Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.sp.Independence Place
ts i sax 3613, .44A", ee~4 a, rwe December 31, 1993 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Pam• 1303) 920-1125 RE: INDEPENDENCE PLACE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Dear Leslie, Attached please find twenty-five (25) copies of the Independence Place Development Application. In addition to the reduced size copies of all drawings, which are included in the application booklet, five (5) copies of the full scale drawings have also been provided. Also attached are checks from each of the property owners, which total $4,439, of which $3,925 is in payment of the Planning Office development application fee, and the remainder of which is in payment of the Engineering Department, Environmental Health Department and Housing Office referral agency review fees. I anticipate that you will find the application to be complete and ready for referral. If, questions should arise, however, which require additional materials to be submitted, or for the submitted materials to be clarified, I will promptly respond to such requests on the Applicants' behalf. Should this occur, please feel free to contact me at the address or phone number above. Thank you for your considerable assistance while the application was being prepared and for your continuing attention to this project during its staff and public review stages. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLAN NG SERVICES Alan Richman, AICP T MEMORANDUM Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager FROM: Diane Moore, City Planning Director Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: December 7, 1993 RE: Superblock Executive Worksession The purpose of this worksession is for Council to review the preliminary analysis of the costs of development of the East End parking garage, the values created by the upzomng of the property, a priority list of key issues for negotiation purposes and a list of what the City gives verses what the City receives and other relevant information. Staff has attached the following memos for your reference: September 15, 1993 Staff Memo; September 21, 1993 Staff Memo; September 24, 1993 Curtis Memo; and November 01, 1993 Curtis Memo regarding the Kraut property garage. 1. The cost of the 2nd level of earliest parking, onstructon date of the garage.4,810,000 in 1995 dollars, the estimate 2. The operating revenues (most probable estimate) of the 2nd level of parking are estimated to support a parking revenue bond of $1,688,000. 3. The "shortfall" cost of the 2nd level of parking is estimated at $3.122.000, $4,810,000 vs $1,688,000 bonding capacity. 4. Only about 1,000 square feet will be delivery/storage and office space of the new City Market proposal. 5. Is the 5,000 sq. ft. of City Market space above grade negotiable? Doe3 that space have to be City Market's'? 6. Aspen/Snowmass trade area, based upon 1991-1992 population projections, can support 55,540 sq. ft. of supermarkets. 7. Staff approximates that there is 16,500 gross square feet of additional CL space added to the project property with a value of $1,755,600. 8. Staff approximates that there is 17,500 gross square feet of additional NC space added to the project property representing a loss of $(126,000). 9. If the cost of employee parking was added into the purchase price/rents of the . dwelling units, SJV would save approximately $1,000,000 that could be used to offset the cost of the municipal parking spaces. 10. The code amendments and policy changes outlined in the memo are supported by staff and are consistent with recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan. 11. Vacating Cooper Street will eliminate 30 public parking spaces. The cost -of those spaces is $56,160/year. 12. If Council is uncomfortable with the allowed commercial uses in the CL zone district, the use of the SPA overlay could establish a range of uses more appropriate for this site. CL - Commercial Lodge zone district LP - Lodge Preservation zone district NC - Neighborhood Commercial zone district FAR -Floor Area Ratio SJV - Superblock Joint Venture Partnership SPA -Specially Planned Area NC Floor Area Ratio - 1:1 CL Floor Area Ratio - 2:1 LP Floor Area Ratio - 1:1 The floor area ratio is calculated on above grade space only. The below grade space does not count in the floor area ratio calculation. Net leasable space is all commercial space, above and below grade, excluding storage. bathrooms, corridors, stairways, circulation and mechanical areas. 2 Jim Curtis provided an overview of the construction and operating costs of the second level of the garage and revenues from that operation. The current proposal is for the City to build and operate the second level of parking estimated at 2 spaces. to Jim used information from both Bob Gish and t Ready owingtermine approximate costs/space and anticipated revenues and determined 1. The cost of the 2nd level of parking is estimated at $4,810,000 in 1995 dollars, the estimated earliest construction date of the garage. 14 C� e, 2. The operating revenues (most probable estimate) of the 2nd level of parking are estimated to support a parking revenue bond of $1,688,000. o 3. The "shortfall" cost of the 2nd level of parking is estimated at $3,122,000, i.e. $4,810,000 vs. $1,688,000 bonding capacity. Jim suggested options that could cover the shortfall. Staff only agreF-s with the following: 1. Increase SJV contribution. 2. Increase City contribution/subsidy. 3. State or federal contributions. 4. Increase the parking revenues and bonding capacity. 5. Reduce the SJV employee housing subsidy. 