Echoing many of the sentiments of citizens who came out in force at the eleventh hour, Aspen City Council voted 4-1 Tuesday night to deny the redevelopment of the Bidwell Building at 434 E. Cooper Ave., which contains Kemo Sabe and other retailers and is across Galena Street from Paradise Bakery.

It was the fourth time a major development or redevelopment proposal was shot down by the current council, which took office about one year ago.

Council members, except for Councilman Dwayne Romero, who cast the dissenting vote, argued that the plan was not consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan, did not respect open public space like other buildings on the corner, and wasn’t in context with other buildings in the area. Some also expressed their dislike of the design.

“I recognize a developer’s right to building within the guidelines prescribed by the land-use code, but I don’t believe redevelopment carries with it the implied right to transform the underlying character of the area where it’s built,” said Councilman Steve Skadron. “I don’t believe a project can meet every theme of the Aspen Area Community Plan, but projects like this should have as a minimum community support, which this one doesn’t. There’s an opportunity to do something better than what was submitted.”

Like several people who spoke, Skadron objected to the height and mass of the building, which would have went from the current 11,800 square feet to 23,000 square feet, and from 23 feet high to about 40 feet high. Containing two retail or office spaces, three affordable housing units and three upper-level free-market residences, the rejected proposal also would have had three stories above ground, as opposed to the two-story building that is there now. The subgrade space, which currently houses Noori’s Collection, would have been replaced by an underground parking garage and the building, which sits on a 9,000-square-foot lot, would lose that open — albeit not very functional — space.

The plan spent two years in the land-use review process and earned the blessing of Aspen’s Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and housing board, according to representatives of the owner, the Bert Bidwell Investment Corporation. But in his closing statements, Mayor Mick Ireland pointed out that the city’s advisory bodies have limited powers and only review certain aspects of the plan. So the HPC reviewed the historic nature of the building (which was designed by prominent Aspen architect Fritz Benedict) and found that it wasn’t worthy of historic designation. That finding was backed up by City Council.

Project consultant Mitch Haas expressed some frustration that the plan met all the code requirements and had met little opposition up until the last minute, and insisted that the developers had responded to the few concerns that were brought forward.

Public e-mails, mostly opposed to the Bidwell redevelopment, were inadvertently left out of the council packet at the last meeting and thus caused a discussion and vote to be delayed. Now having read those e-mails — about 30 in total — Haas said they were “quite full of emotion but not tempered by a rational evaluation of facts.”

Haas argued that the redevelopment plan was providing employee housing where it doesn’t exist today, was vastly more efficient than the current building (and would have gone for LEEDS silver certification), and was consistent with the AACP.

“This is a great project and a great building, this is a not a location for a timid nondescript building,” he said. “This is a project worthy of Aspen and this location, a project to be proud of for years to come.”

The Bidwell team also argued that building over the current walkway and open space above Noori’s would not be detrimental to the public. Architect John Rowland pointed out that the wall currently comes out to the corner and acts as a barrier.

And in response to the potential loss of views from the Paradise Bakery corner, “When you sit in the square licking ice cream you’re not looking at the building — which you can’t see because of all the trees — you’re looking at the mountain,” he said.

But members of the public disagreed, and some of them brought elaborate drawings, diagrams and photos — and referred to multiple previously created city rules — to prove it.

Aspenite Junee Kirk argued that the average streetside height of buildings on the Cooper Avenue mall is 15 feet.

Terry Butler, who runs the Residence Hotel next door on Galena and deplored other downtown redevelopment projects within the vicinity, said, “My business cannot live through another three years of construction.”

Real estate broker Lani White objected to it on the basis that “we are going to ruin our downtown,” she wrote in an e-mail to the council.

And one of the four owners of the Paradise Bakery property, Denice Volk, wrote to say that their development required the open space that is now so prized, “even though the building didn’t make economic sense” (because each store was so small).

Saying she and the other owners are now proud of the property and its pedestrian-friendly space, she wrote, “In the long run it was the right thing to do.”

The proposed building was referred to as a “big box” and local talk-show host Andrew Kole went so far as to say, “I hate this building.” Local gadfly Toni Kronberg collected 72 signatures on a petition, presumably against the redevelopment plan.

James Anderton, president of Kemo Sabe, was the only member of the public to speak for the project. Anderton pointed to the repeated failure of businesses in the below-ground space and defended the developer’s response to community concerns.

“There’s something missing when there’s no commercial viability in a space,” he said. “I don’t think you’ll get a better opportunity to build something that contributes to the town.”

Romero cited numerous parts of the Aspen Area Community Plan that he said the redevelopment proposal was consistent with, and said that it met the plan’s “overarching goals.”

But other council members said it didn’t, and refuted the developer’s attorney’s assertion that public concerns did not address the question at hand, which was subdivision approval.

“For me the subdivision definition includes also the result, meaning the buildings that are created through separate legal interest,” said Councilman Jack Johnson.

Johnson, referring to multiple e-mails from the public, said that he and the community were objecting to the plan because this corner is Aspen’s unofficial town square, and redevelopment would encourage other inappropriate redevelopment in the area as well as erode the tourists’ experience.

Given that public comment, and “given my own experience in design and my own common sense, I cannot help but think redevelopment of this building will contribute to the erosion of public space, and will encourage others to do the same and negatively impact the area,” he said. “I am unable to accept the public costs associated with this project.”

Disagreeing with city staff’s findings about the appropriateness of the project, Councilman J.E. DeVilbiss said, “This application simply overwhelms everything around it; it’s massive.”

In recent months the council also rejected redevelopment plans for the Cooper Street Pier and Wienerstube buildings — which led to litigation by the respective owners — and denied a hotel project at Lift 1A, spurring an alternate land-use process to master plan the whole area.

lutz@aspendailynews.com