The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.worksession.20160829 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 29, 2016 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Land Use Code Revisions P1 8.29.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 1 of 12 Memorandum To: Mayor Skadron and City Council From: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Reilly Thimons, Planner Tech Meeting Date: August 29, 2016, 4:00 PM RE: AACP Land Use Code Revisions Update REQUEST OF COUNCIL: As part of the work to coordinate the Land Use Code (LUC) with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), Council is asked to review the work completed to date and provide feedback on the following study areas: Commercial Design Standards (CDS), use mix, off-street parking and View Planes. As the public outreach process winds down and the planning staff and project consultants begin to draft revised language on each of the topics, staff asks Council to provide specific direction to ensure subsequent policy and regulatory proposals accurately reflect the input of the community and vision of the City Council. Consultants for each of the AACP Land Use Code topics will be at the work session to present initial findings and feedback, and to gain additional policy direction from City Council on the topics. The work session is anticipated to be broken into the following timeline: • 4:00pm – 5:15pm – Introduction and discussion of Commercial Design Standards • 5:15pm – 6:15pm – Discussion of Commercial Use Mix • 6:15pm – 7:15pm – Discussion of Off-Street Parking • 7:15pm – 7:45pm – Dinner Break • 7:45pm – 8:15pm – Discussion of Residential Use Mix and Growth Management Implications • 8:15pm – 8:45pm – Discussion of View Planes • 8:45pm – 9:00pm – Wrap Up An essential element of this next phase of the AACP-LUC coordination process is identifying priorities and addressing areas where compromises and trade-offs must be made between competing strategies and tactics for achieving the goals of the coordination process. To that end, the over-arching goal of this work session is to focus discussion on those areas and ensure the analysis and drafting process is efficient and yields successful recommendations. BACKGROUND: Since March, 2016, the Planning staff has worked with technical stakeholders, members of the public and consultants to conduct extensive public outreach processes, research and analysis to gauge community sentiment and industry best practices for the AACP topic areas. The goal is to devise targeted and innovative policy and regulatory amendments to the LUC that result in development in Aspen’s commercial areas which better reflects the vision provided in the AACP. P2 I. 8.29.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 2 of 12 As fall approaches, that process is transitioning from one focused on public outreach and research to one focused on analysis of the robust data gathered to date and drafting of preliminary findings, recommendations and amended policy and regulatory language. Staff has compiled qualitative and quantitative data from the various public outreach efforts conducted over the course of the summer. Those reports are included as exhibits to this memo. The trends, themes and specific findings are being used by the project consultants and staff to develop draft policy and regulatory amendment language. That draft language will be refined through September and an initial policy resolution is expected to be ready for Council discussion on October 10th. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS: Work on this topic supports a number of statements and policy directions outlined in the AACP, including: Vision: We want to ensure that the City Land Use Code results in development that reflects our architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and a diversity of heights. This will help create certainty in land development, prioritize maintaining our mountain views, and protect our small town community character and historical heritage. Philosophy: Preservation of historic structures and sites, the historic town layout, landscapes, and neighborhood ditches connect us to the people, patterns and events that are the fabric of our town. In preserving our history, we ensure our culture and legacy is imparted to future generations. Policy: Development should “…reflect our architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and diversity of heights…” (Growth Management Policy V.3) The week of July 18 was “Commercial Design Week” for this effort, which included an educational work session, walking tours of Aspen’s commercial areas, and small group focus meetings with several design and development professionals and members of the community. These efforts, in addition to on- going public outreach, provided the consultant team with valuable feedback (attached in Exhibit A) that has informed the proposed changes to the Commercial Design Standards. Below is a list of the major proposed changes. Council is asked to provide feedback on these potential changes. Overall design approach – Staff believes that it is important to have an overall approach to the Design Guidelines that will help inform decisions and better relate the Character Areas to each other by providing appropriate transitions in development. Using feedback from the small groups, staff and the consultants are recommending that the strictest design requirements fall in the Commercial Core, and that more flexibility begin to occur the further out from the Core as those areas transition to a more residential character. The strict Core requirements would reinforce 19th century historic context and development patterns and maintain the historic look and feel of the historic district. Flexibility in standards such as building placement, public amenity placement and architectural features would allow buildings outside of the Core to respond to the surrounding context and reflect a more contemporary built environment. Residential design features such as balconies and pitched roofs would become more prominent in the mixed-use zones surrounding the Core, reflecting the presence of residential uses in some buildings. P3 I. 8.29.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 3 of 12 Commercial Core/Commercial Area updates – The general feedback on the Commercial Core is that it should reinforce historic, 19th century traditional architecture with commercial uses, textured buildings, and some open spaces. The proposed updates to this Character Area are to refine and tighten the existing guidelines while promoting options for Public Amenity that continue to define the street edge. The general feedback on the Commercial Area is that it should be more commercial than residential, there should be more flexible/variety of architecture, and it should be walkable with a variety of open spaces. The proposed updates to this Character Area are to make it an extension of the Commercial Core, but provide more flexibility in architecture with traditional elements, and to create more walkability and improved open spaces. Divide Main Street into two sections – Half of the buildings on Main Street are Victorian era structures built for residential use. HPC has recently adopted new guidelines that apply to residentially zoned sites and staff believes that these guidelines are also appropriate for use on the Victorian era properties on Main Street since they establish parameters for preserving these important historic resources, and adding on to them in a compatible manner. The new HPC guidelines also provide direction for the character of new buildings immediately adjacent to Victorian homes, so staff recommends they be used for this type of development on Main Street as well. The middle of the Main Street Historic District, from 3rd Street to Aspen Street, contains more lodge and commercial buildings, developed in the 60s and 70s, than Victorians. Staff recommends that new Commercial Design guidelines for these properties are appropriate. Revise the Character Area map – Based on existing character and the feedback provided in the small group meetings, several of the existing Character Area boundaries do not seem appropriate. For instance, the Sky Hotel is located in the “Commercial Character Area” despite being more closely aligned with development patterns in the “Mountain Base Character Area.” A graphic showing the proposed revisions is attached as Exhibit B. The revisions include changing some of the Character Area boundaries and renaming one of the Character Areas. Establish/revise Character Area themes – There are four Character Areas that were identified without clear or appropriate themes by the focus groups. These areas and the proposed themes are identified below: Neighborhood Mixed Use (formerly Central Mixed Use): more residential than Commercial Area, residential forms, more flexible, variety of open spaces mostly at street level Mountain Base: respond to topography, mix of architectural styles is good, connect to mountain, address remodels, open space on-site River Approach: flexible architecture, messy vitality, bohemian area, connect to river, connectivity between and through developments, open space on-site Small Lodge: charming, small scale, variety of design, integrate into neighborhood context, funky, green space P4 I. 8.29.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 4 of 12 Public Amenity: off-site/cash-in-lieu – Under the current code, a Public Amenity requirement may be met through a variety of options: on-site, off-site, cash-in-lieu, or a combination of these options. General feedback suggests that people continue to prefer a variety of options. Staff and the consultants recommend continuing to allow off-site and cash-in-lieu as options for Public Amenity, but possibly tightening the requirements to ensure meaningful spaces are created. Public Amenity: public accessibility – Under the current code, Public Amenity does not require public access. The proposed Public Amenity must simply meet a set of design criteria to qualify. The result of this can be spaces that are fenced in or located on an upper floor without clear separate access. Staff and the consultants recommend that meaningful spaces be required, rather than small landscaped spaces, as well as some level of clear public access to those spaces. This ensures that public amenity spaces fulfill their intended purpose of creating attractive, active spaces the public can enjoy, rather than merely providing manicured passive spaces. LINKAGES: The design of a building can have a strong influence on the type of uses that occupy the spaces. Guidelines that encourage certain design can in turn encourage certain uses. Certain design requirements can also affect what type of on-site parking options are available for a project. For example, if the guidelines require all parking to be concealed from view, then surface parking is no longer an option to satisfy on-site parking requirements. Or, if the guidelines require additional public amenity at grade, subgrade parking is more likely in order to maximize the useable at grade space for a building. In order to complete the draft of the Design Guidelines, priorities need to be set such as encouraging second tier commercial through design criteria. Direction from Council is needed on the other code amendment topics, particularly use mix and parking, in order to establish those priorities. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 1. Does Council agree with the overall Guideline strategy, particularly the direction for Commercial Core and Commercial Area? 2. Does Council support the revisions to the Character Area map and themes? 3. Should Public Amenity requirements be able to be met with off-site or cash-in-lieu? 4. Should Public Amenity always provide a publicly accessible space? USE MIX: Work on this topic supports a number of statements and policy directions outlined in the AACP, including: Vision: We are committed to achieving sustainable land use practices that support a healthy year-round community and a thriving, vibrant visitor based economy. Additionally, we believe that a strong and diverse year-round community and a viable and healthy local workforce are fundamental cornerstones for the sustainability of the Aspen Area community. Philosophy: The City and County growth management systems are effective tools that can help the community reach desired goals. Growth within a community needs to be like that of an individual, with the need to keep various functions balanced. P5 I. 8.29.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 5 of 12 Policy: “Identify opportunities to reduce the ‘boom-bust’ nature of the economy,” and “Encourage a commercial mix that is balanced, diverse and vital and meets the needs of year- round residents and visitors.” (Managing Growth Policies I.4 and V.1) During the August 9th work session, Council expressed interest in getting additional information on the following options: expand or modify the Neighborhood Commercial and Service/Commercial/Industrial zone boundaries, amendments to the zone use lists or dimensional standards, creation of a locally serving business district or overlay zone, modification of the commercial design standards, a GMQS scoring system, a legacy business program, and commercial replacement requirements for new or redevelopment. As with all of the other aspects of the moratorium coordination process, there are trade-offs between the various proposals for use mix. In an effort to discourage potentially detrimental uses and encourage appropriate uses, staff and the project consultants have identified three regulatory areas: zone district approaches, design and incentive approaches, and impact-oriented approaches. These three areas provide the framework for creating and preserving a more balanced use mix in Aspen’s commercial zones. Locally Serving Business Overlay: The strategies provided for in the zone district approaches include zone district boundary adjustments, use list amendments and the creation of a Locally Serving Business zone. The project consultants have identified a draft list of uses that may be appropriate for inclusion in a revised use table for the SCI and NC zones. Council will be provided the opportunity to discuss and further refine those lists in anticipation of including them in draft code amendments later in the fall. Executing targeted zoning based changes to the SCI and NC zones will set the terms and locations available for different types of uses and have the potential to spur the establishment of more desired uses and locally serving businesses. Additionally, the project consultants have begun developing a framework for a Locally Serving Business Overlay Zone, which will provide opportunity and incentivizes for desired uses to be established in targeted areas within the SCI and NC area. Commercial Design: The design and incentive approaches depend in large part on the outcome of the Commercial Design revision process. In particular, changes to the guidelines could drive the creation of second tier spaces, or the ‘nooks-and-crannies’, favored by Council by allowing for alley, basement and second floor commercial spaces. Council has expressed interest in using the guidelines to encourage new development to provide such spaces. Discussions with staff and the consultants regarding the commercial design amendments should focus on the relationship between design and the availability of second tier commercial spaces. Specific proposals for design-based approaches to promoting desirable uses include capping the floor area available within a building for high-end commercial, establishing ratios between locally serving business and high-end commercial spaces within a building and horizontal zoning which limits the uses permitted on a given floor within buildings. A Locally Serving Business Overlay Zone also presents opportunity to use design to promote desires uses. Allowing less restrictive dimensional standards or other development incentives for properties with the overlay may create compelling incentives for the development of properties and spaces geared toward more desirable uses. In analyzing the proposals in the draft Design Guidelines, the relationship to some of the design-based incentives for promoting balanced use mix should be considered. P6 I. 8.29.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 6 of 12 Legacy Business Program: A Legacy Business Program would provide an incentive through public subsidies for the preservation of businesses deemed important to the character or commercial market of a community. However, public subsidies ought to be applied with explicit criteria, which may be hard to define when it comes to identifying preferred businesses. Additionally, the benefits of preserving an existing use with subsidies may not be as effective as using similar public resources to provide opportunities for new desirable or locally serving businesses. Finally, there are currently no funding mechanisms for such a program. Commercial Replacement: Rather than focusing on uses, Commercial Replacement focuses on the availability of physical space needed for desirable uses. It would function similarly to the City’s affordable housing replacement requirement and ensure that as redevelopment occurs, it does not happen at the detriment of locally serving businesses. Given that Commercial Replacement depends in large part on redevelopment activities, the relationship between this strategy and Commercial Design is an important consideration for Council when considering priority outcomes from the moratorium process. Council is asked to provide direction on what combination of regulations and incentives is appropriate with regard to these policy proposals and details of how the policies should be structured. Pop-Up Retail: In addition to the policy direction provided by Council in the August 9th work session, staff received public input from the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission (CCLC) regarding short-term, or “pop-up”, retail sales and its impact on bricks-and-mortar retail businesses. Some members of the CCLC have expressed concern about pop-up retail, particularly those using hotel spaces to host retail events. Using hotel rooms for short-term retail is not permitted, but using hotel retail spaces is permitted. Other community members have expressed support for pop-up businesses as a way to create additional vitality in empty store-fronts. In an effort to respond to public input regarding this relatively new use type, Council may want to consider including language in the Use Mix amendments to provide specific regulations for pop-up retail uses. LINKAGES: It is noteworthy that, as with other elements of the AACP-LUC coordination process, the Commercial Design Standards have a direct relationship to the outcomes of the use mix inquiry. As has been noted previously, good commercial design will allow the market to provide the physical spaces needed for locally serving businesses and other desired uses. The question of which strategies to deploy to achieve Council’s use mix goals should be answered with the desired design elements in mind. The strategies and policy options outlined can be reduced to carrots (incentives) and sticks (regulations and exactions). The carrots, such as design guidelines and incentives, parking maximums and preservation of legacy businesses, are important tools for encouraging the commercial real estate market to provide for the needs and preferences of local consumers and daily needs of visitors. Often, encouraging desired land uses is an effective strategy for moving markets in the right direction. But sticks, such as commercial replacement and limitations or conditions on allowed uses, can be equally effective. An appropriate balance between the two approaches to creating the desired commercial mix is important to ensure that the commercial real estate market continues to evolve while shifting course toward the Council’s desired outcomes. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 5. Of the options analyzed above, which does Council support for inclusion in the draft code amendments for adoption under the moratorium? P7 I. 8.29.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 7 of 12 6. Should the approach to use mix include both carrots and sticks to achieve the desired outcomes? 7. Does Council wish to further explore a Legacy Business Program? OFF-STREET PARKING: Work on this topic supports a number of statements and policy directions outlined in the AACP, including: Vision: We are committed to providing an efficient, multi-modal and integrated transportation system that reduces congestion and air pollution. Our future should be one in which the automobile plays a smaller role in people’s everyday lives. Philosophy: Transportation is inextricably linked to land use issues. Decisions about development have a direct impact on our transportation system. New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be, served by transit, and should fully mitigate for its transportation impacts. Each user is motivated by different travel goals, therefore we should develop systems that encourage them to make the personal choice to use alternative modes of travel rather than rely on the automobile. Policy: “Use Transportation Demand Management (TDM) tools to accommodate additional person trips in the Aspen Area” and “Develop a strategic plan that manages the supply of parking and reduces the adverse impacts of the automobile.” (AACP Transportation Policies 1, 2, III.1, and V.1) Following the June 21st Council work session, the Nelson Nygaard team, in conjunction with city staff, conducted intercept surveys and occupancy counts of several locations across town to better understand usage rates and patterns of off-street parking across lodges, public facilities, affordable housing developments, and shopping centers. These sites were specifically chosen based upon their inclusion in the original Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) study, while others were added to ensure robust data collection. Table 1, below outlines the inventory. The surveys were conducted during the week of June 20th. Table 1, Off-Street Parking Study Analysis Location Use Parking Space Inventory Total Spaces Available Peak Utilization Thursday Saturday* Limelight (TIA) Lodge 49 47 68% 30-35% Benedict Commons Affordable Housing 59 55 55-60% 55-60% Sky Hotel Lodging 42 33 91% 65-70% Chateau Dumont (TIA) Lodging 11 11 64% 60-65% North Star (132 W Main) (TIA) Commercial Office 15 15 73% 5-10% City Market Retail 28 28 96% 100% P8 I. 8.29.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 8 of 12 St Regis Lodging 202 130 77% 45-50% Alpine Bank Commercial 18 18 72% 50% Red Brick (TIA) Public 31 31 N/A 26% *Saturday percentages are based upon data provided from Nelson Nygaard Based upon their outreach and data collection, Nelson Nygaard and ReGeneration Strategies have delivered four draft technical memos focusing on current off-street parking supply levels and utilization rates, input from technical stakeholder meetings, peer review case studies, and an economic analysis of parking costs in Aspen. Key findings are the following: • Technical Memo #1 - Parking supply levels and utilization: Several sites are using a portion of their parking inventory for other uses such as storage, implying an excess of off-street parking. (Exhibit C) • Technical Memo #2 - Technical Stakeholder Input: The current system creates off-street parking that can be costly to develop and inefficient in terms of site constraints. (Exhibit D) • Technical Memo #3 - Peer Review – Review of peer cities and mountain resort communities’ mitigation strategies to inform recommendations to City of Aspen. (Exhibit E) • Technical Memo #4 – Financial Analysis: Research into off-street parking development costs relative to commercial development and land use regulations. (Exhibit F & G) Nelson Nygaard have proposed different potential options and will be asking Council for direction on desired changes. Several of the options expand upon Aspen’s existing off-street parking mitigation structure and respond to objectives described in the Aspen Area Community Plan. Nelson Nygaard have presented this information in a SWOT format, which highlights the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of each potential code option. The options are outlined in more detail in Exhibit H. Add Parking Maximums: Parking Maximums can take the form of hard or soft caps. Options include: • Add a “soft” maximum on private parking, linked to a fee on “excess” spaces, to fund TDM. In this option, a maximum number of parking spaces is listed, and if an owner or developer wished to provide parking above that level an associated fee would be implemented. Money collected from the fee would be used to fund TDM tools and programs. • Add a “hard” cap if supply-reduction is top priority. In this option an absolute maximum number of parking spaces would be incorporated into the code and an owner or developer could not exceed that number. Require Offsets: Ensure that any trips generated by a project are offset by TIA-based or in-lieu-fee (ILF) -funded improvements to relevant pedestrian, bike, and transit networks. In this option, the TIA would be updated to integrate parking requirements. Fund a Parking, Mobility, and TDM Program: This option would begin transitiong the discussion from accommodating the car to accommodating mobility. Options include: • Capture ILF and TIA fee revenue to reinvigorate a Municipal Parking system, complemented by Mobility and TDM programs. • Add TDM strategies that promote the benefits of “car free” stays in Aspen, and the many options for getting around without a rented or personal car. In this option, additional use-specific TDM P9 I. 8.29.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 9 of 12 strategies would be added to the TIA requirements to encourage visitors to leave their cars at home when visiting. • A municipal parking, mobility, and TDM program could directly influence daily travel, through pricing (no daily or monthly discounts), information (Ann Arbor’s parking-funded getDowntown program) and incentives (parking revenue > transit-pass program). Keep TIA Iterative: Update the TIA to maintain its effectiveness as transportation/mobility opportunities and challenges evolve. This would include emphasizing fees for shared solutions, rather than proscriptive, on-site amenities, can provide more flexibility in responding to changes. Expand ILF Possibilities: Re-invest in the ILF program, with a particular focus on funding sustainable- growth amenities like car-share, bike-share, transit, and walking and biking network improvements and expansions. Limit Private Parking: This option would limit the general availability of private parking. Options include: • Incentivize the provision of shared parking, particularly among projects offering suitable site conditions for public parking. • Promote shared/public access to existing, private parking facilities, to make better use of these spaces and reduce incentives for new projects to provide their own parking. LINKAGES: Current off-street parking requirements promote on-site mitigation for new development which directly impacts height, massing, and commercial design outcomes. Due to high land costs and limited development yield, mitigating for off-street parking on-site, displaces valuable space that could be utilized for more locally serving community purposes such as affordable housing, lodging, restaurants, and retail, effectively creating missed opportunities for more vibrant use mix in the infill area. Additionally, ReGeneration Strategies has provided research linking the relatively high development costs of off-street parking to inefficient on-site parking layouts, undesirable locations, and high subsidization of both private and public off-street parking. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 8. Does Council support the addition of a ‘soft’ parking maximum? 9. Does Council support directing in-lieu-fees to specific TDM strategies or programs? 10. Should private parking be limited in order to incentivize shared/public access to parking facilities? 11. Should current private off-street parking infrastructure be re-evaluated for shared parking? 12. Should the TIA be updated to reflect a stronger emphasis on flexibility in responding to policy changes? RESIDENTIAL USES AND GROWTH MANAGMENT: Work on this topic supports a number of statements and policy directions outlined in the AACP, including: Vision: We are committed to achieving sustainable land use practices that support a healthy year-round community and a thriving, vibrant visitor based economy. Additionally, we believe P10 I. 8.29.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 10 of 12 that a strong and diverse year-round community and a viable and healthy local workforce are fundamental cornerstones for the sustainability of the Aspen Area community. Philosophy: The City and County growth management systems are effective tools that can help the community reach desired goals. Growth within a community needs to be like that of an individual, with the need to keep various functions balanced. Policy: “Ensure that new development and redevelopment mitigates all reasonable, directly- related impacts.” (AACP Managing Growth Policy VII) Free-Market Residential: Following the August 9th work session discussion of residential use issues, where Council directed staff to continue analyzing the potential for certain use restrictions for residential uses in mixed-use buildings, staff and the consultants continue to refine the amendments which may be needed regarding residential uses. Council’s initial direction was to prohibit new free-market residential uses from the NC and SCI zone districts and explore the potential for an occupancy restriction on any new “free-market” residential unit located in the MU zone district. In addition, Council generally supported allowing affordable housing residential in commercial zones to create some vitality downtown. As stated in that work session, additional community outreach is needed on this topic and will be gathered prior to any proposed code amendments. Mitigation for Existing Spaces: Council has requested examination of the possibility to require affordable housing mitigation for existing commercial spaces that did not originally provide such mitigation because they were constructed prior to the implementation of such requirements. This is being analyzed by Mark White in conjunction with the City Attorney and information will be brought forward in an upcoming work session. Growth Management Changes: At this point, staff is interested to hear from Council if there is a desire for any other potential changes to the Growth Management Chapter. One issue that has been raised is the potential to increase the required commercial and lodge mitigation above the current 60% level, as well as address mitigation rates for Essential Public Facilities. These would be an expansion of the existing scope of work and may require additional funding or time to complete. Before staff or the consultant teams move forward on any work, Council needs to provide direction. LINKAGES: Like other aspects of the AACP-LUC coordination process, the outcomes of the CDS and use mix inquiries are directly related to the residential approach favored by Council. Banning free market residential downtown but allowing residence-occupied units would need to be reflected in design guidelines which allow for such residential uses to be developed. Discussion of these issues should be in the context of the relationship between the various issues and a balancing of Council’s goals for Aspen’s commercial and mixed use areas. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 15. Does Council continue to support the August 9th direction regarding residential use mix? 16. Does Council wish to expand the scope of work to include amendments to commercial, lodging, or essential public facility mitigation rates? VIEW PLANES: P11 I. 8.29.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 11 of 12 Work on this topic supports a number of statements and policy directions outlined in the AACP, including: Vision: The density, size and scale of new all development and redevelopment should maintain and, if possible, enhance the views of the natural environment. Preserving the natural environment, scenic views and biodiversity are important to our attractiveness as a community and a resort. Philosophy: Scenic views of the natural environment, easy access to public lands and a range of recreational opportunities are among our greatest assets and the reasons many people choose to visitor make the Aspen Area their home. Policy: Zoning and land use processes should result in commercial and lodging development that is “compatible and appropriate within the context of the neighborhood” and that “reflects our architectural heritage.” We should “Create certainty in zoning and the land use process.” (AACP Managing Growth Policies IV.4, V.3, and VIII.2) The scope of the project will include analysis of View Plane regulations in other communities, analysis of the existing View Plane regulatory language, consultation with stakeholders whom interact with the View Plane regulations, surveys and visual representations of the existing View Planes, analysis of their impact on specific properties’ redevelopment potential and the drafting of revised regulatory language based on Council direction. The funds for the View Plane project will be redirected from that portion of the Community Development budget originally earmarked for revisions to the Stream Margin Review standards in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas chapter of the LUC and will be added to the existing contracts with Mark White and Rowland + Broughton. Council is asked to provide initial direction regarding the goals and intent of the View Plane amendment process. For instance, does Council believe the revised View Plane regulations should address foreground and background buildings differently? Should a new View Plane be added? Once the over- all goals and direction have been established, staff and the consultants will commence with the analysis and depictions of the existing regulations through the fall. Following this initial analysis, staff will check-in with Council about findings and draft proposals before bringing proposed View Plane amendments to Council in early 2016 prior to the expiration of the moratorium. LINKAGES: The impact of View Plane preservation regulations on commercial development in and around the commercial core is dramatic. The Popcorn Wagon, which falls within the Wheeler Opera Housing View Plane is an example of the effect that View Planes have on commercial design. Depending on where a View Plane falls on an existing lot, it can limit the height, massing or orientation of a building. Understanding the proposals in the revised Commercial Design Standards will inform how the View Plane code amendments ought to be written so the two work in concert. The relationship between View Planes and the CDS also have a linage to commercial use mix and parking, insofar as the design of a building, the available and suitability of commercial spaces within the building and the leasable square footage needed to make it financial viable all depend on the over-all design. These linkages will be taken into account in the View Plane amendment process. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: P12 I. 8.29.16 Council Work Session AACP-LUC Coordination Process Update Page 12 of 12 17. Does Council support the proposed scope of work and project timeline for amendments to the View Plane regulations? 18. What does Council view as the goals for view planes? Some questions to consider: a. Are they intended to protect a view from a specific location or to protect general views of the mountain? b. Is looking back at the buildings where view planes originate also important? c. Are view planes intended to protect the foreground (i.e. immediately across the street) as well as the background (i.e. development further away that might not be seen from the view plan origination point)? NEXT STEPS: Barring any changes to the scope of work or process, staff is on track to complete the coordination process as scheduled. Prior to presenting drafts of the Commercial Design Guidelines and LUC amendment language, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) will review the materials that fall within their purview. Vetting code amendments and guideline revisions with Boards and Commissions prior to presenting draft materials to Council is standard procedure, and it ensures that the drafts presented to Council reflect the perspective and expertise of the Board and Commission members. This phased approach also ensures that the work of staff and the consultants has been reviewed and blessed by the practitioners of the LUC and Commercial Design Guidelines. Between now and the October 10th Policy Resolution date, there are a number of important dates. On August 30th the Planning staff, along with the consultant teams, will hold meeting in the Rio Grande room to present draft materials and solicit feedback from stakeholders and members of the public, including Boards and Commission, the design community, business owners and other stakeholders from the community. A public open house is scheduled for 5-7pm. Following the public meeting, staff and the consultants will digest the input received and work with the consultants to prepare revised drafts for the work sessions scheduled for September 13th and 19th. In addition, staff is planning a second large community meeting day in late September or early October to enable public comment on the work prior to Public Hearings. The Policy Resolution target date of October 10th is important for the timing of the rest of the coordination process. Hitting that target allows for revisions to draft amendments and the first and second reading of ordinances in the fall and into the winter. Because of the complexity of the work, staff anticipates a number of final Ordinances to cover each topic, much like was done during the 2006 moratorium. Mark White’s team will work with staff to ensure all amendments are coordinated and internally consistent. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Commercial Design Outreach Data Report Exhibit B – Draft Commercial Character Area Maps Exhibit C – Draft Parking Technical Memo #1 – Parking and Travel Conditions Exhibit D – Draft Parking Technical Memo #2 – Development Stakeholders Input Report Exhibit E – Draft Parking Technical Memo #3 – Peer Cities Review Exhibit F – Draft Parking Technical Memo #4 – Financial Analysis Exhibit G – Draft Parking Technical Memo #4 Appendix Exhibit H – Draft Parking Policy Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Table P13 I. Commercial Design Standards Master Data Sheet August 17 2016 Community outreach data collected through surveys, pop up events, workshops, small group meetings, and online resources P14 I. 1 | P a g e Navigating this document: Headings for each section mirror the questions aske d of the public or provide summaries of activity instructions. Text, charts, a nd graphs within each section reflect the public’s answers and responses. What is your favorite building or space in Aspen? Why is it your favorite? Open Spaces/ Parks • The Meadows. • Rio Grande Park. • Freddy Fischer Park. Red Butte Park and Trail. Anderson Park. • I love the mall; it’s the prettiest time of the year! • Aspen Golf Course and Hunter Creek Trails. • John Denver Park, it’s beautiful. • Aspen Mountain. • Aspen Mountain. • Aspen Institute. • Wagner Park and Cobble stone area! • John Denver Sanctuary. • Rio Grande. • The mall in the winter after a snow. The fountain. • Maroon bells trails. Jackpot in Aspen Mountain - peak moments in life. • I enjoy people watching by the fountain or hiking up aspen mountain for solitude. • Walking Malls. • Walking malls, nice community feel. P15 I. 2 | P a g e • John Denver Park. • Hunter Creek. • I love all of Aspen and my family loves the Rio Grande trail. • All of it, walking malls. • Ruby Park. • The Rio Grande River. • Ski Mountains. • Architecture is gorgeous, walkability, cobblestone. • Ute Trail. • Any of the parks. • Malls, hunter creek - for hiking, Aspen Mountain. • John Denver Park. • Rio Grande. • Skate Park. • Glory Hole Park. • Snyder Park. • John Denver Park. • John Denver Sanctuary. • Walking malls. • John Denver Sanctuary. • Trail by river behind grocery store. • Rio Park. • Anywhere downtown. P16 I. 3 | P a g e • Between music tent and Institute- the mounds. • Music tent. • On space, the parks and trails. • John Denver. • Maroon Bells/Bike trails. • Maroon bells, the hike was beautiful this morning. • I really enjoy the walking mall and downtown in general/ I like to hike Smuggler Mountain. • Skate Park. • Skate Park • Maroon Bells. • I like all of Aspen. • Downtown area with all of the shops. • Aspen Mountain, hiking. • They are all the best. Highlands bowl is my favorite hike. • Aspen Mountain, Highlands and the bike trails. • Wagner Park - Feels inviting and always nice to have central open space. • Looking forward to seeing Maroon bells mountain. I'm here for food and wine. • Hyman Mall - pretty, active and well utilized. • Walking Mall - Energy and activity. • Wagner park and pedestrian mall Aspen Rec center. • Ones that are fun and accessible and have locals. The mall space. I don't love buildings themselves. I love the few rooftop options we have. P17 I. 4 | P a g e Modern • Art Museum. • Massing of Art Museum and that other building is annoying. • Aspen Art Museum because I like their coffee and food. • Aspen Art museum, I love the architecture its free, always changing, inspiring • Art Museum. Divisive in the group Love/Hate. • Hate art museum and new building next door. • The Art Museum. I think it is beautiful, inside and out and benefits the community, particularly because of the free entry. The roof deck is a great community asset. Public access to this kind of amenity is a good thing. • Aspen Art Museum. Historic • Jerome. • Choenhoven. • Elks Building. • The lodge on Mountain Chalet. • The Jerome. All of them! • The Mall, Cobblestone Park. • Like look of downtown Victorians like Galena one-way. Elk lodge. • Elks building, Just old school Aspen! • Independence Square. • Hotel Jerome. • Ute Building. P18 I. 5 | P a g e • Older buildings - Wheeler, Jerome. • Jerome. • Opera House, Wheeler House, Jerome. Used to be a B+B on Main St. All of the private homes. • Sardy House- mix of modern and traditional is at times overdone. • On buildings; The Elks, Independence Square, Andre's, Aspen Block, Brand Building. Those building with the mass scale and design reflect historic Aspen. • Elks and Independence Square and Brand Building. Old Aspen look- wished historical group would not insist on glass buildings- that's destroying the "old-Aspen look". • Elks. • Independence Square • Independence Building and Square. • Independence Square Building because I work here, nice central location • Outside Independence Square. • Independence Square. • Wheeler Building. • Ute Building! It is one of the 1st images of Aspen that I saw as a kid (Ute Building on left, looking down the street towards Ajax). Iconic to me. • Jerome Hotel. • The Skier's Chalet, because it is an historic place in ski bum culture and a funky piece of Aspen's lodge architecture. • Courthouse, Classic Brick History. • The Crystal Palace building - it is the whole reason I was able to grow up here. My dad was fortunate enough to get a job as a performer at the Crystal Palace, which led to the family moving up here. Not too many months later I was born at Aspen Valley Hospital. I grew up going to the Palace and I have a lot of fond memories there. And I know many P19 I. 6 | P a g e feel the same way. It's definitely iconic in the Aspen community. I hope that the future developer of the building doesn't change too much that the building becomes unrecognizable. To me that building is truly historical, on par with the Wheeler and the Jerome, so I hope that is kept in mind during the hotel development. • Wheeler, Jerome, Ute City Bank building. Anything old and authentic. There is no good new construction. • Outside of hotels, the Wheeler is perhaps our true community gem with regards to aesthetic appeal and community use. • In terms of both aesthetic appeal AND buildings whose uses I feel attracted to, they're mostly hotels: the Jerome, of course. • The Mountain Chalet in its own funky way is really quite special. Other • City Market. • The Library. • Jour De Fete - gathering space • Gondola Plaza. • The Nell. • St. Regis. • Spring Building. Simple architecture, great outdoor seating, modest. • Casa Tua. • Limelight. • The bar Kosh Kosh. Both, if you want to have world class restaurants you need staff and service. Must cater to everyone. • Library. • 525 E cooper Salon. P20 I. 7 | P a g e • Paradise Bakery. • Elks Club. • Ice rink- Garden and Arc. • Victoria's and Peaches - the outdoor spaces promote socializing and conversation • Highlands Village. • All of Aspen, I love it. • Paradise bakery is nice. More consistent building materials in new construction. Less modern. Would like more overhangs and sunshade downtown • Hotel Lenado. • Big Wrap. • Library. • Volk Building. • Paradise Bakery. • New York Pizza. • New York Pizza. • Limelight Hotel - Comfortable and engaging. • Sky Hotel - Fun and approachable. • Aspen Public Library. The library was a great space before. Now it's incredible. So much light, smartly redesigned. It may now be our greatest shared indoor space in Aspen. Mix of uses is great. Lots of seating. I like that the seating is more out in the open--less inviting for people who want to sleep. Magazine room is great. Just A-plus all around. • The St. Regis is a beautiful building that the public can interact with • But also the Limelight, which though it doesn't have the historic patina of the Jerome does have a very inviting and community-focused interior P21 I. 8 | P a g e Not sure • No favorite building. • First time here so no. Maybe, cookie shop? • No place in particular. • Nothing in particular. • First time here so I don't really know yet-Paradise Bakery. • Used to come quite a bit in the 80's. First time I've been back in 20 years. A lot has changed. • None. • Everything is beautiful. • I'm not too familiar with the area. • First time visitor. Online Map Exercise Tag your favorite building or space in Aspen: • City Hall x 3 • The Skier’s Chalet • Aspen Art Museum x 2 • Wheeler • Wagner Park • Crandall Building • Love the Old Red Onion • John Denver Memorial P22 I. 9 | P a g e I think there should be a variety of architectural styles in Aspen: Agree 34 Neutral 9 Disagree 7 I Don’t Know 0 Total Responses 50 What building do you think best represents Aspen? Old • Elks Building. It serves a variety of uses, from retail, office, night club, community organization. Historic building that is both beautiful and functional. • Classic Mountain homes NOT completely Modern. If there is a little modern flare it could be goof if done tastefully NOT the oh you must be able to distinguish additions from the original home should blend together and appear it was always like that. • Elks Building as its remained original • Elks Building. It is tall, brick, and pleasing aesthetics. Most of the buildings from the 60s/70s should be torn down - they look old and dated, aside from their lack of functionality. Most buildings just look like no one wants to spend money. • Hotel Jerome • Hotel Jerome • Courthouse • Red Onion • Hotel Jerome • Sardy House • My house, I don't really think about it • Hotel Jerome • The Wheeler and the Courthouse P23 I. 10 | P a g e • Wheeler Opera House, Hotel Jerome • Not the ugly art museum, West End Victorians • Wheeler • Elks Building • Hotel Jerome, classical look • The Courthouse • Old brick buildings • Wheeler and Community Church • Buildings with wood, steel (Elks Building) • The Elks Building • Victorian, Houses North of Main St. (West end) • Ute City Building • Jerome • Wheeler • Wheeler, Courthouse, Jerome • Wheeler Opera House New • Park Pavilion • Johnny McGuire’s • Wagner Park- fun place and safe place for kids to play. Fountain • I believe variety is the best approach. Buildings need to fit their locations. Modern and historic. Things need to change to reflect modern values while also nodding to history. • Aspen Art Museum - love what it brought to our community! P24 I. 11 | P a g e • St. Regis • Aspen Art Museum Mix of old and new • Wheeler, Building with Ute Mountaineer, Jerome, Conner Cabins, Crandall Building, Historical Society, Aspen Institute Campus, Berko Photo Studio WHY: They embody the history and personalities of Aspen through the years. • I'm new to the area, so I don't know Aspen for all of its "old town" charm but I love the variety of architecture. I am not at all opposed to the new art museum; in fact it's one of my favorite buildings. I love the Wheeler building as well. • The Wheeler and the Art Museum. They represent the past and the future an embrace of the arts and a place for people to gather. • There is no one building. It's just the effect of an eclectic and attractive hodgepodge. Our community character is not dictated by building architecture. • The old brick along with the new modern. • Ute building and all the other red brick structures. Although I do love the new art museum and the new building next to that. I don't want to see a bunch of apartment complex going up or discount shops. I love Aspen the way it is. • Iconic buildings - Wheeler, Courthouse, Independence Square, Ute City. But new Gap building fits in - good colors (was worried at first) good scale • I actually like the old school Aspen architecture but appreciate certain modern buildings. I actually like the Art Museum but I do not like the building that houses Theory - it looks like it belongs on Madison Ave in NYC • Jerome and Matsu building. Not too much brick. Not overly modern like the art building. • Court House - History. The mountains of course • Most downtown buildings, all are so centrally located and offer a great family friendly environment. The surrounding parks and water park make it easy for everyone to enjoy while maintaining Aspen's History. • All of them. Diversity in building makes us better P25 I. 12 | P a g e Transcribed post it notes: What is your favorite building or space in the City of Aspen? Blue Trim at Hyman and Galena Wheeler or Brand Building I love all the old buildings here. They make Aspen Aspen Rio Grande Park Elks Building Downtown Victorians Ellie Brickham building on Hyman and Hunter. Simple, clean lines, open spaces and decks Tour de Fete- Gathering space St. Regis Massing of art museum and that other buildings is annoying City Hall Aspen community church Choenhoven Skate Park Ute City The Art Museum. A free and wonderful space for the public. Mother earth was the one forgotten. Hiking up Aspen Mountain Pedestrian Mall, water fountain Hotel Lenado (now) Aspen Art Museum Aspen meadow is quite the opposite of anarchy :) St. Regis The trees in the mall, they provide good shade The Jerome “What do you think has the biggest impact on the look and feel of Aspen’s downtown commercial areas?” (Rank 1-7, where 1 is the largest impact and 7 is the smallest impact) The following table is based on 28 responses. The table shows how many times a topic was related to each value (1-7). For instance, 11 people selected building height as the most impactful (represented with the value ‘1’), while 10 people ranked it as the second most impactful and so forth. To determine the ‘Total’ we used the following formula: Total Impact =(x*1) +(x*2) +(x*3) +(x*4) +(x*5) +(x*6) +(x*7) where ‘x’ represents the total number of times a topic was related to that value. If we look at ‘Building Height’ as an example, the equation would read: (11*1)+(10*2)+(4*3)+(1*4)+(1*5)+(0*6)+(1*7) = 59 P26 I. 13 | P a g e As a result the topic with the smallest ‘Total’ value was suggested, by participants, to have the largest impact on Aspen. Topic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Building Height 11 10 4 1 1 0 1 59 Arch. &Design 5 6 11 5 1 0 0 75 Building Mass 7 7 4 6 1 2 1 81 Public Spaces 1 3 4 5 10 3 2 121 Uses within the building 3 2 4 4 4 3 8 129 Signage & lighting 1 1 1 4 4 11 6 150 Off-street parking 0 2 2 3 5 7 9 152 Note: There were two survey respondents who skipped this question. Additionally, there were two participants who strayed from the directions provided. One participant placed an ‘X’ under building height, building mass, and architecture and design. The other participant recorded building height, building mass and off-street parking sharing the value ‘1’. Similarly signage and lighting as well as public spaces were both ranked ‘5’ while Architecture and Design was ranked ‘6’. The other categories were skipped/left unranked. I believe the size of residential units in commercial buildings negatively impact Aspen’s downtown commercial areas: Strongly Agree 16 Agree 2 Neutral 3 Disagree 3 Strongly Disagree 1 I Don’t Know 4 Total Responses 29 P27 I. 14 | P a g e Visual Preference Dot Surveys: Participants were asked to identify potential types of development they found to be appropriate or not within Aspen. Off- Street Parking Very Appropriate Could be Appropriate Not Appropriate Above Grade 13 23 37 73 Portico 34 22 15 71 Subgrade Garage 115 3 4 122 Semi-Above Grade 32 21 12 65 Partial Subgrade 29 26 24 79 Above Grade Garage 12 9 73 94 Design Very Appropriate Could be Appropriate Not Appropriate Very Traditional 72 6 6 84 Traditional w/ an edge 52 18 21 91 Bit more contemporary 42 28 17 87 Something New 35 19 62 116 Open Space Very Appropriate Could be Appropriate Not Appropriate A place to sit 88 5 1 94 Activity centered gathering spaces 55 17 4 76 Playground 47 8 5 60 Street level outdoor dining 97 7 3 107 Garden 44 8 1 53 Fenced 13 9 33 55 Rooftop Restaurant 18 7 0 25 Height Very Appropriate Could be Appropriate Not Appropriate One Story 57 8 10 75 Two Stories 69 13 5 87 Three Stories 26 13 20 59 Four Stories 9 10 111 130 Building with mixed heights 44 21 8 73 Tiered Buildings 41 10 7 58 Size (Massing) Very Appropriate Could be Appropriate Not Appropriate Corner (small) 60 13 6 79 Mid-block (small) 65 8 4 77 Partial-block (medium) 31 26 17 74 Entire block (large) 12 18 66 96 Total Responses 2160 P28 I. 15 | P a g e 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Above Grade Portico Subgrade Garage Semi-Above Grade Partial Subgrade Above Grade Garage Nu m b e r o f R e s p o n s e s Off-Street Parking Very Appropriate Could be Appropriate Not Appropriate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Very Traditional Traditional w/ an edge Bit more contemporary Something New Nu m b e r o f R e s p o n s e s Design Very Appropriate Could be Appropriate Not Appropriate P29 I. 16 | P a g e 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 One Story Two Stories Three Stories Four Stories Building with mixed heights Tiered Buildings Nu m b e r o f R e s p o n s e s Height Very Appropriate Could be Appropriate Not Appropriate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Corner (small) Mid-block (small) Partial-block (medium) Entire block (large) Nu m b e r o f R e s p o n s e s Size (Massing) Very Appropriate Could be Appropriate Not Appropriate P30 I. 17 | P a g e 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 A place to sit Activity centered gathering spaces Playground Street level outdoor dining Garden Fenced Rooftop Restaurant Nu m b e r o f R e s p o n s e s Open Space Very Appropriate Could be Appropriate Not Appropriate P31 I. 18 | P a g e Small Group Meetings: Focus group participants were asked to place a dot under the category they thought to be most appropriate for each scenario. Spectrum questions tally Scenario: Public Amenity for properties on pedestrian malls Categories: Prescribed Open Space/Public Amenity on Property Mix of options No public amenity on property- mitigate for Dev. Total Responses: 12 15 1 14 Scenario: Public Amenity for properties NOT on pedestrian malls: Categories: Prescribed open space/public amenity on property Mix of options No public amenity on property - Mitigate for dev. Total Responses: 9 26 1 6 Scenario: Process- Commercial Design Standards Categories: Prescriptive- Standards must be met some standards must be met, some flexibility Flexible- standards are guiding principles Total Responses: 5 22 10 Scenario: Call Up- Who makes final decision Categories: Board decisions Council sometimes, board sometimes Council Decides Total Responses: 23 11 4 P32 I. 19 | P a g e CD S W a l k i n g T o u r s : Pa r t i c i p a n t s i n c l u d i n g m e m b e r s o f t h e p u b l i c , c o u n c il m e m b e r s , a n d s t a k e h o l d e r s w a l k e d g u i d e d t o u r s th r o u g h o u t A s p e n , p r o v i d i n g f e e d b a c k o n i d e n t i f i e d bu i l d i n g s a n d o p e n s p a c e a r e a s a l o n g t h e w a y . S u m m a ri e s a r e b a s e d o n to t a l r e s p o n s e s , a n d d o n o t a c c o u n t f o r s e c t i o n s p a rt i c i p a n t s s k i p p e d . To u r L o c a t i o n : M o u n t a i n Su r v e y Z i p C o d e G e n d e r A g e L o c a t i o n L i f t O n e C o n d o m i n i u m s D a n c i n g B e a r F a s c h i n g H a u s R e s i d e n c e s a t t h e L i t t l e Ne l l R u b e y P a r k F o u r M o u n t a i n P l a z a L i t t l e N e l l S k y H o t el P a t i o 1 8 1 6 1 1 F e m a l e 5 0 - 6 4 H e i g h t T o o T a l l T o o T a l l A p p r o p r i a t e T oo T a l l A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o T a l l A p p r o p r i a t e Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Op e n S p a c e T o o L i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e - A p p r o p r i at e T o o M u c h A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n G o o d F i t S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d G o o d F i t B a d F i t G o o d F i t B a d F i t S o m e g o o d , S o m e b a d S o m e g oo d , S o m e b a d Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l S o m e S o m e A l o t N o n e A l o t S o m e S o m e S o m e Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s Op e n S p a c e : N o t g o o d - - O p e n s p a c e : n o t g o o d - To o b u s y , t o o m a n y r a m p s an d s t a i r s - - 2 8 1 6 2 1 M a l e 3 0 - 4 9 H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e - T o o S h o r t T o o T a l l - - T o o T a l l - Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e - A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e - - T o o L ar g e - Op e n S p a c e A p p r o p r i a t e - - - - - T o o L i t t l e - Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n G o o d F i t B a d F i t G o o d F i t - - - S o m e go o d , S o m e b a d G o o d F i t Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l - - - - - - S o m e A l o t Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s Ni c e c o t t o n w o o d s . G i v e s t h e im p r e s s i o n o f a l o d g e f e e l - I l i k e th e e x t e r i o r t r i m Pe d e s t r i a n a p p e a l : a r t i f i c i a l . Do n ' t l i k e t h e b l a c k t r i m Op e n s p a c e : D o m i n a t e d b y pa r k i n g . T h e t r e e s a r e es s e n t i a l Ar c h S t y l e : H a r d - n o t a r t i c u l a t e d . St o n e i s i m p o s i n g A r e a l l y g r e a t s p a c e To o m a n y r a m p s , t o o m a n y st a i r s . U n c l e a r p a t t e r n s o f en t r y , a c c e s s t o s u b g r a d e sp a c e I d o n ' t l i k e t h e r o o f l i n e . Ov e r a l l s i z e i s i m p o s i n g , bl o c k s v i e w o f m o u n t a i n . Ar c h D e s i g n : U n c l e a r , wa l l o n p a t t e r n s e c o n d st o r y gr e a t a c c e s s i b i l i t y f r o m th e s t r e e t 3 8 1 6 1 1 M a l e 3 0 - 4 9 H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e T o o T a l l A p p r o p r i a t e To o T a l l A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e Op e n S p a c e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a te A p p r o p r i a t e T o o M u c h A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n G o o d F i t S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d G o o d F i t B a d F i t G o o d F i t B a d F i t G o o d F i t G o o d F i t Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l S o m e S o m e S o m e N o n e A l o t S o m e A l o t S o m e Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s - - - - - - - - 4 8 1 6 1 1 F e m a l e 1 8 - 2 9 H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p ri a t e T o o T a l l A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o pr i a t e Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e Op e n S p a c e - T o o L i t t l e T o o L i t t l e T o o L i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d G o o d F i t G o o d F i t B a d F i t G o o d F i t S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d S o m e g o o d , S o me b a d G o o d F i t Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l S o m e N o n e N o n e N o n e S o m e A l o t N o n e A l o t Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s Un d e r g r o u n d p a r k i n g i s n e e d e d - op e n s p a c e i s t a k e n u p b y p a r k i n g Ch a r t h o u s e s h o u l d p r o v i d e ou t d o o r s e a t i n g f o r t h e re s t a u r a n t Mo u n t a i n s t y l e - t r e e s bl o c k a l o t o f t h e b u i l d i n g Op e n S p a c e : t a k e n u p b y w a l l s di v i d i n g p u b l i c / p r i v a t e a r e a s . T o o bo x y - n o t a p p e a l i n g t o w a l k b y Ma i n h u b - g o o d mo v e m e n t Op e n S p a c e : A l o t o f mo v e m e n t t a k e s a w a y f r o m th e a r e a . O p e n i n g - we l c o m i n g w o u l d d o b e t t e r wi t h o u t t h e o u t d o o r b u i l t i n fe n c e Ju s t e x p e n s i v e s t o r e s t o lo o k i n - n e e d s m o r e in t e r a c t i o n w i t h pe d e s t r i a n s . A r c h De s i g n : S o m e w o o d ne e d e d o n t h e a n We l c o m i n g a g r e a t p u b l i c am e n i t y . A g r e a t p l a z a ge t s p e o p l e o u t h a n g i n g ou t . 5 8 1 6 1 2 F e m a l e H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e T o o t a l l A p p r o p r i a t e T o o T a l l A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o l a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e T o o l a r g e ( w a y t o o b i g ) A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o pr i a t e Op e n S p a c e T o o L i t t l e T o o l i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L i t t l e Ap p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n S o m e g o o d , S o m e b a d S o m e g o o d , s om e b a d S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d S o m e g oo d , s o m e b a d S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d S o m e g o o d , S o m e b a d So m e g o o d , s o m e b a d Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l N o n e S o m e S o m e N o n e N o n e A l o t N o n e A l o t Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s B o r i n g Se w a g e s m e l l . T o h a v e to w a l k a b l o c k t o p i c k up b o t h l o c a l ne w s p a p e r s i s ri d i c u l o u s . F a n c y a c r y l i c si g n s a r e n o t r e a d a b l e . P33 I. 20 | P a g e Fe e d b a c k A n a l y s i s : Li f t O n e C o n d o m i n i u m s • He i g h t : 2 0 % T o o T a l l ; 8 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ov e r a l l S i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Op e n S p a c e : 4 0 % T o o L i t t l e ; 6 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ar c h D e s i g n : 6 0 % G o o d F i t ; 4 0 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d • Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 8 0 % S o m e ; 2 0 % N o n e Da n c i n g B e a r • He i g h t : 7 5 % T o o t a l l ; 2 5 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ov e r a l l S i z e : 1 0 0 % T o o l a r g e • Op e n S p a c e : 2 5 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 7 5 % T o o L i t t l e • Ar c h D e s i g n : 6 0 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d ; 2 0 % B a d F i t ; 20 % G o o d fi t • Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 7 5 % S o m e ; 2 5 % N o n e Fa s c h i n g H a u s • He i g h t : 8 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 2 0 % T o o s h o r t • Ov e r a l l S i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Op e n S p a c e : 7 5 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 2 5 % T o o L i t t l e • Ar c h D e s i g n : 8 0 % G o o d f i t ; 2 0 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d • Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 2 5 % A l o t ; 5 0 % S o m e ; 2 5 % N o n e Ru b e y P a r k • He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ov e r a l l S i z e : 7 5 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 2 5 % T o o l a r g e • Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ar c h D e s i g n : 7 5 % G o o d F i t ; 2 5 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d • Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 5 0 % A l o t ; 2 5 % S o m e ; 2 5 % N o n e Fo u r M o u n t a i n P l a z a • He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ov e r a l l S i z e : 2 5 % T o o l a r g e ; 7 5 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Op e n S p a c e : 5 0 % T o o m u c h ; 2 5 % T o o l i t t l e ; 2 5 % A p p r op r i a t e • Ar c h D e s i g n ; 5 0 % B a d f i t ; 5 0 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d • Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 5 0 % S o m e ; 5 0 % A l o t Li t t l e N e l l • He i g h t : 4 0 % T o o t a l l ; 6 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ov e r a l l S i z e : 4 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e , 6 0 % T o o l a r g e • Op e n S p a c e : 6 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e , 4 0 % T o o l i t t l e • Ar c h D e s i g n : 2 0 % G o o d f i t , 8 0 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d • Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 4 0 % S o m e ; 2 0 % A l o t ; 4 0 % N o n e Sk y H o t e l P a t i o • He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ov e r a l l S i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ar c h D e s i g n : 4 0 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d ; 6 0 % G o o d f i t • Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 4 0 % S o m e ; 6 0 % A l o t P34 I. 21 | P a g e To u r L o c a t i o n : R i v e r Su r v e y Z i p C o d e G e n d e r A g e L o c a t i o n H o t e l J e r o m e M i l l B u i ld i n g N o r t h M i l l S t a t i o n A n d r e w s - M c F a r l i n B u i l d i n g T a s te r ' s O b e r m e y e r P l a z a 6 2 5 E . M a i n S t r e e t M i l l e n n i u m P l az a B u i l d i n g 1 8 1 6 1 1 F e m a l e 1 8 - 2 9 H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p ri a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o T a l l T o o T a l l A p p r o p r i at e Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i at e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e T o o L a r g e T o o L a r g e Op e n S p a c e A p p r o p r i a t e - T o o L i t t l e T o o L i t t l e A p p r o p r i a te A p p r o p r i a t e T o o l i t t l e T o o l i t t l e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n G o o d F i t G o o d F i t B a d F i t B a d F i t B ad F i t B a d F i t S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d B a d F i t Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l S o m e S o m e N o n e N o n e S o m e N o n e N o n e N o n e Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s - - - - - A d d a c a f é a n d a b a r ! - - 2 8 1 6 1 1 M a l e 3 0 - 4 9 H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e T o o S h o r t T o o S h o r t A pp r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i at e Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o S m a l l A p p r o p r i at e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Op e n S p a c e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L i t t le A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n G o o d F i t G o o d F i t B a d F i t B a d F i t B ad F i t S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d G o o d F i t S o m e g o o d , s o m e b ad Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l A L o t A L o t N o n e N o n e S o m e N o n e A L o t N o n e Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s Op e n s p a c e i s ap p r o p r i a t e i f co u r t y a r d i s t r u l y pu b l i c a c c e s s w i t h o u t pa y i n g f o r s e r v i c e . Ap p r o p r i a t e a m o u n t o f op e n s p a c e f o r c u r r e n t us e . U n d e r U t i l i z e d a n d or g a n i z e d Ti r e d a n d l a c k i n g A p p e a l b u t fu n c t i o n a l Da t e d a n d T i r e d An a n o m a l y , w e l l in t e n d e d , p o o r l y ex e c u t e d Op e n s p a c e : u r b a n i n ae s t h e t i c a n d f u n c t i o n He i g h t : i n n u m b e r o f l e v e l s b u t ro o f f o r m t o o m a s s i v e . O p e n sp a c e : u r b a n i n a e s t h e t i c a n d fu n c t i o n . A r c h D e s i g n : g o o d b a s e fo r m s - t o o b u s y w / f o r m s a n d ma t e r i a l s . P e d e s t r i a n a p p e a l : St r e e t l e v e l t o o s m a l l a n d sq u a t t y . 3 8 1 6 1 1 F e m a l e 1 8 - 2 9 H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e - T o o T al l A p p r o p r i a t e T o o t a l l T o o T a l l T o o T a l l Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e - A p p r o pr i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Op e n S p a c e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L i t t l e T o o L i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o m u c h T o o L i t t l e T o o L i t t l e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n G o o d F i t S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d B a d Fi t B a d F i t G o o d F i t B a d F i t S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d S o m e g o od , s o m e b a d Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l A l o t A L o t S o m e N o n e A l o t S o m e N o n e S o m e Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s It s h a r d t o d e b a t e t h e Je r o m e , i t s b e e n h e r e fo r e v e r a n d re p r e s e n t s A s p e n . I l o v e t h e b e n c h e s . I th i n k t h e y a r e i n v i t i n g an d u s e f u l . M a t c h e s t h e Je r o m e W e l l . If t h i s w e r e a n y o t h e r pl a c e , i t w o u l d b e te r r i b l e . I t s o n l y o k a y be c a u s e i t s s e p a r a t e . St r i p m a l l s d o n ' t f i t A s p e n Ru i n s r i v e r e x p e r i e n c e . T h e bu i l d i n g s a r e n o t i n v i t i n g a t a l l . We r e t h e b u i l d i n g s bu i l t f o r t h e g a r a g e or t h e g a r a g e f o r t h e bu i l d i n g s ? Ro u t e f r o m M a i n S t i s no t v e r y i n t u i t i v e . C i t y ha l l m o v i n g h e r e w o u l d gr e a t l y i m p r o v e t h i s sp a c e . O p e n s p a c e wo u l d b e g r e a t i f i t w a s us e d b u t i t s n o t a t a l l . Ne e d s a c o f f e e s h o p o r so m e t h i n g O p e n S p a c e : N o n e ! Un d e r u s e d , m a k e s n o s e n s e be c a u s e i t h a s n o u s e . 4 8 1 6 1 1 M a l e 3 0 - 4 9 H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i at e T o o T a l l T o o T a l l A p p r o p r i a t e T o o T a l l T o o t a l l Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o S m a l l T o o L a r g e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e T o o L a r g e Op e n S p a c e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L i t t l e T o o L i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o l i t t l e T o o l i t t l e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d G o o d F i t B a d Fi t B a d F i t B a d F i t S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d B a d F i t Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l S o m e A L o t N o n e N o n e S o m e N o n e S o m e n o n e Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s - - Lo a d i n g d o c k s f a c e pe d e s t r i a n s , p o o r d e s i g n . Po o r l y d e s i g n e d s i t e . N o ar c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n in t e r e s t Ug l y , c h e a p . B l o c k s r i v e r Pu b l i c S p a c e f e e l s li k e a f t e r t h o u g h t To t a l M i s s ! D o n ' t k n o w wh a t i t i s i n t h e r e f r o m Ma i n S t r e e t o r R i o - FA I L . R e t a i l h e i g h t t o o s h o r t , st o l e n f o r P e n t H o u s e . N e e d s be t t e r P e d e s t r i a n A p p e a l . T o o ma n y m a t e r i a l s - h o d g e p o d g e Fl o o r P l a t e s a r e a w k w a r d 5 8 1 6 1 2 F e m a l e H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ap p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o T a l l Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p ri a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e Op e n S p a c e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o l i t t le A p p r o p r i a t e T o o l i t t l e T o o l i t t l e T o o L i t t l e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n G o o d F i t S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d B a d F i t G o o d F i t S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d S om e g o o d , s o m e b a d B a d F i t Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l S o m e S o m e S o m e N o n e A l o t N o n e S o m e N o n e Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s - - At l e a s t t h e r e i s a d e q u a t e pa r k i n g . L i k e a p a r t m e n t s on t o p f l o o r - Da r l i n g s p a c e ! Wo r k s w e l l f a c i n g pa r k Co n f u s i n g . N o p a r k i n g . Ba s e d o n n a t u r e o f bu s i n e s s e s - - P35 I. 22 | P a g e Fe e d b a c k A n a l y s i s : Ho t e l J e r o m e • He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ov e r a l l S i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ar c h D e s i g n : 8 0 % G o o d F i t ; 2 0 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d • Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 6 0 % S o m e ; 4 0 % A l o t Mi l l B u i l d i n g • He i g h t : 8 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 2 0 % T o o s h o r t • Ov e r a l l S i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ar c h D e s i g n : 6 0 % G o o d f i t ; 4 0 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d • Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 4 0 % S o m e ; 6 0 % A l o t No r t h M i l l S t a t i o n • He i g h t : 7 5 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 2 5 % T o o s h o r t • Ov e r a l l S i z e : 4 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 4 0 % T o o s m a l l ; 2 0 % T oo l a r g e • Op e n S p a c e : 6 0 % T o o l i t t l e , 4 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ar c h D e s i g n : 8 0 % B a d f i t ; 2 0 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d • Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 6 0 % N o n e , 4 0 % S o m e An d r e w s - M c F a r l i n B u i l d i n g • He i g h t : 6 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 4 0 % T o o t a l l • Ov e r a l l S i z e : 7 5 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 2 5 % T o o l a r g e • Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % T o o l i t t l e • Ar c h D e s i g n : 1 0 0 % B a d f i t • Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 1 0 0 % N o n e Ta s t e r ’ s • He i g h t : 8 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 2 0 % T o o t a l l • Ov e r a l l s i z e : 8 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e , 2 0 % T o o l a r g e • Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ar c h D e s i g n : 6 0 % B a d f i t ; 4 0 % G o o d f i t • Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 6 0 % S o m e ; 4 0 % A l o t Ob e r m e y e r P l a z a • He i g h t : 4 0 % T o o t a l l ; 6 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ov e r a l l S i z e : 6 0 % T o o L a r g e ; 4 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Op e n S p a c e : 6 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 2 0 % T o o m u c h ; 2 0 % T o o Li t t l e • Ar c h D e s i g n : 4 0 % B a d f i t ; 6 0 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d • Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 8 0 % N o n e ; 2 0 % S o m e 62 5 E . M a i n S t . • He i g h t : 6 0 % T o o t a l l ; 4 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ov e r a l l S i z e : 4 0 % T o o l a r g e ; 6 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Op e n S p a c e : 8 0 % T o o l i t t l e ; 2 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ar c h D e s i g n : 8 - % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d ; 2 0 % G o o d f i t • Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 4 0 % N o n e ; 2 0 % A l o t ; 4 0 % S o m e Mi l l e n n i u m P l a z a B u i l d i n g • He i g h t : 4 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 6 0 % T o o t a l l • Ov e r a l l S i z e : 6 0 % T o o l a r g e ; 4 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Op e n S p a c e : 8 0 % T o o l i t t l e ; 2 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e • Ar c h D e s i g n : 6 0 % B a d f i t ; 4 0 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d • Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 8 0 % N o n e ; 2 0 % S o m e P36 I. 23 | P a g e To u r L o c a t i o n : C o r e W e s t Su r v e y Z i p C o d e G e n d e r A g e L o c a t i o n H o t e l L e n a d o S q u a r e G r ou p e r / O v e r E a s y P e a c h ' s 2 0 4 S . G a l e n a H y m a n A v e . P e d M al l W h e e l e r R y n o ' s P a r a d i s e B a k e r y 1 8 1 6 1 1 F e m a l e 5 0 - 6 4 H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e - A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r op r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i at e Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e - A p p r op r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Op e n S p a c e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e - A p p r o p ri a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d S o m e g o o d , s om e b a d G o o d F i t - S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d G o o d f i t G o o d F i t Go o d F i t Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l S o m e s o m e A l o t - A l o t A l o t a l o t A l o t Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s In n e e d o f r e p a i r ot h e r w i s e c h a r m i n g bu t n o t m e m o r a b l e Ap p r o p r i a t e l y l o o k s l i k e a br e w e r y b u t a l s o n o t me m o r a b l e Bl e n d s . C h a r m i n g s t i l l wi t h o u t b e i n g im p o s i n g - Ap p r o p r i a t e A r e a be a u t i f u l bu i l d i n g / m e m o r a b l e lo v e t h e o p e n d o w n g r a d e ar e a . A l l o w i n g a n o p e n vi l l a t o t h e m a l l . Ag a i n t h e l a y e r e d af f e c t a d d s i n t e r e s t t o th e g r o u n d a r e a a n d do e s n ' t i m p o s e o r ov e r w h e l m t h e c o r n e r 2 8 1 6 1 1 M a l e 5 0 - 6 4 H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i at e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o t a l l N o n e A p p r o p r i a t e Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p ri a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Op e n S p a c e T o o L i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o l i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o l i t t l e - A p p r o p r i a t e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n G o o d F i t S o m e g o o d , S o m e b a d S o m e g o o d , S o m e b a d G o o d f i t G o o d f i t G o o d F i t B a d F i t G o o d Fi t Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l A l o t A l o t A l o t n o n e A l o t S o m e S o m e A lo t Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s - - Wi n d o w s h a p e b a d , no t h i s t o r i c c h a r a c t e r . We d d i n g c a k e s h a p e go o d Ba d r o d e o d r i v e wi n d o w s t y l e Gr e a t V i t a l i t y ! - - Gr e a t w e d d i n g c a k e 3 8 1 6 1 1 M a l e 3 0 - 4 9 H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i at e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A pp r o p r i a t e Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e - A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o pr i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e - A p p r o p r i a t e Op e n S p a c e A p p r o p r i a t e Ap p r o p r i a t e ( f o r s i n g l e b u i l d i n g ) Ap p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p ri a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d B a d f i t ( S t a nd a l o n e ) S o m e g o o d , S o m e b a d G o o d f i t G o o d F i t G o o d F i t - S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l A l o t N o n e A l o t S o m e A l o t A l o t A l o t - Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s No t m y f a v o r i t e H . T . bu i l d i n g s t y l i z e d , n o id e a d e s i g n p r i o r t o i f an y c o u n c i l d i s c u s s i o n - Ba s e d o n u s e s o c i a l in t e r a c t i o n - - - Op e n s p a c e : w o r k s f o r m e a l o t o f " c o m m u n i t y o p e n sp a c e " g o i n g a w a y . N o o k an d c r a n n y s p a c e s a l l o w no o k a n d c r a n n y b u s i n e s s - 4 8 1 6 1 2 F e m a l e H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ap p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e - A p p r o p r i a t e Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p ri a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Op e n S p a c e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L i t t l e N o n e A p p r o pr i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d B a d F i t S o m e go o d , S o m e b a d S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d G o o d f i t ( 1 9 6 0 ' s B l a h ) S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l N o n e N o n e A l o t S o m e A l o t S o m e N o n e A l o t Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s Lo v e s e t b a c k , v e r y in v i t i n g c u r b s i d e ap p e a l Un f o r t u n a t e C o l o r . Li k e s m a l l s h o p fa c a d e s . Mo r e o p e n f e e l i n g th a n C o o p e r M a l l (w i d e r s t r e e t t o b e g i n wi t h ? ) N i c e p l a c e t o st o p a n d s i t , l o v e fo u n t a i n f e a t u r e , l i k e sc a l e Wh o n e e d s o p e n sp a c e h e r e w h e n y o u ha v e o p e n p l a z a ac r o s s t h e s t r e e t w i t h ch a r m i n g f o u n t a i n an d c a f e s . Li k e s e t b a c k b u t n o t be l o w g r a d e f e a t u r e Ke y s t o n e b u i l d i n g a t in t e r s e c t i o n . D o n o t al l o w C a s a T u a a n d Ke m o s a b e c o r n e r s t o be e n c l o s e d o r in f r i n g e d o n ' s a c r e d cr o s s r o a d o f A s p e n ' P37 I. 24 | P a g e Fe e d b a c k A n a l y s i s : Ho t e l L e n a d o o He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Op e n S p a c e : 7 5 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 2 5 % T o o l i t t l e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 7 5 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d ; 2 5 % G o o d f i t o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 2 5 % S o m e ; 5 0 % A l o t ; 2 5 % N o n e Sq u a r e G r o u p e r / O v e r E a s y o He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 7 5 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d ; 2 5 % B a d f i t Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 2 5 % S o m e ; 2 5 % A l o t ; 5 0 % N o n e Pe a c h ’ s o He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Op e n S p a c e : 7 5 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 2 5 % T o o l i t t l e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 7 5 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d ; 2 5 % G o o d f i t o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 1 0 0 % A l o t 20 4 S . G a l e n a o He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Op e n S p a c e : 3 3 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 3 3 % T o o l i t t l e ; 3 3 % N o ne o Ar c h D e s i g n : 6 6 % G o o d f i t ; 3 3 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 3 3 % N o n e ; 6 6 % S o m e Hy m a n A v e . P e d e s t r i a n M a l l o He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 5 0 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d ; 5 0 % G o o d f i t o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 1 0 0 % A l o t Wh e e l e r o He i g h t : 7 5 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 2 5 % T o o t a l l o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 7 5 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 2 5 % T o o l a r g e o Op e n S p a c e : 7 5 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 2 5 % T o o l i t t l e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 1 0 0 % G o o d f i t o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 5 0 % A l o t ; 5 0 % S o m e Ry n o ’ s o He i g h t : 6 6 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 3 3 % N o n e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 5 0 % G o o d f i t ; 5 0 % B a d f i t o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 5 0 % A l o t ; 2 5 % S o m e ; 2 5 % N o n e Pa r a d i s e B a k e r y o He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 5 0 % G o o d f i t ; 5 0 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 1 0 0 % A l o t P38 I. 25 | P a g e To u r L o c a t i o n : C o r e E a s t Su r v e y Z i p C o d e G e n d e r A g e L o c a t i o n A l p i n e B a n k P l a z a A s p en C o r e S p r i n g B u i l d i n g B e n e d i c t C o m m o n s A s p e n S q u a r e A sp e n G r o v e P l a z a C o o p e r S t r e e t P i e r B u i l d i n g P a r a d i s e B a k e r y 1 8 1 6 1 1 M a l e 3 0 - 4 9 H e i g h t T o o t a l l T o o t a l l T o o t a l l T o o t a ll T o o T a l l A p p r o p r i a t e T o o T a l l T o o T a l l Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i at e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e Op e n S p a c e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a te T o o l i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n S o m e g o o d , S o m e b a d B a d F i t S o m e go o d , S o m e B a d S o m e g o o d , S o m e b a d S o m e g o o d , S o m e b a d G o o d F i t G o o d F i t S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l - N o n e S o m e - S o m e A l o t N o n e A l o t Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s - Ch a n g e c o d e ( h e i g h t ? ) so g r o u n d f l o o r n o t su n k b e l o w g r a d e - Ga r a g e s h o u l d b e o f f Al l e y . N o t o f f s i d e w a l k Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : Li k e W e l l s F a r g o . I f ra i n i n g c o v e r e d si d e w a l k i s h e l p f u l - Op e n s p a c e : N o s p a c e f o r ta b l e s . A r c h D e s i g n : N e e d s se t b a c k f o r 2 n d f l o o r Vi e w s o u t t o mo u n t a i n 2 8 1 6 1 1 M a l e 6 5 + H e i g h t T o o t a l l T o o t a l l A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o pr i a t e T o o T a l l A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ov e r a l l S i z e T o o L a r g e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e T oo L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Op e n S p a c e - T o l i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a te A p p r o p r i a t e T o o l i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n B a d f i t B a d F i t G o o d F i t B a d F i t B a d F i t G o o d F i t G o o d f i t G o o d f i t Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l N o n e N o n e A l o t S o m e S o m e A l o t S o m e A l ot Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s Op e n S p a c e : n o t ap p r o p r i a t e Re a l l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e bu i l d i n g - Ga r a g e , e x c e p t i o n a l nu m b e r o f s p a c e s P o r t i c o i s a p o s i t i v e - L a c k s a p o r t i co He i g h t : S c e n i c mo u n t a i n v i e w s 3 8 1 6 1 2 F e m a l e H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ap p r o p r i a t e T o o T a l l A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i at e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Op e n S p a c e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a te T o o l i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n S o m e g o o d , S o m e b a d S o m e g o o d , s om e b a d S o m e g o o d , S o m e B a d G o o d f i t B a d F i t G o o d F i t S o me g o o d , s o m e b a d S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l S o m e N o n e S o m e S o m e N o n e A l o t N o n e A l o t Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s To o b a d i t s i t s e m p t y - ma y b e t o o m u c h of f i c e s p a c e i n t o w n ? Go o d l o o k i n g b u i l d i n g Cr o s s r o a d s o f A s p e n P39 I. 26 | P a g e Fe e d b a c k A n a l y s i s : Al p i n e B a n k P l a z a o He i g h t : 6 6 % T o o t a l l ; 3 3 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 6 6 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 3 3 % T o o l a r g e o Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 6 6 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d ; 3 3 % B a d f i t o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 5 0 % S o m e ; 5 0 % N o n e As p e n C o r e o He i g h t : 6 6 % T o o t a l l ; 3 3 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 1 0 0 % T o o l a r g e o Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % T o o L i t t l e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 6 6 % B a d f i t ; 3 3 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 1 0 0 % N o n e Sp r i n g B u i l d i n g o He i g h t : 3 3 % T o o t a l l ; 6 6 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 6 6 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d ; 3 3 % G o o d f i t o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 6 6 % S o m e ; 3 3 % N o n e Be n e d i c t C o m m o n s o He i g h t : 3 3 % T o o t a l l ; 6 6 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 6 6 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 3 3 % T o o l a r g e o Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 3 3 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d ; 3 3 % G o o d f i t , 3 3 % Ba d f i t o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 1 0 0 % S o m e As p e n G r o v e P l a z a o He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 1 0 0 % G o o d F i t o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 1 0 0 % A l o t Co o p e r S t r e e t P i e r B u i l d i n g o He i g h t : 3 3 % T o o t a l l ; 6 6 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 6 6 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 3 3 % T o o l a r g e o Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % T o o l i t t l e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 3 3 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d ; 6 6 % G o o d f i t , o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 3 3 % S o m e , 6 6 % N o n e Pa r a d i s e B a k e r y o He i g h t : 3 3 % T o o t a l l ; 6 6 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 6 6 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d ; 3 3 % G o o d f i t , o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 1 0 0 % A l o t P40 I. 27 | P a g e To u r L o c a t i o n : M a i n S t r e e t Su r v e y Z i p C o d e G e n d e r A g e L o c a t i o n 1 3 5 W . M a i n A s p e n M o u nt a i n L o d g e A s p e n J e w i s h C o m m u n i t y C e n t e r C h r i s t i a n a Lo d g e 4 2 0 W . M a i n A n n a b e l l e I n n H o t e l A s p e n 1 2 0 E . M a i n S t 1 8 1 6 1 1 M a l e 3 0 - 4 9 H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r ia t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p ro p r i a t e Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p ri a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Op e n S p a c e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o M u c h T o o l i t t l e A pp r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n G o o d F i t B a d F i t S o m e g o o d , S o m e ba d G o o d f i t B a d F i t S o m e g o o d , S o m e b a d S o m e g o o d , S o m e b a d G o o d F i t Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l A l o t N o n e S o m e A l o t N o n e S o m e S o m e S o m e Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s - Ri v e r r o c k i s b r u t a l . E a s t an d w e s t s i d e s a r e t o o da r k f o r t r e s s - l i k e . N o st r e e t f r o n t g l a s s No t E n o u g h S t r e e t F r o n t G l a s s . Ni c e l a n d s c a p i n g . - Fo r t r e s s - l i k e w/ b i g d e c k s an d s t o n e ch i m n e y Cl o c k t o w e r s n e e d t o te l l c o r r e c t t i m e ! Di s c o n n e c t b e t w e e n fa u x - T y r o l e a n d e c k o n we s t a n d m o r e co n t e m p o r a r y M o d . Mi d d l e a n d e a s t Ri v e r r o c k s u c k s . Ad d r e s s e s c o r n e r w e l l Go o d m o d e r n de s i g n , f i t s sc a l e 2 8 1 6 1 1 M a l e 5 0 - 6 4 H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e T o o T a l l A p p r o p r i a t e Ap p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r ia t e Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i at e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Op e n S p a c e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a te A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n G o o d F i t - G o o d F i t G o o d f i t G o o d F it S o m e g o o d , S o m e b a d G o o d F i t G o o d F i t Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l A l o t N o n e S o m e A l o t A l o t S o m e S o m e A l ot Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s - Se e m s v e r t i c a l o f f si d e w a l k - p r e f e r se t b a c k - Si z e : b r o k e n u p w e l l . Op e n s p a c e : m o r e wo u l d b e b e t t e r . L i k e in t e g r a t i o n o f c a b i n s no t m y pa r t i c u l a r st y l e pr e f e r e n c e , bu t I t h i n k ok Op e n s p a c e : m o r e wo u l d b e b e t t e r Ap p r e c i a t e s e t b a c k fr o m s t r e e t Go o d s c a l e l i k e gl a m 3 8 1 6 1 2 F e m a l e H e i g h t A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o T a l l A p p ro p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Ov e r a l l S i z e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o l a r g e A p p r o p r i at e T o o L a r g e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p r o p r i a t e Op e n S p a c e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o l i t t l e T o o L i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o L i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e T o o l i t t l e A p p r o p r i a t e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n G o o d F i t B a d F i t B a d F i t S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d B a d F i t G o o d F i t S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d G o o d f i t Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l A l o t N o n e S o m e S o m e N o n e A l o t N o n e S o m e Ad d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s P41 I. 28 | P a