor relationship with pedes-
trians and N. Mill Street. As part of its review of the SCI
West site (please see Section I), the CMPAG recommended
an improved pedestrian experience for this site.
Ultimately, this may be achieved as part of a redesign of N.
Mill Street, or as part of a redevelopment of the SCI West site.
South of Main Street, The CMPAG recommended that
the City revisit the Downtown Enhanced Pedestrian Plan.
The CMPAG found that, “Only one phase of a multi-phase
DEPP strategy has been implemented, and that two of the
8 Goals of the DEPP, adopted by City Council Resolution
in 1997 were:
• To make the downtown core more pedestrian-friendly
and minimize the sense that automobiles dominate the
downtown area.
• To take greater advantage of opportunities for the
utilization of alleys and pocket parks for pedestrian
circulation, social interaction and commercial activity.
The CMPAG recommended that City staff conduct a
feedback analysis on the outcome of the Phase I DEPP
implementation, and present findings to P&Z and City
Council to determine if further phases of the DEPP should
be implemented.
Wayfinding
In addition to physical improvements to the pedestrian and
bike system in the civic core, the CMPAG also focused on
wayfinding and signage issues.
The CMPAG found that, “There is an important balance
to be struck between providing adequate signage for visitors
and cluttering streets and paths with too many signs. There
is an important balance to be struck between maintaining a
sense of experience and discovery for visitors vers us creat-
ing confusion regarding important destinations through
lack of signage.”
The CMPAG found that, “Although Aspen and Pitkin
County maintain an excellent regional pedestrian and bike-
way system, there is a lack of wayfinding signage directing
visitors within the civic core to these outlying amenities.”
The CMPAG also found that, “In some cases, existing way-
finding signage appears to be inadequate. Some of the brown
signs at Main Street intersections simply state the existence
of various destinations without indicating where they are lo-
cated. A sign on the Rio Grande Trail indicates the direction
of Basalt, but does not mention the Aspen Art Museum.”
The CMPAG found enough evidence to suggest that a
more comprehensive evaluation of wayfinding would be
useful. The CMPAG recommended, “that the City of As-
pen work with relevant partners, such as the CCLC, Parks
& Rec and Pitkin County Open Space & Trails to compre-
hensively review existing wayfinding conditions and make
recommendations regarding improvements, considering the
CMP Findings,and utilizing the CMP Pedestrian Connec-
tions Map and other relevant mapping documents.”
A close-up of the sign at Main & Mill,
which does not indicate the location
of destinations.
Downtown Pedestrian Improvements
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
19P47
VI.A.
Laura Kirk – DHM Design
Dave Carpenter – DHM Design
Gilbert Sanchez – Studio B Architects
Kenyon Design Works
Michael Brands Photography
ACkNOwLEDGmENTS
Special thanks to all the people who have worked so diligently
on the Civic Master Plan.
Current & Alternate Members
Tim Belinski/Dwayne Romero – Obermeyer Place
Don Bird – Pitkin County Jail
Bennett Bramson - Citizen
Deb Braun – Aspen Chamber Resort Association
Cathy Chandler – Pitkin County Library
Stan Clauson - Citizen
Lisa Consiglio – Aspen Writers’ Foundation
Charles Cunniffe – Citizen
Pat Fallin – Concept 600
Blake Fitch/Tim Ware – City Parking Department
Darryl Grob – Aspen Fire Protection District
Jackie Kasabach – Citizen
Helen Kalin Klanderud – Mayor
Sue Kolbe/Lynda McCarthy – The Thrift Shop
Bill Lipsey - Citizen
Susan Marx - Citizen
Lynda McCarthy – The Thrift Shop
David McClendon – Theatre Aspen
Brian Pettet – Pitkin County
John Rowland – Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
Loren Ryerson – City of Aspen Police Department
Gram Slaton – Wheeler Opera House
Sue Smedstad – Citizen
Laura Thielen – Aspen Filmfest
Heidi Zuckerman Jacobson – Aspen Art Museum
Former Members
Harley Baldwin - Citizen
Tom Bracewell – Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District
Jon Busch – Commercial Core & Lodging Commission
Roger Haneman – Planning and Zoning Commission
Carole Hershey – Aspen Chamber Resort Association
Mary Ann Igna – Aspen Art Museum
Bert Myrin – Planning and Zoning Commission
Alan Osburn – Aspen Theatre in the Park
Dean Sobel – Aspen Art Museum
Robert Zupancis – Citizen
CIVIC MASTER PLAN ADVISORY GROUP
CONSULTANTS CITY OF ASPEN STAFF
Chris Bendon – Director, Community Development
Julie Ann Woods – Former Director, Community Development
Ben Gagnon – Special Projects Planner,
Community Development
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
20 P48
VI.A.
TRIM TO LINE
supporting documents: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
Resolution No. 31 Recommendation of Approval by Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission · November 21, 2006 · Page 1 of 2
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
21P49
VI.A.
TRIM TO LINE
supporting documents: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
Resolution No. 31 Recommendation of Approval by Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission · November 21, 2006 · Page 2 of 2
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
22 P50
VI.A.
TRIM TO LINE
supporting documents: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
Ordinance No. 46 Approval of Aspen City Council · December 11, 2006 · Page 1 of 4
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
23P51
VI.A.
TRIM TO LINE
supporting documents: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
Ordinance No. 46 Approval of Aspen City Council · December 11, 2006 · Page 2 of 4
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
24 P52
VI.A.
TRIM TO LINE
supporting documents: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
Ordinance No. 46 Approval of Aspen City Council · December 11, 2006 · Page 3 of 4
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
25P53
VI.A.
TRIM TO LINE
supporting documents: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
Ordinance No. 46 Approval of Aspen City Council · December 11, 2006 · Page 4 of 4
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
26 P54
VI.A.
the city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
Appendix
Ph
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
s
b
y
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
B
r
a
n
d
s
P
h
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
|
D
e
s
i
g
n
b
y
K
e
n
y
o
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
W
o
r
k
s
The following document contains historical and other background information on sites and
topics reviewed by the Civic Master Plan Advisory Group. The Table of Contents tracks with
the fi ve sections in the main Civic Master Plan document.
In each of the fi ve sections, the reader will fi nd a summary that includes a reference to
relevant portions of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. Each topic in this document
includes up to eight (8) sections:
stAtus: This section provides the latest information on the topic, as of December 2006.
orgAnizAtion: This section identifi es the organization(s) relevant to the topic.
site: This section describes the site or sites that were reviewed.
vision: This section includes information generated by the Phase I Civic Master Plan Report,
issued in May 2001, and outlines the goals of relevant organizations.
rio grAnde mAster plAn: This section reviews any recommendations for this site in the Rio Grande Master Plan 1993. Not all sites in the Civic Master Plan were reviewed as
part of the Rio Grande Master Plan (RGMP).
relevAnt core principles: This section identifi es the Core Principles relevant to the topic.
findings: This section lists the Findings made by the Civic Master Plan Advisory Group (CMPAG). At the end of each fi nding, the relevant Core Principle(s) may be noted.
recommendAtions: This section lists the Recommendations made by the Civic Master Plan Advisory Group (CMPAG). At the end of each fi nding, the relevant Core Principle(s) may be noted.
How to Read the Appendix
Local-Serving Business
Obermeyer Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
SCI West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
City-Owned Parking Lot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Arts In Aspen
The Arts in Aspen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Wheeler Opera House & The Wheeler Parcel . . . . .24
Aspen Art Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Local Government
City of Aspen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Pitkin County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Meeting Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Zupancis Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Former Youth Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Visitor Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Pitkin County Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Aspen Fire Protection Dist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
The Thrift Shop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Aspen Sanitation District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Public Open Space
Rio Grande Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Galena Plaza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Pedestrian Movement
Main Street. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Building Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Downtown Enhancement &
Pedestrian Plan (DEPP) . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Pedestrian Connections Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
N. Mill St. Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Wayfi nding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Ta
b
l
e
o
f
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
s
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
27P55
VI.A.
Appendix: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
Obermeyer Place
stAtus: Obermeyer Place is entitled, and construction was completed in fall 2006.
site: At the time the CMP Phase I Report was issued in May 2001, the Obermeyer Place site consisted of four adjacent private properties bordering Rio Grande Place, Spring Street and Bleeker Street, as well as four small City-owned properties directly adjacent to Rio Grande Place.
In spring 2002, the Obermeyer Redevelopment Company purchased the Bass Building,
adjoining the Obermeyer property, and reached agreement with two other adjacent landowners, Bill Murphy and Galen Smith, to pursue a public/private redevelopment
project. As part of the COWOP project approval, the City is leasing its holdings to Obermeyer at a nominal rate in exchange for 20 underground parking spaces in the
new project. The City also holds a 10-foot easement along the edge of the Zupancis property, to be developed as a pedestrian access from Main Street to the project.
orgAnizAtions: Obermeyer Redevelopment Company; City of Aspen.
vision: The genesis of the Obermeyer Place redevelopment project was a set of
shared goals: The City of Aspen and Klaus Obermeyer found themselves aligned in a vision to revitalize one of the last small business parks in the city.
The CMP Phase I Report’s Physical Analysis section identified some of the potential
public benefits of redevelopment in Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) Zone Districts, including the SCI zone that encompassed the Obermeyer property and
adjacent properties:
· “Increased and revitalized SCI space.”
· “Reinvestment in an area that has not experienced capital improvement.”
· “Parking in excess of required that could be used to augment the parking
garage for municipal vehicles, or to serve as ‘remote’ parking for infill
projects.”
· “Resolution of (city) ownership discrepancies … ”
rio grAnde mAster plAn: The RGMP Site B map (p. 13) shows City-owned
land to the north and east of the “Bass/Obermeyer Building” as purchased with 7th Penny Transportation Funds. The RGMP identifies the small piece of city-owned land
directly east of the Obermeyer building along Rio Grande Place as a site for “Essential Community Facilities.”
Under “Recommended Land Use/Activities,” the RGMP states that, “Publicly-owned
land adjacent to the Obermeyer building may also be considered for the location of essential community oriented services.”
Under, “Recommended Action Plan Summary for Site B,” the RGMP states that, “The City should continue negotiations with the property owners of the Bass/Obermeyer building to settle the use of the publicly-owned land that is adjacent to the building and being used by customers and tenants of that building.”
Through the COWOP entitlement, these small city-owned parcels were traded to Obermeyer Redevelopment Co. in exchange for underground parking spaces to be used for municipal purposes, and to open up space in the Rio Grande Parking Garage for public use.
relevAnt core principles:
2. Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use areas create vibrant, memorable places
4. Affordable Housing and Affordable Commercial space ensures viability of
civic functions and vitality of town
5. Civic planning must address need for parking while not inducing additional
traffic
6. Public-private partnerships can be very advantageous in achieving public
goals.
Subsequent to the publication of the 2001 CMP Phase I Report, CCMPAC member and 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan Oversight Committee member Bill Lipsey met informally with city staff and Klaus Obermeyer. Both parties recognized a set of shared goals for the Obermeyer property and surrounding SCI-zoned properties, and initial conceptual plans were developed.
In April 2002, the City Council voted to form the Obermeyer Place COWOP Task
Force, made up of citizens and a variety of stakeholders. The Task Force worked with City staff and Obermeyer’s planning and architectural team to design a project via a
public/private partnership. In April 2003, the City Council unanimously approved the redevelopment project, which featured the redevelopment of 38,000 square feet of SCI
space, a nominal amount of square footage of Neighborhood Commercial (NC) space, surface parking, two levels of underground parking (including 20 space for City use), a
series of pedestrian ways, 21 free market units and 21 deed restricted units.Findings/Recommendations: The Obermeyer Place project was proceeding through
the COWOP process by the time the CMPAG began generating draft findings and recommendations. There are no draft findings or recommendations for this site.
SCI West
stAtus: This site was discussed by the CMPAG as a possible site for an Obermeyer Place-type redevelopment of SCI space.
site: SCI West is a Service Commercial Industrial Zone District located on N. Mill Street, just north of the Puppy Smith Street intersection. The SCI Zone District allows for service-oriented commercial business, with a limited amount of retail space.
orgAnizAtions: Private property owners, City of Aspen.
vision: The Physical Analysis section of the CMP Phase I Report states that the
“parcels west of Mill Street primarily house traditional SCI businesses and have significant development potential. These parcels also sit on sloping land and appear to
have potential for underground parking.”
“Due to the … limited lease rates expected for SCI space, significant redevelopment by the private sector is unlikely in the SCI District. There is however, the possibility to
establish “win-win” public/private partnerships that achieve community goals.”
relevAnt core principles:
2. Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use areas create active, vibrant and
memorable places.
4. Affordable Housing and Affordable Commercial space ensures the viability
of civic functions and vitality of town.
6. Public-private, public-public and private-private partnerships can be very
advantageous in achieving public goals.
findings:
1. The Obermeyer Place project achieved a myriad of public benefits, including
the renovation of SCI space, the provision of affordable housing, underground
parking and pedestrian links, and a dramatic aesthetic improvement to
properties adjacent to Rio Grande Park. (CP#2, CP#4, CP#6)
2. The Obermeyer Place project was a successful public/private partnership that
grew out of the Civic Master Plan and its Core Principles, and could be used
as a model for redevelopment at SCI West. (CP#2, CP#4, CP#6)
recommendAtions:
1. City staff should hold discussions with property owners in the SCI West area
to determine if there is interest in a redevelopment project, using Obermeyer
Place as a model. Public benefits could include:
· The renovation of SCI space
· Underground parking
· Pedestrian links
· Affordable housing
· Aesthetic improvements
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
28 P56
VI.A.
Appendix: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
City Owned Parking Lot
stAtus: This area is utilized as short-term parking and as a staging area for special events in Rio Grande Park.
site: The parking lot north of the Community Banks and Rio Grande Parking Garage buildings are owned by the City. The parking lots were designed in a non-standard configuration.
orgAnizAtion: The City of Aspen owns the property, and has the ability to move forward with planning at this site in the short-term, mid-term or long-term.
vision: The CMP Phase I Report / Opportunities Map lists the following potential uses:
· Mixed Use: Neighborhood Commercial/Gov. Offices / Aff. Housing;
· Arts Facility – Performance Venue;
· Ancillary Arts facility functions (could be part of mixed-use building).
The CMP Phase I Report Physical Analysis – “Urban Edge” subsection states, “Both
the river/park open space and downtown would gain from a stronger edge to the built environment. The current transition area between these two distinct areas consists
of surface parking and outdoor storage that creates an unraveled characteristic. New mixed-use infill buildings at … the corner of Rio Grande and Mill St. (currently a City
parking lot) … would better define the character of both urban and open space.”
The 2002 Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan identified this site for infill affordable housing. City Council has talked about the potential for Service/ Commercial/Industrial or Neighborhood Commercial uses on the first floor.
rio grAnde mAster plAn: The RGMP Site B map (p. 13) shows the parking lots were purchased with 7th Penny Transportation Funds. Under “Goals,” the RGMP says: “Satisfy transportation related needs first when considering the use of Site B.”
The RGMP does not recommend any uses aside from the existing parking lot, All maps in the RGMP show the parking lots as unchanged, including the “Scenario Maps” in Appendix A. The parking lots were to be located between the future “Transportation Center” (now the ACRA Office/Visitor Center) and the future “Regional Rail Facility” (now the playing field at Rio Grande Park.)
relevAnt core principles:
1. Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use areas create vibrant, memorable places.
2. Focus on creating great people places.
3. Affordable Housing and Affordable Commercial space ensures viability of
civic functions and vitality of town.
4. Civic planning must address need for parking while not inducing additional
traffic.
5. Public-private partnerships can be very advantageous in achieving public
goals.
6. Improved pedestrian orientation.
findings:
1. In the downtown area south of Main Street, both urban blocks and public
parks have clearly defined edges and are easily recognizable. In contrast, the
City-owned parking lots along Rio Grande Place are an unraveled edge that
do not clearly demarcate the end of an urban block and the beginning of a
public park. (CP #2, CP #3, CP #7)
2. Creating a clear edge and demarcation between urban blocks and public parks
is a widely recognized and sound urban design concept. (CP #2, CP #3)
3. Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning is a rare commercial use in the City
of Aspen and is primarily intended to serve the local, year-round population.
Neighborhood Commercial uses tend to be successful in areas that locals
frequent, including the North Mill Street corridor. (CP #2, CP #3, CP #4, CP
#6)
4. Infill affordable housing is a rare and valuable commodity that decreases
traffic congestion by creating walk-to-work opportunities, and creates year-
round vitality in the downtown area. (CP #2, CP #3, CP #4)
5. Using a wide range of criteria, the 2002 EPS Housing Study rated this site #1
for the development of affordable housing. (CP #2, CP #3, CP #4)
6. If a building that includes the north edge of Galena Plaza, and descending
to Rio Grande Place is not constructed, the urban/park edge can be defined
through development of stand-alone buildings along Rio Grande Place. (CP
#2, CP #3, CP #4)
7. If development occurs on the City-owned parking lots, the need for short-
term parking must be addressed. (CP #5)
8. The parking lots along Rio Grande Place and North Mill Street are owned by
the City, and there is no compelling need to develop them in the short-term.
recommendAtions:
1. The CMPAG supports the urban design concept of establishing a clear edge
or demarcation between urban blocks and public parks, reinforcing the
identity of both the urban area and the park.
2. The CMPAG supports Neighborhood Commercial uses and affordable
housing in the area where city-owned parking lots currently exist along Rio
Grande Place. The CMPAC does not support the development of free market
housing on this city-owned property.
The Arts In Aspen:
Painting The Big Picture
stAtus: During the Civic Master Plan process, the CMPAG recognized that some arts groups in Aspen had identified space needs, ranging from performing arts space to
space for educational programming. During work sessions on the Civic Master Plan, the City Council expressed conceptual support for a new shared-use arts facility, while
asking for additional information gathering.
The CMPAG explored the potential of a new performing arts facility, with a one-story building at the north edge of Galena Plaza, and the bulk of the building along Rio
Grande Place.
The CMPAG also identified the Wheeler Parcel as a potential location for performing arts and/or rehearsal/educational space. In November 2006, the local performing arts groups that had expressed interest in the Galena Plaza/Rio Grande Place site were more focused on the Wheeler Parcel. Theatre aspen was focused on upgrading the tent in Rio Grande Park.
Staff has undertaken the Arts Sector Facilities Analysis, as recommended by the
CMPAG, to evaluate the need for a new arts facility. Staff suggests that a range of reports, including ongoing studies, be considered as part this analysis, including:
· The 2005 Wheeler Opera House Organizational Audit.
· The Wheeler 21st Century Master Plan, which includes a needs assessment of
arts organizations as relates to their use of the Wheeler.
· The Snowmass Village Cultural Arts Assessment Study by Webb
Management Services Inc. in 2003, which contains extensive research on the
regional arts industry and suggests there is additional capacity for performing
arts in the Aspen area.
· “The Arts in Aspen: Do We Need More Space?” by consultant Michael
Strong in 2006, which includes various pros and cons for developing
additional arts sector space. This study was commissioned by the Wheeler
Opera House.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
29P57
VI.A.
Appendix: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
· “The Economic Impact of the Arts on Aspen and Snowmass” report in 2004
has helped to characterize the important role of the arts in the local economy.
· “The Economic and Social Impact of Second Homes in Four Mountain Resort
Counties of Colorado” of 2005 illustrates that second homeowners are strong
supporters of the arts.
sites: Galena Plaza/Rio Grande Place; Wheeler Parcel.
orgAnizAtions: Range of arts groups and venue managers.
vision: The 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan devoted one of its eight chapters to
Arts, Culture & Education. The Philosophy of this chapter in the AACP stated:“Walter Paepcke’s vision created an enlightened community in which arts, culture,
and education provide essential cornerstones of our lifestyle, character, and economy. Today, these cornerstones are increasingly vital to the uniqueness of our community
and to our economic and spiritual well being. Therefore, arts, culture, and education are acknowledged as essential to Aspen’s thriving year-round economy, its vibrant
international profile, and its future as a unique place to live, work, and learn.”
