HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.202010261
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
October 26, 2020
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
WEBEX
Go to: www.webex.com Click "Join" at the top right-hand corner
Enter Meeting Number 126 227 9421
Password provided 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
OR
Join by phone
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Meeting number (access code): 126 227 9421 #
I.WORK SESSION
I.A.2021 Recommended Budget Review - 152 Kids First Fund; 130 Tourism Fund; 131
Public Education Fund; 132 REMP Fund; 501 Employee Benefits Fund; 505
Employee Housing Fund; 510 IT Fund; Grants
I.B.Winter Response Planning for Downtown Business Activity : Part Two
I.C.Lumberyard Update
1
2021 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
Grants, Kids First, Tourism Promotion, Public Education,
REMP, Employee Benefits, Employee Housing, IT Fund
2
Questions / Outstanding Items
2
•Evaluate use of Housing Dev. Fund to incentivizing downsizing
within the affordable housing program
•Provide list of identified Stormwater projects
•Assess opportunities for Stormwater funding, including when
renewal of 0.5% Parks and Open Space sales tax is assessed
3
Update Items
3
•2021 grants recommendations now available
•Component unit budgets also now available
•Updated property management fee calculations worked into
affordable housing financials. Net effect:
•$20K increase to Truscott I
•$30K decrease to Marolt
4
2021 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
Grants
Karen Harrington, Quality Office Director OCTOBER 26, 2020 5
What We Do: Program Overview
5
COMMUNITY NONPROFIT
& WHEELER ARTS
GRANTS
HEALTH & HUMAN
SERVICES GRANTS
Application Deadline:
Late July/Early August
Application Review:
August/September
Council Review: October
Contracts: November/December
Award Distribution: By April 6
What We Do: 2021 Application Summary
Grant Program Applicants Cash Requested
Cash
Available
In-kind
Requested
In-kind
Available
Health & Human Services*25 $320,500 $176,360
Community Nonprofit
(GF + Parks)45 $863,950 $507,160 $103,500 $93,500
Wheeler Arts**22 $538,000 $400,000 $24,600 $17,000
Total:92 $1,722,450 $1,083,520 $128,100 $110,500
* an additional $327,550 cash is reserved for Human Services IGAs
** $30,000 cash is reserved for the Red Brick Center for the Arts
7
Strategic Alignment
7
Community
Supports
Vibrant
Arts
Nonprofit/City
Collaboration
Diverse
Activities
Safe and
Lived-In
Community
of Choice
8
Changes Due to COVID
8
•Funding Adjustments
•Council created new Wheeler Arts and Cultural Arts Grant Program
Provided funding up to 10% of budget, with $30,000 max for 2020
Used General Funds and Wheeler funds
Total Recovery grant amount available: $396,000
Total Recovery grant amount requested/funded: $304,528 (16 orgs)
•Service Delivery Adjustments
Quality Office and Wheeler staff collaborated on program administration
Continued online grant applications
Started virtual applicant interviews and review meetings
Started electronic contracts
Delayed Grants Evaluation Project
Delayed evaluation of grants management software
9
On the Horizon
•Improved contracts
•Better grant document retention
•Evaluation study underway
•Online system eval to follow
9 10
Monetary Grants –HHS IGAs (GF) (2021)
10
IGA Recommended Amount
Pitkin County Detox Services $176,600
Pitkin County Mental Health & Substance Abuse $107,550
Pitkin County Senior Services $43,400
TOTAL, INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS:$327,550
11
Monetary Grants –HHS (GF) (2021)
11
Agency Name Recommended Amount
Community Health Services $31,350
Aspen Homeless Shelter $25,000
Hospice of the Valley $13,750
Aspen Family Connections $11,000
Buddy Program $11,000
Response $9,350
Aspen Hope Center $6,600
Family Visitor Program $6,600
West Springs Hospital $6,600
Alpine Legal Services $5,500
Mtn Valley Development Services $5,500
Valley Settlement $5,500
YouthZone -includes one-time capital of $5K $5,500
Sum of grants $5,000 or less (12)$30,525.00
TOTAL RECOMMENDED:$173,775.0012
Monetary Grants –Wheeler Arts Fund(2021)
12
Requesting Agency Cash Requested Cash Recommended
Music Associates of Aspen (AMFS)$85,000 $69,560
Theatre Aspen $50,000 $50,000
Aspen Santa Fe Ballet $85,000 $43,127
Aspen Art Museum $50,000 $41,736
Jazz Aspen Snowmass $35,000 $33,389
Red Brick Center for the Arts $30,000 $30,000
Aspen Film $40,000 $27,824
Aspen Words (previously Aspen Writers Foundation)$27,000 $20,868
Anderson Ranch Arts $25,000 $13,912
Theater Masters $15,000 $11,130
Aspen Community Theatre $10,000 $8,347
The Art Base (previously Wyly Community Arts Center)$10,000 $8,347
5Point Adventure Film $7,000 $7,000
Rogue Repertory Company (Aspen Fringe Festival) (new)$10,000 $6,956
The Arts Campus at Willits $10,000 $5,565
The Aspen Institute (Arts Program)$15,000 $5,565
Sum of Grants of $5,000 or less (6 requests)$34,000 $16,674
TOTALS:$538,000 $400,000 13
Monetary Grants -Non-Profit (GF)(2021)
13
Requesting Agency Name Amount Requested Amount Recommended
Aspen Public Radio (KAJX)/Roaring Fork Public Radio)$115,000 $100,000.00
GrassRoots $95,000 $85,000.00
Aspen Valley Ski/Snowboard Club $68,000 $66,000.00
Aspen Historical Society $30,000 $30,000.00
Aspen Youth Center $25,000 $24,000.00
Independence Pass Foundation $20,000 $20,000.00
Aspen Institute -Community Programs $20,000 $15,000.00
Challenge Aspen $11,000 $10,500.00
Wilderness Workshop $10,000 $8,010.00
Aspen Sister Cities $18,000 $8,000.00
Roaring Fork Leadership $10,000 $8,000.00
Shining Stars Foundation $11,500 $8,000.00
Access Roaring Fork (aka Access AfterSchool)$10,000 $7,500.00
Summit 54 $15,000 $7,000.00
Carbondale Community Access Radio $25,000 $6,000.00
Sum of Grants of $5,000 or less (27)$343,950 $74,450.00
TOTALS:$827,450 $477,460.0014
Monetary Grants –Parks (2021)
14
Requesting Agency Cash Requested Cash Recommended
Aspen Center for Environmental Studies $20,000.00 $16,000.00
Roaring Fork Conservancy $10,000.00 $8,000.00
Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers $6,500.00 $5,700.00
TOTALS:$36,500.00 $29,700.00
15
In-Kind Grants -GF & Wheeler (2021)
15
Requesting Agency In-kind Requested In-kind Recommended
Aspen Film $5,000.00 $4,500.00
Aspen Choral Society $5,000.00 $3,000.00
Aspen Santa Fe Ballet $3,100.00 $3,000.00
5Point Adventure Film $3,000.00 $3,000.00
Aspen Words $2,500.00 $2,500.00
Rogue Repertory Company (Fringe Festival)$1,000.00 $1,000.00
Anderson Ranch Arts $5,000.00 $0.00
TOTALS, WHEELER IN-KIND:$24,600.00 $17,000.00
Requesting Agency In-Kind Requested In-kind Recommended
Aspen Junior Hockey $45,000.00 $40,000.00
Aspen Figure Skating Club $23,500.00 $22,500.00
Aspen Swim Club $15,000.00 $15,000.00
Revolutions Skate Club $15,000.00 $15,000.00
Silver City Gymnastics $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Aspen Historical Society $4,000.00 $0.00
TOTALS, GENERAL FUND IN-KIND:$103,500.00 $93,500.00
16
16 17
2021 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
Kids First (152 Fund)
Shirley Ritter, Kids First Director OCTOBER 26, 202018
What We Do: Affordability
•12-22% of a family's gross monthly
income for 1 child
•~$1,500 avg cost / month for one child
•COVID has meant fewer families using
childcare.
•Not yet returning to work
•Concerns about family health
•Older child going to school virtually, parent is at
home anyway, so keeping younger siblings home
•More low-income families qualifying for CCCAP
18 19
What We Do: Accessibility
Start-Up Funding
Infant / Toddler Subsidy
•$3,604 -$4,325 / infant / yr
•$2,496 -$2,995 / toddler / yr
Highest need: infant care
Highest cost to provide: infant care
19 20
What We Do: Quality
Quality Improvement Coaching
Professional Development
Quality Improvement Grants
Education Incentives
Resource Teacher
Health Consulting
Mental Health Consulting
COVID has meant
virtual coaching,
consulting, and training
20 21
Strategic Alignment
Safe & Lived-in
Community of Choice
•Improve childcare affordability
•Increase early childhood education quality
•Increase childcare capacity
•Improve access of resources and services for
families with young children
•Increase public awareness about the importance of
early childhood education
21
Fiscal Health &
Economic Vitality
22
Changes Due to COVID
22
Operational adjustments:
•Prioritization –childcare
programs recovery and re -
opening, maintain quality
and health standards
•Staffing –professional
development, contact
tracers, more
23
Changes Due to COVID
23
•Capital Changes:
•Office renovation
•Other projects postponed
•More maintenance and
cleaning
•Service Delivery:
•Virtual consulting, coaching,
training and meetings
•Workload changed and
increased
24
On the Horizon
Capacity
•Continuing the search for new and expanded sites
•Continuing to work with community partners & business leaders
•Partnership with CMC for infant space
Qualified Childcare Staffing for Existing and New Spaces
•Excited to move forward with intern early childhood teacher
24 25
Supplemental Requests
25
Recommended Supplementals
•Cafeteria Plan ~$4.5K
26
Revenues & Expenditures
Trends
$1,994,345
$2,603,410
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenues Expenditures
26
$1.5M in COVID-19
Support
COVID Expenditures to Date
Program / Family Aid: $315,170
Office Renovation: $45,888
27
Fund Balance
$4,256,997
$325,426
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Fund Balance Reserve
Capital projects in 2021
through 2023 draw down
projected fund balance
27 28
Revenue Sources
$25,000
$44,000
$174,545
$1,750,800
$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000
Reimbursed Support
Investment Income / Other
Yellow Brick Building
Share of City Sales Tax
28 29
$211,300
$307,060
$311,980
$360,600
$700,670
$711,800
$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000
Facilities Maintenance
General Administrative
Transfers
Capital
Quality / Reimbursable Support
Enrollment Support
8.60 FTE
Expenditure by Program
29 30
2021 Capital Projects
$12,000
$150,000
$198,600
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000
Basement Plumbing Sump
Childcare Capacity
Replacement of Aging Gas Heat
Boilers
30 31
31
Questions?
32
2021 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
Tourism Promotion Fund (130 Fund)
OCTOBER 26, 2020Andrew Kramer, Budget Manager 33
Changes Due to COVID
33
•Funding Has Softened, But…
•ACRA Evaluating Target Markets
•Messaging Has Included Health Safety Aspects
34
Revenues & Expenditures
Trends
$2,412,750
$2,412,750
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenues Expenditures 34 35
Fund Balance
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Fund Balance After Remittance
Resolution 044 (Series 2020):
$300,000 loan from fund balance
35
Resolution 180 (Series 2017): Fund balance target
of $300,000 established for recessionary periods.
36
Revenue Sources & Expenditures
$2,412,750
$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000
1.5% Lodging Tax
36
$2,412,750
$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000
Disbursement to ACRA
37
37
Questions?
38
2021 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
Public Education Fund (131 Fund)
OCTOBER 26, 2020Andrew Kramer, Budget Manager 39
On the Horizon
39
Nov 3 Ballot Issue:
•Extension of Tax for 5 Additional Years
40
Revenues & Expenditures
Trends
$2,547,000
$2,547,000
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenues Expenditures 40
Expenditure authority is directly tied to revenue
expectations. To not limit disbursement of this
dedicated tax, both inflows and outflows have
been artificially inflated by 20%, but do not
necessarily equate to expected outcomes.
41
Expenditure by Program
0.3% Dedicated Sales Tax –Sunset 12/31/2021
$50,940
$2,496,060
$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000
2% Administrative
Costs
Disbursements to
Education
41 42
42
Questions?
43
2021 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
REMP (132 Fund)
OCTOBER 26, 2020Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager 44
REMP
44
Renewable Energy Mitigation Program
Development Fee
Residential and Commercial
Two Options: Fee or Mitigation
Intended Use of Fee:
Energy Efficiency
Renewable Energy
Protect our Environment 45
Changes Due to COVID
45
CORE:
•Demand for energy assessments and improvements is up
•Rebates and grants are still available
City of Aspen:
•Prioritized local businesses and homeowners/renters
•Continue work on Truscott energy upgrades project
46
Supplemental Requests
46
Recommended Supplementals
•$50,000 Small Lodging Energy Efficiency Program (SLEEP): On-going
47
Revenues & Expenditures
Trends
$816,000
$1,586,700
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenues Expenditures
Includes $300K Every
Other Year for Projects
47
$1M for City Offices + $500K
for Affordable Housing
48
Fund Balance
$2,338,290
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Fund Balance
Conservative Revenue
Forecast / Flexible
Project Plan
48 49
Expenditure by Program
49
2021 Requested Authority = $1,586,700
CORE: $1,400,000
o Grants
o Engagement
o Program Delivery
Climate Action Office: $136,700
o Energy Efficiency Programming
o Renewable Energy Programs
S.L.E.E.P. Program: $50,000
50
50
Questions?
51
2021 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
Employee Benefits Fund (501 Fund)
Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director &
Jessica Roberts, Compensation & Benefits Manager
OCTOBER 26, 2020
52
Health & Benefits Fund Covers:
•Partially self-funded health plan
•Third-party administrator (TPA) for health claims
•Health Consultant/Broker
•Medical, Dental, & Vision
•Well -Being Program
•Life, Supplemental life ins., AD&D, & LTD
53
Health & Benefits Fund Covers:
Well -being Program
Goal: Provide education, tools, and access to a comprehensive
wellbeing program to foster a healthy, engaged, and productive
workplace.
•Annual Health Screenings/Health Check Tool/Primary Care
•Supports Self Funded Benefit Plan
•2021 Well-being Incentive
54
Health & Benefits Fund Covers:
Valley Health Alliance (VHA) Members
6 employers & regional Chamber representation
Goal: Provide healthcare that is accessible, affordable & quality-
based through our partnerships with employers and providers in RFV.
•Care Coordinators for Primary Care Physicians (PCPs)
•Data Gathering/Quality Measures
•VHA Primary Care Provider Network
Safe &Lived-in Community of Choice
55
Changes Due to COVID
55
Leadership Well-being Committee:
•Specific Committee formed to address COVID-19 wellness
and safety concerns
Health Plan Design Changes:
•COVID-19 testing
56
On the Horizon:
•2021: VHA -Shared Savings Proposal
•2021 Enhanced Wellbeing Program:
•Annual Health Screenings
•Total Worker Health Program
•Personal Health Check Tool
Safe &Lived-in Community of Choice
57
Revenues & Expenditures –EE Benefits
$5,980,400
$6,295,700
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenues Expenditures 57
Expenses
Projected to
Exceed Revenue
58
Fund Balance –EE Benefits
$3,155,829
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Fund Balance 58 59
Revenue Sources –EE Benefits
$82,200
$153,000
$767,600
$4,977,600
$0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000
Investment Income
Stop Loss
Employee Premiums
Employer Premiums
59 60
$240,700
$408,200
$550,800
$5,096,000
$0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000
Administrative Costs
Employee Health Wellness and Safety
Reinsurance
Claims Paid
Expenditure by Program –EE Benefits
60 61
61
Questions?
62
2021 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
Employee Housing (505 Fund)
Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director
Jeff Pendarvis, Asst. Capital Asset Director
OCTOBER 26, 2020
63
What We Do:
•Develop, manage and maintain employee housing for city staff
following internal guidelines
•Manage down payment assistance program and city assets
•Recruit and retain exceptional workforce for the community
63
550 E. Main St.BurlingameWater Place
Safe &Lived-in Community of Choice 64
Changes Due to COVID
64
•Temporarily paused move in dates in Spring to coincide with
decrease in hiring of positions and safety precautions.
•Precautionary public health measures implemented as units
transition.
•59 total housing units
•Approximately 4 transitional housing units
•23 emergency workers (Police, Utilities, etc.)
65
Supplemental Requests
65
Recommended Supplementals
(General Funded within HR Budget)
•Employee Housing Policy Administration Review: $17,500 (one-time)
66
Fund Balance –EE Housing
$5,988,983
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Fund Balance
66
Grow Fund
Balance to Cash
Fund Projects
67
Revenues & Expenditures -EE Housing
$2,697,900
$436,410 $0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenues Expenditures 67
Possible New
Construction
68
Revenue Sources –EE Housing
$19,000
$200,000
$2,478,900
$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000
Investment Income
Rental Income - Permanent
General Transfers In
68
$8,000 / FTE
69
$60,000
$161,410
$215,000
$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000
Down Payment Assistance Program
Employee Housing Properties
Capital / Maintenance
Expenditure by Program –EE Housing
69 70
70
Questions?