g e Fe e d b a c k A n a l y s i s : 13 5 W . M a i n o He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 1 0 0 % G o o d F i t o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 1 0 0 % A l o t As p e n M o u n t a i n L o d g e o He i g h t : 6 6 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 3 3 % T o o t a l l o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 6 6 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 3 3 % T o o l a r g e o Op e n S p a c e : 3 3 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 6 6 % T o o l i t t l e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 1 0 0 % B a d F i t o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 1 0 0 % N o n e As p e n J e w i s h C o m m u n i t y C e n t e r o He i g h t : 6 6 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 3 3 % T o o t a l l o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 6 6 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 3 3 % T o o l a r g e o Op e n S p a c e : 3 3 % T o o m u c h ; 3 3 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 3 3 % T o o li t t l e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 3 3 % G o o d f i t ; 3 3 % B a d F i t ; 3 3 % S o m e g o od So m e B a d o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 1 0 0 % S o m e Ch r i s t i a n a L o d g e o He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Op e n S p a c e : 6 6 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 3 3 % T o o l i t t l e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 6 6 % G o o d F i t ; 3 3 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 6 6 % A l o t ; 3 3 % S o m e 42 0 W . M a i n o He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 6 6 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 3 3 % T o o l a r g e o Op e n S p a c e : 6 6 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 3 3 % T o o l i t t l e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 6 6 % B a d F i t ; 3 3 % G o o d F i t o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 6 6 % N o n e ; 3 3 % A l o t An a b e l l e I n n o He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 3 3 % G o o d F i t ; 6 6 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 3 3 % A l o t ; 6 6 % S o m e Ho t e l A s p e n o He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Op e n S p a c e : 6 6 % A p p r o p r i a t e ; 3 3 % T o o l i t t l e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 3 3 % G o o d F i t ; 6 6 % S o m e g o o d , s o m e b a d o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 6 6 % S o m e ; 3 3 % N o n e 12 0 E . M a i n S t . o He i g h t : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ov e r a l l s i z e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Op e n S p a c e : 1 0 0 % A p p r o p r i a t e o Ar c h D e s i g n : 1 0 0 % G o o d F i t o Pe d e s t r i a n A p p e a l : 3 3 % A l o t ; 6 6 % S o m e P42 I. 29 | P a g e Small Group Notes: Over three days, the City hosted six small group meetings with a total of 43 participants. At these meetings participants were asked to give feedback and provide comments and suggestions on the current character areas within Aspen. Character Area: River Approach Comments/Suggestions Design • Tasters important to vitality, open for river to mountain view, open to town and mountain, no built wall of building connect to Rio Grande, Powerhouse community asset make it vibrant • Buildings rundown with some upgrades, water! Very mixed not consistent • Trails need extending along river, a workover is due on valuable local small business sites, love the parks • Enhance street, more trees, minimize the “industrial” look, more open access to river • Likes the looseness of the area, better ped. Needed • Form and style can be more varied, discourage the use of historic mat. • River park townhomes, city building, doesn’t need to be orthogonal • Sense of place is very important, see mountain, see river • Enough 1980’s cable for the whole town Use • Focus on support for natural environment, continue emphasis on beauty and nature • No more Obermayer: identify walkway, maze, hard to navigate • SCI uses mostly moved down valley, elim SCI and rezone NC, too many boulders • Diversity is important, need to be careful of industrial run off, which was not a concern “back in the day” • Focus on local ownership/customers. Basic businesses • Public areas adjacent to river, encourage and protect riparian ways • Rents must remain affordable for true local businesses • Late night amenity (i.e. what if there was a McDonalds down here?) Diversify Aspen “class barrier” • Avoid incentives for Clarks to convert to an Obermeyer type project • Residential use changed Obermeyer from local glass, paint, welding, snow removal services to a quiet office park • Areas of underdevelopment or aging buildings with no incentive or possibilities of redevelopment. Leads to lack of investment but also allows for low cost commercial office P43 I. 30 | P a g e Vision • Vision is more industrial • Vision: make river more prominent, preserve views in all directions, enliven Obermeyer – dead space now, keep parking for shoppers • Vision: no building blocking access to view of river • Restoration and embracing nature, the river and Rio Grande park, ACES, Enhancements to river interaction, local business opportunity • Most potential, most underutilized part of town, open, bright, rivers and parks, pass thru to res mountain and smuggler, needs a restaurant anchor • Way forward: could use more vitality, Rio Grande is transportation recreation destination not resort amenity • An invitation to admire mountain scape and river scape, dispersed buildings with essential services, open vs enclosed feel, transition to more dense vegetation • Successful “service side” out of view, providing lots of local use, a true mix bag including parks, more industrial less fussy look…. More locals linking to environment, keep it funky, let it grow weird • Vision: expand on the Obermeyer model and create more affordable commercial and employee housing • Vision: whenever the opportunity presents itself try to better river access and views, not all buildings do that • moving forward, enhance what is lacking Define • Open space, understated buildings, can it be utilized to take pressure off the café? • Low building height, less dense, some parking areas, civic • Define: outdated, dilapidated, Future: Redevelop, Success: John Denver Sanctuary • Walkable, green, nod to the river, mix of uses • Local Serving • (1) entrance to river, (2) public use to theater and old art museum, (3) Eclectic • (1) Open, flowing: feels historic in a recent way (4-5 decades) nature, (2) parks/river, local business, (3) interaction with nature/simplicity • (1) Restricting development at waterfront, Rio Grande Park and Sanctuary, (2) Nature, (3) Maintaining/enhancing public access to waterfront • (1) trees, lawns, parks, rivers and ponds, (2) junky stripmalls, (3) integrate commercial with nature • Civic parks, commercial, daily usage condominiums, variety, less pattern, random transition P44 I. 31 | P a g e • Character, low key utilitarian, natural areas integral • Trails, connectivity, public amenities • More attractive architecture, low scale functional for locals, Fernley architecture • John Denver Park, Obermeyer, Nature, stay with the vision • Local epicenter, industrial character, parks have come so far >> best in the city! Interesting mix of uses • Function/Industrial mixed uses and scale opportunities for strong recreation – slap to landscape, local serving functions • Rambling, end of the grid gardens, trails, river • Park/Clarks area way to Rio Grande • Public uses area, public access, Rio Grande park is underutilized • Bohemian area, use reflected in design, truly a locals spot • Defines: Parking garage never fit in the area, the redo of Galena Plaza and Library too sterile • Gritty, underdeveloped, historic/preservation of place, clean, nature feel, stewardship, openness • Defines character that buildings don’t dominate • Defines and success: accessible commercial with parking- pull-up, important for our town Success • Good job • Success: John Denver Area • Great parks and public amenity spaces, not much use in the winter • Peaceful in some spots • Parks dept. brought river more into the city! • Public areas to congregate, amazing river park • Likes Obermeyer, min parking experience • Love the variety in this area, should have had art museum there, natural choice for civic center • Changes are good, questionable traffic timer on main street, love what parks has otherwise done • One of my favorite areas, feels like a locals zone • Love mixed use of Obermeyer place, theater Aspen is a highlight in its use of the John Denver Park • Success: Rio Grande Park, Bike path from museum to Hesson Park, Clarks Market Plaza • Density loosens nicely as it moves downhill • Successful mix of uses and functions Failures • Lack of vitality, dead public spaces except for sports on Rio Grande, Remaining service shops, good paths, public buildings • Park ugly, industrial 2mm bathrooms? Recreation P45 I. 32 | P a g e • Soft!! Too hard- Obermeyer • Obermeyer place is creepy, uninhabited, parks dept. does a great job, Galena plaza and downward is too “built” there was supposed to be a “visita” from Galena to river • This area has always been problematic, lots of desires placed on it that have failed to deliver • Obermeyer is poorly designed, not inviting or accessible to community, cheap design, wish light Anders MCF were not there and open to river, more connection to John D and Park • unsuccessful organization of style and character, lack of connectivity and cohesiveness Character Area: Commercial Core Comments/Suggestions Design • Restaurant use on second floors • Nonexistent setbacks work. Common areas need to be more accessible • Downtown ped. Plan. Branding –establish streetscape. High to low level of experience to unify • Options infrastructure in no Altu. More generous for deck space • Second floor-all glass incentive for commercial deck space • Some Arcades work and some don’t • Human interaction on the property (i.e. porch) increase some public to semi-private • Focus should be on the pedestrian, keep store fronts and street active and engaging, buildings run together and to sidewalk keeps pedestrian experience positive, reduce dead spaces, 2-3 story is okay, keep people downtown • 1 story cowenhoven building is human scale • Love outdoor spaces, keep bikes out • Love openness on corners, setbacks essential, don’t destroy paradise corner • 1 story popcorn wagon and nearby is human scale and there is not a concern of disturbing residents when 100% commercial • Casa Tua outdoor tables give people indicative dwell time • Emphasis is on historic appearance – more the better • Iconic buildings, should be the biggest, maintain views • Evergreens don’t belong on mall (or in town – on the mountain) keep historic material and scale • No concrete sidewalks, patchwork sidewalk that reflects buildings • Corner Cabins, open space is great, lower level spaces with restaurants works great, vitality • Design has potential to dictate a use • The large buildings are a threat to what makes this area successful: e.g. Art Museum, Core. Critical to maintain pedestrian scale • Brick establishes a material theme for town, both in buildings and pedestrian malls • Urban in character, highlight historic nature and complimentary modern, large store-front levels, continue to emphasize the urban character- buildings at sidewalk • Like to see some of the 1970 ish buildings redeveloped they don’t fit in • Step up to mass/setbacks – identity, covered walkway (1 story) buffering the 3- story P46 I. 33 | P a g e Use • F + B is becoming more concentrated. Plan for it! • Streetscape responds to architecture. Side by side-walking a lot of friction • What’s happening on second floor, contribute to street culture • Uniqueness is good, should be dense, more urban experience • Encourage more PA, where appropriate, eg. Paradise • Add vitality with more outdoor seating Vision • Space for constant change/development • Vision: Fewer business using the mall as sheer space, less/fewer cars • Preserve historic character, favor pedestrian use, allow sidewalk use for dining • Mix of setbacks at front yard, encourage pedestrian experiences: outdoor dining, walking, social interaction • Keep landmarks lot line to lot line > don’t detract from these! • Landmark buildings preserve with open space if possible to set them off as special • Vision: keep views, lower scale buildings, public spaces on sidewalks, decrease autos • Midblock pass-troughs or courtyards as surprises • Vibrant, designate the mall historic, keep open space as cultural history, ban ground floor real estate offices • Historic integrity is intact, I’d like to see even more pedestrian dedicated areas • Vision: biggest danger is that uses serve too few people and that brand identity over shadows building style • Do not over regulate it seems quite good • Where development, mass belong, mix old and new, vibrant, connect in and outdoor space • Looked at AACP, no mention of a “vision” for CCH! How about “pedestrian experience” for starters Define • Flat facades, colorful, variety of window shapes, skin • Center of activity, mall/shops restaurants info books • Park, openness, yet variety all around you • Large monolithic buildings blocking viewplanes and shading streets, brick = stature mining heritage, welcoming storefronts • Historic, most successful as pedestrian historic interface • Pedestrian friendly, landmark/historic buildings, flowers, streams, outdoor seating, snow piled high, ski racks, Retail and restaurants, Buildings in close proximity but not one style for an entire block • Mixed scene! Link scene and modest scale. Active public zones: Malls and sidewalks, need to reduce cars, improve ped • Jerome – Red Onion – Ute – Wheeler – History • Define: auto – centric, good public spaces, many quality historic structures P47 I. 34 | P a g e • Dwell/seating diversity of building and dwelling • Large brick, clean, fun, pedestrian areas • CC is a small, walkable area, variety of styles • Public art – murals, landscaping gardens, water seasonal streams • Define: vibrancy, success: pedestrian engagement, walking malls, future: more thoughtful redevelopment • Upper floor, setbacks, yard, P.A. outdoor dining areas and should be lot specific, sunny side, etc. • Character defined by density/more dense surrounding density • Character > urban streetscapes, urban parks, anomalies, pass-throughs alley use • Character diversity of uses, building styles • Pedestrian friendly, great access to businesses on foot and bike, diversity of structure, update function while preserving look • (1) pedestrian malls, historic buildings, (2) classic structure, pedestrian access, vitality, (3) pedestrian friendly, proper structure, retail heavy, less private houses • Gathering ped amenities, vic commercial and public use, heart of town, unique development that balances history • Iconic structures, masonry/stone density, pedestrian activity, businesses • (1) Variations of setbacks and heights, (2) brick walls with windows, not glass walls with brick trim, (3) Victorian ambiance • Arcades • Historic buildings make the core, pedestrian walkways • (1) larger area, (2) iconic buildings are open, Durant, red onion, be extra careful • Historic character, vernacular, searchable, spaces and building, textures and material, mixed uses on buildings • Public access, rectangular plat, ditch -> nature in urban, texture Success • Restaurants compliment/create street and pedestrian vibrancy, not just Main St, like Telluride and CB, corners are most important • My favorite place! Vibrant, exciting, love flowers, Wagner park = jewel • Paradise corner is truly crop – roads and town, love combination of trees and sun • Success: Cut back corners, historic feel • Success: pedestrian friendly, lots of outdoor uses in summer • outdoor seating for restaurants is fantastic, moveable furniture great, too much urban clutter • Paradise bakery – PA, music, community, vitality, congregating. Pedestrian malls, landscape streams. Wagner park. • The historic feel has been preserved, has organically evolved into a magnificent walking area • Successful building : white house restaurant, gap building (good texture), cooper st. building, corner cabins • The mall, trees and water features and Wagner park P48 I. 35 | P a g e Failures • Cooper-Pitkin county dry goods, aggravating areas • Getting too tall, too much shade views disappearing masses must be broken up (i.e. Aspen Square) • Learned from walking tour yesterday not a one size/shape/setback for every building. Site = this a big issue • Information booth, bad location visually Questions • How do we incentive prop. Owners? How to get people. Penalizing doesn’t work. • Depth of setback matters to how inviting a space is? • What happens on the 2nd floor is a mystery, pedestrian strolling, one-way streets is retail culture? Walking patterns • Size at spaces related to tenant? Character Area: Mountain Base Comments/Suggestions Design • Keep height restrictions going forward • Rocks build out last part to match base • We already lost the feel of aspen Mountain being right in town when little Nell hotel was built. We don’t really have a “mountain base” in the traditional sense • Gondola Plaza a good public use of area but limited visual connection to mountain • Like Gondola plaza, breath of fresh air for crowded, dislike areas except for skiing, lift 1 needs to come down hill! • Must maintain pedestrian public connections through this area to the mountain, refocus on the small lodge character • Maintain accessibility to mountain, encourage above all. Connection to community • Variety of ski and lodge resort character, built fabric that reflects the mountain topography. Maintain/enhance variety of size, character and scale of resort oriented- character • Respond to topography • Historical structures come off more as abandoned • No faux style, if you want to do faux style need HPC review • Advantage: the disorientation! (I.e. hidden parks, winding trails, a sense of discovery. Commercial additions (i.e. The town’s only… insert chain business) • How it meets the mountain and keeps the mountain primary, the resort/city interface, old and new Aspen, open access to mountain to provide lodging • Views back into town important P49 I. 36 | P a g e Use • Add more ski in ski out accessibility • Very important zone, make a 3d model available to public for better transparency • 3-d model of lift 1a • Let’s remember we are a ski town • Ski in, ski out PLEEEEAAASSSEEEE. Frank Lloyd wright only. Areas work with terrain • Okay that is different, public to private transitions to private transition is less important here • Helpful to have an area buyers, sellers, builders, the community and the government knows is for nightly guests. Need to keep it for nightly guest and avoid empty units • Mixed mountain design – theme is consistent attainment works, multi-family achieves public access better than single Vision • Dense lodging, honor/work around steep grades, support pedestrian use, even with steep grades • Vision: more powder days, retain view of Ajax • Area in greatest need of future focus • Extend 1A to Durant, honor conservation area, where is lower bike path across Ajax face? Getting very tall and dense • Vision: No buildings up side of mountain, smaller scale lodges, lace accessible to citizens, not just lodges • Emphasis is on function – support for tourist economy and ski area base, less on historic design • Way forward: emphasize public access along edge, innovation showed, facilitate access, design should blend into the mountain the further up it goes • Access to mountain but visually and physically, lodges at variety of size and design, ski in and out, walk in and out • Appropriate concentration of lodge rooms/ variety of lodge rooms. Keep pedestrian access to town from lodges a positive choice • Vision: lodging with an overall plan of creating continuity from the Little Nell to 1A • Lodging and commercial together at base bring people to the main attraction, defined by linking mountain to built environment, less homes more vibrancy • Residential/multi-family/lodging about the visitor (short and long term) needs to be responsive to landscape and topography • On-site parking, screened from view, topography sub grade • Needs connections, reestablish horizontal relationship • Should engage public : Cafes and Restaurants, rezoning not a right • No privatization of base of mountain, conform to lodging codes, Open inviting not closed off to public • Want street to bleed into the mountain P50 I. 37 | P a g e • Ease of access to mountain, opportunity to create diversity in some areas, much is hidden from must use, integration of buildings into landscape Define • (1) Gondola Plaza, (2) Gondola plaza lodges and hotels, (3)? • Define: Mostly disengaged, successful: Gondola easy to access, Future: 1a redevelopment • Insure visibility, east of access to mountain • Define: architecture with no relationship to aspen mountain, lots of hardscape, crowded buildings, dated architecture • (1) Nell, Hyatt, (2) Hotels!!!!, (3) More hotels • Gateway to mountain, lodging • Least uniform area so far, random mix of leftover spaces • Friendly open/green, funky, run down, underutilize, confusing • Defined by chalet type structures – feeling quaint • Historic significant to our mining and ski heritage, funky > old ski lodges worth maintaining • Public amenity spaces for dining ops/vitality, Ajax Tavern • Most European feel, no aluminum window frames, not shiny quality material • Define: scattered development of all sizes and shapes, somewhat awkward • (1) low heights so ability to see mountain, (2) high heights, destroying the view (like residences of the Nell), (3) Integrating buildings into mountain • Lodging shaded steep, very little new forgotten part of town • Lodging, condominiums commercial, access to mountain, larger structures • Diversity of buildings not cohesive, diversity of open space/public space • (1) European Chalet look: wood and stone buildings, mix of styles, (2) Interaction between buildings with mountain, (3) Keep this from being developed into the next Beaver Creek • It’s our beach front, great mix of styles, irregular street fronts • (1) Gable Roof forms, (2) Preserving mountain views, (3) Revive older mountain fronting structures Success • Successful: gondola plaza, lots of hardscape however “hard” • Successful: little Nell, Hyatt, St. Regis • Only gondola plaza area feels well-integrated to mountain Failures • Not walkable • Negative: stairs, no lights, optical landscape, solar access, unmanicured (gritty), public access • Remodel – dolemites – worst looking, set-up guideline to make stucco as 2nd of 3rd • Cross mountain relationships, physically taxing, free for all style • Disorienting, Aspen Alps need better flow, better as Asset P51 I. 38 | P a g e • Confusing, unorganized • Needs better management of public space, setbacks, road alignments, screening design Questions • Combining lots?? Character Area: Central Mixed Use Comments/Suggestions Design • Transitional, okay to have this as a character area • Contemporary architecture, some yes, complementary, avoid barriers inside setbacks • Window sizes, less large to help transition • athletic building and mountain forge scale seem ok • No commercial arch theme or scale, non-public building and spaces except for wide sidewalks and grass lined streets • Buildings not on sidewalk but with a front setback • Variety in dim. Requirements • Often too dense, great where open, better human scale • The windows being off the ground perpetuates the look as well • Transitional, okay to have this as a character area Use • Mixed Use: More architectural diversity, maintain height limitations, improve pedestrian access • Residential forms, smaller scale • Stress of development, similar to commercial areas • Use can dictate form – flexibility of design Vision • Encourage preserve • Future – eliminate • Lodge and residential, different approach/variation, continued pod enhancements and redevelopment of lodges and commercial • Vision: more shared spaces otherwise it can feel too vacant • Vision truly Mixed use a blur of residential and commercial • Less residence, more mixed use style buildings, more people, main St – lost its ability still potential here for mixed use • Urban residential character (town homes), setbacks and yards, alley access, CMU- East vs. CMU- West and different in use and character, consider existing uses vs. underlying Zoning • Vision: don’t know, there has been opportunities and proposals for more lodging with minimal success • Vision: maintain setbacks, increase public spaces on ground P52 I. 39 | P a g e • Way forward: possibly align CMV with commercial area. Why should they be different? One feels sterile, the other feels privatized • Mix of arch, focus more on function/use than design • Encourage preservation of midcentury, aspen modern, retain what still exists at scale of building and open space. Save lenado, appropriate use and scale for district • Emphasize residential, strong residential outer edge, more cohesive streetscape Define • Define – residential • Open space yards, gardens, bike lanes and transportation amenities • Define: Lower scale than CC/C-1, most buildings set back, mostly residential • Central mixed use zone: generally makes a pleasant transition, Commercial to single family • Condominiums and commercial: variety of structure, similar to commercial character area with more dense residential • Transition zone between commercial and residential, encourage transitional use-lodging • (1) – sleepy business with emphasis on residential, (2) – residential with hint of core creeping in, (3) keeping out the commercial core • Commercial mixed use: diversity of buildings, mixed use is good but misses residential which leaves the area feeling dead at times, find ways to get more vitality and energy • (1)Pitched roofs lawns, (2)pine trees, shrubbery, greenscape, (3) Victorian character • Defined by: more residential scale, Setbacks, Landscape belt, Seems ok, lenado with some mass, • Defines: 1970’s architecture like the patio building and Jean-Roberts • Blends residential and commercial, where there are sidewalk it pleasant for pedestrians • What defines: mostly modest height, busy-ness is dialed back from the core • Zone seems incongruous as eastern side is larger scale and western portion smaller buildings, parks, fewer condos, vegetarian as divider and architectural softener but not used to disguise mass • Taller buildings, brick parklets, private • Lower building heights, lots of plantings and landscaping, less-wide frontages/facades • Residential unusual set backs, mix of gabbles and flat roofs, privatized mosaic = inconsistent • 1. Less successful, 2. Less defined than commercial, 3. Look for good examples • Great balance of Victorian and modern design • Seems pretty good • Green setbacks, concrete sidewalks, wood Success • Walkways success • Benedict commons: some people really like it! Better pedestrian engagement • Successful in bridging density f core to more residential area with multifamily among multiuses, seems a bit confused between Mixed use and residential • Successful: nice mix of old and new, overtime the landscaping had added to the experience • Good density mix of architectural styles, good mix of old and new P53 I. 40 | P a g e • More inviting than commercial area-better to walk in • I don’t think of this as commercial area. Love pocket park with horseshoes, lie mix of condo/townhouses and small commercial buildings • Great transition, appropriate to provide privacy • Advantage transitional quality, different ways to cut through other than street, before dominant private zone • Success: green stuff, feeling of space, vision: keep it • Success: public spaces, setbacks • Use can benedict commons > good, rhythm is more interesting, bell mountain townhomes • Successful: feeling like people live there • The old world charm is present in the stone/woods/iron gates, use of angles, etc • Success - ? Failures • Bad name, commercial transition, combine with commercial fringe • Boundaries don’t make sense • too much faux period architecture • Single family residences detract from visitor experience Questions • Has a business use ever replaced a residential use in the area? Or is it always vis versa? • What is the value of separating at just 3 blocks? Seems to be mostly multifamily buildings but does this really have to be considered separately? • Establish corners is still good, still define prop. Line., setback better density? Can that be done? • Do we want an onion? • why east vs. west • Housing, do we need this zone? Character Area: Main Street Comments/Suggestions Design • Preserve two story landscape even if continuous to CC, avoid “creep” • Lots of crosswalks reminds drivers this is a town with people • No north of Nell or Aspen Square on Main reinforces small scale • Contradiction: vehicle vs. tranquility • Not expensive designed architecture • Keep the Victorian style homes on main, low fences • Don’t ignore the traffic, space between sidewalk and street • Density works for me: height, FAR, setbacks. Many structures need some love P54 I. 41 | P a g e Vision • Vision forward: maintain scale, No more JCC’s, retain nature/ditches/trees • vision: keep beauty while enhancing function and access to buildings, not a great ped/bike access • Time to cross the street should be increased, flashing lights to cross • Vision: I think some of the older lodges and weird style buildings could be redeveloped • Vision: make more pedestrian friendly, widen sidewalks • Maintain vegetative canopy, keep local character, improve pedestrian friendliness • Vision: historic preservation and small compact buildings, setbacks with good space, public areas on sidewalks and in setbacks, green not hardscape • Plant more trees • Curb to sidewalk, more comfortable. Reduce size of MS? • More commercial activity to increase pedestrian desire • Be practical, don’t force a case which won’t work like the commercial spaces as S curves in employee • Stick to cottonwoods- historic spacing? Building type matters less. Fence at building to line, create edge, keep building placement Define • Space between buildings and space from street • Mix of roof forms, small buildings, crossing isn’t safe, Street is a major barrier • Diversity of shapes, trees and green mixed with built • Mix of home/offices/space, smooth transition to core, successful due to historic buildings, historic buildings, preservation • Historic residences and commercial, infill businesses within residential forms • More wood – softer, easy intro to town • Divided, chasm of Main St., modest scale • Integration with nature • Artery • Ped vs. car experience • Trees – big narrow sidewalks, street dominate buildings not setback, mix of uses • Nature within private property • Timeline of aspen, residential feel • S-curve to Main St. is the arrival to a small mountain town • Bumper to bumper traffic, local serving businesses, view planes, lower buildings of interesting architecture variety • Good green space, street trees/yards, more discrete buildings, larger setbacks, commercial mixed with residential • Boulevard symmetry, ditches – value in urban, variety if buildings, yards, temporal P55 I. 42 | P a g e • Lots of old large trees, charming structure, telling a tale of the past asking you to explore rather than pass through town • Trees- but not too many, greenery, old mansions. Paepcke park • Defines: the Victorian style homes, the small miner type cabins, Paepcke park • Congested, wide open, eclectic, loud, dusty (winter) local • O2 building, covered arcade storefront works • Slow speeds, open space, Victorian, trees/green • Not great ped experience, yards, tree-lined • Front yards, well-defined, tree-lined street, transition from mixed commercial and residential character to urban in progression, maintain character progression • Aa strong sense of the past, unimposing buildings for the most part, Paepcke park, modest, pedestrian friendly, preserve authenticity-historical character • Residential: pitched roofs, lawns, brick or wood. Commercial: brick, substantial shrubbery • Defines: unfortunately car traffic for much of the day • Transportation, pedestrian experience • Historic pride, gateway to town, increasing vegetation, good lodges, some funkiness • (1)Victorian!!!!, (2) Victorian/modern, (3) creating the entry to aspen • Wide streets, large trees, bright color, brick and Victorian • Front yards, streams • Define: auto centric, tree separation from yard, setbacks/yards, historic structures, little hardscape except for street • Charming and diverse • Define: traffic, unpleasant. Successful: Variety, Future: more pedestrian engagement • Open, wide street, trees, Victorian architecture, color, mix of buildings. Objective: preserve this character • Leafy and green, lots of pointy roofs, decorative elements (i.e. gingerbread) • Open space, front yards • Low fences, sheds, space • Green (1) eclectic structures, (2) above defines area, (3) vision- mountain character • Vitality • Mirrors intensity, setback/reduce traffic lines • Cottonwoods, lawn strip and curb, detached sidewalk, reinforced property line Success • Successful: residential scale perceived residential use • Positive: open, low, historic variety, ditches, cotton woods, losing built environment • Combination merges nicely, good sense of arrival, nice wide street- you have arrived – relaxing • Successful: maintained historic look and feel, height is not an issue because the trees are so big • Successful: diversity of buildings, trees P56 I. 43 | P a g e • Successful: setback from street, trees, history. Not: traffic, Future: less traffic • Welcoming experience, dining and walking, good scale • Setbacks, density works • S-curves and main street are what makes Aspen “Aspen”, curb and gutter sucks, a mix of new and old Failures • District is stuck in traffic • Traffic jams destroy pedestrian experience • Jewish community center, doesn’t fit; material. Too early to tell Questions • Brick sidewalks vs. paved sidewalks? Character Area: Commercial Area Comments/Suggestions Design • Transitions, burdened by current development, commercial core characteristics seem more relevant • Design through materials, (i.e. art museum, aspen bank) • Diversity is good • Victorians with free market behind a big success, less = low elements in front of high ones • Transition area would like corner setbacks, major faucet art of museum, do not like massive trends, love spring café • Nook and cranny spaces, create/protect nook and cranny businesses, not every building should be lot line frontage • No setbacks = thoroughfare • Transition to core, fringe for local storefront, building decisions should reflect transition from res into core • CA Subject to same mass/scale as CC, Aspen idea overused in guidelines Use • The “ring” is now 82 – it used to be in the midland track around town • Consider moving silver circle ice rink to middle of street in shade north of Art Museum to engage pedestrians at grade • This area should be an area where local serving business can locate or shoulder businesses, appropriately transitional mix of commercial and residential, mix of scales • Service-oriented detached from rest of core, should feel more like CC P57 I. 44 | P a g e Vision • Vision: try to expand flow of pedestrian experience • Vision: preserve views, human scale, modest architecture • Vision: no more massive buildings, preserve sense of open space • Better cohesion it is front door commercial core, needs to function better as that • Contrast, find ways to improve transition to the CO, business to support core, update facades with durable materials, good diversity • Avoid lot line to lot line development, avoid open space pits • Greater building diversity, maintain mix of old and new, focus on pedestrian use, allow greater use of sidewalk space, allow diverse signage • Height limit increase on north side • Courtyards • Transition exploration of different pattern, area off non-tourist business, continue to transition and explore modern • More dynamic incentive, close to setback line, corners- look at as intersection Define • Transitional area less retail store fronts, non-metered parking, no clear identity or character, mixed bag • This area is very mixed • Mix of historic and new, parking? Diversity, flowers • Mixed character and structure, pedestrian friendly, be careful • Mixed shows the time of development, part of the character • Defines: a bit all over the place style-wise • Variety of uses and character typologies, mix of urban and less urban properties (0-lot line and front yards) , continue to enhance the variety and diversity of uses and character • testing ground, what is good sticks, what is not is redeveloped • green, structures, useable public amenity space • Variety of setback relief, bike areaways • Mix of residential, pitch roofs, with commercial flat roofs, redefined by being over built too much mass and scale, lower mass and scale • Mixture of commercial, residential, and lodging. Diverse structures, pedestrian and vehicles • Define: ostentations architecture, increasing zero-lot line and no street level public amenity space. Lots of pickup/construction trucks • Small store fronts ability to see. Aspen mountain, decorative plantings • Public art, scaled buildings, elements to human size • Public spaces, parking by grocery store • Open/green space, mom of old and new, modern and old school, light/windows P58 I. 45 | P a g e Success • Trees and grass between sidewalk and street creates calming effect, transition zone to residential with larger block consuming buildings, less pedestrian friendly, important amenities • Great use of retail and residential • success: buildings offer a sense of discovery, lots of different spaces upstairs, down • Successful: sandy’s, Victorian square, spring • Success: pedestrian engagement, define: low scale, variety, charming, future: thoughtful new development, vibrancy • nice gardens • The redevelopment of small Victorians and cabins worked, the newer buildings have added to vitality • Suzy’s, corner cabins- successful! • Pretty eccentric, mix of architecture. Success: Best is tradition/historic look • Successful: blend of style while preserving sense of history. Failures • Currently the most problematic of the areas • a lot of very unfortunate architecture: Muse, Art museum, sill creatures • the 70’s buildings are out of place with current look and feel • negative: angry architecture • Historic structures are dwarfed by new development, angry motorists • Schlocky • No defining character, a mix of buildings types but not cohesive, needs stronger framework/streetscape to tie it together • Hard to be cohesive because not a block is a U shape • Too boxy, too tall and shady, often sterilized sidewalks • 600 block of Hyman, really funky difficult Questions • No people at ground level outside museum, why is it so empty outside versus the core? • What do we call this, commercial fringe? • How do we drift from commercial core to residential? Pedestrian engagement! • Landscaping public places to sit/congregate, different name? Character Area: Small Lodge Comments/suggestions • Good luck • “Small lodge “exercise” is ridiculous, there is no way aspen can sustain cheap lodging anymore without government subsidies, cheap is $150 or less per night in high season P59 I. 46 | P a g e • Various neighborhoods is good • Clearer identification ‘ bag em and tag em’ • No obvious commonalities, their neighborhood context is more relevant • Let’s help them • There’s always been conflict between lodge needs and neighborhood impacts, evaluations are and should be site-specific • Small lodges belong in R zones not a huge development • Below grade parking garage keep cars off the street • Small elegant, beware of star creep Design • The charm lies in the small size • Hard to find many similarities except 2 styles, fit into surrounding neighborhoods • Variety of design, integrated into neighborhood context, don’t not look like a corporate/chain hotel, attention to details • All lodging conforming to small lodge guide lines and zoning Use • Small lodges add to the vitality of town and need to be supported/encouraged. Vision • They should retain their individual character/personality to the extent possible • Vision: overlay character should extend to base of mountain, preserve setbacks and onsite parking, preserve views • Leave able to change and improve at their existing size, not a zone but a way to accommodate and grandfather • Need for redevelopment of upgraded lodging product • Good mix, could be challenging to engage in access small lodge depending on location and neighborhoods, preserve small lodges, allow them to modernize • Maintains small lodges and allows interaction of guest with residential, mixture of visitor and local, support small lodge redevelopment with strong incentive • Funk lives history, retain family run, keep skiing as a focus Define • funky” old time quality of aspen, enhance feeling of locals • All have green space and trees, none are boxes like the Residences of Little Nell of Aspen Square • Historic ownership, historic connection, diversification lodge base, smallish buildings • Variable Design, lodge • Define: charming outdated, success: charming, affordable, future: incentivize renovations • Define: small scale, cozy, funky, set back with green space and trees • Run down and old P60 I. 47 | P a g e • Need some love – run down • Fun mix emphasis on form vs function, crucial to tourism economy • Important! Unique to Aspen Diversity in bed base • Mom and pop operations, variety and character • Quaint ambiance, mix of boutique lodges in with residential neighbors, revive small lodgesbut with design compatible with residential • Small lodges testament to our history, need protection • Small and unique protection that overall match the neighborhood • Character funky diverse distinctive. Lodges are distinct in the large zone district, flexibility in form • Few public spaces (inside) non-descript, funky kitschy (?) blend in Questions • Are small lodges inherently expensive? Not necessary • Historic, unique, how do we keep them? • How to encourage more given cost of land? Questions to consider: What are our landmarks? • Wheeler/Jerome/ Aspen Meadows/Elks • Jerome/ Wheeler • Big old Buildings • The views, view planes and open spaces, mall • Jerome/Wheeler • Wheeler/Jerome/City Hall • Courthouse/Wheeler/Jerome/ Love large brick buildings • Courthouse/Elks/Jerome/Opera House/ Aspen Inst. Campus • Elks/Wheeler/Jerome/ Wagner Park/ Paepcke Park Where do you like to eat lunch outside? • Peaches/Mezzaluna • Hyman Mall, Ajax Tavern • Everywhere • Art Museum, any mall • Peaches, Jerome • John Denver • Clarks, Rio Grande Park • Jerome, Plates, Jimmies • Mi Chola, Over Easy P61 I. 48 | P a g e What character area defines Aspen most for you? • Some of comm core • Mining history, Victorian design • Commercial core • Lift one and the Gondola • Historic Core/Malls • CC • West End • Core • Downtown What buildings do you love? • Wheeler/Elks/Ute City Banque • Elks, Wheeler • Wheeler, Art Museum • Jerome, 215 Hyman, Elks, St Moritz • Jerome and Wheeler • Jerome, Gap building • Big old ones mixed with Victorian • The above [ core] • N/a What is your least favorite building? • Art museum • Aspen Art • North of Nell • SE corner of mill and hyman • AAM, Building next door, orange sided new empty building, Jewish Center • Aspen Core Building • SCI Zone • St. Regis • Aspen Art Museum What is your favorite neighborhood? • East Aspen • Downtown/Core • Juan St. • Shadow Mountain 2nd to 7th • West End • CC P62 I. 49 | P a g e • West End • West End • Mine – east aspen before bridge What is your favorite spot on pedestrian mall? • Fountain • Grey lady • Too many • Semi-plaza to Galena and Cooper • Hyman near fountain • Hyman Mall! • Visitor Pavillion!!! • Red Onion and surrounding area • Shady bench or table P63 I. P 6 4 I . P 6 5 I . P 6 6 I . Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1 M E M O R A N D U MM E M O R A N D U MM E M O R A N D U MM E M O R A N D U M To: Reilly Thimons and Jessica Garrow, City of Aspen From: Tom Brown and Sonja Burseth, Nelson\Nygaard Date: August 24, 2016 Subject: Aspen Off-St. Parking & Mobility Update: Technical Memorandum #1: Summary of Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Conditions in Relation to Existing and Proposed Land Uses To develop a broad understanding of existing travel patterns, parking supply and utilization patterns, Nelson\Nygaard has reviewed project-level parking supply and land-use data within the Aspen Infill Area. To expand upon this understanding, we then led the collection of parking and travel survey data in June 2016, including both intercept surveys and parking counts. This included parking inventory and occupancy condition surveys from nine sites, and intercept surveys at five Infill Area sites, completed in June 2016. This memo provides a summary of findings from these efforts. PLANNEDPLANNEDPLANNEDPLANNED----SUPPLY LEVELSSUPPLY LEVELSSUPPLY LEVELSSUPPLY LEVELS The City of Aspen provided a sample of 14 “pipeline” projects in the infill area that represent a summary of planned land uses. The projects had either recently been completed, were under construction or under City review for approvals/permits. Some projects are additions or changes to one or more uses on the property, and all but one are mixed-use developments. The exception is an exclusively commercial project where no parking is planned. Among the mixed-use projects, the average parking supply proposed is 1.33 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Figure 1 Summary of Planned Projects in Aspen Infill Area Project Type Total Sq. Ft. Planned Parking Spaces Planned Spaces/1,000 Sq. Ft Mixed Use 519,349 688.5 1.33 Commercial 18,373 0 0 P67 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 –––– Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy ConditionsConditionsConditionsConditions City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2 EXSITING EXSITING EXSITING EXSITING SUPPLY AND UTILIZATISUPPLY AND UTILIZATISUPPLY AND UTILIZATISUPPLY AND UTILIZATION ON ON ON MethodologyMethodologyMethodologyMethodology Utilization counts were completed during one weekday (Thursday) and one Saturday, June 23rd and June 25th respectively. With collaboration and support from City Staff, counts were made at each site on a two-hour basis, from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., with one overnight count occurring between 12:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. Parking occupancy counts proceeded with permission from the property owner or manager, secured by City Staff. Nine sites were selected for occupancy counts including: Red Brick Council for the Arts (Red Brick), North Star Office Building (North Star), Limelight Hotel (Limelight), Benedict Commons, City Market, St. Regis Aspen Resort (St. Regis), Sky Hotel, Chateau Dumont, and Alpine Bank. Occupancy counts occurred at Red Brick only on Saturday June 25th due to staffing constraints. See Figure 7 for a map of site locations. InventoryInventoryInventoryInventory To confirm the inventory of spaces to be surveyed, Nelson\Nygaard staff and City of Aspen staff walked each site (often with a property manager or security staff) to document the number of spaces at each site. The nine sites surveyed are identified in Figure 2. Figure 2 Inventory of Selected Sites in Aspen Infill Area Site Parking Space Inventory Total Available Spaces Notes Limelight 49 47 All garage spaces; 2 spaces blocked for storage Benedict Commons 59 55 All garage spaces; 4 spaces blocked with items for storage Sky Hotel 42 33 23 garage spaces (9 blocked for storage); 19 angled surface spaces Chateau Dumont 11 11 7 spaces in garage; 4 parallel surface spaces North Star 15 15 Surface spaces City Market 28 28 Surface spaces St. Regis 202 130 All garage spaces; 72 blocked spaces, mostly being used for storage Alpine Bank 18 18 Surface spaces Red Brick 31 31 Surface spaces While this step was completed primarily as preparation for the utilization survey, one finding of note is that all but one site (Chateau Dumont) with garage parking had blocked off some spaces P68 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 –––– Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy ConditionsConditionsConditionsConditions City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 3 for non-parking uses. This was most pronounced at St. Regis which is currently using 72 spaces, or 36% of the parking supply, for storage and prepping areas. Some of the spaces used for storage in St. Regis have semi-permanent structures built over the parking, with fences and shelving. For occupancy rate calculations in this memo, Total Spaces Available were used, which in some cases was less than the entire inventory, if spaces being used for storage (see Figure 2). Rio Grande Parking Garage Rio Grande Parking Garage Rio Grande Parking Garage Rio Grande Parking Garage UtilizationUtilizationUtilizationUtilization Nelson\Nygaard received utilization data from the Parking Program department for the Rio Grande Garage, which offers public parking 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The garage is located a short walk from downtown Aspen on Rio Grande Place near Mill Street and the Pitkin County Library. Pricing starts at $1.50 per hour of parking with a daily maximum of $15, see Figure 3. The garage offers free “night out” parking from 5 p.m. to 5 a.m. daily, and Sunday and holidays are free. Multiple electric charging stations are offered in the garage. Figure 3 Rio Grande Garage Pricing 1111 Category Price Per Hour $1.50 Daily Maximum $15 10-Visit Pass $50 Monthly Pass $200 Lost Ticket Fee $15 The Rio Grande garage has 320 spaces in total. On Thursday June 23, 2016, 392 cars entered the garage. Of those 392 cars, 174 cars (44%) paid with a 10-Visit Punch Pass, and 218 (56%) cars paid with another form of payment. On Saturday June 25, 2016, 390 cars entered the garage. Of those 390 cars, 167 cars (43%) paid with a 10-Visit Punch Pass, and 223 (57%) cars paid with another form of payment. See Figure 4 for a graph of payment types on both days. Holders of a 10-Visit Punch Pass are most likely commuters. Those paying with another form of payment either park casually, seasonally, or are visitors. The Punch Pass payment versus other forms of payment stayed about the same between the weekday and Saturday data. P69 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 –––– Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy ConditionsConditionsConditionsConditions City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4 Figure 4 Rio Grande Payment Type Weekday UtilizationWeekday UtilizationWeekday UtilizationWeekday Utilization The highest utilization levels were found at the City Market site. City Market is a unique case among these sites, with high-turnover retail as the primary parking generator. Weekday occupancy counts confirmed this fact with most times of the day recording rates above 80%, except for 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. (79%) and Overnight (25%) time periods. The highest occupancy rate recorded was 96%, or one space free, during the 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. time period. Activity dropped rapidly overnight when the store was closed, but workers and re-stock activity occurs, occupying 25% of spaces. Among the remaining sites, peak utilization levels for lodge-use sites were about the same as the residential-use site. Over the course of the weekday, the highest occupancy count for Limelight (68%), Sky Hotel (91%), and St. Regis (77%) was during the 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. time period. Across lodge-use sites that were surveyed, a combined 64 spaces were unoccupied during the 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. time period. The highest occupancy count for Chateau Dumont was 64% during the 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., and overnight time periods. The lowest occupancy counts for lodge-use sites was generally around the dinner hours with Limelight (40%), Sky Hotel (61%), and St. Regis (43%) recording the lowest count during the 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. time period. Chateau Dumont recorded the lowest occupancy count during the 9.a.m. to 11 a.m. time period with 36%. Across lodge-use sites that were surveyed, a combined 129 spaces were unoccupied during the 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. time period. Peak utilization among the mixed-use sites were generally lower than lodge-use sites, residential- use Benedict Commons, and commercial-use City Market. Like the lodge-use sites, utilization peaked during the 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. time period, with North Star at 73%, and Alpine Bank at 72%. The lowest recorded occupancy was during the Overnight time period, with 0% at North Star, and 17% at Alpine Bank. Benedict Commons (affordable housing), had steady weekday occupancy rates, and stayed within 55% and 60% occupied over the course of the day. In areas that are very 44%43% 56%57% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Weekday Saturday Pe r c e n t o f P a y m e n t C a t e g o r y Day Other Payments Punch Pass Payment P70 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 –––– Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy ConditionsConditionsConditionsConditions City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5 walkable, data collectors heard that visitors that rent cars tend to leave them at the lodge and use other modes to get around town. Weekday occupancy count by site can be found in Figure 17, Appendix A. Figure 5 Weekday Occupancy Count by Use Saturday Saturday Saturday Saturday UtilizationUtilizationUtilizationUtilization Utilization levels during Saturday surveys were largely consistent with those found during weekday surveys. The following exceptions, however, are worth noting. Lodge-use sites had additional unoccupied spaces during the morning and evening time periods. - A combined 127 spaces were unoccupied during the 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. time period. - A combined 125 spaces were unoccupied during the 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. time period. Lodge-use sites peaked during the overnight, rather than mid-morning period. Mixed use sites, North Star, Alpine Bank, and Red Brick, recorded lower occupancy rates on Saturday compared to weekday counts. - North Star saw very few cars, with all time periods recording 0, 1, or 2 cars. - Alpine Bank recorded the highest occupancy count during the 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. time period with 50%. - Red Brick, recorded 13% to 26% occupancy over the course of the day, with the highest rate during the 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. time period. Saturday occupancy count by site can be found in Figure 18, Appendix A. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 9AM - 11AM 11AM - 1PM 1PM - 3PM 3PM - 5PM 5PM - 7PM 7PM - 9PM Overnight Pe r c e n t O c c u p i e d Time Period Lodge Residenti al Mixed Use Commerci al P71 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 –––– Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy ConditionsConditionsConditionsConditions City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6 Figure 6 Saturday Occupancy Count by Use *Occupancy count for Red Brick occurred on Saturday only due to staffing constraints. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 9AM - 11AM 11AM - 1PM 1PM - 3PM 3PM - 5PM 5PM - 7PM 7PM - 9PM Overnight Pe r c e n t O c c u p i e d Time Period Lodge Residentia l Mixed Use Commerci al P72 I. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7 TRAVEL PATTERNSTRAVEL PATTERNSTRAVEL PATTERNSTRAVEL PATTERNS Intercept SurveysIntercept SurveysIntercept SurveysIntercept Surveys With guidance from the Nelson\Nygaard team, City staff and temporary staff conducted intercept surveys of occupants and visitors at Limelight Hotel, North Star Office Building, Red Brick Recreation Center, Benedict Commons, and City Market, on Thursday June 23rd and Saturday June 25th from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Intercept surveys were collected at Benedict Commons on Thursday only; staff resources were relocated to support other sites. See Figure 7 for a map of site locations. Surveyors sought to obtain information from a representative sample of people entering and exiting buildings/sites, including where intercepted participants are coming from (trip origin), where they are going (trip destination), and why (trip purpose). The survey also sought information on primary travel modes and parking locations. The intercept survey instrument can be found in Figure 16, Appendix A. MethodologyMethodologyMethodologyMethodology Surveyors were positioned at each site to intercept people coming in and out of common pedestrian exits and entrances. Surveyors were positioned on the public sidewalk, or public space near the entrances/exits of the building or site. As a courtesy to property owners, tenants, and regular building visitors, and occupants, the team sent a brief letter explaining the timing and purpose of the intercept surveys to the property owner and tenants. The letter requested the cooperation and participation of building occupants and tenants with the surveyors, with the hope of increasing survey response rates. In addition to the requested permission, all surveyors carried a letter printed on City letterhead, explaining the purpose of the survey, and immediate objectives and methods of the survey. Data collectors were instructed to record use of dedicated, private shuttles, such as the one provided to attendees of the Limelight-based Aspen Ideas Festival, as transit. This helps explain the significant variation in the use of transit associated with lodge-use sites. P73 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 –––– Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy ConditionsConditionsConditionsConditions City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 8 Figure 7 Site Locations of Intercept Survey and Occupancy Counts in Aspen Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday ResultsResultsResultsResults Trip PurposeTrip PurposeTrip PurposeTrip Purpose Trip purpose responses varied across sites. The highest responses for arriving at or leaving for home were recorded at Benedict Commons (34%). Twenty-nine percent of respondents said they were leaving for home from North Star. Unsurprisingly, the majority of those surveyed at City Market stated their purpose was to shop (78%). Those arriving or leaving for work were 44% of those surveyed at Limelight, 39% at North Star, 21% at Benedict Commons, 18% at Red Brick, and 9% at City Market. Many of the Other responses at Limelight were people stopping in for coffee. At City Market, the Other responses were picking up a paper or not specified. Those that responded with Other arriving or leaving Red Brick were exercise: running or gymnastics class. For a breakdown of trip purpose at each site, see Figure 8. P74 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 –––– Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy ConditionsConditionsConditionsConditions City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 9 Figure 8 Weekday Intercept Survey Responses by Trip Purpose Travel Travel Travel Travel ModeModeModeMode –––– Intercepted TripIntercepted TripIntercepted TripIntercepted Trip Benedict Commons was recorded as having the highest walk mode share of respondents arriving or leaving with 59%, see Figure 9. Other walk mode shares were 46% for Limelight Hotel, 22% for City Market, 15% for Red Brick, and 4% for North Star. Bike and walk mode share together accounted for over 50% of responses at Benedict Commons (64%) and Limelight (51%). North Star recorded the highest share of drive alone responses with 64%. City Market recorded the second-highest share of drive alone responses with 45%. Benedict Commons recorded 28% drive alone responses, Red Brick recorded 17% drive alone responses and Limelight recorded 16% drive alone responses. Eight Other mode responses were recorded across Limelight and City Market, and they included scooter, skateboard and motorcycle. 4% 34% 18% 8% 21%29% 1% 25% 34% 3% 53% 24% 1% [VALUE] 16% 1%78% 1% 8% 1% 4% 1% 21% 44% 9% 18% 39% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Benedict Commons Limelight City Market Red Brick North Star Pe r c e n t o f R e s p o n s e s Site Work Visiting Shop School Other Medical Appt Home Childcare n=76 n=602 n=763 n=160 n=38 P75 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 –––– Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy ConditionsConditionsConditionsConditions City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 10 Figure 9 Weekday Intercept Survey Responses by Mode Travel Mode Travel Mode Travel Mode Travel Mode –––– Downtown Trip Downtown Trip Downtown Trip Downtown Trip Respondents were asked if they drove into Downtown Aspen today, even if their mode during the intercepted trip did not include traveling by car. This question was included in the survey to see if people were parking once and then taking other modes to circulate in town. Seventy percent of those surveyed at North Star responded that they drove into Downtown Aspen today. Sixty-six percent of those surveyed at City Market and 59% at Red Brick stated that they drove into Downtown Aspen. Just under half of those surveyed at Limelight said they drove, and 38% at Benedict Commons. See Figure 10 for reference. If respondents drove into Downtown Aspen, they were then asked where they parked their car. As shown in Figure 11, 74% of people surveyed at Benedict Commons parked on-street. On-street parking was also heavily used by those surveyed at Red Brick (65%), Limelight (63%), and City Market (41%). Fifty-one percent of respondents surveyed at City Market stated they parked in a lot, and 7% did not state a parking location, and 2% stated they parked in a garage. The most popular specified on-street locations were Aspen Street, Cooper Avenue, Hyman Street, Hopkins Avenue, Monarch Street, and Hallam Street. No respondents stated they parked in the Rio Grande Public Parking Garage. 59% 46% 22% 15% 4% 5% 6% 9% 9%27% 1% 19% 4% 1% 28%16% 45% 17% 64% 5% 3%13% 22% 4%1% 1% 4% 35% 1% 2%8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Benedict Commons Limelight City Market Red Brick North Star Pe r c e n t o f R e s p o n s e s Site Shared Vehicle Other HOV Pax HOV Driver Drive Alone Bus Bike Walk n=76 n=789n=636 n=161 n=45 P76 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 –––– Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy ConditionsConditionsConditionsConditions City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 11 Figure 10 Weekday Travel to Downtown Aspen by Car Figure 11 Weekday Parking Location in Downtown Aspen Saturday ResultsSaturday ResultsSaturday ResultsSaturday Results Trip Trip Trip Trip PurposePurposePurposePurpose Similar to the weekday results, the majority of respondents arriving or leaving City Market were shopping. Trip purpose arriving or leaving at Limelight were more varied than the weekday results with 36% of those respondents staying at the hotel or going home, 25% were arriving or heading to work, and 18% of responded with Other, of which popular responses were dinner and 30% 41% 34% 54% 62% 70% 59% 66% 46% 38% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% North Star Red Brick City Market Limelight Benedict Commons Percent of Responses Si t e No Yes n=61 n=561 n=653 n=116 n=44 26% 7%2% 74% 63% 41% 65% 13% 2%51%3% 87% 28% 7% 32% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Benedict Commons Limelight City Market Red Brick North Star Pe r c e n t o f R e s p o n s e s Site Unspecifie d Lot On-Street Garage n=23 n=260 n=429 n=68 n=31 P77 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 –––– Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy ConditionsConditionsConditionsConditions City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 12 drinks, dog walking, or using the hotel bathrooms. The 61% of Other responses of those arriving or leaving North Star were picking something up at the office, or cleaning staff who parked there. The 50% of Other responses of those arriving or leaving Red Brick were there for yoga class, a birthday party, were there to listen to music, or play. A chart of trip purposes can be found in Figure 12. Figure 12 Saturday Intercept Survey Responses by Trip Purpose Travel Travel Travel Travel ModeModeModeMode –––– Intercepted TripIntercepted TripIntercepted TripIntercepted Trip Limelight recorded over half (51%) of those surveyed were walking to arrive at or leaving from their destination. See Figure 13 for a summary of responses by mode. The other sites surveyed recorded about a quarter of respondents stating they walked, with City Market (27%), North Star (25%) and Red Brick (25%). North Star again recorded the highest drive alone mode share at 45% of responses. City Market recorded 33%, Red Brick recorded 26%, and Limelight recorded 5% drive alone responses. Other mode responses were recorded and the majority were motorcycle, scooter, skateboard, and ATV. 17% 36% 28% 18% 7% 18% 61% 50% 6% 68%5% 2% 2% 16% 11% 2% 6% 25%23% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% City Market Limelight North Star Red Brick Pe r c e n t o f R e s p o n s e s Site Work Visiting Shop School Other Medical Appt Home Childcare n=177n=18n=562n=1,325 P78 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 –––– Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy ConditionsConditionsConditionsConditions City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 13 Figure 13 Saturday Intercept Survey Responses by Mode Travel Mode Travel Mode Travel Mode Travel Mode –––– Downtown Trip Downtown Trip Downtown Trip Downtown Trip The majority of people (83%) arriving or leaving Limelight stated they did not drive into Downtown Aspen that day. This finding shows the impact of dedicated shuttles, such as the shuttle to Aspen Ideas Festival. All of those that responded to the question at North Star, drove into Downtown Aspen, see Figure 14. The majority of those surveyed (70%) at Red Brick stated they did drive into Downtown Aspen. The most common Saturday parking location is on-street. On-street parking was utilized by respondents at Red Brick (85%), Limelight (71%), and City Market (38%). Very few people reported parking in a garage: 5% at Limelight, 3% at City Market, and 1% at Red Brick. See Figure 15 for a breakdown of parking locations. The most popular specified on-street locations were Aspen Street, Cooper Avenue, Hyman Street, Garmisch Street, Durant Avenue, Monarch Street, and Hallam Street. No respondents stated they parked in the Rio Grande Public Parking Garage. If respondents stated they parked in a lot, it was most likely the on-site lot. 27% 51% 25%25% 9% 4% 10%13% 2% 28% 1% 33% 5% 45% 26% 16% 4% 10% 17% 9% 8%10% 13% 3%4%1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% City Market Limelight North Star Red Brick Pe r c e n t o f R e s p o n s e Site Shared Vehicle Other HOV Pax HOV Driver Drive Alone Bus Bike Walk n=1,327 n=564 n=20 n=179 P79 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #1 –––– Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Local Parking Supply and Occupancy ConditionsConditionsConditionsConditions City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 14 Figure 14 Saturday Travel to Downtown Aspen by Car Today Figure 15 Saturday Parking Location in Downtown Aspen 30% 83% 30% 70% 17% 100% 70% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% City Market Limelight North Star Red Brick Percent of Responses Si t e No Yes n=854 n=78 n=7 n=123 3%5%1% 43% 3% 100% 11% 38% 71% 85% 17%22% 3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% City Market Limelight North Star Red Brick Pe r c e n t o f R e s p o n s e s Site Unspecifi ed On-Street Lot Garage n=854 n=7n=78 n=123 P80 I. Ne l s o n \ N y g a a r d C o n s u l t i n g A s s o c i a t e s I n c . | 1 5 AP P E N D I X A AP P E N D I X A AP P E N D I X A AP P E N D I X A Fi g u r e 1 6 I n t e r c e p t S u r v e y I n s t r u m e n t P81 I. Of f Of f Of f Of f - ---S t r e e t P a r k i n g & M o b i l i t y U p d a t e s : T M # 1 St r e e t P a r k i n g & M o b i l i t y U p d a t e s : T M # 1 St r e e t P a r k i n g & M o b i l i t y U p d a t e s : T M # 1 St r e e t P a r k i n g & M o b i l i t y U p d a t e s : T M # 1 – ––– L o c a l P a r k i n g S u p p l y a n d O c c u p a n c y Lo c a l P a r k i n g S u p p l y a n d O c c u p a n c y Lo c a l P a r k i n g S u p p l y a n d O c c u p a n c y Lo c a l P a r k i n g S u p p l y a n d O c c u p a n c y C o n d i t i o n s Co n d i t i o n s Co n d i t i o n s Co n d i t i o n s Ci t y o f A s p e n Ne l s o n \ N y g a a r d C o n s u l t i n g A s s o c i a t e s I n c . | 1 6 Fi g u r e 1 7 W e e k d a y O c c u p a n c y C o u n t b y S i t e Th e A l p i n e B a n k 1 1 a . m . t o 1 p . m . o c c u p a n c y c o u n t w as m i s s e d , a n d i s N / A . T h i s i s r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e c ha r t b y a c o n n e c t e d l i n e b e t w e e n t h e p r e v i o u s a n d n ex t d a t a p o i n t s . 0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 10 0 % 9A M - 1 1 A M 1 1 A M - 1 P M 1 P M - 3 P M 3 P M - 5 P M 5 P M - 7 P M 7 P M - 9 P M O ve r n i g h t P e r c e n t O c c u p i e d Ti m e P e r i o d s Li m e l i g h t Be n e d i c t C o m m o n s Sk y H o t e l Ch a t e a u D u m o n t No r t h S t a r Ci t y M a r k e t St . R e g i s Al p i n e B a n k P82 I. Of f Of f Of f Of f - ---S t r e e t P a r k i n g & M o b i l i t y U p d a t e s : T M # 1 St r e e t P a r k i n g & M o b i l i t y U p d a t e s : T M # 1 St r e e t P a r k i n g & M o b i l i t y U p d a t e s : T M # 1 St r e e t P a r k i n g & M o b i l i t y U p d a t e s : T M # 1 – ––– L o c a l P a r k i n g S u p p l y a n d O c c u p a n c y Lo c a l P a r k i n g S u p p l y a n d O c c u p a n c y Lo c a l P a r k i n g S u p p l y a n d O c c u p a n c y Lo c a l P a r k i n g S u p p l y a n d O c c u p a n c y C o n d i t i o n s Co n d i t i o n s Co n d i t i o n s Co n d i t i o n s Ci t y o f A s p e n Ne l s o n \ N y g a a r d C o n s u l t i n g A s s o c i a t e s I n c . | 1 7 Fi g u r e 1 8 S a t u r d a y O c c u p a n c y C o u n t b y S i t e 0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 10 0 % 9A M - 1 1 A M 1 1 A M - 1 P M 1 P M - 3 P M 3 P M - 5 P M 5 P M - 7 P M 7 P M - 9 P M O ve r n i g h t P e r c e n t O c c u p i e d Ti m e P e r i o d s Li m e l i g h t Be n e d i c t Co m m o n s Sk y H o t e l Ch a t e a u D u m o n t No r t h S t a r Ci t y M a r k e t St . R e g i s Al p i n e B a n k Re d B r i c k P83 I. M E M O R A N D U MM E M O R A N D U MM E M O R A N D U MM E M O R A N D U M To: Reilly Thimons and Jessica Garrow, City of Aspen From: Thomas Brown, Kevin Shively, and Sonja Burseth, Nelson\Nygaard, and Jeremy Nelson, REgeneration Development Strategies Date: July 19, 2016 Subject: Aspen Off-St. Parking & Mobility Update: Technical Memorandum #2: Development Stakeholder Interview Summary – Issues and Opportunities This memorandum provides a summary of key issues and opportunities for the Aspen Off-Street Parking & Mobility Update, as identified through interviews with Aspen real-estate development stakeholders during the first site visit of the consultant team (April 18-19, 2016). INTERVIEW PURPOSE ANINTERVIEW PURPOSE ANINTERVIEW PURPOSE ANINTERVIEW PURPOSE AND LOGISTICSD LOGISTICSD LOGISTICSD LOGISTICS The primary purpose of the interviews was to help the project team to better understand technical issues surrounding existing requirements for the provision of off-street parking in association with development in the Aspen Infill Area. This included assessing specific issues and impacts of current parking-related code provisions on development patterns and public policy priorities related to housing affordability, access, mobility, and community character. In advance of the interview sessions, City staff sent out email invitations to a broad cross-section of stakeholders who had significant technical knowledge of development issues within Aspen’s Infill Area. The project team also invited interested development industry stakeholders representing organizations including Downtown Colorado Inc. (DCI) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI). Invited stakeholders included: • community members • developers • lodge operators • property managers • business owners/representatives • architects/planners • brokers/realtors P84 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 –––– Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & OpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunities ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2 • appraisers City staff followed up with targeted phone calls to selected stakeholders to schedule their participation in one of three 90-minute interview sessions — see Appendix A for the full roster of invited stakeholders. The interview sessions were structured around a series of interview questions that had been distributed in advance. Interview questions focused on key areas of issues/concerns, including the following. The sufficiency/efficiency of parking provided at new development, and the role of the current development code in that. - At the aggregate level across the Infill Area - At the individual development level Off-street parking requirements as a potential barrier to redevelopment or re-use of Infill Area properties. Construction cost for off-street parking, including land and opportunity costs. The relative “market value” of off-street parking spaces, compared to other potential land uses. An appendix to this document presents the full set of interview questions. IDENTIFIED ISSUES & IDENTIFIED ISSUES & IDENTIFIED ISSUES & IDENTIFIED ISSUES & OOOOPPORTUNITIESPPORTUNITIESPPORTUNITIESPPORTUNITIES This section distills key issues and opportunities identified by interview participants. IssuesIssuesIssuesIssues Consensus on Need for Change, But Not on Specific SolutionsConsensus on Need for Change, But Not on Specific SolutionsConsensus on Need for Change, But Not on Specific SolutionsConsensus on Need for Change, But Not on Specific Solutions There was no consensus among stakeholders about whether the City’s off-street parking requirements were too high, too low, or about right. Several thought that the current off-street requirements should be eliminated. A few felt that off-street parking requirements should be increased further. But for those who wanted to retain or increase off-street parking requirements (or those who weren’t sure if they could be eliminated), almost all felt they could be reformed and improved. General DissatisfactionGeneral DissatisfactionGeneral DissatisfactionGeneral Dissatisfaction Hardly anyone interviewed, whether they thought the problem was too much parking or too little, is happy with the City’s current off-street parking situation. Several stakeholders suggested that controversy around parking was really a proxy battle over pro-development and anti-development perspectives, which itself was really a fight over Aspenites’ values such as preserving the community’s character, enhancing its environmental sustainability, and other issues such as housing affordability. In particular, development stakeholders were frustrated that the adopted policies and regulations for off-street parking for new development that appear to be objective and straightforward in the code often become subjective and complex in their actual application during the entitlement process. While some development stakeholders felt that off-street parking requirements were P85 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 –––– Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & OpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunities ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 3 currently a relatively smaller challenge to address considering the many development challenges in Aspen, several also said that reforms to off-street parking requirements that provided additional clarity, certainty, and rationality would be welcome due to the cumulative effect of the development requirements and uncertain entitlement approvals process. On balance, current City policies and practices leave many development stakeholders without a clear understanding of the City’s goals for access and off-street parking. Development projects that otherwise appear consistent with and supportive of the goals and vision of the Aspen Area Community Plan, often get bogged down in parking debates (often over a handful of spaces). In such cases, all parties involved spend lots of time, energy, and resources fighting about parking without much parking actually being created and despite the fact that parking availability is only a primary public concern for limited periods of time throughout the year. Unrealistic ExpectationsUnrealistic ExpectationsUnrealistic ExpectationsUnrealistic Expectations of Developersof Developersof Developersof Developers There is a common expectation that the private sector should provide all of the off-street parking in Aspen, which is in conflict with limited opportunities for private projects to include cost- effective and efficient parking facilities on-site. High Parking Development CostsHigh Parking Development CostsHigh Parking Development CostsHigh Parking Development Costs High land costs, construction costs, and opportunity costs make it increasingly expensive (and therefore increasingly unlikely) for the private sector to provide off-street parking in the Infill Area. Land costs are high enough in the Aspen Infill Area that providing off-street surface parking does not typically make financial sense for new development projects, especially given the availability of on-street parking and access alternatives. Some of the key cost barriers are listed below. More affordable forms of parking, such as tuck-under parking (at an estimated construction cost of $25k-35k per space) are rarely feasible for new development projects, because this parking type is generally used for standalone residential projects, without any ground floor commercial space, which is no longer allowed in the Infill Area. The opportunity costs for using the ground plane of a mixed use project for parking instead of commercial uses are generally too high. Even if ground-plane parking made sense for certain projects (e.g. alley loaded tuck- under parking for a mixed use building with commercial on the primary street frontage and residential above) it is rarely feasible from a site planning/building design perspective. - Specifically, zoning requirements for the urban design of the ground-floor pedestrian realm, building setbacks, and dedicated areas for loading and services (e.g. dumpsters) limit the feasibility of surface and/or tuck under parking. In most cases, structured, at an estimated construction cost of $55k-$65k per pace, or underground, at an estimated construction cost of $60k-$80k per space, are the only viable options for new projects. The Aspen submarket has significantly higher costs for building labor and materials (estimated to be twice the costs in the Denver metro region). P86 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Ne Figure 1 Construction Cost & Development Cost and Site Constraints Limit EfficiencyDevelopment Cost and Site Constraints Limit EfficiencyDevelopment Cost and Site Constraints Limit EfficiencyDevelopment Cost and Site Constraints Limit Efficiency The off-street parking that does get built by the private sector in the Aspen Infill Area (and some of the public off-street parking as wel inefficient in terms of layout and circulation, relatively invisible (to the point of being inaccessible) to the public, and unsupportive of a “park necessarily well located to provide direct parking access to high demand locations, or regulated in a way that allows people to park once, then reach multiple destinations within downtown Aspen on foot, or by other non-auto modes of travel. ConflictingConflictingConflictingConflicting Policies Obscure What the City WantsPolicies Obscure What the City WantsPolicies Obscure What the City WantsPolicies Obscure What the City Wants The current off-street parking requirements and in lieu of parking fee structure for the Infill Area are working at cross purposes, so that neither policy is achieving its intended purpose. In addition, several stakeholders identified a policy conflict between the progressive “TIA mitigations to reduce driving and off The TIA Guidelines and off-street parking requirements are not well integrated from a public policy standpoint, as one stakeholder commented: “It m reducing [vehicle trips and associated] same amount of parking to be provided as if no mitigation occurred SystemSystemSystemSystem----wide Inefficiencieswide Inefficiencieswide Inefficiencieswide Inefficiencies Existing off-street parking facilities (both public and priv in areas of highest demand, and/or not accessible for shared public parking. Intensity of Seasonal PeaksIntensity of Seasonal PeaksIntensity of Seasonal PeaksIntensity of Seasonal Peaks Visitor parking demand in the Infill Area is highly peaked, with highest demand in the summer season (June-September) when a greater proportion of visitors arrive by car and parking is rarely a problem during the rest of the year. Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 –––– Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & OpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunities ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4 Construction Cost & Market Value of Off-Street Parking in the Aspen Infill Area Development Cost and Site Constraints Limit EfficiencyDevelopment Cost and Site Constraints Limit EfficiencyDevelopment Cost and Site Constraints Limit EfficiencyDevelopment Cost and Site Constraints Limit Efficiency street parking that does get built by the private sector in the Aspen Infill Area (and some street parking as well) is typically located in smaller facilities that are relatively inefficient in terms of layout and circulation, relatively invisible (to the point of being inaccessible) to the public, and unsupportive of a “park-once” district. Such facilities are also necessarily well located to provide direct parking access to high demand locations, or regulated in a way that allows people to park once, then reach multiple destinations within downtown Aspen auto modes of travel. Policies Obscure What the City WantsPolicies Obscure What the City WantsPolicies Obscure What the City WantsPolicies Obscure What the City Wants street parking requirements and in lieu of parking fee structure for the Infill Area are working at cross purposes, so that neither policy is achieving its intended purpose. In olders identified a policy conflict between the progressive “TIA mitigations to reduce driving and off-street parking requirements which accommodate driving.” street parking requirements are not well integrated from a public cy standpoint, as one stakeholder commented: “It makes no sense to reward projects for [vehicle trips and associated] parking demand via TIA mitigations, then still require the same amount of parking to be provided as if no mitigation occurred.” wide Inefficiencieswide Inefficiencieswide Inefficiencieswide Inefficiencies street parking facilities (both public and private) are often underutilized, and/or not accessible for shared public parking. Intensity of Seasonal PeaksIntensity of Seasonal PeaksIntensity of Seasonal PeaksIntensity of Seasonal Peaks nd in the Infill Area is highly peaked, with highest demand in the summer September) when a greater proportion of visitors arrive by car and parking is rarely a problem during the rest of the year. Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Street Parking in the Aspen Infill Area street parking that does get built by the private sector in the Aspen Infill Area (and some l) is typically located in smaller facilities that are relatively inefficient in terms of layout and circulation, relatively invisible (to the point of being once” district. Such facilities are also not necessarily well located to provide direct parking access to high demand locations, or regulated in a way that allows people to park once, then reach multiple destinations within downtown Aspen street parking requirements and in lieu of parking fee structure for the Infill Area are working at cross purposes, so that neither policy is achieving its intended purpose. In olders identified a policy conflict between the progressive “TIA street parking requirements which accommodate driving.” street parking requirements are not well integrated from a public akes no sense to reward projects for parking demand via TIA mitigations, then still require the ate) are often underutilized, not located nd in the Infill Area is highly peaked, with highest demand in the summer September) when a greater proportion of visitors arrive by car and parking is rarely P87 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 –––– Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & OpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunities ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5 Diversity and Range of Parking Diversity and Range of Parking Diversity and Range of Parking Diversity and Range of Parking Needs/ExpectationsNeeds/ExpectationsNeeds/ExpectationsNeeds/Expectations Expectations around parking and transportation preferences are different for different user groups. Aspen residents have always been active users of mobility choices like transit, biking, and walking. Increasingly, commuters who work in Aspen are carpooling or taking advantage of recent transit improvements. And while previous generations of visitors almost all drove and generally expected to park directly at the front door of their final destinations, even visitor expectations about parking and their mobility preferences generally have been gradually changing. While many visitors still drive to Aspen, and especially so in the summer, visitors are increasingly more open to parking off-site and walking to their final destination. In fact many just use their designated parking space as “car storage” during most/all of their visit to Aspen and prefer to walk the downtown streets. Inconsistent OnInconsistent OnInconsistent OnInconsistent On----Street AvailabilityStreet AvailabilityStreet AvailabilityStreet Availability Congestion of on-street parking sometimes limits parking availability and ease of access; a major concern for business owners and other key development stakeholders who voiced a desire to make Aspen a more welcoming destination for visitors. Many development stakeholders noted that on-street parking availability is sometimes quite limited – particularly during evening and weekend hours – when the City does not charge for parking in metered spaces. This absence of management, pricing, or regulation of on-street parking at some peak times likely contributes to the congestion of curbside parking that was voiced as a major concern of selected property and business owners. OpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunities Reframing Parking as an Access and Mobility ChallengeReframing Parking as an Access and Mobility ChallengeReframing Parking as an Access and Mobility ChallengeReframing Parking as an Access and Mobility Challenge Recognizing that parking is but one mode of access to specific sites in Aspen, some technical stakeholders appreciated the City’s intent in initiating this project as a study of – not only off- street parking, but more broadly about access and mobility. Reframing the “parking” challenge, and the City’s task in regulation of parking supply, as a challenge of planning for access and mobility, presents an opportunity for the City and key stakeholders to identify and pursue the most cost-effective mix of multimodal access and mobility solutions for each development site, and for the Infill Area as a whole. Pending OnPending OnPending OnPending On----Street Management ChangesStreet Management ChangesStreet Management ChangesStreet Management Changes During Summer 2016, the City of Aspen is implementing an innovative demonstration of demand-based parking management with a seasonal parking meter rate adjustment. This means the City is charging higher summer rates, reflecting the higher rates of parking utilization observed during previous summers. A successful demand-based management system can help achieve parking availability and ease of access goals, while reducing traffic related to searching for parking. Such outcomes would directly address the parking availability concerns that encourage many stakeholders to push for high off-street parking requirements and more off-street parking in general. P88 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 –––– Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & OpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunities ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6 Potential for integration Potential for integration Potential for integration Potential for integration of solutionsof solutionsof solutionsof solutions with the Transportawith the Transportawith the Transportawith the Transportation Impact tion Impact tion Impact tion Impact Analysis (TIA) and mAnalysis (TIA) and mAnalysis (TIA) and mAnalysis (TIA) and mitigation processitigation processitigation processitigation process Participants identified this Off-Street Parking & Mobility Study as a helpful opportunity to better integrate the City’s policies regulating the supply and use of off-street parking with the established Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and mitigation processes. Identified opportunities for integration with the TIA process include: • Accounting in the TIA process for the parking demand and vehicle trip reduction impacts of reduced parking supply, a diversity of land uses on site, and commitments to site specific parking and transportation demand management programs/measures. • Replacing the parking “in-lieu” fee with a higher Transportation Impact Fee that provides additional funding for projects, programs and services that provide multimodal access to downtown Aspen, including some limited new, publicly accessible off-street parking, if warranted. Pivoting to Pivoting to Pivoting to Pivoting to shared, publicly accessible parkishared, publicly accessible parkishared, publicly accessible parkishared, publicly accessible parking supplyng supplyng supplyng supply Participants identified several opportunities for adding shared public supply: Off-site parking in a shared facility or joint development parking facility is one opportunity. One good local precedent for this approach, mentioned by a technical stakeholder, is the Lift 1 Lodge. Site development required a use of a portion of the public right of way, including some on-street parking. To replace this public parking, the project developer committed to fund multimodal street improvements and built a 60-space municipal parking lot as an integral component of this private-sector hotel project. Wagner Park as a potential site for the development of public off-street parking. Remote parking sites outside of the infill area, including sites near Snowmass Village, the Airport Business Center, and the Brush Creek Intercept lot. P89 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 –––– Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & OpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunities ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7 MEETINGMEETINGMEETINGMEETING NOTESNOTESNOTESNOTES This section provides a summary of input received from interview participants, organized by session. 1 Session Session Session Session 1111 Date: 4/18/16 Time: 12pm - 1:30pm Attendees Attendees Attendees Attendees Chris Brendon Terry Butler Charlie Case Warren Klug Claire Sacco Comments ReceivedComments ReceivedComments ReceivedComments Received I’m against any increase in visitor permit prices, because we pay for that for guests. A lot of the older lodges were built prior to off-street parking requirements and are under-parked (although we do OK in the winter). Too little parking, we should be requiring more for new development and building public facilities, the more parking the better. I promote the bus and other alternatives (but you should call it a “shuttle” not a bus that has a stigma) but in the summer 90% of my guests have a car. Too much parking, we should be focusing on mobility not parking. Building too much parking induces traffic, we should allow the market to decide if private sector feels like they need parking they should be allowed to build that, but not required to do so. Some of our most successful businesses have no parking. Perhaps prohibit parking in the downtown area because if the limited ground-floor opportunities and high land costs, although we shouldn’t prohibit certain types of uses from having parking if that is essential to their business (e.g. grocery stores). Public parking that is available should be treated like public infrastructure and we should use pricing to disincentives bringing a car to downtown. 