The staff and consulting team believe that this “Painting the Big Picture” approach represents a necessary step in answering the question posed by Downtown Consultants
Henry Beer & Ford Frick during their meeting with the CMPAG in January 2004:
· “What does Aspen have in its DNA that could be manifested in a ‘Center’?
What is Aspen’s intrinsic asset that can be built upon?”
rio grAnde mAster plAn: The RGMP Site B map (p. 13) shows that the north edge of Galena Plaza and the parking lots where an arts facility may be located were purchased with 7th Penny Transportation Funds. Under “Goals,” the RGMP says: “Satisfy transportation related needs first when considering the use of Site B.”
The RGMP does not recommend any new or different uses for Galena Plaza or the existing parking lot. All maps in the RGMP show Galena Plaza and the parking lots as
unchanged, including the “Scenario Maps” in Appendix A. None of the RGMP maps identify Galena Plaza with any text, and do not show or discuss any recommended use
for Galena Plaza in the map or text. The Scenario Maps show that the parking lots were to be located between the future “Transportation Center” (now the ACRA Office/Visitor
Center) and the future “Regional Rail Facility” (now the playing field at Rio Grande Park.)
f indings:
1. The fact that a variety of reports, studies and initiatives regarding the arts
sector in Aspen have either been recently completed or are ongoing represents
a rare opportunity to improve the function of the Aspen arts community as a
whole. These reports, studies and initiatives include: the Organizational Audit,
the 21st Century Master Plan and the Marketing Plan for the Wheeler Opera
House; the internal strategic goals of at least three local arts groups to explore
a new facility; four supporting studies (Arts Economic Impact/Second Homes/
ACRA Summer Survey/Aspen Retail Analysis); the Arts, Culture & Education
section of the AACP; and the report and recommendations of the Civic Master
Plan Advisory Group. (CP#6, CP#8)
2. Gathering information on inventory/capacity of performing arts venues
and space/seasonal needs of local arts groups for the purpose of supporting
a collaborative effort to better coordinate the use of existing facilities and
explore the need for a new facility could be very advantageous in achieving
civic goals. (CP#6, CP#8)
3. Considering the CMP’s #1 Core Principle of locating civic and arts/
cultural facilities in the downtown area, a qualitative approach is important
for decision-making rather than merely a quantitative needs-to-inventory
matching exercise. A downtown location for arts-related events and activities
tends to reinforce Aspen’s identity as a center for arts and culture, and tends to
make such events more economically viable. (CP#1, CP#8)
recommendAtions:
1. Considering the information and reports outlined in this section, the CMPAG
recommends that City staff should coordinate an in-house effort – the Arts
Sector Facility Analysis -- to gather information on the space/seasonal needs
of local arts organizations, and the existing supply/capacity of performing arts
venues.
2. City staff should initiate a Task Force made up of representatives of arts
groups and venues, in order to:
· Review the space + seasonal needs of local arts groups;
· Review the supply + capacity of performing arts venues;
· Evaluate potential upgrades of existing performance arts venues;
· Evaluate the need for a new shared-use arts facility;
· Outline a collaborative process to coordinate the events and activities of local
arts organizations + venues.
· If a facilitator and/or consultant is hired, the City and participants should
share the costs.
3. The CMPAG recommends that the Task Force consider qualitative elements
such as venue location, as well as quantitative measurements, such as
matching arts programs to adequate venues.
4. In the event that a new shared-use facility is deemed necessary, the CMPAG
recommends that the CMP Core Principles be used as guidelines to evaluate
proposed locations.
Wheeler Opera House
+ Parcel
stAtus: The Wheeler Opera House and City staff may explore the potential for a Wheeler COWOP regarding the future development of the Wheeler Parcel.
site: The Wheeler Opera House was built in 1889 and is located at the corner of Mill St. and Hyman Ave. It is a City of Aspen Historic Landmark and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. After the City of Aspen purchased the Wheeler from the Paepcke Family, the City financed an extensive renovation in 1984, returning it to its original Victorian character. The first floor of the building houses the box office, an ACRA visitor desk and two retail tenants.
The parcel of land owned by the City of Aspen directly adjacent to the Wheeler Opera
House — the “Wheeler Parcel” — is a 6,000 square-foot lot with a bench and aspen trees along the street and a parking area and waste storage toward the alley.
orgAnizAtion: The Wheeler Opera House has an appointed advisory Board of
Directors, and is a department of the City of Aspen.
vision: In the CMP Phase I Report, the Facilities Analysis section stated that future operations of the Wheeler could benefit from ancillary facilities such as rehearsal space,
meeting space, storage, and adequate office space, and identifies the Wheeler Parcel as a logical location for these uses.
In addition, the Foundation Map and Opportunities Map explored other alternatives,
and identified various potential functions for the Wheeler Parcel, including:
· An opportunity for development / expansion of an arts facility
· Mixed Use: Retail & ancillary arts functions & affordable housing
· Visitors Center & ACRA offices
In 2002, the City Council decided to set aside the Wheeler Parcel for the exclusive future use of the Wheeler Opera House.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
30 P58
VI.A.
Appendix: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
relevAnt core principles:
1. Civic uses, and arts and cultural uses, belong in heart of town.
2. Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use areas create memorable places.
3. Creating great “people places” will build vitality.
6. Public-private partnerships can be advantageous in achieving public goals.
7. Improving pedestrian orientation.
8. The pursuit of excellence in the arts…
findings:
1. As a signature historic building, the Wheeler Opera House engages people by
creating a powerful sense of character that reflects Aspen’s roots and history.
As the city’s focal point for arts and culture, the Wheeler conveys an equal
sense that the community is alive and evolving, and continues to celebrate its
core identity as a center for arts and culture. (CP #1 CP #7 CP #8)
2. The Wheeler Opera House is a natural destination and point of orientation for
visitors and locals alike.
3. The view from the Wheeler Opera House towards Wagner Park and Aspen
Mountain is a valuable resource and is protected in the City of Aspen Land
Use Code.
4. The Wheeler Opera House enjoys a dedicated and healthy funding stream
from the RETT.
5. Future development at the Wheeler Parcel may increase operational flexibility
and the number of annual productions at the Wheeler Opera House. Increased
production capability could add a new element to the upcoming Arts Sector
Facility Analysis. (CP #8)
6. The Wheeler Opera House building itself, the neighboring commercial uses
and the public spaces surrounding the building are critical resources that
have an impact on the movement of people between the Wheeler and the
commercial core, and the vitality and vibrancy of the neighborhood. (CP #2,
CP #3, CP #6, CP #7, CP #8)
recommendAtions:
1. The CMPAG supports the ongoing public process regarding the future use of
the Wheeler Parcel.
2. The CMPAG recommends that future uses at the Wheeler Parcel should:
· Accommodate as many additional needs of the local arts community as
possible.
· Improve the operational function of the Wheeler Opera House;
· Contribute to improvements in the daytime administrative office and box
office;
· Contribute to the Wheeler’s ability to present more live performances and to
improvements in production capabilities. (CP #2)
3. The CMPAG supports concepts for maintaining and/or enhancing the Wheeler
Opera House building, adjacent commercial uses and the public spaces
surrounding the Wheeler in order to contribute to the vitality of the area, such
as:
· The use of temporary banners on the Wheeler Opera House that enhance
the historic nature of the building, create a sense of vitality and celebrate
upcoming events.
· The installation of a modest lighting array on the Wheeler building to call
attention to the historic structure at night, and celebrate its iconic status.
· The continuation of commercial uses, and/or support for future commercial
uses adjacent to the Wheeler that contribute to the vitality of the area both
during the day and at night.
· Improvements to public spaces around the Wheeler, including sidewalks,
streets and the pedestrian mall, which enhance the pedestrian experience.
Aspen Art Museum
stAtus: The Aspen Art Museum Board hired Executive Director Heidi Zuckerman
Jacobson in 2005, and is continuing to evaluate its options regarding a long-term location.
orgAnizAtion: Founded in 1979, the Aspen Art Museum (AAM) is a non-profit
institution governed by a board directors, with a staff of eleven. AAM is recognized internationally for presenting outstanding exhibitions with a particular emphasis
on contemporary art. The museum offers year-round programming, including art workshops for children, teens and adults, free public lectures, docent tours, site rentals,
special events, and members’ art trips. AAM offers a variety of memberships. The website address is www.aspenartmuseum.org.
site: The AAM building is located in a riparian area along the Roaring Fork River,
with vehicular access from Mill Street to the small museum parking lot, and pedestrian access from city sidewalks and the Rio Grande Trail. The building is a City of Aspen
Historic Landmark.
In 1888, the structure that currently houses the AAM was built as the Hunter Creek Power Plant, drawing on hydroelectric power generated at Hunter Creek, and serving as headquarters of the Roaring Fork Electric Light and Power Company. In the early 1900s, operations were consolidated at the Castle Creek Power Plant, and the Mill St. building was later used as a warehouse for Holy Cross Electric. By voter mandate in 1976, the City of Aspen acquired the building, and the AAM opened at the site in 1979. A “sprung floor” allowing for dance uses was installed in the early 1980s, and still remains in place.
The AAM is currently operating under a 30-year lease for $10 per year; the lease expires in 2029.
vision: As part of the CMP process, the AAM generated a Facility Needs Assessment in 2001, and found that a major expansion would allow the AAM to pursue the following opportunities:
· A larger exhibition space
· An expanded lobby and reception area
· Offering food services, including a café, and other amenities that are typically
offered in peer institutions
· A larger bookstore
· Consolidating the 60 art classes at the AAM site
The Facility Needs Assessment stated that the Museum is located on the “wrong side of Main Street,” and also noted that an “in-town” location could result in increased attendance and more vitality for the downtown core. The CMP Phase I Report/Foundation Map stated that the AAM “should be relocated to, or in, downtown Aspen.”
In August 2005, new Executive Director Heidi Zuckerman Jacobson began serving
as the AAM’s representative on the CMPAC. At the August 31 CMPAC meeting, she stated that the Board of Directors and National Council now support the exploration of
a downtown site for the AAM.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
31P59
VI.A.
Appendix: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
relevAnt core principles:
1. Civic and arts uses belong in the heart of town.
2. Focus on creating great people places.
3. Civic planning must address the need for parking while not inducing
additional traffic.
4. Public-private partnerships can be very advantageous in achieving public
goals.
5. Pursue excellence in the arts.
findings:
1. The Aspen Art Museum holds a lease for its current site through 2029. If the
Aspen Art Museum decides to relinquish the lease, the City would have an
opportunity to identify a new user for a unique public property.
2. The site features the following assets:
· The serenity and beauty of a river-side, park setting
· The environmental significance of a river-side setting
· The AAM is located on a regional pedestrian-bikeway system
· A building listed on the National Register of Historic Places
· Spacious interior rooms with high ceilings
· A spacious lawn for summer uses that could complement interior uses.
· The site poses the following challenges:
· Parking limitations are a challenge to the viability of major events, especially
in winter; and can have an adverse impact on the neighborhood with regard to
safety and access.
· The historic designation of the building requires a regulatory process
regarding new building on-site.
· The floodplain and environmental issues are challenges to significant building
expansion.
· The location at the north edge of the civic core is a challenge for wayfinding.
recommendAtions:
1. The CMPAG supports the Aspen Art Museum’s exploration of downtown
locations in collaboration with the City of Aspen.
2. If the Aspen Art Museum relinquishes its lease in the future, the City should
identify a new use that:
· Allows for public interaction
· Builds on the intrinsic assets of the site and the building
· Recognizes the challenges of the site.
City of Aspen / City Hall
stAtus: In recent years, the space limitations at City Hall have resulted in the
relocation of some departments to other sites, including the Yellow Brick School, the former Youth Center, the Zupancis Property and a private office building above Asie
Restaurant. Some offices in City Hall have been further divided into smaller spaces to accommodate staff.
site: The City of Aspen offices are mostly located in City Hall, on Galena Street,
with some functions located in the former Youth Center, the Yellow Brick School, the City Parking Garage, the Golf Course, the Aspen Recreation Center (ARC), the
Zupancis Property and offices above Asie Restaurant on Main Street.
orgAnizAtions: City of Aspen.
vision: The Phase I Report / Facility Analysis of 2001 stated that, “The facility is currently at, or beyond, its reasonable capacity.” The Facility Analysis noted that meeting space is insufficient, short- and long-term file storage is accommodated throughout the building, and many work stations have been retrofitted to accommodate two or three employees.
In addition, the Facility Analysis stated that, “Many City Departments have already experienced difficulty staffing positions due to lack of physical space. This may affect expected levels of service. The City’s space limitations require a long-term solution to
ensure quality service.”
r elevA nt c ore p rinciples:
1. Civic and arts/cultural uses belong in heart of town.
2. Civic planning must address the need for parking while not inducing
additional traffic.
3. Public-private, public-public and private-private partnerships can be very
advantageous in achieving public goals.
findings:
1. Aspen was a town that eventually evolved into a resort, meaning that the
typical functions of a small municipality still remain in the heart of the
downtown. (CP #1)
2. As noted in Core Principle #1, the goal of the Civic Master Plan process is
to build upon the intrinsic asset of a civic core that remains integrated into
downtown Aspen. (CP #1)
3. The City of Aspen’s space limitations require a long-term solution to ensure
quality service.
recommendAtions:
1. The CMPAG recommends that any additional office space for the City of
Aspen be located in the downtown area.
2. The CMPAC recommends that the City of Aspen collaborate with Pitkin
County with regard to the Facility Feasibility Analysis process in order to
review and evaluate the scope of potential civic uses in the downtown area,
including but not limited to the Zupancis property and the former Youth
Center.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
32 P60
VI.A.
Appendix: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
Pitkin County, Various Offices
stAtus: Pitkin County begun a comprehensive Facility Feasibility Study in 2005, led by county staff and RNL Design of Denver. The goal of the process is to craft a
strategy for improved operational efficiency and customer service efficiency.
Questions to be answered are: 1) Do we need a new facility? 2) If so, where should it be located?; and 3) Assuming that some county agencies will be split up, where
should each county agency be located? The study included substantial public outreach and public process, including a survey regarding customer service needs.
In summer 2006, the Board of County Commissioners made a threshold decision to
expand its offices in the downtown area, adjacent to existing County facilities in the Courthouse and the Plaza 1 Building.
In October 2006, the Board of County Commissioners and City Council directed staff in a work session to begin the process of establishing a public process that encompasses an area between the Zupancis Property to the east and the Library to the west. This process is intended to explore potential civic buildings for city and county government as well as a potential library expansion, replacement of the garage roof at Galena Plaza and other potential users.
site: Pitkin County Government operates from several different buildings located throughout the County, including the Courthouse Plaza Building (County Administration), Library, Courthouse, Jail, Health & Human Services, Public Works, Fleet, Airport, Senior Center, Landfill and two departments are located in other buildings (one in Aspen City Hall and another in the Town of Basalt).
orgAnizAtions: Pitkin County.
vision: The 2001 CMP Phase I Report Facility Analysis describes the working conditions at some, but not all County buildings:
· County Plaza Building: The work environment for the Commissioners and
the County Attorney are “crowded.”
· County Plaza Building: The Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority is “extremely
crowded.” [Pitkin County is responsible for the space needs of the Housing
Authority.]
· Courthouse: The working environment for the County Assessor, District
Attorney, County Treasurer and Probation are “very crowded.”
· Courthouse: The court facilities on the second floor are “slowly being
outgrown.” [Pitkin County is responsible for the space needs of the 21st
Judicial District.]
The Pitkin County Facility Feasibility Analysis of 2005 was intended create a 20-year
strategic plan that will include an analysis of:
· Current and future County space requirements;
· Efficient interconnections between departments;
· Various alternatives for facility locations;
· Financial implications for each alternative.
Through a decision-making process that includes extensive public participation, the
study will culminate in choosing a preferred alternative for facilities and an action plan for implementation. Among the goals of the study are:
· To reflect and support the County’s unique requirements, goals, culture,
philosophy and community;
· To fit within the timeframe and budget parameters of the County;
· To create a living plan that will be a guide through on-going change over
time;
· To ensure that recommendations arrived at through the planning process are
trusted and embraced by county residents.
relevAnt core principles:
1. Civic and arts/cultural uses belong in the heart of town.
2. Civic planning must address need for parking while not inducing additional
traffic.
3. Public-private, public-public and private-private partnerships can be very
advantageous in achieving public goals.
4. Improving pedestrian orientation.
findings:
1. Aspen was a traditional mining town that ultimately evolved into a resort,
and the typical functions of a small municipality still remain in the heart of
the downtown. (CP #1)
2. As noted in Core Principle #1, a primary goal of the Civic Master Plan
process is to build upon the intrinsic asset of a civic core that remains
integrated into downtown Aspen. (CP #1)
3. Removing civic functions from the downtown will tend to reduce the kind
of community character that still makes the core of Aspen a “traditional”
downtown, surrounded by a resort environment. (CP #1)
4. The City of Aspen and Pitkin County have a long history of considering both
quantitative measurements and qualitative elements in their decision-making
processes – both function and character are important in shaping the future.
recommendAtions:
1. The CMPAG recommends that the Pitkin County Facility Feasibility
Analysis consider qualitative elements as well as quantitative measurements.
For example, in addition to measuring the quantity and length of car
trips and the cost of land and construction, the study should consider the
qualitative impacts of various alternatives on the character of the civic core
in downtown Aspen.
2. The CMPAG recommends that the City of Aspen collaborate with Pitkin
County with regard to the Facility Feasibility Analysis process in order to
review and evaluate the scope of potential civic uses in the downtown area,
including but not limited to the Zupancis property and the former Youth
Center.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
33P61
VI.A.
Appendix: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
Public Meeting Hall
stAtus: In 2005, the CMPAC broached this topic, as part of discussions regarding
new civic spaces.
site: The primary meeting space for the City of Aspen is the Council Chambers, which is used by City Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic
Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment, the Municipal Court and for meetings of City employees. The Council Chambers is currently the subject of a study
to improve the function of the space for public meetings, including improvements in audio, sight lines, and orientation of the Council, presenters and the public. The adjacent
smaller Sister Cities Room is also used by a wide range of groups. Lack of availability of both these rooms is not unusual, and boards, committees and City employees use
alternate sites such as the Rio Grande Meeting Room, the Fire Station Conference Room and the Pitkin County Library Meeting Room. The Phase I Report / Facility Analysis of
2001 stated that, “meeting space is insufficient …”
The Pitkin County Board of Commissioners and other County boards, committees and groups currently use the Conference Room on the 1st floor of the County Plaza Building. The Phase I Report Facility Analysis described this room as “a marginal conference room for public forums. The size and configuration makes it difficult to hold effective meetings, especially when the meetings exceed 20 members of the public.” The Conference Room is heavily used throughout the day and evening, and County boards, committees and groups also use the Pitkin County Library Meeting Room and the small former County Commissioners Meeting Room, on the 1st floor of the Courthouse.
orgAnizAtions: City of Aspen, Pitkin County.
vision: The Phase I Report Facility Analysis stated that, “an additional meeting room is a significant community need.” The Phase I Report Function Analysis states that, “a large capacity meeting facility … should be centrally located and be able to accommodate approximately 100 people … The space should be able to accommodate a variety of meeting types and incorporate the latest technological capabilities … “
The Phase I Opportunities Map identified the north edge of Galena Plaza and the former Youth Center as potential sites for a Meeting Hall.
r elevA nt c ore p rinciples:
1. Civic uses belong in heart of town
2. Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use areas create memorable places.
findings:
1. The existing meeting space for the City of Aspen and Pitkin County is not
adequate.
2. The design of meeting space currently used by the City and the County do not
reflect the importance of the discussions, debates and decisions being made.
3. A City-County Meeting Hall is an appropriate shared use, considering the
existing need and the similar purpose of the use. A shared Meeting Hall would
avoid a duplication of costs.