71
2021 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
Information Technology (510 Fund)
OCTOBER 26, 2020Paul Schultz 72
What We Do: Technology & Support
72
IT Supports:
•389 Network Accounts
•146 Desktops, 256 Laptops, 58 Printers
•20+ Applications
•50+ Servers, Storage & Backup
•Help Desk: >5k Resolutions/Year
•10+ Miles Fiber Connecting 35+ Buildings
•Small Cell/5G City Team
IT enables City staff to do their best work!
73
What We Do: Cybersecurity
•Cybersecurity Training w/100% Compliance
(4th year)
•Periodic phishing campaigns w/follow-up
•Scaled up secure remote working capabilities
•Implemented advanced phishing & malware
prevention (July 2020)
73 74
Strategic Alignment
74
•Improving public communication/information via
https://cityofaspen.com/
•Enabling remote work and virtual meetings
•Streamlining point-of-sale and web-based payment
transactions
•Assessing Smart Cities/Internet of Things solutions
Smart, Customer Focused Government
75
Strategic Alignment
•Improving broadband regionally
Fiscal Health & Economic Vitality
75 76
Changes Due to COVID
76
•Operational adjustments
•Prioritized: Cybersecurity, virtual meetings, support of remote
workers, managing loaner laptops & mobile devices
•Staffing: Increased focus on wellness, managing “in-office” staff
time, continuing daily IT (virtual) check-ins
•Service Delivery
•In-person vs online support: 1 –3 IT staff in-person daily
•Volume / workload impacts –Increased: cybersecurity
monitoring & analysis, network and system monitoring, volume
of support requests 77
Supplemental Requests
77
Recommended Supplementals
•Operational Reductions –One-time: ($53K)
•Cafeteria Plan: ~$3.8K
78
On the Horizon
•Network Resiliency & Functionality
•New City Offices: Data Center
•Switch Refresh
•Cyber Security Upgrades
•Smart City
78 79
Revenues & Expenditures -IT
$2,074,050
$2,451,310
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenues Expenditures
79 80
Fund Balance -IT
$454,443
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Fund Balance
80 81
Revenue Sources -IT
$4,000
$45,300
$74,050
$100,000
$1,850,700
$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000
Investment Income
Refund of Expenditures from County or
Fiber Lease
IT Fees (APCHA)
Community Broadband
General Transfers In
81 82
$83,720
$105,520
$139,200
$144,430
$172,420
$292,920
$330,370
$478,730
$704,000
$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000
Phone Services
Community Broadband
Application Licenses
Administrative
Help Desk
Workgroup Services
Transfers Out
Network Services
Capital
Expenditure by Program -IT
82
7.00 FTE
83
2021 Capital Projects -IT
$29,000
$70,000
$115,000
$209,000
$265,000
$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000
Fleet - IT
Replace Disaster Recovery (DR) Site
Storage Area Network (SAN)
Fiber Optic Implementation
New City Offices Minimal Networking &
Communications
Network Services
83 84
84
Questions?
85
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
Thru: Pete Strecker, Finance Director
From: Debbie Braun, President
Eliza Voss, Director of Marketing
Date: October 26, 2020
Re: 2021 Budget Appropriation
Dear City Council,
Please find attached the ACRA’s Destination Marketing Proposed 2021 Budget based on the forecasted
appropriated amount, provided by the COA Finance Director in the amount of $2,412,750. Per our
contract agreement, ACRA convened with the Marketing Advisory Committee and Aspen Lodging
Association on October 6th, and reviewed the programming elements of the destination plan and both
committees approved the 2021 budget as presented.
Highlights from 2021 budget planning include several elements from our 2020-2025 Strategic Plan.
Primarily, we look forward to initiating a Destination Management Plan, an essential element to
managing and promoting a destination which considers all stakeholders desires and sets a clear plan of
action to accommodate those needs. Another strategic initiative is specific to special event
management, which is now under the umbrella of the destination marketing department. As the
Chamber streamlines its activities, managing the flow and types of events we want to pursue, the effort
compliments the destination marketing department. Special events are a marketing strategy, and this
move helps to focus on destination vitality and driving business to our local vendors. The income line
item is reflective of the new event management fees and sponsorships and the expenses are under
operations and the event production line items.
As we look at a budget that is down slightly from recent years, it is actually nearly the same as the
amount the fund generated in 2016, we remain committed to being nimble with our dollars to target
visitors that share community values and will help regain travel market share following the COVID19
fallout. The current climate has resulted in emerging travel trends which we continue to address
through advertising, public relations and group sales efforts. 2021 initiatives will center around
86
communication and educational efforts, for example, the continuation of our “How to Aspen in a COVID
19 World” as applicable. Diversity will be at the forefront of marketing initiatives, as will the desire to
cultivate inclusivity, how do we invite guests and new homeowners into the fold and make them
responsible and sustainable visitors and locals. We look forward to launching a new Defy Ordinary
creative campaign reflective of these initiatives.
We will continue to provide quarterly budget updates in the form of profit & loss variance reports along
with a top-line narrative to Sara Ott, following approval by the ACRA finance committee. As you might
imagine COVID implications have made for a variant budget, but we are pleased to report we are in
healthy financial shape heading into the end of the year. Detailed results will also be provided in the
2020 Annual Report which will be made available in 2021 following the close of a most unusual year.
I will be available during your October 26th meeting to answer any questions that might come up
regarding the 2021 budget.
We look forward to seeing you all virtually at the ACRA Tourism Outlook Town Hall where we will review
the 2020 marketing program results. You should have received the invite in your inbox, but please note
you may also register for the virtual event here.
Thank you all for your swift and committed response to supporting our tourism industry and keeping
business and our community healthy
87
2021 Income Budget Draft2020APPROVED INCOME2020 PROJECTED ACTUALS2021 INCOMETax Revenue $2,991,800 $2,159,001 $2,412,750Group Participation Fee $26,720 $24,000 $24,000Loan + Reserve Access $500,000Event Management Fee $127,159COOP Funds $52,585 $38,585 $10,585TOTAL $3,071,105 $2,721,586 $2,574,494
88
2021 Budget Expenses Draft2020 APPROVED BUDGET2020 PROJECTED ACTUALS2021 PROPOSEDPayroll Expense 556K 501K 548KOperating Expense 259K 231K 217KMarketing 1.5M 1.4M 1.04MEvent Production & Management 113KPartnerships 236K 202K 236KPublic Relations 292K 250K 201KWebsite 155K 90K 135KResearch 80K 60K 75KTOTAL $3.07M $2.7M $2.5M
89
MEMORANDUM
TO:City Council
FROM:Ron LeBlanc, Special Projects Manager
THROUGH:Sara Ott, City Manager
MEMO DATE:October 21, 2020
MEETING DATE:October 26, 2020
RE:Winter in Aspen Vitality (WAV) Team Update – Part 2
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
The purpose of this discussion is to update the City Council with a few remaining items that
were not addressed or resolved during the October 12 Work Session.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
The Winter in Aspen Vitality (WAV) Team contributed to the material presented tonight.
Several city departments are represented: City Manager’s Office, City Clerk, Comms,
Administrative Services, Public Works, Engineering, Parking, Transit, Community
Development, Events, Environmental Health, Police and Parks & Recreation. Work on this
assignment began in early August.
This presentation is organized into separate topics to facilitate City Council discussion.
Some topics are shared for information purposes only, while others necessitate City Council
direction or action.
DISCUSSION:
In order to facilitate the discussion and support City Council decision-making, this outline
provides a guide to follow for City Council discussion:
1. Re-opening city facilities.
a. Staff will report on the status of conducting in-person City Council meetings
and work sessions, allowing members of the governing body to be present in
the same room at the same time.
b. Scott Miller will provide an update
c. City Council information only, no decision requested.
2. Transit update. City staff have been in contact with other entities in the Roaring
Fork Valley, CAST (Colorado Association of Ski Towns), CML (Colorado
Municipal League), and CASTA (Colorado Association of Transit
90
Agencies,Considerations for the Safe Lifting of Transit Capacity Restrictions out
of Operational Necessity in the Times of the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic ).
a. Sara Ott will provide an update.
b. City Council information only, no decision requested.
3. Communication and messaging. The City of Aspen’s first priority with health
messages specific to COVID-19 is to amplify the Pitkin County Public Health
messages and priorities through our own channels of communication. Alignment is
essential in sharing health and safety messages related to COVID.
a. The City will take the lead on messaging City specific rules, such as mask
ordinances, building closures, events, and policies to name a few.
b. The most exciting element to winter messaging for COVID is that the City of
Aspen convened a group of Valley communication leaders to unify the look
and feel and content of many of the most imperative messages for staying
healthy and following the protocols during the winter.
c. City communications assembled a team consisting of City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, Snowmass Village, Snowmass Tourism, Basalt Chamber of
Commerce, Town of Basalt, Aspen Airport, Aspen Chamber Resort
Association, and Aspen Skiing Company with support from Eagle County
where relevant to Basalt. The mission and work of this team is to create
unified messaging for locals and tourists with the same graphics, color
scheme, and voice. In addition, graphic designers are working on a logo or
emblem that will signify this unity that can go on all outreach materials. It is
akin to a communications coalition.
d. An example of the impact would be if a customer is going to a restaurant in
any of these locations or heading off at a trail head in any of these
jurisdictions, they will see the same graphic elements, messages, and emblem.
e. The design is currently underway with an initial delivery of early November.
The City will make materials available to the business community (such as
signs for restaurants or retail operations) as soon as we have final designs.
i. Mitzi Rapkin will provide an update.
ii. City Council information only, no decision requested.
4. Warming stations. WAV Team developed a warming station design and identified 3
locations. These details will be shared with the City Council during the meeting.
a. Trish Aragon, Pete Rice and Ben Anderson will provide an update.
b. City Council information only, no decision requested.
5. Use of Wagner Park. A variety of proposals, ranging from winter polo to outdoor
dining, have been proposed by the public. Park staff do not recommend any
extended use for Wagner Park, however, plan to evaluate each proposal in terms of
existing special event approval process or the existing park rental process.
a. Matt Kuhn will provide an update.
b. City Council information and discussion only.
91
6. Public Safety Update. Each winter season brings into play additional planning and
preparation by the Aspen Police Department. With the advent of COVID, these
plans have become more involved. The safety of Aspen residents and visitors
remains the top priority of these efforts for the winter season. Given the unknowns
at this time, the Police Department will remain flexible and nimble to address
changing circumstances.
a. Assistant Police Chief Bill Linn will provide an update.
b. City Council information only, no decision requested.
7. Use of public ROW for retail. WAV Team is seeking clarification regarding the use
of public ROW for retail.
a. Scott Miller will provide an update.
b. City Council policy discussion, Council direction requested.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Each of the above situations and conditions brings its own set of environmental impacts
which will be discussed during each presentation.
ALTERNATIVES:
The WAV Team will continue to work on a variety of issues concerning the winter season.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The WAV Team has identified items listed above for City Council information. Those
items needing direction are identified along with the staff recommendation.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
92
Page 1 of 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
THROUGH: Scott Miller, Public Works Director
MEMO DATE: October 23, 2020
MEETING DATE: October 26, 2020
RE: Lumberyard Conceptual Design Process - Outreach Round #3
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is reporting preliminary results of the third round of
community outreach for the Lumberyard conceptual design process and will suggest
steps for moving forward in a responsive manner. Council is asked to consider the
information presented, discuss topics as needed, and clarify direction for the project team
to produce the expected deliverables for the November 23, 2020 work session.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: Beginning June 2019, the goal of the Lumberyard
conceptual design process has been to create community-vetted conceptual design
alternatives for the development of affordable housing at the Lumberyard property, and
for Council to select a preferred conceptual design by December 2020.
On June 24, 2019, Council approved a contract with DHM Design for initial community
outreach and conceptual design for the lumber yard affordable housing development for
2019. The first round of community outreach occurred in fall 2019, and a second round
occurred in early 2020.
On April 14, 2020, Council approved a contract extension for DHM Design which included
a scope of work to allow for the continued conceptual design while the COVID -19 Stay-
at-home Order was in place. At a work session on July 6, 2020, DHM Design presented
the updated conceptual designs, and Council provided the design team with direction for
further plan refinements aiming toward 300+ units.
On August 11, 2020, Council approved a contract amendment with DHM Design through
the end of 2020. The work plan aimed to reach a preferred conceptual design by the end
of 2020 and included a third round of community outreach. At a work session on
September 14, 2020, Council reviewed proposed outreach survey questions and provided
direction for the survey in the third round of outreach.
93
Page 2 of 7
DISCUSSION:
Project Update:
The third round of community outreach launched to the public October 1, 2020 and is
scheduled to continue through November 6, 2020. The project team has numerous
technical studies also in progress. The goal of today’s work session is to focus the design
team on refining and further developing the conceptual designs developed to date to
prepare for the November 23, 2020 work session when Council will be asked to select a
preferred conceptual design.
Technical Studies Update:
Technical studies currently in process include ongoing analysis of noise, utilities services,
existing conditions survey and traffic. These studies will continue through November, and
the project team will include a summary report of technical findings for the November 23,
2020 work session. The information provided below is based on preliminary findings to
date for each sub-topic:
• Noise: Actual measured site data is within acceptable noise levels per HUD
standards, and noise mitigation will be important for livability. Final results of noise
study will inform design decisions as to strategies and tactics for mitigation.
• Utilities: The necessary utilities services are available, and there is the potential
that upgrades may be needed. Further evaluation of existing services and potential
upgrades needed will be provided in November.
• Existing Conditions Survey: The survey has been completed on the 10.5 acre site
which is largely flat and tends to drain to the east side of the site.
• Traffic: Pitkin County has an ABC area traffic analysis that is ongoing, and our
team is actively engaged with that process. The Pitkin County work is based on
standards for access control permitting in the area. Our traffic consultant reviewed
the work to date for the lumberyard 300-unit plan and found no fatal flaws.
Preliminary findings suggest that a first phase in a phased lumberyard
development may not trigger a controlled intersection requirement at SH 82. The
lumberyard project appears to add an average of up to five seconds of peak hour
travel time on SH 82 within the vicinity of the ABC. And during peak hours, the
project will add around 100 vehicle trips to nearby streets. Mitigation of trip
generation through mobility alternatives may be possible.
Outreach 3:
The goal of this portion of the conceptual design process has been to collect feedback
from the community to help inform council decisions in the conceptual design process
and to initiate the technical studies. Gaining community feedback on key topics and
94
Page 3 of 7
increased project visibility are important elements for community uptake. The outreach
began on October 1 and is scheduled to end on November 6.
The launch of the third round of community outreach was supported by a comprehensive
communications plan which included a significant use of email, paid advertising, social
media, media outreach, flyers, conference calls and networking.
The communications messaging has aimed driving online traffic toward the customized
project website at www.aspenlumberyard.com. The project website provides several
ways for users to learn about the project and provide feedback including a detailed survey
about key project topics along with the three conceptual plans created to date and
additional information about the history and timeline of the ongoing conceptual design
effort.
The community response to the communications messaging has been better than
anticipated. In a short time, the project website has registered over 1,300 unique visitors
(based on tracking IP addresses) with an average session time of 5 minutes. The project
team also conducted live events in the form of two online webinars and two in -person
pop-up events which increased project visibility even though less than 100 people were
engaged via the live events.
The website has also registered about 500 survey responses, and the survey responses
recorded to this point have been attached to this memo as an exhibit. The team has used
the survey response information to craft a responsive work plan to move forward with,
and Council is asked to weigh in on the suggested plan and provide clarified direction to
the project team.
The key topic areas for which the survey was designed to shed additional light on include
unit mix, parking, commercial space, innovation, architectural character and site
amenities. Information obtained from the community regarding these topic areas is
discussed below and then later applied to each of the three conceptual designs which
have been created to date through this conceptual design process.
• Unit Mix: For rental versus ownership, the mean of all responses is 58% ownership
and 42% rental. The most common answer was 50/50. The bedroom mix ratio of
2/3 studio & 1bdrms and 1/3 multi-bedroom units was generally supported with the
highest demand for 1 and 2 bedroom units. It was suggested not to mix rental and
ownership. The project team interpretation is to suggest that we should increase
the ownership percentage on the site and increase the number of 2-bedroom units
and decrease the number of studio units going forward. This means that the
average unit size will become slightly larger and may have an effect on the amount
of density that can be accommodated on the site. Increasing the ownership
percentage may also have design implications regarding demarcating ownership
portion of the site versus the rental portion of the development.
95
Page 4 of 7
• Parking: 75% of respondents supported underground parking, and 99% of
potential residents say they need a parking space with their housing. Only 14% of
potential residents said they would live there without a car. Mobility alternatives
are desirable but do not reduce parking demand, and the most-supported mobility
alternative is a Downtown/AABC shuttle route. A majority also supported providing
ancillary parking. The project team interprets this to suggest that mobility
alternatives likely reduce vehicle trips, but personal vehicle parking on site is still
necessary. This tends to support the levels of parking which are currently in the
conceptual plans.
• Innovation/Co-Living: While a majority of all respondents support co -living as
presented, 75% of potential residents of the Lumberyard say they would rather
have a larger unit. The project team interprets this to mean that while there is some
community support for co-living, those who see themselves as potentially living at
the Lumberyard do not support co-living by a wider margin. This may mean that
some component of co-living could still be appropriate on the site, although
perhaps less than what is currently included in the current Concept C plan.
