Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.council.worksession.20111115
MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Miller, Asset Management Director DATE OF MEMO: November 11, 2011 MEETING DATE: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 4:30 PM, Council Chambers RE: City Long Range Office Needs REQUEST OF COUNCIL: There is no request of City Council at this time. We recognize this is a new topic for Council, and have planned this as an introductory meeting to get Council familiar with the issues. There will be decisions to be made related to this subject within the next six months, including the City's leasing position in the Hopkins Annex. BACKGROUND: The attached Long Range City Space Needs study was initiated earlier this year, when Pitkin County advised the City of their continued interest in the Zupancis property. The study was intended to determine if the City could sell the property without compromising our future capability to consolidate downtown City offices. Although it now appears the County has less interest in the Zupancis property, the recommendation in this study reflects a rational long -term approach to the issue of consolidating City offices. For example, the Zupancis property could be sold on the free market, helping to ultimately fund the consolidation of downtown City offices. Much of the background context for this report came from the Civic Master Plan, approved by Council as a regulatory document in 2006, providing direction for future uses of publicly -owned land. Relevant excerpts from the Civic Master Plan are attached. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Long Range City Space Needs study Exhibit B: Excerpts from Civic Master Plan tXfllr3iT 4 Long -Range City Space Needs: October 2011 REPORT PREPARED BY BEN GAGNON CONSULTING 4110 411 .■ lir Y Existing cond itions: Zupancis property at bottom right w/ hs; Galena Plaza upper left. Table of Contents Page 1 Introduction 2 2 Criteria 3 3 Evaluation & Ratings of Scenarios 4 4 Scenario Comparison 10 5 Staff Recommendation & Rendering 11 6 Staff Comments on All Scenarios 12 Introduction The following study describes six potential scenarios for a future City Hall Annex project, with the goal of consolidating five different downtown city offices into two or three sites in closer proximity. The five current downtown offices are City Hall, Rio Grande Building, Hopkins Annex, Yellow Brick basement, and the Parking Department at the Zupancis property. One of the goals of this study is to assist City Council in decision - making regarding the potential short-term disposition of the Zupancis property. Before generating the development scenarios, a number of assumptions were made, in order to fairly evaluate and compare the scenarios. The assumptions are as follows: • The five city government office sites in the downtown should be consolidated. As the number of sites proliferate, internal organizational strength is diffused and the potential for collaboration erodes. The efficient provision of services to the public also suffers. • There is a strong preference to own rather than lease. The City currently leases the Hopkins Street Annex, for the Building and Engineering departments. • The future renovation and remodeling of City Hall is independent of this study. • The need for additional public meeting space is assumed per direction of the 2006 Civic Master Plan. (The potential for public meeting space as part of the library expansion project is an unknown at this time.) • The Pitkin County Community Development Department will remain at the 3` floor of City Hall for the foreseeable future. • ACRA will remain at its current