4. A Civic Meeting Hall should be close to downtown government offices,
adjacent to outdoor public space and at a prominent site that conveys a sense of
significance.
5. A Civic Meeting Hall should be designed so that it can be available for a
variety of uses by the general public as well as government meetings.
6. Logistical issues between the City and the County regarding a shared Meeting
Hall will need to be addressed.
recommendAtions:
1. As part of the collaboration between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County
regarding civic space needs, the City and County should identify an appropriate
downtown space and design a shared-use Meeting Hall, considering the
following Desired Elements:
· Inspirational
· Design of space should reflect the importance of discussions/decisions made
there
· Dignity afforded to the public
· Elevate the debate
· Flexibility
· Appropriate technology
2. Appropriate sites for a Meeting Hall include:
· The former Youth Center
· The north edge of Galena Plaza
· The Zupancis Property
Zupancis Property
stAtus: In August 2005, the City of Aspen and the Aspen Fire Protection District agreed to end the joint planning process that had focused on Zupancis Property as
the home for a new AFPD Headquarters Station. The City is currently leasing the site to the Obermeyer Redevelopment Co., which is sub-leasing to its SCI tenants while
Obermeyer Place is under construction.
In July 2005, Pitkin County began a Facility Feasibility Analysis that is expected to generate a 20-year strategic plan. The Zupancis property is one of the sites to be
assessed as part of the study.
In October 2006, the Board of County Commissioners and City Council directed staff in a work session to begin the process of establishing a public process that encompasses an
area between the Zupancis Property to the east and the Library to the west.
This process is intended to explore potential civic buildings for city and county government as well as a potential library expansion, replacement of the garage roof at
Galena Plaza and other potential users.
site: 540 East Main Street, next to the County Plaza Building. The property includes historic cabins at the back end of the property. The topography of the site allows for
underground parking, and a link to underground parking at Obermeyer Place.
orgAnizAtion: The City of Aspen purchased this property in 2001 using general funds.
vision: The CMP Phase I / Opportunities Map identified the Zupancis property as
a potential Fire Station, Mixed Use Building or to be used in combination with the adjacent County Plaza building for a larger civic project.
In past discussions, non-profit groups such as Theatre Aspen and the Aspen Art Museum had expressed some interest in the Zupancis parcel.
relevAnt core principles:
1. Civic and arts & cultural uses belong in the heart of town.
2. Focus on creating great people places.
3. Affordable Housing and Affordable Commercial space ensures the viability of
civic functions and vitality of town.
4. Civic planning must address need for parking while not inducing additional
traffic.
5. Public-private partnerships can be very advantageous in achieving public
goals.
6. Improve pedestrian orientation.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
34 P62
VI.A.
Appendix: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
findings:
1. Aspen was a traditional mining town that ultimately evolved into a resort, and
the traditional functions of a small municipality still remain in the heart of the
downtown.
2. As noted in Core Principle #1, a primary goal of the Civic Master Plan process
is to build upon the intrinsic asset of a civic core that remains integrated into
downtown Aspen.
3. Both Pitkin County and the City of Aspen are experiencing space needs.
4. The Zupancis Property has the potential to establish and improve north-south
pedestrian connections from Main Street to Obermeyer Place and Rio Grande
Park, as well as east-west connections between Obermeyer Place and Galena
Plaza.
recommendAtions:
1. The CMPAC recommends that the City of Aspen collaborate with Pitkin
County during the Facility Feasibility Analysis process in order to review and
evaluate the scope of potential civic uses at the Zupancis property.
2. If the Zupancis property is not used for civic purposes, the site would be
appropriate for arts and cultural uses or a mixed-use building with affordable
housing.
3. The CMPAC recommends that the easement established as part of the
Obermeyer Place approval be used to improve north-south pedestrian
movement between Main Street, Obermeyer Place and Rio Grande Park.
Former Youth Center
stAtus: The former Youth Center currently houses City employees, including the GIS Department, and several employees from the Asset Management Department and Community Development Department -- -- with meeting space on the top floor. (The ground floor is leased as a restaurant.)
Although the joint City Council-County Commissioners vote in March 2006 did not request that the former Youth Center be explored as a joint civic facility, one of the options generated by the Pitkin County Facility Feasibility Analysis in January 2006
included the former Youth Center as a potential County building site.
site: The former Youth Center is at the northeast edge of Galena Plaza, descending down to Rio Grande Place. It was used as a Youth Center until 2003, when the Aspen
Recreation Center opened adjacent to the public school complex on Maroon Creek Road.
orgAnizAtion: The City of Aspen owns this site.
vision: The CMP Phase I / Opportunities Map identified the former Youth Center as a
potential location for “high traffic” government departments such as Housing, Building, Police/Sheriff, and/or a Meeting Hall, ACRA offices, Visitor Center.
relevAnt core principles:
1. Civic and arts & cultural uses belong in the heart of town.
2. Focus on creating great people places.
3. Civic planning must address need for parking while not inducing additional
traffic.
4. Public-private partnerships can be very advantageous in achieving public
goals.
5. Mixed-use buildings create memorable places
6. Improve pedestrian orientation.
findings:
1. The former Youth Center building was designed as a Youth Center and is
relatively inflexible in accommodating new uses. The future renovation or
replacement of this building could allow for new uses that could increase
vitality at Galena Plaza. The size of the building was limited by funds
available, and a future structure could be larger, if funds are available to
address engineering issues related to topography.
2. A built east edge as part of a potential future renovation or replacement of the
former Youth Center, extending to and encompassing the existing elevator/
stairwell features, could increase vitality at Galena Plaza through new uses,
and draw pedestrians across Main Street through the use of compelling
architectural elements. (CP#1, #3, #7)
recommendAtions:
1. The CMPAG recommends that the former Youth Center building be considered
for renovation or replacement in the future. A new or renovated building could
be a welcoming and interactive destination point that capitalizes on the vista,
creates vitality and could include mixed uses and/or a range of civic and/or
cultural uses.
2. In conjunction with the future renovation or replacement of the former Youth
Center, the CMPAG recommends that the east edge of Galena Plaza be
considered in the future as a built edge, extending to the existing stairwell/
elevator feature, and including compelling architectural elements intended to
draw pedestrians across Main Street.
3. The City of Aspen (should) collaborate with Pitkin County with regard to the
Facility Feasibility Analysis process in order to review and evaluate the scope
of potential civic uses in the downtown area, including but not limited to the
Zupancis property and the former Youth Center. ”
4. Appropriate sites for a Visitor Center include: the former Youth Center
5. Appropriate sites for a Public Meeting Hall include: the former Youth Center.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
35P63
VI.A.
Appendix: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
Visitor Center
stAtus: Following the November 2004 ballot election that defeated the proposal to relocate the Visitor Center to the Galena/Main intersection, no further discussions regarding a new location have taken place. In 2005, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association signed a five-year lease with the City for its current site. Site: The Visitor Center is located on Rio Grande Place, next to ACRA offices. Organizations: City of Aspen and ACRA.
vision: The CMP Phase I Report/Facility Analysis states that “constrained space
limits the daily operation of ACRA and the location is not convenient for visiting guests. ACRA serves a high number of visitors and lacks basic amenities such as
public restrooms.”The Aspen Retail Analysis (the Frick & Beer Report) identified a relocated and
revamped visitor center as a pressing need: “The current Visitors Center is difficult to find and too far from the downtown … What is most important is that the center’s
location, appearance and operations all signal the community’s genuine appreciation for guests, and that the center assist visitors in accessing and understanding the
downtown.”
The Phase I Report/Opportunities Map identified several potential sites for a Visitor Center, including the Hines/Hills buildings at Main St., and the Galena St. Ext., the
first floor of the Wheeler Opera House, the Wheeler parcel, the former Youth Center building and Galena Plaza. Of those sites, Hines/Hills was rejected by voters; the
Wheeler Opera House was determined to be appropriate only for a satellite Visitor Center; and the Wheeler Parcel was reserved for uses related to the Wheeler Opera
House. The sites remaining are the former Youth Center building and Galena Plaza. However, the Visitor Center COWOP did review and evaluate a longer list of potential
sites.
relevAnt core principles:
1. Civic and arts uses belong in heart of town.
2. Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use areas create vibrant, memorable places.
3. Focus on creating great people places.
4. Civic planning must address need for parking while not inducing additional
traffic.
5. Public-private partnerships can be very advantageous in achieving public
goals.
6. Improving pedestrian orientation.
findings:
1. The constrained office space and lack of basic amenities remain challenges at
the existing Visitor Center.
2. The lack of visibility, lack of wayfinding and inconvenient location of the
existing Visitor Center remain major obstacles to providing optimal services
to visitors. (CP#3, #7)
3. An optimal location for a Visitor Center would be close to parking and the
downtown. (CP#1, #5, #7)
recommendAtions:
1. Appropriate sites for a Visitor Center could include:
· the former Youth Center
· the north edge of Galena Plaza
2. The CMPAG recommends that the Visitor Center and ACRA offices be co-
located, and could be part of a mixed-use building.
3. The CMPAG recommends that if ACRA begins a search for a new Visitor
Center site, the evaluation of sites under the 2004 Visitor Center COWOP
process be used as a resource.
Pitkin County Library
stAtus: Although the Pitkin County Library has an easement to expand approximately 44-feet eastward onto Galena Plaza, there are no immediate plans for expansion. However, the library wants to insure a potential expansion in the future as the Civic Master Plan focuses on this area.
site: The Library is located between N. Mill Street and Galena Plaza.
orgAnizAtions: Pitkin County Library.
vision: The CMP Phase I Report/Facility Analysis states that if the library wishes
to expand eastward, the Rio Grande Parking Garage cannot sustain “increased loads associated with library stacks” without pillars that extend into the garage below.
The library has funded plans that show the number and location of pillars in the garage necessary to sustain bookweight as part of the expansion. City staff has held
preliminary meetings with the Library Board to discuss the potential for shifting programming inside the library so that the expansion does not include extensive
library stacks.
relevAnt core principles:
1. Civic and arts uses belong in heart of town.
2. Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use areas create vibrant, memorable places.
3. Focus on creating great people places.
4. Civic planning must address need for parking while not inducing additional
traffic.
5. Improving pedestrian orientation.
findings:
1. An expansion of the Pitkin County Library is appropriate for this downtown
site, and in combination with other new built “edges” at Galena Plaza would
contribute to a vibrant and memorable mixed-use area. (CP#1, #2, #3)
2. A ground-level meeting room as part of the library expansion would allow
for public access to the meeting room at any time, and would increase the
use and vitality of Galena Plaza. (CP#1, #2, #3)
recommendAtions:
1. The CMPAG recommends that staff representatives of the Pitkin County
Library, Pitkin County and the City of Aspen meet to discuss the Library’s
short-term infrastructure planning and long-term facility goals, and identify
an appropriate public review process that will address both short-term and
long-term goals.
2. The CMPAG supports an expansion of the Pitkin County Library, to the
east. The CMPAC recommends that the design of the building be coordinated
with other built edges around Galena Plaza, to the extent possible.
3. The CMPAG recommends that a meeting room be located on the ground
level of the library expansion, to allow for public access to the meeting room
at any time, and to increase the use.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
36 P64
VI.A.
Appendix: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
Aspen Fire Protection District
stAtus: In August 2005, the City of Aspen and the Aspen Fire Protection District agreed to end the joint planning process that had focused on Zupancis Property as the home for a new AFPD Headquarters Station. The Aspen Fire Protection District is currently engaged in a COWOP process regarding the replacement of the Fire Station on Hopkins Street.
site: The Aspen Fire Protection District has been located on Hopkins Street since 1961, and has served as the Headquarters Station for all District functions. In
conjunction with outlying satellite facilities, the Headquarters Station has served as the base for all Aspen Volunteer Fire Department operations. The AFPD leases this site
from the City for a nominal fee, with the lease contract extending through 2021.
orgAnizAtion: The Aspen Fire Protection District was established in 1953 by an election of voters within the proposed district boundaries. It is an independent
government district, funded primarily by a property tax levy and operated by an elected Board of Directors.
vision: The CMP Phase I Report/Foundation Map stated that, “The Fire District
will outgrow the current facility (not the location) in the near future,” and stated that the Hopkins St. site represents an, “Opportunity for a redeveloped fire station or a
cultural facility.”
After the City Council purchased the Zupancis site on Main Street, the Fire District established a Headquarters Station Steering Committee, which issued a final report
in Sept. 2003. While the committee voted 10-7 in favor of relocating to the Zupancis site, the vote did not reach the 2/3 majority required by the recommendation process.
Not long after the vote, the AFPD began to focus on a more fundamental, District-wide redistribution of equipment and apparatus.The AFPD located a parcel adjacent
to the North 40 development at the Aspen Airport Business Center, and determined that it could accommodate a substation that could address the longstanding problem of
ensuring rapid response to the populated area west of the City. Adequate response time from the downtown station across the Castle Creek Bridge during commuting hours has been a major AFPD concern.
At the same time, this potential redistribution of equipment and apparatus reduced the need for a significantly larger Headquarters Station in the downtown. Although the Headquarters Station Steering Committee did not reach agreement regarding relocation to the Zupancis Parcel, the committee unanimously agreed that if the Zupancis relocation did not occur, the Hopkins Street site required renovation.
While the AFPD is engaged in a COWOP process for the Hopkins Street station,
construction has begun on the new sub-station at the Aspen Airport Business Center.
relevAnt core principles:
1. Civic and arts & cultural uses belong in the heart of town.
3. Focus on creating great people places.
6. Public-private partnerships can be very advantageous in achieving public
goals.
findings:
1. The civic nature and iconic quality of the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department –
and its location in the downtown core -- is an immeasurable asset to both the
year-round community and visitors.
recommendAtions:
1. The CMPAC recommends that during the design process for the renovation of
the Hopkins Street Headquarters Stations, the AFPD considers:
· The civic nature and central location of the building;
· The iconic quality of the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department and its members;
· The value of pedestrian + public interaction.
The Thrift Shop
stAtus: The Thrift Shop is currently engaged in a COWOP process with the Aspen Fire Protection District to build a second floor.
site: The Thrift Shop is located on Hopkins Street, adjacent to the AFPD Headquarters Station. The Thrift Shop leases its space from the AFPD for a nominal amount per year.
There is approximately 1,000 square-feet of space on the 1st floor, and 1,000 s.f, in the
basement, which is used partly for storage. The location in the downtown core is ideal, as many clients use public transit. The original Thrift Shop was located on Main Street,
moved to S. Mill Street and moved to its current location in the early 1980s.
orgAnizAtion: The Thrift Shop was established as a non-profit in 1949, and is run by a 5-member Board of Directors. There are approximately 80 volunteers that
put in more than 10,000 hours per year; all happen to be women. There are no paid employees. In 2004, The Thrift Shop donated $270,000 to local non-profits as well
as college scholarships for those who embody the spirit of volunteerism. The Thrift Shop also regularly donates materials to Indian reservations, Good Will Industries, the
Salvation Army and disaster relief efforts. The mission of The Thrift Shop is to make affordable clothing available to the community; it is a high-volume business that is
open from 9:30 am - 4 pm six days a week. The Thrift Shop accepts clean clothing in good condition, preferable in-season, as well as small household appliances in
working order, in-season sporting equipment, artwork and toys.
vision: For many years, The Thrift Shop has been interested in expanding, based on the consistent high volume of business it enjoys. The Thrift Shop currently re-
distributes a substantial amount of clothing to other groups, such as The Salvation Army, because it has no room for additional displays. By adding a second floor,
The Thrift Shop could keep a much larger inventory on-site, and believes it could substantially increase its business -- and the amount it donates to local non-profits and
students.
relevAnt core principles:
2. Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use areas create vibrant, memorable places.
4. Affordable Housing and Affordable Commercial space ensures viability of
civic functions and vitality of town.
5. Civic planning must address need for parking while not inducing additional
traffic.
6. Partnerships can be very advantageous in achieving civic goals.
findings:
1. The Thrift Shop is an Aspen institution that provides an important service
for lower income residents and workers that no one else provides – while
supporting local non-profits and students. (CP#4)
2. The central location of The Thrift Shop supports its overall mission, as many
of its customers use public transit. (CP #5)
3. The Thrift Shop relies on subsidized rent and could not carry out its mission
if it had to pay retail rental rates.
4. The simultaneous renovation of the AFPD Headquarters Station and The
Thrift Shop is an opportunity to create a vibrant mixed-use area. (CP #2)
recommendAtions:
1. The CMPAC recommends that The Thrift Shop remain in the downtown core,
and remain a subsidized use.
2. The CMPAC supports the expansion of The Thrift Shop.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
37P65
VI.A.
Appendix: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
Aspen Sanitation District Offices
stAtus: The Aspen Sanitation District agreed in 2002 to consider Civic Master
Plan Core Principles as it drafted a Master Plan. The CMPAG endorsed the Sanitation District Master Plan in May 2003. The Sanitation District Master Plan was
subsequently approved by City Council.
orgAnizAtion: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District is a quasi-municipal organization, governed by an elected Board of Directors. The Sanitation District is
responsible for wastewater treatment for Aspen’s urban area.
site: The administrative offices of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District are located on the district’s 3.8-acre property along North Mill Street, which includes
nine affordable housing units and a 400-foot stretch of the Roaring Fork River and section of the Rio Grande Trail. The property is adjacent to the Aspen Center for
Environmental Studies (ACES) property.
vision: The CCMP Phase I Report Facility Analysis states that, “The Sanitation District’s interest in this planning effort is to accommodate their future needs in an
adopted master plan, thereby reducing or eliminating the necessity for land-use review on each expansion.”
The existing condition of the District’s river corridor features a series of man-made berms on the south side of the public river trail, as well as non-native plants. The north side of the trail, directly adjacent to the river, is a more natural riparian environment. The District’s Master Plan would establish a sense of continuity on both sides, removing the berms, planting native grasses and reaffirming the elements of an open, natural river corridor on both sides of the trail.
The plan includes a new section of public trail running south to north, roughly
perpendicular to Mill Street.
There are currently nine affordable housing units on the site, with the District Master Plan calling for a total of 16 units.
The area between a series of proposed new townhouse units and the river corridor
would feature a lowered stormwater retention area, including native plantings. This aesthetic buffer zone ranges from 120 feet to 180 feet, greatly exceeding the city’s 100-
foot stream margin requirement.
The District Master Plan was presented to the CMPAG in 2003, to positive response.
relevAnt core principles:
2. Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use areas create vibrant, memorable places.
4. Affordable Housing and Affordable Commercial space ensures viability of
civic functions and vitality of town.
findings/recommendAtions: The District Master Plan was presented to the
CMPAG in 2003, before the CMPAG made findings and recommendations. However, the CMPAG and ACSD officials met and discussed the Master Plan and the CMPAG informally endorsed the Master Plan.
Rio Grande Park
stAtus: The planning, design and engineering phases for the Rio Grande Park
Master Plan are complete. The CMPAG and City Council both endorsed the Rio Grande Park Master Plan.
orgAnizAtion: The City of Aspen owns and manages the park, Pitkin County
operates the recycling facility, Theatre Aspen operates within the park with a lease from the City.
site: North of Rio Grande Place to the Roaring Fork River. The 7-acre Park includes
an active recreational field, the City’s skate board park, a basketball court, a recycling facility, snowmelt facility, the John Denver Sanctuary, and the Theater Aspen tent. The
field is also used to stage special events such as Jazz Aspen, winter polo, and Aspen Rotary’s Ducky Derby.
vision: The CMP Phase I Report encouraged the retention of the playing fields,
accommodation of federally-mandated drainage and water quality improvements in an aesthetic and environmentally sensitive manner, development of more formal
entryways, and the removal or upgrading of the recycle/snowmelt complex.
The Phase I Report also stated that the recycling facility needs to be located close to the Commercial Core to remain effective and suggested either an enclosed facility or a curb-side pick-up system. A joint City/County staff task force evaluated alternate sites for the facility and recommended the facility remain in its current location. The Obermeyer Redevelopment Company is currently leasing the land for commercial tenants displaced by the construction of Obermeyer Place. A Recycling Center COWOP recommended a partial enclosure and roof in 2006, but this proposal was the subject if a referendum in November 2006, which rejected the COWOP proposal.