• Innovation/Sustainability: Two thirds of all respondents support higher-than-code
energy-efficiency such as net-zero, and 60% of all respondents support the
development obtaining a sustainability certification such as LEED or the l ike. The
project team interprets this to suggest that the Lumberyard development should
raise the bar in terms of energy efficiency and sustainability. This means that there
is an opportunity to adopt high sustainability goals for the project at a very ear ly
stage in the process which is typically cited as a key to success in obtaining such
goals.
• Architectural Character/Style: The highest support by all respondents was given to
mountain contemporary style followed closely by mountain traditional architect ure.
The project team interprets this to mean that more modern approaches to the style
of the facilities should be rooted in traditional mountain character, and moving
forward mountain contemporary character should be integrated into the designs to
a degree.
• Architectural Character/Height: 60% of all respondents support a mix of 2 -3 story
buildings while 30% support 4+ stories. The project team interprets this to mean
that 2-3 stories is largely appropriate for this development while limited 4 -story
elements may be appropriate. A well-placed 4th story may support achieving
density goals if desired, and additional study could be performed to potentially sink
buildings into the ground a half-level in key locations where impacts are less and
where buildings do not coincide with underground parking.
96
Page 5 of 7
• Site Amenities: The most-favored amenities were generous gear storage, private
outdoor spaces such as decks, porches and patios along with lawn and park
space. People also favored extra parking spaces. The project team interprets this
to suggest that potential Lumberyard residents value more traditional/practical
amenities over specialty services and facilities, and planning for gear storage is a
necessary design consideration. This may mean that the designs should b e more
focused on providing quality storage facilities and a variety of high -quality outdoor
spaces, both private and shared, as well as equitable access from buildings to
these spaces.
• Commercial Space/Commercial Services: Three quarters of all respondents agree
that the ABC should provide commercial services to the Lumberyard development.
The project team interprets this to suggest that the conceptual designs should
continue to focus mainly on providing housing on the site . This means that
consideration should be given to potentially eliminating any commercial
component on the site or otherwise maintain flexibility for only a very small
commercial services component.
• Commercial Space/Childcare: A majority of all respondents support incorporating
childcare into the development. The project team interprets this to suggest that this
response is an illustration of the overall/general need for increased daycare and
the specific need in the ABC area. This may mean that we should continue to carry
forward a potential childcare component as a ‘plug-and-play’ option at the north
end of the site, and that there should be continued community evaluation of
childcare needs and opportunities throughout the area.
Conceptual Plans A, B and C:
• Concept A (250 Units/191,000 Sq Ft Unit Area): One of the main goals of Concept
A from the start was to test the relationship of parking, building massing and unit -
count specifically for podium-parking. Modifying Concept A in response to the
survey results would result in a solution which would be similar to Concept B. This
poses the question as to whether or not Concept A should be carried forward as
one of the potential concepts for final selection.
• Concept B (300 Units/230,000 Sq Ft Unit Area): Concept B was designed with
underground parking and a higher unit count. Suggestion for moving forward would
be to maintain underground parking and higher unit count with a mix of 2 -3 stories
and flexibility for childcare or small commercial services component. Suggested
modifications include increasing ownership percentage and increasing the number
of 2-bedroom units while decreasing the amount of studio units. Consider a fourth
story in key locations to maintain unit count. Create protected park areas and
access. Consider adding ancillary parking and shuttle stop.
97
Page 6 of 7
• Concept C (330 Units/185,000 Sq Ft Unit Area with Co-Living): Concept C was
created to test the use of co-living studios with common area amenities,
underground parking and the highest unit count of the three concepts. Suggestions
for moving forward include maintaining underground parking and higher unit count
with a mix of 2-3 stories and protected park spaces. Suggested modifications
include increasing ownership percentage and increasing the number of 2-bedroom
units while decreasing the amount of studio units. Consider a fourth story in key
locations to maintain unit count. Consider adding ancillary parking and shuttle stop.
Deliverables for November 23 Work Session: The project team proposes to bring the
following materials to the next work session on November 23:
• Modifications to plans as suggested or otherwise as directed by Council
• Final Outreach 3 report
• Summary of technical studies
Decisions at the November 23 Work Session: The project team proposes to request the
following decisions by Council at the November 23 work session:
Suggested decisions for 2020 Conceptual Design Selection:
• General site layout with density biased to the north of the site and access as
proposed
• General approach to parking facilities
• Ratio of building footprint and site open area and uses as generally proposed
• Number of building stories as proposed or otherwise as modified by Council
• Unit mix, general level of rental percentage and ownership percentage
• Unit mix, general level of bedroom mix percentages
• Architectural character, study materials will be provided to demonstrate
responsiveness
• Commercial uses
• Energy and sustainability targets
• Co-living as a percentage of overall
Suggested items for further consideration as the process moves into 2021:
• Final parking counts could be modified later
• Childcare could be swapped in or out later in the process
• Ancillary parking could be swapped in or out later in the process
At the November 23 work session, the project team will propose additional detail about
the remainder of the development proce ss which may be considered for 2021 and
beyond. This will help inform what decisions are best made as part of the current
conceptual design process and what decisions may be deferred until later in the process
after more information can be assembled on any outstanding matters.
98
Page 7 of 7
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Financial impacts of the suggestions herein are generally
directional in terms of project cost increases but also maintain a high level of land
utilization which helps to decrease the need to invest in land elsewhere for more housing
units. These impacts could be further quantified for the November 23 work session if
requested by Council.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that Council consider the information
presented, discuss topics as needed, and clarify direction for the project team to produce
the expected deliverables for the November 23, 2020 work session.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
A – Presentation Slides
B – Outreach Survey Results
99
100
TODAY’S PRESENTATION
PART 1. GENERAL PROJECT UPDATE AND TECHNICAL
STUDY INFORMATION
PART 2. WEBSITE AND OUTREACH 3 SUMMARY
PART 3. 6 FEEDBACK TOPICS AND THE CONCEPTS –
WHAT WE HEARD
PART 5. PREPARING FOR THE NOVEMBER 23
DELIVERABLES
101
GENERAL PROJECT UPDATE
102
NOISE
TRAFFIC
TECHNICAL STUDIES UPDATE
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
SURVEY•Actual measured site data is
within acceptable noise levels
per HUD standards
•Noise mitigation will be
important for livability
•Results of noise study will
inform design decisions
•The county has an ABC area traffic analysis that is ongoing, team is actively engaged in process
•County is doing it based on standard for access control permit for this location
•Findings (based on 300 units):
•No fatal flaws
•Phased development may not trigger a controlled intersection requirement
•Project adds up to five seconds of peak hour travel time on SH 82 within the vicinity of the ABC
•During peak hours, the project will add around 100 vehicle trips to nearby streets
•Survey is complete
•Largely a flat site
•Draining to east
side of site
•Services are available
•Upgrades are possible
•Evaluation of existing
services will be
provided in November
UTILITIES
103
GOALS OF
OUTREACH
3
OUTREACH 3:INTRODUCTION
•Collect feedback from the community
to help inform council decisions
•Initiate technical studies
•Test key topics
•Continue to develop and refine
conceptual plan studies
•Increase visibility of project
•Outreach launched October 1st and
ends November 6th
104
OUTREACH 3:COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
105
WEBSITE
•SURVEY:±500 RESULTS
•RICH CONTENT
•1,300 UNIQUE VISITORS
•AVERAGE SESSION: 5 MIN
VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE(S)
•INTERACTIVE WEBINAR
•OCTOBER 15TH AT 12 AND 6 PM
•PROVIDED IN BOTH ENGLISH
AND SPANISH
•ATTENDED BY 30 PEOPLE TOTAL
•UPLOADED ONTO WEBSITE
OUTREACH 3:TO DATE
POP UPS
•ASPEN MALL, OCTOBER 19TH FROM
11:30-4 PM
•ROXY’S MARKET, OCTOBER 20TH
FROM 11:30-1:30 PM
•40+ TOUCHES TOTAL (ATTENDEES)
•INFORMAL AND MINIMALLY
ADVERTISED DUE COVID AND
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REQUEST
106
GOOGLE ANALYTICS AND OUTREACH REPORT
107
ASPENLUMBERYARD.COM
108
PART 2:THE SURVEY AND THE 6 FEEDBACK TOPICS
CONCEPT A
CONCEPT B
CONCEPT C
UNIT MIX COMMERCIAL
SPACE
PARKING
INNOVATION SITE
AMENITIES
ARCHITECTURAL
CHARACTER
109
WHAT WE ARE HEARING
UNIT MIX PARKING
•58% own, 42% rent. The most common
answer was 50/50
•Ratio of 2/3 studio & 1bdrms and 1/3
multi-bedroom units supported
•Highest demand for 1 and 2 bdrms
•Do not mix rental and ownership
Our interpretation is:Increase 2 bdrms,
decrease studios. Increase ownership
percentage.
What it means: Increasing size of units
affects density. Increased ownership has
design implications if adopted.
•75% of respondents supported underground parking
•99% of potential residents say they need a parking
space with their housing
•14% of potential residents would live there without a car
•Mobility alternatives are desirable but do not reduce
parking demand
•Shuttle received highest support
•Majority supported providing ancillary parking
Our interpretation is: Mobility alternatives likely reduce vehicle
trips; personal vehicle parking is necessary.
What it means: Supports current parking quantity. Include
mobility alternatives in design.
110
WHAT WE ARE HEARING
INNOVATION
•Co-Living
•Majority of all respondents support co-
living, but…
•75% of potential residents would rather
have a larger unit
Our interpretation is: likely users are less
interested in co-living than the general public
What it means:some component of co-living
may be appropriate but less than shown on
Concept C.
•Sustainability
•67% support higher energy efficiency
(such as net zero)
•60% support for sustainable
development certification
Our interpretation is: this development should
raise the bar in terms of energy efficiency and
sustainability.
What it means: early of adoption of
sustainability goals is important in design
process
111
ARCHITECTURAL
CHARACTER
•Highest support for mountain contemporary
and mountain traditional architecture
Our interpretation is: More modern forms and
materials should be rooted in traditional mountain
character.
What it means:Integrate mountain contemporary
character to next round of design studies.
•60% support for 2-3 story buildings
•30% support for 4+ stories
Our interpretation is: 2 to 3 story buildings are
appropriate for this site. Limited 4 story building
may be appropriate.
What it means:A well-placed, stepped 4th story
may support achieving density goals if needed.
Study opportunity to ‘sink’ the building a half
level in key locations.
WHAT WE ARE HEARING
112
SITE AMENITIES
•Most favored amenities:
•Generous gear storage
•Private outdoor space (decks, porches, patios)
•Lawn/park space
•Extra parking spaces
Our interpretation is: Potential residents value traditional/practical amenities over
specialty services and facilities. “Gear” is a necessary design consideration.
What it means: Focus on providing storage and a variety of high quality outdoor
spaces (private and shared), as well as access from buildings to these spaces.
WHAT WE ARE HEARING
113
COMMERCIAL SPACE
•75% of respondents agree that ABC
should provide commercial services to
development
Our interpretation is: Focus on housing for
the Lumberyard site.
What it means: Consider elimination of any
commercial on site or maintain flexibility for
very small commercial component.
•Majority in favor of incorporating
childcare
Our interpretation is: Result is an illustration
of the general need for daycare, and the
specific need in the ABC area.
What it means: Continue to carry this as a
plug and play option at the north end of the
site. Continue to evaluate community need and
opportunities.
WHAT WE ARE HEARING
114
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES
115
CONCEPT A
Concept A tested relationship of parking,
building massing, and unit count -specifically
podium parking
KEEP
•DO WE CARRY THIS CONCEPT
FORWARD?
MODIFY
•MODIFYING THIS CONCEPT IN
RESPONSE TO OUTREACH RESULTS
CREATES A SOLUTION SIMILAR TO
CONCEPT B
116
CONCEPT B
Concept B illustrates underground
parking and a higher unit count
KEEP
•Underground parking
•Higher unit count
•2-3 story building mix
•Flexibility for childcare or other
commercial
MODIFY
•Rental/sale mix
•Unit type
•Increase 2 bdrms, decrease
studios
•Potential for 4th story to
maintain unit count
•Add ancillary parking
•Create protected park spaces
•Propose childcare?
117
CONCEPT C
Concept C illustrates co-living,
underground parking, and the
highest unit count
KEEP
•Underground parking
•Higher unit count
•2-3 story building mix
•Protected park space
MODIFY
•Rental/sale mix
•Unit type
•Significantly reduce total co-
living
•Increase 2 bdrms, decrease
studios
•Potential for 4th story to
maintain unit count
•Add ancillary parking
118
DELIVERABLES FOR NOVEMBER
CONCEPT A
CONCEPT B
CONCEPT C
NOVEMBER DELIVERABLES
•Modifications to plans
•Incorporating feedback
•Refined plans and site design
•Outreach report
•Summary of technical studies
NOVEMBER DECISIONS
•Overall approach to density (density to north)
•General site layout
•Open space ratio
•Number of stories
•Unit mix
•Rental and ownership
•Unit type
•Architectural character
•Commercial uses
•Energy targets
•Co-living
PLUG AND PLAY
DECISIONS
•Parking ratios
•Daycare
•Ancillary parking
119
120
Comments:
• We need housing for seasonal workers young people who come to town. Unfortunately the trend has been that people
to not move out of their owned employee housing.who come to town.
• The City needs housing. Dont be foolish. This is the perfect site for more units.
• Rental is the only way to go. It is employee housing and not housing for retiring. Keep it active. If you retire you need to
move on. Otherwise we will run out of options.
• ownership within a building that is primarily rentals doesn’t seem that appealing: transient tenants, potential high noise
levels during peak seasons, lower commitment of renters toward maintenance and upkeep. Seems like shorter -term,
immediately available housing is of greatest need to both employers and employees.
• Families are struggling to find bigger houses to buy!!!
• The city should reconsider this location. Its proximity to the airport create noise, and pollution problems for the residents .
• ALL RENTAL
• Please do not mix rental and owned. Go 100% one way or the other.
• Ownership units create community. We need a sense of community at the ABC.
• How leveraged is the city now against their rental units?
• No studios
• The problem with owner employee housing is retirement. It removes the unit from the much needed inventory. A retiree
is not an employee.
• I think the two areas should be separated and have different HOAs/management. Having all rental will make the density
really high which makes for a less enjoyable living experience so be careful about packing people in. Employees
deserve housing that is better than a shoebox!
• Why would you need to borrow against anything?
• Would like to see high desn rental, beyond current landuse density allowed, in this location;
• We have lost so many rental units in recent years to Airbnb and VRBO and we need to start making up for it. This
neighborhood and density is appropriate for rentals vs. ownership.
• I agree that the Lumberyard should have more rental units than ownership units. There is such a need for youn g
professionals to have affordable rental units, otherwise, the young working class will not survive here. Most of the
ownership units in “affordable housing” are too expensive for me anyway. Hence, the generation of renters.
• I think more rentals would be fantastic. But rentals don’t create the environment of ownership of people staying in a
community nearly as much. I think looking a little further into the future, a little more ownership units would help the
community grow
• For this reason, the constantly changing nature of affordable housing residents, and the HOA reserve funding issue,
plus the lack of opportunity for owners’ equity to appreciate, the City should focus on rentals.
• There is a very high need for both equally. Many people are stuck renting d ue to the high cost of of “affordable housing”
. This gravely effects people in long term as there is no way to get ahead and set a foundation of success and destroys
any chance of ever being able to retire
121
• What?
• rent needs to be less expensive and there needs to be more pet friendly accomodations!
• You know what is really needed better than the general community.
• With 3 new rental properties coming on line, 8th St, Park Cr and Marolt, I think the greater need is fo r more sale units
• Owner traditionally display pride of ownership and maintain their homes.
• From a utilitarian perspective, rental units make the most sense. Housing is a baseline pressure that prevents
employers from being able to hire transient staff, which Aspen relies upon. I say this as someone desperately searching
for a larger ownership unit to accommodate my new family. However, housing is not the only pressure that families face
in Aspen–child care and lack of viable careers also drive families out of the valley.
• Once you own a unit, it is very difficult to move to a larger unit if your family expands.
• While I think it is good to offer some ownership units, if the need is greater for rentals and it is fiscally better for the City,
we should emphasize rentals.
• You want people to come here to work and stay in the community. Having rentals only does not help this cause.
• Owners take care of their property & units. A high turn over rate for rentals increases poor property managment.
• 75% should be 2-3 bedroom. Give town more local familys.
• I think this is a great location for high-density, smaller unit, rental housing. I’m not concerned about heights at this
location and parking ratios can be much lower given access to transit.
• I currently live in a 1 bedroom condo at BG II and am very appreciative of the fact that I live and work in the same place
+ I have a beautiful home and view. This should be available to more people.
• this city has ample revenue opportunities, and should explore them. we can all come up with the in your face easy
answer to our issues when pushed
• I think it creates a better neighborhood mix to have a fairly even split between owned and rented units.
• I much prefer a less dense project.
• There is a very high need for both equally. Many people are stuck renting due to the high cost of of “affordable housing”
. This gravely effects people in long term as there is no way to get ahead and set a foundation of success and destroys
any chance of ever being able to retire
• Make it 75-80% rental. Also, some homeowners take care of their homes; some do not. Maybe rentals are a better idea.
• I believe that there needs to be more 3 bedroom houses than 2 bedroom houses. I understand the need for a few
studios but working people in Aspen need units that can support growth and families vs asking families to cram 4
member households into 2 bedroom places.
