HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20120618MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, City Long Range Planner
Chris Bendon, City Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: Monday, June 18, 5:00pm Council Chambers
RE: Changes to CC and C-1 zone districts
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: No action is requested at this time. Staff will present the initial
public feedback from the community regarding changes to the CC and C-1 zone districts and
requests City Council provide direction on code changes.
This memo outlines the main topics covered in the public feedback. Specific questions for
Council to consider are in bold italics at the end of each major topic.
HOMEWORK:
Staff requests Council prepare for the first part of this meeting. Please spend an hour as an urban
design analyst. Critique the downtown. Walk around downtown and answer two questions:
What building or series of buildings seem to “work.” A building or sequence of
buildings that provide a desired character, appeal, activity level, feel, etc.
And, why does it seem to work? What is it about this building or series of buildings that
contributes to its success? Is it physical or uses, or both? What are some adjectives that
help explain how or why it works.
Staff has also asked this question to local architects and planners and would like to start the
meeting with a brief report on these observations.
Your tour of downtown can take any route and can include new buildings, old buildings, etc.
Attached as Exhibit A is a suggested tour. It covers buildings that members of the community
have identified through the public outreach portion of this discussion. The building at the corner
of Hopkins and Spring (635 E Hopkins) and the Crandall building were nearly unanimously cited
as buildings that work with a third story setback. The Crandall building’s decks were also cited
as elements people thought worked. The Aspen Square Building and Bidwell Building both
have recessed commercial spaces. These elements were described by a number of participants as
being design elements that negatively impact the success of the retail spaces. The Motherlode
and 308 E Hopkins received mixed comments. Most comments on the Motherlode were related
to concern about uses. In addition to the stops listed, the Peaches and Paradise corners were
described as spaces where on-site public amenity spaces have worked. The Bidwell building
was described as a building were the sunken pit does not work well.
There is no right or wrong answer and please don’t over-think this; this exercise is not intended
as a trap. Ideally, the discussion will be useful in clarifying general aspirations for new
development. For example – “the Pacifica building has great outdoor seating” may inform us
about the use of outdoor spaces. But, stating that a building works doesn’t mean you must then
support a code that will produce more of that building. For example – “the Wheeler works for
me because of its iconic presence” doesn’t mean “I support a 66-foot height limit.”
BACKGROUND: On April 2nd, City Council approved changes to the CC and C-1 zone
districts related to height and free-market residential development. The specific changes
included reducing the maximum height in the CC and C-1 zones to 28 feet for two-story
buildings. At the time, City Council indicated an interest in exploring additional code
amendments to allow a third story, but that additional discussion regarding the specific height
and allowed third floor uses was necessary. Staff has worked to compile public feedback on the
types of uses and dimensions the community feels are appropriate for downtown. The data from
the various forms of public feedback received from the survey responses, small group meetings,
and the online Open City Hall forum are attached as Exhibits B-D.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR TOPICS: The public feedback has focused on three major areas:
Land Uses, Dimensions, and Trade-offs. Each is outlined below.
Dimensions: One of the main points of discussion has been related to the dimensions that
should be allowed downtown. There are mixed opinions regarding the height limit, which
generally fall into 4 categories:
• Maintain the 28 foot height limit.
• Allow three story buildings anywhere downtown.
• Allow three story buildings only on the north-side of the street.
• Allow a third story only with a significant setback.
37.3% of survey participants felt that height was the most important issue related to downtown
development and that buildings should be limited to 2 stories. 34.9% felt that context was
important and wanted to see buildings that fit within the other building in the area was most
important.1 In almost all cases, the small group feedback supported a setback for any third story,
if a third story is allowed. In general, there was support for the concept that new development
should not be taller than Aspen’s iconic structures, like the Wheeler and the Elks.
There was also broad support for a setback requirement for rooftop mechanical equipment.
There were a number of comments at the small group meetings that the roof should be
considered through the design review process to ensure equipment is consolidated and sited in a
way that minimizes their visibility from the street. There were some comments in the small
group meetings that establishing an absolute maximum height, which would include all rooftop
mechanical equipment and access elevators/stairs, should be incorporated into the code.
The public feedback indicated a split on allowing the use of roofs for deck space. Based on the
small group meetings and Open City Hall, there appears to be more support for using the roofs
then not. There were some comments that decks can help decrease the perceived mass of a
1 Survey, Question 6.
building from the street when on the third floor because they further shield the full third story
from view. Other expressed concern about the various accessory items that are added to roofs
when they are used (umbrellas, barbeques, etc). Some felt that deck encourages usage and that
having that additional usable space creates vitality. In general, the individuals who expressed
support for roof decks felt they should be allowed for any use, such as residential and
commercial/restaurant uses. The Crandall building was often cited as a building with a third
floor and a deck that work.
Staff Comments: From staff’s perspective, three story buildings should be permitted in the
downtown. They are consistent with Aspen’s historic built environment and are part of good
urban form. There may be locations where three stories is inappropriate, which is why staff
supports the established view planes as well as the commercial design guidelines. Staff
believes a diversity of heights is important and is reflective of Aspen’s historic development
pattern. Staff is also supportive of including rooftop mechanical in the overall discussion for
commercial design. Roofs represent an additional “façade” of the building, and careful
design can help ensure their visibility from the street is minimized. Staff believes there could
be improvements to the code to ensure rooftop mechanical is better addressed through the
design review process.
Questions for Council to consider:
• Are you comfortable with three story development in the downtown?
• Are there specific conditions that make a third story acceptable?
• Do you think different sides of the street should have different height limits?
• How do you feel about mechanical equipment on building roofs?
Land Uses: The second main point of discussion has focused on the land uses that should be
allowed downtown. In general, the public feedback supports mixed uses downtown. There was
most support for commercial and lodging uses. Regarding lodge uses, throughout the small
group meetings nearly every person expressed support for downtown lodges. However, there
was a general consensus that while desirable, downtown parcels are generally not large enough
accommodate a lodge and that a new lodge, especially if it was only one or two floors, would not
be economically or operationally viable. There were a number of comments that if a lodge was
built downtown it would be a boutique hotel, but again questions of viability were raised.
There was the most support through all the forms of public feedback for all types of commercial
uses downtown: from day-to-day goods and services to bars and restaurants to tourist-oriented
retail. There was general support for office space, though much less than other commercial
uses.2
There was mixed support for free-market residential uses. 69.5% of the survey respondents
thought free-market residential uses should be allowed.3 In the small group meetings there was a
fairly even split amongst people who felt the use should be allowed as those who thought it
should not be allowed. Those in favor of free-market residential spaces generally felt that they
added some vitality to the community, and that they act as economic drivers for projects which
2 Survey, Question 4 and 7, and Small Group Summary
3 Survey, Question10
in turn enables other uses to occur on other floors. Those against free-market residential felt that
the economic expectation created by free-market units creates a situation where other uses in the
building are not successful, or are pushed out.
Staff Comments: From staff’s perspective, mixed-use buildings should be allowed and
encouraged downtown. Residential uses create vitality and more “lights on.” Staff continues
to support affordable housing uses in downtown buildings for this reason. Staff recognizes
that there are some problems created with free-market residential uses, especially when that
use starts to push out traditional commercial uses in the downtown core. The downtown
should primarily be filled with commercial uses, and free-market residential uses have started
to overshadow commercial uses as the primary driver of development projects. Staff
believes it is important to ensure vital commercial core, which requires a variety of
commercial uses – from bars and nightclubs to restaurants and retail. Residential uses are
part of creating an interesting downtown, but they should not become the primary or
predominant use.
Questions for Council to consider:
• What use mix do you think is appropriate for downtown?
• Do you think residential development (both affordable housing and free-market
residential) is compatible with a vibrant downtown?