6. Combinations of all the above. Please see Tables 1 - 3 for garage analysis. This is Jim Curtis' analysis. Staff agrees with his analysis. PART III - The Size of City Market City Market proposes to rebuild their existing space completely below grade. The below grade space represents 26,000 square feet. Currently, City Market owns the entire building on the site. There is 26,000 gross square feet in the entire structure, which includes 1,000 - 2.000 square feet that would not obe ut mopItia d ondCosts ornet GM leasableP space. City market could take over the entire building with allocations (K-Mart rule does not apply in the NC zone district). 3 Although the proposed below grade space does not represent calculable "floor area" it is net leasable . Council has requested a clarification of what amount of the proposed space is actual sales space (net leasable) and what amount of space is delivery/storage space. In conversations with John Caldwell Director of Real Estate for City Market, he has said that in order to justify the redevelopment of this property they must "intensely" merchandize every possible square foot as some form of sales space. He anticipates that only about 1,000 square feet will be delivery/storage and office space. As a point of comparision, the Circle Super in Carbondale is 25,000 square feet according to City Market figures and confirmed by the Carbondale building department. It is a conventional store and approximately 15 %-20 % of the store is devoted to storage/delivery and office space. Thus, the net leasable portion of the store represents approximately 21,250 square feet. When asked what City Market envisions for the expanded Aspen store, John indicated . that the emphasis would probably be more customer service -oriented counters. A gourmet meat and fresh fish counter would be new additions. They would like to enhance the departments that are already in the store and probably will not add new departments, such as and y or grocery videostores trare constantly stressedon. He that as a new changing the typesore f opens, departments evolve g ry departments that are offered, depending on their market. Staff suggests that Council visit the Circle Super store in Carbondale to gain a perspective of a 25,000 square foot store. Keep in mind that an Aspen City market would be less conventional. Staff did not discuss the additional 5,000 square feet of above grade commercial space with John Caldwell. The SJV has proposed that this would also be a City Market function and be either a bakery/deli or "quick mart" type store with a direct connection to the below grade market. In an effort to understand how the proposed size of the redeveloped City Market relates to the market/trade area, staff discussed the "size" question with a developer experienced in the construction/management of shopping centers and supermarkets in resort areas in California. The developer recently built a shopping center that c in a Safeway supermarket, which was located 1 /2 mile from Truckee, Truckee, California is a tourist community of 9,000 residents located north of Tahoe and four miles from Squaw Valley. Similarities between Truckee and Aspen would include: Population projections include both permanent residents, seasonal residents and tourists; X Peak seasons coincide with the winter tourist seasons and summer tourist seasons; 0 • 0 * Off seasons occur in the spring and late fall; and * Residents and tourists travel to adjacent cities to purchase goods and merchandise. Truckee -contained a 24,000 sq. ft. Lucky Supermarket (built in 1980) and a 14,000 sq. ft. Safeway supermarket (built in 1966). These markets were not meeting the needs of both the residents and the tourists. As a result, people were driving to Reno, Nevada (45 miles from Truckee), to shop in supermarkets that were larger, more modern and provided a better selection of merchandise. The new Safeway supermarket contains approximately 40,000 sq. ft. Both the existing Lucky Supermarket and the new Safeway store have increased their sales as a result of the new Safeway supermarket. 0leased. Additionally, all the commercial/retail space in downtown Truckee has remained 1 The preliminary market analysis, as suggested by the developer, would consider the following: The trade area for the supermarkets would include both the Aspen metro area and the Town of Snowmass Village. During the peak season, the peak population (includes both residents and tourists) for both these areas is approximately 35,000 (1992 AACP figures). / We � On a weekly basis, the average person spends ap ximately $30/week for food. Based on the trade area, this translates into $1,050,00(� sales. Assuming that there are 32 weeks during the peak season, approximately $33,600,000 in annual sales exists. During the off season, approximately 11,000 people reside in the trade area and this translates into $5,280,000 in annual sales in the off season. This represents a total of $38,880,000 annual sales in the trade area. A high volume supermarket generates $700 per sq. ft. per year. Based on this industry standard, the trade area could support 55,540 sq. ft of area for supermarket to ould"buibe noted that these populations fires are based on current peak populations as opposed Another factor toconsider is the "spinoff' and of drawsiness to customers toent that tlocationu�Adjacent rmarkets tend to "capture" the local mar businesses then benefit from the customers additional purchases. PART IV - Value of Upzoning CI, and NC Staff has reviewed the number's analysis prepared by Jim Curtis for upzoning the property. We have also prepared our own analysis based upon different square footage. These analyses are based upon rezoning related to the proposed project. However, rezoning is a quasi-judicial procedure that requires public hearings and review. 