Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20100517J" ASPEN C H A M B E R RESORT ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM To: City Council cc: Randy Ready, Don Taylor, City of Aspen - Warren Klug, ACRA and Tim Clark, ALA From: Debbie Braun, ACRA president Date: May 12, 2010 Re: Lodging Tax on November Ballot F,- �) scuss;a,-. ar ma-3 I4 Wor4 SC, F�0k. The ACRA Board of Directors and the Aspen Lodging Association have met and approved moving forward with a November ballot question to increase the current lodging tax from 1%to 2%via a city-wide vote. The additional 1% in lodging tax revenue would be dedicated to marketing and special events via ACRA's destination marketing program. We are asking at the City Council's work session on Monday, May 17th the Aspen City Council approves moving forward with this ballot question. A well -supported, fully -funded destination marketing program is a vital concern to the Aspen community. Thank you for your consideration. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Trish Aragon PE, City Engineer THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Manager DATE OF MEMO: May 14, 2010 MEETING DATE: May 7, 2010 RE: 24 Hour Interior Construction Work Hours During Off Season REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Staff seeks Council input regarding modifications to the interior work hours for construction. During the May 4 h work session Council directed staff to modify the Off-season hours to allow interior work for 24 hours a day provided that the project does not receive noise complaints. In order to give council the opportunity to revisit this policy Staff would like to conduct a short conversation with Council on this subject. Page 1 of 1 THE Gn of Aspi x MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Everson — Affordable Housing Project Manager THRU: Barry Crook — Assistant City Manager and Scott Miller — Capital Asset Director DATE OF MEMO: May 14, 2010 MEETING DATE: May 17, 2010 RE: Conceptualization Update #2 — Burlingame Phase II IPD Design REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Update and request for public hearing on June 7, 2010 to formalize City Council conceptual approval of the Burlingame Phase II conceptual master plan DISCUSSION: The Burlingame Phase II IPD design team has gathered input from the public and is applying feedback from outreach efforts to the designs of Burlingame Phase II. Based on the community input to date, the team has developed a conceptual master plan, and the team's goal is to provide a detailed design for what Burlingame Phase II should look like, as well as a guaranteed maximum price, by mid -August of 2010. The design team would like to formalize the Council's conceptual approval of the newly conceived master plan on June 7, 2010. As follow-up to the update from the May 4, 2010 City Council Worksession, the design team is also herein providing an update as well as recommendations toward the formalization of the Council's conceptual approval in the areas that follow: Recap of May 4, 2010 Citv Council Worksession: The design team provided an update of outreach efforts to date and presented the Concept Master Plan for Council review. Council seemed generally pleased with the outreach efforts to date as well as the level of livability that was presented by the design team. Council generally agreed with increasing Visitability to the 68% level at the time of construction, and there seemed to be general agreement that the retrofit concept for increasing Visitability above the 68% level and potentially up to 100% was a responsible approach. The sustainability approach presented by the design team met with general approval by the Council members, and the overall Concept Master Plan seemed also to get general approval, but with a some concern about whether or not people would prefer to live in 3 bedroom flats or townhomes and some concern about upper -level units. Burlingame Phase II Conceptual Master Plan The IPD design team's Concept Master Plan that was presented to Council on May 4, 2010 has a number of features that are of great improvement over the City's density agreement site plan. Aligning the road adjacent to Deer Hill creates usable open space between buildings, creates new Page 1 of 4 r; THE CITY Or ASPS% parking opportunities and separates cars from people and living areas. Public park space is incorporated into the community, and the plan calls for two and three story buildings where appropriate. Building alignments generally follow the hillside contours, which creates efficiencies, and the plan provides a strong parking and storage solution since there is a carport with integrated storage for each multifamily residence. Many of the residents at Burlingame Phase I have suggested that the design team make efforts to make parking and storage more