• Do you think free-market residential uses should be encouraged or discouraged
downtown?
Trade-offs: The final area of public input as revolved around trade-offs: what might you be
willing to give up in order to achieve something you want. There were mixed opinions about
tradeoffs. Some felt that height is the most important issue and that a particular height limit
should be established, regardless of uses. Others felt that mixed uses were important and would
be willing to see great heights in order to encourage certain uses.
The survey asked participants what they would want to have in a building in order to be willing
to have three story development downtown. 65.1% were comfortable with three stories with a
variety of responses regarding the use. 32.5% could not accept a third floor, regardless of the
uses in the building.
I would be willing to have three story buildings downtown:
Answer Options Response
Percent Response Count
Regardless of the uses in the building 36.1% 30
If that meant more affordable housing in the building. 7.2% 6
If that enabled a lodge to operate on the property. 7.2% 6
If that meant a restaurant were in the building. 3.6% 3
If that meant commercial spaces that provide day-to-day goods
and services were in the building. 10.8% 9
I don’t think we should allow three-story development.
Buildings should be limited to two-stories. 32.5% 27
I don’t know enough to answer this question. 2.4% 2
answered question 83
skipped question 6
Throughout the small group meetings there was a general consensus that people would not be
willing to reduce mitigation requirements to encourage a particular use. The consensus was that
giving a break, even if it was for a use the community may want to see, was giving an unfair
advantage to the new development and would negatively impact existing businesses. These
feelings were especially strong related to lodging. In general, small group participants were
comfortable with a third floor if it was setback from the property line.
Staff Comments: The issue of tradeoffs is important. No Land Use Code can “do”
everything that everyone wants in every situation. A revised downtown development policy
will have inherent tradeoffs, pluses and minuses. And, tradeoffs may be particularly
important to encourage desired uses that otherwise may not occur.
Questions for Council to consider:
• What use or uses should be encouraged downtown?
• What trade-offs, if any, are you interested in exploring to achieve this use?
• Can building dimensions, mitigation, or fee breaks be used to encourage this use?
• Any uses off the table?
• Under what circumstance would a third floor be appropriate?
• Any other trade-offs that should be explored as part of these code changes?
NEXT STEPS: If at the conclusion of the work session Council will be asked if additional
public outreach is needed. The next step in this process will include a public hearing on
Council’s policy direction. This is a new step in the City’s code amendment process that is not a
review specific code language but rather an opportunity for the public to weigh-in on the
direction of new policy. Through the public hearing process, Council will be directing staff to
“prepare code amendments that accomplish the following . . .”
After the policy direction resolution is adopted, staff will draft code language in an ordinance
form for Council review. On the current timeline, staff anticipates being able to present code
language to City Council in early August, with public hearings expected in August and early
September.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Walking Tour Map
Exhibit B – Open City Hall Responses
Exhibit C – Survey Monkey Responses
Exhibit D – Small Group Meeting Notes
Exhibit E – Additional Public Comment
Exhibit F – Comments from P&Z and HPC
Downtown Heights and Land Uses
What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown?
Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM
All Participants around Aspen
As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not
necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected
officials.
Downtown Heights and Land Uses
What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown?
Introduction
In early April, City Council made changes to downtown zoning. The changes lowered height to 28
feet for two story buildings and require an equal amount of affordable housing to be built on a property
if it is developed with free-market housing.
In the CC zone district, the height was lowered from 38 - 42 feet to 28 feet. In the C-1 zone district,
the height was lowered from 36 - 40 feet to 28 feet.
During the discussion, City Council indicated an interest in increasing the height to allow three stories
of development, but that additional discussion and public outreach was needed to determine the
appropriate height and land uses for downtown. In the coming months, City Council will be
considering changes to the CC and C-1 zone districts. The City is interested in your comments and
opinions regarding potential changes to the allowed heights. Your comments will be used in
conjunction with other public outreach efforts by City Council as they consider zone district changes.
Questions to consider as you respond:
What kinds of heights do you think are appropriate for downtown?
Do you think varying heights on a block is important?
Do you think three story development is appropriate downtown?
Are there specific land uses you think should be encouraged or discouraged downtown?
Are there specific uses you think should exist in a building in order to allow three story development?
Do you think there are any uses that are inappropriate for a third floor?
Do you believe housing, whether affordable or free-market or both, is appropriate downtown?
Do you think activity, such as restaurant seating, private decks, pools, etc, on building roofs is
appropriate in downtown?
Page 1 of 9Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/934
Downtown Heights and Land Uses
What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown?
As of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM, this forum had:
Attendees:153
Participants around Aspen:24
Hours of Public Comment:1.2
Page 2 of 9Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/934
Sally Spaulding outside Aspen June 12, 2012, 1:41 PM
I believe buildings should be no taller than the Wheeler Opera House to maintain the building as a
focal point of our past and future; however, I have no issues with three and four story buildings in the
core -- particularly if they house businesses on the first floor and create vitality and visual interest for
our visitors and locals.
Walt Madden inside Aspen June 11, 2012, 9:59 PM
The addition of third floor penthouses are a cancerous blight on our downtown and should not be
allowed.
Justifying third floor penthouses as necessary in order to provide the "economic engine" for
redevelopment is not a sustainable practice -- what happens in 20 or 30 years when these buildings
need redevelopment again -- do we add another penthouse as a 4th floor? Additionally, high-end
residential doesn't mix well with a vibrant night-life -- already we see the penthouse occupants
complaining that the commercial activity below is disrupting their use of the penthouse. If you owned
the top floor penthouse and could have your say regarding the ground floor occupant (see the
Motherload) would you choose an art gallery that closes at 5PM or a restaurant/bar with the
accompanying noise and odor to occupy the floors below your penthouse?
The free market is a powerful thing - the prices of downtown buildings will reflect the potential return -
if penthouses weren't allowed, the prices will adjust to account for that.
Bobbi Teliska inside Aspen June 11, 2012, 11:04 AM
My husband and I have been visiting Aspen for the past 30 years and what drew us here and keeps
us coming back - and deciding to move here two years ago - is the spectacular views - not the
buildings and businesses. The views of the mountains make Aspen unique, and should be
preserved. Businesses and residences should be able to be supported in existing buildings. There a
number of new developments (e.g., the Mother Lode) that currently (and for a couple of years) have
not contributed to the vibrancy of the town. In fact, the fact that they lay idle is a detriment. Please
keep the character of the town in tact.
Linda Vitti inside Aspen June 11, 2012, 9:09 AM
When I first visited Aspen in the 1960's, it was a magical experience to walk downtown and see the
mountains surrounding the city. It made an impression that kept me returning until I moved her a few
years later. The views of our mountains make Aspen unique, and should be preserved.
Chad Weltzin outside Aspen June 6, 2012, 4:31 PM
When I'm on a hike, I want views. When I'm downtown, i want vitality. It's perfectly appropriate to be
surrounded by three-story buildings, as long as the street-level is dedicated to retail/commercial. Not
only are some of the most vital and vibrant places in the world (Mykanos, Copenhagen, Venice,....)
almost exclusively residential from the second floor up, but they deny their amazing views when
wandering the tight streets in the core. This actually enhances the experience of the place, turning
Page 3 of 9
All Participants around Aspen
Downtown Heights and Land Uses
What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown?
Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/934
my attention to the activity around me, instead of always drifting to the long view. And, like Aspen,
each of those places has opportunities to soak in the views just a few blocks away.