The Rio Grande Park Master Plan calls for the Park and Jenny Adair Wetlands area open space areas to function as “water quality detention facilities” for the Aspen
Mountain watershed. The design was developed by a consulting water engineer, the City’s Engineering Department, the City’s Parks and Recreation Department and a
citizen task force.
The water quality detention features designed for the Rio Grande Park include a series of wetland ponds and a re-graded playing field. Stored stormwater would be slowly
released into the Roaring Fork River through water quality outlet structures that have been designed as “park architecture.”
The character intent of the wetland ponds will be riparian, similar to the backwaters
and low areas within the Roaring Fork River meanders prior to mining and town development in the late 1800s.
rio grAnde mAster plAn: Considerable achievements have been
accomplished that were set forth as action items in the 1993 RGMP. The riverwalk and kayak course were completed, an alternate location for the snowdump was found
and the snowmelter was relocated to the recycling facility, additional pedestrian paths replaced the vehicular access to the park, better access and handicapped parking were
provided for Theatre in the Park, bins for recycling were provided and the basketball court and skateboard park were developed.
The RGMP Site B map (p. 13) shows the parking lots along Rio Grande Place adjacent
to the southwest edge of the Park were purchased with 7th Penny Transportation Funds. Under “Goals,” the RGMP says: “Satisfy transportation related needs first when
considering the use of Site B.”
The RGMP does not recommend any uses aside from the existing parking lot, All maps in the RGMP show the parking lots as unchanged, including the “Scenario Maps” in Appendix A. The parking lots were to be located between the future “Transportation Center” (now the ACRA Office/Visitor Center) and the future “Regional Rail Facility” (now the playing field at Rio Grande Park.)
The 1993 RGMP does not address the future use of land along N. Mill Street, along the western edge of the Park.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
38 P66
VI.A.
Appendix: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
relevAnt core principles:
3. Focus on creating great people places
7. Improved pedestrian orientation
findings: (The Rio Grande Park Master Plan was presented to the CMPAG in 2003, before the CMPAG generated findings. However, the CMPAG informally endorsed the Rio Grande Master Plan in 2003, and subsequently adopted findings
related to establishing improved “edges to the southwest edge and west edge of the Park, listed below.)
1. In the downtown area south of Main Street, both urban blocks and public
parks have clearly defined edges and are easily recognizable. In contrast, the
City-owned parking lots along Rio Grande Place are an unraveled edge that
do not clearly demarcate the end of an urban block and the beginning of a
public park. (CP #2, CP #3, CP #7)
2. Creating a clear edge and demarcation between urban blocks and public parks
is a widely recognized and sound urban design concept. (CP #2, CP #3)
3. Providing a larger buffer between pedestrians and traffic (on N. Mill Street)
will increase safety, and improve the pedestrian experience and visual esthetic
of the area. These changes will encourage more pedestrian use, and improve
conditions for events and public/private sector users located in this area of
town. (CP#3, CP#7)
recommendAtions: (The Rio Grande Park Master Plan was presented to the CMPAG in 2003, before the CMPAG generated recommendations. However, the CMPAG informally endorsed the Rio Grande Master Plan in 2003, and subsequently adopted recommendations related to establishing improved “edges to the southwest
edge and west edge of the Park, listed below.)
1. The CMPAC supports the urban design concept of establishing a clear edge or
demarcation between urban blocks and public parks, reinforcing the identity
of both the urban area and the park.
2. The CMPAG recommends that City Council direct relevant public agencies
and private parties to collaboratively generate a proposal to design, fund
and implement a plan for the improvement of North Mill St., to focus on the
following:
· A wider buffer between pedestrians and traffic for the purpose of improving
the pedestrian experience, consistent with Aspen’s historical streetscape
pattern;
· Accommodating existing traffic flow;
· Improving safety for pedestrians and vehicles;
· Coordination with the local pedestrian-bikeway system;
· Improving the visual aesthetic of the area.
Galena Plaza
s tAtus:
The Galena Plaza site played a critical role in the formation of the Civic Master Plan (CMP) process: While a leak in the roof of the Rio Grande Parking Garage demanded
attention, a clear consensus was emerging that the plaza was a failed public space. The goal was to find a way to re-energize the plaza and coordinate the solution with the
repair of the roof.
An engineering consultant has recently determined that the roof must be repaired by the spring/summer of 2008, or serious structural problems will result. At the same
time, recent in-house discussions have revealed that the repair of the roof can go forward at any time, with construction atop the plaza proceeding at a later date without
a substantial duplication of costs.
The CMPAG reached a consensus that creating modest built “edges” that introduce new uses to the site will increase the use and enjoyment of the open space that will be retained at the center of the plaza.
site: Galena Plaza is located between the Pitkin County Library and the Courthouse at the terminus of the Galena St. Extension. It was constructed in 1989, serving as a
roof section of the Rio Grande Parking Garage and as a public gathering place.
orgAnizAtions: The City owns this property. The northeast portion of the plaza was purchased with 7th Penny Transportation funds; the southwest portion of the plaza was acquired via land trade with the County. The Pitkin County Library holds an easement for a future expansion at the west end of the plaza.
vision: The CMP Phase I Report/Foundation Map stated that drainage problems must be addressed, while noting an opportunity for the plaza to become “an interesting public place” that “encourages pedestrians to cross Main Street.”
The CMP Phase I Report Physical Analysis section states that, “this public space does not have a presence on Main Street, or strong pedestrian circulation routes running
through it, nor does it benefit from enlivened architectural edges. As a result, the space is somewhat disappointing and does not function as a quality public place. This
public space is of paramount importance in the Civic planning effort. Initially limited to curing drainage problems, the ‘fix’ for this ailing public space could create a very
interesting and successful public place … “
rio grAnde mAster plAn: Although Galena Plaza is shown as part of Site B in the 1993 RGMP, there are no recommendations for the use of this site. Under
“Goals,” the RGMP states, “Satisfy transportation related needs first when considering the use of Site B.”
relevAnt core principles:
1. Civic and arts uses belong in heart of town.
2. Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use areas create memorable places.
3. Focus on great people places.
4. Affordable Housing and Affordable Commercial space ensures the viability of
civic functions and vitality of town.
5. Civic planning must address need for parking while not inducing additional
traffic.
6. Public-private partnerships can be very advantageous in achieving public
goals.
7. Improving pedestrian orientation.
8. The pursuit of excellence in the arts.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
39P67
VI.A.
Appendix: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
f indings:
1. The repair and replacement of the roof of the Rio Grande Parking Garage is
needed to avoid further damage to the structure and costs to the City. (CP#5)
2. The use of easily replaceable materials on Galena Plaza will reduce the cost
of future construction on the site. (CP#1, #2, #3)
3. The accommodation of tents at Galena Plaza as part of an interim open space
solution could increase vitality at the site. (CP#1, #2, #3, #6, #7, #8)
4. The groundplane at the center of Galena Plaza is an opportunity to animate
the site in relation to future built edges.
5. An expansion of the Pitkin County Library is appropriate for this downtown
site, and in combination with other new built “edges” at Galena Plaza would
contribute to a vibrant and memorable mixed-use area. (CP#1, #2, #3)
6. A ground-level meeting room as part of the library expansion would allow
for public access to the meeting room at any time, and would increase the
use and vitality of Galena Plaza. (CP#1, #2, #3)
7. A built north edge, with a medium-high intensity use, would increase vitality
at Galena Plaza. (CP-ALL)
8. The former Youth Center building was designed as a Youth Center and is
relatively inflexible in accommodating new uses. The future renovation or
replacement of this building could allow for new uses that could increase
vitality at Galena Plaza. The size of the building was limited by funds
available, and a future structure could be larger, if funds are available to
address engineering issues related to topography.
9. A built east edge as part of a potential future renovation or replacement
of the former Youth Center, extending to and encompassing the existing
elevator/stairwell features, could increase vitality at Galena Plaza through
new uses, and draw pedestrians across Main Street through the use of
compelling architectural elements. (CP#1, #3, #7)
10. A dramatically improved pedestrian way from Main Street, through the
Galena St. Extension, Galena Plaza and the stairway down to and through
Rio Grande Park will help form a connection between the downtown and the
north side of Main Street. (CP#7)
short-term recommendAtions:
1. The CMPAG supports the repair of the roof of the Rio Grande Parking
Garage as soon as possible.
2. The CMPAG recommends that as part of the garage roof repair and
replacement, the design of the new Galena Plaza use materials that are easily
removed in the future, especially in areas anticipated for built edges.
3. The CMPAG recommends that the Parks Department work with the Asset
Management and Parking departments to design an interim open space use
for Galena Plaza that is consistent with the values and philosophy of the
Aspen community, to be implemented following the replacement of the
garage roof.
4. The CMPAG recommends that the City consider methods for
accommodating tents at Galena Plaza as part of the replacement of the
garage roof, to increase vitality at the site.
5. As part of planning for the garage roof repair, the CMPAG recommends that
City staff explore potential infrastructure improvements related to future
uses, especially along potential built edges.
6. The CMPAG recommends that staff representatives of the Pitkin County
Library, Pitkin County and the City of Aspen meet to discuss the Library’s
short-term infrastructure planning and long-term facility goals, and identify
an appropriate public review process that will address both short-term and
long-term goals.
long-term recommendAtions:
7. The CMPAG supports an expansion of the Pitkin County Library, to
the east. The CMPAC recommends that the design of the building be
coordinated with other built edges around Galena Plaza, to the extent
possible.
8. The CMPAG recommends that a meeting room be located on the ground
level of the library expansion, to allow for public access to the meeting room
at any time, and to increase the use and vitality of Galena Plaza.
9. The CMPAG recommends that the north edge of Galena Plaza be considered
in the future for a shared-use arts facility, with the bulk of the building
extending down to Rio Grande Place, pending the outcome of the Arts Sector
Facilities Analysis. (Please see section titled: Arts in Aspen: Painting the Big
Picture.)
10. If a shared-use arts facility is not constructed at Galena Plaza/Rio Grande
Place, a building at the north edge of Galena Plaza could be a welcoming
and interactive destination point that capitalizes on the vista, creates vitality
and could feature a range of civic and/or cultural uses.
11. The CMPAG recommends that the former Youth Center building be
considered for renovation or replacement in the future. A new or renovated
building could be a welcoming and interactive destination point that
capitalizes on the vista, creates vitality and could include mixed uses and/or
a range of civic and/or cultural uses.
12. In conjunction with the future renovation or replacement of the former Youth
Center, the CMPAG recommends that the east edge of Galena Plaza be
considered in the future as a built edge, extending to the existing stairwell/
elevator feature, and including compelling architectural elements intended to
draw pedestrians across Main Street.
13. In conjunction with future built edges at Galena Plaza, the CMPAG
recommends the design of a dramatically improved pedestrian way from
Main Street, through the Galena St. Extension, Galena Plaza and stairway
down to and through Rio Grande Park.
14. In conjunction with future built edges at Galena Plaza, the CMPAG
recommends that the open space at the center of Galena Plaza be designed to
animate the site in relation to new uses.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
40 P68
VI.A.
Pedestrian Movement
stAtus: Improving pedestrian connections is one of the Civic Master Plan’s Core
Principles.
site: Pedestrian circulation is a combination of City sidewalks, pedestrian & bicycle trails, bicycle routes on City streets, the pedestrian mall, City parks, informal pedestrian
routes, City/County/U.S. government pedestrian & bicycle trails, and the linkage areas between any and all of these areas.
orgAnizAtion: The City of Aspen Community Development Department, working with elected officials, is primarily responsible for planning for an improved pedestrian experience. Planning is implemented in every land use project at both the private and public level.
Public improvements are also the general responsibility of the City Engineer and the Asset Management Department.
vision: The CMP Phase I Report Function Analysis-Pedestrian/Bicycle subsection states that, “A component of the Civic Master Planning efforts is to provide useful connections to the existing pedestrian and bicycle system. There are also unique opportunities to improve the quality of pedestrian links to fulfill other goals, such as the
vitality of public spaces. Pedestrian paths through Rio Grande Park, along both sides of the Park and crossing North Mill Street, through Galena Plaza, through the SCI East
area, and crossing Main Street have been identified as those opportunities.”In addition, the Physical Analysis section of the CMP Phase I Report identified various
areas that could benefit from improved conditions for pedestrians, including Mill Street, Main Street and Rio Grande Park.
Since 2001, CMPAC has adopted draft findings and recommendations that address
many of the areas identified in the Phase I Report. Also during that time, pedestrian links have been an important element of sites reviewed by the CMPAG and
subsequently entitled or endorsed by City Council, such as Obermeyer Place, the Rio Grande Park Master Plan and the Aspen Sanitation District Master Plan. Staff
and the consulting team expect to rely on these existing plans as well as CMPAG recommendations to create a pedestrian connections map.
relevAnt core principles:
3. Creating great people places.
5. Civic planning must address need for parking while not inducing additional
traffic.
7. An effective pedestrian and bicycling system creates vitality and supports the
goal of limiting automobile traffic in the City of Aspen.
mAin street findings: Main Street is intimidating to pedestrians, and has
become a barrier to north-south pedestrian movement.
mAin street recommendAtions:The CMPAC recommends that the City of Aspen work with CDOT to explore design changes to Main Street to make it more
pedestrian friendly, including but not limited to:
· Stamped/colored concrete x-walks
· Raised x-walks
· Bulb-outs
· Refuge Islands
Building design findings: The design of buildings can either enhance or detract the visibility and accessibility of pedestrian routes.
Building design recommendAtions: The design of buildings within the
civic core should incorporate elements that are inviting and welcoming, and enhance the quality of the pedestrian experience.
downtown enhAncement & pedestriAn plAn (depp) findings:
1. Only one phase of a multi-phase DEPP strategy has been implemented.
2. Two of the 8 Goals of the DEPP, adopted by City Council Resolution in 1997
were:
· To make the downtown core more pedestrian-friendly and minimize the sense
that automobiles dominate the downtown area.
· To take greater advantage of opportunities for the utilization of alleys and
pocket parks for pedestrian circulation, social interaction and commercial
activity.
d owntown e nh A ncement & p edestri A n p l A n (depp )
recommendAtions: The CMPAC recommends that City staff conduct a feedback analysis on the outcome of the Phase I DEPP implementation, and present
findings to P&Z and City Council to determine if further phases of the DEPP should be implemented.
civic mAster plAn pedestriAn connections mAp findings:The Civic Master Plan encompasses many sub-areas within the civic core that include unbuilt pedestrian elements as part of endorsed master plans (i.e. Rio Grande Park Master Plan, DEPP) -- or within CMP findings and recommendations.
civic mAster plAn pedestriAn connections mAp
recommendAtions:
1. The CMPAG recommends that staff and the consulting team draft a Pedestrian
Connections Map that shows existing conditions, proposed pedestrian
connections included in various sub-area master plans and in CMPAG
recommendations.
2. The CMPAG recommends that as sites and sub-areas within the civic core
are redesigned and redeveloped, the CMP Pedestrian Connections Map be
consulted in order to ensure pedestrian connectivity within the civic core.
Appendix: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
41P69
VI.A.
Appendix: city of Aspen civic mAster plAn
North Mill Street Corridor
stAtus: The CMPAC reached consensus to redesign Mill Street by improving the pedestrian experience while preserving the operational function of the road. This proposed conceptual redesign was generated by DHM Design in coordination with City Engineer Nick Adeh and Police Chief Loren Ryerson.
site: North Mill Street, from Main Street to the Aspen Art Museum.
orgAnizAtion: City of Aspen. Adjacent property owners would need to be involved
in the development of specific designs, as well as emergency service providers.
vision: In the Foundation Plan: Non-Location-Specific Elements in the CMP Phase I Report, there is a goal to “Improve access to remote facilities by improving the walking
experience.”
The Physical Analysis section of the CMP Phase I Report states that, “It is uncomfortable for pedestrians to walk along Mill Street and dangerous for pedestrians
to cross. Traffic-calming measures are needed to improve the Mill Street environment. Street trees, improved sidewalks and clearly defined crosswalks at intersections are
important.” The proposed Mill Street redesign intends to accommodate existing traffic flow while providing a wider buffer between pedestrians and the street.
relevAnt core principles:
3. Focus on Creating Great People Places.
7. Improve Pedestrian Orientation.
findings:
1. Providing a larger buffer between pedestrians and traffic will increase safety,
and improve the pedestrian experience and visual esthetic of the area. These
changes will encourage more pedestrian use, and improve conditions for events
and public/private sector users located in this area of town. (CP#3, CP#7)
2. Preliminary design work and discussion under the CMP process have resulted
in a consensus that the goals of a wider buffer zone for pedestrians and the
accommodation of existing traffic flow can both be achieved. (CP#3, CP#7)
3. Preliminary design work and discussion have brought to light various details
that need to be addressed and various issues that must be resolved, and these
tasks are best handled by relevant public agencies in a design process. (CP#3,
CP#7)
recommendAtions:
2. The CMPAG recommends that City Council direct relevant public agencies
and private parties to collaboratively generate a proposal to design, fund
and implement a plan for the improvement of North Mill St., to focus on the
following:
· A wider buffer between pedestrians and traffic for the purpose of improving the
pedestrian experience, consistent with Aspen’s historical streetscape pattern;
· Accommodate existing traffic flow;
· Improve safety for pedestrians and vehicles;
· Coordinate with the local pedestrian-bikeway system;
· Improve the visual aesthetic of the area.
3. The CMPAG recommends that initial work by the CMP consulting team and
advisory group, including draft designs and points of concern, be utilized as
part of project design and review.
Wayfinding
stAtus: N/A.
site: City right-of-way areas.
orgAnizAtion: The City of Aspen owns right of way areas within the civic core.
vision: The CMP Phase I Report Function Analysis section states that:“Aspen and the institutions in the civic planning area could substantially benefit by
providing better directions and information to first-time visitors. Arriving at the Mill and Main intersection, visiting drivers are typically attracted to Aspen Mountain and the
activity of the Commercial Core and instinctively proceed south. Mill Street terminates at the pedestrian mall and the driver turns west on Hyman Ave. Where the driver feels
the initial stages of being lost, stops at the big building, and goes inside to ask for directions, As a result, the ACRA has staffed an information booth in the first floor of
the Wheeler Opera House. A comprehensive way-finding program in combination with a true visitor center could address this necessary visitor function in a better manner.”
Since 2001, the City has installed additional signs on Main Street, directing vehicles to
the Rio Grande Parking Garage and Visitor Center.
In the spring of 2006, the City plans to replace the existing manned information booth on the pedestrian mall at Cooper and Galena, and install an additional unmanned kiosk
that advertises special events.
relevAnt core principles:
3. Focus on Creating Great People Places.
5. Civic planning must address need for parking while not inducing additional
traffic.
7. Improve Pedestrian Orientation.
findings:
1. There is an important balance to be struck between providing adequate signage
for visitors and cluttering streets and paths with too many signs. There is an
important balance to be struck between maintaining a sense of experience
and discovery for visitors versus creating confusion regarding important
destinations through lack of signage.
2. Although Aspen and Pitkin County maintain an excellent regional pedestrian
and bikeway system, there is a lack of wayfinding signage directing visitors
within the civic core to these outlying amenities.
3. In some cases, existing wayfinding signage appears to be inadequate. Some
of the brown signs at Main Street intersections simply state the existence of
various destinations without indicating where they are located. A sign on the
Rio Grande Trail indicates the direction of Basalt, but does not mention the
Aspen Art Museum.
recommendAtion:The CMPAG recommends that the City of Aspen work with relevant partners, such
as the Commercial Core & Lodging Commission, City Parks & Recreation and Pitkin County Open Space & Trails to comprehensively review existing wayfinding conditions
and make recommendations regarding improvements, considering the CMP Findings, utilizing the CMP Pedestrian Connections Map and other relevant mapping documents.