• There is a very high need for both equally. Many people are stuck renting due to the high cost of of “affordable housing”
. This gravely effects people in long term as there is no way to get ahead and set a foundation of success and destroys
any chance of ever being able to retire
• the City should have a much better quantitative understanding of the housing needs to the community. Based on my
observation, rental housing in greater demand than ownership units. An advantage of rental units is they tend to be for
shorter term facilitating occupancy by qualified individuals and provide greater opportunity for appropriate long term
122
maintenance of units versus ownership. Deed restricted ownership units have a long history of being inadequately
maintained.
• ownership units create a more stable lived in responsible community member. rental units create a haphazard fly by
night neighborhood with no incentive to maintain units
• Why don’t you work with cmc and rent to their students as well
• As pricing houses rise, providing housing 2-3 bedrooms for families to own is important.
• For sale units return some of the construction cost upon completion and sale. rental unit’s revenues w ill be needed to
pay off construction debt.
• For sale units return some of the construction cost upon completion and sale. rental unit’s revenues will be needed to
pay off construction debt. After Burlingame 3 gets built – there are no other ‘ownership’ projects planned.
• For sale units return some of the construction cost upon completion and sale. rental unit’s revenues will be needed to
pay off construction debt. After Burlingame 3 gets built – there are no other ‘ownership’ projects planned.
• For sale units return some of the construction cost upon completion and sale. rental unit’s revenues will be needed to
pay off construction debt. After Burlingame 3 gets built – there are no other ‘ownership’ projects planned.
• For sale units return some of the construction cost upon completion and sale. rental unit’s revenues will be needed to
pay off construction debt. After Burlingame 3 gets built – there are no other ‘ownership’ projects planned.
• People who buy don’t want to live in a neighborhood that is constan tly in influx with new tenants that may not respect
the property as much as the owners because they’re not as invested as the owners.
• All rentals units to preserve our inventory. Said rental units should be a partnership with essential services such as
schools, RFTA, police/sheriff, AVH, fire protection, airport personal. The community already has inventory of deed
restricted housing that would equal the population Aspen had when the Employee Housing Project was created in 1974.
The 60% workforce goal can never be obtained for employees create job needs.. Resident owned Employee housing
has evolved into retirement housing which has further evolved into a quasi second home housing inventory stock that
the owners can rent out for 3 months at a time for any reason. The idea that ownership housing would create a housing
stock that would be better maintained has proven false and has led to shortfalls in deferred maintenance costs that the
residents want a bailout for since they didn’t charge themselves a suffic
• The 3 new units from housing partners are all rentals. We
• With the launch of the three new rental complexes, we need more ownership units.
• I think as more people start families and settle in the upper valley there should be more ownership to great a communit y
who is proud of there homes and where they live. Rental units tend to be more transient and less likely to improve their
housing.
• I feel that ownership units create longer term residents with more of a stake in the commnity than rentals. Rentals are
very important for people to get established but i think this community needs more opportunity for people to be longer
term residents.
• I think it’s prudent to build subsidized private owned homes building a normal neighborhood owned and managed by the
homeowners there not the government. I think the government should behave as a developer would. Build then leave.
• Only workforce allowed. No retirees in ANY of Aapen subsidized housing!
123
• Rental units are a good way to vet possible owner applicants.
• When employees no longer is here, can that person stay in his or her home forever
• None
• ownership generally allows people to take more care of their units, whereas renters tend to have less at stake, and are
not as prideful in the upkeep…
• Rental units would allow the City to own the property, thus doing away with employees who eventually no longer work in
Aspen but keep their homes. This requires more demand for AH and thus increasing Aspen’s population.
• We need more ownership units, not rentals
• seek revenue streams from sources other than debt. Perhaps from a complimentary community partner.
• we need rentals. Ownership units eventually end-up being owned & occupied by non-workers and then we need more
housing for the workers!
• Tax second homeowners on 100% of assessed value. Other ski towns do. Skip the vacancy tax idea
• too much housing at this point and still no answer to traffic problems. aspen needs to stay a small town.
• Ownership encourages stability and is the best option to create a community
• Ownership units create maintenance/HOA issues the city and APCHA have failed to deal with
• Need more 2 bedroom units
• Rental units keep people in poverty, ownership creates better credit and opens up rentals that are occupied by those
people currently wanting to be owners
• Project should double the units and individuals, half the open space. Plenty of open space on Deer Hill.
• Should subsidize workforce only.
• Rental units keep people in poverty, ownership creates better credit and opens up rentals that are occupied by those
people currently wanting to be owners
• Once in a purchased unit no one leaves, even if the kids are gone for years, so a rental would make them leave when
the lease is up and the kids have moved out.
• There could be an uncomfortable and thus desirable relationship between the majority unit owner ie the city and
individual unit owners who would always be in the minority. Separate HOAs?
• I think many people want the opportunity to own so that they feel they aren’t throwing their money into a black pit with a
rental. Especially since free market ownership is mostly off the table.
• Mixing ownership and rental Not compatible
• Have homeowners finance the project not the city govt.
• Truscott is not housing the rental workforce. we need a project 3 or 4 times that size of just rentals. Burlingame needs to
be infilled and leveraged for more rentals as well.
• Rental communities should not take priority, people who commit to this town should/
• Let’s learn to build adequate, livable housing and fix previous housing needs before creating more housing problems;
high HOAs, unaffordable unit costs, building defects, community living v’s community bullying. People who don’t follow
the rules need to be removed from housing and then there will be plenty… DO NOT BUILD MORE UNITS AT
BURLINGAME. THERE IS ALREADY TOO MANY PEOPLE THERE!!!
124
• We need people to stay in aspen which means ownership.
• A path towards ownership is important.
• While some rental housing is good we are trying to build a community not just housing for temporary workers.
• Unless you cannot retire in your unit need more rentals or we lose housing stock
• I want the lumber Yard On small remodels do you want to pay me to drive down valley for material or work!
• More ownership lends its self to more resposible people on the property, better kept area and safer.
• I am not so sure, but I support whatever will maximize density on site
• I don’t know. Please maximize density as the priority. I am happy to let the designers and planners do what is best for
the community in terms of mix.
• at least 50/50, if not 60/40 or more
• the site is more appropriate for rental units than for-sale units due to density and proximity; mixing rental and ownership
units is a detriment to owners
• I think density is a question we have to consider seriously. If we can put 500 units there and we need 500 units, how
can we justify not bridging the gap as quickly, efficiently and cost-effectively as possible?
• The city should be issuing municipal bonds supported by taxes, not leveraging the housing inventory.
• I suggest increasing the number of 1 bedroom and studio ownership opportunities for the single person who makes
more than the rental cap
• rentals should be predicated on working—this solves the retirement problem
• Rental units only for workers who work in Aspen/Buttermilk.
• High density would be best for the rentals, like Hunter Creek or Centennial
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• The city needs to acknowledge growth is going to happen regardless. We need to have better management of existing
units but also adding units for the real workers that keep our town afloat.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• There is a need for more 1 bedroom units in the deed restricted sales units. Creating more rental units restricts younger
residents of aspen trying to grow their assets. This lack of opportunity for home ownership in aspen is a huge factor in
younger professionals relocating from aspen and thus making it harder for local businesses to retain talented
employees.
• There should only be more ownership if they are AFFORDABLE for working residents make less than $80,000yr
• Creating ownership opportunities that are affordable is important. So is creating housing density.
• I am a homeowner in this valley but I moved here 26 years ago. I have no idea how new people in the valley find
affordable rentals forgetting an affordable home to purchase. At this time I think more affordable rentals are needed.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• Too few options especially for seasonal workers to get into while still be able to afford to live/play in the valley.
• Price of ownership units are out of reach for hourly valley residents.
125
• rental units = higher density, ownership units = lower density. The project needs to be livable and not devel oped like a
bee hive. Employees are not just single people. The community needs units for families too.
• I think it’s important to provide ownership opportunities for locals committed to staying in the area.
• As harsh as this sounds. There should be a proposition of relocation of residents that own deed restricted of three
bedrooms that no longer have dependents living with them or no longer have a spouse. The reality is that there is a
younger population purchasing employee housing and have no plans of leavi ng.
• Owner are committed to our community on a level renters are not. People who commit to living here need ownership
opportunities.
• Affordable options to buy
• lower density, more units for families which is healthier for the community, instead of singles or cramming large groups
of people into units
• There is the need of ownership units. As well as there is large population retiring in the valley, there is also a large
number of young couples and families that want to establish residency here. Colorado has on e of the lowest property
tax rate in the nation. Maybe raise property taxes? FYI – I have no understanding of how the financial side of borrowing
against rentals or collecting taxes works.
• The newest employee housing builds (Park Ave, Castle Creek, N 7th, etc) from my understanding, are all rentals. I and
many other people I know are fighting for the opportunity in lotteries for ownership units that few and far between.
Waiting years and bidding continuously on the limited supply is disgruntling, thus my re sponse.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• Most of the workforce that is needed in Aspen and Snowmass is seasonal in low paying ski area and hospitality roles.
The likely employees for these positions are single, young adults who want to spend a season skiing or enjoying the
mountains. Therefore, rentals are the greater need because they are short term and the employees are usually in
Aspen for 1 year or less.
• There are almost no detached single family homes for sale. That is the biggest need for a family wanting to be close to
work!
• I may not have the best understanding of the current mix of ownership V rental. I need to understand the pros and cons
better
• rental units should be on a priority lottery system from the get-go
• I may not have the best understanding of the current mix of ownership V rental. I need to understand the pros and cons
better
• The volume of building it entirely too large. The taxpayers should not be responsible for paying for ou tlandish county
growth of huge homes, for insurance that so many contractors make $$$$ dollars. It is time to STOP GROWTH and
remember wwe live in theMOUNTAINS.
• Preference should always be given to those living year-round in Aspen.
126
Comments:
• Very few one bedrooms needed. Families work here and stay and need space.
• Studios should be minimal. 1 and 2 bedroom apartments are best for rental purposes. 3 bedrooms don’t work as well for
rental.
• Families = more sense of community
• Families are struggling to find bigger houses to buy!!!
• Theoretically tiny homes are good, not if there are multiple people living in them, however. If there are roommates in
multiple bedroom units, less fewer kitchens, bathrooms etc are needed.
• ALL SMALL RENTALS FOR THE WORKFORCE
• Studios and one bedrooms are still very affordable for a lot of aspen people, even the affordable housing options. I
would not be able to afford a 1 bedroom centential but could share a 3 bedroom.
• Not sure why we want single units at all? We should be encouraging longer term living not transients looking for a place
to crash for a season
• 1 and 2 bedroom units only.
• The bullet point from above that says “more studios and 1-bedrooms do not necessarily mean more people are
housed…” is misleading in terms of density because it does not address car density. More family units means children
are occupying the rooms which I feel is a better situation than dense housing for only adults.
• Is the need for more seasonal workers in Aspen? Meaning a need for more Stud io 1 bedroom?
• Employee housing is a crisis, and will impact service levels in Aspen. Right now, lets try to solve the rental problem in
this location
• the higher number of multi-bedroom units should accomodate couples and singles
• Yes! We need more one-beds for the younger working class. We are young but old enough to want our own space.
Thank you!!
• Roommates, make some friends
127
• I lean more towards 1-bedrooms than studios.
• stick with the learnings from the well considered, data driven study
• Look at previous apcha lottery results, there are often many more people trying for the smaller units, more units for
single people should be a priority
• If we want to continue to have a community of families (look at ASD enrollment) you need the ability to house those
families.
• Two bedrooms rarely become available.
• I believe the APCHA regulations need to change with regards to the difference between income allowed for one person
vs. two. This impacts my opinion. It is totally off.
• Again, this is a technical question of what the community needs, more so than my hunch.
• but more 2 bedroom units
• There is a lot of turnover in studios. Almost everyone would like a separate sleeping area even if it is tiny.
• Folks can always live with roommates in a larger unit. A family of four cannot live in a one bedroom.
• I suggest grouping the studios and 1 BRs in the same area to reduce noise and outside clutter.
• Like many other City housing projects you are not supporting family if you have mostly studio and 1 bedroom units.
• I think its a mistake to make each project an exact reflection of our statistical needs. I think it should be viewed as a
system instead with each project optimized to what its orientation can and should be. I think this project is the best
opportunity for smaller unit, rental housing. I think other sites can serve larger unit, ownership housing better than this
site.
• We need to pay attention to what the data and the experts tell us about what is actually needed. Also – more studios =
more cars
• It is close to the right mix, I think a few more larger units still allow more people to be housed.
• Since people that live here typically have gear to store I think more bedrooms per unit provides some of that gear
storage opportunity. Any then when a family size changes and there are additional children there is bedroom space
available and they can continue to live in the same unit.
• We need to provide more housing for labor force with families that are living beyond Basalt/Carbondale.
• I think it is important to plan for families to be recognized and supported in this plan. This helps to promote diversity and
community in my mind; which in turns helps to build a stronger and more vibrant community over all.
• Look at previous apcha lottery results, there are often many more people trying for the smaller units, more units for
single people should be a priority
• I don’t care about the seasonal people. The valley is getting crowded with all this seasonal housing.
• Look at previous apcha lottery results, there are often many more people trying for the smaller units, more units for
single people should be a priority
• I don’t care about the seasonal people. The valley is getting crowded with all this seasonal housing.
• Assuming this is a good study, the results of the study should be the basis of size mix. Without reviewing a study, my
leaning would be to smaller units.
128
• multi-bedroom units can allow people to live and stay within our community when they want to expand their family. the
current unit mix needs to be a 180 switch
• Smaller units are a great place to start but most people and up getting married and having families… It seems that a
stock of only studio/1 bedrooms leads to a big shortage of family relevant units down the road with no place for those
folks to go
• 60-40 Rental to Owner
• !!!
• For those that are single, they can always live together in 2 -3 bedrooms but for families, you do need more space so 2-3
bedrooms are needed.
• there is need in all areas
• there is need in all areas, a resident moves through different housing needs at different points of their lives. People buy
the studios in other complexes just to have “in-house’ priority to move into a 1 bedroom (or larger) once they come up
• there is need in all areas, a resident moves through different housing needs at different points of their lives. People buy
the studios in other complexes just to have “in-house’ priority to move into a 1 bedroom (or larger) once they come up
• there is need in all areas, a resident moves through different housing needs at different points of their lives. People buy
the studios in other complexes just to have “in-house’ priority to move into a 1 bedroom (or larger) once they come up
• there is need in all areas, a resident moves through different housing needs at dif ferent points of their lives. People buy
the studios in other complexes just to have “in-house’ priority to move into a 1 bedroom (or larger) once they come up
• Studios are hard to live in. We are members of the community not workers bees. People need a liv ing room and a
sleeping space that are seperate.
• Studios are no good. People need a separation between sleeping space and living space. We are not worker bees, we
are people.
• Just slightly, however I think there are way too many families smooshed into a small two bedroom with lots of kids.
• I think higher number of multi-bedroom units would allow people who qualify for affordable housing to live together – if
they aren’t in the same families (i.e. roommates).
• I think it’s important to clarify this mix – is it for rentals or ownership? I think ok to have higher percentage of studio
rentals, but people don’t want to by a studio if they intend to make this valley their home more permanently.
• What does the demand say? Certainly you could figure that out by polling waitlists.
• There is a lack of housing for people with families.
• See previous comment
• Its very hard to retain qualified employees. A lot of times these people are older with families. More housing that
supports families is needed.
• None
• I think it in many ways depends on what the study shows as a need, and what the overall community requires (individual
housing vs. family housing)
• Rental units allows ownership by the City. How long can an ex -employee of Aspen remain in his or her home after
retirement?
129
• Larger units never become available we need more multi bedroom units plus the school is better here than Badalt
• More large units for families and couples
• Larger units never become available we need more multi bedroom units plus the school is better here than B adalt
• Prioritize housing the workforce, not building affordable housing. Small units do that.
• especially for rental units
• Family housing is a dire need in our community.
• multi bedrooms leads to “community” and studios and one bedroom leads to “non -community”
• There are already too many small units in the area. If you want to create a community you should be encouraging
FAMILIES to move into the area. Also I believe a families should be given priority on two and three bedroom
apartments.
• More 1 bedrooms than studios. Studios make it hard for couples. We want to promote families, not just single people.
• Single parents need the 2 bedroom configuration
• Multi bedroom housing allows for a community that is more than just a lot of workers. Without multi-bedroom housing
people must choose between a family or staying in Aspen
• Add more co-living units, also.
• Multi bedroom housing allows for a community that is more than just a lot of workers. Without multi-bedroom housing
people must choose between a family or staying in Aspen
• This area needs to house young worker bees. Not families. The closeness to town and the bus make this ideal.
• Offering more 2-bedrooms could have some really amazing quality-of-life impacts for couples stuck renting longer than
intended.
• mu lti bedroom units will likely be prone to overcrowding- is a 3 BR unit for 3 people or 6? Not a good management
configuration
• Larger units for families should be physically separate from structures that have smaller units. Families are not always
compatible with singles
• Just use the trends from APCHA on what unit mixes are needed.
• Families should be the priority not studio.
• Families who want to live here need to be the priority, not single people who come for a season
• DO NOT BUILD ANYTHING ELSE UNTIL YOU CAN FIX EXISTING HOUSING PROBLEMS
• more 2 bedroom than anything
• Most working adults don’t want a roommate.