Lynn Link inside Aspen May 31, 2012, 9:58 AM
The point that Mayor Ireland made in the work session, city council meeting, recently, about a
residence added above a commercial building lowering that buildings use downtown is appropriate
and well said! I agree with Ireland that residences in the middle of commercial areas and on top of
commercial buildings will limit the usage of said commercial building in the precious downtown core
area. It begins with one 'exception' regarding some of the newer construction that could eventually kill
the purpose of downtown usage over time. Please carefully consider private residences in, and on
top of, commercial buidings as potential commercial area killer in a busy 24/7 town like Aspen!
Regarding building heights - careful consideration of that item in the downtown area is a must. Not so
much a mandated at a certain height, but decisions made for that particular building height in relation
to other buildings and condos around that building under construction are important to those in the
neighborhood who are effected.
Brandon Marion inside Aspen May 31, 2012, 7:29 AM
This issue is very simple. We have a historic town and we need to preserve it. Growth is not
mandatory. Taller buildings really have no place in Aspen. It is Aspen's unique qualities that make it
the way it is. The Eagle's had it right, "Call someplace paradise, kiss it goodbye". We can easily work
with what we have here, update sure, preserve yes, but start down the slippery slope of taller
buildings and we will regret it. Remember why you came to Aspen in the first place....
Gordon Ledingham outside Aspen May 29, 2012, 7:22 PM
I believe that the market should decide what use is appropriate and yet financially viable. We need to
promote a sustainable and diverse economic environment. Development and real estate are two
industries that have been extant and perhaps, predominant in Aspen since the 1960's, contributing to
the growth and maintenance of tourism and skiing.
Currently, I believe the 3rd story luxury penthouse concept is an excellent choice for development and
community use because: a) it keeps pedestrians on the street level, b) promotes more residential/2nd
home/hospitality guests to stay downtown WITHOUT permanently removing street level space from
public/commercial inventory; c) this highest and best use allows landowners/developers to maximize
profit / return on the top floor thereby reducing pressure for profit on the lower levels, indirectly
INCREASING likelihood that street level use will be more affordable for retail/commerce - for both
tourists and locals.
The mixed use concept is common in many cities/communities worldwide: e.g., street level is for
retail/commerce and 2nd level (and above) is for residential use (albeit, typically for the shop
keeper/family owned business downstairs). In historical districts, rebuilds often involve the ground
level facade being maintained with public use (retail/commerce), while the upper floors are
redeveloped as office/residential, even as multi-story high rises.
Page 4 of 9
All Participants around Aspen
Downtown Heights and Land Uses
What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown?
Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/934
Limitations on building heights might include a 3rd level (or above) requiring some setback (e.g.,
Limelight, Dancing Bear and Patio Buildings). In all three, public use is offered on the street level
(meeting space/bar, restaurant, and small community biz, respectively).
Incentives might be to allow higher height limits (over 2 or 3 levels) if say, affordable retail/commercial
space is guaranteed on the street level and upper levels are setback. However, defining "affordable"
retail/commerce can become convoluted and too restrictive / cumbersome.
The current 3rd story luxury penthouse model works with street level retail/commercial - don't kill it
and in the process, force premature development on the community and landowners (woops, too
late!).
chuck frias inside Aspen May 29, 2012, 3:57 PM
Removing the economic engine needed to replace functionally obsolescent buildings that tenants nor
customers want to use makes no sense. The occupants of these spaces spend significant money in
our town and consume limited resources. Creating zonning that limits reconstruction of buildings that
are functionally obsolescent and or expensive to occupy reduces potential tax revenus the occupants
generate and jobs, nor is it keeping with our green inititatives. Certainly there is a way to allow enough
free market space to be built that supports a upgrade or new building yet does not negatively impact
the community or views. Case in point, the Patio Building is far superior to what it was, better looking,
user friendly and a place the tenants and customers want to be. Why not allow the top floor residential
use yet step back the facades so there is less impact of views to the street if that is the concern?
Why not meet with the local development community and planners to create a win win for the
community, property owners, tenants and customers?
Elizabeth Farson inside Aspen May 24, 2012, 1:06 PM
For a few years I've expressed my concern that Aspen is allowing buildings with too much mass and
that are too tall and inappropriate to maintain a semblance of our historical integrity. That becomes
more obvious every month! Mick Ireland has expressed his concerns and priorities, with which I
agree.
Penthouse Suites provide rental income to help support building them on the third floors downtown,
which many of us believe is an inappropriate use of downtown space. And, we should no longer
consider third-plus floors on any buildings downtown. I, personally, no longer want to stroll the streets
of downtown Aspen because of building renovation and new construction.
Please regard the citizens' concerns regarding preservation of this highly treasured town. Thank you,
Elizabeth Farson Aspen
Steve Sklar inside Aspen May 24, 2012, 9:29 AM
I think we need to stop building up. I think most of us are here because of the beautiful views. The
Stage Three building is a perfect example of an unnecessary building that benefits so few at the
Page 5 of 9
All Participants around Aspen
Downtown Heights and Land Uses
What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown?
Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/934
expense of so many. What about the Motherlode building. And I absolutely abhor the idea of the new
Art Museum. This town is full of beautiful art galleries, whose admission is free, that don't take our
magnificent views, or add more shadows to our already icy streets and sidewalks. If you want a big or
tall city, please, I beg you, go find one, don't turn mine into one.
Sven Erik Alstrom outside Aspen May 23, 2012, 8:15 AM
The 'emergency height ordinance' stopped a 51 foot building which was proposed near the 54 foot tall
historic Elks Building. This was a good thing. View planes of the Elks Building and Wheeler Opera
House and views of Little Nell from various points in downtown Aspen need to be preserved.
For significant projects in a historic district physical cardboard or other models should be required to
be presented in public meetings in order to have a real understanding of the impacts upon adjacent
structures and sidewalks.
The Wheeler Opera House and Elks Building were built when Aspen was booming in the mining era
and modeled to a certain extent after building in New York at that time.
Having been raised in the Kansas City area where the first outdoor shopping mall The Country Club
Plaza n Kansas City, Missouri was designed in 1922, it is important that buildings from across the
street do not put the shopkeepers on the opposite side of the street in shadow. This is important in
Aspen also for snow removal in the central downtown area. I was a past member of the Aspen
Historic Resources Commission and wish to see both view planes and the integrity of the historic
heritage of Aspen preserved, this however does not mean that I would endorse 'bell-jar' type
preservation and I do not support the current radical height limit in the downtown commercial core.
Aspen needs to implement what is now called 'Form Based Development Codes', which are being
proposed for Park City, Utah, and are in place in downtown Overland Park, Kansas a 1960's suburb of
Kansas City. Form Based Codes assign the size, shape, scale, and massing in order to define an
appropriate urban design scale for the particular area. This needs to occur in Aspen - and allow infill
structures and the adaptive reuse of the historic inventory as uses change over time. Form based
development codes help to moderate abrupt changes in height and also emphasize the importance of
corner buildings where a change in a neighborhood scale is important, an example is where Highway
82 reaches a stop sign on the east border of downtown Aspen - a four story building there would
seem inappropriate to most people. Likewise the recently proposed building next to Boogie's was
simply too big and too tall and did not truly fit into the context.
Denver and Boulder both have solar access easements which protect residential property access to
solar - renewable energy. Aspen also needs to include solar access easements in order to support
development of photovoltaic and hot water solar systems in the commercial core. This also will impact
adjacent proposed development heights.
Together a Form Based Development Code and Solar Access Easements, along with Historic Review
requirements will allow help to reduce building heights. I agree to a certain extent with Stan
Page 6 of 9
All Participants around Aspen
Downtown Heights and Land Uses
What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown?
Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/934
Clausson's comments here, and support some infill up to four stories in height.