This document is also available online at www.aspenpitkin.com,
City of Aspen Community Development Department / Long Range Planning
42 P70
VI.A.
P71
VI.A.
Ri
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
Sk
a
t
e
Pa
r
k
Su
r
v
e
y
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
Re
s
u
l
t
s
2.
Wh
a
t
ty
p
e
s
of
sk
a
t
e
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
ar
e
ne
e
d
e
d
mo
s
t
,
an
d
wh
i
c
h
ty
p
e
of
fe
a
t
u
r
e
wo
u
l
d
yo
u
de
s
i
r
e
to
ha
v
e
mo
s
t
in
th
i
s
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
?
7/
1
9
/
2
0
1
3
1
B
i
k
e
an
d
/
o
r
Sk
a
t
e
Ju
m
p
s
2
S
t
a
i
r
s
,
Ra
m
p
s
,
Fo
a
m
pi
t
s
3
H
i
p
s
,
Py
r
a
m
i
d
s
,
Be
t
t
e
r
Ra
i
l
s
,
St
a
i
r
s
,
Le
d
g
e
s
,
Ma
n
u
a
l
Pa
d
s
.
Th
i
n
g
s
th
a
t
go
ha
n
d
in
ha
n
d
wi
t
h
to
d
a
y
'
s
sk
a
t
e
b
o
a
r
d
i
n
g
4
R
a
i
l
s
,
Or
g
a
i
n
i
c
fr
e
e
fl
o
w
i
n
g
5
H
a
r
d
pa
r
k
ar
e
a
s
6
S
t
a
i
r
se
t
s
,
Le
d
g
e
s
,
Ra
i
l
s
,
Ma
n
n
y
pa
d
s
7
H
a
l
f
Pi
p
e
,
wh
o
o
p
s
to
o
.
8
B
i
g
g
e
r
Ha
l
f
Pi
p
e
9
S
t
a
i
r
s
an
d
sm
a
l
l
do
w
n
ra
i
l
s
10
S
t
a
i
r
s
11
P
y
r
a
m
i
d
,
Ra
i
l
s
,
an
d
Le
d
g
e
s
12
P
y
r
a
m
i
d
13
W
e
ne
e
d
ba
s
i
c
s
li
k
e
fl
a
t
pa
d
s
or
"f
u
n
bo
x
e
s
.
"
a py
r
a
m
i
d
th
a
t
is
n
'
t
to
o
st
e
e
p
.
So
m
e
mo
r
e
ci
r
c
l
e
or
fl
a
t
ba
r
ra
i
l
s
.
If
qu
a
r
t
e
r
pi
p
e
s
ar
e
on
th
e
pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
it
wi
l
l
gi
v
e
th
e
pa
r
k
mo
r
e
"f
l
o
w
"
al
s
o
st
a
i
r
se
t
s
an
d
le
d
g
e
s
as
i
d
e
t
h
e
st
a
i
r
s
ar
e
es
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
14
St
a
i
r
Se
t
s
,
Le
d
g
e
s
,
an
d
Py
r
a
m
i
d
Bo
x
15
R
a
i
l
s
16
M
u
l
t
i
‐le
v
e
l
st
a
i
r
s
,
mu
l
t
i
‐le
v
e
l
st
e
p
s
wi
t
h
ra
i
l
s
,
fu
n
bo
x
e
s
wit
h
ra
i
l
le
d
g
e
s
17
Ra
i
l
s
an
d
Ju
m
p
s
18
B
a
n
k
s
,
fl
a
t
le
d
g
e
s
,
do
w
n
le
d
g
e
s
,
fl
a
t
ra
i
l
s
,
do
w
n
ra
i
l
s
,
st
a
i
r
s
,
po
l
e
ja
m
s
,
eu
r
o
ga
p
s
,
fi
l
l
in
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pl
a
n
t
e
r
wit
h
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
(t
a
k
e
ou
t
tr
e
e
s
)
7/
1
7
/
2
0
1
3
19
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
I'
d
li
k
e
to
se
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
an
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
in
c
l
u
d
e
:
Po
l
e
Ja
m
,
wa
l
l
ri
d
e
,
ti
g
h
t
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
wi
t
h
po
l
e
co
p
i
n
g
,
ra
i
l
s
,
le
d
g
e
s
an
d
st
a
i
r
s
20
S
t
a
i
r
s
,
ra
i
l
s
,
sm
a
l
l
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
Ro
c
k
Fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
!
21
S
t
r
e
e
t
Pl
a
z
a
fe
a
t
u
r
e
al
l
th
e
wa
y
22
I
'
m
no
t
a bi
g
st
r
e
e
t
sk
a
t
e
r
,
bu
t
wi
t
h
as
ma
n
y
ri
d
e
r
s
th
a
t
th
e
pa
r
k
ha
s
th
e
r
e
is
a ne
e
d
fo
r
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
of
th
e
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
23
I th
i
n
k
an
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
fo
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
us
e
r
s
a
n
d
fu
r
t
u
r
e
us
e
r
s
is
a gr
e
a
t
id
e
a
fo
r
ou
r
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
24
M
o
r
e
ra
i
l
s
,
an
d
dr
o
p
in
s
fo
r
sp
e
e
d
25
S
t
a
i
r
s
wi
t
h
le
d
g
e
s
an
d
ra
i
l
s
26
R
a
i
l
s
, St
a
i
r
s
,
an
d
Py
r
a
m
i
d
27
B
o
x
e
s
,
Dr
o
p
in
ra
m
p
s
,
ra
i
l
s
ra
m
p
s
28
S
t
a
i
r
s
wi
t
h
le
d
g
e
s
an
d
ra
i
l
s
,
an
d
up
an
d
do
w
n
ra
m
p
wi
t
h
ra
i
l
29
Mu
l
t
i
‐le
v
e
l
st
e
p
s
wi
t
h
Ra
i
l
s
,
an
d
Py
r
a
m
i
d
bo
x
30
D
o
w
n
ra
i
l
s
,
bo
x
e
s
,
st
e
p
‐up
s
,
do
w
n
le
d
g
e
s
31
M
u
l
t
i
‐le
v
e
l
st
e
p
s
an
d
ra
i
l
s
or
ba
n
k
s
a
n
d
ra
i
l
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
to
fu
n
bo
x
e
s
wi
t
h
ra
i
l
s
an
d
le
d
g
e
s
.
Al
s
o
I th
i
n
k
co
p
i
n
g
on
th
e
le
d
g
e
s
,
at
le
a
s
t
on
e
,
wo
u
l
d
be
go
o
d
32
F
o
r
su
r
e
a eu
r
o
ga
p
!
Ba
n
k
s
(C
h
i
n
a
Ba
n
k
s
)
,
ga
p
s
,
py
r
a
m
i
d
bo
x
33
3 ‐5 st
a
r
i
se
t
,
sm
a
l
l
, me
d
i
u
m
hi
p
s
‐
Fu
n
Bo
x
!
Eu
r
o
Ga
p
,
sm
a
l
l
te
c
h
y
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
‐
lo
w
e
r
do
w
n
ra
i
l
s
be
g
i
n
n
e
r
to
in
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
in
si
z
e
an
d
di
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
y
34
A
l
l
o
w
bi
k
e
s
wi
t
h
no
pe
g
s
an
d
us
e
Ny
l
o
n
pe
d
a
l
s
.
35
S
t
a
i
r
se
t
,
le
d
g
e
s
,
ha
n
d
r
a
i
l
,
py
r
a
m
i
d
,
"e
u
r
o
"
ga
p
,
ma
n
u
a
l
pa
d
.
36
5
St
a
i
r
,
7 st
a
i
r
,
le
d
g
e
s
,
ra
i
l
s
,
ga
p
s
,
ba
n
k
s
,
py
r
a
m
i
d
,
st
e
p
‐up
37
Fu
n
Bo
x
wi
t
h
ra
i
l
s
an
d
le
d
g
e
s
38
R
e
a
l
i
s
t
i
c
st
r
e
e
t
se
t
u
p
s
.
No
t
to
o
bi
g
no
t
to
o
sm
a
l
l
.
St
r
e
e
t
le
a
g
u
e
st
y
l
e
.
39
R
e
a
l
i
s
t
i
c
st
r
e
e
t
se
t
u
p
s
.
No
t
to
o
bi
g
no
t
to
o
sm
a
l
l
.
40
R
a
i
l
s
,
dr
o
p
‐in
ra
m
p
s
,
Fu
n
Bo
x
41
E
u
r
o
ga
p
,
st
a
i
r
se
t
,
se
r
i
e
s
of
ha
n
d
ra
i
l
s
On
l
i
n
e
42
o
b
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
st
r
e
e
t
ob
s
t
a
c
l
e
s
,
bu
t
a fe
w
th
i
n
g
s
wi
t
h
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
as
we
l
l
.
i.
e
.
sm
a
l
l
qu
a
r
t
e
r
p
i
p
e
s
43
Ro
u
n
d
ra
i
l
s
an
d
co
p
i
n
g
.
No
t
en
o
u
g
h
pa
r
k
s
ha
v
e
th
i
s
.
44
f
l
y
ra
m
p
,
fu
n
bo
x
,
a fe
w
ra
i
l
s
45
a
ba
s
i
c
mi
n
i
‐ra
m
p
,
th
a
t
s
6 ‐8f
t
ta
l
l
an
d
10
0
fe
e
t
lo
n
g
46
L
o
n
g
ro
u
n
d
do
w
n
ra
i
l
an
d
so
m
e
ju
m
p
s
wh
e
r
e
yo
u
ca
n
ac
t
u
a
l
l
y
ge
t
so
m
e
ai
r
.
47
Py
r
a
m
i
d
s
,
fl
a
t
an
d
co
n
v
e
x
,
48
I
wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
to
se
e
ro
u
n
d
ra
i
l
s
th
a
t
ar
e
at
le
a
s
t
16
fe
e
t
in
le
n
g
t
h
!
I ca
n
'
t
st
r
e
s
s
th
e
le
n
g
t
h
en
o
u
g
h
.
Wh
i
l
e
a sk
a
t
e
b
o
a
r
d
is
on
l
y
2 fe
e
t
lo
n
g
,
a ro
l
l
e
r
b
l
a
d
e
r
ha
s
a 4 fo
o
t
st
a
n
c
e
.
en
j
o
y
m
e
n
t
ou
t
of
th
e
ob
s
t
a
c
l
e
.
BL
A
D
E
R
S
li
t
e
r
a
l
l
y
ne
e
d
so
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
2 ti
m
e
s
lo
n
g
e
r
th
a
n
a sk
8
bo
a
r
d
e
r
to
fe
e
l
th
e
sa
m
e
49
st
a
i
r
se
t
wit
h
ha
n
d
r
a
i
l
an
d
le
d
g
e
,
py
r
a
m
i
d
,
cr
e
a
t
i
v
e
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
li
n
e
s
50
S
t
a
i
r
s
,
ga
p
s
,
le
d
g
e
s
51
U
n
i
q
u
e
st
r
e
e
t
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
th
a
t
ar
e
al
s
o
ar
t
i
s
i
c
a
l
l
y
pl
e
a
s
i
n
g
,
se
e
Te
a
m
Pa
i
n
'
s
we
b
s
i
t
e
fo
r
sk
a
t
e
pl
a
z
a
s
.
.
.
52
r
o
u
n
d
ra
i
l
s
,
ta
l
l
e
r
th
a
n
1.
5
'
,
lo
n
g
e
r
th
a
n
12
'
.
53
C
i
r
c
l
e
Ra
i
l
s
.
54
l
o
t
s
of
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
le
d
g
e
s
an
d
ro
u
n
d
ha
n
d
r
a
i
l
s
55
Ro
u
n
d
pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
ra
i
l
s
pa
r
a
l
l
e
l
to
th
e
gr
o
u
n
d
(
r
o
u
g
h
l
y
tw
o
fe
e
t
of
f
th
e
gr
o
u
n
d
)
,
ro
u
n
d
ha
n
d
r
a
i
l
s
do
w
n
ba
n
k
s
& st
a
i
r
s
of
va
r
y
i
n
g
le
n
g
t
h
an
d
de
g
r
e
e
s
(E
d
w
a
r
d
s
Sk
a
t
e
p
a
r
k
ha
s
a gr
e
a
t
ex
a
m
p
l
e
)
,
Le
d
g
e
s
do
w
n
st
a
i
r
s
& st
r
a
i
g
h
t
ou
t
ov
e
r
st
a
i
r
s
,
a 'F
u
n
Bo
x
'
,
a 'b
e
g
i
n
n
e
r
'
ar
e
a
wit
h
sm
a
l
l
e
r
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
(r
a
m
p
an
d
st
r
e
e
t
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
)
,
sy
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
de
s
i
g
n
so
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
ca
n
be
ut
i
l
i
z
e
d
by
bo
t
h
'r
e
g
u
l
a
r
'
an
d
'g
o
o
f
y
'
or
'r
i
g
h
t
fo
o
t
'
an
d
'l
e
f
t
fo
o
t
'
sk
a
t
e
r
s
.
56
Ro
u
n
d
sk
i
n
n
y
ra
i
l
s
:
fl
a
t
,
fl
a
t
do
w
n
,
do
w
n
fl
a
t
do
w
n
57
h
u
b
b
a
le
d
g
e
s
,
dr
o
p
ra
i
l
s
,
ci
r
c
l
e
ha
n
d
ra
i
l
s
58
R
o
u
n
d
ra
i
l
s
,
bo
x
e
s
,
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
g
an
d
cr
e
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
ne
w
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
.
Th
e
r
e
ar
e
en
d
l
e
s
s
po
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
gi
v
e
n
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
la
y
o
u
t
.
A be
t
t
e
r
la
u
n
c
h
fr
o
m
th
e
min
i
bo
w
l
to
th
e
ne
w
se
c
t
i
o
n
wh
e
r
e
th
e
bb
a
l
qu
a
r
t
s
ar
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
lo
c
a
t
e
d
.
RO
U
N
D
RA
I
L
S
.
Co
n
s
u
l
t
wi
t
h
pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s
wh
o
de
s
i
g
n
pa
r
k
s
fo
r
a li
v
i
n
g
as
th
e
y
kn
o
w
ju
s
t
ho
w
mu
c
h
yo
u
ca
n
do
wi
t
h
so
m
e
op
e
n
sp
a
c
e
.
59
a po
l
e
ja
m
,
po
o
l
‐li
k
e
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
wi
t
h
po
o
l
co
p
i
n
g
,
so
m
e
ra
i
l
s
an
d
st
a
i
r
s
,
je
r
s
e
y
ba
r
r
i
e
r
s
60
Mo
r
e
tr
a
n
n
y
,
je
r
s
e
y
ba
r
r
i
e
r
an
d
ba
n
k
s
.
Ch
e
c
k
ou
t
Fo
r
t
Co
l
l
i
n
s
'
no
r
t
h
si
d
e
pa
r
k
P72
VI.A.
Ri
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
Sk
a
t
e
Pa
r
k
Su
r
v
e
y
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
Re
s
u
l
t
s
3.
Is
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
or
wo
u
l
d
yo
u
li
k
e
to
se
e
th
e
‘C
l
o
v
e
r
Bo
w
l
’
or
an
y
ot
h
e
r
fe
a
t
u
r
e
ch
a
n
g
e
an
d
ab
s
o
r
b
ne
w
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
?
7/
1
9
/
2
0
1
3
1
Y
e
s
2
C
l
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
is
to
o
bi
g
3
I
t
'
s
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
in
th
e
fa
s
h
i
o
n
th
a
t
it
su
i
t
s
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
sk
a
t
e
b
o
a
r
d
i
n
g
ve
r
y
we
l
l
.
At
th
e
ti
m
e
wh
e
n
it
wa
s
bu
i
l
t
,
it
wa
s
ph
e
n
o
m
e
n
a
l
.
Th
e
Cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
sh
o
u
l
d
re
m
a
i
n
as
is
.
4
D
e
f
i
a
n
t
l
y
le
a
v
e
in
5
J
u
s
t
Le
a
v
e
it
6
Y
e
s
ye
s
ye
s
7
Y
e
s
8D
O
NO
T
TO
U
C
H
CL
O
V
E
R
BO
W
L
!
IT
IS
TH
E
BE
S
T
FO
R
TE
A
C
H
I
N
G
BE
G
I
N
N
E
R
S
9
N
o
p
e
10
Y
e
s
11
N
o
12
Y
e
s
13
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
pa
r
k
ne
e
d
s
no
t
h
i
n
g
ch
a
n
g
e
d
ex
c
e
p
t
fi
l
l
i
n
g
in
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pl
a
n
t
e
r
bo
x
wi
t
h
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
14
Y
e
s
15
T
h
e
min
i
ne
e
d
s
so
m
e
fi
l
l
i
n
g
in
‐
th
e
mi
d
d
l
e
le
d
g
e
s
wi
t
h
tr
e
e
s
sh
o
u
l
d
be
fi
l
l
e
d
in
wit
h
ce
m
e
n
t
to
fl
a
t
t
e
n
th
e
to
p
so
we
ca
n
ri
d
e
on
to
p
.
16
N
o
17
N
o
18
M
a
k
e
bi
g
g
e
r
fo
r
Bi
k
e
s
19
Y
e
s
20
Y
e
s
,
I th
i
n
k
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
is
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
7/
1
7
/
2
0
1
3
21
U
n
d
e
r
no
ci
r
c
u
m
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
sh
o
u
l
d
th
e
cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
be
re
m
o
v
e
d
.
It
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
va
r
i
e
t
y
an
d
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
fo
r
th
e
ad
v
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
of
sk
i
l
l
s
an
d
sp
r
e
a
d
s
ou
t
pa
r
k
us
e
r
s
22
I
sk
a
t
e
th
e
an
g
e
l
bo
w
l
al
l
of
th
e
ti
m
e
23
Y
e
s
it
is
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
24
L
e
a
v
e
th
e
bo
w
l
!
!
Us
ol
d
ti
m
e
r
s
sk
a
t
e
th
e
bo
w
l
al
l
of
th
e
ti
m
e
.
We
ar
e
us
u
a
l
l
y
un
s
e
e
n
be
c
a
u
s
e
we
sk
a
t
e
af
t
e
r
wo
r
k
an
d
wh
e
n
th
e
ki
d
s
ar
e
go
n
e
.
25
M
a
y
b
e
26
Y
e
s
,
ab
s
o
r
b
ne
w
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
27
K
e
e
p
it
28
Y
e
s
it
is
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
29
K
e
e
p
th
e
Cl
o
v
e
r
Bo
w
l
!
30
I
wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
to
se
e
it
di
s
a
p
p
e
a
r
31
I
t
is
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
to
ke
e
p
so
m
e
ve
r
t
.
Ju
s
t
ad
d
"s
t
r
e
e
t
sk
a
t
e
"
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
32
K
e
e
p
th
e
Cl
o
v
e
r
Bo
w
l
!
33
I
th
i
n
k
it
sh
o
u
l
d
st
a
y
34
T
h
e
cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
s
sh
o
u
l
d
st
a
y
35
T
h
e
Cl
o
v
e
r
Bo
w
l
is
go
o
d
!
36
I
li
k
e
th
a
t
bo
w
l
,
bu
t
th
e
r
e
co
u
l
d
be
fo
r
su
r
e
be
be
t
t
e
r
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
.
I th
i
n
k
th
a
t
sh
o
u
l
d
st
a
y
,
an
d
th
e
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
co
u
r
t
sh
o
u
l
d
go
.