1 Please note: This does not represent a verbatim transcript of the stakeholder interviews. Instead it represents the consultant team’s best effort to capture in real time the major discussion points that were most relevant to this project. Any omissions or errors in documenting the stakeholder interviews are entirely the responsibility of the consultant team. If needed, the consultant team will revise the interview notes to clarify any inadvertent misrepresentations of stakeholders’ views. P90 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 –––– Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & OpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunities ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 8 Convert from a parking requirement to a mobility requirement and then develop a public parking system. The parking pricing and enforcement stops at 6pm which is too early and should be done until 8pm at least because the evening shift employees are parking on street all night instead of in nearby off-street garages. The problem has never been a money constraint preventing building public parking, the problem has been getting consensus on location. There are 850 on-street public parking spaces downtown currently, I don’t think just adding new supply alone will solve the problem, we also need better management of existing supply in conjunction. Residents try not to drive but visitors bring cars. In winter more people fly, but in summer more people drive (day trippers, etc.). We do market parking issues around available spaces. We need free transit for everyone and free parking for workers in off-street facilities. We need more public parking and not private parking. Off-street intercept parking lots will help but won’t solve the problem. We need off-street public parking in the core (underground, etc.). We need to provide a more welcoming experience for the visitor. I live in a BMR multifamily complex and there are 2 spaces per unit and the parking facility has never been full. Seasonality is a big issue: in summer driving tours are popular. The answer to the question of not enough, just right, or too much parking is: yes, because it depends on context of the project, the location, etc. The city and county have done a great job of creating alternatives like free transit, etc. The existing city parking facility is poorly designed so that it feels like it’s far away when it’s actually close so it’s already underutilized The hotels pay for a lot of benefits so any additional fees paid for hotels would have to show additional benefits for hotels. Why do we have a 4-hour time limit in the core and a 2-hour time limit on the periphery? Even though we promote non-car transportation alternatives, often people are bringing cars. On-street parking should be prioritized for retail, restaurants, and other short-term visitors. You don’t want to use valuable retail frontage for parking so we shouldn’t have parking requirements for downtown; however hotels should have parking requirements. We pay for employees’ transit passes (total spend = $40K/year). The trend downtown is that parking is disappearing. We have 100 rooms with 75 parking spaces, and in the summer the parking is full but the rest of the year it’s fine (in winter we let employees drive and park because we have space). I think an underground parking facility in Wagner Park would be ideal. P91 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 –––– Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & OpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunities ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 9 Consensus was that residents could be difficult to convince on voting to raise property taxes or sales taxes for a downtown public parking facility/system, but at the same time downtown property owners and merchants would likely not support if they were the only ones being assessed for public parking. Session 2Session 2Session 2Session 2 Date: 4/18/16 Time: 2pm - 3:30pm Attendees Attendees Attendees Attendees Michael Barrett Mitch Hass Patrick Rawley Sunny Vann Comments ReceivedComments ReceivedComments ReceivedComments Received Our parking standard is one size fits all, with parking required for each use, and that doesn’t fit with complex mixed use projects. Land use code was adopted in the early 70s and has been band-aided for the past 40 years. The TIA assumes each use generates its own stand-alone trips with no trip capture. We’ve never amended our code in a way that didn’t make development harder and this project shouldn’t do that. The TIA mitigations to reduce trips do not provide a reduction in parking demand. For the TIA fees and in lieu of parking fees, nobody knows where the money goes. No credit for on-street parking when you restore the curb cut but drive-in parking for existing uses counts towards their requirement. The requirements for the edges of the Infill Area are definitely a blunt instrument, because in one zone it’s waived via the in-lieu fee and across the street there is a suburban requirement. There should be more of a gradient of parking requirements based on actual demand not zoning designation lines. Parking requirements are driving the redevelopment conversation: Developers ask: Can we park the project? However, even though the code makes it flexible at approvals hearings, decision-makers make requests for “Why isn’t there more parking?” and “Can you do some parking?” Biggest difference in value in off-street parking is for residential and especially high-end residential. Public parking facilities must be smaller in scale and dispersed to avoid congestion issues. It depends on whom you’re asking about too much or too little parking. On redevelopment projects you get to keep/grandfather any existing parking deficits. P92 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 –––– Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & OpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunities ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 10 Parking requirements are currently the smallest barrier among many development barriers, but it’s still an issue because of the cumulative impact of all the different mandates on development. For public parking facilities, funding should be from multiple sources including in-lieu fee, city budget, and potential revenues from pricing public parking. We have 19 spaces for 36 rooms, and we also buy street space permits for guests. I say double the in-lieu fee and slow down the development in the valley. Rethink the cumulative requirements for multiple uses in a single project. Allow projects to mitigate their code parking requirement down to what they feel market demand and do that by right rather than negotiated special review process perhaps by incorporating into the TIA process so make it more objective and less subjective and goalposts being moved so the code has no certainty or credibility. Maybe establish parking maximums so that downtown core could become more car-free. Off-site parking in a shared facility or joint development parking facility would have interest among developers. - Lift 1 Lodge as a precedent: replaced on-street parking to make multimodal street improvements and built a 60-space municipal parking lot in a private-sector hotel where the garage provides all the replacement parking and it is publicly accessible. But Council often does the exact opposite: for a recent hotel project they attached a condition of approval that requires the 28 spaces for 34 rooms to be restricted to hotel guests only (e.g. the hotel is prohibited from making any of the spaces available to non-hotel guests and they often sit empty). Session Session Session Session 3333 Date: 4/19/16 Time: 9:30am - 11pm AttendeesAttendeesAttendeesAttendees Donnie Lee Adam Roy Comments ReceivedComments ReceivedComments ReceivedComments Received We’ve been having the same conversation for the past 40 years. But we’ve been unclear on what problem we’re trying to solve except to keep our “community character” (small town feel with big city amenities and also problems like parking/traffic congestion). There is a dialogue in our community that every issue comes down to tourism/tourist- serving business vs. local residents/community character. This dialogue moves along a pendulum that swings back and forth between pro- development and anti-development. The off-season shoulders are shrinking. P93 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #2 –––– Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & Development Stakeholders: Issues & OpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunitiesOpportunities ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 11 We have long commutes with people sometimes coming as far away as Rifle (90 minutes). Most people once they get here don’t need a car but many people come by car especially in summer (although they use the car less in summer because they bike and walk). City doesn’t care what the development obstacles are. It’s Aspen so the city says it’s our way or the highway. The typical leverage equation between developers and city is inverted. We spend a lot of time thinking about recapturing our past and we need to spend more time thinking about getting ready for our future. For mixed-use projects, the code requires too much parking, office users negotiate away parking. For residential uses, current requirements are probably OK. Traditional underwriting standards don’t apply here because the code conflicts with national bank underwriting standards but local/regional banks get Aspen is a good bet. This study needs to be integrated with TIA and traffic reduction strategies. P94 I. AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX AAAA P95 I. APPENDIX A: INVITEDAPPENDIX A: INVITEDAPPENDIX A: INVITEDAPPENDIX A: INVITED STAKEHOLDERSSTAKEHOLDERSSTAKEHOLDERSSTAKEHOLDERS Please note: Individual stakeholders are listed by stakeholder type (architect, etc.) and then alphabetically by last name. Architects CYY Architects Sara Broughton Davis Horn Dylan Johns David Johnston Architects John Rowland Sherri Sanzone Robin Schiller Citizens / Interest Groups Debbie Braun LJ Erspamer Developers / Fee Developers Tim Clark Jim Curtis James DeFrancia Peter Fornell Glenn Horn Mark Hunt Alan Richman Dwayne Romero John Sarpa Sunny Vann Lodge Owners / Lodge Managers Jeff Bay Michael Behrendt Carol Blomquist Aaron Brown Michael Brown Terry Butler Charley Case John Corcoran Lauren Close Michael Fox Warren Klug Lodge Owners / Lodge Managers (con’t) David Ledingham Donnie Lee Limelight Hotel GM Craig Melville P96 I. Michael Neiley Brian Schafer Scott Sinta Steve Stunda Pierre Wille Jeanine Realtors / Brokers / Appraisers Aspen Real Estate Appraisers Galen Bright Bob Langley Karen Setterfield The Appraisal Office-Aspen LTD Planners Sara Adams Chris Bendon Stan Clausen Charles Cunniffe Mitch Haas Lamont Planning Services Bill Poss Patrick Rawley Adam Roy Richard Shaw Steve Wilson Jessie Young Property Managers Bob Daniel Chuck Frias P97 I. AAAAPPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX PPENDIX BBBB P98 I. AAAAPPENDIX B: INTERVIEPPENDIX B: INTERVIEPPENDIX B: INTERVIEPPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONSW QUESTIONSW QUESTIONSW QUESTIONS Please note: Stakeholder interview questions are shown as they were shown in the interview invitations sent in advance to all invited stakeholders. These questions helped to frame the discussion during the stakeholder interviews themselves. The City of Aspen, with support from Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates and REgeneration Development Strategies, is undertaking a study of its municipal code requirements for the provision of off-street parking to better integrate the goals and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan. To kick off the project, we’d like to hear about your thoughts and experiences with the City’s parking requirements for new development. Your input will help the project team understand the costs of complying with current off-street parking requirements’ and market value of parking for different land uses and locations. In particular, we’d like to discuss the following technical topics: All Stakeholders • Would you say that the City requires development and re-use projects to provide too much parking, not enough parking, or just the right amount of parking? Architect / Planners • On your recent projects, have the city’s parking requirements presented a barrier to redevelopment or re-use of properties? Realtors / Brokers / Appraisers • On your recent listings, can you estimate the “market value” of parking spaces in the Aspen core? In other words, if you had two identical listings but one had parking and one didn’t what would the difference be in sales or lease price per square foot? • What would you estimate is the market demand for parking for different uses (residential vs. commercial, office vs. retail)? Developers / Fee Developers • On your recent projects, can you estimate the construction cost of parking, excluding land costs? Please identify costs by the type of parking you built for your project (e.g. surface, tuck under, structured, underground, etc.). • Do local / regional construction lenders have underwriting standards related to parking? If so, can you tell us which ones and provide us with the contact info of someone there that would be good to talk to (loan officer, etc.)? Property/Business Owners & Managers • Do you have adequate parking for your customers and/or employees? Why or why not? • Do the city’s parking requirements present a barrier to redevelopment or re‐use of your P99 I. existing property or building? How? P100 I. NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME Client Name] Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i PEER REVIEW SUMMARY Off-Street Parking & Mobility Updates City of Aspen August 2016 P101 I. Table of Contents Page Table of Figures Page Figure 1 Downtown Park City ................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2 Minimum Parking Requirements for Select Land Uses ......................................... 4 Figure 3 Employee Permit Programs ..................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 Downtown Bozeman and Montana State University - Bozeman ........................... 6 Figure 5 Transit-only Lane Next to Transfer Station at Bridger Park Garage ...................... 9 Figure 6 Bridger Park Garage .............................................................................................. 10 Figure 7 Step-Street View of Central Breckenridge ........................................................... 11 Figure 8 Minimum off-street parking requirements within the Service Area ................... 12 Figure 9 The Columbia Pike Initiative ................................................................................. 17 Figure 10 The Site Plan Review TDM Matrix ........................................................................ 19 Figure 11 North University Street at State Street, Ann Arbor, MI........................................ 22 Figure 12 Mode Share Measures from 2013 GetDowntown Commuter Surveys ............. 24 Figure 13 Factors Influencing Commute Mode Shifts from Driving .................................... 25 Figure 14 Parking Lot District in Silver Spring, MD .............................................................. 26 Figure 15 Montgomery County Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements .......................... 29 Figure 16 Travel Mode Used for Work Commute ................................................................. 32 Figure 17 Flats at Bethesda Avenue, Bethesda, MD ........................................................... 33 Figure 18 Zermatt Village Centre .......................................................................................... 36 Figure 19 Shuttle Train Service between Parking and Zermatt .......................................... 37 Figure 20 Free Shuttle to Remote Parking ........................................................................... 38 Figure 21 Riders Boarding the Free Shuttle ......................................................................... 39 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Peer City Survey ................................................................................................................................... 3 Park City, UT ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Bozeman, MT ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Breckenridge, CO ................................................................................................................................... 10 Non-Peer Case Studies ......................................................................................................................15 Arlington County, Virginia ..................................................................................................................... 15 Ann Arbor, MIchigan ............................................................................................................................... 21 Montgomery County, Maryland ........................................................................................................... 26 Complementary Strategies ..............................................................................................................31 Strategic In Lieu Fee Approach ............................................................................................................ 31 Downtown-Employee TDM Programs .................................................................................................. 31 Joint Development ................................................................................................................................... 32 Public Valet .............................................................................................................................................. 34 Vehicle Restrictions .................................................................................................................................. 35 Remote Parking ....................................................................................................................................... 38 TDM in the Development Code ............................................................................................................. 39 P102 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3 Figure 22 San Francisco TDM Checklist ............................................................................... 40 INTRODUCTION Following is a summary of innovative best practices in parking requirements for development, with a particular focus on practices from peer cities and parking requirements that effectively implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and other strategies to lower the amount of parking needed/required to support downtown growth and economic development. The summary is organized as follows. Peer City Survey – An overview of parking-requirement practices among a selected set of peer cities, identified in coordination with City of Aspen staff as: Park City, Utah Bozeman, Montana Breckenridge, Colorado Non-Peer Case Studies – Case studies of non-peer cities highlighting relevant approaches for coordinating parking requirements, shared/public parking strategies, and Transportation Demand Management Complementary Strategies – Strategies that can help support and expand the effectiveness of zoning-based off-street parking strategies. PEER CITY SURVEY PARK CITY, UT Context Park City is a vibrant community known for its natural beauty and recreational opportunities. A town of roughly 8,000 permanent residents, and 30 miles from Salt Lake City, Park City hosts large summer and winter visitor populations. Park City also prides itself on maintaining its small town and historic character, while supporting thriving recreation, arts, and tourist industries. Given its unique character and popularity, demand for parking in downtown has been an acute, ongoing challenge. Of particular concern has been high demand during peak periods, employee parking, and getting information to users. To address these issues, in 2015, the City commissioned a detailed and downtown-focused study of parking issues. The recommendations resulting from this study are now under review for implementation. P103 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4 Figure 1 Downtown Park City Key Practices Parking Requirements Park City’s zoning code outlines standards and guidelines for provision and design off -street parking facilities in Title 15, Chapter 3. Minimum parking requirements for a sampling of common land uses are outlined below.1 Figure 2 Minimum Parking Requirements for Select Land Uses 1 https://parkcity.municipalcodeonline.com/book?type=ordinances#name=Preface Use Spaces Required Accessory Apartment, Lockout Unit 1/bedroom Single Family Dwellings 2/Dwelling Unit Multi-Unit Dwelling Not greater than 1K SF 1/Dwelling Unit Between 1K and 2K SF 1.5/Dwelling Unit 2K SF or greater 2/Dwelling Unit Bed and Breakfast Inn 1 /bedroom + 1 /on-duty manager Hotel 1 /room + 1 /200 SF of commercial space Offices, General 3/1K SF of Leasable Area Office and Clinic, Medical 5/1K SF of Leasable Area Retail 3–5 / 1K SF of Leasable Area Cafe/Deli 1 / 100 SF of Leasable Area Restaurant, Outdoor Dining 1.5/1K SF of Leasable Area P104 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5 Alternatives & Exemptions In Lieu Fee: Developers of new construction in the Historic Commercial Busses District may either provide on-site parking or pay an in-lieu fee. Otherwise, non-residential land uses in the HCB district must provide 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The in-lieu fee has not been well utilized, leaving insufficient revenue to build new parking supply. The funds must be used for parking supply construction, and cannot be used for transportation improvements or other demand-management purposes. A recent study concluded that this should be altered to allow this funding flexibility, in part to avoid overbuilding parking in the downtown. Exemption: Lots that were part of the Main Street Parking Special Improvement District prior to 1984 are exempt from minimum parking requirements. Master Plan Developments: Reduced parking can be allowed in master planned developments so long as a parking study is conducted and approved by the Planning Commission. An in-lieu fee for on-site parking may also be considered, given all of the following criteria are met: Payment in-lieu of the on-site parking requirement will prevent a loss of significant open space, yard area, and/or public amenities and gathering areas; Payment in-lieu of the on-site parking requirement will result in preservation and rehabilitation of significant Historic Structures; Payment in-lieu of the on-site parking requirement will not result in an increase project Density or intensity of Use; and The project is located along a public transit route and is within three (3) blocks of a municipal bus stop.2 Complementary Strategies Employee Parking To manage demand for on-street parking in the historic downtown, the City implemented a Residential Parking Permit Program in 1997 as part of the implementation of metered parking the following year. The program divides the downtown are into four zones with the following regulations: Zones A, B, and F: Resident permits allow parking on residential streets for up to 72 hours, but do not exempt vehicles from other signed regulations. Zone C: Resident permits allow parking in China Bridge and Gateway Upper level for up to 72 hours, but are not exempt from the prohibition from parking on the roof from 3 a.m. to 7 a.m. Business establishments located within the permit parking zone are also eligible to purchase permits for, or offer permits for sale to employees, enabling them to park in off-street facilities during weekends and special events. The employee permit program has not been working as well as the City 2 Park City Municipal Corporation Municipal Code, Title 15-6-5 part (E). http://www.planning.utah.gov/Index_files/PDFmncpl/pc6.pdf P105 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6 would like, as many employees will not buy permits and simply park on the street. A recent study recommended shifting to a discount daily pricing system for employees instead of an annual permit system. This would allow employees to park wherever they are willing to pay the set rate. The table below presents the various employee-permit options available within Park City. Figure 3 Employee Permit Programs Source: Park City website and staff BOZEMAN, MT Context Bozeman is situated in southwestern Montana and boasts access to Yellowstone National Park as well as many other outdoor attractions. Bozeman is also home to Montana State University (MSU) and has a year-round population of about 41,000. The City boasts a successful main street economy, with I-90 bypassing downtown, and with MSU, Bozeman High School, and many cultural amenities in close proximity to the downtown core. Figure 4 Downtown Bozeman and Montana State University - Bozeman Source: Wikimedia Commons Tyler Craft and Kelly Gorham, 2016 Bozeman’s vibrant downtown is experiencing growth, and beginning to feel the strains of vehicle congestion. A parking management program has been active in Bozeman over the past decade to help manage impacts on existing parking facilities. It has also deployed several zoning strategies to ensure Permits/ Aspects Green Dot Permit Blue Square Permit Black Diamond Permit Sundance only) Cost $150/year $300/year $450 for the week of Sundance Eligibility Current Main Street employees (must be verified) Main Street core area businesses (requires valid Park City Business License) Anyone; can be purchased in conjunction with the other employee permits Time Limits Up to 24 hours Up to 72 hours None; permit provides a guaranteed parking spot P106 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 7 that growth, development, and new parking facilities are aligned with broader community goals and objectives. Key Practices Parking Requirements The following table shows minimum parking requirements for a representative sampling of land uses.3 The first 3,000 SF of this use are exempt from the calculation. Alternatives & Exemptions In Lieu Fee: Available in the B-3 district. Shared Parking Reduction: For mixed-used developments, the minimum requirement for residential uses can be reduced, or eliminated, if the project’s non - residential parking requirement is greater than the requirement for residential uses. The residential requirement can be reduced by 50%, if the ratio of spaces required for non-residential/residential uses is greater than 1:1. 100% of the residential requirement can be waived if the ratio of spaces required for non-residential/residential uses is greater than 3:1. On-Street Parking Credit: One parking space per 24 uninterrupted feet of available street frontage that can be used for on-street parking may be deducted from the minimum requirements for residential uses. 3 https://www.municode.com/library/mt/bozeman/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH38UNDECO_ART25PA Dwelling Type Spaces Required B-3 District R-5 & B-2M Districts Other Areas Lodging house 0.75 / person capacity Efficiency unit 1 / unit 1 / unit 1.25 / unit Two-bedroom 1 / unit 1.75 / unit 2 / unit Three-bedroom and + 1 / unit 3 / unit 4 / unit Bed and breakfast 1 / unit Motels, Hotels 1.1 / guest room + 1 / employee on maximum shift Restaurants, bars, dining 1 / 60 SF indoor + 1 / 120 SF outdoor serving area Commercial area 1 / 400 SF* 1 / 400 SF General Office 1 / 250 SF Medical and dental offices 4 / FTE doctor or dentist + 1 / other FTE Retail 1 / 300 SF P107 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 8 The number of on-street spaces cannot exceed the number of dwellings within the development.4 In the B-2M community business district, one parking space for each 24 uninterrupted feet of available street frontage that can be used for on-street parking, may be deducted from the total parking spaces required for any land uses in the adjacent development. Affordable Housing: Residential requirements can be reduced for developments guaranteed to be used as affordable housing for a minimum of 20 years Car-Share: A car-sharing agreement may be used to meet the required number of parking spaces in developments with more than five dwellings. Each vehicle provided through a car-sharing agreement (with its corresponding space) will count as five standard spaces. The maximum reduction is set at 50% of the total. Transit Access: Sites within 800 feet of a qualifying transit stop are eligible for a 10% reduction in residential parking requirements, and a 15% reduction in non - residential parking requirements. Neighborhood Commercial Districts (B-1 and R-O zoning districts): In designated areas, requirements for retail uses can be reduced by 40%, and by 30% for all other uses. Residential Emphasis Mixed Use (REMU) districts: Restaurant-use requirements may be reduced by 30%, and all requirements for other uses can be reduced by 10%. Bike Parking: A 10% reduction may be allowed if: Two covered bicycle parking spaces are provided for each automobile space ; and A nonresidential shower, changing area, and clothing lockers are provided on-site for each ten, or fraction of ten, automobile parking stalls reduced. TDM in the Zoning Code Bicycle Parking Bozeman additionally requires bicycle parking facilities at a minimum of ten percent of the number of automobile stalls provided. Although covered bicycle storage is not required, it is encouraged. The bicycle parking can be shared in a common area to serve multiple buildings, but the common area must be within 100 feet of each building. Shared Parking Joint/shared parking can be used for up to eighty percent of the required nonresidential parking spaces. Shared parking requests are reviewed and approved if a study can demonstrate that adequate parking exists to meet the demand of potential uses. This is based on a traffic survey or traffic impact study that examines trip generation, hours of operation, quantity of required parking spaces, quantity of spaces that will be filled during peak hour periods, and any unusual events that may occur during 4 https://www.municode.com/library/mt/bozeman/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH38UNDECO_ART25PA_ S38.25.040NUPASPRE P108 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 9 the year that will exceed the average parking requirement. Other important metrics that qualify developments to enter into a long-term joint use agreement include: The building must be located within 1,000 feet of the parking facility The application demonstrates that there is no substantial conflict in the operating hours of the two buildings A properly drawn legal agreement is filed with the city clerk Complementary Strategies Providing Municipal Parking Resources The Bridger Park Garage and transit center, with 435 parking spaces in the heart of downtown, was constructed in 2009. Just one block off Main Street, the garage caters to a variety of uses. The multi- level garage supports offers hourly and monthly parking, supporting area retail, restaurant and office businesses, through a fully shared, priced parking supply. The Town also allows hotels to use the facility, and pay for their customers through a bulk discount. The impetus for the project came out of a downtown development motivation, and was partially funded by a grant. The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan called for establishing a bus transit system, and downtown Bozeman was identified as a potential transfer center where all four lines would converge. The transit component helped the facility qualify for federal funding and ultimate was awarded $4 million from the FTA. Figure 5 Transit-only Lane Next to Transfer Station at Bridger Park Garage Source: With permission from Chris Naumann Four private developments have leased parking in the garage specifically for overnight use. Without this parking solution in the garage, three of the projects would not have been economically feasible. The four represent a total of $85 million in private investment leveraged by the garage. Other anecdotal evidence includes a growth in businesses near the block that hosts the garage. A new yoga studio, dental office, a tile store, and a restaurant have leased space in Bridger Park Garage building. P109 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 10 Figure 6 Bridger Park Garage Source: With permission from Chris Naumann Currently, there are plans to study the feasibility of building a second garage, and potentially consolidating some of the remaining City-owned downtown surface lots. Initial feedback has indicated that the community is supportive of a second garage. Joint Development Approximately 9,200 square feet of the Bridger Park Garage, on the north and west sides, is privately owned commercial space. This joint-ownership makes use of construction-cost sharing to realize better urban design than might be feasible for a solely private or public development. This is an increasingly common means of ensuring well-designed facilities that combine parking with active land uses, and street-oriented retail, in lieu of the conventional “stand alone” facility. Prior to the Bridger Park Project, the site served as private and public surface parking. The City used City Urban Renewal (TIF) funds for the project, and continues to own the property and manage the garage. The commercial areas were incorporated/designed to be sold prior to construction, as a funding mechanism that allowed the construction of an additional level of parking. BRECKENRIDGE, CO Context The Town of Breckenridge is located at the base of the Rocky Mountains’ Tenmile Range. Known for its ski resort and year-round alpine activities, it attracts visitors during all seasons while hosting a substantial number of permanent and part-time residents. The town also hosts several major annual events (International Snow Sculpture Championships, the Breckenridge music and film festivals, and multiple biking and running races) during which there is high demand for access and parking. As such, the Town employs a variety of targeted parking management strategies, including remote parking and seasonally-adjusted management of off-street parking lots. P110 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 11 Figure 7 Step-Street View of Central Breckenridge Off-street parking requirements for new developments are determined by land use, but also by the location of development within the town. Key Practices Parking Requirements Minimum parking requirements have been significantly reduced for developments within the town’s Service Area,” — a multi-use commercial area which lines up closely, though not entirely, with the town’s Downtown Overlay District. A representative sample of land uses and their parking requirements are outlined below.5 5 http://www.townofbreckenridge.com/index.aspx?page=497 P111 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 12 Figure 8 Minimum off-street parking requirements within the Service Area Source: Breckenridge, Colorado Town Code Minimum parking requirements for developments outside of the Service Area are more typical of those from the peer cities profiled above. In-Lieu Fee Commercial developments within the Service Area may be permitted to exempt all or part of the required off-street parking provisions through the payment of an in-lieu fee to the town. The fee is set by the town at a per-space rate that is adjusted annually to reflect the market rates in the Denver- Boulder region. As of 2013, the fee was set at $19,236 per parking space waived. In-lieu fees collected by the town are deposited into an interest bearing account, and may only be used for eligible improvements to the parking system. Eligible improvements include any and all of the following purposes: Acquisition of property for the construction of municipal parking facilities within the service area, or in any area in the immediate vicinity that will benefit the Service Area as determined by the town council Development, expansion or repair of municipal parking facilities within the service area, or in any area in the immediate vicinity that will benefit the Service Area as determined by the town council Payment of the principal, interest, and any other obligations issued or undertaken by the town to finance the acquisition, development, expansion or repair of municipal parking facilities within the service area, or in any area in the immediate vicinity that will benefit the Service Area as determined by the town council The provision or operating expenses of transit facilities and equipment designed to reduce reliance on private automobiles; so long as such transit amenities provide a benefit to the service area as determined by the town council Land Use Category Required Spaces Residential, Lodging, Hotel, Dormitory 1.1 / unit Retail General 1.4 / 1K SF Supermarket 2.5 / 1K SF Financial 1.9 / 1K SF Office General 1.4 / 1K SF Government 2.2 / 1K SF Restaurant, sit down 3.5 / 1K SF Medical/dental clinic 3.3 / 1K SF Commercial recreation 2 / 1K SF P112 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 13 Coordination with TDM Efforts SustainableBreck Action Plan In 2012 the Town of Breckinridge released the SusainableBreck Action Plan to guide the town towards sustainability through the year 2030. The plan focuses on, and provides strategies for, ten topic areas including transportation. Within the transportation strategies are key parking indicators and targets including a target of 85% overall occupancy at peak times, and a target of maintaining the existing core parking spaces without adding additional off-street spaces. In pursuit of these goals the town has adopted a guideline for parking levels wherein facilities are designed to achieve the target occupancy of the 5th busiest day of the year, as opposed to the peak day. Complementary Strategies Providing Municipal Parking Resources In November 2015, the Town passed a measure that will establish a tax on daily lift tickets. Tax revenues will fund the construction of a new, public parking structure near downtown. Employee Parking The Town of Breckenridge established a special employee parking permit program to accommodate employee parking needs, and to shift employee parking activity away from prime customer-parking locations. Permits grant access to varying on- and off-street parking facilities across the town. Employees must apply for a permit specific to their employer’s location. There are no time limits on these parking permits beyond the town-wide prohibition against parking overnight (from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.). There is currently an unlimited number of standard employee permits available to employees, at a cost of $50 per permit per year. For employees within the core parking district willing to pay more for a centrally-located lot, a limited number of permits are available for $150 - $350 per year. Free permits are available for remote lots, such as the Satellite Lot or the Ice Arena lot, to further incentivize parking outside the downtown. Residential Parking The Town has a residential parking permit program to manage access and parking demand in residential areas that are affected by high demand during major events and the peak winter “ski” season. To establish a new permit parking area, residents must petition for approval by the Community Development Department, which establishes the boundaries and regulations of the district, and determines the maximum number of permits that may be issued. Currently, RPP areas have been established on both the west and east sides of Main Street. Residential parking permits cost 25/year, and area valid from July 1st to June 30th. The permits allow residents to exceed the three - hour time limit on time-limited streets and also allows for overnight parking without payment in selected lots. Remote Parking Free all-day parking is available at the Satellite Lot north of downtown, which is served by a free shuttle connecting to nearby ski areas and downtown Breckenridge. During the winter, special events, and other times of high parking demand, shuttle service frequency is increased. Some privately owned/operated parking facilities in and near to Breckenridge, most associated with the ski resorts, sell pre-paid parking packs of five or 10 visits. In addition, there is a carpool incentive; P113 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 14 vehicles arriving with four or more people receive a $5 discount on their parking fee. These facilities are maintained and operated separately by the ski resorts. P114 I. NON-PEER CASE STUDIES Aspen’s many distinctive and unique qualities significantly limits the candidate-pool of Peer cities from which off-street parking practices can be gleaned for potential adoption. At the same time, the sophistication and effectiveness of off-street parking practices in several cities offers the chance to import solutions that may translate very well to the Aspen context. A set of non-peer case studies is therefore presented below, highlighting strategic approaches that go beyond the peer practices outlined above. The selection of case study cities was guided by the opportunity to address key issues and opportunities identified during the exploratory stage of this study, which included a review of documented supply, conditions, management, and parking-requirement conditions, as well as outreach to the technical stakeholders and the general public. Each case study presents an effective response to similar issues and opportunities, through off-street policies and programs that share the following core elements. 1. Zoning based opportunities to contribute to shared solutions for accommodating travel and parking demand generated by new development; 2. A system of providing and managing a system of public parking that is focused on supporting more growth with less parking; and 3. Coordination with TDM programs to ensure that growth is aligned with broader community sustainability aims. ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Arlington County’s coordinated policy approach to land use and transportation planning has allowed it to grow rapidly over the last ~40 years without major expansions in its highway networks and with minimal traffic growth. In that time, the County’s rapid population and economic growth has been largely concentrated within corridors served by Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) rapid rail transit , particularly the areas around the Rosslyn, Courthouse, Clarendon, Virginia Square, and Ballston stations. Today, the County contains more square feet of office and retail space than downtown Dallas, Denver, or Seattle. As intense as this development has been, it has generated only modest levels of traffic growth. The resulting economic prosperity has been remarkable. The county’s Metrorail corridors provide 50% of the County's tax base — on only 7% of the land. The County also enjoys far lower vacancy rates and higher lease and sale prices, compared to other regional locations. Public Parking in Private Facilities County planners have long been lauded for concentrating the resulting population/commercial growth along these high-capacity transit corridors, and for promoting lean supplies of shared parking at the bonus-density projects incentivized in its zoning code. An under-heralded component of its parking strategy has been its efforts to emphasize shared/public parking management, over private/reserved parking management in its mixed-use, commercial centers, despite not directly owning or managing any parking facilities in these areas. The County’s success has focused on two areas of opportunity: Incentivizing owners of existing privately-controlled facilities to provide public parking, and Incentivizing new development to provide public parking in their on -site facilities. The cumulative impact of this concerted effort has been to allow much of these transit corridors to benefit from the significant advantages of a shared parking system, without the County directly controlling any off-street parking facilities. P115 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 16 Converting Existing Private Parking The first step taken by the County was to address the challenge/opportunity of the many oversupplied private parking facilities that remained in its primary growth corridors as a legacy of long -standing zoning codes. In most cases, market opportunities led the owners of over-parked developments to find ways to open up their parking to the public — either during off-peak hours, or even during peak-use hours when there has been capacity. As such, the County was able to secure significant shared -parking gains simply by allowing shared/public access to parking that had been required to be exclusive to “on-site” demand. While a strong profit opportunity eased the path to converting private parking to public/commercial management, it did not ensure that facilities were always managed as the County planners had hoped. Over the ensuing years, the County has gotten more involved in overseeing basic management parameters are met, to ensure optimal public access to these facilities. Incentivizing Public Parking in New Private Facilities Going further, in 2005, the County developed a form-based code to create a shared parking district in its Columbia Pike District, a planned streetcar corridor attracting development interest akin to the County’s established rail lines. Like other areas of the county, the private sector is left to manage the shared parking they provide, and the County does not directly provide any shared/public parking. The County does, however, regulate how shared parking is provided, and managed, to ensure that these parking resources do function as public parking resources, shared among all district uses, and accessible to all drivers. The Columbia Pike Shared Parking District The Columbia Pike District form-based zoning code outlines minimum requirements for shared-parking for all private development, as well as a maximum standard for parking that is reserved only for on -site uses. The County chose to emphasize “flexible” maximums in the Columbia Pike code, in part, to avoid anticipated public resistance to eliminating minimum parking requirements altogether. The flexibility of the maximum standards, applicable only to parking that was managed as reserved parking for the development, allowed the County to set these maximums at about the same level as its minimums, much lower than a typical, “hard cap” maximum could be set. This both discouraged excessive supplies and expanded shared parking within a critical, mixed-use, multimodal redevelopment corridor. P116 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 17 Figure 9 The Columbia Pike Initiative Source: arlingtonva.us/Departments/CPHD/forums/columbia/initiative/cpi_transportation.pdf The full set of standards included in the Columbia Pike code, which was adopted in 2003, is summarized below. Sites under 20,000 square feet in land area have no minimum parking requirements. Sites over 20,000 square feet in land area have the following requirements : A minimum of 1 and 1/8 parking spaces per residential unit, of which a minimum of 1/8 parking space per residential unit shall be provided as shared parking. A minimum of one space per 1,000 square feet of non-residential Gross Floor Area GFA) shall be provided as shared parking. New on-street parking spaces created in conjunction with the development, which did not previously exist, may be counted toward the minimum requirement for shared parking. A maximum of one space per 1,000 square feet of non-residential GFA or two spaces per residential unit may be made available for reserved parking. Reserved parking above the maximum may be provided upon payment to the County. The Columbia Pike code is generally considered a success. Redevelopment has been significant, despite the national recession that has generally depressed real estate development across the country. The vision for street-level retail has flourished, while parking supplies remain modest and efficient compared to that likely to have been provided without the shared-parking emphasized in the code. There has been no substantial complaint that the code is too restrictive, either, and spillover concern has not been a factor in the public’s response to redevelopment along this corridor. Brokers help to advertise the availability of public parking, as well as non-driving mobility options in the area when leasing new development space, while the area benefits from being part of a county and region well known for emphasizing walkable, transit-oriented, and multimodal built environments. From a strategic perspective, this emphasis on shared parking also allowed the County to avoid risk of a prolonged challenge to approving the code had it focused rather on eliminating minimums. P117 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 18 TDM in the Development Code The primary strategy responsible for the remarkable concentration of growth along the Arlington’s rail corridors has been the Site Plan Development option offered to developers looking to build in these areas. The key to this option is the opportunity to build to a significantly higher density, in return for agreeing to a review process that is much more rigorous than a typical zoning review, and focused essentially on fostering “smart growth” characteristics in approved projects. The density bonuses have been significant enough to attract the majority of new development projects into this process, resulting not only in growth that is concentrated along rail-transit corridors, but projects built to meet fairly exacting standards of sustainability and traffic mitigation. A central component of this review process is an emphasis on TDM requirements applied to Site Plan Review projects. These requirements generally focus on workplace commuter travel and opportunities to reduce peak-hour single-occupant vehicle trips. Following is a list of core requirements for all Site Plan Review projects. A TDM plan for each development, including conditional requirements for implementation On-site parking provisions that extend preference to vanpools, carpools, and bicycles; The encouragement of travel to and from the work place by modes of other than single occupant automobile through various educational and incentive measures Coordination and cooperation among employers, building owners, and management companies, and engagement with Arlington Transportation Partners6 To guide the development of TDM plan for Site Plan Review proposals, the County developed a matrix of TDM measures that serves as a “checklist” for both developing and reviewing these plans. The matrix provides a framework of options from which the County will help developers identify appropriate actions for their project. The matrix also helps to align the anticipated level of TDM impact of the strategies it includes to the anticipated traffic and parking demand impact of proposed projects. Projects suggesting a greater potential impact will be required to include a more robust set of strategies in its final TDM plan . This correlation is guided by the following Land Use Codes, which are assigned to each Site Plan Review proposal by the County’s Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development (DCPHD). A. Development plan is consistent with the General Land Use Plan (GLUP), and no traffic problems are projected related to the development and its surroundings. B. Development plan is consistent with the GLUP, however, traffic problems are projected related to the development and its surroundings. C. A GLUP amendment is requested for a non-conforming development plan, no traffic problems are projected however. D. A GLUP amendment is requested, and traffic problems are projected. Below is a recreation of the TDM Matrix, which remains in use today, from the original TDM Policy document.7 It is not expected that projects include each strategy indicated for its respective Land Use Code. Substitutions can be made, and exemptions can be granted if “particular elements of the TDM matrix” are “inappropriate for a particular project”. The matrix does, however, provide a clear indication of the level of TDM commitment expected for Site Plan Review projects, while providing specifics on how to meet those expectations. 