location, but StayAspenSnowmass will relocate. • The Long Range Plan for the City Employee Housing Fund (505 Fund) will cover mitigation requirements for all scenarios. • For Scenario #1 (development of the Zupancis property), the City could offset potential future costs through the sale of the Rio Grande building, although limited uses could limit buyers. For all other scenarios, the City could offset costs through the sale of the Zupancis property. • Cost issues are related to conclusions drawn in the 2008 Anderson & Hastings engineering study, regarding the ease or difficulty of construction at various sites. 2 • Each scenario can accommodate peak employment for the five downtown offices (112 in 2008, compared to 96 today). Scenarios also address potential to accommodate additional space needs in the long -term. • The potential demolition of the 1 -story ACRA building and expansion to 2- stories includes sub -grade excavation for a small extension of the lowest garage level. This would allow for a larger future expansion of the garage under the city's Rio Grande parking lot, while also replacing 14 spaces of open -bay parking that would be converted to 2 " floor office space. • Any development at the Galena Plaza site, the Zupancis property and the current Art Museum property must show consistency with the 2006 Civic Master Plan (CMP) in order to gain Council approval. (Please see Exhibit A for relevant portions of the CMP, which is a regulatory document.) There are six scenarios included (p. 4 -9), which are rated according to seven criteria. A Scenario Comparison Table (p. 10) shows the scenarios side -by -side. Criteria to Evaluate Scenarios ➢ Consolidation and proximity of office sites: Number of office sites in the scenario, and their proximity to each other. ➢ Quality of civic space (interior & exterior): The 2006 Civic Master Plan encouraged civic buildings that are welcoming, easy to navigate, iconic and adjacent to plazas or open spaces. One should be able to look at a public building and its surroundings and easily identify it as a civic use. ➢ Customer access: Accommodating the public's ability to visit civic buildings for short trips; includes short-term parking, public transit, trail links etc. ➢ Phasing potential: Potential for incremental expansion, as needed. ➢ Need for partnerships: Reflecting the number of partnerships, if any, required for planning, design, construction and/or funding. ➢ Consistency with Civic Master Plan: All scenarios contain some level of redevelopment that require consistency with the 2006 Civic Master Plan. ➢ Cost Issues: This criteria identifies issues with regard to the cost of construction, related to the nature of the site, including topography and the adjacency of existing structures. 3 -0 O by bA 9, >, ell ›, ; � 7 4 o .„ . 0 0 Z • ' cn a , c a - v ',:a cn " c u) 0 6 a) g c 0 , o 0 w2 rn '.24 to U. Ha•~ v)c- a.o w at c am„ 9, o U N �+ cU Q. w O 2 p O O° E 2 E a W . co b oe Q � 0 ° y A . b .4 0 > 4., ,. x w bob 3 a, ,� o ..a y a� a , — . o 'o t O a' � 4 Q., UA w c ° �v °N a -.C7 o m' _so) ° �c ` l - ° v o o c 0 o .r L: „„ 0 -O 0 y O 0 • ,E O O ,-, .. O O o b i O '' g> .4: g A e b v 0 E O 0 z U �z ,a„ - d G a � a a 0 o C...) O cA a. a 4 0 .gO aio ›,O CZ • N L. 0 s .. O a) . 0 O c) o •-• + II bA = b .9, c3 o .-, c U tu " . ° o a„ iv ▪ H „ b 4 0 , Q., e y 04 4] - ; g 0 0 F oz w a:6: ci FP g:a g w a�N 2 wu .0 - i a s O n a� brio ... cd _0 `' b0 .. cz O c v E. O~ co >, ,, y k 0 0 04 4U d c n ss.N o y U U _ ti 0" 1 .5 0 c) I 5 F+M . 5 T�` s ( 0 co 15:5 g O 8 T ' .2 2 3 -8 49 O » 0 0 b a) IS 0 -a Q � , ZS CS ..r N -. .0 O °"+ ¢, O 0 .— 'C O O O O Q = N 4 4" •. V T 1 C, C...) Z .� [1, w �n U d U .