Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20140121 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION January 21, 2014 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Analysis of Old Power House Property (aka Art Museum) II. Burlingame phase 2B construction Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE OF MEMO: January 16, 2014 MEETING DATE: January 21, 2014 Work Session RE: Old Power House/ 590 North Mill Street REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this Worksession is for Council to discuss attributes and constraints of the property, proposed uses, and Council’s vision for the future of this historic building and grounds. If Council decides to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for this property, staff will ask Council to define the scope and conditions of that RFP. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: This is the first Worksession dedicated to a discussion of Council’s vision for the Old Power House. BACKGROUND: Built in 1888 to house the Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Power Plant, this building is currently home to the Aspen Art Museum. With the new Art Museum under construction closer to the Aspen core, this building will be vacated sometime later this year. The attached memo from Justin Barker, Planner for the City of Aspen, and contour maps from the city’s Engineering Department document the building’s history, constraints, development potential, and historic status. The building is an attractive, historic asset on a beautiful site with views of the Roaring Fork River, Rio Grande Park, and Aspen Mountain. DISCUSSION: The vacation of this building presents Council and the greater community with an exciting opportunity. Considering the needs of the community through the filter of building and site constraints and opportunities, what is the best use of this property? In this Worksession, Council will participate in a facilitated discussion of; site history, constraints and opportunities, needs of the Aspen community, examples of excellent building reuse projects, and possible uses. Finally and most importantly, this conversation will challenge Council Members to explore their values around what sort of uses (educational, cultural, environmental, etc.) they are most interested in without defining or stating a specific use or project. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The financial impact of this decision will be determined by the terms of an agreement with the future user of this site. P1 I. Page 2 of 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The environmental impact of the reuse of this property will depend on the scope of redevelopment of this building. Obviously, the more the building and site are left as-is, the smaller the environmental footprint will be. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council look at all possible uses while carefully considering the environmental, social, and economic benefits of selecting the best use for this property. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: Attachment A – Memo from Justin Barker Attachment B- Map titled Art Museum Site Constraints Attachment C- List of Ideas for Future Use P2 I. 1 ATTACHMENT A/MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Barwick, City Manager FROM: Justin Barker, Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Old Power House Zoning Analysis – 590 North Mill Street DATE: January 17, 2014 ___________________________________________________________________________ Pursuant to your request, below is a summary of the Aspen Art Museum property development potential. Background – The property is roughly 118,000 gross square feet. In 1888, the current Art Museum building was originally built as the Hunter Creek Power Plant for hydroelectric power and used as the headquarters for the Roaring Fork Electric Light and Power Company. With the demand exceeding capacity in the late 1800s and early 1900s, a new plant was built on Castle Creek where operations were consolidated, leaving the Hunter Creek plant empty. The building was later taken over by Holy Cross Electric and used as a warehouse. The City of Aspen purchased the building from Holy Cross Electric in 1976. In 1979, the City leased the building and a small portion of the surrounding land to the Art Museum. P3 I. 2 Historic Status – The Art Museum is located in the old Hunter Creek Power Plant, previously owned and used as a warehouse by Holy Cross Electric. This is the only building that is currently located on the property. The property was designated in 1978, and the Aspen Art Museum renovated the space and has occupied it since 1979. Any new development would require review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Any future exterior changes to the building should most likely occur on the east and north sides where new additions have already been made. This could include further extension of the addition to the north for more space. Modifications to the south and west sides of the building should only be restoration work and should otherwise remain untouched. Zoning – The property