37
I
t
is
fi
n
e
as
is
38
M
a
k
e
di
s
a
p
p
e
a
r
39
Y
e
s
,
mo
r
e
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
40
I
t
is
he
l
p
f
u
l
fo
r
le
a
r
n
i
n
g
to
ro
l
l
do
w
n
ra
m
p
s
(S
h
a
l
l
o
w
po
c
k
e
t
s
)
,
so
ke
e
p
i t
41
C
l
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
is
co
o
l
bu
t
co
u
l
d
be
us
e
d
mo
r
e
42
I
wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
to
se
e
th
i
s
di
s
a
p
p
e
a
r
an
d
ab
s
o
r
b
ne
w
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
43
Y
e
s
44
N
e
w
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
45
N
e
w
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
46
N
o
,
Ke
e
p
th
e
cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
47
N
o
On
l
i
n
e
48
T
h
e
cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
sh
o
u
l
d
be
re
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
d
fo
r
th
e
st
r
e
e
t
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
49
T
h
e
cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
is
a ve
r
y
we
l
l
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
/
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
po
o
l
,
an
d
is
an
in
t
e
g
r
a
l
pa
r
t
of
ou
r
pa
r
k
.
It
'
s
al
r
e
a
d
y
th
e
r
e
‐no
se
n
s
e
in
re
m
o
v
i
n
g
it
,
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
be
a hu
g
e
lo
s
s
.
Al
s
o
,
it
'
s
no
t
ju
s
t
fo
r
ex
p
e
r
t
sk
a
t
e
r
s
.
.
.
I
'
m
no
ex
p
e
r
t
,
bu
t
sk
a
t
e
it
fr
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
be
c
a
u
s
e
I en
j
o
y
th
a
t
st
y
l
e
of
sk
a
t
i
n
g
50
M
e
h
51
K
e
e
p
th
e
Cl
o
v
e
r
Bo
w
l
!
52
K
e
e
p
th
e
Cl
o
v
e
r
Bo
w
l
!
53
I
'
d
en
j
o
y
se
e
i
n
g
la
r
g
e
r
bo
w
l
s
54
g
o
n
e
to
ab
s
o
r
b
ne
w
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
55
y
e
s
,
ma
t
h
th
e
cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
,
th
e
wh
o
l
e
pa
r
k
is
bo
w
l
s
;
Qu
a
r
t
e
r
pi
p
e
6'
‐9'
in
t
o
ra
i
l
s
an
d
py
r
a
m
i
d
s
an
d
or
hi
p
s
56
n
o
,
I wo
u
l
d
mis
s
it
.
57
t
a
k
e
ou
t
th
e
cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
58
M
o
r
e
st
r
e
e
t
,
fe
w
e
r
bo
w
l
s
sh
o
u
l
d
al
w
a
y
s
be
a ru
l
e
59
G
e
t
ri
d
of
cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
60
a
b
s
o
r
b
ne
w
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
.
61
D
i
s
a
p
p
e
a
r
fo
r
st
r
e
e
t
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
.
62
N
e
w
be
g
i
n
n
e
r
fr
i
e
n
d
l
y
le
a
r
n
i
n
g
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
wo
u
l
d
be
mu
c
h
mo
r
e
us
e
f
u
l
,
fo
r
in
s
t
a
n
c
e
a 's
t
e
p
‐up
'
qu
a
r
t
e
r
‐pi
p
e
,
th
a
t
ra
i
s
e
s
a fo
o
t
ev
e
r
tw
o
to
th
r
e
e
fe
e
t
in
le
n
g
t
h
so
pe
o
p
l
e
ca
n
pr
o
g
r
e
s
s
.
Wo
o
d
w
a
r
d
Ea
s
t
'
s
'P
l
a
y
g
r
o
u
n
d
'
ha
s
a gr
e
a
t
ex
a
m
p
l
e
.
63
k
e
e
p
cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
.
it
s
aw
e
s
o
m
e
64
T
h
e
cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
sh
o
u
l
d
re
m
a
i
n
!
It
is
us
e
d
an
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
an
o
t
h
e
r
di
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
(d
e
p
t
h
)
to
th
e
pa
r
k
.
65
Di
s
a
p
p
e
a
r
an
d
ab
s
o
r
b
ne
w
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
.
No
on
e
us
e
s
it
be
c
a
u
s
e
it
is
wa
c
k
66
t
h
e
cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
is
ou
t
d
a
t
e
d
an
d
co
u
l
d
us
e
a ne
w
fr
e
s
h
de
s
i
g
n
67
N
O
.
Th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
is
no
t
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
an
d
ne
v
e
r
ha
s
be
e
n
.
NO
B
O
D
Y
us
e
s
th
e
'C
l
o
v
e
r
Bo
w
l
.
'
Ab
s
o
l
u
t
e
l
y
no
b
o
d
y
.
It
is
a re
l
i
c
by
de
s
i
g
n
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
an
d
a us
e
l
e
s
s
wa
s
t
e
of
sp
a
c
e
.
So
o
o
mu
c
h
mo
r
e
co
u
l
d
be
do
n
e
wi
t
h
th
e
sp
a
c
e
th
a
t
it
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
oc
c
u
p
i
e
s
.
68
Th
e
cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
is
th
e
on
l
y
ad
v
a
n
c
e
d
te
r
r
a
i
n
at
th
e
pa
r
k
an
d
is
a so
u
g
h
t
af
t
e
r
fe
a
t
u
r
e
.
It
de
f
i
n
i
t
e
l
y
sh
o
u
l
d
be
ke
p
t
P73
VI.A.
Ri
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
Sk
a
t
e
Pa
r
k
Su
r
v
e
y
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
Re
s
u
l
t
s
4.
Is
th
e
‘C
l
o
v
e
r
Bo
w
l
’
us
e
d
by
ma
n
y
pe
o
p
l
e
?
7/
1
9
/
2
0
1
3
1
Y
e
s
2N
o
3
N
o
t
us
e
d
by
ev
e
r
y
o
n
e
.
Bu
t
go
o
d
fo
r
te
a
c
h
i
n
g
,
an
d
ad
v
a
n
c
e
d
ve
r
t
sk
a
t
e
r
s
.
4N
o
5N
o
6
Y
e
s
7
Y
e
s
8
Y
e
s
9
Y
e
s
,
al
l
le
v
e
l
s
es
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
be
g
i
n
n
e
r
s
10
Y
e
s
,
an
d
wo
u
l
d
be
us
e
d
mo
r
e
if
bi
k
e
s
we
r
e
al
l
o
w
e
d
11
N
o
12
Y
e
s
13
N
o
14
Y
e
s
!
Lo
v
e
it
‐
Gr
e
a
t
fo
r
le
a
r
n
i
n
g
15
Y
e
s
16
O
n
l
y
th
e
gn
a
r
l
i
e
s
t
us
e
i t
17
N
o
t
re
a
l
l
y
18
C
l
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
is
pe
r
f
e
c
t
!
7/
1
7
/
2
0
1
3
19
Y
e
s
,
by
be
g
i
n
n
e
r
s
an
d
th
o
s
e
wi
t
h
ad
v
a
n
c
e
d
sk
i
l
l
s
a li
k
e
.
It
is
th
e
fo
c
a
l
po
i
n
t
fo
r
ou
t
‐of
‐to
w
n
sk
a
t
e
r
s
20
S
k
a
t
e
ca
m
p
s
us
e
th
i
s
ar
e
a
fo
r
te
a
c
h
i
n
g
be
g
i
n
n
e
r
s
‐
Do
no
t
re
m
o
v
e
21
Y
e
s
Ke
e
p
it
22
Y
e
s
!
!
!
Ol
d
e
r
sk
a
t
e
r
s
fo
r
su
r
e
us
e
th
i
s
23
N
o
t
as
ma
n
y
as
ot
h
e
r
ar
e
a
s
24
Y
e
s
,
yo
u
n
g
e
r
ki
d
s
an
d
ad
v
a
n
c
e
d
ad
u
l
t
s
25
Y
e
s
26
N
o
t
a lo
t
27
N
o
t
ve
r
y
mu
c
h
28
Y
e
s
29
Y
E
S
!
30
Y
e
s
,
I al
w
a
y
s
am
se
e
i
n
g
pe
o
p
l
e
in
th
e
cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
.
Th
e
r
e
ar
e
mo
r
e
pe
o
p
l
e
in
th
e
ma
i
n
pa
r
k
ar
e
a
be
c
a
u
s
e
it
s
bi
g
g
e
r
.
Pe
o
p
l
e
us
e
th
e
bo
w
l
31
Y
e
s
32
Ye
s
33
S
k
a
t
e
ca
m
p
us
e
s
it
a lo
t
te
a
c
h
ki
d
s
,
al
s
o
bo
w
l
sk
a
t
e
r
s
us
e
it
.
I th
i
n
k
it
is
a co
o
l
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
to
th
e
pa
r
k
34
I
'
m
no
t
su
r
e
35
N
o
t
us
e
d
a lo
t
36
U
s
e
d
fo
r
sk
a
t
e
ca
m
p
re
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
37
I
'
v
e
se
e
n
sm
a
l
l
am
o
u
n
t
of
pe
o
p
l
e
us
e
i t
38
I
t
s
us
e
d
by
sk
a
t
e
ca
m
p
s
an
d
ol
d
e
r
du
d
e
s
39
Y
e
s
40
N
o
t
th
a
t
ma
n
y
pe
o
p
l
e
us
e
i t
41
N
o
t
th
a
t
ma
n
y
42
S
o
m
e
wh
a
t
us
e
d
43
N
o
t
ma
n
y
,
bu
t
it
'
s
he
r
e
,
so
ke
e
p
i t
On
l
i
n
e
44
N
o
t
en
o
u
g
h
45
N
o
t
as
ma
n
y
as
th
e
ot
h
e
r
tw
o
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
,
bu
t
it
de
f
i
a
n
t
l
y
ge
t
s
us
e
d
(t
h
e
r
e
ha
v
e
ev
e
n
be
e
n
co
n
t
e
s
t
s
in
th
e
r
e
)
It
'
s
th
e
on
l
y
pa
r
k
fe
a
t
u
r
e
of
ou
r
pa
r
k
th
a
t
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
s
ac
t
u
a
l
ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
wa
l
l
e
d
sk
a
t
i
n
g
46
M
e
h
47
Y
e
s
48
Y
e
s
,
bu
t
we
co
u
l
d
ma
k
e
so
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
"s
i
c
k
e
r
"
49
N
o
50
U
s
e
d
on
l
y
on
bu
s
y
da
y
s
51
D
e
p
e
n
d
s
on
th
e
da
y
52
N
o
,
on
l
y
th
e
mo
s
t
be
g
i
n
n
e
r
of
sk
a
t
e
r
s
53
f
u
n
fo
r
a fe
w
pe
o
p
l
e
,
bu
t
tr
u
e
st
r
e
e
t
sp
o
t
s
ar
e
ne
e
d
e
d
54
N
o
55
N
o
56
N
o
57
N
o
t
to
it
'
s
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
it
'
s
mo
s
t
l
y
as
a me
a
n
s
to
le
a
r
n
to
dr
o
p
in
on
hi
g
h
e
r
ra
m
p
s
wi
t
h
fr
i
e
n
d
s
/
i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
r
s
/
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
in
s
i
d
e
to
'c
a
t
c
h
'
th
e
us
e
r
,
an
d
ty
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
do
no
t
ge
t
ou
t
fo
r
ov
e
r
l
y
ex
t
e
n
d
e
d
pe
r
i
o
d
s
of
ti
m
e
.
Ma
k
i
n
g
it
in
c
r
e
d
i
b
l
y
in
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
fo
r
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
d
us
e
r
s
to
wa
i
t
fo
r
ex
t
e
n
d
e
d
pe
r
i
o
d
s
to
us
e
th
e
bo
w
l
in
it
'
s
en
t
i
r
e
t
y
58
y
e
s
.
go
o
d
ki
d
s
us
e
it
.
do
n
'
t
ta
k
e
it
fr
o
m
th
e
ri
p
p
e
r
s
.
59
Y
e
s
,
it
is
gr
e
a
t
to
le
a
r
n
to
pu
m
p
ar
o
u
n
d
in
an
d
it
is
al
s
o
as
ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
i
n
g
as
on
e
wo
u
l
d
li
k
e
to
ma
k
e
i t
60
n
o
,
it
s
wa
c
k
61
n
o
t
to
o
ma
n
y
62
N
O
.
NO
.
An
d
NO
.
No
b
o
d
y
us
e
s
th
e
Cl
o
v
e
r
Bo
w
l
.
No
b
o
d
y
.
63
Y
e
s
,
be
g
i
n
n
e
r
s
an
d
ad
v
a
n
c
e
d
sk
a
t
e
r
s
al
i
k
e
P74
VI.A.
Ri
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
Sk
a
t
e
Pa
r
k
Su
r
v
e
y
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
Re
s
u
l
t
s
5.
Ho
w
do
yo
u
va
l
u
e
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
co
u
r
t
?
Sh
o
u
l
d
we
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
a ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
ho
o
p
on
si
t
e
?
7/
1
9
/
2
0
1
3
1I t
is
ra
r
e
l
y
us
e
d
an
d
wa
s
t
e
d
sp
a
c
e
2I do
n
'
t
re
a
l
l
y
pl
a
y
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
so
I do
n
'
t
ca
r
e
3
I
'
v
e
us
e
d
it
,
bu
t
no
t
fr
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
.
Th
e
r
e
is
a co
u
r
t
at
t
a
c
h
e
d
to
th
e
Ye
l
l
o
w
br
i
c
k
af
t
e
r
al
l
.
Pr
o
b
a
b
l
y
no
ne
e
d
fo
r
it
.
4
N
o
,
I th
i
n
k
th
a
t
it
sh
o
u
l
d
be
pa
r
t
of
th
e
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
5N
o
6
N
o
!
7N
o
8N
o
9
N
o
t
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
th
e
r
e
ar
e
a nu
m
b
e
r
of
ot
h
e
r
co
u
r
t
s
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
co
u
r
t
s
3 bl
o
c
k
s
aw
a
y
at
Ye
l
l
o
w
br
i
c
k
.
10
N
o
t
at
al
l
11
Y
e
s
to
le
a
v
i
n
g
a ho
o
p
on
si
t
e
no
t
th
e
en
t
i
r
e
co
u
r
t
12
N
o
,
I do
no
t
va
l
u
e
or
us
e
th
e
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
co
u
r
t
13
N
o
14
I
te
a
c
h
sk
a
t
e
b
o
a
r
d
i
n
g
(s
i
n
c
e
20
1
1
)
an
d
we
ba
r
e
l
y
se
e
pe
o
p
l
e
sh
o
o
t
i
n
g
ho
o
p
s
th
e
r
e
15
N
o
16
I
ra
r
e
l
y
se
e
pe
o
p
l
e
in
th
e
r
e
,
an
d
if
I do
it
s
li
k
e
3 or
4 at
mo
s
t
,
sp
a
c
e
no
t
be
i
n
g
us
e
d
to
fu
l
l
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
17
I
f
it
ca
n
be
ke
p
t
,
ke
e
p
it
18
N
o
t
at
al
l
19
D
o
n
'
t
Va
l
u
e
it
mu
c
h
,
no
20
N
o
t
ve
r
y
mu
c
h
21
I
do
n
'
t
va
l
u
e
th
e
co
u
r
t
at
al
l
,
ye
l
l
o
w
br
i
c
k
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
co
u
r
t
is
a be
t
t
e
r
co
u
r
t
an
y
w
a
y
s
7/
1
7
/
2
0
1
3
22
T
h
e
co
u
r
t
is
no
t
le
v
e
l
no
r
ar
e
th
e
po
s
t
s
/ ne
t
s
.
Th
e
r
e
is
a qu
a
l
i
t
y
co
u
r
t
bl
o
c
k
s
aw
a
y
at
th
e
Ye
l
l
o
w
br
i
c
k
.
I th
i
n
k
th
e
sp
a
c
e
wo
u
l
d
be
be
t
t
e
r
us
e
d
as
a sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
ar
e
a
.
23
P
e
o
p
l
e
on
l
y
us
e
th
e
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
co
u
r
t
fo
r
10
‐15
min
u
t
e
s
be
f
o
r
e
th
e
y
be
c
a
u
s
e
th
e
co
u
r
t
is
in
ba
d
sh
a
p
e
.
24
N
o
t
at
al
l
va
l
u
e
d
25
I
do
n
'
t
pl
a
y
ho
o
p
s
,
bu
t
co
u
l
d
se
e
it
go
i
n
g
to
a ha
l
f
co
u
r
t
.
Do
e
s
n
'
t
se
e
m
to
ha
v
e
a lo
t
of
pe
o
p
l
e
pl
a
y
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
a
n
t
l
y
.
26
N
o
,
th
e
r
e
ar
e
ot
h
e
r
ar
e
a
s
fo
r
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
ne
a
r
b
y
.
27
"
S
c
r
e
w
it
"
28
N
o
t
re
a
l
l
y
29
N
O
…
go
st
r
e
e
t
30
Y
e
s
,
bu
t
ta
k
e
so
m
e
ba
s
k
e
t
s
ou
t
an
d
sh
r
i
n
k
in
si
z
e
31
N
o
,
th
e
r
e
ar
e
ot
h
e
r
co
u
r
t
s
ar
o
u
n
d
to
w
n
32
I
t
is
of
t
e
n
us
e
d
as
a fl
a
t
pl
a
c
e
to
pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
tr
i
c
k
s
.
Th
e
"f
l
a
t
"
pa
r
t
ne
a
r
th
e
we
s
t
co
r
n
e
r
ha
s
bi
g
cr
a
c
k
s
.
Th
e
sl
o
p
e
is
ni
c
e
th
o
u
g
h
33
N
o
34
I
do
n
'
t
se
e
en
o
u
g
h
pe
o
p
l
e
us
i
n
g
it
to
ju
s
t
i
f
y
it
s
ex
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
.
Th
e
r
e
ar
e
ot
h
e
r
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
co
u
r
t
s
ar
o
u
n
d
to
w
n
.
35
N
o
36
N
o
,
pl
e
n
t
y
of
ot
h
e
r
co
u
r
t
s
,
pl
u
s
th
e
in
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
no
t
bl
e
n
d
we
l
l
to
g
e
t
h
e
r
.
37
N
o
,
th
e
r
e
'
s
a be
t
t
e
r
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
co
u
r
t
5 mi
n
u
t
e
s
wa
l
k
i
n
g
fr
o
m
th
e
pa
r
k
at
th
e
ye
l
l
o
w
br
i
c
k
th
a
t
’
s
in
wa
y
be
t
t
e
r
sh
a
p
e
an
d
pe
o
p
l
e
ba
r
e
l
y
us
e
.
38
N
o
Ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
al
l
sk
a
t
e
b
o
a
r
d
i
n
g
39
N
o
,
Sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
ab
s
o
l
u
t
e
l
y
40
T
h
e
r
e
ar
e
ot
h
e
r
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
co
u
r
t
s
in
to
w
n
;
do
e
s
n
'
t
ge
t
us
e
d
a lo
t
41
Y
e
s
,
bu
t
cu
t
do
w
n
th
e
nu
m
b
e
r
of
ho
o
p
s
to
4 or
6.
42
N
o
,
it
s
la
m
e
43
Y
e
s
44
N
o
45
N
o
46
D
o
n
'
t
re
a
l
l
y
pl
a
y
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
47
N
o
no
t
re
a
l
l
y
,
bu
t
sh
o
u
l
d
ha
v
e
to
pl
a
n
fo
r
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
pl
a
y
e
r
s
fi
r
s
t
.
On
l
i
n
e
48
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
th
e
co
u
r
t
,
an
d
th
e
bu
f
f
e
r
if
it
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
to
th
e
Jo
h
n
De
n
v
e
r
Sa
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
.
49
O
n
e
or
tw
o
ho
o
p
s
wo
u
l
d
be
go
o
d
,
bu
t
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
op
t
i
o
n
s
al
s
o
ex
i
s
t
in
ot
h
e
r
pa
r
t
s
of
th
e
ci
t
y
.
50
S
u
r
e
51
I
li
k
e
th
e
ho
o
p
s
,
bu
t
th
e
r
e
sh
o
u
l
d
al
s
o
be
a fl
a
t
pa
d
fo
r
sk
a
t
e
r
s
52
G
e
t
ri
d
of
it
53
M
e
h
54
N
o
on
e
pl
a
y
s
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
an
y
m
o
r
e
…
go
to
th
e
re
c
.
ce
n
t
e
r
55
E
h
h
.