6 http://arlingtontransportationpartners.com/ 7 Accessible via: http://www.commuterpage.com/tasks/sites/cp/assets/File/TDM_Policy1990_2008.pdf P118 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 19 Figure 10 The Site Plan Review TDM Matrix Strategies Land Use Category A B C D Rideshare Marketing Information dissemination Distribute/ Display X X X X Employee Surveys X X X X Operate Vanpools X X Subsidize Vanpools Match State Subsidies X X Double Match State Subsidies X Backup, Reserve Maintenance Vehicle X Employee Transportation Coordinator Part-Time ** X X Full-Time X On-Site Ride Matching X Transit Store or TMA Contribution 7,970/ Year ** X 15,947/ Year X 23,911/ Year X Locate/ Operate Transit Store X Emergency Ride Home *** *** X Preferential Parking Management Unlimited Reserved Rideshare Parking X X X X Market Rates for SOV Parking X X X X Outsource Parking Management X X X Reserved Vanpool Parking Space X X X X One-Half Market Rate X X Free X X Variable Rate for Carpools (2+ Employees) Market Rate X P119 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 20 Strategies Land Use Category A B C D One-Half Market Rate X X Free X Transit Programs Contribute to Employer Bus Shuttle 7,970/ Year ** * * * 15,947/ Year *** ** ** ** 23,911/ Year *** *** *** Operate Employer Bus Shuttle X If GFA is less than 100,000 SF If GFA is 100,000 - 200,000 SF If GFA is more than 200,000 SF As Implemented Some of the most commonly included strategies among approved Site Plan Review projects are listed below. Conducting an employee transportation survey, provided free by ATP Attending a free, ATP-sponsored employer workshop or seminar Posting commuter information in a company newsletter, on a central bulletin board, internal e-mail system, or website Installing a permanent display case, stocked with commuter information tailored to the specific worksite, in a central area Hosting an on-site transportation event for employees Providing preferred parking spaces for carpools and vanpools Implementing an informal teleworking program Installing bicycle and/or shower facilities to encourage bicycle and pedestrian commuting Offering employees flextime, compressed work week, or job sharing options Common elements among projects with higher TDM requirements include the following. Starting a formal tele-work program Instituting a tax-free transit benefits program, either employer-sponsored or through pre- tax payroll deduction Developing a commuting incentive program for those who carpool, bicycle or walk to work Providing an employee/customer shuttle to local transit stations or other service areas Supplementing the regional Guaranteed Ride Home program with an additional employer-sponsored service P120 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 21 Implementing a parking fee for solo drivers (for employers who previously offered free parking) Offering free or reduced-price parking for carpools and vanpools (where a fee previously existed) Starting business-sponsored or subsidized vanpools Implementing an active Air Quality Action Days program ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN Located at the western edges of the Detroit region, downtown Ann Arbor has long been a regional outlier of walkable urbanism, in which bike and bus commuting are popularly embraced and parking is managed, in part, by emphasizing these mobility alternatives as more compatible with its thriving downtown. In the last 10 years, increasing demand for living and working in such environments has led to significant increases in the downtown population and helped the Ann Arbor economy remain one of the few bright spots within a long-struggling region. The City of Ann Arbor, through its Downtown Development Authority (DDA) manages all public parking in the city’s downtown — including on- and off-street parking spaces — with the goal of balancing parking accommodation with demand management to produce the maximum benefit to the community. The provision of a comprehensive, managed parking supply, and the option to secure parking permits to satisfy minimum parking requirements, relieves developers of pressures to provide on-site parking at downtown projects. This promotes the compact, dense, mixed-use development patterns that make downtown Ann Arbor a high-demand residential, employment, and recreational destination — and an uncommon economic success within a long-struggling region. Shared Parking in Lieu of Accessory Parking The DDA’s parking facilities provide shared, public parking resources that provide a strategic alternative to conventional minimum parking requirements for new development. Within the DDA boundaries, “as of right” development projects are not required to provide any parking. Most projects, however, are built to a premium” density level, which triggers the following parking requirements. 1 space per residential unit 1 space per 1,000 square feet of non-residential use. Within the DDA boundaries, all parking requirements can be met through procurement of DDA monthly parking permits. P121 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 22 Figure 11 North University Street at State Street, Ann Arbor, MI A Management-Focused Public Parking System The DDA’s parking management efforts go beyond maintaining sufficient on- and off-street spaces to recognize that parking is but one means of providing downtown access. Its directors have used its resources to promote, support, and/or initiate a range of alternative transportation options for downtown residents, commuters, students, business owners, service providers, and visitors. In fact, since its inception, the DDA has recognized that these investments not only support many civic objectives related to sustainability, the environment, and preserving downtown’s unique urban design, but that they are in fact economically sound investments that reduce the amount of parking needed to support the downtown economy. The City of Ann Arbor uses its position as the primary operator of downtown parking to strike a balance between accommodating parking demand and promoting a balanced use of downtown’s multimodal transportation networks. Walkability, in particular, has long been viewed as an essential component of downtown’s distinctive appeal within a region dominated by car-centric cities and towns. Increasingly, quality cycling networks and transit access have come to be viewed as also essential to downtown’s appeal and economy. Funding TDM & Mobility TDM In 2000, the DDA began funding TDM programs to reduce demand for parking expansions and to meet the needs of downtown users who choose not to or cannot afford to park. The getDowntown Program The getDowntown program is a combined initiative of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and the City of Ann Arbor. It was founded to provide P122 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 23 better access to alternative transportation modes for employers and employees of downtown Ann Arbor. The majority of getDowntown’s funding is sourced from the Federal Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality CMAQ) Grant intended to support the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Other sources of funding include the DDA, the City of Ann Arbor, and several private sponsorships. The program offers the following commuting services. go!pass The go!pass is a program providing incentives to use public transit. Organizations and companies located within the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority boundaries can apply to be a part of the program. These employers can then provide the go!pass as a benefit to their employees. go!pass benefits include unlimited bus rides on any AAATA (TheRide) bus route and free parking within any of TheRide’s Park and Ride lots. Additional benefits include 50% off ExpressRide buses, a $2 discount on NightRide, reimbursements for personal taxi rides in case of an emergency, and 5 -20% off of food, drinks, goods, and services at participating locations. The go!pass costs $10 per employee, which is highly subsidized by the DDA. In comparison, a year’s worth of 30-day unlimited bus passes through the AAATA would cost 6968. Employees must work at least 16 hours a week within the DDA boundaries to be eligible for a go!pass.9 Preferential Parking The DDA provides special parking for a variety of alternative motor vehicles and special trips. Dozens of parking spaces are provided for mopeds, motorcycles, and scooters free of charge throughout the downtown. For riders of AAATA’s AirRide, the DDA offers parking at the Fourth and William Structure at a rate of $2/day. The DDA also offers preferential parking spaces for carpools and vanpools on the first floor of certain parking structures: Ann Ashley Structure Fourth and William Structure Fourth and Washington Structure Maynard Structure Forest Structure Commuter Competitions The Commuter Challenge is a competition through the getDowntown program that takes place every year from May 1-31. The challenge exists to encourage employees to commute using alternative methods of transportation. The program is sponsored by several private organizations each year in addition to getDowntown. The Commuter Central website allows individuals to log their alternative commuting methods, set goals, and compare stats with others. Commuters can log their statistics year -long, not just during the competition month. As of July 2015, 2,745 individuals have signed up within 271 organizations. These commuters’ logged miles of alternative transportation equates to 9,074 car miles saved.10 The website also lists top organizations and top individual commuters (by percentage of trips taken by alternative transportation) at the end of the challenge. Participants receive discounts during the challenge month, and winners receive prizes at the end of the competition. 8 AAATA, Fares & Passes Store, http://www.theride.org/FaresPasses/Store. 9 getDowntown, go!pass, http://www.getdowntown.org/gopass 10 getDowntown, Commuter Challenge, http://challenge.getdowntown.org/. P123 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 24 Conquer the Cold is a new alternative commuting challenge that will begin in November 2015. Similar to the Commuter Challenge, there will be a website to log commutes and prizes will be awarded. Commuter Club is another getDowntown challenge that follows the same theme of providing incentives for commuting using alternative transportation. Commuter Club, however, is only open to go!pass holders. Commuting Resources getDowntown’s mission is to provide commuting resources to residents, visitors, and employees of downtown Ann Arbor. The getDowntown website has many guides and brochures readily available, such as “Guide to Commuting,” “Guide to Bus/Transit,” and “Ann Arbor Bike Map.” They also provide general information about carpooling, vanpooling, and walking in the area. The program also conducts and releases commuting surveys every two years. getDowntown encourages those with any commuting -related comments or questions to contact them. This transportation menu has had a significant impact on the downtown transportation culture. Despite the fact that many of these commuters are starting from homes well outside the downtown, where reliance upon personal autos is much more typical of the region, just 35% of commuters drive alone to downtown jobs. This is comparable to measures from much larger cities with robust rapid transit networks. Figure 12 Mode Share Measures from 2013 GetDowntown Commuter Surveys Image Source: GetDowntown 2013 Decision-Maker and Commuter Surveys Report The impact of the parking-funded transit pass program, alone, has been significant in reducing parking demand, which has further encouraged more developers to use the DDA parking system rather than build on-site parking, while dramatically increased employee attracting and retention among Downtown businesses. P124 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 25 Figure 13 Factors Influencing Commute Mode Shifts from Driving Image Source: GetDowntown 2013 Decision-Maker and Commuter Surveys Report Mobility Investments The DDA has also helped redefine the role of a public parking authority by recognizing the value of reducing parking demand by directing parking revenues to fund non-driving mobility improvements. This commitment was clearly articulated in the “goals for the city” identified in the DDA’s 2009 Downtown Plan. 11 Establish a physical and cultural environment that supports and encourages safe, comfortable, and convenient ways for pedestrians and bicyclist to travel throughout the downtown and into the surrounding city. Improve transit service within the downtown connecting existing and regional transit facilities. The DDA funded the 2015-released, award-winning Downtown Street Design Manual, a central focus of which is making pedestrian, bike, and transit mobility a seamless and safe component of all Downtown streets. The DDA’s direct mobility investments over the years have included the following. Transit Expansions – Free circulator buses, commuter express bus service to outlying communities, The Connector ongoing study, etc. Pedestrian Enhancements – Continual streetscape improvements, walking maps, wayfinding programs, etc. Bicycle Amenities – 1,000+ bike parking spaces provided, including bike lockers, sidewalk racks, and in-street corrals across downtown Safer Streets – Multiple street redesign and traffic calming projects, the Downtown Street Design Manual Bike Lockers - Bike Lockers are available for downtown employees who commute via bicycle. Bike Houses – The DDA recently created “bike houses” — subscription-based, secure, indoor facilities with repair stations and other amenities — within two of their larger parking structures. 11 City of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor Downtown Plan, 2009, http://www.a2gov.org/departments/planning- development/planning/Documents/MasterPlans/DowntownPlan_May09_Final.pdf . P125 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 26 MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND Figure 14 Parking Lot District in Silver Spring, MD Like Arlington County in Virginia, Montgomery County in Maryland incorporates several communities that have grown around demand for convenient access to Washington, DC, and it has likewise strategically guided that development toward key transit corridors. And, from the beginning, shared parking has been at the center of this strategy. After the Second World War, the County anticipated that certain areas in the then largely rural and agricultural county would begin urbanizing — particularly along its borders with the District of Columbia. Part of the planning response was to establish a set of parking lot districts (PLDs) in areas anticipated to grow most rapidly. Within each PLD, County-parking revenues are channeled into and enterprise fund to maintain a public parking system. And, from early on, PLD managers realized that success would require a focus on more than simply providing ample supply. As one long-time head of the program described the County’s parking approach in PLDs : The County understood that its quality of life objectives would be met by managing parking and parking demand, not just building more and more garages. Otherwise, you end up with a ton of garages but can’t get down the street.”12 Today, the PLD program operates most of the public parking in its two largest cities, Bethesda and Silver Spring. This public inventory includes all on-street spaces and numerous off-street facilities in each city. These public inventories provide a shared pool of parking resources for the benefit of all area businesses. They also provide a viable alternative to on-site parking requirements, and provides the County numerous opportunities to mitigate traffic levels and commute patterns, and to promote alternative modes. 12 Telephone communication with Rick Siebert, DPM Chief, April 19, 2007. P126 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 27 Shared Parking in Lieu of Accessory Parking Within designated PLD boundaries, developers can choose how much on-site parking to provide at their projects. For much of the PLD program’s history, a fairly standard set of parking requirements were in place for development. But, a standing property-value-based tax provides an alternative for developers to provide less than this amount, in return for a higher tax rate. The developer could build no parking, and pay the maximum rate, provide some of the requirement and pay a reduced rate, or provide all parking and claim full exemption from the tax. This functions along the same parameters of a standard In Lieu Fee, and has been very successful in attracting developers to this option, thus reducing examples of over-built, private parking in the County’s key commercial centers. Particularly where land value and land-use demand has been high, the option to build minimal or no parking on-site has been a critical means of attracting development and growth. Typically, about 85% of development projects provide less than the parking required, using the “tax in lieu” option to capture more of their development “footprint”, relying on County parking resources to meet their parking demand. Zoning Reform and PLD Revenues In 2010, the County conducted a comprehensive re-write of its zoning code. One objective of the effort was to reduce or eliminate parking requirements in the County’s commercial centers. Ironically, one of the barriers to this reform was the dependency of the County’s PLD programs on revenue from properties that did not meet their parking requirements. To facilitate this change, the study included strategies to offset the loss of tax revenue that would result from dozens of properties now meeting their newly-reduced parking requirements. Demand-based pricing, adopted on its promise to provide more-consistent access to high-demand parking, provided revenue gains that made up for the lost tax revenue. A Management-Focused Public Parking System At the heart of the PLD program is the provision of managed, cost-effective, strategically located, public parking facilities to serve as an alternative to small, inefficient, accessory facilities. One of the program’s purposes is to preserve traditional, dense, mixed-use commercial centers from the negative impacts of over-parked private development. The PLD program has also provided several additional, sustainable- growth benefits, not limited to the following. Capacity to manage parking demand via centralized control over policies and pricing Capacity to capture and direct parking revenues toward local investments Support for infill development and investment Capacity to manage the design and functionality of most parking facilities, including the location of the facilities and their access points to minimize conflict with predominant automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic patterns. More welcoming conditions for customers and visitors — fewer “Thou Shalt Not Park Here” signs throughout the district Re-captured land and redevelopment opportunities through shared supply efficiencies Funding Each PLD has its own “enterprise” fund within the County’s general fund. Each PLD’s enterprise fund receives all public parking revenue collected within its boundaries — including all on-street meters, off- street parking facilities, and parking-related fines. P127 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 28 Funding TDM & Mobility Despite the loss of significant tax revenue following broad and deep cuts to parking requirements, the PLD program generates significant revenue above the cost to maintain parking in each district. Excess funds are used to support County programs that provide and promote transit services, TDM in the form of alternative-mode benefits, and lighting and streetscape improvements to promote Park Once. Each year, nearly $10M is distributed to the following County programs. Urban Districts — Sidewalks, lighting, and other pedestrian/beautification enhancements, focused on Bethesda, Silver Spring, and Wheaton commercial centers Transportation Management Districts — The County’s TDM program, focused on reducing drive-alone commute rates within several of the County’s urban centers, including Bethesda and Silver Spring The Montgomery County Mass Transit fund – Which provides funding for several DOT- managed transit services across the County TDM in the Zoning Code The County’s parking code includes several strategic elements focused on reducing drive -alone travel demand within commercial centers and mixed-use districts, including all four PLDs. Traffic Reduction Goals The County has established “Non-Auto Driver Mode Share” goals for several of its larger cities, including three out of four of its PLDs. Developers can apply to have minimum parking requirements reduced for projects in these areas, based on the applicable mode-share goal. Reduced Minimums As noted above, the County recently reduced its baseline minimum parking requirements. Additional reductions were also specified for the Parking Lot Districts, and all requirements can be waived with a payment to the County. See appendix for full table of parking requirements, including specifications for PLDs. The updated code also provides several countywide opportunities for developers to reduce their parking requirements. Car-Share Parking – Spaces occupied by established car-share providers count as two spaces toward minimum requirements for Residential uses, and as three spaces for Commercial uses. Rideshare Parking – Dedicated carpool/vanpool spaces count as three spaces toward minimum requirements for Office uses. Bike-Share Facility - A bike-share facility, with a minimum of 10 bikes, counts as 3 spaces toward minimum requirements for all uses. Shared-Parking – Developers can use the Urban Land Institute’s Shared Parking Model to demonstrate shared-parking efficiencies at proposed projects to secure a reduced minimum requirement. Unbundled Parking – Multi-family housing projects at which all on-site parking is paid for separately from dwelling-unit leases/purchases, can provide as little as 0.5 spaces for efficiencies and 1-bedroom units, and 0.75 spaces for larger units and Townhouses. P128 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 29 Parking Maximums Parking “maximums” were recently established for many common land uses developed within the County’s PLDs. See appendix for full table of parking requirements, including specifications for PLDs. Bike Parking The County has established minimum bicycle parking requirements for several common land use categories. The minimum requirement also articulates how much of the minimum requirement must be met through “long-term” parking facilities (sheltered, secure, and appropriate for commuter and resident use), as a percentage of the minimum. The table below outlines these requirements (note: the numbers identified as “maximums” represent the “maximum possible requirement” not a limit on how much bike parking can be provided). Figure 15 Montgomery County Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements Source: Montgomery County via - http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:montgomeryco_md_mc Car-Share Parking Requirements Beyond crediting car-share spaces toward minimum parking requirements, as noted above, the County requires any new development providing at least 50 spaces of on-site parking to offer parking to established car-share providers, on a “right of first refusal” basis, according to how much on-site parking is provided, as follows. P129 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 30 50 – 149 spaces: 1 car-share space to be offered 1 additional car-share space to be offered for every 100 on-site spaces more than 149, or fraction thereof, up to a maximum requirement of 5. P130 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 31 COMPLEMENTARY STRATEGIES STRATEGIC IN LIEU FEE APPROACH In Lieu Fee programs that are successful in achieving their aims — usually focused on generating revenue to construct public parking expansions, in lieu of new, private parking facilities — tend to receive less attention than those that fail. The successes, however, can be significant and transformative to creating walkable downtowns and commercial centers, where efficient, accessible parking fades into the background of the physical, visual, and mobility context. Well-established examples include Santa Monica, California and Bethesda, Maryland Berkley, California recently adopted an In Lieu, including an increasingly recommended “graduated” fee scale, based on development size and the number of required parking spaces waived . A key advantage of a graduated fee scale is that it makes the fee option particularly affordable for infill projects, while creating an incentive for larger projects to provide on-site parking. This latter incentive can be particularly effective when combined with joint-development opportunities and/or zoning code provisions that encourage shared parking at private developments. Berkley, California Between 2012 and 2013 the City of Berkley, California, took steps to plan, approve and implement an in - lieu parking program as a means to provide developers with the opportunity to voluntarily opt out of parking requirements in downtown Berkley. The program provides an incentive for developers to reduce the number of parking spaces in downtown while simultaneously raising funds for transit and other mobility services. The in-lieu program is entirely voluntary, and developers cannot be compelled to pay an in-lieu fee if they choose not to. Rather, developers are given the option to provide the amount of parking required of any particular development, or to simply seek to gain approval to pay the fee instead. The fee schedule and proposed uses for the collected funds of the program were developed in a workshop with city staff and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). After considering a variety of approaches and fee levels the fee schedule was set in the following graduated range: 15,000 per space for spaces 1-5 waived or reduced, 20,000 per space for spaces 6-15 waived or reduced, 25,000 per space for spaces 16-25 waived or reduced, and 30,000 per space for spaces 26 and greater waived or reduced. The council approved the fee schedule recommendations following a public hearing in May of 2013. The funds raised from the parking are to be deposited into a fund separate from all other funds, and used to provide for a variety of enhanced transit and transportation demand management programs, as well as bicycle and pedestrian projects, or even structured parking. The fee schedule is to be revisited two years after implementation by the city in consultation with the MTC to ensure its effectiveness in encouraging the reduction of downtown parking space installation, and in generating funds. DOWNTOWN-EMPLOYEE TDM PROGRAMS One of the best-known examples of a successful TDM program focused on reducing employee-parking impacts on limited, downtown customer parking supplies is that of Boulder, CO. P131 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 32 Boulder, Colorado Faced with both a shortage of customer parking and its citizens' aversion to additional traffic, the City of Boulder developed a comprehensive parking management program that combines pricing strategies with proactive, employee-based TDM. Central to the success of its efforts has been its “Eco-Pass” program, which provides free unlimited-ride transit passes to more than 8,300 downtown employees. The City pays a negotiated, flat fee for each employee enrolled in the program, and receives a deep discount based on the reality that most pass holders won’t use it on a daily basis . The free transit option has proven effective in increasing their non-driving commute rates. Within the program’s first ten years, the drive-alone rate among downtown employees fell from 56% to 35%, while the transit rate more than doubled, from 15% to 32%. Figure 16 Travel Mode Used for Work Commute JOINT DEVELOPMENT Public Parking programs are increasingly using use joint-development to ensure that the parking facilities they build are part of mixed-use buildings that are designed to enhance their surrounding contexts, including the prominent inclusion of active, street-oriented businesses along their perimeters. A primary advantage of a joint-development project is that both parties gain, through shared-use efficiencies, more parking capacity per construction dollar than would be possible in either a stand-alone public facility, or as a private, accessory parking garage. Each gains significant access to “overflow” capacity — created when activity at some uses drops, coincident with an increase in activity at other uses — created by a diversity among on-site uses and the seamless sharing off spaces between uses within a single facility. Furthermore, joint-development, in lieu of accessory parking development, brings more parking activity into the municipal parking system. When this system is coordinated with TDM programs, parking customers benefit from increased awareness of benefits, programs, and events that can make non -driving alternatives cheaper, more appealing, and easier to use. The Flats at Bethesda Avenue, Montgomery County The Flats at Bethesda Avenue, located in Bethesda, Maryland, is a mixed use development on 1.4 acres of land, completed as a joint-development between a private developer and Montgomery County, though its Parking Lot District program. The project includes 162 residential units, including 38 affordable workforce-housing units. It also includes 28,000 square feet of retail on the ground floor, primarily occupied by restaurants and food and beverage retailers. P132 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 33 Figure 17 Flats at Bethesda Avenue, Bethesda, MD Source: http://www.flatsatbethesdaavenue.com/gallery/ Meeting County Objectives The County’s primary goal for the development was to increase the public parking supply without creating stand-alone parking facilities. Following a 2010 study to update the County’s Parking Lot District (PLD) program, which seeks to provide public parking in Bethesda and other commercial centers, the County decided against building any more stand-alone parking facilities in these areas, and to seek joint- development opportunities, when new supplies where needed. Following this policy shift, in 2015, the County released a Request for Proposal inviting a private developers to proposed plans to purchase two PLD lots, which contained 279 public spaces, and build 980+ public parking spaces underground, as part of a mixed-use development. The request stipulated the development of private residences and retail above the parking facility, as well as a requirement for 15% of housing to be offered as affordable units. The four-level underground garage that was part of the winning Bethesda Flats proposal is owned and managed by the County, while everything above it is owned and managed privately. The Bethesda Flats project realized these minimum criteria, and brought benefits beyond these efficiencies, using location, programming, and design to emphasize non -driving mobility and access which allows the project to extract even greater value from each of its 980 parking spaces. Going Beyond Supply Expansion A distinctive point of appeal for the Flats at Bethesda is its location directly on the 11 -mile Capital Crescent Trail. This trail connects with many other regional trails, and also feeds directly into Washington, D.C., which serves those who wish to commute to work via bicycle. When the development was built, the trail was widened from 10 feet to 14 feet along the development. Additionally, the developers implemented wider sidewalks and shorter crosswalks for an improved pedestrian environment. In addition to its direct trail access, the development also provides secure bicycle storage and a bicycle drop-0ff area to use while parking. P133 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 34 The design of the garage takes into account both motorists and pedestrians, especially those carrying bicycles. Four of six elevators are oversized, allowing cyclists to easily bring their bicycles up to the Capital Crescent Trail. The garage also provides 24/7 security, energy-saving fluorescent lighting, six electric vehicle charging stations, wayfinding and signage, and hand-made art glass windows, all creating a welcoming, safe, and secure pedestrian environment. PUBLIC VALET Unlike other valet programs that serve only one business, public valets are designed to serve all area businesses. By linking just a few on-street spaces, used for dropoff and pickup, to under-utilized off-street facilities, public valet can greatly expand the capacity of curb parking in high-demand areas. For customers, these services offer an easy alternative to finding on-street parking, or dealing with off-street facilities, by allowing drivers to drop-off their car at a central location and forget about their cars until they are ready to leave the area. Essentially, it combines the convenience of on -street parking with the expansive capacity of off-street facilities. Charleston, SC The City of Charleston initiated a public valet program in May of 2011 after a group of downtown business owners suggested the program as a means to address parking constraints that were discouraging downtown trips. The group selected public valet as an opportunity to provide a new level of customer service, and create a "different atmosphere" that would attract more visitors. The City embraced the concept as a means of expanding the capacity of the most convenient parking locations, while reducing search" traffic and parking in surrounding neighborhoods. There had been valet operations in the past, but they had been unregulated, non -strategic, and focused on serving individual businesses. The new program, by contrast, is City-controlled and branded to distinguish the service as a unique form of valet, designed as a public service. Although the operations are contracted to a private vendor, the City establishes and controls station locations, rates, uniform and signage guidelines, and locations for parking valet-served vehicles. Today, there are five valet stations that operate from 6 p.m. to 12:30 a.m., 7 days a week. The valet fee is between $8 and $10 — enough to attract competitive bids from several private operators. A total of 24 metered parking spaces are used to operate the queuing areas. Valet services are available to all visitors, regardless of where they are going, allowing visitors to leave their car parked while they shop, dine, catch a movie, and enjoy all the aspects of downtown without even thinking about where to pay their car. P134 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 35 VEHICLE RESTRICTIONS Whistler, British Columbia Source: Richmond News Whistler’s Valley Trail is a multi-use trail that connects the pedestrian-only central neighborhood Village with other neighborhoods in Whistler. The Village Stroll, a paved portion of the trail that runs through town, connects Whistler Olympic Plaza, Village Park, Village Common, Village Square, Mountain Square, shops, restaurants, and three gondolas at the base of Whistler and Blackcomb mountains. The Valley Trail continues to Upper Village. Tourism Whistler, the official destination website, encourages visitors to consider travel options that leave your car at home. Shuttle buses with free wi-fi run from Vancouver Airport to Whistler, which is typically a 1 hour and 45 minute drive. Additionally private vehicle charters are available for large groups. Helicopter charters and floatplane is offered, weather and season permitting. Zermatt, Switzerland The village of Zermatt, Switzerland13 is located at the foot of the world-famous Matterhorn in the Valais Alps at an altitude of 5,200 feet above sea-level. Zermatt is internationally known for being a car-free mountain village with a unique mix of nature, sports and recreational opportunities. Zermatt’s car-free community and brand supports green tourism, and a close-to-nature aesthetic, which caters to luxury tourists. Pristine air quality is maintained by a combustion engine -free zone, with emergency and taxi vehicles running on battery power. Zermatt has human-scale streets that safely support any non- motorized mode: from pedestrians and strollers, to bicycles and horse-drawn carriages. By restricting private vehicles into the village, planners have minimized the presence of parking across the whole village. While the primary policy objective is maintaining optimal air quality and visibility, a significant co-benefit has been a highly walkable, dense urban vitality at the center of the village. While 13 Most of the details provided below were sourced from the Zermatt website: http://www.zermatt.ch/en, accessed May 2016. P135 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 36 individual resorts must make extra efforts to ease guest access and convenience, by shuttling luggage, and providing information on in-village mobility, the resorts benefit from reduced parking construction costs, development efficiencies, and the unique character the Zermatt policy bestows upon the area. Figure 18 Zermatt Village Centre Source: http://www.ski-zermatt.com/zermatt.html Access to Zermatt's ski areas connect to Italy via two mountain passes at an altitude of roughly 9,800 feet. The village has developed into a popular summer and winter resort destination, with a permanent population of approximately 5,700. Half of Europe's 76 “four-thousand-meter” mountain peaks are located within the Zermatt area. 125 years of recreation in the valley took off with the first train trip into Zermatt in July of 1891. The opening of a valley road as far as Täsch, the next village down the mountain, in 1971 allowed most tourists to travel most of the way by car. At the same time, the road to Zermatt became closed to private vehicle traffic. In 1972, commuter service trains were introduced between Täsch and Zermatt to keep up with demand.14 Primarily to ward off air pollution, which among other things could degrade the village’s Matterhorn views, private vehicles are restricted beyond Täsch to this day. The 3.1 mile road between Täsch and Zermatt is closed to private vehicles, and aside from emergency vehicles, electrically-powered delivery and service vehicles, taxis and bicycles, the only form of vehicular transportation allowed within the village are horse-drawn sleighs and carriages. 14 BVZ Zermatt-Bahn Wikipedia Entry, 2016 P136 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 37 Remote Parking Surface lots (900 spaces) and garages (2,900 spaces) are available in Täsch for private vehicles. Some garages also operate taxi services to and from Zermatt. Shuttle trains operated by the Matterhorn Gotthard Railway run between Täsch and Zermatt. Connecting Shuttles Figure 19 Shuttle Train Service between Parking and Zermatt15 Source: http://www.zermatt.ch/e/access/by-train.html Connecting trains run at 20-minute frequencies on a 24-hour schedule, Thursday to Sunday and offer direct access to the Zermatt village center, see Figure 19. Seven taxi companies also operate between Täsch and Zermatt. Mass Transit Direct train connections to Zermatt are also available from Brig and Visp via Matterhorn Gotthard Railway service, which is a 90-minute journey through the scenic, rugged Vispa Valley. A new connection, Lötschberg base tunnel between Frutigen and Raron, was completed in late 2007, and offers service to Zermatt in a little over an hour. Train service through this tunnel is provided by Swiss, German, and French national railways. Other rail connections to Zermatt include “express” trains from Barcelona, Milan, Venice, Rome, Naples, Vienna, Stuttgart, Hamburg, and London. By train, Zermatt is 14 hours from Paris or Berlin and four hours from Geneva. The "Glacier Express" scenic train provides service between the village and St. Moritz, with a total trip time of six and one -half hours. Heliport Zermatt is within a few hours reach of airports located in Zurich, Geneva, Basel and Milan. The village has its own heliport, from which the Air Zermatt Company provides air shuttles to each airport. Local Mobility The village offers a pedestrian-friendly scale, with most destinations of interest located within easy walking distance of each other. The village also offers two public transit routes, served by electrically - powered buses that cover all major village destinations, and operates at 30-minute frequencies from 7:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. In season, bus access is complimentary for those holding a ski-pass. "Electro" taxis and horse-drawn carriages provide additional mobility options, along with rental bicycles. P137 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 38 REMOTE PARKING Manitou Springs, CO For the last three years, the City has leased a large private lot near Old Man’s Trail to use for remote parking, with free shuttle service to top visitor attractions and the hotel district. The City has recently initiated negotiations to purchase the lot, which holds approximately 100 vehicles and can accommodate buses and RVs, in order to continue its use as a park-and-ride. In prior years, the shuttle was funded with federal transportation dollars through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program, but this past year the shuttle, called the Incline/Cog shuttle, was wholly funded with paid parking revenues. Although the lot is open year-round, the shuttle service operates only during the period of peak visitation, from May through September. Figure 20 Free Shuttle to Remote Parking Source: City of Manitou Springs website In 2014, a second shuttle route, the Manitou Avenue Shuttle, was added to connect the east end of the hotel district with the downtown area. The Incline/Cog Shuttle runs daily from 6 a.m. to 8:15 p.m. with 20-minute headways, with a second bus running from 10:00 a.m. to 8:15 p.m. on weekends and holidays. When both buses are running on the weekends, the schedule is staggered to provide 10 minute frequencies. The Manitou Avenue Shuttle runs daily with 20-minute headways. It operates from 7:50 a.m. to 10:05 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and from 7:50 a.m. to 12:05 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Ridership for the remote shuttles was over 120,000 riders this past year. Annual costs to operate the service are estimated at $260,000, which will be paid for by parking revenue in future years. The frequent shuttles support the important role of tourism as the base of the local economy during the peak season. And, with 120,000 riders last year, the impact of this remote parking strategy represents considerable success in reducing downtown traffic congestion. By effectively shifting parking demand outside the downtown core, this also facilitates more growth, with less parking, in the center of Manitou Springs. P138 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 39 Figure 21 Riders Boarding the Free Shuttle Source: Manitou Incline website TDM IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE Arlington County’s incorporation of TDM into its development code set a precedent for this approach to aligning off-street parking policies with sustainable growth goals. Earlier this year, San Francisco established a new precedent that puts TDM at the center of development review and approval. San Francisco, California In early 2016, the City and County of San Francisco adopted a resolution to initiate Code amendments that would require development projects to comply with a proposed TDM program, with the intent to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and to make it easier for people to get around by sustainable travel modes such as transit, walking, and biking. The proposed TDM program is part of the Transportation Sustainability Program (TSP), a multi -agency initiative that aims to improve and expand San Francisco’s transportation network to accommodate new growth. Under the proposed TDM program, the City would set a target TDM score, based on the number of accessory vehicle parking spaces included with the proposed project. Developers can meet the target by selecting TDM measures – each with a specified number of points – from a menu of options. In general, if a project proposes more parking, then the target and number of TDM measures the developer must implement would increase. Selected TDM measures must be incorporated into the project proposal, and analyzed in Draft 1 of the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) or Transportation Circulation Memo. Property owners will be required to implement TDM measured selected in the TDM plan for the life of the project. P139 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 40 Figure 22 San Francisco TDM Checklist CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION16 ACTIVE-1 Improve Walking Conditions Provide streetscape improvements to encourage walking ACTIVE-2 Bicycle Parking Provide secure bicycle parking, more spaces given more points ACTIVE-3 Showers and Lockers Provide on-site showers and lockers so commuters can travel by active modes ACTIVE-4 Bike Share Membership Provide Bike Share memberships for residents and employees (1 point) Additional point if the project site is within the Bike Share network ACTIVE-5A Bicycle Repair Station Provide on-site tools and space for bicycle repair ACTIVE-5B Bicycle Maintenance Services Provide maintenance services through an on-call mechanic or vouchers to a local shop ACTIVE-6 Fleet of Bicycles Provide an onsite fleet of bicycles for residents, employees, and/or guests to use ACTIVE-7 Temporary Bicycle Valet Parking For large events. Provide monitored bicycle parking for 20 percent of guests CSHARE-1 Car Share Several options for providing car-share parking and memberships, more points given for higher levels of participation DELIVERY-1 Delivery Supportive Amenities Facilitate deliveries with a staffed reception desk, lockers, or other accommodations DELIVERY-2 Provide Delivery Services Provide delivery of products (e.g., groceries) or services e.g., dry cleaning) FAMILY-1 Family TDM- Amenities Provide storage for car seats near car-share parking, cargo bikes and shopping carts FAMILY-2 On-site Childcare Provide an on-site childcare services FAMILY-3 Family TDM Package Provide a combination of car-share parking and memberships and family amenities HOV-1 Contributions or Incentives for Sustainable Transportation 25, 50, 75, or 100 percent subsidies for sustainable transportation use, more points given for higher rate of subsidy HOV-2 Shuttle Bus Service Provide shuttle bus services, more points given for more frequent service 16 Please refer to Appendix A of the TDM Program Standards for TDM measure descriptions and specific applicability by land use category. Appendix A is available here: http://sf-planning.org/shift-encourage-sustainable-travel P140 I. Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update: TM #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform Peer Review | DRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 41 CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION16 HOV-3 Vanpool Program Provide vanpool services to employees, more points for serving larger projects INFO-1 Multimodal Wayfinding Signage Provide directional signage for locating transportation services (shuttle stop) and amenities (bicycle parking) INFO-2 Real Time Transportation Information Displays Large screen or monitor that displays, at a minimum, transit arrival and departure information INFO-3 Tailored Transportation Marketing Services Options A - D Provide residents and employees with information about travel options, more points given for providing more marketing services P141 I. 49 WEST 27TH STREET, 10 WEST NEW YORK, NY 10001 212-242-2490 FAX 212-242-2549 www.nelsonnygaard.com M E M O R A N D U M To: Reilly Thimons and Jessica Garrow, City of Aspen From: Jeremy Nelson, REgeneration Development Strategies, and Tom Brown Date: August 15, 2016 Subject: Regeneration Development Strategies Financial Analysis Summary INTRODUCTION This memo presents a summary of findings from REgeneration Development Strategies’ technical analysis of the non-transportation impacts of off-street parking in the Aspen Infill Area. The memo is organized as follows. Overview – A brief overview of the purpose, methodology, and data sources for this analysis. Key Findings – A high-level summary of key findings from the analysis of off-street parking in the Infill Area, based on an analysis of the following. - Parking Cost & Market Value. Construction costs for off-street parking spaces, compared to their market value as well as the market value of non-parking uses for the same land/building spaces - Public subsidies. The price of publicly-provided off- and on-street parking subsidized compared to the price of privately-provided off-street parking - Opportunity Costs. The amount of usable space displaced by on-site parking, including uses, such as housing, that could help achieve City policy goals - Fiscal impacts and public policy tradeoffs. The fiscal impacts of forgone tax revenue, when parking displaces taxable uses and the policy implications of private uses triggering reduced tax revenue for public improvements Appendices - Appendix A: Presentation slides summarizing the key findings. - Appendix B: Technical spreadsheets showing the full details of the analysis, including substantial footnote documentation regarding data sources, assumptions made where necessary, and additional clarifying information. OVERVIEW The primary purpose of the analysis summarized in this technical memo was to assess the non- transportation impacts of off-street parking in the Infill Area. The assessment was desired in order to help the consultant team and City staff understand the cost, value, and fiscal impacts of off-street parking to inform the creation of potential reforms of off-street parking standards and P142 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 –––– Financial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis Summary ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2 protocols (e.g., in lieu of parking fees for the Infill Area) in order to support the City’s vision for sustainable growth and development. The methodology and data sources used in the analysis are as follows: Construction costs for privately-operated, off-street parking were calculated based on information provided during interviews with planning/development technical stakeholders. - Costs were based on their knowledge of recently completed projects in the Infill Area that included off-street parking. - Land costs and operations/maintenance costs were excluded from the calculation of construction costs. Market value and price of privately-operated off-street parking were calculated based on information provided during interviews with: a) planning/development technical stakeholders and b) local real estate brokers had either represented buyers or sellers in recent real estate transactions or shared current data from proprietary real estate databases. Construction costs, price, and public subsidies for publicly-operated parking (both on- and off-street) were calculated from information provided by the City’s Transportation Department, the general contractor designing new County parking facilities, and the City’s websites on parking permits and the Rio Grande garage. Opportunity costs of displaced usable space due to off-street parking were calculated based on estimates of the average size in the Infill Area of an off-street parking space, residential unit, lodging unit, and commercial unit (retail store or restaurant). Fiscal impacts of off-street parking were calculated as follows: - Foregone consumption tax revenue due to off-street parking, based solely on the City’s 2015 share of revenues from existing sales tax and lodging tax. … Consumption tax data was provided by City’s Finance Department based on ongoing conversations with department staff to ensure accuracy and relevance. … It should be noted that consumption tax data was from publicly-available sources and was provided at the aggregate-level for the entire Infill Area, and no data was provided at the level of individual parcels or individual businesses. - Foregone property tax revenue due to off-street parking, based solely on the City’s 2015 share of revenues from the City’s current 4.978 mill levy. … Property tax data was provided by County Assessor based on ongoing conversations with department staff to ensure accuracy and relevance. … It should be noted that all property tax data was from publicly-available sources. Acreages for the Infill Area and Commercial Core were calculated based on Nelson\Nygaard’s GIS maps and geospatial analyses of official planning boundary maps provided by the City’s Community Development Department. Building-specific calculations for many of the relevant metrics described above were derived from data provided by the City’s Community Development Department for a representative sample of eight (8) recently developed buildings (new construction) or redeveloped buildings (renovation/expansion) in the Infill Area. All other data inputs to the analysis were from publicly-available sources as documented in the technical appendix. P143 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 –––– Financial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis Summary ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 3 The estimates used for this financial analysis should be considered “planning level”, designed to frame the non-transportation impacts of off-street parking in the Infill Area. Some methodological assumptions were necessary due to data limitations (e.g. data wasn’t available, data couldn’t legally be made public, the cost of obtaining the data outweighed the benefit of the data for a planning-level assessment, etc.). Wherever assumptions were made, they were vetted with the project team and/or technical stakeholders to ensure that the assumptions were reasonable. All assumptions are documented in the technical appendix. KEY FINDINGS Parking Cost and Market Value Costs Constructing off-street parking is extremely expensive in the Infill Area. Per-Space Construction Costs The midpoint construction costs in 2016 dollars for off-street parking in the Infill Area are as follows.1 Tuck under: $30K/space Structured (at grade or above grade): $60K/space2 Underground: $70K/space Development Cost Impacts The average construction cost of off-street parking provided in a typical mixed-use building in the Infill Area is estimated to be $3.2M, assuming that all of the parking is structured and at grade or above grade. The total construction cost of the existing off-street parking supply among all commercial uses) in the Infill Area is estimated to be $163M.3 These construction costs have significant impact on parking supply development in the Infill Area. The private sector currently constructs relatively little off-street parking in the Infill Area as part of new development. - Instead, developers generally pay the in-lieu of parking fee of $30K/space rather than build new off-street parking as part of their projects. 1 Note that all construction costs are conservative (i.e., they underestimate full costs) as they exclude both land costs and operations/maintenance costs. 2 The per-space construction cost of the Rio Grande Garage, at $38k, indicates the potential for considerable cost savings for public parking facilities. 3 Based on an estimate of this inventory, and assuming most parking is structured, at or above grade. P144 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 –––– Financial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis Summary ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4 The public sector has constructed very little off-street parking in recent years4, contrary to some expectations from a well-utilized In Lieu Fee program. - Rather, it has been investing primarily in programs that reduce parking demand. The combination of private and public sector approaches to supply development results in a parking inventory organized into multiple, small facilities that tend to be inefficient in their space utilization and often inconveniently located to meet broad parking needs. Market Value Despite high construction costs, leasing or selling parking spaces remains profitable in the Infill Area. The parking market (motorists) places a high premium on off-street parking spaces, relative to construction costs, as expressed by market prices for off-street parking. The midpoint market prices in 2016 dollars for a 350 SF off-street parking in the Infill Area are as follows: Lease: $475/month ($1.36/SF) , (or$114,000 total revenue assuming a 20-year lease (the useful life of the parking space). - This represents a 47% gross profit margin between the price the parking consumer is willing to pay over the parking provider’s $60K/space construction costs. Purchase price: $133,750 ($382/SF). - This represents a 55% gross profit margin between the price the parking consumer is willing to pay over the parking provider’s $60K/space construction costs. But, it is not as profitable as other uses. The real estate market (building purchasers and lessees) places a relatively low value on off-street parking relative to lease costs for other non-parking uses, despite the extremely high potential gross profit margins for off-street parking in the Infill Area. The potential sale/lease revenues from non-parking commercial uses in the Infill Area are significantly higher than the potential sale/lease revenues from off-street parking in the Infill Area. While the market valuation for off- street parking in the Infill Area is $1.36/SF/month, the market valuation for leasing non-parking commercial spaces in the Infill Area ranges from $20/SF/month to $400/SF/month. The average triple net (NNN) monthly lease costs in 2016 dollars for the Infill Area are shown below. Ground-floor retail/restaurant space Commercial Core: - Prime locations (e.g., right on the pedestrian mall): $200-$400/SF - Non-prime locations (e.g., adjacent to the pedestrian mall): $75-$140/SF Non-core Infill Area: - Prime locations: $50-$75/SF - North of Main St.: $30-$35/SF 4 This has been a result of limited public ownership of suitable sites for parking facilities, as well as a lack of interest in joint-development options. P145 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 –––– Financial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis Summary ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5 2nd floor office space: Commercial Core: - Prime locations: $60-$65/SF - Non-prime locations: $35-$50/SF Non-core Infill Area: - North of Main St.: $20-$25/SF While highly-valued, parking does not add significant value to developments. Planning/development technical stakeholders and real estate brokers indicated there was rarely any price concession (i.e., discount) given for a building (or space within a building) for sale or lease that didn’t have off-street parking compared to a comparable building or space with off- street parking. This was explained by the fact that because entry costs are high for purchasing or leasing space in the Infill Area, prospective buyers and lessees are primarily interested in locating in the Infill Area regardless of the presence or absence of on-site parking and are willing to arrange for alternate off-site parking or alternate travel options. High-end residential projects are the exception. The one exception to this dynamic was higher-end, for-sale residential products, which were reported to have a $200/SF price premium if an off-street parking space was bundled with the unit. Conclusion The parking market places a relatively high value on off-street parking in the Infill Area, while the real estate market (building purchasers and lessees) places a relatively low value on off-street parking in the Infill Area. For the parking market, this dynamic is likely explained by the fact that off-street parking in the Infill Area that is publicly available and convenient to high demand locations is perceived to be scarce by motorists. This perception exists despite the fact that recent parking survey data conducted by N\N as part of this project demonstrated that the off- street parking supply in the Infill Area is typically underutilized even during peak demand conditions. This, however, does not appear to be a sufficient incentive for developers and building purchasers and lessess to view off-street parking as a value-added amenity worth the sacrifice of developable land or leasable building space. For the real estate market, this dynamic is likely explained a combination of the following. - The combined effects of the scarcity of developable land in the Infill Area, subsequently high land costs, and limited development yield (due to zoning controls, and most notably height restrictions), which mean that most options to provide parking come at the direct expense of space for other uses. - Market demand for building-space purchase or lease in the Infill Area is high enough that the presence or absence of off-street parking doesn’t significantly affect demand or sales/lease price. P146 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 –––– Financial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis Summary ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6 - The higher gross profit potential of non-parking land/building uses, compared to the (nonetheless significant) gross potential profit from parking. Because not providing parking is cheaper and more profitable for most Infill Area projects, the on-site parking that is included in new development tends to be a response to a) parcel size, shape, or grade conditions that make parking the most profitable use of certain portions of the site/building b) circumstances that make parking uniquely profitable for a particular project (high-end residential, lack of sufficient capacity among nearby parking alternatives, etc.). In a largely built-out community with high land costs and limited development yield (due to zoning controls and especially height limits), the displacement of potentially developable space due to off-street parking provided on-site for each building represents a missed opportunity. By accommodating off-street parking demand in publically-provided off-street parking facilities (combined with increasing the efficiency of on-street parking utilization), the development yield of Infill Area properties being developed or redeveloped in the future could be increased without increasing height limits, thereby tapping into a virtual “land bank” that would help achieve community priorities for increased workforce housing and more affordable lodging options. Public Subsidies The price of publicly-provided monthly parking5 (both off-street and on-street) is highly subsidized relative to the lease price of privately-provided off-street parking. The monthly parking prices for publicly-provided and privately-provided parking spaces in the Infill Area shown below demonstrate the depth of this public subsidy on a per space and per SF basis: Private off-street space (350 SF): $475/month (or $1.36/SF) Public off-street space (350 SF): $200/month (or $0.67/SF). This subsidy price represents 42% of the market price. Public on-street space (200 SF): $13-$174/month, or $0.06 - $0.87/SF. This subsidy price represents 3% to 37% of the market price. Conclusion Considering the counterproductive effect of parking subsidies on achieving other community policy goals (e.g. sustainable transportation, traffic reduction, etc.), the fact that publicly-provided off-street (as well as on-street) parking is heavily subsidized was one of the more surprising findings in this analysis. Publicly-subsidized parking prices increase demand for parking in the Infill Area and reduce available public revenue for investing in strategies to reduce parking demand, building new parking supply, or both. The combined effects of the current public subsidy for off-street parking could potentially increase the perceived need for maintaining or even expanding off-street parking requirements for new development. 5 The analysis did not review short-term metered parking prices in the Infill Area as these have recently been increased as part of a demand-responsive pricing pilot program. P147 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 –––– Financial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis Summary ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7 Opportunity Costs A significant amount of usable space is displaced by on-site parking among buildings in the Infill Area. The opportunity costs of on-site parking for a typical mixed-use building in the Infill Area are as follows. The average number of off-street parking spaces provided in a typical mixed-use building in the Infill Area is 54 spaces. These spaces consume an average of 18KSF of developable area, or an average of 40% of the typical building’s total gross floor area (GFA). Assuming that all parking was structured at grade or above grade (or for commercial uses no more than one level below grade), this average parking-to-building ratio in the typical mixed-use building in the Infill Area has the potential to displace an average of either: - 13 residential units; or - 38 lodging units; or - 13 retail stores/restaurants.6 The impact of the estimated on-site parking supply for all taxable land/buildings in the entire Infill Area are as follows. The total estimated off-street parking supply provided for all uses in the Infill Area potentially consumes up to 5M SF of developable area and up to 1M SF of developable area for all commercial uses (excluding residential uses). Assuming that all parking was structured at grade or above grade (or for commercial uses no more than one level below grade), the total estimated supply of off-street parking provided in the Infill Area has the potential to displace: - Up to 2,687 residential units (in the estimated total residential parking area); - Up to 815 lodging units (in the estimated total lodging parking area); and - Up to 361 retail stores/restaurants (in the estimated total commercial parking area). Conclusion In a largely built-out community with high land costs and limited development yield (due to zoning controls and especially height limits), the displacement of potentially developable space due to on-site parking represents a missed opportunity. By accommodating parking demand in publically-provided off-street parking facilities (combined with increasing the efficiency of on- street parking utilization), the development yield of Infill Area properties could be increased without increasing height limits, thereby tapping into a virtual “land bank” that would help achieve community priorities for increased workforce housing and more affordable lodging options. 6 Note that the building-specific displaced usable space due to off-street parking is non-additive. P148 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 –––– Financial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis Summary ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 8 Fiscal Impacts and Public Policy Tradeoffs The potential foregone tax revenue in a typical mixed-use building in the Infill Area, due to the actual off-street parking provided is projected to be $244K/year. This forgone revenue is composed of the following. $51K/year in foregone property tax. Every off-street parking space provided in a typical mixed-use building in the Infill Area represents a potential $1K/year in foregone property tax revenue (350 SF per parking space multiplied by an average property tax yield of $2.75/SF for a typical mixed-used building in the Infill Area). $193K/year in forgone consumption tax (sales + lodging taxes). Every off-street parking space provided in a typical mixed-use building the Infill Area represents a potential $3,600/year in foregone consumption tax revenue (350 SF per parking space multiplied by an average consumption tax yield of $10.24/SF in the Infill Area). Likewise, the potential foregone tax revenue in the entire Infill Area due to the estimated off- street parking supply is projected to be $11.2M/year. This forgone revenue is composed of the following. $1.4M/year in foregone property tax. Every off-street parking space provided in the Infill Area represents a potential $101/year in foregone property tax revenue (350 SF per parking space multiplied by an average property tax yield of $0.29/SF for all buildings in the Infill Area). $9.7M/year in foregone consumption tax (sales + lodging taxes).7 The potential foregone tax revenue in the Infill Area due to the estimated off-street parking represents public policy tradeoffs in the form of reduced revenue for public investments. The $11.2M/year in total potential forgone revenue is equivalent to the following. 10% of the City’s 2016 annual budget. 264% of the City’s 2016 Transportation Fund budget. A direct income supplement to low-income Aspen households of: - $7K for every household with income below the citywide median (50th percentile) household income; or - $14K/year for every household with income below the 25th percentile. A “budget reserve equivalent value” of: - $349M if the City earns at least 3.2% interest, which is equivalent to the average annual inflation rate in the US over the past 100 years; or 7 Because consumption tax data was provided at the aggregate-level for the Infill Area as a whole, the $3,600/year/space in foregone consumption tax revenue can only be projected as the same for the typical mixed-use buildings in the sample data set and for all buildings (using the formula of 350 SF per parking space multiplied by an average consumption tax yield of $10.24/SF in the Infill Area). However, the $/SF consumption tax yield is certainly higher for the representative mixed-use buildings included in the data set, as these buildings are primarily located in the Commercial Core. P149 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 –––– Financial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis Summary ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 9 - $1.1B if the City earns at least 1% interest, which is equivalent to the yield on a 5-year Treasury Bill at the time this analysis was conducted (July 2016). Conclusion Reduced public investment as a result of potential forgone tax revenue due to off-street parking provided in the Infill Area is one of the most significant impacts identified in this analysis. This foregone tax revenue translates into less spending on other community priorities, such as sustainable transportation initiatives, affordable housing subsidies, climate change mitigation/adaptation, expanding access to early childhood education, or any number of other priorities that are important to Aspen community members and their elected representatives. P150 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 –––– Financial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis Summary ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 10 Appendix A: Presentation Slides Summarizing key findings TO COME P151 I. OffOffOffOff----Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 Street Parking & Mobility Updates: TM #4 –––– Financial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis SummaryFinancial Analysis Summary ||||DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT City of Aspen Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 11 Appendix B: Technical Spreadsheets Showing full details of the analysis P152 I. Aspen Infill Area Parking & Mobility Updates Off-Street Parking: Construction Costs, Market Value, Opportunity Costs, Fiscal Impacts, and Public Policy Tradeoffs DRAFT - For Project Team Internal Review Only Prepared by: REgeneration Development Strategies Last revised: 8/9/2016 Key Constants in the model (from best practice and consultant professional experience) Inputs to the model (from public agency data, technical stakeholders, and consultant research) Assumptions (no data available) Not applicable Outputs of the model (calculations from embedded formulas) Table 1: Parking Development Cost, Market Value, and Public Subsidy (from technical stakeholder interviews, City data, and consultant research) What is an off-street parking space worth in the Infill Area? Average off-street parking space size with circulation etc.350 SF Average on-street parking space size 200 SF Privately-Provided Parking Construction Cost ($/space) Type Lower End Cost Higher End Cost Midpoint Cost Midpoint $/SF Cost Surface -$ -$ -$ -$ Tuck Under 25,000$ 35,000$ 30,000$ 86$ Structured (above grade)55,000$ 65,000$ 60,000$ 171$ Underground (below grade)60,000$ 80,000$ 70,000$ 200$ In-Lieu 30,000$ 86$ Privately-Provided Parking Market Price ($/space)Lower End Higher End Price Midpoint Price Midpoint $/SF Price 20-year Price Lease 200$ 750 475$ 1.36$ 114,000$ Purchase 67,500$ 200,000 133,750$ 382$ 133,750$ For-sale residential unit price premium with off-street parking -$ -$ -$ 200$ Publicly-Provided Parking Construction Cost & Subsidy Price ($/SF)Cost ($/space)$/SF Cost Price $/SF Price On-Street Parking Lodge visitor (monthly with 1-week permit @ 4.3 weeks/mo.)-$ -$ 13$ 0.06$ Business owner (monthly with 2nd 6-month permit)-$ -$ 100$ 0.50$ Non-resident (monthly with 1-day permit @ 21.7 workdays/mo.)-$ -$ 174$ 0.87$ Off-Street Parking Rio Grande Garage (330 spaces, monthly with 1-month permit)38,161$ 1,817$ 200$ 0.57$ Pitkin County Garage (planned underground facility, 10 Sherriff Dept. employee spaces)225,000$ 10,714$ Notes - This table includes analysis of both public and private off-street parking for purposes of comparing cost and value and calculating public subsidy. The rest of the analysis is focused only on private off-street parking. - Cost details for surface parking are not shown and are not relevant to this analysis, as planning/development technical stakeholders indicated that surface parking is no longer a financially viable parking format for new development in the Infill Area. This is due to the combined effects of the scarcity of developable land in the Infill Area, subsequently high land costs, and limited development yield (due to zoning controls, and most notably height restrictions). - All costs are capital costs only for the construction of off-street parking facilities. They include both hard and soft costs, but exclude land costs and ongoing operating/maintenance (O & M) costs. - The 20-year price projections are static (i.e. 2016 values multiplied by 10) and do not account for potential escalation factors such as overall inflation/deflation or appreciation/depreciation in the valuation of off-street parking in the Aspen Infill Area submarket. - Information about on-street parking permits are shown to allow for comparison of prices and any associated public subsidies relative to off-street parking. Details regarding on-street parking permits (including permit types, permit district boundaries, and costs) accessed here: www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Parking/Parking-in-Residential-Area/ - For purposes of comparing $/SF lease cost of off-street parking in the Infill Area, the triple net (NNN) lease cost for other commercial uses in the Infill Area ranges from $20/SF to $400/SF. The following triple net (NNN) commercial lease rates were provided by Aspen brokers familiar with the Infill Area commercial real estate market: * Ground-floor retail/restaurant space: $200-$400/SF for prime locations in the core (e.g. right on the pedestrian mall); $75-$140/SF for non-prime locations in the core (e.g. adjacent to the pedestrian mall); $50-$75/SF for prime locations in non-core Infill Area; $30-$35/SF for locations across Main St. * 2nd floor office space: $60-$65/SF for prime locations; $35-$50/SF for non-prime locations; $20-$25/SF for locations across Main St. - The purchase cost of off-street parking represents the range provided by planning/development technical stakeholders and real estate brokers familiar with the Infill Area real estate market. The one exception is the lower end of the range: one stakeholder reported that the purchase price for an off-street parking space in the Infill Area might be as low as $50K/space if one or more of the following conditions applied: a) purchase of multiple parking spaces resulted in bulk discount (reducing the price of an individual space on cost per space basis), b) the parking was of low quality (e.g. poorly maintained, etc.) or difficult to access (e.g. no elevator, etc.), and/or c) the parking had deed restrictions that prevented it from being for the exclusive 24/7 use of the purchaser (e.g. the parking space must be available to visitors/customers during business hours with purchasers use limited to non-business hours). Because this analysis is based on typical purchase costs for representative off-street parki erefore a co nservative assumption.. For this reason, the lower end purchase price of $67,500/space shown in the table above represents the midpoint between the $85K/space purchase price that other stakeholders reported as typical for representative off-street parking and the $50K/space that a single stakeholder reported for non-representative off-street parking spaces. - The Rio Grande Garage has 330 spaces and cost $6.5M when it was constructed in 1989. The original construction cost was escalated to 2016 dollar cost of ~$12.6M using an inflation calculator based on Census Bureau Consumer Price Index (CPI) data accessed here: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com - Costs for planned new Pitkin County Garage are planning-level estimates provided directly by general contractor responsible for garage construction. Table 2a: Building-specific Parking Cost & Value Potential (from City Community Development data on built projects) What is the average cost and value of the off-street parking supply for a typical mixed-use building in the Infill Area? Number of Cost Value Building Address Parking Spaces (above grade, structured)(for-sale)Development Program Summary Mill 201 North Mill 21 1,260,000$ 2,808,750$ 10KSF comcl., 8 res. units (4 BMR) Lenado 200 South Aspen 9 540,000$ 1,203,750$ 8 lodging units, 5 res. units (2 BMR) Jerome 310/330 East Main 47 2,820,000$ 6,286,250$ 21KSF comcl., 96 lodging units Chart House 219 East Durant 27 1,620,000$ 3,611,250$ 11 lodging units, 2 res. units (2 BMR) Victorian Square 601 East Hyman 0 -$ -$ 7KSF comcl., 1 res unit (1 BMR) Sky 709 East Durant 67 3,990,000$ 8,894,375$ 3KSF comcl., 104 lodging units, 2 res. units (2 BMR) Meadows Trustee Townhomes 845 Meadows 98 5,880,000$ 13,107,500$ 11 res. units (0 BMR) Lift 1 Lodge 710/720 South Aspen 163 9,780,000$ 21,801,250$ 6KSF comcl., 22 lodging units, 5 res. units (0 BMR) Per-Building Average 54 3,236,250$ 7,214,141$ All Building Total 432 25,890,000$ 57,713,125$ Notes - The number of parking spaces shown are the parking spaces currently provided or proposed in the sample mixed-use buildings in the Infill Area, not necessarily parking spaces required in those buildings by the zoning code. - Cost analysis assumes structured parking above grade and are for capital costs only, excluding O & M costs and land costs. - Value analysis assume that all spaces could be sold and are therefore valued at market valuation to purchase a parking space in the Infill Area, but in reality not all parking spaces could legally or practically be sold. For example, residential parking spaces are are commonly (but not always) physically integrated into the housing unit itself and/or bundled with the housing unit in fee simple ownership arrangement. - Cost and value estimates are in 2016 dollars (i.e. not adjusted for cost/value at time when parking was constructed, future cost inflation, or value depreciation/depreciation). Table 2b: Infill Area Parking Costs & Value Potential (from County Assessor data) What is the total cost and value of the estimated off-street parking supply for all taxable land/buildings in the Infill Area? Average Parking Area to Building Area Ratio 40% Building Area Parking Area Cost Value Use (GFA SF)(SF)(above grade, structured)(for-sale) Residential 10,156,616 4,030,972 691,023,752$ 1,540,407,115$ Lodging 1,026,870 407,546 69,864,959$ 155,740,638$ Commercial (Lodging Excluded)1,364,505 541,547 92,836,567$ 206,948,181$ Average (for each use)4,182,664 1,660,021 284,575,093$ 634,365,311$ Total (for all uses)12,547,991 4,980,064 853,725,279$ 1,903,095,934$ Total Non-Residential (for lodging and commercial uses only)2,391,375 949,092 162,701,526$ 362,688,819$ Notes - The parking area to building area ratio is derived from City data on sample mixed-use buildings in the Infill Area. It is based on the area of parking spaces provided or proposed in the sample mixed-use buildings in the Infill Area, not necessarily parking spaces required in those buildings by the zoning code. See Table 3a for more information. - All building area figures are from 2015 Pitkin County Assessor data for "Actual Area" to allow for consistent comparisons across different abstract codes / land uses. All parcels with a variation of abstract code "exempt" are excluded. The building area figures are assumed to report the same GFA figures from City-approved development entitlements and/or permits. Community Development staff stipulate that per the City's current zoning code, parking is rarely included in GFA calculations. However, if a project has subgrade parking then the code does require a portion of the subgrade parking area to be included in a given building's GFA calculations if some portion of the subgrade parking is exposed to a certain threshold as provided in the Code. Thus, for the sake of simplicity and consistency in these planning-level analysis, the building area GFA figures assume all (100%) of a building's parking square footage is excluded from its building area GFA square footage. It should be noted that this methodol - Residential building area includes all parcels with residential abstract codes from Pitkin County Assessor data as follows: Residential-Single Family Residence, Residential-Duplex or Triplex, Residential-Condominium, Residential-Multi-Units (4-8), and Residential-Multi-Units (9+). - Lodging building area includes all parcels with lodging abstract codes from Pitkin County Assessor data as follows: Commercial-Lodging. - Commercial building area includes all parcels with Commercial abstract codes (except "Commercial-Lodging") from Pitkin County Assessor data as follows: Commercial-Special Purpose, Commercial-Commercial Condominium, Commercial-Recreation, Commercial-Office, Commercial-Multi-Use, and Commercial-Merchandising. - The parking area figures shown are the total estimated parking provided in all buildings in the Infill Area, not necessarily parking spaces required in those buildings by the zoning code. - Cost analysis assumes structured parking and are for capital costs only, excluding O & M costs and land costs. - Value analysis assume that all spaces could be sold and are therefore valued at market valuation to purchase a parking space in the Infill Area, but in reality not all parking spaces could legally or practically be sold. For example, residential parking spaces are are commonly (but not always) physically integrated into the housing unit itself and/or bundled with the housing unit in fee simple ownership arrangement. - Cost and value estimates are in 2016 dollars (i.e. not adjusted for cost/value at time when parking was constructed, future cost inflation, or value depreciation/depreciation). Table 3a: Building-specific Opportunity Costs (from City Community Development data on actual projects) How much usable space is displaced in a typical mixed-use building in the Infill Area due to the building's off-street parking? Average off-street parking space size (efficient layout, alley loaded, including circulation)350 SF Average residential unit size (2BR/1BA, gross including building circulation)1500 SF Average lodging unit size 500 SF Average commercial unit size 1500 SF Parking Area Building Area Parking/Building Building Address Parking Spaces (SF)Residential Units Lodging Units Commercial Units (GFA SF)Ratio Mill 201 North Mill 21 7,350 4.9 14.7 4.9 24,602 30% Lenado 200 South Aspen 9 3,150 2.1 6.3 2.1 19,622 16% Jerome 310/330 East Main 47 16,450 11.0 32.9 11.0 123,149 13% Chart House 219 East Durant 27 9,450 6.3 18.9 6.3 29,880 32% Victorian Square 601 East Hyman 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9,100 0% Sky 709 East Durant 67 23,275 15.5 46.6 15.5 86,403 27% Meadows Trustee Townhomes 845 Meadows 98 34,300 22.9 68.6 22.9 27,500 125% Lift 1 Lodge 710/720 South Aspen 163 57,050 38.0 114.1 38.0 76,141 75% Per-Building Average 54 18,878 13 38 13 49,550 40% All Building Total 432 151,025 101 302 101 396,397 38% Notes - Average size of units provided by technical stakeholders. - Displaced usable space analysis assumes that entire parking area square footage is developable as higher and better use. For commercial uses, this assumption would be true for all at-grade parking and even one level of below-grade parking (as the Infill Area has numerous examples of below-grade food courts in the center of commercial buildings surrounded by retail/restaurant frontages or below-grade courtyards/pools in the center of hotel buildings surrounded by lodging units). However for residential units and for extremely constrained sites generally, not all of the below-grade parking area could feasibly be developable as a higher and better use. This methodological assumption therefore likely overestimates the potential amount of displaced usable space due to off-street parking (especially for residential units), but is unavoidable given the available data and resources for this analysis. - The building area GFA figures shown are from Community Development department data on built projects. Community Development staff stipulate that per the City's current zoning code, parking is rarely included in GFA calculations. However, if a project has subgrade parking then the code does require a portion of the subgrade parking area to be included in a given building's GFA calculations if some portion of the subgrade parking is exposed to a certain threshold as provided in the Code. Thus, for the sake of simplicity and consistency in this planning-level analysis, the building area GFA figures assume all (100%) of a building's parking area square footage is excluded from its building area GFA . It should be noted that this methodological assumption likely reduces the parking area to building area ratio, which is the basis of estimating many of the parking impacts in this analysis, and is therefore a conservative assumption. - The parking area square footage and parking area to building area ratio is based on the parking spaces provided or proposed in the sample mixed-use buildings in the Infill Area, not necessarily parking spaces required in those buildings by the zoning code. Table 3b: Infill Area Opportunity Costs (from County Assessor data) How much usable space is displaced in all taxable land/buildings in the Infill Area due to the estimated off-street parking supply? Average off-street parking space size (efficient layout, alley loaded, including circulation)350 SF Average residential unit size (2BR/1BA, gross including building circulation)1500 SF Average lodging unit size 500 SF Average commercial unit size 1500 SF Parking Area Displaced Usable Use (SF)Space (Units) Residential 4,030,972 2,687 Lodging 407,546 815 Commercial (Lodging Excluded)541,547 361 Average (for each use)1,660,021 Total (for all uses)4,980,064 3,863 Notes - Average size of units provided by technical stakeholders. - The parking area figures shown are the total estimated parking provided in all buildings in the Infill Area, not necessarily parking spaces required in those buildings by the zoning code. - Displaced usable space analysis assumes that entire parking area square footage is developable as higher and better use. For commercial uses, this assumption would be true for all at-grade parking and even one level of below-grade parking (as the Infill Area has numerous examples of below-grade food courts in the center of commercial buildings surrounded by retail/restaurant frontages or below-grade courtyards/pools in the center of hotel buildings surrounded by lodging units). However for residential units and for extremely constrained sites generally, not all of the below-grade parking area could feasibly be developable as a higher and better use. This methodological assumption therefore likely overestimates the potential amount of displaced usable space due to off-street parking (especially for residential units), but is unavoidable given the available data and resources for this analysis. Table 4a: Building-specific Property Tax Impacts (from City Community Development data on built projects) How much property tax does the City potentially forgo in a typical mixed-use building in the Infill Area due to the building's off-street parking? Building Area Property Tax/GFA Parking Area Foregone Property Tax Building Address (GFA SF)Property Tax (2015)(2015 $/SF)(SF) Due to Parking (2015) Mill 201 North Mill 24,602 67,471$ 2.74$ 7,350 20,158$ Lenado 200 South Aspen 19,622 57,759$ 2.94$ 3,150 9,272$ Jerome 310/330 East Main 123,149 344,498$ 2.80$ 16,450 46,017$ Chart House 219 East Durant 29,880 67,471$ 2.26$ 9,450 21,339$ Victorian Square 601 East Hyman 9,100 15,099$ 1.66$ 0 -$ Sky 709 East Durant 86,403 286,688$ 3.32$ 23,275 77,227$ Meadows Trustee Townhomes 845 Meadows 27,500 153,378$ 5.58$ 34,300 191,305$ Lift 1 Lodge 710/720 South Aspen 76,141 56,617$ 0.74$ 57,050 42,421$ Per-Building Average 49,550 131,123$ 2.75$ 18,878 50,967$ All Building Total 396,397 1,048,982$ N/A 151,025 407,739$ All "Commercial" parcels exclusive of "Commercial-Lodging" and tax-exempt parcels. Notes All "Residential" parcels exclusive of tax-exempt parcels. All "Lodging" parcels exclusive of tax-exempt parcels. Displaced Usable Space (standalone, non-additive) $- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 Tuck Under Structured (above grade) Underground (below grade) In-Lieu Off-Street Parking Development Costs $100,000 $105,000 $110,000 $115,000 $120,000 $125,000 $130,000 $135,000 $140,000 Lease Purchase Off-Street Parking Market Value P153 I. Notes - The building area GFA figures shown are from Community Development department data on built projects. Community Development staff stipulate that per the City's current zoning code, parking is rarely included in GFA calculations. However, if a project has subgrade parking then the code does require a portion of the subgrade parking area to be included in a given building's GFA calculations if some portion of the subgrade parking is exposed to a certain threshold as provided in the Code. Thus, for the sake of simplicity and consistency in this planning-level analysis, the building area GFA figures assume all (100%) of a building's parking area square footage is excluded from its building area GFA . It should be noted that this methodological assumption likely increases the property tax to building area ratio but also likely underestimates the forgone property tax due to off-street parking. While the effects of this assumption partially offset one another, the magnitude of the net effect is unknown and the - Property tax analysis assumes structured parking, either above grade or one level below grade. - The parking area square footage figures shown are based on the area of parking spaces provided or proposed in the sample mixed-use buildings, not necessarily parking spaces required by the zoning code. - This analysis does not exclude residential parking spaces that are unbundled with fee simple ownership and that may actually be taxed as a standalone real property asset. But technical stakeholders reported that the number of these kind of parking spaces in the Infill Area is de minimus and therefore does not materially affect the analysis. - This analysis does not account for the potential reduced value of a property without an off-street parking space, as technical stakeholders informed us that this effect would primarily occur for residential uses which are not currently allowed in the Infill Area. Table 4b: Building-specific Consumption Tax Impacts (from City Community Development & City Finance data) How much consumption tax does the City potentially forgo in a typical mixed-use building in the Infill Area due to the building's off-street parking? Consumption Tax/GFA Parking Area Foregone Consumption Tax Building Address (2015 $/SF)(SF)Due to Parking (2015) Mill 201 North Mill 10.24$ 7,350 75,231$ Lenado 200 South Aspen 10.24$ 3,150 32,242$ Jerome 310/330 East Main 10.24$ 16,450 168,374$ Chart House 219 East Durant 10.24$ 9,450 96,725$ Victorian Square 601 East Hyman 10.24$ 0 -$ Sky 709 East Durant 10.24$ 23,275 238,231$ Meadows Trustee Townhomes 845 Meadows 10.24$ 34,300 351,077$ Lift 1 Lodge 710/720 South Aspen 10.24$ 57,050 583,935$ Per-Building Average 10.24$ 18,878 193,227$ All Building Total N/A 151,025 1,545,815$ Notes - Consumption tax analysis assumes structured parking, either above grade or one level below grade. - Consumption tax to GFA ratio is calculated based on total consumption taxes generated in the Infill Area (per City Finance data) divided by total commercial square footage in the Infill Area (per County Assessor data). A building-specific ratio could not be calculated as the City does not make consumption tax data publicly available at the level of individual buildings. - The parking area square footage figures shown are based on the area of parking spaces provided or proposed in the sample mixed-use buildings, not necessarily parking spaces required by the zoning code. Table 4c: Building-specific Property Tax plus Consumption Tax Impacts (from City Community Development data on built projects & City Finance data) How much total property tax & consumption tax does the City potentially forgo in a typical mixed-use building in the Infill Area due to the building's off-street parking? Total Tax/GFA Parking Area Foregone Total Tax Building Address (2015 $/SF)(SF)Due to Parking (2015) Mill 201 North Mill 12.98$ 7,350 95,388$ Lenado 200 South Aspen 13.18$ 3,150 41,514$ Jerome 310/330 East Main 13.03$ 16,450 214,391$ Chart House 219 East Durant 12.49$ 9,450 118,064$ Victorian Square 601 East Hyman 11.89$ 0 -$ Sky 709 East Durant 13.55$ 23,275 315,458$ Meadows Trustee Townhomes 845 Meadows 15.81$ 34,300 542,382$ Lift 1 Lodge 710/720 South Aspen 10.98$ 57,050 626,356$ Per-Building Average 12.99$ 18,878 244,194$ All Building Total 116.91$ 151,025 1,953,555$ Notes - See Tables 4a and 4b for information on the methodology for the property tax and consumption tax analyses, respectively. Table 5a: Infill Area Property Tax Impacts (from County Assessor data) How much property tax does the City potentially forgo in the Infill Area due to the estimated off-street parking supply? Entire Infill Area Infill Area Citywide Non-Infill Area Infill Area Non-Commercial Core Commercial Core Total Acreage 2,536.5 2,036.9 499.6 477.0 22.7 Percent of Total Citywide Acreage 100%80.3%19.7%18.8%0.9%< Key Finding(s): Small area generating disproportionate amount of property value. Percent of Total Infill Area Acreage 100%95.5%4.5% 2015 Total Property Actual Valuation 10,262,389,000$ 8,646,218,000$ 1,616,171,000$ 2015 Total Property Assessed Valuation 1,492,162,550$ 225,278,370$ 1,266,884,180$ 905,031,240$ 361,852,940$ City Mill Levy (4.978 per $100,000 Assessed Value)0.004978 0.004978 0.004978 0.004978 0.004978 2015 Total Property Tax Obligation 7,427,985$ 1,121,436$ 6,306,549$ 4,505,246$ 1,801,304$ % of Citywide Property Tax Obligation 100%15.1%84.9%60.7%24.3%< Key Finding(s): Small area generating disproportionate amount of property value. 