is currently zoned R-30 with a Planned Development (PD) overlay. There is no available documentation on the PD overlay, so dimensional requirements would be according to the R-30 zone district. The R-30 district is primarily for detached residential dwelling and duplexes. Arts, cultural and civic uses are acceptable as a conditional use. Due to the current zoning, there are no defined FAR limitations for uses other than detached residential dwellings and duplexes. Some other uses can be approved as conditional uses, with FAR established through the approval process. This leaves the development potential somewhat unclear for other uses if the zoning remains the same. If the intended use is for another public facility, staff recommends rezoning to Public (PUB), which requires the adoption of a PD plan to establish dimensional requirements. The development potential of this site will be more constrained by the physical features than it will be by zoning regulations and surrounding uses. Site Constraints and Opportunities – There are many physical features that will restrict the amount and type of development that can occur on this property. The close proximity of the Roaring Fork River to the west and south sides of the property places more than half of the lot in the floodplain. The property has highly varied topography with about a 20 foot grade difference from Gibson Avenue down to the river. Visual access is somewhat limited due to the sunken topography and lush vegetation. The vehicular entrance to the site is somewhat confusing and dangerous, located at the intersection of Mill Street, Red Mountain Road and Gibson Avenue. However, creating a new access point is highly restricted by the natural features of the site. There is already some parking on-site, but only for about 22 vehicles. P4 I. 3 There are also many desirable features of the property. The property has an intimate park- like setting with a significant amount of mature vegetation and great trail connections with two public trails (Rio Grande and Lone Pine) that cut right through the middle of the property. The architecture and scale of the building is ideal for personal interaction and connection with the site. The building also retains a strong historical significance and the long-standing use as a museum has created a community-oriented identity for the property. The potential of allowing a variety of uses to occur within the building and on the property should be considered. There are numerous different natural settings available on this site and each provides a unique experience. The ability to provide a variety of activities on this property, both indoor and outdoor, would allow for greater flexibility and take full advantage of the entire site throughout the year. P5 I. P6 I. The City solicited ideas from the public about their vision for the future use of the building. Below are suggestions we received through Open City Halls, calls or emails • Healing center/inspiration center-massage, therapy, classes, nutrition • Art museum for local artists • Business incubator • Aspen Science Center • Performing arts/community center by day and homeless shelter at night • Rehearsal Space • Performing arts/community center • Design Center and Sculpture Garden • Meeting/event center • Climbing center, indoor and outside bouldering garden • Multi-purpose center/internet café/open mic nights • Multi-purpose/art/coffee/exercise class/performance/lecture • Children’s museum • Black box theater • Science and math center • Information center for backcountry adventure • Co-working office spaces • Community Hang out • Water sport park on river • Conference center P7 I. • Sell to a private entity for revenue • Industrial arts museum • Aspen Police Department and Pitkin County Sheriff • Grassroots TV • Ice curling hall • Banquet facility • Gonzo museum • Senior Services Program • Adult recreation center • Permanent farmer’s market • Rugby clubhouse • Hiker/biker welcome center • Ajax Adventure Camp • Culinary arts school • Mountain Rescue • Youth hostel • Aspen branch of Wyly Community Art Center • Children’s Health Foundation/ nutrition and cooking center • CORE offices • Church/synagogue/religious use • Offices for various City of Aspen departments • Co-working community space • Space for non-profit offices P8 I. Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager THROUGH: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: January 17, 2014 MEETING DATE: January 21, 2014 RE: Sales Update and Decision on Additional Construction at Burlingame Phase II REQUEST OF COUNCIL: To facilitate decision-making related to proposed construction of 34 additional affordable housing units in buildings 5 through 7 at Burlingame Ranch Phase II, Council has requested an update on progress of sales and presales of 48 affordable housing units in buildings 1 through 4 at Burlingame Ranch Phase II, which are currently nearing completion. At the time of this meeting, a consent item has alread y been placed on the January 27, 2014 consent agenda which consists of a construction contract for buildings 5 through 7 and which results in the detailed 2014 