5 • 0 Although staff supports the following text amendments, it does not negate the public review of these proposals and the ability of Council to deny the proposed amendments. A. Jim calculated the value of the upzoning based solely on the increase in commercial floor area that is added to the entire project property. He then used the increased floor area (11,000 sq. ft.) and assigned a separate value for CL space and for NC space. Existing buildout for all 3 properties, based upon current FAR requirements = 54,000 square feet. Proposed buildout for all 3 properties, FAR requirements based upon rezoning = 65,000 square feet (excluding employee housing and below grade City Market). The difference = 11,000 square feet added to the property. Value of 11,000 square feet of CL commercial space = $1,067,600. Value of 11,000 square feet of NC commercial space = B. Staff disagrees that values should be based only on the additional floor area that is added to the site. We contend that the project must be analyzed as a whole. First, upzoning Bell Mountain from LP to CL creates the potential for 20,000 square feet of CL commercial space that does not currently exist on the site. The floor area ratio for LP is 1:1 and commercial uses are not permitted. The floor area ratio for CL is 2:1 and those commercial uses that are permitted in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district are allowed uses in the CL zone district only on the first floor of the lodge. The Bell Mountain Lodge parcel is approximately 20,000 square feet and, at a 2:1 floor area ratio it is possible that 20,000 square feet (or the entire first floor) could be commercial uses. In the current proposal, the Buckhorn Lodge which is now zoned CL, would be rezoned to NC. Therefore. approximately ,500 square NC uses. Rezone Total New CL commercial space + 20,000 sq. ft. commercial space - 3,500 sq. ft. commercial space 16,500 sq. ft. Value of 16,500 square feet = $1,755,600. 0 Please see Tables 4, 5, and 6 for those calculations. Second, it is true below grade space does not count as "floor area". However, without City Market's ability to participate with other property owners, including the City, there would be no ability for City Market to build 26,000 square feet below grade and 15,000 square feet of NC space above grade and provide required parking on -site. Therefore, staff concludes that there is a 17,500 square feet of additional NC space added to the project property that should be considered. (Downzoning of the Buckhorn Lodge from CL to NC has been already factored into the equation with the CL analysis.) The value of the additional 17,500 square feet of NC space is $(126,000). Please see the calculations on Tables 7, 8, and 9. C. Total value of upzoning to CL commercial space and additional NC space = $1,629,600. What the calculations do indicate is the 17,500 square feet of NC space has no value to the developer and the ability to increase the City's amount of NC is a gift. Staff believes that the parking requirement in the NC zone district is a significant impact when developing NC space (4 spaces/1,000 sq. ft). Therefore Council may want to consider using the SPA overlay variance process to reduce the amount of the required parking for additional NC space that is developed on the site. In addition, because the NC space represents a loss, Council may want to consider accepting the 16,500 CL/17,500 NC as an appropriate split of uses on the site. Based upon the current proposal, the following amendments to the Municipal Code have been suggested. (As stated above in Part IV, rezoning and text amendments are a quasi- judicial procedure that require public notice and hearings before the Council shall make a final determination with regard to the proposals.) As a companion to those text amendments, several policy shifts are also proposed. Code Amendments Amend External Floor Area Ratio for NC zone district: currently it is 1:1 and it is proposed to be increasable to 1.5:1 by special review when sixty (60%) percent of the additional floor area is approved for residential use restricted to affordable housing. 7 This amendment is consistent with the AACP that recommends more incentives for employee housing downtown. It is also consistent with the CC zone district that enables a bonus for on -site employee housing. ii. Demolition and Reconstruction Mitigation. Rather than completely exempt mitigation of the Superblock proposal from employee and parking mitigation for the demolition and reconstruction of existing development, staff offers the alternative: Demolition and reconstruction mitigation of commercial space zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC) or rebuilt and rezoned as NC space would be exempt from the demolition and reconstruction mitigation required in the Code, Section 24-8-104 A. L(a)(1). This is consistent with the way the code exempts the demolition and reconstruction mitigation of lodge space. It has been brought to the attention of Council and staff, time and again, that the mitigation costs for commercial development are precluding new NC space. Local serving businesses cannot maintain the rents necessary to pay the mitigation costs. Unlike the CC and C-1 zone districts, high mitigation requirements and neighborhood commercial rents are not compatible. If City Market and the Buckhorn Lodge were to mitigate parking and employee housing for the