• I only have one child because I don’t think my housing would accommodate two children. More units that have 3
bedrooms is what everyone wants.
• If you want people here long term, they need to be able to grow into a place.
• Build homes for families.
• 50 50 ratio
• More ownership units at AABC, have more rental units in Aspen.
• I am not sure. For me, what matters is whatever will maximize density on site.
130
• I don’t know. I trust our consultants and planners, but I am definitely in favor of maximizing density
• We need to accommodate more families
• studios are a waste of money. build 1 and 2 bedroom units
• We should be trying house as many people as possible. Most of the commuters from downvalley are couples and
people with families and this is a huge opportunity to bring those people closer to Aspen.
• Still high density, but there are many young families in need of 2 or 3 bedrooms, as evidenced by he number of
applicants to APCHA lotteries
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• Depends on price per unit for rental. Many people will opt for greater number of bedrooms to split costs and make it
more affordable.
• Most of the affordable housing doesn’t have more than a 2 bedroom unit. THERE ARE FAMILIES NOT JUST SKI
BUMS THAT NEED THIS HOUSING.
• As the young Millenial generation (anyone ages about 27-37) enters the point in their lives where they get married, start
families, while housing costs increase and the generation entered the economy in a recession, more 2 and 3 bedroom
affordable rental units will be in high demand over the next 10-20 years. There are already quite a lot of housing options
for single people.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• I believe more 1 and 2 bedroom places rather than studio or 2 bedroom would be ideal. 1 bedroom provides a better
quality of living. 2 bedroom apartments become affordable when people share rental properties and can be more
appropriate for couples or families as well.
• need more affordable options for people who live alone and don’t want roommates
• The multi-bedroom units should be used for ownership to give new families an opportunity to own and build equity.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• Families need more support in this area so that we can build a long term community and not just young people who
come to play for a few years before leaving
• two and three bedroom units are priced too high for the average valley employee
• I’m less concerned about the unit mix than the size of the units shown. I have seen excellent Studio floor plans that are
between 300-400 sf that are equally funuctional to what is drawn.
• Unite Type and Mix: This statement is misleading, “increasing the number of studios and 1 -bedrooms allows us to
control the massing while increasing the unit cout”. The City is in control of the massing and unit count regardless of the
unit mix. Additionally, please reference the particular study by name and who completed the study. The statement, ” The
original unit mix fo the Lumberyard was based on the findings of the regional housing needs stu dy, with 67% studio and
1-bedrooms and 33% 2-and 3- bedrooms” has not credibility.
• Two bedrooms offer so much more versatility. A roommate or a child or a guest room / office if you can work from home.
131
• I am an employer and I have some dorm style housing for my single employees but my biggest problem is housing for
managers and particularly those with families. Right now, if I hire a manager from out of town with a spouse and just
one child they may have to look as far Glenwood. That impacts quality of life and is a deterrent when hiring.
• lower density, more units for families which is healthier for the community, instead of singles or cramming large groups
of people into units
• My husband and I have lived in the valley for 9 years. I only agreed to start a fa mily when we had the opportunity to live
in a 2-bedroom and not have to move every 6 months. If the studios are for seasonal employment only that would be
different. But there are a lot of younger couples and families looking for a permanent place to live. The caveat lies in
where do you draw the line and who do you prioritize when there is a clear need for studios and multi-bedrooms?
Maybe start considering less studio units and smaller 1-bedroom units as that would be more beneficial for long term
residents.
• Although I believe it would be beneficial to consider a few more larger units. I know a lot of people who start families
here in Aspen cannot find larger units to fit them and end up getting pushed down valley. Although I also know of a lot of
single workers and understand the need for single bedrooms and studios.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• I think more 1 and 2 bedrooms would be ideal for those with roommates or those that want to live alone but not live in a
studio
• need the type of housing that people will grow out of eventually (bc of marriage, career etc) instead of they types of
units where people camp out in for years
• I think more 1 and 2 bedrooms would be ideal for those with roommates or those that want to live alone but not live in a
studio
• Needed for renters to be able to share units and keep price down. Also better for families.
• Affordable Studio and 1BR are the biggest single missing rental opportunities in this valley.
• Your job is to honor the needs of people, not the nu mbers.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
132
Comments:
• More room for units!
• I would also limit the amount of parking per unit. They should have to pay to have a parking space. Incentivisize no cars!
• Need to maximize above ground for living units.
• Don’t be stupid. Triple your parking needs
• I think both options are good options but if with the underground we can have more units that’s better!
• No one wants to see cars. Above ground space is valuable for gardens, etc not cars. This location is not ideal for
residents as it is next to the airport.
• MAKE IT A CAR-FREE COMMUTER NEIGHBORHOOD
• Depends on the subsidy and median price.
• Underground is better but how much more expensive and who pays for this?
• underground – assuming that it results in 3 stories of residential units
• IF there is going to be the mass of a 3 story building, it would be preferable if one of the stories was for housing, not for
podium parking. The third option, underground and two stories is ideal, but seems untenable as the cost would take it
out of the “affordable” housing category.
• etiher or i dont think commmunity cares if podium or underground
• make it high clearance for mountain lifestylers with racks on the roof.
• Charge for parking to incentivize no cars.
• Although podium parking will increase the height of the project, underground parking is incredibly expensive and allows
for excessive density above ground. The Fire Department is doing underground parking and they have 15 units on just
3/4 acre. Too DENSE!!
• I share the view we should only have 1 car parking for the owned units, and none for the rentals, so all space and
money can go to rentals–right on bus lane.
133
• Please consider less parking in general.
• Less expensive is better. Keep costs down unless they are for sustainabilty. However, only one parking space per one
bedroom unit is ridiculous. What are couples with two cars supposed to do?
• I think they should be rental units with NO parking. Have a car lot established at the intercept.
• Don’t overbuild the parking, it’s ugly, carbon intensive, and contributes to traffic issues
• This is supposed to be affordable housing… make it affordable
• Not only does underground parking preserve green space and keep building heights lower, but it also provides a more
pleasant winter parking experience.
• maximize density and put parking underground.
• What is going to happen for guest parking? In terms of transportation – are there going to be bus stops throughout as
there are for burlingame?
• This is the most important question in the survey. There aren’t nearly enough units in the city with a garage.
• It is very challenging to do good urban design with podium parking.
• Underground parking results in snow free, warm cars. There would be less idling to warm up vehicles and reducing
emissions. Also hard to insulate units above podium parking
• You have to provide adequate parking by fiscally responsible means. If that means larger buildings, then that’s fine. The
public’s resistance to larger buildings in Aspen is a fundamental cause of the housing shortage. Larger buildings means
more people can live here. You must provide parki ng–it is unsettling to see members of the public advocate to not
provide parking for these types of projects. New residents have every much to same right to be able to access the areas
outside of the public transit corridor that require a car.
• The more units we get, the better. The podium parking in Burlingame phase 1 is awful – looks trashy.
• I think podium is fine
• I think this could go either way, with long term benefits favoring underground parking, due to more units being available.
However, because it is more expensive, it might not be the best solution.
• in favor of the 3 stories 30 units – especially if the underground parking could be located in the back away from the
highway.
• Hope underground parking would allow for more unit to be built.
• This question is sorta in the weeds. I’m for high density and really pushing this site for density. I think the parking ration
can be lower given this site’s proximity to transit. But, push density, whatever that means for podium, not podium, sorta
podium, partial podium.
• Underground parking results in less mess and is more pleasing to the eye. It also capitalizes on geothermal heat.
• the cost of digging in the Rockies is ridiculous.
• Less maintenance, snow removal
• What is the actual dollar rate difference that gets pass ed on to the renters owners if the City goes with underground
versus podium?
• Many women feel safer with podium parking than with underground parking.
• Could be a combination
134
• Although I know that this adds so much additional cost.
• it would look cleaner in an otherwise cluttered area.
• I think the site looks cleaner and neater with underground parking but that seriously limits the types of vehicles the
people living there can have. I personally have a lumber rack on my personal pick up truck. Many people in the valley
have luggage racks or bike racks on top of their cars 7 trucks. Also people have bike racks mounted on the rear of their
cars. So tight underground parking structures often curtail these personal habits. So I think I prefer podium parking with
some surface parking area available for larger vehicles.
• This is supposed to be affordable housing… make it affordable
• tradeoff in cost is hard to offset if usable outdoor space is only slightly impacted. there will always be conflicts with
cars/peds.
• This is supposed to be affordable housing… make it affordable
• The project should be cost efficient. Cost efficiency, with due consideration of land & infrastructure cost, and maximum
housing for our tax $$, is more important than mass considerations. There
• underground creates the best footprint for more units and more open green space above on ground level where people
can walk, ride bikes, and not get hit by cars backing out and turning in. build parking below before you can’t after you
build. cost will be beneficial to overall neighborhood. every turn is already tight in the AABC and overcrowded.
• Way cheaper… Less energy use
• Not really sure. Does the height affect others living near by?
• Podium keeps cost down, but also shouldn’t make it a more dense development .
• Maybe more expensive but in general the AABC roads are neglected for snow plowing. Due to density, keeping streets
plowed and “hiding” cars will be good for all.
• Underground parking ‘creates land’ for housing- it is expensive but not when you compare it to the ‘new’ land cost
needed to get to more total units ‘anywhere’.
• Underground parking ‘creates land’ for housing- it is expensive but not when you compare it to the ‘new’ land cost
needed to get to more total units ‘anywhere’.
• Underground parking ‘creates land’ for housing- it is expensive but not when you compare it to the ‘new’ land cost
needed to get to more total units ‘anywhere’.
• Underground parking ‘creates land’ for housing- it is expensive but not when you compare it to the ‘new’ land cost
needed to get to more total units ‘anywhere’.
• The part of the ABC you will build in will benefit from less building/units/mass as tripling the density of this small area i s
undesirable at best.
• you can’t go back and add underground space.
• visually the underground seems better but costs the owners/tenants more – so not clear on answer
• Underground parking is never accessible to larger trucks or vans with racks on them. Podium parking is usually more
accessible to the residents.
135
• Podium parking is unsightly and messy with everyone’s cars, bike racks ,skies etc . Also u stated previously that Studios
and 1 bedrooms were good for couples , but you are only allowing 1 space for those units . Face it people have way
more gear and. Are than anticipated.
• I think the majority of parting should be underground BUT the height needs to be such that larger trucks / SUV’s can
access the garage. THere also needs to be surface parking for residents that have vehicles that still don’t fit in the
garage (SPrinter vans). And there also needs to be a lot of guest parking. There should also bee additional parking
available to residents for an additional cost. Please do not limit parking as an attempt to disincentive cars and driving,
that just ends up causing parking issues and spillover into neighboring communities.
• Podium, cheaper and easier to access. More funds to build taller, smarter buildings.
• Saving money
• While costing more, the community benefit of underground parking is immense.
• The cost savings could go toward more units for future AH.
• underground is worth the extra cost
• The entrance to Aspen is already unsightly with the massive parking lot for jets at ASE. Burying the cars at Lumberyard
housing will help mitigate the unsightliness of this important corridor.
• Underground parking is extremely expensive to build! We should opt for height and density at this sight with smaller
rental units and reduced parking as the Bus Service is immediately serving this site.
• Aspen has a parking problem So solve it one development at a time
• Underground parking has serious long term management fees
• Underground hides the vehicles and is better for the environment
• Rent based on NO car sized vehicle. Maximum one car sized vehicle per unit. Offsite free parking somewhere. Free
locking storage cage for bikes and sports equipment.
• It’s not like the view of the lumberyard is so fantastic. I’d just as soon see housing.
• It naive to thinkthat a3 bed room unit has a need for only 2 cars. Parking should not be free to reduce overcrowding
• Underground is also very expensive… but worth it in the long run.
• Is there a way to do a mix of the two types? Also, will there be guest parking at all as some houses with 3 bedrooms
may have three drivers (two parents and one teen) and will thus not have enough space?
• Need to maximize space as much as possible in order to preserve green space in the valley. It is well worth the
investment in underground parking in order to maximize the space.e
• Unless underground costs can be mitigated by additional income from units gained, park ing should be above ground.
• Either seems fine.
• There is a small amount of podium parking at Burlingame and is used as storage and looks messy. Do underground
parking.
• good luck digging an underground lot in the rocky mountains. what is the estimate for bot h?
• less of an above ground footprint, also better for the elements
136
• There should be considerations for tenants in studios/1 bedroom units who are only allotted one parking space. Couples
and families still live in these units where having 2 vehicles is nece ssary. Just because a unit is larger should not
necessarily mean they need multiple parking spaces. Smaller units do as well.
• More cars are adding more traffic to our already huge traffic problems….. No more housing, no more cars!
• Better for weather
• It would be crazy to build underground parking. At some point the city needs to do some value engineering.
• Maybe some exceptions ala RedRoof
• There should be a least one parking space for every bedroom. Parking is a big problem at the AABC!
• I am not sure. I am happy to see less parking if it maximizes density on site.
• I don’t know, let the planners do their work, but I am in favor of maximizing density.
• The community doe not benefit from either
• Open Space is limited. It may cost more upfront but in the long run yo u will be provided more units per area. I like to
think long term. If there is housing outside, consider putting solar panels over the parking spots? Maybe reduce costs on
electricity for renters.
• underground will have less impacts on the neighborhood and provide additional storage opportunities
• More total units is the most important goal in my opinion.
• Underground parking will allow more housing units. We need to house as many people as possible.
• I prefer underground parking despite the additional cost as it means more units can be built in this project which is the
main goal.
• Maximum Density/Most possible units
• Again, higher density is best
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• We need to maximize both above and below ground space. The lumberyard backs up to a small hill. There won’t be
vision impeded and we should smartly allow a higher building in this zone.
• Podium parking is unsightly
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• 100% underground parking to maximize space
• More affordable and should be passed on to renters and owners.
• save money and have places for residents to put cars
• Underground parking would maximize density.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• If podium yeilds more affordability for the renter than that makes the most sense.
• one bedroom apartments need two parking spaces, I live with two people in a one bedroom apartment, this is the
normal for this valley
• Mass and scale are important; put the garage underground and maximize the living above ground with a decent mix of
units. In addition, make a decent amount of storage underground. Stop being stingy and with storage.
137
• More parking needed. A couple in a studio/one bedroom will have two cars and sometimes gu ests. Parking at ABC is a
huge problem for anyone who lives or works there or tries to visit a business there.
• keep it covered
• Either is fine, but covered parking is essential.
• lower density, more units for families which is healthier for the community, in stead of singles or cramming large groups
of people into units
• It is more costly, but with the options of adding more units and complying with height restrictions that town council is
leaning towards.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• Mix? One underground per unit.
• It costs significantly more money but underground parking has the advantage of ease for car owners and it opens up a
third floor for housing units.
• More units total
• The amount of money this city makes- please spend the money to provide underground parking.
• podium is so ugly
• The amount of money this city makes- please spend the money to provide underground parking.
• Each studio and 1 bedroom should be allowed 2 parking spaces if a couple is living there. WTF is wrong with you
people? Couples in 1 bedrooms WILL have two cars, i’m sure businesses at the ABC are going to love having them
parked everywhere on their streets.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
138
Comments:
• 4 is too high and locals will not like that
• Wirth the height of Deer Hill as a back drop a higher, more dense project will not be noticeable. Besides there is already
a four story Annie Michell Housing next door.
• In this location you should max out the footprint and the height. One last chance at getting as much housing as possible.
• Maximize density here. This is a golden opportunity to build more affordable housing units, so that consideration
outweighs density concerns.
• Need to maximize the number of units in this area, to provide for affordable ho using needs.
• This site needs to be maxed out with high density.
• The buildings should be in character with those at the ABC. however the units will be subject to air pollution and noise
from the airport across the highway.
• MAXIMIZE THIS PLACE. IT’S JUNK LAND. BUILD AS MUCH RRNTAL HOUSING AS POSSIBLE
• the location of the buildings would be a perfect place to have higher buildings as the views would not be obstructed.
Especially if you could maximize the unit space and save on podium parking as opposed to under ground.
• I think based on the location, 4 stories might be acceptable, but without a visual representation I couldn’t say for sure.
• If you need the housing you need to go up
• This is the correct location for taller buildings.
• DO NOT GO HIGHER!!!!! THIS IS NOT THE CORE OF ASPEN!!!!
• Shortage of employee housing is a crisis for business owners-with a higter building, we could find a private public
partnership to fund this
• Smart design could give four stories without being offensive to the community.
• No higher than 3 stories. It provides maximum space but doesn’t obscure too much of other views.
139
• I’d say a mix up to 4 stories, but not bigger than that
• It is the AABC, I do not find a 4 story building to be unacceptable in that area, especially if it is built to co mplement the
surround locale, look how Burlingame Seasonal is built in the hill. If the majority of complaints of the height come from
people on Red Mountain – we need to sort out our priorities, locales who drive the economy or people who support the
local economy on a limited basis.
• Despite the unjustified stigma, higher density is clearly more environmentally friendly. This is across from the airport
where G5 destroy our foot print all day long. Give a flake.
• go up and down and maximize the site Vail style
• I think 4 stories is acceptable.
• Depending on how it is executed, a minimal amount of 4 stories could be integrated toward the hill where the density
would be felt less.
• No. We have extremely limited land left to develop affordable housing. The discomfo rt with slightly taller buildings must
end. Our lack of affordable housing is directly related to previous council’s taking the same tact. If we continue to make
inefficient use of our remaining developable land, then we’ll have no one to blame for housing shortages but ourselves.