I was a full time resident of Aspen from 1988 until 2002 and have designed several buildings there
including the currently existing one story GAP building which was designed to support a second level
of affordable housing and a third level of two luxury townhomes. The GAP building received a City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Honor Award for
best commercial infill within a historic district in 1994. The three story project was designed by the late
architect C. Welton Anderson and not built. He died in December 1991. The currently existing building
was completed in 1994 and I was the design architect for the final version which exists today and has
new foundations and columns to support an additional two floors above the retail space. The
approved three story building was 38 feet in height but the approvals have expired.
In 2007 my architecture firm received approval on two historic district projects in Crested Butte and I
have worked in Aspen on many historic projects in concert with both Herb Klein and Paul Taddune on
local preservation projects there.
Best Wishes to all on resolving this, I strongly feel that rooftop views should generate some rooftop
restaurants and in 1994 designed a second floor addition for Aspen Sports which remains unbuilt.
Ziska Childs inside Aspen May 22, 2012, 12:54 PM
This keeps the view plane and quashes "affordable Aspen". The fewer buildings, the more expensive
and exclusive the ones remaining. The less density the more traffic. If the intent was to increase
existing property values, eliminate residences from the downtown core, decrease employee housing,
discourage new retailers and ban developers then it was a good strategy.
This will also inevitably lead to a major backlash if and when it's repealed. You can't be this radical
without inciting an equal an opposite reaction.
Some of us remember the Continental Inn addition being torn down because it was 7" higher than the
Wheeler. At least "no higher than the Wheeler" was something we could all understand. Then we got
the St Regis, the Nell timeshares and building above the sacrosanct 8000' elevation mark all because
of the mercurial nature of our zoning enforcement.
It's the arbitrary nature of it all which is frustrating it's like being inside a pinball machine. All of our
zoning seems to be a reaction to a specific events instead of emanating from a core philosophy. I will
be happy to loan my copy of Jane Jacobs to anyone who wants to read it...
William Schaffer inside Aspen May 22, 2012, 10:34 AM
I believe the 38-42 foot height is fine. The effort to stop owners from building condos on the top floor
is just populist rage aginst sucessful people.
Mick Ireland inside Aspen May 22, 2012, 10:08 AM
To: Aspen City Council
Page 7 of 9
All Participants around Aspen
Downtown Heights and Land Uses
What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown?
Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/934
From: Mick Ireland, Mayor
Date: May 21, 2012
Subject: Changes to create sustainable resort downtown (2nd in a series)
Pursuant to my memo of January 1, 2012 and discussions with council surrounding the AACP and the
impacts of “infill” zoning, I have some further suggestions on land use code changes.
1. Stop rewarding building destruction by giving credit for employees who were not housed to begin
with.
The present code allows affordable housing credits for destruction of buildings. For example, had the
Benton building been destroyed, a calculation would have allowed credit for affordable housing units
associated with the destroyed building. These credits would have counted against the housing
generated by the proposed Penthouse or other uses for the new building.
This credit is allowed irrespective of whether the building to be destroyed ever provided housing or
payment in lieu for any employees. This creates an incentive to scrape and replace. A preference for
scrape and replace rather than remodel or re-use is contrary to the environmental ethic as it throws
away embedded energy, is contrary to preservation of historical character and unnecessarily
increases the impact of construction on downtown (see, for example, Bad Billy’s.)
I suggest we amend the code to provide some credit for preservation of existing structures that are
repurposed to more intense uses and that credits for scrape and replace be limited to the actual
mitigation provided for that building.
2. End the mixed use “double dip” that provides that a mixed use building that consists of residential
and commercial uses has to mitigate for only one of the two uses.
The “mixed use” provision virtually guarantees that top floor luxury residence will top off commercial
buildings because the additional residential component will be exempt from mitigation.
Abolishing the distinction means commercial uses will compete equally with residential uses. Given
the already adequate number of luxury residences available downtown and in the neighborhoods, we
do not need to provide incentives for the creation of more.
3. Allow heights above the recently adopted 28 foot limit only under the following conditions:
A. The proposed use does not include condominiums or free market residences.
B The building uses consist of a combination of “hot” beds as determined by council through analysis,
local serving or tourist serving uses such as retail or tourist/local service businesses.
Page 8 of 9
All Participants around Aspen
Downtown Heights and Land Uses
What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown?
Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/934
C The building does not, in the view of council and upon a finding of fact, negatively impact views of
the mountains from the public right of way and does not unduly shade adjoining streets or buildings.
D Any such building must be consistent with the scale and mass of the immediate neighborhood
including but not limited to adjoining buildings.
These amendments would be intended to create council discretion to allow heigh variances from 32
feet, particularly on the north side of streets, for uses that enhance downtown vitality and do not
unduly impinge on vitality or crowd preclude the creation of such uses. For example, the Mother Lode
reconstruction has effectively deleted an active, vital use from the downtown.
Chris Striefel outside Aspen May 21, 2012, 6:56 PM
If the city would like to keep development within the urban growth boundary it has to seriously
embrace some density in the core. This is why the infill code was adopted in the first place. 3 story
buildings are not out of character. It seems like because one developer was able to ram a particular
project through the process by threatening the city we got this knee jerk reaction of a moratorium in a
sense. All the height restriction is going to do is allow for certain buildings that have reached the end
of their useful life to be trapped in a city forced market condition that will prevent any willing developer
from improving them. No one wins when government acts to quickly with legislation. I think the
swarm of applications proves this. Now we have projects on the table that weren't ready economically
to happen that have to happen now just to make sure that the landowner has their right to improve
their property to market standards.
It doesn't matter where you are, a 1 story building will block mountain views from the perspective of
the pedestrian. The only ones getting their mountain views blocked are those who are already in their
second and third level units. Lets stop the "Im here now, stop all building type attitude"
William Sharp inside Aspen May 21, 2012, 4:30 PM
We have a beautiful mountain that has been a pleasure to look at for all the years. I feel that we
should not add extra hight to every building. If you do this there will be no view of the monutain.Lets
keep our beautiful town as it is. Where the buildings are high, the snow does not melt on the streets
all winter. Towering condos for the pleasure of the rich and famous. Lets keep our humble roots.
Bill and Pat Sharp, Cemetery Lane
Stan Clauson inside Aspen May 21, 2012, 4:21 PM
Although there has been much ado about building heights recently, the Aspen Land Use Code from
the 80s and 90s allowed four-story buildings in the commercial core. Indeed there are a number of
four-story buildings from this period. It makes sense that the commercial core would allow this level
of development, as has historically been the case. While some historic buildings are indeed two
stories and will need to be preserved, generally two stories for the downtown is not consistent with
historical precedents for significant buildings and do not represent good land use in the core.
Page 9 of 9
All Participants around Aspen
Downtown Heights and Land Uses
What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown?
Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/934
1 of 11
Downtown Aspen
1. The following questions ask you to identify if you think there is a benefit to implementing
the following policy statements.
Great
Benefit
Little
Benefit
Rating
Average
Response
Count
All development should mitigate for
the new employees it generates.
28.2%
(24)
20.0%
(17)
21.2%
(18)
12.9%
(11)
17.6%
(15)
2.72 85
Affordable housing mitigation
should be located on the same site
as a new proposed development.
10.6% (9)
15.3%
(13)
22.4%
(19)
14.1%
(12)
37.6%
(32)
3.53 85
Maintain and encourage a diverse
and balanced lodging inventory.
36.8%
(32)
26.4%
(23)
24.1%
(21)
5.7% (5)6.9% (6)2.20 87
Encourage new economy/moderate
lodging inventory.
29.8%
(25)
20.2%
(17)
20.2%
(17)
13.1%
(11)
16.7%
(14)
2.67 84
Preserve our existing lodging
inventory.
43.7%
(38)
25.3%
(22)
18.4%
(16)
8.0% (7)4.6% (4)2.05 87
Require less affordable housing
mitigation for all lodging.