demolished and reconstruction space, it would cost roughly $2,000,000. The AACP recommends to "study GMQS incentives for local serving neighborhood commercial uses". A policy of the Commercial/Retail Action Plan in the AACP is that "development which includes locally oriented business should be encouraged via a menu of options". The other areas of town that would be able to take advantage of this text amendment would be the half block on Durant between Original and Spring Street. That area is zoned NC. However, it is unlikely that the Durant Street Mall would consider redevelopment because of the code provision. The small building with the Butcher Block and Ski Mart etc. is a likely candidate for redevelopment, taking advantage of this code amendment. Yet, if the building were demolished any of the existing uses could only be replaced with those allowed in the NC zone district, which are those uses currently occupying the building. In addition, it appears the existing building exceeds allowable FAR which is 1:1 and reconstruction would not enable that excess floor area to be replaced on the site. The Clark's Market complex is also zoned NC and could utilize this provision. Although it is unlikely that the Trueman Center would be redevelopment in the near future. It should be noted that additional square footage added to any site still must receive a GMQS allocation and mitigate development impacts. Other 0 parcels in town could seek to use this code provision but the site would have to be rezoned to NC for it to apply. he This code amendment NC zone districteto ensure that theto reexamine tdistri m reinforces the tmee�e conditional uses in the meets the goals of providing local oriented services. Policy Changes i. Employee parking has always been required, on -site, for employee housing developments. The costs of providing approximately 51 employees parking spaces (1 space/unit) in the Superblock is about $1 million to be paid by the SJV- originally, the SJV proposed to provide parking off -site for employees housed on the Superblock. They suggested the Rio Grande parking garage. Their reasoning was that the intent of providing resident housing downtown is to, among others, reduce the need for private cars on a daily basis. What is needed, SJV claimed, is storage for employee's cars to be used for the occasional trip out of town. Staff recommended against the SJV proposal. Primarily because we have always required at least one parking space per unit on -site. However, one suggestion that has been raised during discussions is why not include the cost of the parking space in the cost of the dwelling unit. If the cost of the parking space were included in the employee dwelling unit, the price of the unit could be higher but may still be within the affordability range. This alternative should be discussed with the Housing Office. If Council were to support this cost ofthe municid save pal approximately parking $1,000,000 that could be usedto offset the spaces. ii. Condominiumization of parking spaces has not been a concept that the City has embraced during development reviews. Previous requests have been for parking that had been a requirement of development. Staff believes that required parking should be made available to residents, customers, etc. without cost. SJV proposes to provide 100 spaces on the first level as their required parking at no charge. The third level is proposed to be condomimumized or leased. Staff supports this practice as long as the leased spaces are spaces that are not required for the redevelopment of this property. iii. Rezoning the Bell Mountain Lodge from LP to CL would be the first rezoning of an LP parcel since the LP zone district was created. The 0 6 is purpose of the LP zone district was to provide regulatory relief to small lodges to enable them to remain competitive in the lodging market. For example, there are very few dimensional requirements in the district. On the other hand, the only allowed use in the LP zone district is lodge. It appears that staff and Council have been very protective of the small lodges in the past. The Bell Mountain Lodge requested to be rezoned to Office use in the late 1980's and Council denied the request. Although the potential rezoning of the Bell Mountain from LP to CL may be contrary to past policy, it would be a more appropriate zone district for the project property as a whole. The CL zone district allows commercial space on the first floor of the lodge. This commercial space would enhance the public plaza space providing a more active "streetfront" on the plaza level. If only lodge rooms were allowed on the first floor, there is a potential that the area surrounding the lodge would be "dead" space. The first floor lodge units would generate very little public activity. A good example of this type of "streetfront" is the south side of the Aspen Square condominiums along Durant Street. his is rarel a l, inactive the baiconiers because, and occupants keep their shades drawn y use in staff s opinion, of their close proximity to the public sidewalk and street. ge received a GMP allocation for the In addition, the Bell Mountain Lod redevelopment of the lodge for 40 units. This is not a redevelopment proposal for a small, family run lodge. iv. The vacation of Cooper Street will eliminate 30 on -street public parking spaces. According to Randy Ready the value of those spaces is $56,160/year. SJV has hired Gordon Shaw of Leigh, Scott and Cleary to develop a pedestrian/transportation/circulation study in order to determine the level of impacts associated with the vacation of the street and building of