What is the greater threat facing our community, a few larger buildings or a wholesale loss of reasonable places for
employees to live? People with secure housing may select the former, but that is not who this project is trying t o serve.
• I think you should just make them all 3 stories for continuity and more space
• While it is good to limit the number of stories, this is a constraint that affects most other aspects of the project. I think
considering 4 stories is reasonable.
• I am bias because I live at Annie Mitchell’s 700 building and dont want to loose my view. Selfishly simple.
• We need to get the biggest bang for the buck. Free martket build huge buildings. Downtown looks nothing like it did 30
yeras ago. Four stories is not out of line. It can be built tastefully
• Push the density! I’m not concerned about height at this location. Building half of what we could would be a huge
disservice to the housing program and the residents and businesses that rely on rental housing. Please don ’t be meek. I
don’t really care if Council is queasy! Since when are they not queasy?
• need to move beyond height limitations. Housing more important than the luxury/privilege of improved views/sight
planes for the fortunate residents of aspen.
• More than 2-3 stories would cut off view for Annie Mitchell housing.
• the veiw plane issue is moot, if you are hell bent on building housing
• 4 stories would require a flat roof construction which can lead to many problems. Some of the numerous issues would
be; snow removal, heat tape, roof drains and excessive foot traffic on the roof which leads to more leaks.
• No problem with 3 stories including underground parking.
• There is already so much clutter on that side of town, let’s make it look less cluttered with clean line s.
• It may be necessary to have 1 or 2 4-story buildings in order to squeeze everything in.
• as long as other units arent losing their view lines
• I agree that architectural aesthetics and community character is important, but if there is any research to show that taller
buildings would be more environmentally friendly because they take up less square footage and require less natural
140
land clearance, then I support taller buildings. I don’t think that’s true in this case, but generally the environment should
be a priority over aesthetics.
• I have no concern with 4 story structures on this site. The community needs to cost effectively utilize its land an d
financial resources. This requires taller buildings. Note, Aspen Square and other buildings in Aspen are 4 stories or
more. Other mountain towns routinely build buildings far taller than 4 stories. The buildings are dwarfed by the
surrounding mountains.
• maintaiing aesthetic with surrounding neighborhood is important. density is not always best.
• If we are going to build it, let’s just add the fourth story now since we know we need those units anyway.
• Getting too high will truly create an “overdevelopment” feel. I think 2-3 stories is responsible and tasteful.
• Some 4 story buildings could be worked into the design, but overall liveability is important
• Some 4 story buildings could be worked into the design, but overall livability is important. ADA access and ‘visitabilty’
must be included in design work-
• Some 4 story buildings could be worked into the design, but overall livability is important. ADA access and ‘visitabilty’
must be included in design work-
• Some 4 story buildings could be worked into the design, but overall livability is important. ADA access and ‘visitabilty’
must be included in design work-
• There is no need to go above 3 stories. Think of the view plain.
• The buildings should not exceed the height of the current lumber yard buildings.
• With underground parking
• This project will be one of the first things people see when they arrive to Aspen. It should reflect the mountain character
of our town. It shouldn’t be too big and massive yet balance housing enough people. I think the project should try t o
abide by the WOMP for the most part. The majority of the project should max out at only two stories with pitched roofs. I
think the only exception for a third story would be to “break up” the roofline and possible mimic the ridgeline of Deer Hill
behind the buildings. But not block it from sight while driving on Hwy 82. Even if its housign a lot of people, the buildings
should blend in and fade away as much as posible. Also as you get higher up with these buildings it will be harder to
block out the jets taxiing and waiting on the runway. I’m guessing people are going to want a massive berm as a barrier
between them and the runway. The higher the building gets the higher the berm needs to be creating a tunnel effect on
the way into town.
• Think of future use, and more demands for housing. Up not out!!
• 3 stories above podium parking
• Maybe some 4 story bldg
• Nothing wrong with 4 stories at the rear
• Maybe some 4 story bldg
• Built environment should be consistent with community values.
• 2-story would be best but some 3-story might be OK
141
• Build a fifty story ghetto style high rise and actually make a dent in the 5k affordable units needed. Tear down the
Burlingame seasonal buildings. That development should be the example of how to not house humans trying to make it
here.
• keep the height down so we can enjoy the view of our area!
• Make the most of the space you have
• Whatever allows more 3-bedroom units!
• This is consistent with Aspen as a whole
• The increased number of people in bigger building will create more problems w ith traffic and be too dense.
• Double the number of units!!!
• The increased number of people in bigger building will create more problems with traffic and be too dense.
• The Lumberyard location seems like a prime site to explore and develop 4-story housing.
• 3 stroy buildings are much more subject to highiway and airport runway noise and av gas fumes.Not deisrable. The
ABC residential area has some 3 story equivalent units but they are set backfrom the highway and runway.
• Annie Mitchell,?
• Four stories feels like a mistake…
• High density is more efficient and environmentally friendly.
• The back part of the project should include 4 stories since it can house more people and will not effect view. Start with 4
then 3 then 2 mix.
• Infill what are we missing here? maximize the space. its already next to an airport and sewer system at least make it so
people can live there.
• NONE!
• Whatever it takes to make more housing.
• Priority should be on housing the maximum number of people even if that means higher buildings.
• Annie Mitchell,?
• Please keep the view plane in mind and stay below 22 feet.
• I am in favor of MAXIMIZING density!
• I picked 4+ because it will maximize density.
• Parking could be on the roof and the living could be below grade.
• Honor those that have been in the valley. Less is more.
• With this seeming to be one of the last opportunities for
• Again, I think density is important. We are never going to solve the deficiency if we don’t take the opportunity to build a
significant number of units where we can.
• I think if podium parking is chosen, 3-4 story buildings but if underground parking is chosen, 2-3 story buildings are
better
• We have a clear need of more employee housing, this fits the bill as it is within walking distance of the bus stop and a
grocery store. In addition it is close to the highway and will not be negatively impacting the view plane for other houses.
• This is the appropriate location for higher buildings. 4 Perhaps but not higher.
142
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• Again, we need to maximize space for true year round workers.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• Let’s maximize the limited spaces that are available within the valley for new builds.
• Building height restrictions at the AABC area is dumb, it only makes sense in the towns of Aspen and Snowmass.
• Although view shed is obviously an issue, housing is also an issue and the people who comfortably live large places
should not have a say in how readily available housing is compared to their view.
• Limiting the potential units available to appease a neighbor or two in the hopes that they have a better view is a missed
opportunity.
• These units are not right down town and wouldn’t really conflict with any other hous ing’s views. Four is tall but in this
case I think it is appropriate.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• quit squabbling and build higher!
• Consistency with the character of the surrounding neighborhood is important. Consider reading and applyi ng the City’s
Residential Design Standards for Multi-Family structures (Sec. 26.410.040. – Multi-family standards). Make the project a
neighborhood not just a place to house employees. For goodness sake the AABC does not even have sidewalks.
• I realize we are trying to keep the look and site line the same but we are in a serious housing crisis and we need to
maximize beds. We may sacrifice a little on the height but having more people living closer to town should reduce traffic
on 82 as fewer people have to live and drive from daownvalley
• lower density, more units for families which is healthier for the community, instead of singles or cramming large groups
of people into units
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• The area needs more housing and building vertically is cheaper than building horizontally. The trade off is between an
eye sore and continuing the housing shortage. I think the eye sore is the lesser evil.
• I support maximizing density.
143
Comments:
• We already have “city-like” amenities at the AABC. We don’t need a second urban spot.
• More housing less commercial space
• There should be at least a few options for small businesses
• I strongly believe we need professional office space development at the AABC (healthcare, finance, architecture, etc )
rather than housing. To solve traffic problems and provide a shorter commute for employees living downvalley.
• Not sure on this one. Primary services are there now, grocery, gas, workout, etc.
• The Lumberyard is zoned S/C/I, so it should have some S/C/I businesses there.
• There should be at least a few options for small businesses
• some limited mixed use is warranted and needed. At least the space to offer to local serving businesses.
• The mixed use ABC is tacky. Do it right like Willits
• Maximize housing, don’t promote commercial
• Housing is what the community desperately needs!
• Work with AABC to develop new businesses there
• NEED A COFFEE SHOP AND CONVENIENCE STORE SO RESIDENTS DONT HAVE TO COME INTO TOWN FOR
EVERYTJING. A RESTAURANT WOULD BE NICE.
• Mixed use is never a good idea with the affordable housing concept. Two different business models. One income
restricted, and one free market capitalistic.
• Mixed use becomes complicated, especially when deed restricted is involved. Keep the housing separate.
• Though I do think more commercial space is needed for small businesses, I don’t think this is the right location.
• Housing is the biggest need
• I would love to have a new building for my business and be able to attract quality employees with housing
• As a business owner at the ABC, feel that more services are needed in the area for both the business AND residential
tenants to avoid trips into Aspen.
• Leave that to private industry.
144
• Provide commercial services? Do you mean actual commercial services and offices on site at Lumberyard
Development? Then yes. I firmly believe in commercial and housing in co-existence here.
• every inch should be used to imcrease units
• Honestly, that above statement isn’t clear. I think there should be a focus on housing and the Lumberyar d should not
compete with existing ABC commercial spaces.
• Is this for housing? Simple… this space should only be used for housing. There is no need to even involve commercial
property here, there is no room for it with the current housing crisis
• It would be nice to see the AABC businesses expand serivces in response to more housing.
• some commercial space is appropriate.
• I think limited uses for commercial spaces could be on the table. The idea that the ABC provides services that suit the
residential population is a bit off… are they supposed to go to roxies for groceries? Mawa’s Kitchen for lunch?…. This
goes back to the transportation issue. The grocery shopping in Aspen is not ideal.
• It does not seem like commercial would be viable at the Lumberyard. The ABC is a great option.
• We must provide commercial alternatives to the downtown core for affordable options. Rent in the core eliminates the
possibility of truly affordable retail or food service. That wouldn’t be the case in the lumberyard.
• The lumberyard should only be used for housing (and day care), not for commercial space.
• We have enough commercial space, it should be housing only
• I am conflicted on this. I think having a lumber yard in town is important. I wonder if the City could work with the County
to find a suitable site in the ABC for a lumberyard, or even out at the intercept lot area
• Someone needs to think about traffic. Aspen has a huge issue with AM & PM traffic. Traffic is already bumper to
bumper from the roundabout to the airport. What will this look like with added commercial and residential units?
• Need all the housing we can get. I can’t imaging what commercial services would be needed that are not at the AABC
• I agree. I don’t think we continue to need a lumberyard. Its commercial anyway and not available to local residents –
Closed on Saturday!!
• Some commercial use would benefit the community. The threat of losing North Mill Street station commercial space
should be a factor in considering this. Also, a small bodega would be helpful to eliminate car trips to town or the ABC
• Nobody wants to hang out at the ABC
• the area neds affordable housing. There is currently plenty of empty and available commercial space. Building more
commercial/retail space will also increase the need for even more affordable housing.
• AABC should be encouraged to develop a full-service grocery store, such as City Market or Trader Joe’s.
• We need housing not an extension of the ABC.
• Great idea!
• Is this for housing? Simple… this space should only be used for housing. There is no need to even involve commercial
property here, there is no room for it with the current housing crisis
• but, if this causes a parking problem at ABC, then how is the addressed? bringing commercial to the Lumberyard will
increase use by nonresidents (if tenants can be found, and customers want to come, but if no parking …) No one is
going to come out to Lumberyard just to shop … not when town is so close, and ABC can probably fill those needs.
145
• Is this for housing? Simple… this space should only b e used for housing. There is no need to even involve commercial
property here, there is no room for it with the current housing crisis
• The community at large and public officials are always interested in commercial at various sites. As a real estate
professional, it is clear these remote commercial sites rarely if ever work. Please recall the City included retail space at
both 7th & Main and at the ARC. I believe commercial and/or day care was allowed for at Burlingame. It does not exist
and/or failed. Even Aspen Highlands year round retail is a failure. Commercial at sites such as Lumber Yard housing
with 300 units sounds good but rarely works. The ABC spaces can evolve to meet additional demand for retail.
• Council/County MUST improve traffic safety and navigation from LY to ABC
• The businesses around the AABC stand to thrive. No need to compete. Keep this development strictly as housing.
• This many new residents should create enough of a marketplace for businesses in the ABC to offer needed services
• Doesn’t seem like a good idea if it is going to cost the county money. Otherwise may be ok
• But there needs to be more community focused business in ABC (restaurants/retail/grocery).
• If the commercial space is used for the lumberyard think that is valuable for our c onstruction workers. I am not sure we
need more commercial space in AABC. Currently the entire AABC could use a face lift to make the spaces more
effective.
• other than perhaps childcare, which the free market never provides without subsidy. You can’t have 300+ more units
without bringing other service levels up. You will have children and babies in the new units
• other than perhaps childcare, which the free market never provides without subsidy. You can’t have 300+ more units
without bringing other service levels up. You will have children and babies in the new units
• This is worded just a little funny so to be clear, I feel Lunberyard should be JUST housing.
• The ABC businesses should reap the benefits of the new close by neighbors rather than competing
• Could there be an opportunity to offer more affordable rent to attract commercial services that are currently lacking at
the ABC like dining? If rent was lower, prices could also be lowered or capped. Could be a lottery situation like the
Wheeler restaurant space.
• I agree but also think a live work scenario could be advantageous. Although the mixed use at the ABC makes it seems
very industrial right now and people drive extremely fast through the ABC
• Council/County MUST improve traffic safety and navigation from LY to ABC
• I think it
• Just housing, no need for more commercial.
• Just housing, no need for more commercial.
• APCHA is having a hard enough time dealing with public housing effectively. I don’t think adding a commercial space
into the mix helps them focus on their core mission of housing. As much as losing the lumber yard will negativly impact
local contracts i don’t think its fair for the city to rent out locally funded properties to corporate entities. That being said i
think that if a child care facility was run by the city then that would be fair and would be valuable to the comminity.
• While I am personally disappointed to lose the lumberyard and it’s associated business, I don’t think the City should be
involved with providing commercial business space.
• housing only
146
• Just housing
• ABC commercial space is more than adaquate to support Lumberyard units. This fund i s for affordable housing NOT
commericial development.
• the ABC does not need to become a town of its own like WILLITS.
• This is aTrick question
• Businesses would be pushed out of the ABC. Where will they go?
• You are taking away a vital commercial space with the lumber yard. Every small business that needs things from the
lumber yard will be tripling there time for small jobs by having to drive down valley to buy even a few boards.
• Project should be a small futurist city of 600 units and 1000 people. All roofto ps should be organic greenhouses with
cooperative food store on ground floor.
• focus on housing and don’t compete with privately owned business.
• You are taking away a vital commercial space with the lumber yard. Every small business that needs things from t he
lumber yard will be tripling there time for small jobs by having to drive down valley to buy even a few boards.
• What? I’m saying no to commercial at the lumberyard. Is that what you’re asking?
• Especially If you consider the co-living option, it would be appropriate to include a bodega-style commercial space
stocked with staple food and household items.
• question wording is confusing. Well designed connectivity from the lumberyard area to the ABC commercial services
should be a goal
• I agree if there is a c lear and safe way to walk or bike to the ABC so that people do not have to drive or otherwise
commute.
• corner shougl be commerical
• By developing the lumber yard one would be rendering the cost of any future affordable housing even more expensive,
for decades to come. Logic: removing the lumber yard will make it more difficult to source lumber and other materials
and supplies for construction. This makes Valley Lumber our closest option. Have you ever seen how many people stop
by the lumber yard especially in the morning? Think about the carbon impact of construction vehicles now doing 1.5
hours round trip to pick up….anything that you could otherwise currently buy at pro build. More traffic for years to come!
The cost of private construction also impacts affordable builders like Shaw Construction who also need to use the
lumber yard. This will just make these affordable developments more expensive and removing the yard will disrupt their
supply chain significantly. It’s already a complete mess with the building departments but we just have to roll with it
because we are at their whim for new permits. There’s Land all around in the valley. Why take away a strategic input for
building new housing density and stock?
• Keep Lumberyard housing only.
• Again rebuild and infill the aabc for commercial services. what is there now? what could be there?
• Please, just don’t build. You are not qualified to and have proven you can not manage existing housing issues.
• We have a problem with affordable housing in this area, not bus iness spaces.
• not sure I fully understand this one
147
• if increasing the population by so much in the ABC you’ll need to create more amenities for people living there, so
commercial space will be necessary (restaurants, cafes etc)
• Please do not impact the residents that already live at the AABC.
• THere are already great amenities next door. I am in favor of allowing the ABC to provide services so that we can
maximize density on site.
• If it increases maximizing of density.
• this is a housing development not a commercial development
• This space will essentially be its own community and a limited number of commercial use spaces will reduce the need
for car travel from this “island” location.
• I don’t think that that much business would detract from the ABC establis hments. I think it’s good for community health
to have some mixed use in this area. It encourages less driving as one positive reason.
• Are we trying to build a ghetto? There’s gas, a bank, a store already at ABC.
• More Housing is needed desperately so I think we should not have commercial space here.
• High density housing please
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• Any area of living should benefit from also having amenities nearby. This would also help to limit traffic into the town
core for food/drink.