22.6%
(19)
19.0%
(16)
25.0%
(21)
9.5% (8)
23.8%
(20)
2.93 84
Require less affordable housing
mitigation for economy/moderate
lodging only.
14.3%
(12)
20.2%
(17)
26.2%
(22)
9.5% (8)29.8%
(25)
3.20 84
answered question 87
skipped question 2
2 of 11
2. Which statement do you agree with the most about replenishing our lodging bed base?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
We should replenish what we’ve
lost, but only focus on moderate
and economy lodges.
27.4%23
We should replenish what we’ve
lost without focusing on one
type. Any lodge we can get, even
if it’s in the deluxe category, is
important.
50.0%42
I don’t think we need to try to
replenish our bed base.
19.0%16
I don’t know enough about this topic
to express an opinion.
3.6%3
answered question 84
skipped question 5
3 of 11
3. There has been some discussion that the City should play a role in creating
economy/moderate lodging. What do you think?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
The City should partner with the
private sector to create
economy/moderate lodging. This
could mean through funding, land,
or other methods.
4.8%4
The City should have no direct role
in the creation of lodging.
32.1%27
The City should encourage
lodging, but should not be a
developer.
57.1%48
The City should raise funds for
lodging, but should not be a
developer.
6.0%5
answered question 84
skipped question 5
4 of 11
4. I would most like to encourage the following types of land uses in Aspen’s downtown.
(Pick up to three)
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Free market housing 9.5%8
Affordable housing 15.5%13
Lodging 39.3%33
Tourist-oriented commercial space 46.4%39
Day-to-day commercial services
(basic or essential goods and
services)
47.6%40
Office space 13.1%11
Restaurant 42.9%36
Public/Institutional 6.0%5
Arts and cultural facilities 25.0%21
Let the market decide 40.5%34
answered question 84
skipped question 5
5 of 11
5. I would most like to discourage the following types of land uses in Aspen’s downtown.
(pick up to three)
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Free market housing 36.1%30
Affordable housing 34.9%29
Lodging 7.2%6
Tourist-oriented commercial space 10.8%9
Day-to-day commercial services
(basic or essential goods and
services)
10.8%9
Office space 24.1%20
Restaurant 3.6%3
Public/Institutional 28.9%24
Arts and cultural facilities 24.1%20
Let the market decide 38.6%32
answered question 83
skipped question 6
6 of 11
6. Please pick the response that best reflects your feelings about development in the
downtown.
Response
Percent
Response
Count
I care most about height, and
want any new building to be
only two stories in height, no
matter what.
37.3%31
I care most about height, and want
any new building to be only three
stories in height, no matter what.
2.4%2
I care most about the context of
the downtown. I think the height of
any new building should fit into its
context, rather than adhering to a
specific height.
34.9%29
I care most about the kinds of land
uses in the building. What goes
inside the building is more important
that the height, and I am willing to
allow for an increase in height if the
public benefit(s) associated with
that increase justifies it.
16.9%14
I am not concerned about downtown
development.
6.0%5
I don’t know enough to answer this
question.
2.4%2
answered question 83
skipped question 6
7 of 11
7. In terms of land uses in downtown buildings, I think the following uses are appropriate
downtown: (Pick all that apply)
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Free-market residential 44.6%37
Affordable housing 39.8%33
Commercial 80.7%67
Lodging 72.3%60
Office 53.0%44
The height of a building matters
more to me than what happens
inside it. I don’t care about the land
uses.
28.9%24
I don’t know enough to answer this
question.
1.2%1
answered question 83
skipped question 6
8 of 11
8. I would be willing to have three story buildings downtown:
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Regardless of the uses in the
building
36.1%30
If that meant more affordable
housing in the building.
7.2%6
If that enabled a lodge to operate
on the property.
7.2%6
If that meant a restaurant were in
the building.
3.6%3
If that meant commercial spaces
that provide day-to-day goods and
services were in the building.
10.8%9
I don’t think we should allow three-
story development. Buildings
should be limited to two-stories.
32.5%27
I don’t know enough to answer this
question.
2.4%2
answered question 83
skipped question 6
9 of 11
9. If three story buildings are allowed downtown, I think the third story should be used for
(pick all that apply):
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Free market housing 25.0%20
Affordable housing 31.3%25
Lodging 36.3%29
Tourist-oriented commercial space 15.0%12
Day-to-day commercial services
(basic or essential goods and
services)
18.8%15
Office space 18.8%15
Restaurant 30.0%24
Public/Institutional 15.0%12
Arts and cultural facilities 23.8%19
Let the market decide 51.3%41
answered question 80
skipped question 9
10. I believe free-market residential uses should be permitted downtown.
Response
Percent
Response
Count
True 69.5%57
False 30.5%25
answered question 82
skipped question 7
10 of 11
11. I have lived/worked in Aspen for
Response
Percent
Response
Count
0 – 5 years 9.4%8
5 – 10 years 12.9%11
10 – 15 years 14.1%12
15 – 20 years 12.9%11
21+ years 50.6%43
answered question 85
skipped question 4
12. What sector best describes your type of business or profession?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Retail 2.4%2
Restaurant 3.5%3
Lodge 10.6%9
Service 8.2%7
Professional Office 32.9%28
Non-profit 7.1%6
Government 9.4%8
Financial/Banking Services 4.7%4
Other (please specify)
21.2%18
answered question 85
skipped question 4
11 of 11
13. Where do you live?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
“Innie” – inside of the
Roundabout
62.4%53
“Outie” – outside of the Roundabout
as far as the Airport/AABC
12.9%11
“Far Outie” – I live past the
Airport/AABC
24.7%21
answered question 85
skipped question 4
14. I am a (select all that apply):
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Full-time Aspen renter 14.1%12
Full-time Aspen property owner 62.4%53
Part-time Aspen renter 1.2%1
Part-Time Aspen property owner 2.4%2
Second Homeowner 3.5%3
Worker commuting into Aspen from
somewhere else
17.6%15
Other 1.2%1
answered question 85
skipped question 4
Exhibit D – Small Group Meeting Notes - Page 1 of 6
Exhibit D - Small Group Meetings were held on June 11, 12, and 13. Attendees included:
• Roger Haneman
• Raymond Auger
• Bill Wiener
• Mike Maple
• Junee Kirk
• Adam Fortier
• LJ Erspamer
• Helen Klanderud
• Warren Klug
• Patrick Sagal
• Lucy Nichols
• Allison Kelly
• Les Rosenstien
• Stan Clauson
• Jim Smith
• Lindsay Smith
• Keith Howie
• Richard decamp
• Scott Gordon
• Lorrie Winnerman
• Phyllis Bronson
The comments are compiled below and are broken into three sections: Trade-offs, Dimensions, and
Uses.
Trade-offs
• Would only accept a 3rd floor if it is setback 25 feet or more from the street for restaurant/bar
on the 3rd floor.
• 3rd floor penthouse is okay if it is setback or if the 1st floor is a vital space, like a
restaurant/bar/Aspen Drug type retail.
• Restaurant/bar is also okay on the 3rd floor
• 3rd floor is ok if setback and there is more pedestrian amenity on the ground floor and if it is
next to an existing building with 3 floors.
• South side of the street should have a larger setback
• 3rd floor penthouses are ok if affordable housing is also on the 3rd floor.
• Eliminate rooftop mechanical through technology.
• I’m not worried about the uses in a building.
• Trade something for greater setbacks.
• Willing to accept higher real estate prices for smaller buildings.
• Don’t trade our character for things “in lieu”
• “Hot beds” are a good idea, but no site is large enough to make sense. Site are too small and
will produce nothing.
• I don’t have an issue with free-market housing downtown.
• Nuisance issues are ownership issues, not zoning issues.