� U cis N .0 —, O O Z N N cci ^0 Qt ' 7 .-t' b cv o Z\ 0 + • . G O • V Nv re o0N_9, 0 0 0 0 4 :, c, �= 0 a ✓ v v r� t. cn 4. W WI -C i o o a' O o .� 3 • ND. c0 = • w b 4.4 v Q• • k 0 y s. a. 0 z b4 O O a' O O ._ a. ¢' • C O y O .5 o 8 a' O O 7 O 1.. 8 al 8 0 U . .r O 0 bA . -. > 'mil = u (x -o 0 [s.. �, o bA m N s• • ' O 'C .b .�' E O O bA A t a. 11 w° O y o O O bo es R ? 0 g m 1: , a' E a' OVA o t 0 ' S 0 x E b c 0 Z." • U tl, w` C7 Z c. A N E o> 2 C7 8 rx ° o .. > a' �C7 ^, as N '0 .o o + . ° ., a . E =, 4., of. 42 � :F.1 ° . o U _., U a' w • as 2 �N .N� n U kn' � v - "i N f - a i > 14 z3 • y ° r � V ..^d ~ Ct Qt O a0i Q @) Z �] Z g • i b1:1 0 O O to o w c� 'C3 to a' t~ �o ' O 0 C7 to o 1 r O c am ' ' 0.0 -O.- + a' rm 1 U d U Q O. v1 > U C7 ts. > C U -o { as W V 0 ^ ' RS ti U Z Q a ° C O �., a) .3 0 :~ a' 0 4. o °� `� 3 � ° >, o y a g - a . � of) > s o a, v o �..� a' cd 75 [--i U�'"3 . mo o ... Q• -�s�t oo� w V1o0' E- 4 QaZri. ° °. m -o A¢. a8E. N. g � w .NI c1) V ' c E • CA U U O a ; +; . ° a' c i 0 a i s cv W a ++ 73 y .� - cia E g g O O E g m O b s" c� ' - 44 z cq u A' 3 O N O y p Q. s.. O N 3 s., U 0 O 6, 2 i N p b O - O •- A V a4 z a z bD .5 > N w U cC! s U V N Q, :z. Z -14 s~ g ce O�.b E O d0 a W O v' E a g O a w O o cd 0 .� Z c p v Z O = c ° ) . `�� • ti > -c a -� au et >' 0� 0_4 �E C7 0 o o �, -o -" � > o '� - � 0 6. U rsa ta.. r o E ¢, AN E o > 20 a c°) o.0 H °' O v, • CA b4 E c t c . i o 1 c o of •. � � � � .b ° z • = ° �� • as �v�Ncv v Az . p i U O • ZS 2 it 7.., 7.) C7\ s., - i. b1) O G O [ �." 0 8 .d o ai ' 0 c7 . d ° °'° cla 0 u o U o <1.) U, Ud U < p,. • o 5 > o c 0 0,. a t vi cn c 'O O v c `� Q , o • to C Q 0 4' 3 U O O co g p . c8 0 0 0 b N � O�U H< a=c7 ,.o r),c� f cam. c` 6,� > N N g r... ., : s 4 12 Z U .S." + M U a to N W r ;.. o y ° CZ ; N es O s ue .. y 'd Z O U - o ' - 0 0 i W co t c o 6 c °a' a a) `"' 0 t C7 O rU+ N s, G p• Zt 3 b o+ p o U 2 c .0 c� = 2 .--1 Et C7 0 rA N x C r% N p > C. O +. y ti U g Q, 8. t ,.., ,.r vl 'C o. -o O ▪ 04 C7 U 6 › "° .2 0 0 v 0 a� 0 E.. + U a 'a 3 o vs U !- O . 5 E o.., 0 Z b - U W N v N O r. i. O O 4r Q z O Q O 78 0 .1,4:, '� . .. .L 1 .r W R4 00 v)N ¢ 2. '1 t . . . . .Z 41 w U W o z a a Z o. ° z �. GO N 4 % cs ob at c� ° O r to .... to (.. ,.. 0o L fo a • `� U K_.oz0 2.� 2.' •° • U d d o. E 0> a, U U. 0, a o. > OK _ ° o pip o di r o ° El Cf c3 M Cb a . Z' + 8 D o er U a 4 cc OA 6 a 0 b = 0 E5 0�0U � ; o Q W4 cn U vn o 2 iv o b N ° o o .5 > U rn N Z g .,,0 z -,: .„ ,i- ti.. Eq ` E LI 0 � � , . w a Q. oao _s `� o 0 'v, N VIV k" U 8 Q o E 8 8' 5 .-, Z N 0 + o ' , /1 I o o' al o o o :�.5 vo5a ° v = A ttaa .< rnN a a = O o ,,4 � N cv¢._ ZS 0r'4O 6. 6 :Z . Z e, e Z 1 d , S. - 8 li t o 0 o � ,o a lit V I o I N 4 .may Vc)U� -g o. Uga. A v 0 o c o 4 0 V12 O' U O°.5 O i� = °' o a ti) = W a, o r +• P4 0`n i vi U Ai kn cn I Ch o 6 an z 0 9 4. +; E o 0 CI w. p o o 41 O O 'CS �+ �• O '" N d N U - A c.) a>- 1 ct C7 o u, N o o-0 c4 N a. > o c . O o o o u o 8 c N a , a, u o ci, ct A�Ua a C 7 Z r 8 o.5 • 0.i U M `n O '0 @J ;r ci) Q +7. E„ 4. 1 O v) c� CA (1) () 0 Cr Z = tgi o 0" 0 "U o U o oo � o 71 � yL) as rD 2N A o + <4= U o U ar" . W c. a "S o ~ 0 zs u o 'C Q> v v4 CA � Z00 a =a oo ss.0 W4 Z1 - o 0 -v 14 i 1..i a; ca ` it 0 CC g ; 'IA g „� oL? Z Na.ou, as U R.C, O� o> 0 9 N ¢. Q o -0 2 W ti es o ,, c) `� a g,�_> � o � as `V 5 R a, ,, ° ' ' o I > 0 .. , a b � U a sw • us N -0 GC M c° 0 ■+ O 0 AUa 0 + • b o o �1 Cll ■o U a v1 N 4111111. 4Il 0 1 I■1 45 CI 4.4 . , i (N 1■1 N 00 VD O O Il N N , - 1■1 H 4 U 4 �C7 >C7 ;.. a) v • > a�'>0 ' ° 0 ' o Uz a.ga. > C 7 >C 7 a. . _ w = 3 ▪ a a IZI 71 "C O p N 0 N 0 a 0 ct _, as a >C7 >(.7 >C7 ._ w F -1 a `' c. o Z O N N EA a) a / a3 c3 ca N • i. cC d ` Z a .