convenient, particularly with regard to proximity of each to the residences. The included parking and storage drawings show the planned proximity of parking and storage to the residences which minimizes walking distances. Additionally, a "green space plan" has been included to illustrate the proximity of residences to open, usable green outdoor space on the site. Mass, Scale and Architectural Character: During the density negotiation with the homeowners at Burlingame in 2009, the City created a 3d model of the site and buildings which was based on the City's conceptual plans that resulted from the Construction Experts Group effort. The mass and scale of the buildings that are part of the current concept master plan are similar in mass and scale to the City's density plan conceptual model with one exception. The buildings proposed in the Concept Master Plan are each essentially composed of two "pods". The pods are separate buildings but are joined by a covered stairway between the buildings. The covered stairway between buildings allows the opportunity for pedestrian flow from the uphill side through the building to the downhill side without having to go around the buildings. There are five different pod types (A, B, C, D & E) which are mixed together to create different versions of buildings. As a result, there are six unique buildings which occur to varying amounts. The charts below summarize these conditions: "Pod" Types Units/ea Total Qty/ea Units aaom Building # South Pod I North Pod Occurrences ®oo® ©ooa mamma a Page 2 of 4 C� THE CITY Of Asrt Thus, the notion of building in a standardized fashion does not mean that all the buildings are the same, however there are some occurrences of identical buildings, and this is where we will vary the exterior features of the buildings in order to make sure that none of the buildings are identical in appearance to one -another. Unit Mix & Unit Plans: The unit mix for the current Concept Master Plan is as follows: UNITS Approximate AREA (sf) COUNT RATIO 3 BR UNITS 1,280 74 46% 2 BR UNITS 1,030 50 31% 1 BR UNITSI 768 37 23% TOTAL UNITS 161 This unit mix distribution is similar to Phase I, and the plans for each unit type are shown in the attached presentation. There has been some concern about the number of three bedroom flats as opposed to 3 bedroom townhomes. As currently planned, there are 88% flats and 12% townhomes, but this can be modified to incorporate more townhome style three bedroom units without the need to modify the entire Concept Master Plan. The design team expects to vet this issue during the next round of public outreach meetings which is planned for June 2010. In addition, interviews with affordable housing homeowners are being conducted per Council direction. The results of those interviews are pending. Construction Methodology: Modular construction currently appears to be approximately 5% lower in cost than stick -built construction, but it is estimated that stick -framing will use around 60% more local labor and local services. Both systems can be designed equally in terms of quality and durability, but stick - framing will provide more flexibility and will limit risks associated with using a modular manufacturer. With regard to sustainability, both systems are roughly equal, but modular construction has a doubling effect on materials at party walls and floor/ceiling assemblies. Modular construction can help with scheduling constraints since there is less on -site assembly, and neighborhood disturbances are generally less with modular construction. On the other hand, quality assurance of an on -site, stick -framed product can be more easily managed, and neighborhood impacts can be mitigated via a responsible construction management plan. Because the future is uncertain, the IPD design team is recommending that the designs proceed with the intention of using a stick -framed construction methodology, but the design team proposes to work within a set of constraints that would potentially allow for the conversion back to modular Page 3 of 4 M Tile Gry or ASrtN construction if the modular market in the future can demonstrate a considerably greater cost savings. The intent of this recommendation is to remain as flexible as possible while still incorporating the principles of the Construction Experts Group recommendations. Unit Categories: At the request of Council, the attached presentation includes a number of charts regarding income distribution and lottery bid data. This may shed some light on the question of income levels that should be served by an eventual category mix decision. Land Use Process and Request for Conceptual Approval: The COWOP land use process remains open for Burlingame which serves as a vehicle for an eventual major PUD modification. In the meantime, the IPD team is requesting Council's conceptual approval of the proposed Concept