• Commercial and Residential uses are appropriate downtown.
• Free-market units do not belong in downtown: they do not create
• Want buildings worth looking at. Need to be 2 floors, not 1 floor.
Tradeoffs
• I don’t see a need for a change from the current code (not the amended 28 foot height, the old
code). Some good projects have come from the current code. The new 28 foot height code
suggests that nothing should happen.
• I have no problem with free-market residential or third floors.
• Not sure hotels downtown will work. The properties are not large enough. No space, no
parking. Look at Independence Square.
• We should be careful using examples to prove assumptions (Motherlode is a unique situation).
• Use conflicts are management issues. You know what you’re buying.
• Don’t see a problem with use restrictions through Condo Documents in the downtown.
Exhibit D – Small Group Meeting Notes - Page 2 of 6
• Ok with some 3rd story buildings. Maybe establish a maximum number or percentage that are
allowed per block, but not all.
• 3rd floor is okay if it is setback enough to not see from the street. (Crandall).
• Sightline issue, sun/shade issue, and context are important,
• Willing to have 3rd stories in downtown with less views from the street.
• Ok with Council discretion for design scale and mass if the public has a right of referendum.
• Projects from negotiation are the most offensive. Variances in negotiations need more
explanation. The outcomes of these elusive process are what has gotten us in this situation.
• The code should allow 3rd stories. It’s fine; I have no problem with them. 1 story buildings are a
waste (the James Pearce and Gap buildings).
• I fear a uniformity of heights – we’ll lose our character.
• I don’t see a problem with 3rd floor residences,
• Decks are okay. They help create setbacks.
• I’m not willing to trade mitigation requirements/fees for 3rd floor restaurants. I am – mitigation
is already heavy handed.
• I’m okay with mixed use buildings. They have charm.
Trade-offs
• OK with 3rd floor if setback a minimum of 10 feet.
• Crandall building is a great example of appropriate downtown buildings. The spring building is
as well.
• Free-market units downtown bring vitality
• Free-market units are a financial necessity to make a project work.
• 3rd floor residential is ok with specific conditions. We should encourage inventive solutions.
Now it is too restrictive.
• Will not accept stagnation with reduced heights.
• On-site affordable housing can raise difficult issues; willing to accept off-site.
• Willing to accept higher buildings for more flexibility on how affordable housing is provided;
options now are too limited.
• Affordable Housing projects work better as whole projects, not individual units.
• Would accept higher buildings and reduced setbacks with activated roof deck, not private. I’m
ok with restaurants without setbacks because of the vitality.
• Not willing to accept 3rd floor on south sides of the street because of icing issues.
• Willing to accept 3rd floors if no other “extras” on top (mechanical, elevator, etc)
• Not willing to accept money in-lieu of parking.
• Willing to accept relaxation of maximum unit size limits for free-market residential.
• If restricted uses (affordable commercial or restaurant), then community should subsidize.
• Willing to look at heights based on %s of building footprint.
• Crandall building air does not circulate and I don’t like the façade.
• Not willing to trade anything for a 3rd floor. I don’t want residential downtown.
• Willing to accept a 3rd floor if there is no impact on views/shading.
• Not willing to trade building heights for additional affordable housing
• Bonus for on-site affordable housing was a good trade-off; option for developer. Not willing to
lose this with a more rigid system.
• We should make it easier to develop rental housing (affordable housing)
• For a hotel, we should allow 4 stories. Will be needed for a usable lodge.
Exhibit D – Small Group Meeting Notes - Page 3 of 6
• Willing to deal with 28 feet for free coffee and doughnuts every day!!!
• Too much rigidity does not allow site issues to be resolved.
Dimensional Requirements
• Concern there are too many people, cars, businesses, and parking. We must address adding to
our capacity. We will start degrading the quality of town, if we haven’t already. We are over
capacity on all of the metrics- air quality, water, sewer, etc. We should reduce the capacity and
size of town. This is a quality of life issue.
• I am in favor of the 28 foot height because of our capacity issues.
• I am concerned about 5 major areas: carrying capacity, the cumulative effects of expansion,
character, cost, and building orientation.
• Character – we are a real town with a real history. Protecting our character is an economic
factor,
• Cost - with more people there are more service needs.
• Building Orientation – concern about views, sunlight, and energy consumption .
• The 28 foot height limit chokes off any future development. There is still commercial demand. I
worry that we are pushing out problems and businesses out.
• I want more commercial/business options downtown.
• I am comfortable with the old dimensions (38 – 42 in CC and 36 – 40 in C-1)
• Rooftops are not an issue for me.
• We can use technology to minimize mechanical on rooftops. Hydraulic elevators, underground
mine shafts, etc. We don’t need to use the roofs for equipment.
• I am ok with a 3rd story if it is done correctly: vitality (restaurant/bar/retail), setback (like in
Crandall Building), and fit within the context.
• Context is subject to change, is too subjective.
• If we must have a third floor it should be set back.
• I support 28 feet. You could put 3 stories in that height,
• Roof structures need to be part of the considerations in the review and design process. They
will be on the roof, and they should be allowed, but it should not become a defacto 4th floor.
• Roofs should be used.
• The code needs to consider what happens on the roof.
• I want an absolute height limit that would include parapets, mechanical, elevators, etc.
• Peaches is successful.
• I have a general concern about the use of the Mall by businesses. I like the vitality it creates, but
not the administration. It’s taking up a lot of space and the city is undercharging.
• The uses in buildings are important when talking about public amenity space. Not all spaces are
created equal. The Bidwell sunken courtyard is unsuccessful, while Peaches and Paradise are.
• Covered walkways do not work well. The hard covered space does not invite people in. It’s hard
on retail.
• Bidwell is iconic, western vernacular. I like the covered walkways. It provides protection from
the elements.
• We should encourage setbacks on corner lots for restaurant uses, like Peaches and Paradise.
• Street level public amenity spaces are preferred,
• I would give more height if there was open space on the ground floor. The taller height, though,
must be set back.
Exhibit D – Small Group Meeting Notes - Page 4 of 6
• Parking is necessary/required for all uses. Subgrade parking is underutilized.
Dimensions
• There should be a setback on the 3rd floor
• The equal free-market residential and affordable housing requirements is onerous, especially at
28 feet.
• A 3rd story is okay if you can’t see it. The Crandall Building and Spring Building are good
examples.
• Sight lines are the primary consideration for allowing a 3rd story. Views and sunlight are
important.
• In downtown, 3 stories is appropriate. It’s okay if it blocks some views.
• Decks and usable spaces on roofs are okay for both residential and commercial uses. BB’s is a
good example.
• It’s nice to be outside in the summer – rooftop uses encourage this.
• I support tall 1st floor ceiling heights.
• I support variable heights.
Dimensions
• South side and North sides of the street are different. I’m comfortable with a 3rd story on the
sunny side (north side)
• Don’t support 3rd story – it impacts the visual experience
• Would look lopsided to have one side of the street with only 2 stories and the other with 3
stories. It would also impact alleys.
• Protect view planes - not just the code identified ones.
• Roofs – concerned that with all the mechanical equipment, etc that is on the roof it becomes
another floor. They aren’t used and they create a visual impact.
• Roof decks are used year round. They add to the ambiance and quality of the building and the
liveliness of the community.
• Concerned that private decks are unused, but they have view impacts. I’m concerned with all
the “stuff” required by the building code for access. I am not.
• 4 story buildings have been successful in town (Aspen Square)
• Setback 3rd stories with the previous code. This was acceptable to me. It fits with our Victorian
history.
• Glass railings help create a transparent edge.
• I like the mayor’s plan.
• I don’t like the mayor’s plan.
