Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcclc.ag.09211994 COMMERCIAL CORE & LODGING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 8:30 I. Roll call and Commissioner Comments II. Public Comments ~-- ~w- ~[0~ 9:00 III. BFI report (rubber stops) 9:30 IV. Kurosch 10:00 V. Truck delivery curfew fiscussion Police, Parking, Parks, Streets, Engineering 11:00 IV. Adjourn If time discussion on bylaws - please bring ord. 49, 1991 and your bylaws. From: Commercial Core and Lodging Commission To: Mayor John Bennett Aspen City Council Subject: Super Block/City Market Expansion Members of the CCLC have studied the various proposals concerning the development known as the Super Block as well as the planned expansion of the City Market property, we feel compelled at this time under the Bylaws for the~CondUct of Business of the CCLC to formally respond as to 6ur conclusions. Members of CCLC attended the seminars conducted to educate interested parties in Aspen as to the proposed development. It was their conclusion after attending those seminars and further speaking with a number of merchants within the Commercial Core that the project is opposed by a large majority of those with interests within the Commercial Core. The bottom line reasons were as follows: 1. Density of the project 2. The spending of City money for the development of parking that will be to the great advantage of City Market 3. The drastic change to the overall character of that end of town from the type of growth and atmosphere that has been aspired to in the past for the City of Aspen. 4. Concern for the introduction of the K-Mart effect that will follow with the extensive expansion of City Market. While several of these objections seem to have been met and possibly resolved with the down sizing of the original project, i.e. items 1 and 3 above, we want to be on record as to our opposition as any further negotiations between the developer and City Officials proceed. Items 2 and 4 appear not to be dead issues and are of great concern to those business owners within the Commercial Core. The effect of having a massive parking lot on just one end of town along with a multi purpose commercial outlet as is planned by the expansion of City Market is soundly opposed by the majority of the merchants within the Commercial Core. Therefore, in view of the research and study done by this Commission we feel it our responsibility to report to you our objections to further expansion of the existing block now occupied by City Market. RYANCO, INC. 715 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, OOLORADO 81611 WARREN F. RYAN TELEPHONE 303-925-5889 PRESIDENT FACSIMILE 303-925-2408 SUSAN BRUCKER ROLAND PARKER DRAFT TO: MAYOR JOHN BENNETT AND ASPEN CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: WARREN F. RYAN - ALTERNATIVE COMMERCIAL CORE AND LODGING COMMISSION MEMBER SUBJECT: SUPER BLOCK/CITY MARKET EXPANSION MINORITY DESCANTING OPINION DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 1994 Along with this memorandum, it is my understanding that you will receive a memorandum from the majority of the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission members concerning the Super Block/City Market expansion. I have read their memorandum and have been involved in all of the discussions the CCLC has held pertaining to this matter this year. I am opposed to the position taken by my colleagues on the board. My reasons are relatively simple, and I have voiced them on public record at our various meetings. My concerns are as follows: 1. It is my opinion that the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission has inadequate information to make a decision regarding this project. We have never had an official presentation by either the developer or by the City. At various times staff members of the City have given us opinions pertaining to the development, and almost without exception, these opinions seem to contradict themselves the next week. 2. There appears to be sentiment amongst my colleagues that this project should be opposed because it will affect other merchants in the commercial core. I have not been convinced that additional retail competition in any way will hurt the other merchants in the commercial core, and even if it did, I am not so sure that the City should be in a position of restricting competitive retail competition. I have often heard the statement that there is no place to buy everyday consumer products for "local" Aspen residents. It would appear that this project, by fostering competition, would create lower retail rents, therefore, allowing for potential new retail tenants to sell products that do not require the high tourist retail markup. This issue raises another philosophical point as to the CCLC...who does CCLC represent? Does it represent core merchants to the exclusion of the community as a whole? 3. My understanding of the project seems to indicate that it would foster an extension of the Cooper Street pedestrian mall. I would favor a project that makes the core more pedestrian friendly. It would also take parking spaces off the street and put them under ground, which is far more attractive to the overall appearance of the commercial core. 4. I hear the argument that this project would create a "K- Mart" effect on the commercial core. At best, this is a glittering generality, and again, I have seen no evidence produced to substantiate this claim, at any of our meetings, that would lead me to believe this assertion. 