Master Plan on June 7, 2010 in the following six major areas: 1. Density and unit mix 2. Building configurations 3. Land utilization 4. Parking and storage strategy 5. Relationships and connections to Phase I 6. Architectural massing, height, scale, character The design team believes that, while there are some outstanding questions regarding the building and unit designs, these details can be worked out during the Detailed Design phase of the design effort. Nonetheless, the IPD design team is pleased to try to answer additional questions that Council may have in order to facilitate the conceptual approval of the Concept Master Plan. In the event that the Council feels that conceptual approval of the Concept Master Plan is not appropriate on June 7, then it is difficult to move forward with the continued design effort and there may be schedule impacts. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend that City Council allow public hearing on June 7, 2010 for the potential approval of the Burlingame Phase II conceptual master plan. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — PowerPoint Presentation Page 4 of 4 The Aspen Burlingame Ranch Phase II Design May 17, 2010 Page 1 Burlingame Ranch Phase II Integrated Project Delivery Design CONCEPTUALIZA TION PHASE UPDATE #2 Aspen City Council May 17, 2010 tv The Burlingame Ranch Phase II Design As pe n May 17, 2010 Page 2 Agenda: ❖ Recap of May 4 Work Session ❖ Concept Master Plan Review 10, Master Plan, Size, Massing, Character 10, Unit Mix, Sizes, Plans Construction Methodology Unit Categories ❖ COWOP Process ❖ Request for Conceptual Approval June 7 city of Burlingame Ranch Phase II Design As pe n May 17, 2010 Page 3 - Recap of May 4 Work Session Outreach to Date Livability Sustainability Approach Visitability Approach Construction Methodology Concept Master Plan :::+ X _ Concept Master Plan MASTER PLAN f ' _ + Q>�f ;` ! "-' �i�l'� " � " �� � • . 1. Op)f � • ��l�I.` . Concept Master Plan PARKING AND CIRCULATION PLAN lrnah � Y 11 I I f • �1 � r _ �— _- � , F'/yyy ��5 I � v 3 I • � � � I l t v PARKING LEGEND IN fYIUCt III tofu Concept Master Plan IIIL� rra\,;on�m, ,�„erar — t / '`� �"Y t• `t_--tea t'v-�� =z' =� `_ ow "-r STORAGE PLAN STORAGE LEGEND smuae i• nnom Concept Master Plan GREEN SPACE PLAN M Iw • �' _ -. --,ram, :. GREEN SPACE LEGEND , _ _ I . rmroxe reru C r • • Macc 9 Sr_alp City of Aspen Conceptual Model Concept Master Plan Building Model KEY: 02& 1*0*00MIOWNMOMES ' 1, E L l BEDROOM FIATS r 4ti '44 .e n. sue! b V "Pods" C & D Shown Above "Pod" Types ooam Units/ea Qty/ea Total Units ooam aoom ooa® ao©m Building # South Pod North Pod Occurances 000a aaoa oaoa aoo© 000a m©tea ®aoa� ®aoai mo�a Ci v of Burlingame Ranch Phase II Design Aspen May 4, 2010 Page 10 Standardizin 010 Construction ,� , 0 wqi lift- -- �,,,r° „, ���� lid � . u ; all od u9 W low, lip _. .. g 010 to � k-e � d +� • City of Burlingame Ranch Phase II Design Aspen May 17. 2010 Page 14 Overall Character 00 31� Approximate UNITS AREA (sf) COUNT RATIO 3 BR UNITS 11280 74 46% 2 BR UNITS 1/030 50 31% 1 BR U N ITS 768 37 23% TOTAL UNITS 161 1. PARKING RATIO = 2 SPACES PER UNIT —1 Assigned space per unit. Remaining spaces assigned to the HOA. 2. STORAGE TO EQUAL 100 SQ FT PER UNIT "'Storage Allocation with be a combination of site storage and in unit storage 3. UNIT COUNT INCLUDES 2 Et 3 BEDROOM TOWNHOMES —Approximately 12� of the units are Townhomes 4. SINGLE FAMILY HOMES = 6 HOMES —Program, Density and Setbacks will be comparable to Phase 1. J KITCHEN L� I P0. VNii 43 693 SF ** Concept Only - Units Designs Sill in Progress Unit Plan - 1 BR Flat 1 I._ 11 WCNEN ** Concept Only - Units Designs Sill in Progress nUnit Plan - 2 BR Flat W-ram Lower v r ,a " Concept Only - Units Designs Sill in Progress Main Upper Unit Plan — 3 BR Townhome Approx. 1,400 sq ft pvQeof Burlingame Ranch Phase II Design As n May 17, 2010 Page 20 I +•� y /R 11 y :. Concept Master Plan - Flats / Townhomes ❖ Stacking of Units — Modifying the "Toolkit" 3 BR Flat 3 BR Flat 3 BR Flat 3 BR ------------ 3 BR -------------- 3 BR ------------ Town- Town- Town- ------------ Home -------------- Home ------------ Home Design process can proceed with Conceptual Approval ❖ Standardized building design is still flexible and may be modified upon receipt of additional feedback during upcoming outreach efforts •:• Effects of converting design of flats to townhomes / pros and cons N UNIT STACKING KEY: rt �1 FLAT UNIT FLAT UNIT A 1 'Y J� 9� SECTION 1: THRU FLATS �Y 28R TH 2BR TH 38R TH w nt �� 28R TH 2BR TH 3BR TH 3BR TH STACKED PLANS SECTION 2: THRU TOWNHOME5 City of Burlingame Ranch Phase II Design Aspen May 17, 2010 Page 23 Construction Methodology IN or modular construction? stick -framing cliT;! 