• Victorian style matched Complete Streets. The scale of 3 story buildings feel comfortable,
classic, and has the right proportions to the large street widths. Larimer Square in Denver is a
good example of the proportions of height to street width. The proportions help make
pedestrians feel comfortable.
• I want more than 28 feet
• I support 1 ½ to 2 story buildings with larger floor heights.
• You should be able to put whatever you want in the building’s dimensions.
• I’m comfortable with larger free-market units if they fit within the exterior dimensions of the
building. Larger dimensions might encourage locals to live there. Families need more space
than 2,000 sq. ft. (like the Stage 3 building). I’m okay with something like 3,000 sq. ft.
• I’m comfortable with 35 feet for three stories. Like Obermeyer.
Exhibit D – Small Group Meeting Notes - Page 5 of 6
• Obermeyer did a good job with their mechanical – there’s only 1 vent.
• Some in these meetings have financial involvement in new buildings. Should be sorted out.
• 2 buildings were ugly because of the old public amenity codes – Bidwell and 517 E Hopkins (the
City’s Building Department annex). The sunken pits are not good.
• Public amenity space should be at street level.
• Not all spaces should have public amenity space. Not all spaces are equal.
• Proportion requirements can go wrong. Other things to do? Smaller space, green roofs, etc.
• Investment in public space and public health.
• Design consideration is important for roofs. You can see roofs from hikes and the Gondola. We
need to pay attention to what happens on roofs. They need to be beautified.
• 3 stories is appropriate, but pay attention to established view planes.
• The Crandall building was done well…setbacks help.
• The Spring and Hopkins building is good too.
• Third floor bars and restaurants are ok.
• Codes are too restrictive. There’s not enough flexibility to encourage inventive solutions. The
code is cumbersome and too predictable in its massing guidance. It only prescribes “vanilla” and
not even cherry vanilla, just vanilla. The same types of buildings are encouraged.
• Seaside Florida is a good example. They encourage inventiveness.
• I support 3rd floors. There should be flexibility relative to the footprint of a building. If you go
up in one area, then go down in another.
• I like the 28 foot height limit. I wish it had happened before now. It allows more light. But I like
flexibility too.
• Density and heights should occur in the core/downtown.
• Without higher limits, we can’t build any new iconic buildings like the Wheeler and elks.
• Yes, but not all buildings should be that big. I like that there are only a few iconic buildings.
• We should relax the dimensions depending on site location and constraints. We can’t paint
everything with the same brush. Each site is different.
• Allow decks to the edge of the building, with setbacks for the third floor mass (10 – 15 foot
setback)
• Mechanical equipment needs to be screened and setback.
• We should encourage higher dimensions to enable a consolidation of equipment and screening.
These elements should be centered on the roof and out of views and sight lines.
• Roof decks should be usable by all uses. They increase vitality.
• The code should allow the use of roofs.
Uses
• Uses should be “wide open” for all floors – free market should choose
• Like to see more outside dining on any floor
• More west-facing restaurants and bars; any floor
• Would like to know the commercial/residential/lodging balance of other resorts and “regular”
towns – is there a desired balance?
• We may not be meeting people’s commercial needs if people shop out of town (not necessarily
local-serving business)
• Concerned that some commercial has converted to retail. Do we have less retail space than we
did 20 years ago?
• I want buildings I can interact with i.e. Art Museum, Elks building
Exhibit D – Small Group Meeting Notes - Page 6 of 6
• Like the idea of restaurants on upper floors
• Would like publicly accessible upper floors
Uses
• Free-market residential is ok downtown, if on the 3rd floor, maybe on the 2nd floor, and definitely
not on the 1st floor.
• Offices uses are appropriate on the 2nd level.
• Retail/restaurant uses are appropriate for the 1st floor. They could also be appropriate on upper
floors.
• We should encourage a mix of uses in buildings.
• I’m not sure hotels in the core will e palatable to visitors. There’s not enough space, no parking,
and conflicts with other uses (noise).
• Mitigation is too high, especially for lodging. It makes it hard to create good, attractive projects.
• I want to see a mix of different uses throughout town on the 3rd floors. They shouldn’t all be
residential or restaurant.
• Don’t be rigid on the allowed 3rd floor uses.
• I’m concerned that any mitigation breaks to encourage something will hurt existing businesses
(commercial and lodge). We will be hurting the very businesses we talk about wanting to
preserve (like the older lodges)
• Downtown hotels would be niche hotels – they should not be subsidized.
Uses
• Opposed to penthouses. What happened to the Mother Lode deadened the whole block.
• The Mother Lode was overbuilt and over-priced; it’s a unique circumstance and not a general
trend. Opposed to restricting 3rd floor use; free market residential is the economic driver that
allows for a new building and other commercial uses.
• Several agreed that lodging downtown is impractical and not functional due to lack of space;
requirements for retail on 1st floor, no parking.
• We have old buildings that are dilapidated and not special that need to be replaced.
• People say what happened with the Bidwell process and perceive the approval process as a real
obstacle and very costly.
• 3rd floors should be any use
• The rhetoric has miscast the deadness of penthouses; that’s not the case.
• Shouldn’t mandate on-site affordable housing; sometimes the site can’t accommodate it –
should have flexible options for mitigation
• The code ends up giving us “vanilla” buildings
• Shouldn’t mandate uses floor-by-floor / Should be no prohibited uses
• Let the market decide, or there won’t be any redevelopment
• May get more bang for your buck on affordable housing off-site. Problems arise when you mix
affordable housing and free market in a building; Assessments for improvements too costly.
Exhibit F – Summary of P&Z and HPC Comments
At a May 30th small group meeting, Cliff Wiess, Jasmine Tygre, and Ann Mullins provided
comments on heights and uses downtown.
• Cliff expressed comfort with the 2 story limit, with the ability to go to three stories if there
was an innovative project. He also expressed that three story buildings should not be
permitted on the south side of the street because of the sunlight and icing issues.
• The group expressed varying concerns about residential uses. Cliff felt residential uses
should not be downtown because of the negative impact they have on rents for local
businesses. Ann felt that free-market housing and affordable housing do not blend well, and
Jasmine expressed that residential uses might be more appropriate in the C-1 district as
opposed to the CC district. There was also general support for the residential unit size caps
in the zoning code.
• All the members felt that lodging on the third floor would not be feasible because of the lack
of space available on small downtown parcels to create a viable hotel.
• Ann expressed a desire to have the roofs cleaned up and to have them become a larger part of
the design review process, and that there should be a focus on green roofs. She also
expressed support for larger first floor ceiling heights.
• There were mixed opinions on the usability of roofs. Some are used, which creates vitality
and interest. On the other hand the equipment needed to access the roof can create visual
impacts.
• Jasmine expressed that trading uses and dimensions to get things the community confuses the
issue and that they should not be connected. She felt that the height and other dimensions
should be defined because once the building is constructed it will be there for a long time.
Regardless of what uses are in the building, the community will be stuck with what the
building looks like. She felt that 3 story buildings might be appropriate within certain
contexts, and that building design should relate to context.
Both Bert Myrin and Stan Gibbs emailed brief statements indicating support for the Mayor’s
proposal presented at the May 21st work session. Stan expressed particular support for
eliminating the ability to satisfy only the larger of multiple housing mitigation requirements if
housing is provided on-site (sometimes referred to as “double dipping”). Bert expressed support
for increasing parking requirements for the downtown to the lesser of 2 spaces per unit or 1
space per bedroom.
Comments from the entire HPC at a March check-in on this issue focused on the important of
having new buildings that fit with our historic character. There was strong support for
maintaining the larger first floor floor-to-floor heights because of the historic relevance as well
as creating good commercial spaces. There were a number of concerns expressed related to
rooftop equipment, and the important of including that in the design review process. There was
also a consensus that three story buildings should be allowed.