�a4u a Z Z Z Z .�a4 a M O II i -o f- O � o O . U d > C7 >C7 >C7 >C7 w u., • II 7 N c u u '3 O y CE . r L s.. W x dUC1 >C. W >C.7 :i. fi Col) w CA = 1:3 r . 72 0 a 0 o 01 C7 °? (.7 14 i a) a) U A, > W W > 3 + + , � a, o + u o + i. �/ p 1.4 © S. 5 r., s ue . C c. . 5 z o 0 r O el V o p., o 0 0 o p 0. o C o • L, �� z Q Q N t'-' N 6, . 5, " 0 . s Zy O p " p C C, h V , � . r $" L ^C v N o C rL -t o ° ^o t o a d ? L U A 44 i U Staff Recommendation for Space Needs + Phasing Near -Term / 2011 -2013 Mid -Term / 2014 -2020 Long -Term 2021 + Establish Capital Reserve Construction of 2 -plus Demolish and Fund for City story building & stairs at redevelop Rio Grande Public Facilities. ACRA site. if needed for public sector growth. Sell Zupancis Property. Consolidates five City office sites to two; Notification that relocating employees from StayAspenSnowmass Hopkins Annex, Yellow must relocate. Brick and Zupancis. Galena Plaza roof Partial 3` story could replacement: provide offices or new Must accommodate future public meeting space. 2 -plus story building & stairs @ ACRA site. '�►- - - - 'roc AL 3 1 1 . 14111111. , 111111 - 1 , , i Rendering of the extension of Galena Plaza, with a promontory overlooking Rio Grande Park. The redevelopment features a 2 -story building at ACRA site (right), with pop -up 3` story stepping up to the bank building. The curving open stairs reflect a fluid, 25' descent from the plaza. The bisecting tree planter reflects a riparian island element, and creates a gathering place. This rendering reflects many goals of the 2006 Civic Master Plan, including an improved north -south pedestrian corridor. (Please see Exhibit A.) { 11 Staff Comments Galena Plaza The opportunity for incremental development at various sites in the Galena Plaza area is a major advantage. The first phase would allow the City to consolidate its downtown offices from five to two, while vacating a lease position on Hopkins Street. It may also provide a new, high - quality public meeting space. Future phases could accommodate future needs, as they arise. Galena Plaza is also the most "civic" area, with the highest potential for civic buildings surrounded by green space and open vistas. A 2 -story building at the ACRA site with a flat roof would extend Galena Plaza significantly, creating a promontory with big views of Rio Grande Park and beyond. A small third story at the northwest edge of the plaza could be an ideal location for public meeting space without intruding on viewscapes. Another positive aspect of this site is a 50% increase in useable space on the same footprint, without obstructing viewscapes. (The demolition and redevelopment of the adjacent Rio Grande building would be a long -term (2021 +) safety valve.) Other opportunities include the mid- or long -term relocation of ACRA and the Visitors Center to a new building at the southeast corner of Mill Street and Rio Grande Place — a location favored by ACRA during the Zupancis- Galena Plan process in 2007/8. This could open up the existing ACRA space for other uses. Long -term expansion of the garage under the entire Rio Grande parking lot (extending the lowest existing parking level) is another mid- or long -term potential. The city may also want to keep an eye on the private sector office space in the building at the northwest corner of E. Main and Galena (across Galena St. from the courthouse). Relationship with Roof Replacement Project The City will have to determine how to phase the Galena Plaza roof replacement project and the two -plus story building at the ACRA site. There may be cost efficiencies and fewer neighbor impacts if the projects are constructed simultaneously. If full