budget provided herein. Staff requests direction as to whether that consent item should remain on the January 27 consent agenda or if it should be removed. BACKGROUND: P9 II. Page 2 DISCUSSION: 2014 Budget for Construction of 34 Additional Units, Phase IIAii, Buildings 5-7 In 2012, staff established a 2014 budget estimate of $15 million for the construction of buildings 5-7. In late summer of 2013, staff received a draft GMP proposal for the construction of buildings 5-7 from Haselden Construction which would have required staff to raise the 2014 budget request above the previously estimated $15 million level. Staff issued an RFP to seek market pricing for the construction of buildings 5-7. The RFP process proved fruitful, and RA Nelson is the recommended GC for the construct ion of buildings 5-7. A summary of the updated 2014 budget is shown in the table below and contains a very large project contingency as a result of the RFP process and RA Nelson’s bid. The memo which has been submitted for the January 27 consent calendar for approval of that contract with RA Nelson describes the vetting and qualification process for the RA Nelson bid and will not be further discussed in this memo, however it is important to note that there is a significant opportunity for savings as a result the RFP process given that it has resulted in over $1.7 million in project contingency. Sales / Presales Update:  Buildings 1–4 (48 units currently under construction):  2 of 48 units have been sold. These are both in building 1.  23 of 48 units are under sales contract and are scheduled to close over the next 8 weeks. These are all in buildings 1 and 2 since those buildings are the first two ready.  22 of 48 units are reserved and but have not yet been converted to sales contracts. This includes all of the units in buildings 3 and 4. More than half of these have paid a non- refundable deposit of $1,500 toward the purchase of a finish upgrade package, which leads staff to believe that these are solid buyers. Most of the reservation-holders in building 3 toured their units on January 13 & 14 and are ready to sign sales contracts. Scheduling of appointments to sign sales contracts is in process. The reservation-holders in building 4 will tour their units on January 30 & 31 and will subsequently sign sales contracts. So far we are experiencing 96% (25/26) conversion of reservations to sales contracts and 100% (2/2) conversion of sales contracts to closings.  1 of 48 units remains unreserved. This is a 3-bedroom category 6 townhome unit. P10 II. Page 3  Buildings 5–7 (34 units proposed for 2014 construction start):  13 of 34 units are reserved. This is lower than previously reported to Council because some reservation-holders have chosen to move to sales contracts in buildings 1-4.  21 of 34 units are unreserved. Due to the workload at APCHA related to buildings 1–4, no additional marketing effort is being made toward reservations in buildings 5–7 at this time but could resume as closings on the units in buildings 1–4 get completed and free up resources. Staff also anticipates that positive experiences from the buyers of the units in buildings 1–4 will provide positive marketing on a grassroots level throughout the community.  Wait List:  APCHA currently has 36 potential buyers of varyin g unit size and unit category need. APCHA staff is working on fitting these people into available units but most recently have been focusing on filling the units in buildings 1–4. Where are people moving from?  27 (46%) Rent Deed Restricted (almost all from Aspen, about a third from Truscott)  22 (37%) Rent Free Market (about half in Basalt, half in Aspen)  6 (10%) Own deed Restricted (Centennial, Annie Mitchell, Lazy Glen, Burlingame Ph1)  4 (7%) Own Free Market (Carbondale and Basalt) Cost and Subsidy Update: At the November 13, 2012 budget work session, staff presented the subsidy projection below for the entirety of the Burlingame Phase II project. P11 II. Page 4 Below are two tables which illustrate that the two tranches of construction (2013) Buildings 1 through 4 and (Proposed 2014) Buildings 5 through 7 are working toward improving that goal: * Note that the ‘Total Cost’ values shown in the two red summary tables are greater than the expenditures shown in each year in the blue table because the expenditures from 1997 through 2012 have been apportioned on a square footage basis toward the total cost of the buildings constructed in 2013 and (proposed for) 2014. What if there are unsold units in buildings 5-7? Assuming 4% interest, carrying cost for unsold units is about $25,000 per unit per year. Over the past four years, regional construction costs have increased by an average of less than 2% per year, but more volatility has been seen in the past year, which could be a precursor to sharper increases in in the short term. Assuming 2% construction cost increase for the next two years, we could carry all 34 units for two years and still break even as compared to the November 13, 2012 projections. This is analogous to an insurance policy against higher construction cost increases over the next two years. Since it is