multi -level parking garage. It is anticipated that the study will be included in the December 31, 1993 GMQS submittal. Fortunately, Gordon the Trhaw is ansportation Implementation Plan.familiar with Asn's rtation needs. He helped prepare PART VI - Rezoning Staff has always recommended rezoning the property with an SPA overlay. (Again, rezoning is a quasi-judicial procedure that requires public notice and public hearings. Any rezoning is subject to approval or denial based upon Council's review at public hearing.) The purpose of the SPA is to provide design flexibility for land which requires innovative consideration in those circumstances where traditional zoning techniques do not adequately address its historic significance, natural features, unique physical character, or locations, and wherepotential lexists for is also to allowthe ity devbelopmtfrom en of comprehensive development. Tile purpose of SP 10 mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative design practices which permit variations from standard zone district land uses and dimensional requirements and establish a procedure by which land upon which multiple uses exist, or are considered appropriate, can be planned and redeveloped in a way that provides for the greatest public benefit. The underlying zone district shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the uses and development which may be considered during the development review process. SPA will allow the review to mix up land uses and, more importantly, establish land uses which best fit the project. In otherwords, if Council is uncomfortable with the allowed commercial uses in the CL zone district, the use of the SPA could establish a range of uses more appropriate for this site. The SPA also requires a four step review process which will be necessary for a project of this complexity. The SJV proposal requests the ability to relocate City Market on an interim basis while the project is being developed. City Market contends that to be closed for approximately one year would be a significant loss of jobs and revenues both to the company and the City. Staff suggested the Kraut property as a possible interim site. The affordable housing proposal for the Kraut property includes a below grade parking structure. The proposal, as just approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, includes a 56 car garage one level below grade. If the Kraut property were to be considered as an interim use for City Market, the garage would be built and topped off, a temporary building erected on the site, and shoppers would use the parking garage on -site. There is precedent in the City for allowing temporary uses on parcels that are not otherwise zoned for that use. The Temporaryr Use el upermit, nder apprcial o edby i�mstaOrdinance. is me the vehicle to allow the te porary apa Sy Kelley.. the owner of the Buckhorn Lodge, has requested that some space rtbe consideration on the Kraut propeenbeItiseuncleaivn for r1how muchcspace City Marketis commerial uses that wouldwiill disrupted during project develop t need. The property is 15,000 square feet. If the Kraut property were to be used as a temporary relocation for City Market, the decision is necessary around mid -February 1994 for construction bidding and phasing of • the Kraut housing project interim use of this site. The Kraut development team has taken into consideration the Related to the interim use of the Kraut property and the proposed housing development on the property, is the question of what size parking garage should be developed under the Kraut property. The application for the employee housing proposal included several garage scenarios. The largest garage, 146 spaces, would include George Vicenzi's A -frame property. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a 56 space garage with the condition that if the size of the garage increased, the P&Z would review the new plans due to different operating characteristics of a large municipal garage. In past meetings, Council has remarked that unless the Superblock proposal is discontinued and the City gets a better deal from George, Council is not interested in a large municipal garage under the Kraut property. Attached to this memo is a memo from Jim Curtis outlining the garage scenarios and indicating the time frame by which his project team needs decisions. In order to prepare construction drawings, they need to know (at the December 13, first reading of the Kraut housing development) what size garage Council will support- e(An includedt in the December 3 rime memo. the Kraut It appearsthat ethe is being prepared and will b cost will be higher by 20% per space.) Although, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a 56 space garage, they strongly urge Council to consider as much parkin as possle. son was -seven concernspda es will be lost when the property is developed and the Commis ut a parking deficit at this busy end of town. Some members of the P&Z do not understand Council's motto that no new parking should be built downtown. Other's believe that connecting the Superblock to the Kraut should still be on the table. The P&Z is supportive of more parking under raut and t e P&Z staff ons the Superblock project and related with the P&Z and Councilupdate transportation philosophy. 12 Cif Gives SJV Vacation of Cooper Street and 30 Parking Spaces Temporary Use of Kraut Property for Interim City Market Upzone 16,500 gross sq. ft. to CL Commercial Space & LP to CL Increased FAR & Heights Associated with Rezoning & Text Amendments No Mitigation for Demolition Reconstruction of NC Space SPA Dimensional Requirement Variances Ability to Utilize Municipal Land in Construction of the Parking Garage Allow 9 Buckhorn Lodge Rooms to be Reconstructed as NC Uses City Gets From SJV Additional Municipal Parking/ Ability to Implement Pedestrian Enhancement Measures Downtown Public Plaza (approx. 