• Look at Willits. A successful neighborhood has both housing and commercial.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• Yes, let’s make this development housing dense to further support existing area businesses
• Any new businesses added effectively reduce the housing impact of adding all the rentals. If you add 3 businesses that
require 5 staff each, you end up with 15 more employees that need housing and you lose apartment space to the
businesses.
• There is plenty of commercial use space at the ABC and in town. This space should be focused on maximizing housing
density.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• Housing has to be priority number 1
• No need for commercial. There are enough empty co mmercial spaces through out the valley.
• more housing, less commercial is good, we do not need a starbucks (small business) on every corner
• The few restaurants in ABC are very small and have almost no parking. Trying to find a lunch table in the winter is h ard.
Attempting to pick up a takeout lunch order is a mess.
• This is interesting bc if you require residents to travel into town to work, as opposed to offering a work and live setting
which may impact traffic into and out of town.
• Yoga!
• we don’t need more shops, we need more housing.
148
• why are you removing the only lumber yard in Aspen? this means way more cars/trucks on the road, and heavy trucks,
going down valley to pick up lumber supplies. you need to provide space for BFS lumber yard either on this site, or
provide new zoning to allow them to relocate nearby with the same size facilities
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• The right commercial services can add vibrancy to a neighborhood. “The right kind” being a restaurant or bike shop and
not another car mechanic or laundromat.
• Options past the round about are convenient for residents. ABC is outdated and needs a face lift/re -planning. If the right
thought goes into planning businesses will do well!
• Plenty of commercial services in the ABC already exist
• Options past the round about are convenient for residents. ABC is outdated and needs a face lift/re -planning. If the right
thought goes into planning businesses will do well!
• You don’t want people commuting up and down the valley for resources… especially building supplies.
• You don’t want people commuting up and down the valley for resources… especially building supplies.
149
Comments:
• This project should be net-zero and be a model what private developers can do I. The city, county and throughout the
country. It should also have solar.
• Of course!
• this should be an exemplary project when it comes to energy efficency. Net zero as a baseline and as much on site
solar as possible – Geothermal should be explored as well.
• Just get it built; don’t worry about adding costs.
• When issuing RFP for the project, request it based on building performance not “cutting
• PRIORITIZE UNITS IN THIS LOCATION
150
• Real maintenance costs of “cutting edge” technology defeats the purpose of affordable living by passing on unt enable,
free market maintenance fees to low income residents.
• Its a small development, great way for the City to try it out, get it right, and use it again on future projects if successfu l.
Perhaps the City could even get paid back in the first few years f or some of the construction on the cost savings.
• Maybe? HOW much more expensive is the key to giving a clear answer. Will it put the units out of reach for the
population it was intended for?
• Costs balloon and the project will take years longer
• I think that the ability to build MORE housing CLOSER to aspen (where the jobs are) will ultimately eliminate more
greenhouse gases.
• Issue is everytime this comes up there are serious issues for the owners later ie: Burlingame. I think cutting edge isn’t
alyways tried an true.
• Go Green – stop talking about it and do it
• Again, employee housing is a crisis.
• going net zero for a specific building is a waste of money, take those funds and go net zero at scale. That said, it should
be super efficient, perhaps beyond code and hvac should be electrified
• Our community badly needs coworking space like other resort communities have had for years. It clearly benefits the
community, economy, tourism and rural economic vitality. Though should be downtown.
• Net zero with on site solar is a must
• Continue to raise the bar while also balancing quality of life. I firmly believe in being able to open windows.
• A thoughtfully designed, well built community, adjacent to transit is what we need. Labels such as Net Zero are not
necessary.
• The most energy efficient choice of all is to provide affordable housing within biking distance of employers. We can
sometimes get distracted by shiny things like NetZero that seem nice but distract from the true goal –housing our
workforce.
• We have so much money to spend on housing that is needed, spending extra money just so you can say you are net
zero is ridiculous. YOu want to go to all electric versus natural gas but that is incredibly expensive for the renters/owners
in an already ridiculously expensive market and guess where electricity comes from? fossil fuels
• Aspen should lead the way in making buildings more energy efficient.
• This is supposed to be affordable housing.
• It can be green but not at a huge cost.
• Just focus on housing. Our codes are good enough. Stop trying to solve all the worlds problems in every project.
• but not at the expense of quality construction. As a resident of poorly constructed affordable housing (two different
locations), the city needs to be more stringent in what they sign of on.
• set an example in our wealthy little haven
• Again how much of this $$ will be passed onto the people buying and renting these units? What’s the monetary
difference between minimum codes v raising the bar. If it’s minimal, Aspen has generally been a place where innovation
comes first and foremost.
151
• And be sure that the operating costs are lower for residents. It is not OK to make an 100% electric building if the
community’s lowest income residents have to pay more in utility costs to meet the commun ity’s environmental goals.
• Lead by example.
• Amend the existing codes if they are inadequate.
• We have always been at the forefront, why stop now?
• I whole heartedly support aiming for higher energy efficiency.
• I think that this is creating too many codes res ulting in more expenses buildings and resulting in a more families that
cannot afford to live in aspen
• Who cares the cost. Energy saving and conversing natural resources are ideal
• Yes, but there does have to be a cost benefit … if my electricity bill is going to skyrocket because we do electric
everything, not sure. but if some of the power can be offset with on-site renewables … maybe. As much as possible
costs should be embedded up front.
• Who cares the cost. Energy saving and conversing natural resource s are ideal
• Net zero buildings are the only way to eventually reach carbon neutrality! We should be moving in that direction.
• Cost is always a consideration. Resources are not infinite. Net Zero is an admirable goal but Buildings should be energy
efficient within reason. Marginal gains tend to be very, very expensive.
• We are nearly out of buildable sites. do this right.
• Absolutely! This project absolutely must be exemplary. Aspen is really falling behind on this and investing early on is
much less expensive and much more impactful than the retrofitting later. This project should be a visual hallmark of
Aspen’s climate commitment
• This would be a fantastic element to this project.
• Does not have to be Net zero- but we should raise the bar-
• It’s new construction we should be developing it with the future in mind. We don’t want to spend time and money on
something that will be outdated by the time it’s finished.
• More efficient standards are needed and we need to set this example. We can continue to collect funds a nd build more,
but retrofitting won’t be possible. I don’t know if the certification is needed, it’s a bit like “organic” – you can buy
sustainably grown produce that just doesn’t have the designation. Cheaper, but the same thing.
• If you do co-living but are progressive in the energy efficiency then this could be a really cool development at a
reasonable cost. You can follow LEED guidelines but not obtain the certification is fine w/ me. LEED has gotten so
expensive but we can still follow their guidelines.
• Save money in the long run
• This is already going to be expensive enough. The current local codes are already very progressive. The one thing that
i’d suggest would be adding solar panels to roofs which would add a bit to height but would both help recoup some
costs and also be a visual cue to visitors that energy conservation is important to us, again reflecting the character of
Aspen – the consideration for that would be who would maintain moving forward?
• Yes. We need to lead and be an example for energy efficiency.
• FYI coliving is an idiotic Idea
152
• No!
• FYI coliving is an idiotic Idea
• Just do it.
• As long as the quality is good. It doesn’t make sense to pay more for efficiency up front and to have large maintenance
due to poor quality construction.
• Project should be more than Net Zero. Please involve Rocky Mountain Institute.
• As long as the quality is good. It doesn’t make sense to pay more for efficiency up front and to have large maintenance
due to poor quality construction.
• Not sue what raising the bar means given that the City will be buying electiricty from JHoly Cross. If the City puts on
solar panelswill it plan to sellexgraenergy to HC? this would be change in City policy because currently extra solar
veneaged poswe i he City is notableto be sold.
• Above the bar is good but net zero may be too high a price to afford
• Existing codes in this county are the most stingent in the country, net zero is almost unattainable from a cost
perspective.
• YES – why not?! Cost should not be the factor.
• Net zero or better. We need to set the bar!
• Be a beacon!
• If you only build to code, you are building a crappy and cheap product
• I think we need to think long term here. Lets build something that in 20 years down the line we can still be proud of it
and not want to or need to rip it down. Provide energy security right here in the valley through energy conservation.
• Net Zero or near it would be great, but the higher cost for a more energy efficient building should impact the amount of
units built
• Energy efficiency and climate change are important values for our community. I see no need to compromise either with
this project.
• Need to consider some of the other cutting edge ideas being implemented in this project – may help offset underground
parking expenses.
• Focus on cost efficiency
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• Focus on number of units and amenities first and fore most.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• Thank you for all the hard work related to employee housing. Unfortunately you can’t please all the people all the time.
• green energy ?? net zero ?? how real is this stuff
• Get it established first. Fine tune and improve later where applicable.
• electric heat is too costly for rental units! please consider cost of use for the consumer
• The Basalt Vista affordable housing project, in partnership with Habitat for Humanity, CORE and Holy Cross seems to
be a good example to mirror on. Especially the
153
• The codes are ever changing and building for the future assists the residents to spend less on energy when it could be
built into the system.
• net zero is not truly net zero. you never factor in all of the ancillary costs associated with building “green”. The current
codes are already so strick
• It comes at higher cost. Looking at the Basalt Vista housing project, maybe the addition of “sweat equity” would be an
option as well as partnering with CORE, Habitat for Humanity and Holy Cross.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• Who are we if don’t!!?
• Who are we if don’t!!?
• We live in a place where there are incredible rebates available for net zero development and the only way we are going
to have a chance in reaching our climate goals is to build net zero.
• We live in a place where there are incredible rebates available for net zero development and the only way we are going
to have a chance in reaching our climate goals is to build net zero.
154
155
156
Comments:
• I think there are other sites within the ABC that would satisfy this issue so that maxing out the housing component would
be best.
• Adequate ,parking is necessary but even if it is available it will be abused because the City has no will to enforce the
rules.
• On additional parking, it doesn’t look beautiful but the project should be a good neighbor.
•
• ABC is a great place for additional parking. Child Care – who runs it, who can use it? Although good in theory, it brings
lots of questions that need to be thought out. Can all ABC people ride the shuttle? if so, add it. Who pays for it?
• focus on public transit and what encourages its use
• Scale is confusing – 0 is not appropriate and 5 is highly appropriate in my answers.
•
• Love the idea of daycare at the site
•
•
• no surface parking – build a parking garage and some daycare
157
• All of these are needed. Without a shuttle service how are folks supposed to go grocery shopping? A quarter mile can
be a long way when weighed down with groceries.
• Smaller grouping of parking may be preferable to one larger lot.
•
• A shuttle sounds stupid – the existing 8 million buses per day IS the shuttle system. I don’t care about McBride’s
concerns about parking (or anything else). Yes, daycare seems super important.
• Please do not underpark this project. Telling someone they have to go to Walmart on the bus is just not fair. Also –
underparking doesn’t work.
•
•
•
•
• if the mix at the project is tipped towards studios and one bedrooms the day care center does nt seem like a good idea
• If the project is primarily small units, day care demand will be low and utilized by non -residents. Other sites are better for
day car. 1/4 mile is a very reasonable distance to walk to a bus stop for Aspen’s active & healthy commu nity. In no
case, should the Lumber yard be utilized to meet parking needs to the ABC. The ABC is not even in the City!
• appeasing neighbors at AABC and Mountain Rescue with parking seems ludicrious. They can use their footprint, plan
accordingly, or use car-to-go. the parking issue is tireless, and neighbors continue to bark about the dangers of traffic
and children. ugh. they likely just want to store their cars. too bad.
• Connection to transit is important, but come on… The location is literally right on t he transit line! Rather than a shuttle
station, there should be a micro mobility transit hub to connect the project to the main corridor with things like scooters
and other personal mobility options
• I agree that we need ancillary parking available but I worry that especially during peak times it becomes a place for
people to park and commute. It should be paid parking by day (less than parking in Aspen but at some cost) and
perhaps free at night. Also you don’t want tenants using that parking lot for parkin g vs. commuting. I would need to
understand more how what this extra parking is used for. “Free parking” can get abused pretty quickly. Tenants in units
in the ABC constantly deal with places to park.
•
• Note i’m assuming 5 is agree the most / 0 is agree the least and rated that way. 1) Chilecare: I’m mixed on this one but
know there is a need and this is probably one of the few spots the city can do it but i do worry about young kids that
close the airport runway and caustic fumes from taxiing and idling planes. 2) Bus Terminal: we live at N40 and would
really like a bus line that specifically services our area. I think one that serviced Lumber Yard, AABC, N40/CMC, and
Airport would make a lot of sense. The airport and their connectivity goals being a critcal part of it. 3) Parking: yes
please add as many parking spaces as possible. If you add child care will need even more!
• None
•
•
158
•
• Childcare – maybe. Shuttle station – yes. Extra parking – no.
• All three serve as ammenities to this development. Again, if housing remain the priority I must say the City stick with
housing! 1/4 mile not too far to pick up a bus. less fuel emmissions- Limit parking!!!! I am certainly more inclined to lean
in on chidcare, as its just so important everywhere. Whould certainly be a gre at amenity to the project!
•
• Childcare reduces project by 60 tenants. Childcare should be cooperative by parents in 2 bedroom units on ground
floor. Project should free offsite parking somewhere(airport?)
• Sliders Did Not Work: Childcare – 5; Shuttle Station – 3; Ancillary Parking – 5
• I think I answered the above correctly. I think it is extremely important and absolutely necessary to ad childcare for 0 -6
year old children. Our valley has a huge lack, especially for infant spaces, and it makes it impossible t o live and work in
Aspen. It is one of the reasons we have had to look at leaving the valley all together. Housing should be subsidized or
provided/reserved for early childhood education teachers as well. They cannot afford to live here.
• If there isn’t an operator for the day care don’t include it. Parking seems like a waste to include – just focus on providing
more housing units.
•
•
• Seriously ? NOT QUALIFIED>
•
• I am in favor of maximizing density. Whatever does that is good by me.
• Maximize density first. Maybe use Burlingame for child care?
•
•
•
• Mountain Rescue can solve it’s own event induced parking challenges but the problem of street parking in the ABC is
real and can’t be mitigated other than not adding to the problem
• I work at the ABC and feel the need for additional parking for existing businesses is important moving forward. Childcare
is an important need to keep our local workforce available to work and having something onsite is a big benefit. Shuttle
is probably my lowest priority given the RFTA bus stop nearby.
•
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
•
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
•
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
159
•
• Child care on site makes sense if it’s NOT co-living and there are more 1-2 bedroom options. No matter what- child care
is desperately needed in the valley. If you can staff it!
• Child care on site makes sense if it’s NOT co-living and there are more 1-2 bedroom options. No matter what- child care
is desperately needed in the valley. If you can staff it!
160
161
162
Comments:
• Hmmmmm……needs to have mountain appeal due to entrance to Aspen and how many people see this every day.
• Drop the cutie architecture and associated cost. Simple m
• The mountain contemporary is a safe choice but doing something very innovative at this site like in the last set of
imagery could be an engaging statement for Aspen – does everything have to be mountain contemporary in housing.
• MAXIMIZE DENSITY
• The ultra modern would seem out of place in our valley.
• stick with more traditional styles
• I think keeping it mountain contemporary in style fits best with the ABC area, the aspen ideal, and the appeal to a
broader range of inhabitants.
• Residents need some outdoor space and appropriate storage, etc for living in this climate – skis, boots, camping
equipment, kayaks, etc.
• We live in a mountain town. This project is right off the highway and will be seen by every one entering town. Design is
super important to keep the Aspen feel.
163
• Current designs show no character – think of this as an entrance to aspen and should represent the community, green
innitive, and a few more options. Current design plans all look like th ey came from same desk and there is zero
imagination. I know Aspen can do better! This is to last 100 years! We need to be proud and take out time and design a
masterpiece and something to be proud of.
• provide private porches/outdoor spaces attached to each unit! and YES to greenery/plants on buildings.
• Moderen and efficent
• Green space should be maximized.
• While I like all of the examples, the first three seem more appropriate. That said, integrating examples of a well done
contemporary architecture may be a welcome mix.
• Pleas keep project separated by fence at back of property. Annie Mitchell does not need overflow parkers from
lumberyard housing.
• Make it look cool. I really like the modern look examples – inspiring. I like the modern look better than the faux ranchy
stuff.
• 1. Make it good looking, a place residetns will be proud to live 2. Use materials that have a lower total carbon impact
(including transportation) 3. Build it well 4. Create an initial capital replacement fund for the project to minimize future
special assessments.
• ONe of the biggest downsides to most of the housing in Aspen is the cost burden associated with HOA fees. I.E
category 1 paying $400-$500/ month in Burlingame 2 for poorly managed HOA fees. PLease do not let this project
burden future residents!
• ONe of the biggest downsides to most of the housing in Aspen is the cost burden associated with HOA fees. I.E
category 1 paying $400-$500/ month in Burlingame 2 for poorly managed HOA fees. PLease do not let this project
burden future residents!
• Your sliders don’t work very well. I would rate the second row of pictures a 4, the 3rd a 2, the bottom one a 0. The top
one a 5.
• Use a mix
• dont really care
• Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency. The design should be efficient! Aspen has a long history of building very i nefficient
affordable housing units with excess emphasis on “custom” design, “no 2 units alike”. Housing resources are limited and
outstrip demand.
• look at the VELOS condos development in Boulder
• I love this stuff with the green elements/green roofs! Let’s do this and add in gardening and carbon sequestration.