funding is not available, the roof replacement should be designed to accommodate the future office development in a manner that avoids excessive cost duplications. Zupancis This site has little or no potential for incremental development: It would have to be built all at once, at a substantial price. Full utilization of the site means a 25,000 square foot, three -story building, which is two and % times what is necessary to consolidate city offices. Pitkin County has stated it requires all the square footage, making an office space partnership untenable. Although the City could sell the Rio Grande building property under this scenario, the potential offset could be modest. Buyers may be limited due to inherent limitations on potential uses, partly due to the direct adjacency to the Pitkin County Jail. 12 The development of the Zupancis property by the City would also generate several uncertain variables, including whether the County would choose to relocate its offices out of town. This outcome would be entirely inconsistent with the Civic Master Plan, which has a primary goal of maintaining a downtown civic area that reinforces the sense of a year -round community in a resort environment. The Board of County Commissioners' current policy is to consolidate county offices by using the Zupancis property. There is a value to maintaining positive relations between the City and the County, especially at a public policy (board) level. A Zupancis development by the City may also raise questions about the disposition of the County Plaza building and the location of APCHA offices. In addition, it would require a planning and funding partnership with Pitkin County regarding the use of sub -grade space at the Zupancis property for the APD and SO, jail and court security and operations, parking and emergency egress. Many of these are County functions. It is staff's experience that multiple variables, timelines and partnerships can contribute to planning paralysis. Art Museum City renovation of the Art Museum site for offices would likely be inconsistent with the Civic Master Plan, which calls for a use that takes advantage of the large lawn, riparian area and public trail. The Civic Master Plan also cautions that this site is not compatible with uses that rely on events, due to limited parking. In addition, public expectations are growing regarding the future public use of this property for some kind of non - profit. Although the City Hall / Rio Grande / Art Museum sites are in general proximity, this consolidation is not as efficient, clear and functional as City Hall / Galena Plaza, both for internal staff relations and public service. Office Space Purchase or Public - Private Development of Office Space These two scenarios are intriguing, but ultimately are not as persuasive as incremental development at Galena Plaza. • Potential office space purchase at two confidential sites both include one entire sub -grade floor, which means subpar office space. Neither building would be in a civic neighborhood, nor would they be civic in appearance. One is five blocks from City Hall, which may not seem far, but that distance would compromise working relationships in practice, especially during periods when staff is under heavy workloads. • The potential public - private development site is very close to City Hall, but the 2 " floor site would not reflect a civic use in appearance. The square footage advisable at the site would barely accommodate consolidation of downtown City offices at peak levels, and would not allow for further expansion. The timing would likely be driven by the applicant, which could be problematic. Other uses may be more desirable. 13