5,400 sq. ft.) 17,500 gross sq. ft. Additional NC Space 26,500 gross sq. ft. Employee Housing Downtown Coordinated Redevelopment of Properties E Increased Sales & Property Taxes Expanded City Market *This list is not in priority order, nor are the items intended to be a match. 13 • • Staff recommends the following priority for negotiating the development issues of this project with the SJV. 1. Should Council use the $1,629,600 value of upzoning to offset the cost of municipal parking? o r- 2. Is the size of City Market negotiable? Is t�5,000's ft. above grade that space have to be City Market' . If 26,000 sq. ft. is too negotiable. Does big, what should it be reduced to? 3. Should Council request the $1,000,000 saved by SJV on employee parking be used to offset municipal parking cots? o� 4. If City Market uses the Kraut property on an interim basis, should a subsidy or rent be charged for that use? /J('� 5. Would Council like to more narrowly define the type of commercial uses in the CL zone district using the SPA overlay? 6. Does Council want use the SPA overlay variance process to reduce the amount Q additional NC s of the required parking forace that is developed on the site? P 7. In addition, because the NC space represents a loss, would Council consider the 16,500 CL/17,500 NC split appropriate given the fact that the additional NC space is a loss? If CL is to be narrowly defined, is the split between 16,500 sq. ft. of CL commercial space and 17,500 sq. ft. of new NC space acceptable? 1 4 Cj�,c7v1 � I G�-t\ S '� 1 �) (;t, �Y� 6" CDY�, %1%A-t 1r--,, ATTACHIVIENTS. A. Tables 1-9 B. September 15, 1993 Staff memo C. September 21, 1993 Staff memo D. September 24, 1993 Curtis memo E. November 01, 1993 Curtis memo F. Permitted & Conditional Use Sections of CL, 14 CC and NC Zone Districts IRW 00 U Vol x W ►4 a U cn O I F� Qi O wL- a. .> w o LL E-+ a .� 'o �. �0 ° N 40 4 r tom, a o C a E •C 4o. o C c� D c o is U o C > 7 C .J- .. y cd 4.a O U o a: o a C o U N w � 'd ¢� Z E� o 0 C w a� b a) Q .c o c U o a� y w u ¢ rx to u o H 0cUi�0�NUHIxZ'�bC7E� u aw co> v .0 c~d w cd Cd a. a ;� .� � al a o x o ° U aa' A c xx a a o �aa �Zb u� od Ij cil cl40. N �? 0i wi o ° '°aJ N cts i4 cn � A. u E °u � Z w°°o u>uo oU o Na/ K U G4 44 W o ° a o •N > � .�e o 3 o oCd q a o �' A. -hll U En a a o > >'0Q4 >,�¢ o i aai �+ -G u ❑ a� 0 CIO N U Q' � ~ •� G,,, W U O , � -- 4d o a > .0 od Cd U a Q' v] • I Cd A 0 00 0. c a u 0 a� a b 0 a 0 U N � j A. 'o O "I O G. UV•� z c1, �-0 E�D a •� W F ram, U tw Cd a 0 • �\rr 4. 0 0 (A o 4., cd `'" `'" o o o a c� y "•� ..� y U ...I y C � 4, c C w °' A �°'� .., a.�(�z¢ o ao� o '� > E 0 d a E a� o o C a. o C 'aq � ccrdrd _ N 0 0 ' a U CY x a uses, �3 0 ox >%.. o p"aax,�C�xx o O 0 ll N o a o a z �° o 0 a x C4 C4 N U' � u W. 04 W o U a 3 CZ a� C o „ �, ° a a' w � u 0 ^E 1� U•� a a �°'V NU c'� C W Q•1 ► U N 0 r1 ~' a Y aWU f1►---m�il O x M LL E-1 Q en >% a c; ; co u o E o Cd L «� u am E o U a > b �' 3W3 rz C b a o a� Q .. 'w a� r" O °° a� b o c O arm QQ CN '� � N a� N U a 0 .5 C% U C A � a o od 0 00 4° o ° C a, .� p p �j VI G' p 1 p 0 p y awo UrA Utw cw o m 5 z cts C a o - xy W a .� v) o En > c a a g ao U a O� o UW IV�HaZWv°0'0 afi, �> a 0 0 % � \ I § � / rw ® 2 ? E 2 a o 00 # �o > rC : « � - k o OIL OIL # -- q (00) 6001 m § § % e \ � / / 3 / Ei \ \ E.2 \ /§/ a)gcEi _ 0 0 m§f t 9 5 d §,§ 3 g e\\\��//2% n=]© o§�� / d) ] -0$ / ) k i —Izl i iU & / © . 00 �� �Q �0 . �� • 0 TABLE 2 SUPERBLOCK GARAGE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMAI'L'S The cost estimates are based on 215 cars per level �e1M determine is underground in the 1 strlevel 1 The for the 2nd and 3rd levels, understanding thaty costs are estimated Spring 1995 costs. 2 Levels 430 Cars Construction Cost $ 8,513,500 Parking Spaces 430 19,800 /sp Approvals, Permits 5% 50,000 425,700 Arch./Eng. Prof. Fees 1% 85,100 Contractor Bonding 2% 170,300 Project Mgnt. Fee 1% 85,100 Miscellaneous/Other 6% 559,800 Construction Inflation (2 yrs @ 3%/yr=6%) 2% 197,800 Fin. Underwriting Cost 5% .365 504365 Contingency TOTAL COST $ 10,591,700 PARKING SPACES $ — 0-0 /spy COST PER SPACE COST PER LEVEL $ 5 295,900 /Level NOTES: 1. are based on very preliminary estimates by Shaw Construction and The construction cost estimates the soft cost estimates by Jim Curtis. roximately $39 a square foot for either the two- or 2. The hard construction cost is apptlLee-lei el gara`e. The Rio Grande has 340 spaces, was constructed in approximately 14 months and wa-s officiaiiV opened in June 1990. Its 1989 total development cost including financing un vrifin5432,200 $7,514,400 divided by 340 spaces, or 22 100/space. Of the $7,5ound water. The garage cost, approximatelyls of was related to unbudge+ed, unforeseen cost relanteed1tOgr t, inc udinglthe'uppereplaza parking and ACRA office space totaling approx y 136,200 square f e top. The cost per square foot is $55 ($7,514,400 divided by 136 106,200are feet) square or 52 a square foot deducting the $432,200 water problem divided tdY TABLE 3 SUPERBLOCK GARAGE PRELIMINARY OPERATING PRO FORMA FOR MUNICIPAL PARKING 5 SPACES 1st Level - 110 spaces and City Market - SJV owned 2nd Level - 215 spaces municipal Parking - City owned 3rd Level - 215 spaces leased parking - SJV owned A Revenue Matrix Based on 215 municipal spaces - 2nd level - and no City revenues 1st & 3rd levels. $ Revenue Matrix $2.00/Day • $3.00/Day $4.00/Day Turnover Rate/24 Hours 365 Days/Yr 63 5 Days/Yr 365_ Days/Yr Rio Grande .58 $ 91,030 $ 136,546 353,140 $ 182,062 470,850 Targeted 1.50 2.00 235,420 313,900 470,850 627,800 Optimistic C ()aerating Pro Forma 2.0 /Da _ D/Day 4 00/Da Revenues Targeted 1.5 Turnover Rate $ 235,420 $ 353,140 $ 470,850 Expenses 78,000 78,000 78,000 Labor Utilities s 32,000 32,000 32,000 7,000 Maintenance Labor 7,000 4,000 7,000 4,000 4,000 Maintenance Materials 6,000 6,000 Security ,000 5,000 5 5,000 5,000 Insurance Admin./Acc. overhead 166,E 16,000 0 16,000 6,000 Contingency 5% 000 154;000 154� 0 154,000 OperatinP Income 81,420 199,140 316,850 Capital Repair & - 30.000 Replac. Reserve Available for Debt Service 51,420 169,140 1.2 286,850 _ 1 2� Debt Coverage Ratio - 125 41,136 _ 5 135, 229,480 Debt Service Amount Bonding Capacity 7% Int. over 20 years 442,130 1 4. 5�4,340 2 4S NOTES: 1. The preliminary operation pro forma has been reviewed vjt;i Bandy Read,,, Cite Transporation Director. The parking revenues of the gara_� are dependent on the City implementing paid parking downtown. 2. The 7% interest bonding capacity is conservative and based on City G.O. backing. What will be the City revenue source for the G.O. backing? O{�critinL cxpenses arc estimated using Rio Grande Garage comparables. Ltiliti:: cost increased 20% over Rio Grande for added ventilatie- electric cost • • TABLE 4 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS UPZONING/BUILDOUT ANALYSIS FOR CL COMMERCIAL USES Upzoning Enables 16,500 Square Feet of CL Commercial Uses Notes 1. The upzoning analysis below only includes Above Ground square footage per the Code and considers new commercial space that may be used for CL commercial uses. 2. The 25,500 square feet FAR of proposed Employee Housing is not included because it has no economic "profit" to the SJV and is an economic "loss" to the SJV. 3. The downzoning of the Buckhorn Lodge reduces the CL potential by 3,500 square feet. Existin /� Allowed Buildout Proposed Buckhorn Lodge 3,500 sq ft CL 7,000 sq ft NC 3,500 sq ft Lodge Bell Mountain Lodge 20,000 sq ft Lodge 20,000 sq ft CL 20,000 sq ft Lodge Total gross square footage of additional CL space = 16,500 • • TABLE 5 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EMPLOYEE AND PARKING MITIGATION FOR CL UPZONING 16,500 Square Feet of FAR is Upzoned to CL Commercial Space A. Gross FAR to Net Leasable Adjustment Gross FAR Sq Ft 16,500 sq ft 20 % Gross to Net Adj . - 3.300 Net Leasable Sq Ft 13,200 sq ft B. Employee Mitigation for Upzoning CL Net Leasable Sq Ft Employee Generation Ratio 13,200 3.5 sq ft emp/1,000 sq ft net leasable Employee Generation Employee Mitigation Ratio 46 60 employees % minimum threshold Employees Housed Employees/Studio Unit Ratio 28 1.25 employees employees/studio unit Studio Units Studio Units Minimum Size 22 400 studio units sq ft minimum unit size Net Liveable Sq Ft 8,800 sq ft net liveable Net to Gross Sq Ft Adjustment • 25 % net to gross Gross Employee Mitigation Sq Ft 112000 sq ft gross C. Parking Mitigation for Upzonin 1. CL Net Leasable 13,200 sq ft net leasable 2 spaces/1,000 sq ft net leasable Parking Ratio Parking Mitigation 26 spaces 2. Employee Parking Mitigation 22 studio units 1 space/bedroom Parking Ratio Parking Mitigation 22 spaces * The studio unit was used as an example of the greatest subsidy for employee mitigation. ** Note that the parking requirement is subject to special review, and if 2-bedroom units were contemplated, staff will still consider 1 space per unit for AH units. A. TABLE 6 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS ECONOMIC VALUE OF 16 500 SQ. FT. FAR CL UPZONING Upzoning is 16,500 Sq. Ft. FAR of CL Commercial Space Retail Rents at $35 Sq. Ft. Avg. - Most Probable Estimate Capitalized Value Development Cost B. Capitalized Value Retail Rents - Most Probable Vacancies Opt Expenses Capitalization Rate Value Per Net Leasable Sq Ft C. Development Cost 13,200 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable 16,500 Sq. Ft. Gross Construction I. Land Cost 2. Building Cost 13,200 sq. ft. leasable @ 358 sq ft = 16,500 sq. ft. gross @ 186 sq ft = $35 sq ft avg @ 13,200 sq ft net leasable 3% 5% 9% Approvals Hard Construction $60 sq ft @ 16,500 sq ft gross Arch./Eng. Prof. Fees 8% construction Contractor Bond I % construction $2,000/1,000 sq ft leasable Bldg Permits/Tap Fees Construction Insur. Project Mgt. 5% construction Misc. Fees/Other 2% construction 1.5 pts. @ $1,207,300 Const. Loan Points 10% @ 1 year draw @ $1,207,300 Const. Interest Rental Lease Up 2 months rent Rental Leasing Fees 15 % of 1st year's rent 3. Parking Mitigation Cost 26 spaces @ $22,370/sp 13`7c reduction ParkinReduction by SJV 143 to 110 spaces = 4. Employee liousln! WiL ration Cost 22 studio units - cost 1 1,000 sq tt @ $100/sq It 22 @ $22,370/space 22 parking spaces - cost spaces 22 studios @ $59,000 Cat. #2 sales 22 studio units - revenue 5. Project Contingency Developer's Prot -it 10% 25% total cost 6. Total Development Cost Total Development Cost Gross Sol I -'I $ 4,730,366 3,069,000 $ 1,661,366 $ 462,000 13 860 $ 448,140 22,407 $ 425,733 .09 47 , 358 sq ft $ 0 25,000 990,000 79,200 9,900 26,400 7,500 49,500 19,800 18,109 60,365 77,000 + 69,300 1,432,074 581,620 75,610 506,010 1.100,000 + 492,140 1.592,140 1..298,000 294,140 223,222 + 613,861 837,083 3.069 307 s6 0 TABLE 7 SUpERBLOCK ANALYSIS BUII.DOUT ANALYSIS FOR NC COMMERCIAL USES Notes 1. Moving City Market below grade enables an additional 14,000 square feet of net leasable NC space to be developed above grade that could not otherwise be built based upon underlying zoning. 