5. I have also heard the statement, unsupported by hard testimony or fact, that the "majority of merchants" in the commercial core are opposed to this project. Again, at best, this is hearsay testimony and conflicts with my basic objection to this project that the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission has not received, nor has it held hearings on this mat~er that properly digest the issues both pro and con, to make a decision based on fact. It may be that after having the evidence in front of the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission, I would be able to vote with my colleagues in opposition to this project, but until such time as we do have the necessary facts and data, I am unable to oppose this project. Should you have any questions regarding any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards. August 10, 1.994 John Caldwell City Market 105 W. Colorado Ave Grand Junction, CO 81501 Jim Valerio Valerio Development Corporation 6 Eaton Way Mill Valley, CA 94941 Dear Jim and John: The Aspen City Council met Monday night and again offer the development team a proposal for the successful completion of the Independence Place project. Although Council agrees that there is much to negotiate and time is short they were surprised by the recent letter from Mr. Prinster informing us to move forward with housing on the Kraut parcel. City Council did go forward with the scheduled meeting and made the following decisions: I) All development on the proposed site (we understand Mr. Kelly has dropped out) will be developed at existing zoning with a 1:1 FAR. Any affordable housing on site can be added to the site for a total not to exceed 1.35 tol FAR. 2) The conversion of 40 lodge rooma to 7 - 10 residential condos is acceptable and can be exempt from GMQS for a total of 20,000 to 25,000 sq ft. This decision was made given the unique circum.qtances of this project and in light of the substantial public contribution related to parking and a public plaza. However, the Council desires that the bottom floor of the Bell Mountain site be primarily used for NC/NC types of uses as thl.q area is adjacent to the public plaza, la addition, you will need to work with Planning staff to develop the "conversion" formula used to calc~flat~ mitigation requirements. .... 2a) A related issue to the above conversion is the ability to have between 5,000 and 10,000 net leasable square feet of what we have now termed "NC Plns.~ This is tied to the above (2) because if you choose 20,000 square feet for the residential condos then you would have 10,000 square feet of ~NC Plus~; if you decide to use 25,000 square feet for the condos then you would only be able to lease 5,000 square feet of ~NC Plus. ~ NC Plus has been discussed with the development team many times as locally owned business which are not tourist oriented and are not part of a national chain but which are beyond the can'rent definition of NC. 3) The City Council is willing to pay a pro rata share of your costs for this project as long as we balance your costs with some of our consultant costs. The pro rata share will be based on the overall square footage of the plaza and garage spaces. 4) The City is willing to pay all costs associated with the road and the alley, any utility ~upgrades~ (not the basic utilities related to normal development) and one-half of the public plaza improvements. The City is not willing to pay Park Dedication fees but can work with you to potentially ~trade' the public plaza for this fee. City Council did not address water tap fees specifically, however, they noted that sewer tap fees are beyond our jurisdiction. 5) The City is willing to allow the Kraut site to be used as a temporary City Market, including use of thc parking being built underneath the site. The City will pay any cost increases on construction related to inflation (CPI). City Market will need to pay rent on the site equal to the interest payments on the loan for the underground parking on the Kraut site. City Market will also need to pay the City any other incremental cost increases (less inflation) for coustmction due to the delay. We discussed other potential sites for a temporary City Market and could not identify other sites in the City which would be practical or remotely feasible. 6) We PrOpose that a tenant association pay for mall maintenance with the City paying a pro-rata share based on the Cooper Street area. 7) The City agrees to be a co-applicant. 8) The City will make its best efforts to obtain low interest financing. 9) The City agrees to'not 'devalue' the parking on this site. 10) The City would like to own and have a say in the operations of at least 128 municipal spaces. Given the above concessions the City anticipates that the private sector will build the spaces but the City will be able to keep the revenues from these spaces and operate and maintain [he garage. The remaining 40 spaces can be leased or sold by the development team. I1) City Market can build 29,500 gross square feet of City Market space and 22,450 square feet total net leasable space of which only 2,500 square feet can be above grade. Escalators and entry ways built above grade will not couat ia net leasable for City Market but will be part of the overall 1:1 FAR. We look forward to hearing back from you as to your desire to continue to pursue thi.~ project. Sincerely yours, Amy L. Margerum City Manager cc: Aspen City Council Leslie Lamont, planning Steve Barwick, Assistant City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Alan Richman