Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20150302 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 02, 2015 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Public Projects Code Amendment II. Old Power House Proposal Presentations Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Barker, Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: March 2, 2015 RE: Public Projects Code Amendment SUMMARY: Staff is seeking direction to proceed with a code amendment to bring the City’s Land Use Code into alignment with State Statute. Currently, there is a conflict between State Statute requirements and what the Land Use Code requires regarding land use review process. For certain projects submitted by a governmental entity, quasi-municipal organizations or public agency (hereinafter called “public entities”), the State requires a decision (approval or not) within 60 days of a submitted complete application. This is often referred to as a location and extent review. However, the review process required by the Land Use Code can often exceed this timeline. The applicable entity has the ability to overturn whatever decision is made, but it is imperative that the City have a process in place to comply with State regulations, while providing adequate review of the projects. DISCUSSION: The purpose of the proposed Code Amendment is to create a process that provides adequate review of certain projects proposed by public entities, in order to eliminate conflict between State requirements and the City of Aspen Land Use Code. This memo outlines the process that staff has developed to this point. Expansion of COWOP Chapter: Staff believes that the existing COWOP (Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public) Chapter 26.500 is the most appropriate location in the Code to include this amendment, as this is an existing alternative review process. Staff suggestion is to include two new levels of review to this Chapter to create a total of a three-tier review system for public projects. The first tier of review would be for very simple projects such as trail construction or adding ramps for accessibility requirements. The second tier of review would include most remodels, expansions, and some new construction. The existing COWOP process would be the highest level of review for large new construction projects that would benefit from extensive public exposure and involvement. Review authorities: Staff recommends that the first tier of reviews be reviewed administratively. They would often include minor or no visual change to a property and would be in line with many approval types that are typically already administrative. The second tier of review would include an advisory group and final decision at City Council. The advisory group would consist of members of City boards, key referral agencies, and other interested parties, as P1 I. Page 2 of 2 applicable. The purpose of the advisory group would be to quickly review the application and provide feedback to the applicant and a recommendation to City Council. The current COWOP process would remain the same. Review process: The first two tiers of review would need to be completed within 60 days, unless the applicant agrees to a longer timeframe. This should be reasonable, as the first tier would be strictly administrative, and the second tier only requires final decision by City Council. On larger projects, the review may not be able to be completed within 60 days and would need to be negotiated with the applicant. Exemptions: Certain projects should not be required to go through the public projects process. Projects located within the right-of-way are not traditionally subject to land use reviews, so routine maintenance and/or upgrades to the right-of-way should be exempt. Additionally, staff suggests that an entity should have the option to elect to go through the standard review process that is outlined in the Land Use Code instead. The public projects review should only serve as an opportunity to expedite review and not a requirement if it is not desired by the entity proposing a project. FEEDBACK: Staff has requested feedback from the public entities that this code amendment may affect and held a meeting with P&Z to obtain feedback. In general, those public entities providing comment were generally in support of the concept and direction suggested by staff. P&Z was also generally in support of the concept and direction suggested by staff. Staff is seeking Council support to proceed with a code amendment pertaining to Public Projects. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: P2 I. Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE: February 25, 2015 MEETING DATE: March 2, 2015 / March 3, 2015 RE: Receive and Review the Finalist’s Responses to the RFP for the Old Power House Summary: Council will receive presentations from each of the five finalists and will have the opportunity to question each applicant. Previous Council Action: On January 5, 2015, Council met and approved the final language for the RFP for the reuse of the Old Power House building. It was issued to the five Council-designated finalists. The deadline for turning the proposals into the Purchasing Officer is February 27, 2015 at 2:00 PM. Background: The City of Aspen’s Old Power House, built in 1886, functioned as a power plant for nearly a century. The building was remodeled and the Aspen Art Museum has occupied it since 1979. With the completion of the new Aspen Art Museum building on Hyman Avenue, the Old Power House building will be vacated and made available for another use. In preliminary discussions about future occupation of the Old Power House, Council members and the public said they would like to see widespread public usage, a center for the community and multiple uses in that space. Council suggested that the uses have a “memory-making” quality and a “wow factor.” On August 4, 2014, City Council agreed to prepare a Request For Qualifications for outside organizations interested in occupying the City’s Old Power House building once it is vacated by the current tenant, the Aspen Art Museum. Separately, City Council agreed to form a committee comprised of four citizens and three City staff members to evaluate all responses to the RFQ and P3 II. Page 2 make a recommendation to City Council on their top choices. Potential future uses of the Old Powerhouse have also been discussed in work sessions and at an Open House that gathered general community feedback. On November 18, 2014, and following a number of meetings and a full review of the 15 submissions to the City’s Request for Qualifications (RFQ), the Old Power House RFQ Review Committee provided Council with a summary of its findings and final recommendation. The Committee recommended that four organizations be invited to respond to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for use of the OPH site: Aspen Media Powerhouse (submitted by Grassroots Community Network), Aspen Science Center, John Denver Museum and Cultural Center, and Powerhouse Performance and Event Center (submitted by The Red Brick). A fifth proposal, The Power House —Aspen (the Gathering Place) was highlighted by the group as containing several compelling ideas that should be considered in the ultimate use of the building. Council Deliberations: On November 18, 2014, Council declined to advance the proposal of the John Denver Museum and Cultural Center and instead moved two proposals that had not been recommended by the OPH Review Committee to the Finalist group – (1) The Power House —Aspen (the Gathering Place); and (2) the Power Plant Brewery. On November 18, 2014, the Council determined that the following proposals would be forwarded to the next round of review: 1. Aspen Media Powerhouse (submitted by Grassroots Community Network); 2. Aspen Science Center; 3. Powerhouse Performance and Event Center (submitted by The Red Brick); 4. The Power House —Aspen (the Gathering Place); and 5. Power Plant Brewery Discussion: City Council will evaluate the RFPs in the following manner and on the following schedule: Each proposer will be given the opportunity to make a 20-minute presentation. At the end of 20 minutes they will be required to stop their presentation. Council will then have up to 30 minutes for follow-up questions, 10 minutes will be allotted for each proposer to break down their presentation and for the next proposer to set up their presentation (thus, one per hour). The council may bring proposers back during their worksession on March 10th or March 17th, when it is anticipated that council will either declare that no proposal meets their desires or select at least one proposer to begin contract negotiations.  Worksession on Monday, March 2nd (5:00 PM start immediately following the item on Public Projects Code Amendment): P4 II. Page 3 1. Power Plant Brewery: (no more than 20 minute presentation) followed by Q&A from the Council 2. The Power House Aspen (the Gathering Place): (no more than 20 minute presentation) followed by Q&A from the Council  Worksession on Tuesday, March 3rd (4:00 PM start): 1. Powerhouse Performance and Event Center: (no more than 20 minute presentation) followed by Q&A from the Council 2. Aspen Science Center: (no more than 20 minute presentation) followed by Q&A from the Council 3. Aspen Media Powerhouse: (no more than 20 minute presentation) followed by Q&A from the Council  Worksession on Tuesday, March 10th (4:00 PM start, immediately following the Internal Controls Audit Review) 1. Council will discuss their scoring of the proposals and may make a decision about which proposer(s) to enter into contract negotiations with, if any. 2. Public comment will be taken beginning at 5:30 PM.  Worksession on Tuesday, March 17th (4:00 PM start): Council will finalize their decision about which proposer(s) to enter into contract negotiations with, if any. The Aspen City Council will make the final decision about who will be invited to negotiate a contract for use of the building. If those negotiations are successful, a contract for the use of the building will be approved and the proposer may go forward making their proposal a reality. Electronic copies of the RFP responses can be accessed Friday afternoon after 3:00 PM at the following website (location is the same): http://bit.ly/1LEOnDw or http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Purchasing-City-of-Aspen/Old-Power-Building-RFQ/ City Manager Comments: _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ P5 II.