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
__________________________________________
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Laatsch –Project Manager, Capital Asset
Scott Chism – Planning and Construction Operations Manager, Parks
THRU: Randy Ready – Assistant City Manager
Scott Miller – Capital Asset Director
Jeff Woods – Manager of Parks and Recreation
DATE OF MEMO: June 15, 2012
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2012
RE: Galena Plaza –Detailed Design
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting concurrence with this status update and our
continued direction in the Detailed Design Phase of the project.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City of Aspen Asset and Parks Department staff obtained
Council approval authorizing funding and staff time to provide primary design services for the
comprehensive design of the roof restoration to the City’s Parking Garage, revisions to North
Galena Street, Library Alley and a plaza/roof expansion over the open second level of the garage.
Council approval and “check-in” has occurred on the following dates:
• October 25, 2011: City Council Work Session direction to continue with Project
Detailed Design and develop an Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) process for the
project;
• July 19, 2011 City Council Work Session direction to continue with Criteria
Design Plans;
• February 1, 2011 Joint City Council/BOCC direction to continue design of
Concepts
BACKGROUND: The design team, comprising Capital Asset and Parks Department staff, has
held Community Open Houses at the Rio Grande building on May 20, 2010 and September 15,
2011, both dates with 12:00 pm and 5:30 pm sessions. The Community Open Houses provided
useful design direction to the design team.
From late 2010 through to the present, the City’s design team and the Library Architectural
design team have been coordinating a linked design effort for the garage roof waterproofing
repair/Galena Plaza replacement and a proposed Pitkin County Library building expansion.
Page 2 of 3
DISCUSSION: A series of questions were presented to the public at the September 15, 2011
Community Open House intended to guide the Criteria Design process. Public preference was
solicited for the three (3) design concepts presented previously to Council:
• Option One: “Park”
• Option Two: “Quad”
• Option Three: “Plaza”
A clear majority of the public response favored a “Park” conceptual structure for the rooftop
public space. Public response also favored design elements that are reflected in the proposed
Galena Plaza Criteria Design Plan including:
• Grand Staircase linking plaza level to Rio Grande Park level;
• Garage roof expansion that provides additional public Open Space and overlook areas;
• Open space appropriate for Special Events, both large and small;
• Amphitheatre/performance space with orientation to Red Mountain/Rio Grande Park;
• Enhanced structure for existing garage elevator.
The proposed Galena Plaza Criteria Design Plan (Attachment A), which has been created from
both public and Council input to date, creates connected pedestrian oriented spaces between
Main Street, Pitkin County Library and Rio Grande Park utilizing a vocabulary of naturalistic
forms and elements. Implementation of an enhanced paving scheme at the northern terminus of
Galena Street together with the introduction of large vegetated areas will change the character of
the street corridor into a pedestrian focused and friendly place. The pedestrian walks are
designed with generous widths and curvilinear forms to provide convenient connections between
destinations while still providing an enjoyable and beautiful walking experience. A rhythm of
movement into and through the greater Galena Plaza space from both north and south is created
with proposed paving patterns, stone seats and attractive, effective lighting. Library Alley is
proposed to become a one-way vehicular route exiting onto Main Street. A reconfiguration of
Sheriff and Police vehicle parking is proposed that limits parking on Galena Street and
introduces other dedicated on-street and off-street parking areas.
The actual area of garage roof will be transformed into a central open park lawn that will have
subtle land forms along the sides to allow groves of medium sized deciduous trees to provide
shade, color and form to the park setting. An amphitheater with seating terraces suitable for
outdoor music and theater performances is sited at the expanded northern edge of the public open
space to take full advantage of excellent views to the Roaring Fork River and Hunter Creek
Valley/Red Mountain. The northwest corner of the garage roof will be activated by both the
terraced amphitheater and a proposed children’s play area. At the northeast corner of the space,
an overlook terrace with café tables and a seasonal shade canopy has been sited adjacent to the
‘grand staircase’ and above the parking garage entry to provide a comfortable place to eat lunch
or simply enjoy the view while engaging visitors at both park/plaza and street levels.
Because the proposed Library Expansion is contingent upon voter approval in November 2012,
the proposed Criteria Design Plan has been developed in order to allow this project to proceed
regardless of a Library Expansion. An alternative “No Library Expansion” supplemental design
plan (Attachment B) has been developed by the design team that integrates into the developed
Criteria Design Plan in the case of the proposed Library Expansion not occurring.
Page 3 of 3
Staff is in the initial stages of the Detail Design process (Attachments D & E) based on the
Criteria Design Plan and will “check in” with Council at 50% Detailed Design and at 90%
Detailed Design so progress can be shared on the plaza design elements and associated costs to
guide informed decisions. During those “check-ins” Council can direct any changes deemed
necessary at those times prior to implementation documents.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Staff will be evaluating the magnitude of value for the
proposed design elements within alternative construction scenarios.
A budget range for this proposed design has been established at $4.1 - $4.3 million, which was
discussed during the July 19, 2011 Council work session.
Staff will be returning to Council on July 9th, 2012 for review and approval of a consulting
engineering contract and the development of the IPD process for this project. The proposed
consulting engineering team will enable the development of more detailed cost analyses,
estimates, and feasibility to be presented to Council for review. Creation of implementation
documents would follow Council approval of project costs.
Staff is committed to implementing a final design for the parking garage roof, North Galena
Street and Library Alley within the budget identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The environmental impacts are generally positive.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that City Council direct the design team to
continue the design process thru the Detail Design Phase with appropriate “check-ins” with
Council during this effort.
ALTERNATIVES: Stop all design efforts except plaza deconstruction and garage roof repair.
Develop a minimal design solution for the plaza space that would include a lawn and basic walk
surface to the existing or proposed library.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Galena Plaza Criteria Design Plan
Attachment B: Galena Plaza Criteria Design Option - No Library Expansion
Attachment C: Project Time Line History
Attachment D: Time Line of IPD Design Process
Attachment E: IPD – Integrated Project Delivery
TIMELINE OF GALENA PLAZA PROJECT / GARAGE ROOF REPAIR
2008
•RFQ for a Garage Roof Consultant August
2009
•Council Meeting January 12
•January 26 Contract with Roof Consultant January 26
•Concept Design Submission by Roof Consultant April 10
•Council Meeting September 28
•Project Goals Established for Project Scope Change December 29
2010
•Team & Stakeholder Meeting January 13
•Open House May 20
•Council Work Session June 29
•Project Introduction to Library Architectural Team July 12
2011
•Joint City Council / BOCC Meeting February 1
•Council Work Session June 21
•Council Work Session October 25
2012
•Advertise for Design Team February 24
•Proposal Submissions March 22
•Design Team Interviews April 4
•Receipt of Proposal Clarifications May 11
•Pending Selection of Design Team June 18
•Contract for Design Team for Council Consideration July 9
•Begin Major Effort to Finish Detail Design and continue Public Outreach August
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
2012
Feb
Dec
2013
Feb Jun
2010
2011
Feb
Oct
Nov
Began Conceptual Design Began Detail Design
TIMELINE OF IPD –
INTEGRATED PROJECT
DELIVERY DESIGN PROCESS Council Work Session
PRESENT DAY
Began Criteria Design
Begin Implementation Documents Agency Construction Begins
Council Direction Provided to Staff to Develop Detail Design
Consultant Team Solicitation
Closeout
Construction Ends
2014 Dec
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
Closeout
Construction
Agency Coordination / Final Buyoff
Implementation Documents
Detailed Design
Criteria Design
Conceptualization
PRESENT DAY
2012
IPD – INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY
DESIGN PROCESS Design Origin
Project Complete
2010
End of 2014
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E