• The last modern option is a mix of concrete and then green covered buildings. Don’t mind the green but not the cement
look. I think something like the bright oranges and colors is too bright. You want to blend in to the open space and not
be an eye sore for visitors flying in across the street. Wood look is nice.
• The last design character grouping suggests biophilia – I liek this idea but unclear on how this would be maintained in
this climate zone
164
• Please do not do MODERN! The employee housing at the base of Shadow Mountain is terrible! This project will be
visible from Hwy 82, the entrance to Aspen and the first experience many people will have to our community. Please
refer to the WOMP first and foremost. I suggest pitched roofs and wood / brick / stone construction. Keep the mountain
contemporary but not too modern. Use green materials where possible but not cheap or industrial / urban. More Phase
1 Burlingame, not Phase 2.
• Do modular stackable units. Huge savings!
• There are quite a few different design ideas within the photo slides… I like green walls, but don’t appreciate the tall
blank walls in the lowest photos… Some type of porch and outdoor living space per unit seems a desireable design
direction.
• I like decks on the units
• I like decks on the units
• whatever is most cost efficient but not ugly
• Mountain traditional. Nutraul colors. Lets not let some architect’s self expression win out here. Snowmass latest
developments read well. That lane is appropraite here.
• Build the bedrooms larger!!!!
• No decks. Modular construction similar to Marolt Housing. Pitched roof is greenhouse roof which is psychologically
more residential and quieting.
• Sliders Did Not Work: Image Set 1 – 2; Image Set 2 – 5; Image Set 3 – 3, Image Set 4 – 4
• I encourage something that feels family friendly but is modern. Not something that will be out of style in a few years.
• Let’s try to be more interesting than Annie Mitchell and Burlingame in the design
• Availability of outdoor living areas whether a balcony or small yard area in front of a ground level unit is important for
people and their mental health
• For the smaller units – Annie Mitchell is a good layout and for larger units Burlingame did it right.
• Get your shit together with previous employee housing units. Build them right or don’t build at all. You just add more
problems to families trying to make it here.
• Expensive exterior details!
• Let the designers do their magic!
• I don’t know, just focus on maximizing density and let the architects And planners /. Professionals do the rest.
• goal should be timeless and lasting, not trendy and dated in 10 years
• I think the live plants on outside walls makes sense in warmer climates but its feasible and won’t look horendous in the
winter then yes. I worry a little that it is taking away from the old charm of aspen.
• It should look more like fake single family homes, but include the green elements in the final images. (the final image
buildings are too ‘high-rise’, thats why they got a lower score)
• Please be more creative than replicating burlingame phases 2 & 3 here. Those buildings do not adhere to the original
intention of Burlingame having the feel or an organically built community. make this neighborhood authentic in design
without being cheap and replicating a completely repetitive design. you will get more public buy in if the design is
articulated and breaks up mass.
165
• A European walking community would have the best feel in this neighborhood. I like the outside walkways, lots of
balconies and connection to the outdoors.
• We’re in rural Colorado. not in Miami.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• Keep the mountain aesthetic.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• ‘Mountain Modern’ would be great
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• Lots of natural light and windows or garage doors that open so workers can have fresh air.
• We are a mountain town. Don’t go modern
• We are a mountain town. Don’t go modern
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
General comments? Leave them here:
• Thank you!!!!
• Don’t waste this opportunity. We need housing now.
• I like the idea of outdoor gear DIY shop but not sure if it would be well taken care of.
• I already own affordable housing. Its a savior for long term employment in this town.
174
• Need pet friendly housing – not enough pet friendly affordable housing
• We are fortunate to own Employee housing….
• The space planning is very important. I once lived in affordable housing (west ranch) and found wasted space as well as
a not functional kitchen and no storage for equipment (was added later).
• Rental units should be good for 3-5 years and then the tenant needs to reapply to MJ she sure they still qualify.
• With the proposed density, I’m fearful that this project will end up looking and feeling like a slum. Skippy’s thoughts
about trying to cram as many units in as possible are scary and I will not be voting for him again. Please make these
livable units!!
• Anything to not add more cars/traffic/community noise
• Really hope we can solve one problem here: small unit employee housing with extra density and exclusion to the
current code–Aspen should not be afraid of a modern well built modern set of buildings.
• Density needs to be increased at this site. I know council is hovering around 300 units, but this is one of our last places
to develop housing in the city and it should be done with maximizing density in mind.
• Some communal spaces would be awesome if able to still creating some private spaces and being dog friendly
• I think this project should focus on providing quality seasonal housing for younger people at a high density with strict
limits on on-site or neighborhood parking. Create a long-term lot at the intercept lot and require public transit use.
• I have employee housing
• Must be dog friendly for rental AND ownership. Locals with dogs are being forced into free market units!
• Please keep these afforda ble. I literally have no hope in this valley a nd I am a very hard working person with three jobs
who grew up in this valley. It’s hard to even take this survey and see where priorities are, clearly every one on this
community has money and shouldn’t even be considered. Also as far as common areas go…. has anyone in the last
two years used any of the common areas at the inn at aspen apcha housing. NO. While this very appealing it can also
create noise issues when you live in a shoe box and a bunch of people are drinking etc and then you can’t escape the
noise because your apartment is so tiny you can not just go to your bedroom and close the door. I’m not trying to live in
college dorm room. Our valley absolutely needs affordable housing, without this I fear the delicate balance will be lost.
We live in area with one of the lowest average incomes and highest costs of living. This gap makes everyone’s life’s
harder, if business owners were able to retain employees because they could afford to live here, they would have a
higher potential for success. This is the only way to ensure a steady and healthy growth in our community. If business
can’t have employees the can’t operate. I truly don’t think anyone understands our actual need for truly affordable
housing and not talking a half million dollar home… that’s not affordable and if you afford that then you can afford free
market down valley. Many amazing smart people who have a lot to offer our community leave due to housing but I
guess they are smart enough to leave. I appreciate your survey and time and hop e to be heard.
• Co-living debate depends on how prices would be impacted. I don’t understand why the number of children isn’t
differentiated from number of adults. We have four working adults in our household.
175
• I would be willing to live here without a car, if I could get my mountain bike to a trail with relative ease and if I could take
my dog on busses. Right now, RFTA does not allow pets on busses and they do not allow bikes on busses during night
hours. For these reasons, I would need a parking space if I lived here.
• Why no comment section for Co-living section? I don’t want to live in college dorm setting, I want/need my own personal
private space after being in crazy town working all day. A private deck/small outdoor area is needed for sanity.
• IF we want to recruit families to come to Aspen we need to have 2 and 3 bedroom units, there are barely any 3 bedroom
units available in Aspen and most families have more than 1 child. It is a necessity of we want t people to come and
stay.
• I am generally a big fan of co-housing space but given the ongoing nature of COVID, we should probably attempt to
make outdoor common spaces the norm.
• Already own apcha housing
• ….but yes, I could see myself in newer housing within the ABC.
• Why no comments sections allowed on Co-living question and the sustainable development certification? Also consider
some reward for people who don’t choose to not own a car and e-bike or bike to town. E-biking is very popular and is
here to stay. Also increase car share at AABC or the rental car lots at the airport and bike share. Also the the bus stop
in not that far of a walk and the rental lots are close for a person who uses car share 2-4 times a month
• I’m set for housing. We desperately need housing as a community. Our businesses really need mid-Category rentals. Its
hardest to hear the voices that aren’t here. This is not about the people that are already here. It about the need to house
people that are not here. Our problem is employees that are NOT here. Its tough to ask people that aren’t here and
even more important to speak on their behalf.
• As someone who will be an empty nester in the not so distant future, this project hold zero interest for me to downsize.
• NOT currently looking, but it is always changing around here
• NOT currently looking, but it is always changing around here
• Proximity to the airport and its effects needs to be considered and addressed. Tired of hearing negative comments from
the North 40.
• I think this is a great idea, thank you for reaching out to the public about what we need.
• Please keep these afforda ble. I literally have no hope in this valley and I am a very hard working person with three jobs
who grew up in this valley. It’s hard to even take this survey and see where priorities are, clearly every one on this
community has money and shouldn’t even be considered. Also as far as common areas go…. has anyone in the last
two years used any of the common areas at the inn at aspen apcha housing. NO. While this very appealing it can also
create noise issues when you live in a shoe box and a bunch of people are drinking etc and then you can’t escape the
noise because your apartment is so tiny you can not just go to your bedroom and close the door. I’m not trying to live in
college dorm room. Our valley absolutely needs affordable housing, without this I fear the delicate balance will be lost.
We live in area with one of the lowest average incomes and highest costs of living. This gap makes everyone’s life’s
harder, if business owners were able to retain employees because they could afford to live here, they would have a
higher potential for success. This is the only way to ensure a steady and healthy growth in our community. If business
can’t have employees the can’t operate. I truly don’t think anyone understands our actual need for truly affordable
176
housing and not talking a half million dollar home… that’s not affordable and if you afford that then you can afford free
market down valley. Many amazing smart people who have a lot to offer our community leave due to housing but I
guess they are smart enough to leave. I appreciate your survey and time and hope to be heard.
• This is terrible to offer fitness as the City already offers Recreation fitness, sport court spaces. As a City why would you
ever consider this. I think that Chris should not be in charge of this project.
• Please keep these afforda ble. I literally have no hope in this valley and I am a very hard working person with three jobs
who grew up in this valley. It’s hard to even take this survey and see where priorities are, clearly every one on this
community has money and shouldn’t even be considered. Also as far as common areas go…. has anyone in the last
two years used any of the common areas at the inn at aspen apcha housing. NO. While this very appealing it can als o
create noise issues when you live in a shoe box and a bunch of people are drinking etc and then you can’t escape the
noise because your apartment is so tiny you can not just go to your bedroom and close the door. I’m not trying to live in
college dorm room. Our valley absolutely needs affordable housing, without this I fear the delicate balance will be lost.
We live in area with one of the lowest average incomes and highest costs of living. This gap makes everyone’s life’s
harder, if business owners were able to retain employees because they could afford to live here, they would have a
higher potential for success. This is the only way to ensure a steady and healthy growth in our community. If business
can’t have employees the can’t operate. I truly don’t think anyone understands our actual need for truly affordable
housing and not talking a half million dollar home… that’s not affordable and if you afford that then you can afford free
market down valley. Many amazing smart people who have a lot to offer ou r community leave due to housing but I
guess they are smart enough to leave. I appreciate your survey and time and hope to be heard.
• Great survey design! Thanks for taking feedback
• live in N40
• Concern is for community housing needs, livability, community character, and seeing a quality project all of Aspen can
be proud of-
• Building this project with no clear answer (or even a proposed solution) to how an extra 200+ cars will not worsen an
already terrible morning commute/backup problem is irrespo nsible. No, another stop light will not fix this problem.
• I applied for several units in the past, just have an employer provided situation currently.
• I already have a townhome at the North 40.
• I’m concerned with density. The proposed plans seem too dense
• There is no mention of a possible homeless shelter at the site
• We own at North 40 and consider ourselves extremely lucky to have the opportunity to do so. If it were not for employee
housing we would not live in Pitkin County. We love our immediate neighborhood but also the greater West Aspen
community. We
• I live in the North 40, traffic and impact matter. I believe housing/rooms should built for CMC students on the Lumber
Yard site as well.
• Build it and get out of the way. Allow it to be owned and managed by the owners.
• Where are Aspenites going to buy lumber?
• this development seems targeted at single folks, versus those with a family
177
• Until I can take car to go to utah I need my car / make pets allowed
• Until I can take car to go to utah I need my car / make pets allowed
• No, but I rely on the local economy. which requires a workforce. Which requires housing.
• we need rental housing
• Appreciate the survey. Density is appropraite for this site. Reduced parking for units should prevail.
• The questions stopped loading after “childcare”
• Let’s address the traffic problem and banning cars at employee housing is not the way to go! We all deserve the same
conveniences as the well to do..
• I played the lottery for 7+ years and finally won a place. I understand the need for workforce housing!
• Underground or covered parked
• For co-living, is there an option to explore smaller 2-bedroom units? Having lived with my partner and dog in 1-bd and 2-
bd, the quality of life experience we share is greatly improved with the extra “privat e space” afforded by the 2nd
bedroom.
• A new bus stop near lumberyard for the Burlingame transit route better than shuttle. Burlingame route more efficient for
RFTA than shuttle
• I’m already in Burlingame Phase one and love it. In a one bedroom unit – not many of them in Phase one as we are a
couple with no kids and the unit we are in is spacious with nice outdoor space.
• Please allow dogs and cats
• Please address a robust sound mitigation from the airport property across the road and the highway traffic. thank s and
keep up the good work.
• I live in phase 2 and we were not told that a rental community would be in our backyard, rather the opposite. Renters do
not maintain nor care for the space in the ways that owners do. I feel like the community needs to value the input of the
current residents. We also pay ridiculous HOA fees and only have one parking spot, and no community resources. A
fitness center or pool would be an asset for the entire neighborhood.
• There wasn’t a comment box for the question regarding co-living space, so I would to place that comment here. Co-
living space should be designated for full-time professionals only and not be used for seasonal ski instructors and other
short term workers. Based on history this co-living space will be inappropriately used by seasonal ski instructors who
come here simply to ski and party. Priorities should be placed on families, public employees, and professionals. This
city needs to stop catering to the rich and wealthy and start focusing much more on famili es, full-time residents, public
employees, etc. These groups are the life blood of Aspen. Start making Aspen a livable city for all and not just the few.
• Evict people who break and don’t follow the rules and there will be plenty of employee housing for all .
• As a teacher, I am living in “affordable housing” through Basalt that the school leases and subleases to me. I’d rather be
in this housing where I know it will be longer term
• maybe
• We need to build homes that people want to live in and become part of the community. While the idea of housing
everyone in Aspen is appealing we should focus on the quality and not the quantity.
• This is exciting for the community! Can’t wait to see how it unfolds.
178
• Housing anywhere from 400+ to 500+ employees in this complex and assuming most will be headed to Aspen, how
have you planned for access to Hwy 82 at any time and particularly during rush hour? I did not see any of this in your
planning process.
• I don’t tkink so, I own at the AABC. I don’t think i would qualify for the program becouse of my age.
• Much of my staff is. Please maximize density! This may be our last best chance to get closer to the housing we need!
• I do not, but my kids will. And my friends do!
• not a renter
• This is a once in a century opportunity to add more housing to our affordable inventory. GO BIG!
• We need all the beds we can get. This is unsustainable if our workforce can’t afford to live in aspen!
• There is no town without a lumberyard, ever.
• Aspen is being destroyed because the city is being managed as a big business rather than a community of human
beings. Aspen is a great brand name but increasing capacity without resolving traffic problems is creating bigger
problems as we kick the can down the road. If we want to improve the experience of being here w e need to stop
growing. Skico is a business and only cares about the bottom line. The city needs to stop pandering to it! Killing the
goose that lays the golden egg. What should I do if I needed to buy something at the lumberyard? drive 40 miles?
Philistines!
• We need all the beds we can get. This is unsustainable if our workforce can’t afford to live in aspen!
• Please allow dogs and cats
• High density
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• COMMUNITY ROOMS ARE NOT USABLE TO COVID AND WILL THEY BE IN THE FUTURE
• This is a huge issue and needs to be considered from the young worker’s position – not from one of living on the east
side of town and never dealing with traffic or housing.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• Currently reside in purchased affordable housing.
• Pet friendly is a MUST. It is absolutely ridiculous that the majority of low income housing isn’t pet friendly. We live in an
area with higher than normal depression and suicide rates, and it is statistically shown that having a pet can be a huge
boost to mental wellbeing. STOP BUILDING NON-PET FRIENDLY HOUSING!!!!!!
• Laundry
• More pet friendly units – hard to find affordable pet friendly options.
• We are planning on building down valley. As a manager of a large number of seasonal staff I believe this is important.
Providing quality living situations can help the valley and welcome a more diverse workforce to our valley.
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• My wife is disabled and has a small fixed income, this makes it impossible for us to qualify for housing with the current
income structure.
179
• Shared amenities means more shared expenses. It seems nice until you realize your neighbors are jerks and don’t take
care of things, for example, or that you don’t actually use the shared amenities and that is a waste.
• I currently live in an ownership APCA unit and I am thankful for it. Other working locals should feel the same housing
security.
• If covid and other pandemic issues pla gue society in coming years
• I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.
• I work for ASC, full time year round. My office and work location is not in pitkin county - riverside. I work to bring in a lot
of revenue for pitkin county but I am not eligible for any affordable housing due to my work location- it’s incredibly
disappointing. Are there any solutions?
• I work for ASC, full time year round. My office and work location is not in pitkin county - riverside. I work to bring in a lot
of revenue for pitkin county but I am not eligible for any affordable housing due to my work location- it’s incredibly
disappointing. Are there any solutions?
• We need all the beds we can get. This is unsustainable if our workforce can’t afford to live in aspen!
• Increase density to max
• I do not support this project, at all. I hope you put more thought into running the only lumber yard in Aspen out of the
valley, causing more traffic to/from Aspen every single day, changing the vitality of local businesses in a very negative
way with severe long term affects, etc, etc B R Y A N T R A G A N Founder/CEO CONSTRUCTION + DEVELOPMENT
+ ESTATE MANAGEMENT 970.948.6166 601 E Hopkins Ave, Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 www.peak3aspen.com
bryant@peak3aspen.com
180