2015 Property Tax Productivity Yield ($/acre)2,928$ 551$ 12,622$ 9,445$ 79,525$ 2015 Property Tax Productivity Yield ($/SF)0.07$ 0.01$ 0.29$ 0.22$ 1.83$ Total Parking SF / Displaced Usable Space SF (for all taxable uses)4,980,064 4,754,297 215,532 Total 2015 Foregone Property Tax Revenue 1,443,052$ 1,030,881$ 393,485$ < Key Finding(s): Significant amount of potential foregone property tax. Notes - The City's current mill levy of 4.978 excludes other taxing districts (e.g. County, school districts, metro districts, etc.). However parking displaces property tax revenue for those districts as well, so they would likely see fiscal benefits from reforms to City of Aspen's off-street parking requirements as well. - Acreage and valuation data does not exclude tax-exempt parcels (e.g. parcels that are owned by government or religious entities). However, property tax obligation data effectively does exclude tax-exempt parcels (since the tax obligation of these properties is $0). For this reason, the property tax productivity yield should be considered a "gross yield" rather than a "net yield" number. In this way, the approach is conservative because the gross yield is lower than the net yield number would be. For example, the gross property tax productivity yield for all buildings in the Commercial Core of the Infill Area is $1.83/SF, while the net yield for the sample mixed use-buildings in the Commercial Core of the Infill Area averaged $2.85/SF. - See Tables 4a and 4b for additional information on the methodology for the property tax and sales tax analyses, respectively. P154 I. Table 5d: Infill Area Consumption Tax Impacts (from City Finance data) How much consumption tax does the City potentially forgo in the Infill Area due to the estimated off-street parking supply? Total Citywide Acreage 2,536.5 Total Infill Area Acreage 499.6 Infill Area Percent of Total Citywide Acreage 19.7% 2015 Total Citywide Consumption Tax Revenues (2.1% Sales Tax, 2% Lodging Tax)17,235,570$ 2015 Citywide Portion of Pitkin County Sales Tax Revenues (3.6% Sales Tax)8,529,591$ 2015 Total Citywide Consumption Tax Revenues 25,765,161$ Average Annual Percentage of Citywide Consumption Tax Generated in the Infill Area 95% Total 2015 Consumption Tax Revenues Generated in the Infill Area 24,476,903$ Total Commercial Square Footage in the Infill Area (all commercial uses including lodging)2,391,375 2015 Consumption Tax Productivity Yield in the Infill Area ($/Commercial SF)10.24$ Total Parking SF / Displaced Usable Commercial Space SF in the Infill Area 949,092 Total 2015 Foregone Consumption Tax Revenue in the Infill Area 9,714,427 < Key Finding(s): Significant amount of potential foregone consumption tax. Notes - 2015 City consumption tax revenues and 2015 City portion of County sales tax revenue from "City of Aspen 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report" accessed here: www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City%20of%20Aspen%202015%20Comprehensive%20Annual%20Financial%20Report.pdf. - City Finance stipulates that they are very confident that on average 95% of the City's annual consumption tax revenues are generated inside the Infill Area every year. Table 5c: Infill Area Fiscal Impacts and Public Policy Tradeoffs What are the public policy tradeoffs of potential forgone tax revenue in the Infill Area due to the estimated off-street parking supply? City of Aspen Total Households (2010-2014)3,149 City of Aspen Households below 50th Percentile (Median) of Citywide HH Income 1,574.50 City of Aspen Households below 25th Percentile of Citywide HH Income 787.25 City of Aspen FY 2016 Total Budget 115,098,243$ City of Aspen FY 2016 Transportation Fund Revenue Budget 4,223,550$ City of Aspen FY 2016 Reserve Fund (2015 Ending Fund Balance)101,527,546$ 2016 Budgeting Implications 2015 Foregone Tax Revenue Due to Off-Street Parking In the Infill Area Per Parking SF (2016 $)Per Parking Space (2016 $)Per Year (2016 $)Per Decade (2016-26)< Key Finding(s): Property Tax 0.29$ 101$ 1,443,052$ 14,430,518$ Each SF of taxable land/buildings in the Infill Area generates an average of $0.29/yr in property tax Consumption Tax 10.24$ 3,582$ 9,714,427$ 97,144,273$ Each SF of commercial use in the Infill Area generates $10.24/yr in consumption tax (sales + lodging). Total 10.53$ 3,684$ 11,157,479$ 111,574,791$ That’s a potential maximum of $10.53/SF/year in lost tax revenue for every square foot of off-street parking, or $3,684/yr for a 350 SF off-street parking space. 2015 Total Foregone Tax Revenue as Percentages The budget reserve value of $3,684/space is between $115,120 (at 3.2% interest) and $368,384 (at 1% interest). Percent of 2016 Total Budget 10% Percent of 2016 Transportation Fund Revenue Budget 264% Percent of 2016 Reserve Fund (2105 Ending Fund Balance)11% Social Equity Implications Per Parking SF (2016 $)Per Parking Space (2016 $)Per Year (2016 $)Per Decade (2016-26) Potential Payment to Aspen Households below 50th Percentile (Median) City Income 2.34$ 7,086$ 70,864$ < Key Finding(s): Increase the housing supply to potentially reduce housing costs, while also increasing household incomes so they can potentially better afford high cost of housing (a double whammy). Potential Payment to Aspen Households below 25th Percentile of City Income 4.68$ 14,173$ 141,727$ Long-Term "Budget Reserve Equivalent Value" Implications Per Parking SF (2016 $)Per Parking Space (2016 $)Per Year (2016 $)Per Decade (2016-26) Reserve Equivalent Value at 1% Interest Rate/ROI (Approx. Yield on a 5-year Treasury Bill)1,053$ 368,384$ 1,115,747,914$ 11,157,479,144$ Reserve Equivalent Value at 3.2% Interest Rate/ROI (Avg. Annual Inflation Rate 1913-2015)329$ 115,120$ 348,671,223$ 3,486,712,232$ Notes - City of Aspen FY 2016 Budget Info from "2016 Budget Book" accessed here: www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Finance/2016%20Budget%20Book%20-%20Web.pdf - All 10-year revenue projections are static (i.e. 2016 values multiplied by 10) and do not account for potential escalations such as overall inflation/deflation, appreciation/depreciation in property tax valuations/revenues, or increase/decrease in sales tax revenues. - "Budget reserve equivalent value" means the amount of capital the City would need to maintain in reserves invested at specific interest rates to generate a return on investment equivalent to the foregone property and consumption tax revenue. Reserve value estimates are based on non-compounded interest rates. - Yield for a 5-year Treasury Bill accessed here: www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield - Average annual inflation rate for 1913-2015 (the 102 years that inflation data has been collected) accessed here: http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Long_Term_Inflation.asp P155 I. - Cost details for surface parking are not shown and are not relevant to this analysis, as planning/development technical stakeholders indicated that surface parking is no longer a financially viable parking format for new development in the Infill Area. This is due to the combined effects of the scarcity of developable land in the Infill Area, subsequently high land costs, and limited development yield (due to zoning controls, and most notably height restrictions). - The purchase cost of off-street parking represents the range provided by planning/development technical stakeholders and real estate brokers familiar with the Infill Area real estate market. The one exception is the lower end of the range: one stakeholder reported that the purchase price for an off-street parking space in the Infill Area might be as low as $50K/space if one or more of the following conditions applied: a) purchase of multiple parking spaces resulted in bulk discount (reducing the price of an individual space on cost per space basis), b) the parking was of low quality (e.g. poorly maintained, etc.) or difficult to access (e.g. no elevator, etc.), and/or c) the parking had deed restrictions that prevented it from being for the exclusive 24/7 use of the purchaser (e.g. the parking space must be available to visitors/customers during business hours with purchasers use limited to non-business hours). Because this analysis is based on typical purchase costs for representative off-street parki artificially low (i.e. an outlier). For this reason, the lower end purchase price of $67,500/space shown in the table above represents the midpoint between the $85K/space purchase price that other stakeholders reported as typical for representative off-street parking and the $50K/space that a single stakeholder reported for non-representative off-street parking spaces. - All building area figures are from 2015 Pitkin County Assessor data for "Actual Area" to allow for consistent comparisons across different abstract codes / land uses. All parcels with a variation of abstract code "exempt" are excluded. The building area figures are assumed to report the same GFA figures from City-approved development entitlements and/or permits. Community Development staff stipulate that per the City's current zoning code, parking is rarely included in GFA calculations. However, if a project has subgrade parking then the code does require a portion of the subgrade parking area to be included in a given building's GFA calculations if some portion of the subgrade parking is exposed to a certain threshold as provided in the Code. Thus, for the sake of simplicity and consistency in these planning-level analysis, the building area GFA figures assume all (100%) of a building's parking square footage is excluded from its building area GFA square footage. It should be noted that this methodol - Displaced usable space analysis assumes that entire parking area square footage is developable as higher and better use. For commercial uses, this assumption would be true for all at-grade parking and even one level of below-grade parking (as the Infill Area has numerous examples of below-grade food courts in the center of commercial buildings surrounded by retail/restaurant frontages or below-grade courtyards/pools in the center of hotel buildings surrounded by lodging units). However for residential units and for extremely constrained sites generally, not all of the below-grade parking area could feasibly be developable as a higher and better use. This methodological assumption therefore likely overestimates the potential amount of displaced usable space due to off-street parking (especially for residential units), but is unavoidable given the available data and resources for this analysis. - The building area GFA figures shown are from Community Development department data on built projects. Community Development staff stipulate that per the City's current zoning code, parking is rarely included in GFA calculations. However, if a project has subgrade parking then the code does require a portion of the subgrade parking area to be included in a given building's GFA calculations if some portion of the subgrade parking is exposed to a certain threshold as provided in the Code. Thus, for the sake of simplicity and consistency in this planning-level analysis, the building area GFA figures assume all (100%) of a building's parking area square footage is excluded from its building area GFA . It should be noted that this methodological assumption likely reduces the parking area to building area ratio, which is the basis of estimating many of the parking impacts in this analysis, and is therefore a conservative assumption. - Displaced usable space analysis assumes that entire parking area square footage is developable as higher and better use. For commercial uses, this assumption would be true for all at-grade parking and even one level of below-grade parking (as the Infill Area has numerous examples of below-grade food courts in the center of commercial buildings surrounded by retail/restaurant frontages or below-grade courtyards/pools in the center of hotel buildings surrounded by lodging units). However for residential units and for extremely constrained sites generally, not all of the below-grade parking area could feasibly be developable as a higher and better use. This methodological assumption therefore likely overestimates the potential amount of displaced usable space due to off-street parking (especially for residential units), but is unavoidable given the available data and resources for this analysis. P156 I. - The building area GFA figures shown are from Community Development department data on built projects. Community Development staff stipulate that per the City's current zoning code, parking is rarely included in GFA calculations. However, if a project has subgrade parking then the code does require a portion of the subgrade parking area to be included in a given building's GFA calculations if some portion of the subgrade parking is exposed to a certain threshold as provided in the Code. Thus, for the sake of simplicity and consistency in this planning-level analysis, the building area GFA figures assume all (100%) of a building's parking area square footage is excluded from its building area GFA . It should be noted that this methodological assumption likely increases the property tax to building area ratio but also likely underestimates the forgone property tax due to off-street parking. While the effects of this assumption partially offset one another, the magnitude of the net effect is unknown and the - Acreage and valuation data does not exclude tax-exempt parcels (e.g. parcels that are owned by government or religious entities). However, property tax obligation data effectively does exclude tax-exempt parcels (since the tax obligation of these properties is $0). For this reason, the property tax productivity yield should be considered a "gross yield" rather than a "net yield" number. In this way, the approach is conservative because the gross yield is lower than the net yield number would be. For example, the gross property tax productivity yield for all buildings in the Commercial Core of the Infill Area is $1.83/SF, while the net yield for the sample mixed use-buildings in the Commercial Core of the Infill Area averaged $2.85/SF. P157 I. < Key Finding(s): Increase the housing supply to potentially reduce housing costs, while also increasing household incomes so they can potentially better afford high cost of housing (a double whammy). P158 I. - The purchase cost of off-street parking represents the range provided by planning/development technical stakeholders and real estate brokers familiar with the Infill Area real estate market. The one exception is the lower end of the range: one stakeholder reported that the purchase price for an off-street parking space in the Infill Area might be as low as $50K/space if one or more of the following conditions applied: a) purchase of multiple parking spaces resulted in bulk discount (reducing the price of an individual space on cost per space basis), b) the parking was of low quality (e.g. poorly maintained, etc.) or difficult to access (e.g. no elevator, etc.), and/or c) the parking had deed restrictions that prevented it from being for the exclusive 24/7 use of the purchaser (e.g. the parking space must be available to visitors/customers during business hours with purchasers use limited to non-business hours). Because this analysis is based on typical purchase costs for representative off-street parki artificially low (i.e. an outlier). For this reason, the lower end purchase price of $67,500/space shown in the table above represents the midpoint between the $85K/space purchase price that other stakeholders reported as typical for representative off-street parking and the $50K/space that a single stakeholder reported for non-representative off-street parking spaces. - All building area figures are from 2015 Pitkin County Assessor data for "Actual Area" to allow for consistent comparisons across different abstract codes / land uses. All parcels with a variation of abstract code "exempt" are excluded. The building area figures are assumed to report the same GFA figures from City-approved development entitlements and/or permits. Community Development staff stipulate that per the City's current zoning code, parking is rarely included in GFA calculations. However, if a project has subgrade parking then the code does require a portion of the subgrade parking area to be included in a given building's GFA calculations if some portion of the subgrade parking is exposed to a certain threshold as provided in the Code. Thus, for the sake of simplicity and consistency in these planning-level analysis, the building area GFA figures assume all (100%) of a building's parking square footage is excluded from its building area GFA square footage. It should be noted that this methodol - Displaced usable space analysis assumes that entire parking area square footage is developable as higher and better use. For commercial uses, this assumption would be true for all at-grade parking and even one level of below-grade parking (as the Infill Area has numerous examples of below-grade food courts in the center of commercial buildings surrounded by retail/restaurant frontages or below-grade courtyards/pools in the center of hotel buildings surrounded by lodging units). However for residential units and for extremely constrained sites generally, not all of the below-grade parking area could feasibly be developable as a higher and better use. This methodological assumption therefore likely overestimates the potential amount of displaced usable space due to off-street parking (especially for residential units), but is unavoidable given the available data and resources for this analysis. - The building area GFA figures shown are from Community Development department data on built projects. Community Development staff stipulate that per the City's current zoning code, parking is rarely included in GFA calculations. However, if a project has subgrade parking then the code does require a portion of the subgrade parking area to be included in a given building's GFA calculations if some portion of the subgrade parking is exposed to a certain threshold as provided in the Code. Thus, for the sake of simplicity and consistency in this planning-level analysis, the building area GFA figures assume all (100%) of a building's parking area square footage is excluded from its building area GFA . It should be noted that this methodological assumption likely reduces the parking area to building area ratio, which is the basis of estimating many of the parking impacts in this analysis, and is therefore a conservative assumption. - Displaced usable space analysis assumes that entire parking area square footage is developable as higher and better use. For commercial uses, this assumption would be true for all at-grade parking and even one level of below-grade parking (as the Infill Area has numerous examples of below-grade food courts in the center of commercial buildings surrounded by retail/restaurant frontages or below-grade courtyards/pools in the center of hotel buildings surrounded by lodging units). However for residential units and for extremely constrained sites generally, not all of the below-grade parking area could feasibly be developable as a higher and better use. This methodological assumption therefore likely overestimates the potential amount of displaced usable space due to off-street parking (especially for residential units), but is unavoidable given the available data and resources for this analysis. P159 I. - The building area GFA figures shown are from Community Development department data on built projects. Community Development staff stipulate that per the City's current zoning code, parking is rarely included in GFA calculations. However, if a project has subgrade parking then the code does require a portion of the subgrade parking area to be included in a given building's GFA calculations if some portion of the subgrade parking is exposed to a certain threshold as provided in the Code. Thus, for the sake of simplicity and consistency in this planning-level analysis, the building area GFA figures assume all (100%) of a building's parking area square footage is excluded from its building area GFA . It should be noted that this methodological assumption likely increases the property tax to building area ratio but also likely underestimates the forgone property tax due to off-street parking. While the effects of this assumption partially offset one another, the magnitude of the net effect is unknown and the - Acreage and valuation data does not exclude tax-exempt parcels (e.g. parcels that are owned by government or religious entities). However, property tax obligation data effectively does exclude tax-exempt parcels (since the tax obligation of these properties is $0). For this reason, the property tax productivity yield should be considered a "gross yield" rather than a "net yield" number. In this way, the approach is conservative because the gross yield is lower than the net yield number would be. For example, the gross property tax productivity yield for all buildings in the Commercial Core of the Infill Area is $1.83/SF, while the net yield for the sample mixed use-buildings in the Commercial Core of the Infill Area averaged $2.85/SF. P160 I. P161 I. - The purchase cost of off-street parking represents the range provided by planning/development technical stakeholders and real estate brokers familiar with the Infill Area real estate market. The one exception is the lower end of the range: one stakeholder reported that the purchase price for an off-street parking space in the Infill Area might be as low as $50K/space if one or more of the following conditions applied: a) purchase of multiple parking spaces resulted in bulk discount (reducing the price of an individual space on cost per space basis), b) the parking was of low quality (e.g. poorly maintained, etc.) or difficult to access (e.g. no elevator, etc.), and/or c) the parking had deed restrictions that prevented it from being for the exclusive 24/7 use of the purchaser (e.g. the parking space must be available to visitors/customers during business hours with purchasers use limited to non-business hours). Because this analysis is based on typical purchase costs for representative off-street parki artificially low (i.e. an outlier). For this reason, the lower end purchase price of $67,500/space shown in the table above represents the midpoint between the $85K/space purchase price that other stakeholders reported as typical for representative off-street parking and the $50K/space that a single stakeholder reported for non-representative off-street parking spaces. P162 I. O b j e c t i v e St r e n g t h s We a k n e s s e s Op p o r t u n i t i e s Th r e a t s Co d e O p t i o n s Re d u c e C a r De p e n d e n c y Co d e R e f o r m S u c c e s s : T h e 2 0 0 5 C o d e re f o r m s a p p e a r t o h a v e l a r g e l y mit i g a t e d a g a i n s t o v e r s u p p l y o f o n - s i t e pa r k i n g a t n e w d e v e l o p m e n t . Th e T I A : T h e ( u p d a t e d i n 2 0 1 4 ) T I A al l o w s t h e C i t y t o d i r e c t l y i n c o r p o r a t e TD M i n n e w d e v e l o p m e n t , p a r t i c u l a r l y am o n g p r o j e c t s t h a t r i s k i n c r e a s i n g c a r de p e n d e n c y . Mo d e S h i f t s : “ T h e w i n t e r d r i v i n g co m m u t e m o d e s h a r e ( b o t h a l o n e a n d ca r p o o l i n g ) d e c r e a s e d f r o m 8 0 % i n 2 0 0 4 to 7 4 % i n 2 0 1 4 . ” ( 2 0 1 4 R F T A T r a v e l Pa t t e r n s R e p o r t ) . T h e w i n t e r b u s co m m u t e m o d e s h a r e i n c r e a s e d f r o m 12 % o f c o m m u t e t r i p s i n 2 0 0 4 t o 1 9 % i n 20 1 4 . ( 2 0 1 4 R F T A T r a v e l P a t t e r n s Re p o r t ) . Re g i o n a l I m p a c t s : R e d u c e d c a r - de p e n d e n c y i n t h e I n f i l l A r e a m a y be u n d e r m i n e d , r e g i o n a l l y , i f gr o w t h i s p u s h e d o u t t o t h e s u b u r b s an d b e y o n d . Le g a c y I m p a c t s : R e m a i n i n g o v e r - pa r k e d p r o j e c t s r e d u c e p a r k i n g a n d la n d - u s e e f f i c i e n c i e s Pa r k i n g R a r e l y M a k e s F i n a n c i a l Se n s e : Hi g h c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d op p o r t u n i t y c o s t s m e a n m o s t de v e l o p e r s s e e k t o m i n i m i z e o n - s i t e pa r k i n g . Th e I L F D o e s : T h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f th e I L F o p t i o n p r e s e n t s a n op p o r t u n i t y t o f o c u s C o d e r e f o r m o n ot h e r o b j e c t i v e s , s u c h a s f a c i l i t a t i n g sh a r e d p a r k i n g a n d g e n e r a t i n g mo b i l i t y a n d T D M i n v e s t m e n t s Sh a r e d P a r k i n g : F a c i l i t a t i n g a tr a n s f o r m a t i v e s h i f t a w a y f r o m ac c e s s o r y , p r i v a t e p a r k i n g t o s h a r e d , pu b l i c f a c i l i t i e s w o u l d a l l o w t h e C i t y t o di r e c t l y m a n a g e p a r k i n g d e m a n d , a n d al i g n m a n a g e m e n t p o l i c i e s w i t h T D M , mo b i l i t y , a n d s u s t a i n a b i l i t y . Lo d g i n g - f o c u s e d T D M : “ I n t e g r a t e th e a i r p o r t w i t h a l t e r n a t i v e m o d e s o f tr a n s p o r t a t i o n t o d i m i n i s h r e l i a n c e up o n r e n t a l v e h i c l e s . ” ( A A C P p g 3 2 ) Re m a i n i n g O v e r s u p p l y R i s k : Hi g h - E n d r e s i d e n t i a l de v e l o p m e n t a p p e a r s t o b e so m e w h a t c o n s i s t e n t l y o v e r - pa r k e d . Co m m e r c i a l P a r k i n g C a n B e Pr o f i t a b l e : A l t h o u g h p u t t i n g l a n d us e s i n t h e s a m e s p a c e t e n d s t o be m o r e p r o f i t a b l e . Pu b l i c P a r k i n g R a t e s : R a t e s f o r Ci t y - m a n a g e d p a r k i n g s p a c e s te n d t o b e s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e l o w ma r k e t . Ad d M a x i m u m s : A d d a “ s o f t ” ma x i m u m o n p r i v a t e p a r k i n g , li n k e d t o a f e e o n “ e x c e s s ” sp a c e s , t o f u n d T D M . Re q u i r e O f f s e t s : E n s u r e t h a t a n y pr o j e c t - s p e c i f i c i n d u c e d V M T i s of f s e t b y T I A - b a s e d o r I L F - f u n d e d im p r o v e m e n t s t o r e l e v a n t pe d e s t r i a n , b i k e , a n d t r a n s i t ne t w o r k s . Fu n d a P a r k i n g , M o b i l i t y , a n d TD M P r o g r a m : C a p t u r e I L F a n d TI A f e e r e v e n u e t o r e i n v i g o r a t e a Mu n i c i p a l P a r k i n g s y s t e m , co m p l e m e n t e d b y M o b i l i t y a n d TD M p r o g r a m s . “L e a v e t h e C a r T h e r e ” T D M St r a t e g i e s : A d d T D M s t r a t e g i e s th a t p r o m o t e t h e b e n e f i t s o f “ c a r fr e e ” s t a y s i n A s p e n , a n d t h e ma n y o p t i o n s f o r g e t t i n g a r o u n d wi t h o u t a r e n t e d o r p e r s o n a l c a r . Re d u c e T r a f f i c , Es p e c i a l l y O v e r C a s t l e Cr e e k B r i d g e Th e T I A : T h e ( u p d a t e d i n 2 0 1 4 ) T I A pr o v i d e s a n e w o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i r e c t l y in c o r p o r a t e T D M i n n e w d e v e l o p m e n t , pa r t i c u l a r l y a m o n g p r o j e c t s t h a t r i s k in c r e a s i n g V M T . VM T - R e d u c t i o n : S i n c e i d e n t i f y i n g a go a l t o l i m i t a n n u a l d a i l y v e h i c l e t r i p s (A A D T ) t o 1 9 9 3 l e v e l s i n t h e 2 0 0 0 A A C P , As p e n h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y m e t t h a t g o a l . Re g i o n a l i m p a c t s : V M T - r e d u c t i o n ac h i e v e m e n t s i n t h e I n f i l l A r e a m a y be u n d e r m i n e d , r e g i o n a l l y , i f gr o w t h i s p u s h e d o u t t o t h e s u b u r b s an d b e y o n d . Mo r e C o m m u t e r s : C o m m u n i t i e s i n th e R o a r i n g F o r k V a l l e y [C a r b o n d a l e t o A s p e n ] i m p o r t a hi g h e r p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e i r wo r k f o r c e ( a b o u t 7 0 % o n a v e r a g e ) th a n c o m m u n i t i e s i n t h e C o l o r a d o Ri v e r V a l l e y [ P a r a c h u t e t o Gl e n w o o d S p r i n g s ] ( 5 6 % o n av e r a g e ) . ( 2 0 1 4 R F T A T r a v e l Pa t t e r n s R e p o r t , p g 1 7 ) Lo n g e r C o m m u t e s : - Th e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e R e g i o n ’ s wo r k f o r c e l i v i n g a n d w o r k i n g i n th e s a m e c o m m u n i t y d e c r e a s e d fr o m 4 1 % i n 2 0 0 4 t o 3 8 % i n 2 0 1 4 . (2 0 1 4 R F T A T r a v e l P a t t e r n s Re p o r t , p g 1 7 ) - “… t h e A s p e n w o r k f o r c e h a d t h e lo n g e s t a v e r a g e c o m m u t e o f a n y Lo d g i n g - F o c u s e d T D M : T h e r e ap p e a r s t o b e a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n be t w e e n l o d g i n g u s e s t h a t p r o v i d e an d p r o m o t e n o n - d r i v i n g a i r p o r t co n n e c t i o n s a n d r e d u c e d l o c a l d r i v i n g . Ne w V M T T a r g e t s : T h e 2 0 1 2 A A C P se t a n e w g o a l “ t o r e d u c e p e a k - h o u r ve h i c l e - t r i p s t o a t o r b e l o w 1 9 9 3 le v e l s . ” ( A A C P p g 3 3 ) Pe r c e i v e d S c a r c i t y : P e r c e p t i o n s th a t t h e r e i s , o r w i l l b e , t o o l i t t l e pa r k i n g t o a c c o m m o d a t e g r o w t h IL F P e r c e i v e d a s “ F r e e P a s s : Pe r c e p t i o n s t h a t d e v e l o p e r s a r e no t c o n t r i b u t i n g s u f f i c i e n t l y t o mi t i g a t e t h e i m p a c t s o f t h e gr o w t h t h e y f a c i l i t a t e Gr o w t h - B a s e d C h a l l e n g e s : A st r o n g e c o n o m y a n d g r o w t h i n to u r i s m a n d e m p l o y m e n t ne c e s s i t a t e s s i g n i f i c a n t m o d e sh i f t s t o m a i n t a i n V M T l e v e l s a s tr a v e l d e m a n d i n c r e a s e s Pu b l i c P a r k i n g R a t e s : R a t e s f o r Ci t y - m a n a g e d p a r k i n g s p a c e s te n d t o b e s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e l o w ma r k e t . Fu n d a P a r k i n g , M o b i l i t y , a n d TD M P r o g r a m : Ca p t u r e I L F a n d TI A f e e r e v e n u e t o r e i n v i g o r a t e a Mu n i c i p a l P a r k i n g s y s t e m , co m p l e m e n t e d b y M o b i l i t y a n d TD M p r o g r a m s . Ad d a p a r k i n g m a x i m u m : - Ad d a “ s o f t ” m a x i m u m o n pr i v a t e p a r k i n g , l i n k e d t o a f e e to f u n d T D M w h e n p r o j e c t s ex c e e d t h i s l i m i t , t h u s a d d i n g ev e n m o r e c o s t t o t h e a l r e a d y hi g h c o s t o f o v e r - p a r k i n g pr o j e c t s . - Ad d a “ h a r d ” c a p i f s u p p l y - re d u c t i o n i s t o p p r i o r i t y . P163 I. Of f Of f Of f Of f - ---S t r e e t P a r k i n g a n d M o b i l i t y U p d a t e St r e e t P a r k i n g a n d M o b i l i t y U p d a t e St r e e t P a r k i n g a n d M o b i l i t y U p d a t e St r e e t P a r k i n g a n d M o b i l i t y U p d a t e – ––– S W O T A n a l y s i s + P r e l i m i n a r y C o d e O p t i o n s f o r D i s c u ss i o n SW O T A n a l y s i s + P r e l i m i n a r y C o d e O p t i o n s f o r D i s c u s si o n SW O T A n a l y s i s + P r e l i m i n a r y C o d e O p t i o n s f o r D i s c u s si o n SW O T A n a l y s i s + P r e l i m i n a r y C o d e O p t i o n s f o r D i s c u s si o n Cit y o f A s p e n Ne l s o n \ N y g a a r d C o n s u l t i n g A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . | 2 O b j e c t i v e St r e n g t h s We a k n e s s e s Op p o r t u n i t i e s Th r e a t s Co d e O p t i o n s wo r k p l a c e ( 2 0 m i l e s a n d 3 3 mi n u t e s ) b e c a u s e m o s t w o r k e r s co m m u t e f r o m o u t s i d e A s p e n . ” (2 0 1 4 R F T A T r a v e l P a t t e r n s Re p o r t ) P164 I. Of f Of f Of f Of f - ---S t r e e t P a r k i n g a n d M o b i l i t y U p d a t e St r e e t P a r k i n g a n d M o b i l i t y U p d a t e St r e e t P a r k i n g a n d M o b i l i t y U p d a t e St r e e t P a r k i n g a n d M o b i l i t y U p d a t e – ––– S W O T A n a l y s i s + P r e l i m i n a r y C o d e O p t i o n s f o r D i s c u ss i o n SW O T A n a l y s i s + P r e l i m i n a r y C o d e O p t i o n s f o r D i s c u s si o n SW O T A n a l y s i s + P r e l i m i n a r y C o d e O p t i o n s f o r D i s c u s si o n SW O T A n a l y s i s + P r e l i m i n a r y C o d e O p t i o n s f o r D i s c u s si o n Cit y o f A s p e n Ne l s o n \ N y g a a r d C o n s u l t i n g A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . | 3 O b j e c t i v e St r e n g t h s We a k n e s s e s Op p o r t u n i t i e s Th r e a t s Co d e O p t i o n s Su p p o r t B r o a d e r Su s t a i n a b i l i t y G o a l s Me a n i n g f u l P r o g r e s s : T h e 2 0 1 4 Gr e e n h o u s e G a s I n v e n t o r y f o u n d a 7 . 4 % dr o p i n G H G o v e r a l l e m i s s i o n s , a s w e l l a s a 1 3 % d r o p i n v e h i c l e - b a s e d e m i s s i o n s . Th e T I A : T h e ( u p d a t e d i n 2 0 1 4 ) T I A pr o v i d e s a p o w e r f u l n e w t o o l t o g u i d e de v e l o p m e n t t o w a r d s u s t a i n a b l e , re d u c e d - V M T g r o w t h . Re c o g n i z e d C o n n e c t i o n s : - 20 1 2 A s p e n A r e a C o m m u n i t y P l a n (A A C P ) G o a l : I I I . 2 . E n s u r e s a f e a n d ef f i c i e n t p e d e s t r i a n a n d b i k e co n n e c t i o n s e x i s t w i t h i n t h e W e s t o f Ca s t l e C r e e k C o r r i d o r a r e a a n d c o n n e c t th e a r e a t o d o w n t o w n A s p e n . - 20 1 2 A A C P ; V . 1 . D e v e l o p a s t r a t e g i c pa r k i n g p l a n t h a t m a n a g e s t h e s u p p l y of p a r k i n g a n d r e d u c e s t h e a d v e r s e im p a c t s o f t h e a u t o m o b i l e . - Ph i l o s o p h y i n A A C P s t a t e s t h a t “c o m m i t m e n t t o a l t e r n a t i v e m o d e s o f tr a n s p o r t a t i o n h e l p s r e d u c e t r a f f i c co n g e s t i o n , i m p r o v e s a i r q u a l i t y , re d u c e s g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s , pr o m o t e s p u b l i c h e a l t h a n d r e d u c e s ou r d e p e n d e n c e o n n o n - r e n e w a b l e re s o u r c e s . ” ( A A C P p g 3 2 ) T h e C a n a r y In i t i a t i v e ’ s A c t i o n P l a n c a l l f o r r e d u c e d si n g l e - o c c u p a n c y t r a f f i c i n t o A s p e n an d a r o u n d t o w n , a n d f o r n e w de v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t s t o h a v e a n e t de c r e a s e i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r e l a t e d em i s s i o n s c o m p a r e d t o e x i s t i n g de v e l o p m e n t c o n d i t i o n s . ( p g 1 4 - 1 5 ) Re m a i n i n g C h a l l e n g e s : T h e 2 0 1 4 Gr e e n h o u s e G a s I n v e n t o r y f o u n d a a 5 % i n c r e a s e i n r e s i d e n t i a l - e n e r g y co n s u m p t i o n . Re g i o n a l i m p a c t s : S u s t a i n a b i l i t y ac h i e v e m e n t s i n t h e I n f i l l A r e a m a y be u n d e r m i n e d , r e g i o n a l l y , i f gr o w t h i s p u s h e d o u t t o t h e s u b u r b s an d b e y o n d . Fu n d a P a r k i n g , M o b i l i t y , a n d T D M Pr o g r a m : Sh i f t i n g m o r e p a r k i n g ac t i v i t y i n t o a m u n i c i p a l p a r k i n g sy s t e m w o u l d m a k e p a r k i n g ma n a g e m e n t a n d T D M e f f o r t s m o r e ef f e c t i v e , a s d e m o n s t r a t e d i n t h e P e e r Re v i e w . Be s t P r a c t i c e s : T h e A r l i n g t o n C o u n t y ca s e s t u d y p r o v i d e s a m o d e l f o r ac h i e v i n g s i m i l a r r e s u l t s , w i t h l i t t l e t o no d i r e c t l y m a n a g e m e n t o f p a r k i n g fa c i l i t i e s . Am b i t i o n & C o m m i t m e n t : A s p e n Ci t y C o u n c i l c o m m i t t e d t o r e d u c i n g co m m u n i t y e m i s s i o n s 3 0 % b y 2 0 2 0 , an d 8 0 % b y 2 0 5 0 , b e l o w 2 0 0 4 l e v e l s . Co n s t r a i n e d L i v e - W o r k Op p o r t u n i t i e s : Fe w e r A s p e n em p l o y e e s l i v e i n A s p e n , a n d co m m u t e a r e g e t t i n g l o n g e r , pu s h i n g c o n g e s t i o n o u t w a r d i n t o th e r e g i o n . In d i r e c t I n f l u e n c e : W h e n m o s t pa r k i n g a c t i v i t y t a k e s p l a c e i n pr i v a t e l y - r u n f a c i l i t i e s , t h e C i t y ha s a l e s s d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e o n d a i l y tr a v e l d e c i s i o n s Ke e p T I A I t e r a t i v e : U p d a t e t h e TI A t o m a i n t a i n i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s as t r a n s p o r t a t i o n / m o b i l i t y op p o r t u n i t i e s a n d c h a l l e n g e s ev o l v e . - Em p h a s i z i n g f e e s f o r s h a r e d so l u t i o n s , r a t h e r t h a n pr o s c r i p t i v e , o n - s i t e a m e n i t i e s , ca n p r o v i d e m o r e f l e x i b i l i t y i n re s p o n d i n g t o c h a n g e s . Em b r a c e I L F P o s s i b i l i t i e s : R e - in v e s t i n t h e I L F p r o g r a m , w i t h a pa r t i c u l a r f o c u s o n f u n d i n g su s t a i n a b l e - g r o w t h a m e n i t i e s l i k e ca r - s h a r e , b i k e - s h a r e , t r a n s i t , a n d wa l k i n g a n d b i k i n g n e t w o r k im p r o v e m e n t s a n d e x p a n s i o n s . Fu n d a P a r k i n g , M o b i l i t y , a n d TD M P r o g r a m : A m u n i c i p a l pa r k i n g , m o b i l i t y , a n d T D M pr o g r a m c o u l d d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e da i l y t r a v e l , t h r o u g h p r i c i n g ( n o da i l y o r m o n t h l y d i s c o u n t s ) , in f o r m a t i o n ( A n n A r b o r ’ s pa r k i n g - f u n d e d g e t D o w n t o w n pr o g r a m ) a n d i n c e n t i v e s ( p a r k i n g re v e n u e > t r a n s i t - p a s s p r o g r a m ) Fo c u s o n M o b i l i t y a n d en c o u r a g e W a l k i n g , Bi k i n g , a n d T r a n s i t . Co d e R e f o r m S u c c e s s : T h e 2 0 0 5 u p d a t e en s u r e s t h a t c a s h - i n - l i e u p a y m e n t s c a n fu n d m o b i l i t y e n h a n c e m e n t s s u c h a s ca r - t o - g o a n d i n - t o w n t r a n s i t , r a t h e r th a n j u s t p a r k i n g . Th e T I A : T h e ( u p d a t e d i n 2 0 1 4 ) T I A pr o v i d e s a n e w o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e q u i r e fu n d i n g f o r , o r a c c o m m o d a t i o n o f , mo b i l i t y i m p r o v e m e n t s a m o n g n e w de v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t s . Re m a i n i n g C h a l l e n g e s : “ … t h e pe r c e n t a g e o f w a l k i n g a n d b i k i n g wi n t e r c o m m u t e m o d e s h a r e i s ab o u t t h e s a m e i n 2 0 1 4 a s i t w a s i n 20 0 4 … ” ( 2 0 1 4 R F T A T r a v e l P a t t e r n s Re p o r t ) . Fu n d a P a r k i n g , M o b i l i t y , a n d T D M Pr o g r a m : Sh i f t i n g m o r e p a r k i n g ac t i v i t y i n t o a p u b l i c p a r k i n g s y s t e m wo u l d m a k e p a r k i n g m a n a g e m e n t an d T D M e f f o r t s m o r e e f f e c t i v e , a s de m o n s t r a t e d i n t h e P e e r R e v i e w . Pu b l i c G a r a g e s a s M o b i l i t y H u b s : Th e J o i n t D e v e l o p m e n t c a s e s t u d y fr o m M o n t g o m e r y C o u n t y p o i n t s t o an o p p o r t u n i t y t o g o b e y o n d IL F C h a l l e n g e s : I L F p r o g r a m s mu s t d e m o n s t r a t e r e s u l t s t o ma i n t a i n r e l e v a n c e a n d p e r c e i v e d va l u e . Ad d M a x i m u m s : Ad d a “ s o f t ” ma x i m u m o n p r i v a t e p a r k i n g , li n k e d t o a f e e t o f u n d T D M w h e n pr o j e c t s e x c e e d t h i s l i m i t . Re q u i r e O f f s e t s : E n s u r e t h a t a n y pr o j e c t - s p e c i f i c i n d u c e d V M T i s of f s e t b y b r o a d i m p r o v e m e n t s t o th e I n f i l l A r e a ’ s p e d e s t r i a n , b i k e , an d t r a n s i t n e t w o r k s . P165 I. Of f Of f Of f Of f - ---S t r e e t P a r k i n g a n d M o b i l i t y U p d a t e St r e e t P a r k i n g a n d M o b i l i t y U p d a t e St r e e t P a r k i n g a n d M o b i l i t y U p d a t e St r e e t P a r k i n g a n d M o b i l i t y U p d a t e – ––– S W O T A n a l y s i s + P r e l i m i n a r y C o d e O p t i o n s f o r D i s c u ss i o n SW O T A n a l y s i s + P r e l i m i n a r y C o d e O p t i o n s f o r D i s c u s si o n SW O T A n a l y s i s + P r e l i m i n a r y C o d e O p t i o n s f o r D i s c u s si o n SW O T A n a l y s i s + P r e l i m i n a r y C o d e O p t i o n s f o r D i s c u s si o n Cit y o f A s p e n Ne l s o n \ N y g a a r d C o n s u l t i n g A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . | 4 O b j e c t i v e St r e n g t h s We a k n e s s e s Op p o r t u n i t i e s Th r e a t s Co d e O p t i o n s de v e l o p i n g m u n i c i p a l g a r a g e s , t o pr o v i d e m u l t i m o d a l m o b i l i t y h u b s th a t f a c i l i t a t e a n d p r o m o t e w a l k i n g , cy c l i n g , a n d t r a n s i t m o b i l i t y . Ma i n t a i n S u f f i c i e n t Ca p a c i t y Am p l e S u p p l y : C u r r e n t p a r k i n g s u p p l i e s ap p e a r m o r e t h a n a d e q u a t e t o m e e t de m a n d Re d u n d a n c y v s . E f f i c i e n c y : M o s t su p p l y i s p r o v i d e d a s a c c e s s o r y pa r k i n g , s e r v i n g i n d i v i d u a l de s t i n a t i o n s , r e d u c i n g e f f i c i e n c y o f th e c u r r e n t , o v e r a l l s u p p l y IL F R e v e n u e C r e a t e s O p t i o n s : T h e po p u l a r i t y o f t h e I L F p r o v i d e s a n op t i o n f o r e x p a n d i n g t h e C i t y ’ s r o l e i n pu b l i c p a r k i n g p r o v i s i o n , a n d t h u s t h e ro l e o f p u b l i c f a c i l i t i e s i n m e e t i n g de m a n d f r o m n e w d e v e l o p m e n t IL F C h a l l e n g e s : I L F p r o g r a m s mu s t d e m o n s t r a t e r e s u l t s t o ma i n t a i n r e l e v a n c e a n d p e r c e i v e d va l u e Fu n d a P a r k i n g , M o b i l i t y , a n d TD M P r o g r a m : Ca p t u r e I L F f u n d s to r e i n v i g o r a t e a M u n i c i p a l Pa r k i n g s y s t e m + T D M p r o g r a m Li m i t P r i v a t e P a r k i n g : In c e n t i v i z e t h e p r o v i s i o n o f sh a r e d p a r k i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y am o n g p r o j e c t s o f f e r i n g s u i t a b l e si t e c o n d i t i o n s f o r p u b l i c p a r k i n g . Av o i d E x c e s s Su p p l i e s Co d e R e f o r m S u c c e s s : T h e u p d a t e d co d e a p p e a r s t o e f f e c t i v e l y m i t i g a t e ag a i n s t o v e r - p a r k i n g a t m o s t n e w pr o j e c t s Re d u n d a n c y v s . E f f i c i e n c y : L e g a c y of p r e v i o u s c o d e r e m a i n s i n t h e fo r m o f o v e r b u i l t , p r i v a t e f a c i l i t i e s th a t o c c u p y v a l u a b l e l a n d , en c o u r a g e d r i v i n g , a n d o f f e r mi n i m a l s h a r e d b e n e f i t s Pa r k i n g R a r e l y M a k e s F i n a n c i a l Se n s e : Hi g h c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d op p o r t u n i t y c o s t s m e a n m o s t de v e l o p e r s s e e k t o m i n i m i z e o n - s i t e pa r k i n g . Ca s e S t u d y L e s s o n s : A r l i n g t o n Co u n t y p o i n t s t o s u c c e s s f u l m o d e l f o r co n v e r t i n g s u r p l u s a c c e s s o r y c a p a c i t y to p u b l i c p a r k i n g . Ad d r e s s i n g R e m a i n i n g T h r e a t s : Sh o r i n g u p t h e c u r r e n t c o d e w i t h mo r e s a f e g u a r d s a g a i n s t o v e r - su p p l i e d p r o j e c t s w i l l a l l o w m o r e fo c u s o n o t h e r c o d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Co m m e r c i a l P a r k i n g C a n B e Pr o f i t a b l e : A l t h o u g h p u t t i n g l a n d us e s i n t h e s a m e s p a c e t e n d s t o be m o r e p r o f i t a b l e . Re l i a n c e U p o n M a r k e t F o r c e s : Mu c h o f t h e s u c c e s s i n a v o i d i n g ov e r s u p p l y i s d u e m o r e t o t h e va l u e o f l a n d a n d l a n d u s e s w h i c h ma k e o n - s i t e p a r k i n g a p o o r in v e s t m e n t , t h a n t o c o d e re s t r i c t i o n s o r d i s i n c e n t i v e s . - Th i s h e l p s t o m a i n t a i n a s i m p l e r , le s s r e s t r i c t i v e c o d e , b u t c o u l d be v i e w e d a s a v u l n e r a b l e sa f e g u a r d a g a i n s t f u t u r e t r e n d s to w a r d o v e r s u p p l y . Ad d a p a r k i n g m a x i m u m : - Ad d a “ s o f t ” m a x i m u m o n pr i v a t e p a r k i n g , l i n k e d t o a f e e to f u n d T D M w h e n p r o j e c t s ex c e e d t h i s l i m i t , t h u s a d d i n g ev e n m o r e c o s t t o t h e a l r e a d y hi g h c o s t o f o v e r - p a r k i n g pr o j e c t s . - Ad d a “ h a r d ” c a p i f s u p p l y - re d u c t i o n i s t o p p r i o r i t y . Li m i t P r i v a t e P a r k i n g : P r o m o t e sh a r e d / p u b l i c a c c e s s t o e x i s t i n g , pr i v a t e p a r k i n g f a c i l i t i e s , t o m a k e be t t e r u s e o f t h e s e s p a c e s a n d re d u c e i n c e n t i v e s f o r n e w pr o j e c t s t o p r o v i d e t h e i r o w n pa r k i n g . P166 I.