unlikely that more than a handful of units would actually remain unsold for more than a year, there is instead an opportunity for over a million dollars in savings as compared to the November 13, 2012 projections. It is also important to consider that staff and its consultants are in the process of completing construction of a largely similar tranche of construction. Although it is difficult to place a dollar value on the knowledge of the management team which is in place, there would surely be loss of value and quality assurance expertise if a future remobilization were sought. What is the current affordable housing need which was determined at the 2012 joint City Council / BOCC housing worksession? A 2012 Strategic Review of Housing study assembled for the joint City Council / BOCC housing worksession held in the fall of 2012 determined that the City and County would collectively need to develop about 55 units per year for the next 10 years in order to keep up with job growth, gentrification and retirement to hold constant the approximate 47% of Pitkin County workers currently housed locally. According to that study, with 48 units constructed in buildings 1-4 in 2013 and 34 units constructed in buildings 5-7 in 2014 at Burlingame Phase II, over 450 units would still be needed from 2015 to 2022. P12 II. Page 5 APCHA Lottery Bid Data: 2010 Average: 10 bids per lottery occurrence 2011 Average: 9 bids per lottery occurrence 2012 Average: 7 bids per lottery occurrence 2013 Average: 13 bids per lottery occurrence Although the 2013 increase suggests more recent participation in APCHA lotteries, it is difficult to gauge demand specific to family-style nature of the Burlingame environment, thus staff feels that the actual Burlingame Phase II sales contracts and reservations serves as a more accurate estimate of real-time demand for affordable housing at Burlingame Phase II. APCHA Resale Listings: Staff notes the obvious difficulty in the Category 6 and Category 4 1-bedroom market:  Currently in bid period:  Annie Mitchell, Category 3, 1BR, 1BA, 780SF  Burlingame Ranch Ph1, Category 3, 3BR, 2BA, 1,555SF  Hoaglund Ranch, Category 3, 2+BR, 1BA, 945SF  North Forty, Category RO, 4BR, 3.5BA, SF Home, 3219SF w/2-car garage  Midland Park, Category 4, 1BR, 1BA, 625 SF  No bid period:  Burlingame Ranch Ph1, Category 4, 1BR, 1BA, 897SF  Burlingame Ranch Ph1, Category 4, 1BR, 1BA, 1,052SF  Burlingame Ranch Ph1, Category 4, 1BR, 1BA, 1,052SF  Hoaglund Ranch, Category 3, 1BR, 1BA, 942 SF  Woody Creek, Category 6, 3BR, 2BA, Manufactured Home 980SF + Lot 2464SF  Woody Creek, Category 6, 3BR, 3BA, SF Home 1899SF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council consider approval of the contract for construction of buildings 5– 7 which has already been placed on the January 27, 2014 consent agenda and which results in the detailed 2014 budget provided herein. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Proposed detailed 2014 budget P13 II. Burlingame Ranch Phase IIAii, Buildings 5-7, 34 units 2014 Detailed Budget Estimate (carry-forward from 2013 not yet included) rev. Jan 17, 2014 ce SOURCES Budget Actual Variance 2013 Carry-Forward Balance tbd 2014 City Council Budget Approval 15,056,020$ Grant Funding tbd Total Sources 15,056,020$ -$ -$ USES A.Construction - General Contractor 11,429,114$ -$ (11,429,114)$ Access/Infrastructure Remaining tbd Vertical Buildings 1-4 Remaining (HCL)tbd Vertical Buildings 5-7 including Solar Thermal (RAN)11,279,114$ (11,279,114)$ 2014 Irrigation connectivity - design and construction 150,000$ (150,000)$ City of Aspen Parks Contribution (pumps/pumphouse)-$ B. Construction - Developer Responsibilities (City of Aspen)129,000$ -$ (129,000)$ Offsites Sunk -$ Mitigation Sunk -$ Offsite Storm Sewer -$ Site Gas Supply, Electrical Design, Utility Oversight -$ Site Elect Underground -$ Site Elect Supply -$ Site Sanitary Line -$ Owners OCIP Insurance 129,000$ (129,000)$ C. Soft Costs 1,772,003$ -$ (1,772,003)$ Design Administrative Services COA PM 200,000$ (200,000)$ Legal 20,000$ (20,000)$ Presales 10,000$ (10,000)$ Owner's Agent 390,880$ (390,880)$ Architect & Consultants 408,609$ (408,609)$ CxA Constr Phase 74,600$ (74,600)$ Enhanced Civil Oversight -$ Enhanced Vertical Oversight 64,130$ (64,130)$ Professional Services Materials Testing Geotech (inc materials testing)44,000$ (44,000)$ Survey 40,000$ (40,000)$ Medium voltage electrical oversight 5,000$ (5,000)$ Fees Sewer Tap Fee 191,784$ (191,784)$ Water Tap Fee - waived Parks Impact Fee - waived TDM Impact Fee - when buildings online 37,000$ (37,000)$ School Impact Fee - when buildings online 31,000$ (31,000)$ Road Impact Fee - n/a only for Pitkin County Permit Building Permit Fee 150,000$ (150,000)$ Stormwater Fee - waived Land Use Fee Home Sales Fee HOA Setup 20,000$ (20,000)$ Burlingame Phase I Parking, Design & Engineering 75,000$ (75,000)$ Other Construction Power and Water 10,000$ (10,000)$ D. Contingencies 1,725,903$ -$ (1,725,903)$ 2013 Contingency 1,725,903$ (1,725,903)$ Project contingency expressed as % of construction cost 15.1% Total Uses (A + B + C + D)15,056,020$ -$ (15,056,020)$ Page 1 of 1 P14 II.