25% 20% 15% k[IVA 5% 0% BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE 1 CATEGORY MIX AND 2008 PITKIN COUNTY INCOME DISTRIBUTION (voters with income in Pitkin County, 2009 Citizen Survey) r'nt 7 Mix <$25,000 $25,000to $50,000to $75,000to $100,000to $150,000to $200,000< $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% OVERALL BID DISTRIBUTION January2008 through March 2010 (for -sale units only) 40% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RO Category r.-n 50 40 30 10 0 NUMBERS OF PROPERTIES FOR SALE January2008 through March 2010 (for -sale units only) 52 ti ti 3 0, ti �o Category AVERAGE BIDS PER UNIT BY CATEGORY January 2008 through March 2010 (for -sale units only) 40 35 30 2825 25 20 15 10 5 0 ti 21 no ''i A y Category (0 1 4O 20 45 7 ANNUAL AVERAGE BIDS PER UNIT BY CATEGORY January 2008 through March 2010 (for -sale units only) 40 v 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RO Category )8 )9 LO ?5 30 25 20 15 10 5 u BIDS PER UNIT BY UNIT TYPE January 2008 through March 2010 (for -sale units only) 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR SFH STUDIO AVERAGE As -Built Burlingame Phase I Multifamily Category and Unit Type Distribution Type / Cat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total % 1 BR 0 8 4 3 0 0 0 15 17.9% 2 BR 0 11 10 5 3 1 0 30 35.7% 3 BR 0 2 13 9 6 5 4 39 46.4% Total 0 21 27 17 9 6 4 84 100.0% % 0.0% 25.0% 32.1% 20.2% 10.7% 7.1% 4.8% 100.0% CATEGORY AVERAGE 3.6 Suggested Burlingame Phase II Multifamily Category and Unit Type Distribution Type / Cat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total % 1 BR 0 12 10 10 5 0 0 37 23.0% 2 BR 0 12 13 13 7 3 2 50 31.1% 3 BR 0 6 20 21 16 6 5 74 46.0% Total 0 30 43 44 r 28 r 9 r 7 161 100.0% % 0.0% 18.6% 26.7% 27.3% 17.4% 5.6% 4.3% 100.0% CATEGORY AVERAGE 3.8 city or Burlingame Ranch Phase II Design �• . As pe n May 17, 2010 Page 31 COWOP Process ❖ Land use process ❖ Has remained open since its inception ❖ IPD design team is essentially the facilitator of the process on behalf of the community ❖ The original COWOP recommendations are being carried forward except where specifically amended by subsequent events ❖ Major PUD amendment is part of the IPD work process ❖ Requires only City Council approval, however the IPD design team will fully vet the plans with the community and referral agencies to ease the burden on Council v of Burlingame Ranch Phase II Design Aspen May 4, 2010 Page 32 ISO June 7 City Council Resolution ❖ Request of Council to formalize conceptual approval of the Phase II Master Plan including the following major elements: ❖ Density and unit mix ❖ Building configurations ❖ Land utilization ❖ Parking and storage strategy ❖ Relationships and connections to Phase ❖ Architectural massing, height, scale, character The City of Burlingame Ranch Phase 11 Design Aspen May 4, 2010 Page 33 �- } r9 Questions? "IV 7Lj THE CITY or ASPEN MEMORANDUM: ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING NOTES TO: PRESENTED BY: MEETING DATE: COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: AGENDA TOPIC: Mayor and City Council Chris Everson, Scott Miller May 17, 2010 Mick Ireland, Dwayne Romero, Steve Skadron, Torre Burlingame Ranch Phase 11 Design Update #2 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Update and recommendations SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Staff presented a review of the May 4, 2010 City Council meeting including the following topics: • Recap of Community Outreach to date • Concept Master Plan • Livability • Visitability • Sustainability • Unit Mix and Categories • June 7 Request for Conceptual Approval Additionally, staff provided additional information regarding the following topics: • Concept Master Plan Review • Size, Massing, Character • Unit Mix, Sizes, Plans • Construction Methodology • Unit Categories • COWOP Process • Request for Conceptual Approval June 7 City Council generally supported the IPD team's proposal to seek conceptual approval at a public hearing to be held on June 7, 2010, however it was discussed that, until addition public outreach could be performed and additional public feedback could be obtained, the public hearing will likely be continued to June 28, 2010 rather than approved on June 7, 2010. In such an event, staff would like to remind Council that the schedule will likely need to slip accordingly, roughly by 4 weeks at this stage. Council generally supported the sustainability, livability, Visitability, construction methodology and community outreach approaches described for the Burlingame Phase II design effort, but the Council felt that prior to conceptual approval of the Concept Master Plan on June 7, 2010, more public involvement is needed. Council felt the massing of the project was `heavy' and suggested that work be done to improve this. While it was briefly mentioned that adding building footprint might be one way to deal with Page 1 of 3 0 THE CITY nr ACncnr this, there was also a general