56
N
o
57
T
h
e
r
e
ar
e
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
ho
o
p
s
ev
e
r
y
w
h
e
r
e
58
W
o
r
t
h
l
e
s
s
,
no
.
59
P
e
o
p
l
e
ra
r
e
l
y
pl
a
y
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
on
it
60
I
t
sh
o
u
l
d
be
us
e
d
fo
r
th
e
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
61
T
h
e
ho
o
p
wo
u
l
d
pr
o
v
e
pr
o
b
l
e
m
a
t
i
c
as
it
'
s
pl
a
y
e
r
s
wo
u
l
d
ha
v
e
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
pa
t
t
e
r
n
s
th
a
n
sk
a
t
e
r
s
62
N
o
ho
o
p
s
.
Mo
r
e
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
.
No
b
o
d
y
pl
a
y
s
th
e
r
e
an
y
w
a
y
63
N
o
t
if
yo
u
ar
e
go
i
n
g
to
us
e
it
as
a sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
.
Th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
a co
n
f
l
i
c
t
of
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
be
t
w
e
e
n
us
e
r
s
& it
wo
u
l
d
ju
s
t
op
e
n
th
e
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
fo
r
is
s
u
e
s
!
64
N
o
,
ad
d
mo
r
e
sk
a
t
e
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
65
T
h
e
r
e
ar
e
pl
e
n
t
y
ot
h
e
r
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
co
u
r
t
s
ar
o
u
n
d
th
e
va
l
l
e
y
,
us
e
it
fo
r
th
e
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
.
66
N
o
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
ho
o
p
is
ne
e
d
e
d
on
si
t
e
.
Th
i
s
is
As
p
e
n
,
ho
m
e
to
ac
t
i
o
n
sp
o
r
t
s
.
We
ne
e
d
a hi
g
h
qu
a
l
i
t
y
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
to
ma
t
c
h
th
a
t
re
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
Th
e
r
e
ar
e
pl
e
n
t
y
of
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
ho
o
p
s
lo
c
a
t
e
d
ar
o
u
n
d
to
w
n
67
i
t
'
s
no
t
le
v
e
l
,
th
e
ce
m
e
n
t
is
ro
u
g
h
,
th
e
po
s
t
s
ar
e
n
'
t
st
r
a
i
g
h
t
an
d
th
e
ho
o
p
s
no
t
le
v
e
l
P75
VI.A.
Ri
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
Sk
a
t
e
Pa
r
k
Su
r
v
e
y
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
Re
s
u
l
t
s
6.
Sh
o
u
l
d
we
ke
e
p
Ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
Co
u
r
t
as
it
is
to
d
a
y
?
YE
S
/
NO
7/
1
9
/
2
0
1
3
1N
o
2N
o
3N
o
4N
o
5N
o
6N
o
7N
o
8N
o
9N
o
10
N
o
11
N
o
12
N
o
13
N
o
14
N
o
15
N
o
16
N
o
17
Y
e
s
18
N
o
19
N
o
20
N
o
21
N
o
7/
1
7
/
2
0
1
3
22
N
o
23
N
o
,
th
a
n
k
yo
u
24
N
o
25
M
a
k
e
it
a ha
l
f
Co
u
r
t
26
N
o
27
N
o
28
N
o
29
N
o
30
N
o
31
Y
e
s
,
bu
t
ta
k
e
so
m
e
ba
s
k
e
t
s
ou
t
an
d
sh
r
i
n
k
in
si
z
e
32
N
o
33
N
o
34
N
o
35
N
o
,
it
sh
o
u
l
d
be
us
e
d
fo
r
th
e
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
36
N
o
,
we
sh
o
u
l
d
us
e
it
fo
r
mo
r
e
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
37
N
o
38
N
o
,
ma
k
e
it
an
aw
e
s
o
m
e
st
r
e
e
t
co
u
r
s
e
10
0
%
39
N
o
40
N
o
,
Th
a
n
k
Yo
u
!
41
N
o
42
N
o
,
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
si
z
e
d
ri
m
s
at
le
a
s
t
.
43
N
o
44
Y
e
s
,
or
ch
a
n
g
e
th
e
ri
m
s
45
N
o
46
N
o
47
N
o
48
Y
e
s
On
l
i
n
e
49
Y
e
s
50
N
o
,
At
le
a
s
t
so
m
e
of
th
a
t
ar
e
a
sh
o
u
l
d
be
us
e
d
fo
r
ph
a
s
e
2 of
th
e
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
51
Y
e
s
52
Y
e
s
53
N
o
,
us
e
sp
a
c
e
fo
r
sk
a
t
i
n
g
54
N
o
55
N
o
56
N
o
57
Y
e
s
58
N
o
59
N
o
60
N
o
61
N
o
62
N
o
63
N
o
64
N
o
,
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
wo
u
l
d
be
be
t
t
e
r
65
N
o
64
N
o
65
N
o
66
N
o
,
No
No
No
No
N o
67
N
o
P76
VI.A.
Ri
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
Sk
a
t
e
Pa
r
k
Su
r
v
e
y
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
Re
s
u
l
t
s
7.
Wo
u
l
d
yo
u
li
k
e
to
ha
v
e
an
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
of
th
e
Sk
a
t
e
Pa
r
k
?
YE
S
/
NO
7/
1
9
/
2
0
1
3
1
Y
e
s
2
Y
e
s
3
Y
e
s
4
Y
e
s
5
Y
e
s
6
Y
e
s
7
Y
e
s
8
Y
e
s
9
Y
e
s
10
Y
e
s
11
Y
e
s
12
Y
e
s
13
Y
e
s
14
Y
e
s
15
Y
e
s
16
Y
e
s
17
Y
e
s
18
Y
e
s
19
Y
e
s
20
Y
e
s
21
Y
e
s
7/
1
7
/
2
0
1
3
22
Y
e
s
,
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pa
r
k
is
gr
e
a
t
,
bu
t
to
re
m
a
i
n
co
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
an
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
ne
w
ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
th
e
As
p
e
n
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
sh
o
u
l
d
be
ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
23
Y
e
s
,
Pl
e
a
s
e
24
Y
e
s
25
Y
e
s
,
bu
t
ke
e
p
wh
a
t
we
ha
v
e
.
It
wo
u
l
d
se
e
m
mo
r
e
co
s
t
l
y
to
re
m
o
v
e
it
or
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
,
al
s
o
th
e
bo
w
l
al
l
o
w
s
ol
d
e
r
sk
a
t
e
r
s
br
e
a
k
aw
a
y
fr
o
m
th
e
ki
d
s
26
Y
e
s
27
Y
e
s
28
Y
e
s
29
Y
e
s
30
Y
e
s
ye
s
ye
s
!
!
!
31
Ye
s
32
Y
e
s
!
33
Y
e
s
34
Y
e
s
Pl
e
a
s
e
!
35
Y
e
s
36
Y
e
s
37
Y
e
s
38
I
wo
u
l
d
lo
v
e
on
e
,
I'
v
e
be
e
n
sk
a
t
i
n
g
he
r
e
my
en
t
i
r
e
li
f
e
an
d
wo
u
l
d
lo
v
e
to
a aw
e
s
o
m
e
st
r
e
e
t
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
.
39
Y
e
s
,
ve
r
y
mu
c
h
so
40
Y
e
s
,
mo
r
e
th
a
n
mo
s
t
th
i
n
g
s
.
Th
a
n
k
yo
u
so
mu
c
h
fo
r
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g
th
i
s
an
d
ge
t
t
i
n
g
op
i
n
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
us
!
41
Y
e
s
42
Y
e
s
43
Y
e
s
44
Y
e
s
45
Y
e
s
46
Y
e
s
47
Y
e
s
!
!
48
Y
e
s
49
Y
e
p
,
wo
u
l
d
be
n
e
f
i
t
sk
a
t
e
r
s
On
l
i
n
e
50
N
o
,
An
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
cl
o
s
e
r
to
th
e
Jo
h
n
De
n
v
e
r
Sa
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
wo
u
l
d
se
v
e
r
e
l
y
im
p
a
c
t
th
e
"s
a
n
c
t
i
t
y
"
of
th
e
si
t
e
.
As
of
ri
g
h
t
no
w
,
th
e
wa
t
e
r
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
in
fr
o
n
t
of
Th
e
a
t
r
e
As
p
e
n
pr
o
v
i
d
e
en
o
u
g
h
of
a
bu
f
f
e
r
fr
o
m
th
e
no
i
s
y
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
.
Ev
e
n
no
w
,
sk
a
t
e
r
s
co
m
e
do
w
n
to
th
e
JD
S
to
gr
i
n
d
on
th
e
ro
c
k
s
.
If
th
e
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
is
ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
cl
o
s
e
r
,
I fe
a
r
th
a
t
ov
e
r
f
l
o
w
wil
l
ru
i
n
wh
a
t
is
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
a be
a
u
t
i
f
u
l
pi
e
c
e
of
th
e
ci
t
y
.
I'
v
e
se
e
n
th
e
Jo
h
n
De
n
v
e
r
Sa
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
an
d
th
e
Th
e
a
t
r
e
As
p
e
n
si
t
e
re
f
e
r
r
e
d
to
as
th
e
"E
d
e
n
of
th
e
Ro
c
k
i
e
s
"
.
I wo
u
l
d
ha
t
e
to
ha
v
e
th
a
t
se
r
e
n
i
t
y
di
s
r
u
p
t
e
d
by
mo
r
e
sk
a
t
e
r
s
.
51
Ye
s
,
It
wa
s
vo
t
e
d
on
an
d
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
at
th
e
sa
m
e
ti
m
e
th
a
t
ph
a
s
e
1 wa
s
.
I fe
e
l
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
is
lo
n
g
ov
e
r
d
u
e
!
!
52
Ye
s
53
Y
e
s
54
Y
e
s
,
ma
k
e
it
bi
g
g
e
r
an
d
be
t
t
e
r
55
Y
e
s
,
10
0
%
al
l
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
s
sh
o
u
l
d
ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
,
sk
a
t
i
n
g
is
mo
r
e
po
p
u
l
a
r
up
he
r
e
th
a
n
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
,
ba
s
e
b
a
l
l
,
an
d
fo
o
t
b
a
l
l
co
m
b
i
n
e
d
.
56
Y
e
s
57
Y
e
s
58
Y
e
s
59
Y
e
s
60
Y
e
s
61
Y
e
s
62
Y
e
s
63
Y
e
s
64
Y
e
s
65
Y
e
s
66
Y
e
s
67
Y
e
s
68
Y
e
s
69
Y
e
s
,
Du
h
70
Y
e
s
P77
VI.A.
Ri
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
Sk
a
t
e
Pa
r
k
Su
r
v
e
y
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
Re
s
u
l
t
s
8.
Wo
u
l
d
yo
u
li
k
e
to
ha
v
e
th
e
or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
ch
a
n
g
e
d
to
al
l
o
w
bi
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
to
us
e
th
e
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
?
To
d
a
y
bi
k
e
us
e
is
no
t
al
l
o
w
e
d
at
th
e
Ri
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
Sk
a
t
e
Pa
r
k
.
YE
S
/ NO
7/
1
9
/
2
0
1
3
1
Y
e
s
,
So
Ve
r
y
Mu
c
h
2
Y
e
s
,
I pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
l
y
ha
t
e
th
e
fa
c
t
th
a
t
bi
k
e
s
ar
e
al
l
o
w
e
d
in
sn
o
w
m
a
s
s
,
bu
t
no
t
in
As
p
e
n
.
3
Ma
y
b
e
,
Ab
s
o
l
u
t
e
l
y
No
pe
g
s
.
Th
e
y
ar
e
da
m
a
g
i
n
g
to
ju
s
t
ab
o
u
t
ev
e
r
y
su
r
f
a
c
e
.
Bu
t
ma
y
b
e
al
l
o
w
bi
k
e
s
.
4
N
o
,
No
Bi
k
e
s
,
Sc
o
o
t
e
r
s
,
or
Ro
l
l
e
r
Bl
a
d
e
s
5
N
o
,
Bi
k
e
r
s
ru
n
in
t
o
sk
a
t
e
r
s
6
Y
e
s
7N
o
8N
o
9I do
n
'
t
mi
n
d
ei
t
h
e
r
wa
y
10
Ye
s
,
I wo
u
l
d
lo
v
e
to
ri
d
e
my
bi
k
e
an
d
yo
u
wo
u
l
d
ha
v
e
mo
r
e
pe
o
p
l
e
co
m
e
!
:
)
11
Y
e
s
,
BM
X
i
n
g
is
fu
n
12
N
o
,
th
e
pe
g
s
da
m
a
g
e
th
e
co
p
i
n
g
13
Y
e
s
14
Y
e
s
,
an
y
ki
n
d
sh
o
u
l
d
be
al
l
o
w
e
d
by
pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
15
Y
e
s
16
Y
e
s
,
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
bi
k
e
s
wi
t
h
pe
g
s
ca
n
de
s
t
r
o
y
le
d
g
e
s
,
no
w
a
d
a
y
s
,
bi
k
e
r
s
do
n
'
t
us
e
pe
g
s
,
an
d
ha
v
e
as
mu
c
h
ri
g
h
t
to
us
e
th
e
pa
r
k
.
NO
Sc
o
o
t
e
r
s
th
o
u
g
h
!
17
No
18
N
o
,
no
t
at
al
l
th
e
y
ru
n
in
t
o
us
19
Y
e
s
20
Y
e
s
21
N
o
,
No
Bi
k
e
s
7/
1
7
/
2
0
1
3
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
no
t
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
du
r
i
n
g
th
i
s
Op
e
n
Ho
u
s
e
On
l
i
n
e
22
Y
e
s
23
N
o
,
Th
e
pa
r
k
ha
s
he
l
d
up
ex
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
we
l
l
.
Bi
k
e
s
wo
u
l
d
je
o
p
a
r
d
i
z
e
th
a
t
.
24
N
o
25
N
o
26
N
o
,
th
e
y
ru
i
n
th
e
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
,
a se
p
a
r
a
t
e
bi
k
e
on
l
y
pa
r
k
sh
o
u
l
d
be
bu
i
l
t
27
N
o
,
bi
k
e
r
s
us
u
a
l
l
y
ru
i
n
le
d
g
e
s
an
d
co
p
i
n
g
,
ge
t
in
th
e
wa
y
,
an
d
ca
n
li
t
e
r
a
l
l
y
ki
l
l
pe
o
p
l
e
if
th
e
y
ru
n
in
to
th
e
m
28
Ye
s
29
Y
e
s
,
Pr
o
b
a
b
l
y
be
c
a
u
s
e
it
is
to
o
sm
a
l
l
…
an
d
bi
k
e
s
in
bo
w
l
s
go
re
a
l
l
y
fa
s
t
.
If
yo
u
di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
th
e
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
be
t
w
e
e
n
a fe
w
lo
n
g
st
r
e
e
t
li
n
e
s
an
d
bo
w
l
s
ev
e
r
y
o
n
e
wi
l
l
sh
a
r
e
fi
n
e
wi
t
h
bi
k
e
s
30
Ye
s
31
N
o
,
ma
y
b
e
le
t
th
e
m
ha
v
e
on
e
ni
g
h
t
a we
e
k
32
N
o
,
Ma
y
b
e
a bi
k
e
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
da
y
,
bu
t
no
t
ev
e
r
y
d
a
y
33
N
o
34
Y
e
s
,
Ye
s
th
e
or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
is
ab
s
u
r
d
35
N
o
36
Y
e
s
,
on
l
y
wi
t
h
th
e
st
i
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
bi
k
e
s
no
t
ha
v
e
pe
g
s
.
Th
e
pe
g
s
wo
u
l
d
da
m
a
g
e
th
e
'p
o
o
l
'
co
p
i
n
g
an
d
an
y
ot
h
e
r
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
ma
d
e
of
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
no
t
st
e
e
l
.
37
Ye
s
38
P
e
g
s
on
th
e
bi
k
e
s
de
s
t
r
o
y
th
e
me
t
a
l
an
d
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
co
p
i
n
g
fo
r
lo
n
g
te
r
m
us
e
by
sk
a
t
e
b
o
a
r
d
s
.
Al
s
o
,
th
e
fl
o
w
of
bi
k
e
s
is
mu
c
h
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
wh
e
n
pu
t
in
th
e
sa
m
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,
ca
u
s
i
n
g
mo
r
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
co
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
& co
n
f
l
i
c
t
.
39
N
o
40
Y
e
s
41
N
o
,
bi
k
e
s
da
m
a
g
e
th
e
ri
d
i
n
g
su
r
f
a
c
e
an
d
th
e
co
p
i
n
g
,
me
t
a
l
an
d
po
o
l
co
p
i
n
g
.
Co
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
wi
t
h
bi
k
e
s
ar
e
di
s
a
s
t
r
o
u
s
fo
r
sk
a
t
e
r
s
wh
i
l
e
re
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
ha
r
m
l
e
s
s
fo
r
bi
k
e
r
s
42
No
,
th
e
r
e
is
pl
e
n
t
y
of
te
r
r
a
i
n
fo
r
bi
k
e
r
s
to
me
s
s
ar
o
u
n
d
on
.
Th
e
ru
l
e
is
en
j
o
y
e
d
by
ev
e
r
y
o
n
e
an
d
sh
o
u
l
d
re
m
a
i
n
th
e
sa
m
e
.
NO
BI
K
E
R
S
as
th
e
y
de
s
t
r
o
y
te
r
r
a
i
n
wi
t
h
pe
g
s
.
P78
VI.A.
Ri
o
Gr
a
n
d
e
Sk
a
t
e
Pa
r
k
Su
r
v
e
y
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
Re
s
u
l
t
s
9.
Wh
a
t
ar
e
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
is
s
u
e
s
wi
t
h
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
sk
a
t
e
Pa
r
k
,
ho
w
wo
u
l
d
yo
u
im
p
r
o
v
e
it
?
7/
1
9
/
2
0
1
3
1I t
is
a li
t
t
l
e
cr
a
m
p
e
d
2
B
e
t
t
e
r
Ra
i
l
s
3
T
h
e
la
c
k
of
st
r
e
e
t
ob
s
t
a
c
l
e
s
.
I dr
e
w
a pl
a
n
th
a
t
is
no
w
in
th
e
ha
n
d
s
of
th
e
Pa
r
k
s
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
St
a
f
f
.
Th
a
n
k
s
!
4
T
u
r
n
pa
r
t
of
th
e
gr
a
s
s
in
t
o
th
e
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
5N
o
Ra
z
o
r
Sc
o
o
t
e
r
s
6N
o
No
t
h
i
n
g
7N
o
8
G
r
a
v
e
l
ne
e
d
s
to
be
re
m
o
v
e
d
.
Mo
r
e
sh
a
d
e
.
Po
s
s
i
b
l
y
pu
t
an
aw
n
i
n
g
ov
e
r
mi
n
i
bo
w
l
.
Re
l
o
c
a
t
e
tr
e
e
s
in
pl
a
n
t
e
r
by
ra
i
l
an
d
fi
l
l
in
wi
t
h
ce
m
e
n
t
to
cr
e
a
t
e
a Ma
n
n
y
Pa
d
.
9
No
t
al
l
o
w
i
n
g
bi
k
e
s
,
yo
u
sh
o
u
l
d
al
l
o
w
bi
k
e
s
!
10
N
o
bi
k
e
,
yo
u
ne
e
d
to
al
l
o
w
bi
k
e
s
11
I
wo
u
l
d
ex
p
a
n
d
it
12
T
h
e
Ra
i
l
s
13
J
u
s
t
fi
l
l
in
th
e
pl
a
n
t
e
r
bo
x
le
d
g
e
to
cr
e
a
t
e
a "m
a
n
u
a
l
pa
d
"
14
R
o
c
k
s
15
T
h
e
la
c
k
of
"s
t
r
e
e
t
"
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
is
th
e
on
l
y
do
w
n
f
a
l
l
an
d
th
e
mi
d
d
l
e
le
d
g
e
s
wi
t
h
tr
e
e
s
sh
o
u
l
d
be
fi
l
l
e
d
in
wi
t
h
ce
m
e
n
t
.
16
No
17
M
a
k
e
it
bi
g
g
e
r
18
R
a
i
l
s
ar
e
st
i
c
k
y
19
T
r
e
e
s
an
d
ro
c
k
s
in
un
n
e
e
d
e
d
pl
a
c
e
s
,
ca
u
s
e
mo
r
e
ha
r
m
th
a
n
go
o
d
.
Ta
k
e
tr
e
e
s
ou
t
of
th
e
pl
a
n
t
e
r
!
!
7/
1
7
/
2
0
1
3
20
I
t
ca
n
be
ov
e
r
c
r
o
w
d
e
d
at
ti
m
e
s
,
es
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
wi
t
h
su
m
m
e
r
t
i
m
e
sk
a
t
e
‐ca
m
p
s
21
S
a
f
e
t
y
,
cr
o
w
d
i
n
g
an
d
tr
a
s
h
22
Ne
e
d
a st
r
e
e
t
pl
a
z
a
th
e
n
th
e
pa
r
k
wi
l
l
ha
v
e
ev
e
r
y
t
h
i
n
g
23
L
a
c
k
of
He
l
m
e
t
s
on
ri
d
e
r
s
24
N
o
t
h
i
n
g
25
F
i
l
l
in
th
e
pl
a
n
t
e
r
!
26
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
pa
r
k
do
e
s
n
'
t
ha
v
e
St
r
e
e
t
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
,
st
a
i
r
s
,
ra
i
l
s
,
an
d
ot
h
e
r
ob
s
t
a
c
l
e
s
27
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
pa
r
k
no
t
bi
g
en
o
u
g
h
28
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
pa
r
k
do
e
s
n
'
t
ha
v
e
en
o
u
g
h
st
r
e
e
t
29
S
a
n
d
an
d
di
r
t
ar
e
an
en
e
m
y
to
sk
a
t
e
r
s
.
An
y
w
a
y
to
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
di
r
t
is
go
o
d
.
30
Th
e
Pl
a
n
t
e
r
sh
o
u
l
d
be
fi
l
l
e
d
in
th
e
mi
d
d
l
e
wi
t
h
ce
m
e
n
t
so
we
wo
n
'
t
be
cr
a
s
h
i
n
g
in
t
o
mu
l
c
h
an
d
tr
e
e
s
an
y
m
o
r
e
!
!
31
I th
i
n
k
th
i
s
pa
r
k
is
am
a
z
i
n
g
.
It
wa
s
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
we
l
l
,
it
s
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
we
l
l
an
d
th
e
r
e
ar
e
gr
e
a
t
ru
l
e
s
(h
e
l
m
e
t
s
)
an
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
su
p
p
o
r
t
.
Th
e
he
l
m
e
t
la
w
sh
o
u
l
d
ab
s
o
l
u
t
e
l
y
re
m
a
i
n
in
ef
f
e
c
t
fo
r
ev
e
r
y
o
n
e
.
If
th
e
ki
d
s
se
e
th
e
ad
u
l
t
s
no
t
we
a
r
i
n
g
th
e
m
,
th
e
y
wo
n
'
t
we
a
r
th
e
m
.
An
d
he
l
m
e
t
s
re
d
u
c
e
he
a
d
in
j
u
r
i
e
s
by
75
%
It
co
u
l
d
sa
v
e
on
e
li
f
e
.
32
R
o
c
k
s
,
Ro
c
k
s
,
Ro
c
k
s
33
R
e
m
o
v
e
:
Tr
e
e
s
in
Pl
a
n
t
e
r
,
Ro
c
k
s
ar
o
u
n
d
pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
of
pa
r
k
,
an
d
re
m
o
v
e
th
e
fe
n
c
e
ne
x
t
to
th
e
le
d
g
e
on
th
e
no
r
t
h
en
t
r
y
po
i
n
t
of
th
e
pa
r
k
.
He
l
m
e
t
ru
l
e
sh
o
u
l
d
be
pe
o
p
l
e
s
ch
o
i
c
e
34
Th
e
r
e
ar
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
no
St
r
e
e
t
sk
a
t
e
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
or
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
.
35
T
h
e
r
e
ar
e
no
st
r
e
e
t
sk
a
t
i
n
g
ar
e
a
in
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pa
r
k
36
N
o
Bi
k
e
s
al
l
o
w
e
d
ev
e
n
ju
s
t
af
t
e
r
6p
m
or
so
wo
u
l
d
be
aw
e
s
o
m
e
an
d
gr
a
t
e
f
u
l
l
y
ap
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
e
d
!
Ta
k
e
ou
t
th
e
pl
a
n
t
e
r
,
no
t
ne
e
d
e
d
.
37
P
l
e
a
s
e
al
l
o
w
bi
k
e
s
wi
t
h
no
pe
g
s
38
Th
e
"p
l
a
n
t
e
r
"
wi
t
h
th
e
tr
e
e
s
is
a ha
z
a
r
d
.
(M
a
n
y
in
j
u
r
i
e
s
fr
o
m
th
e
in
s
i
d
e
co
r
n
e
r
s
)
It
wo
u
l
d
be
be
s
t
to
re
m
o
v
e
th
e
tr
e
e
s
an
d
fi
l
l
wi
t
h
ce
m
e
n
t
to
be
c
o
m
e
a lo
n
g
le
d
g
e
/ ma
n
u
a
l
pa
d
.
Th
e
fl
a
t
ra
i
l
is
go
o
d
,
bu
t
no
t
th
a
t
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
(t
o
o
cl
o
s
e
to
th
e
9 fo
o
t
wa
l
l
,
mo
v
e
it
to
op
e
n
th
a
t
ar
e
a
up
)
39
He
l
m
e
t
la
w
:
He
l
m
e
t
la
w
co
u
l
d
ha
v
e
an
ag
e
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
(1
8
+
/
2
1
+
)
Ma
n
y
(m
o
s
t
)
pu
b
l
i
c
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
s
do
no
t
ha
v
e
he
l
m
e
t
la
w
s
.
(E
x
a
m
p
l
e
:
Sn
o
w
m
a
s
s
)
40
F
u
n
Bo
x
wi
t
h
Ra
i
l
s
an
d
Le
d
g
e
s
41
I
th
i
n
k
it
gr
e
a
t
fo
r
wh
a
t
it
is
,
bu
t
if
it
wa
s
ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
it
co
u
l
d
be
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
up
o
n
42
Tr
e
e
s
in
th
e
pl
a
n
t
e
r
to
be
re
m
o
v
e
d
,
ro
c
k
s
on
th
e
si
d
e
an
d
in
th
e
bo
w
l
to
be
re
m
o
v
e
d
,
an
d
th
e
an
g
l
e
ir
o
n
su
c
k
s
43
T
h
e
r
e
ar
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
no
st
r
e
e
t
st
y
l
e
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
P79
VI.A.
44
B
r
o
k
e
n
do
w
n
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
.
Go
o
d
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
45
C
r
a
c
k
e
d
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
46
I
t
s
sa
m
e
st
u
f
f
,
we
ne
e
d
ne
w
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
47
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
no
t
en
o
u
g
h
pa
r
k
fo
r
sk
a
t
e
r
s
On
l
i
n
e
48
R
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
th
e
cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
fo
r
mo
r
e
st
r
e
e
t
sk
a
t
i
n
g
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
49
N
e
e
d
s
be
t
t
e
r
su
r
f
a
c
e
s
an
d
ob
s
t
a
c
l
e
s
wi
t
h
ro
u
n
d
th
i
n
g
s
to
gr
i
n
d
.
50
B
u
i
l
d
a se
c
o
n
d
mi
n
i
po
o
l
.
Cr
e
a
t
e
fl
a
t
sp
a
c
e
an
d
/
o
r
lo
w
an
g
l
e
ra
m
p
s
to
pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
an
d
le
a
r
n
on
.
51
Un
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
52
N
o
t
h
i
n
g
ma
j
o
r
ju
s
t
mo
r
e
te
r
r
a
i
n
wo
u
l
d
be
gr
e
a
t
53
N
e
e
d
s
be
t
t
e
r
su
r
f
a
c
e
s
an
d
ob
s
t
a
c
l
e
s
wi
t
h
ro
u
n
d
th
i
n
g
s
to
gr
i
n
d
.
54
N
e
e
d
s
mo
r
e
fl
a
t
sp
a
c
e
pl
u
s
ra
i
l
s
.
Wo
u
l
d
lo
v
e
an
o
t
h
e
r
mi
n
i
po
o
l
.
55
T
o
o
ma
n
y
sc
o
o
t
e
r
ki
d
s
,
no
sc
o
o
t
e
r
s
al
l
o
w
e
d
56
A
d
d
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
an
d
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
sc
o
o
t
e
r
s
57
T
o
o
ma
n
y
ki
d
s
on
sc
o
o
t
e
r
s
…
58
p
u
t
al
l
th
e
ki
d
s
on
sc
o
o
t
e
r
s
on
ro
l
l
e
r
b
l
a
d
e
s
59
Ne
e
d
s
mo
r
e
fr
e
e
st
a
n
d
i
n
g
bo
x
e
s
an
d
ra
i
l
s
,
ra
i
l
s
ov
e
r
st
a
i
r
se
t
s
,
so
m
e
ki
c
k
e
r
s
so
ai
r
tr
i
c
k
s
ar
e
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
60
N
e
e
d
s
mo
r
e
ro
u
n
d
ha
n
d
ra
i
l
s
,
ar
e
a
to
do
st
r
e
e
t
li
n
e
s
,
ra
i
l
,
cu
r
b
,
hi
p
,
qu
a
r
t
e
r
,
ba
c
k
to
ra
i
l
hi
p
up
qu
a
r
t
e
r
.
61
C
r
e
a
t
e
a st
r
e
e
t
li
n
e
zo
n
e
ar
o
u
n
d
th
e
pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
,
to
di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
lo
a
d
,
wi
t
h
py
r
a
m
i
d
s
to
gi
v
e
ea
c
h
sm
a
l
l
se
c
t
i
o
n
a st
a
r
t
i
n
g
sp
a
c
e
to
ge
t
sp
e
e
d
,
an
d
hi
t
a ra
i
l
an
d
or
hi
p
co
n
s
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
l
y
62
No
t
fu
n
fo
r
al
l
sp
o
r
t
s
63
M
o
r
e
ro
u
n
d
st
u
f
f
to
gr
i
n
d
64
I
t
is
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
by
ro
c
k
s
an
d
wo
o
d
ch
i
p
s
wh
i
c
h
fi
n
d
th
e
r
e
wa
y
in
t
o
th
e
pa
r
k
cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
da
n
g
e
r
o
u
s
ob
s
t
a
c
l
e
s
fo
r
sk
a
t
e
r
s
65
T
a
k
e
ou
t
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
co
u
r
t
,
cr
e
a
t
e
mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
sn
a
k
e
li
n
e
s
do
w
n
th
a
t
hi
l
l
fr
o
m
th
e
mi
n
i
bo
w
l
do
w
n
th
a
t
hi
l
l
in
t
o
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
co
u
r
t
,
re
m
o
v
e
cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
an
d
re
p
l
a
c
e
wi
t
h
a bo
w
l
mi
m
i
c
k
i
n
g
an
ac
t
u
a
l
po
o
l
.
Us
e
Ar
v
a
d
a
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
as
an
ex
a
m
p
l
e
of
a su
p
e
r
b
pa
r
k
.
66
Th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
pa
r
k
is
to
o
bo
w
l
fo
c
u
s
e
d
,
pr
o
d
u
c
e
s
th
e
wr
o
n
g
ty
p
e
of
sk
a
t
e
r
s
67
Re
m
o
v
e
it
or
ad
d
to
it
,
wi
t
h
a mo
r
e
na
t
u
r
a
l
st
r
e
e
t
co
u
r
s
e
.
St
a
i
r
s
an
d
ga
p
s
,
mo
s
t
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
s
ne
a
r
As
p
e
n
ar
e
to
o
bo
w
l
or
i
e
n
t
e
d
68
T
h
e
co
p
i
n
g
is
to
o
sm
a
l
l
an
d
em
b
e
d
d
e
d
in
th
e
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
69
H
i
r
e
Te
a
m
Pa
i
n
to
ma
k
e
it
be
t
t
e
r
70
M
o
r
e
ro
u
n
d
ra
i
l
s
71
I
t
'
s
fi
n
e
,
bu
t
mo
r
e
di
v
e
r
s
e
el
e
m
e
n
t
s
wo
u
l
d
be
ni
c
e
72
La
c
k
of
ci
r
c
l
e
ra
i
l
s
73
A
d
d
ci
r
c
l
e
ra
i
l
s
74
R
a
i
s
e
mo
s
t
ra
m
p
s
fr
o
m
fo
u
r
fe
e
t
to
fi
v
e
an
d
a ha
l
f
or
si
x
fe
e
t
.
Ra
i
s
e
th
e
co
p
i
n
g
al
o
n
g
al
l
de
c
k
s
.
Ch
a
n
g
e
th
e
fl
a
t
sq
u
a
r
e
ba
r
to
a fl
a
t
ro
u
n
d
ba
r
.
75
A
s
i
d
e
fr
o
m
th
e
Cl
o
v
e
r
Bo
w
l
,
th
e
pa
r
k
is
al
l
co
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
,
me
a
n
i
n
g
th
a
t
an
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
d
us
e
r
ca
n
ma
k
e
us
e
of
th
e
en
t
i
r
e
pa
r
k
at
on
e
ti
m
e
wi
t
h
va
r
i
o
u
s
li
n
e
s
,
bu
t
of
t
e
n
be
g
i
n
n
e
r
s
te
n
d
to
ut
i
l
i
z
e
a sm
a
l
l
po
r
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pa
r
k
A)
ne
v
e
r
al
l
o
w
i
n
g
th
o
s
e
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
d
an
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
B)
no
t
pa
y
i
n
g
at
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
to
th
e
fl
o
w
of
ot
h
e
r
us
e
r
s
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
in
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
in
j
u
r
i
e
s
.
Th
e
co
p
i
n
g
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
mo
s
t
of
th
e
pa
r
k
is
fl
u
s
h
wi
t
h
th
e
de
c
k
ma
k
i
n
g
gr
i
n
d
i
n
g
fo
r
an
y
de
c
e
n
t
le
n
g
t
h
al
m
o
s
t
im
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
,
un
l
e
s
s
yo
u
ac
t
u
a
l
l
y
ro
l
l
al
o
n
g
th
e
de
c
k
wi
t
h
tw
o
of
th
e
fo
u
r
wh
e
e
l
s
on
a sk
a
t
e
b
o
a
r
d
.
Th
e
'l
a
u
n
c
h
bo
x
'
is
in
c
r
e
d
i
b
l
y
di
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
to
ge
t
sp
e
e
d
fo
r
.
76
No
t
en
o
u
g
h
me
d
i
u
m
to
la
r
g
e
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
77
Ex
p
a
n
d
th
e
pa
r
k
to
th
e
ba
l
l
co
u
r
t
an
d
ad
d
st
r
e
e
t
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
an
d
ha
n
d
r
a
i
l
s
.
78
S
k
a
t
e
ca
m
p
s
.
Th
e
y
ar
e
th
e
r
e
co
n
s
t
a
n
t
l
y
du
r
i
n
g
th
e
su
m
m
e
r
an
d
ma
n
y
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
vi
s
i
t
o
r
s
& us
e
r
s
av
o
i
d
it
du
e
to
th
e
la
c
k
of
ab
i
l
i
t
y
to
en
j
o
y
th
e
pa
r
k
.
79
K
e
e
p
Sk
a
t
e
ca
m
p
s
/
l
e
s
s
o
n
s
to
be
f
o
r
e
no
o
n
or
1p
m
80
A
d
d
a st
r
e
e
t
se
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
ra
i
l
s
an
d
le
d
g
e
s
81
Ne
e
d
s
mo
r
e
st
u
f
f
ou
t
s
i
d
e
bo
w
l
te
r
r
a
i
n
.
A st
r
e
e
t
se
c
t
i
o
n
is
id
e
a
l
.
Lo
o
k
at
wh
a
t
Ca
r
b
o
n
d
a
l
e
di
d
bu
t
ma
k
e
it
be
t
t
e
r
wi
t
h
mo
r
e
ra
i
l
s
an
d
le
d
g
e
s
82
S
m
a
l
l
,
li
m
i
t
e
d
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
,
ou
t
d
a
t
e
d
cl
o
v
e
r
bo
w
l
,
la
c
k
of
st
r
e
e
t
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
‐
Ad
d
a st
r
e
e
t
se
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pl
e
n
t
y
of
ro
u
n
d
ha
n
d
ra
i
l
s
83
C
r
o
w
d
s
ar
e
an
is
s
u
e
at
ce
r
t
a
i
n
ti
m
e
s
of
th
e
da
y
.
84
Ad
d
mo
r
e
te
r
r
a
i
n
to
re
f
l
e
c
t
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
at
ne
w
e
r
mo
r
e
mo
d
e
r
n
sk
a
t
e
pa
r
k
s
.
85
N
O
.
Th
e
r
e
is
pl
e
n
t
y
of
te
r
r
a
i
n
fo
r
bi
k
e
r
s
to
me
s
s
ar
o
u
n
d
on
.
Th
e
ru
l
e
is
en
j
o
y
e
d
by
ev
e
r
y
o
n
e
an
d
sh
o
u
l
d
re
m
a
i
n
th
e
sa
m
e
.
NO
BI
K
E
R
S
as
th
e
y
de
s
t
r
o
y
te
r
r
a
i
n
wi
t
h
pe
g
s
.
86
I wo
u
l
d
sc
r
a
p
th
e
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
co
u
r
t
.
Ge
t
ri
d
of
th
e
Cl
o
v
e
r
Bo
w
l
.
Bu
i
l
d
an
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
g
co
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
mi
n
i
bo
w
l
an
d
th
e
ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
co
u
r
t
th
a
t
ut
i
l
i
z
e
s
th
e
na
t
u
r
a
l
sl
a
n
t
/
g
r
a
d
e
.
Ro
u
n
d
do
w
n
ra
i
l
s
,
mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
le
v
e
l
s
,
th
e
ab
i
l
i
t
y
to
co
n
n
e
c
t
li
n
e
s
an
d
no
t
ha
v
e
to
sk
a
t
e
on
e
th
i
n
g
at
a ti
m
e
.
Th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pa
r
k
is
bo
r
i
n
g
an
d
ge
t
s
ol
d
qu
i
c
k
l
y
.
Ne
w
,
cr
e
a
t
i
v
e
,
op
e
n
,
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
th
a
t
ut
i
l
i
z
e
th
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
te
r
r
a
i
n
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
.
P80
VI.A.
P
8
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
8
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
8
3
V
I
.
A
.
P
8
4
V
I
.
A
.
P
8
5
V
I
.
A
.
P
8
6
V
I
.
A
.
P
8
7
V
I
.
A
.
P
8
8
V
I
.
A
.
P
8
9
V
I
.
A
.
P
9
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
9
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
9
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
9
3
V
I
.
A
.
P
9
4
V
I
.
A
.
P
9
5
V
I
.
A
.
P
9
6
V
I
.
A
.
P
9
7
V
I
.
A
.
P
9
8
V
I
.
A
.
P
9
9
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
3
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
4
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
5
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
6
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
7
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
8
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
0
9
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
3
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
4
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
5
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
6
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
7
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
8
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
1
9
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
2
0
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
2
1
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
2
2
V
I
.
A
.
P
1
2
3
V
I
.
A
.
P124
VI.A.
P125
VI.A.
P126
VI.A.
P127
VI.A.
P128
VI.A.
P129
VI.A.
P130
VI.A.
P131
VI.A.