understanding that there are trade-offs with regard to adding building footprint such as additional cost and loss of community open space and that there may be a number of design alternatives for modifying the massing to a potentially acceptable level. There was a discussion about the currently proposed unit mix and the potential to modify the unit mix to 40% 3BR, 30% 2Br and 30% 1BR. Staff and the design team have interpreted this as a potential range of flexibility with regard to the unit mix. Also, further detail is needed on the proposed designs for trash, mail and transit facilities, which is being developed by the design team. SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS: Mick Ireland • Positive comment about open space and visibility of children playing. Referred to similar good examples at Snider, Stillwater and Common Ground • Noted need to create protocols with APCHA and/or HOA agreement to potentially provide residents the option of selecting a retrofit elevator, or priority for a grade accessible unit if necessary. • Suggested the unit mix may potentially be modified to 40% 3BR, 30% 2BR and 30% 1BR units • Comment/discussion on bicycle storage • Also saw the unit mass represented a dark and cramped feel and that this needed adjusting • Noted that while townhomes improve Visitability they don't really address internal livability with 2 stairs to challenge disabled access between levels • Noted that with the suggestions of staff to head toward a slightly higher category mix, council gets `more bang for its buck'. Suggested that staff look at revenues/subsidies "both ways" in future cost analysis • Suggested that given Burlingame is `family housing' that family income data was aligned to the Category mix Dwayne Romero • Requested open area near Buildings 10 and 13 should include sodded open space/play area • Suggested that improvements to the linkage and area near new buildings 10 and 13, and existing 55 and 99 would make a "great plan into super great" • Question about the location of the six single family home sites and noted the two southern lots may impact the southern park. Suggested a review of available/alternate SF home sites • Queried footprint sizes of old and new plans • Saw the dogleg with central stair was vital..."do it" • Commended the ability to "change out" units with the pod approach and `kit of parts' inherent in the current design • Noted increase in townhouses appeared to be not worth it but more information may be needed. Suggested master and 1 bedroom is on the top floor with a spare bed on the lower. Also suggested that a wider configuration should be explored • Saw that 15' living area width would live well and queried phase 1 living sizes Page 2 of 3 70 THE CITY OF ASPEN • Saw that the laundry at the back door would not work and suggested talking to moms in current facilities • Suggested that 2BR units should have 1 '/< bathrooms, second bath should have a shower • Strongly supported the design approach retaining flexibility between stick and modular framing. Design units with stick in mind but ensuring widths enabled modular `conversion' if market pricing changed • Question about the development approval/entitlements process. Recognized that the project has an existing PUD • Was generally supportive of a June 7 request for conceptual Master Plan approval, but noted that linkage to Phase 1 and mass and scale needed to be addressed for June 7 public hearing Steve Skadron • Questioned when the City of Aspen massing diagram was done (4Q08 to 2Q10) and saw that the current massing plan was more dominant and required review • Questioned what type of person bids on 1 bed units • Question whether NWCCOG studies could provide demographic data • Asked how many people live in affordable housing today. Chris Bendon estimated the order of 50% in `City footprint' Tone: • Supportive of outreach, livability, sustainability, Visitability but wished for less of an "apartment complex feel", possibly with no level 3, and adding buildings at the north of the site • Requested an offline meeting to see the impact of removing level 3 and the impact this may have on the site plan and cost • Suggested potential support for the unit mix to potentially be modified to 40% 313R, 30% 2BR and 30% 1 BR units • Suggested beds do not back onto a shared wall in 2 and 3 bed units • Agreed with flexibility between stick and modular; given confirmation that modular also allowed varied cladding and texture The concept master plan is the result of the Conceptualization Phase of the IPD effort and shall be adjusted per Council input. The design team will provide additional information at the June 7, 2010 City Council meeting. Also during the meeting on June 7, the implications of the current 4- week schedule slippage and the potential for additional schedule slippage should be discussed. Page 3 of 3