2. Rezoning the Buckhorn Lodge from CL to NC enables an additional 3,500 square feet of NC space which was once Lodge units. 3. The 3,500 square feet of CL space in the Buckhorn Lodge that is converted to NC is factored into the CL analysis. 4. The 25,500 square feet FAR of proposed Employee Housing is not included because it has no economic "profit" to the SJV and is an economic "loss" to the SJV. Total new NC space provided due to the project is 17,500 square feet. Existing/Allowed Buildout Proposed q 27,000 s ft NC 26,000 sq ft below grade NC City Market = 5,000 sq ft above grade NC 10,000 sq ft above grade NC Buckhorn Lodge 3,500 sq ft CL 7,000 sq ft NC 3,500 sq ft Lodge Total gross square footage of additional NC space = 17,500 • • TABLE 8 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EMPLOYEE AND PARKING MITIGATION FOR ADDITIONAL NC SPACE 17,500 Square Feet of FAR of NC Commercial Space is Added to the Property A. Gross FAR to Net Leasable Adjustment Gross FAR Sq Ft 17,500 sq ft 20 % Gross to Net Adj . - 3.500 Net Leasable Sq Ft 14,000 sq ft B. Employee Mitigation for Upzonin Neigh. Comm. (NC) Net Leasable Employee Generation Ratio 14,000 emf%1 DDD sq ft net leasable P Employee Generation Employee Mitigation Ratio 32 60 employees % minimum threshold Employees Housed Employees/Studio Unit Ratio 19 1.25 employees employees/studio unit Studio Units Studio Units Minimum Size 15 400 studio units sq ft minimum unit size Net Liveable Sq Ft 6,000 sq ft net liveable Net to Gross Sq Ft Adjustment Gross Employee Mitigation Sq Ft 25 7,500 % net to gross sq ft gross C. Parking, Mitigation for Upzoning 1. Neigh. Comm. (NC) Net Leasable 14'� spacessq ft et leasable e 0 bl sq ft net leasable Parking Ratio Parking Mitigation 56 spaces 2. Employee Parking Mitigation 15 1 studio units space/bedroom Parkin Ratio Parking Mitigation 15 spaces ** * The studio unit was used as an example of the greatest subsidy for employee mitigation. ** Note that the parking requirement is subject to special review, and if 2-bedroom units were contemplated, staff will still consider 1 space per unit for AH units. TABLE 9 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS ECONOMIC VALUE OF 17,500 SQ. FT. ADDITIONAL NC FAR Additional Space is 17,500 Sq. Ft. FAR of NC Commercial Space Retail Rents at $25 Sq. Ft. Avg. - Most Probable Estimate A. Economic Value of Upzoning Capitalized Value 14,000 sq ft leasable ® 256 sq ft = $ 3,584,000 Development Cost 17,500 sq ft gross (D 217 sq ft = - 3,797 500 $ 213,500 B. Capitalized Value Retail Rents -Most Probable $25 sq ft avg ® 14,000 sq ft net leasable $ 350,000 Vacancies 3 % - 10.500 $ 339,500 Opt Expenses Capitalization Rate Value Per Net Leasable Sq Ft C. Development Cost 14,000 Sq. Ft. Net Leasabl, 17;500 Sq. Ft. Gross Construction I. Land Cost 2. Building Cost Approvals Hard Construction Arch./Eng. Prof. Fees Contractor Bond Bldg Pere- ;ts/Tap Fees Construction Insur. Project Mgt. Misc. Fees/Other Const. Loan Points Const. Interest Rental Lease Up Rental Leasing Fees 5% 9% $60 sq ft (D 17,500 sq ft gross 8 % construction 1 % construction $2,000/1,000 sq ft leasable 5 % construction 2 % construction 1.5 pts. ® $1,278,500 10% @ 1 year draw ® $1,278,500 2 months rent 15 % of 1st year's rent 3. Parking Mitigation Cost 56 spaces Q $22,370/space Parking Reduction by SJV 143 to 110 spaces = 13% reduction 4. Employee Housing Mitigation Cost 15 studio units -cost 7,500 sq ft Q $100/sq ft 15 parkinL, spaces -cost 15 spaces a $22.370/space 15 studio units -revenue 15 studios @ $59,000 Cat. #2 sales 5. Project Contingency 10% Developer's Profit 25 % total cost 6. Total Development Cost Total Development Cost - Gross Sy Ft 16.975 $ 322,525 .09 $ 2$6 $ 0 25,000 1,050,000 84,000 10,500 28,000 7,500 52,500 21,000 19,177 63,925 58,333 + 52.500 1,472,435 1,252,720 - 162,853 1,089,867 750.000 + 335,550 1,085,550 885,000 200,550 276,285 + 759,784 1,036.00() 3,798,921 _I /sq Ti 1 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner Jim Curtis, Technical Assistance DATE: September 15, 1993 RE: Superblock Proposal and Evaluation - Council Worksession ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION As requested by Council, the Superblock private property owners (Superblock Joint Venture) presented their detailed development proposal, given in Attachment A, to the Planning Office on August 9th. This memo outlines staff's review and evaluation of the proposal. The Superblock Joint Venture (SJV) has requested Council respond to their proposal in a timely and specific manner. The SJV has expressed their desire to submit their SPA & GMQS Plans by the amended November 15, 1993 GMQS date and potentially start construction of the garage next Spring/Summer. This construction schedule may be unrealistic given the City's approval process and the City's ability to bond for funds under Amendment One. Council may either accept, reject or negotiate the SJV proposal. If Council wishes to negotiate the proposal, it may do this as a collective body, designate two council members to negotiate or designate key staff members to negotiate. The Consulting Team of Jim Curtis, Jonathan Rose and Harry Teague can not negotiate the proposal because under their present contract they are working for both parties. Staff recommends Council negotiate the proposal and designate two council members to negotiate similar to the RFTA- Ski Company bus contract negotiations. The base decisions that Council must make tonight are the following: * Does Council wish to discontinue the exploration of this development proposal? * What issues does Council feel should be negotiated? * Is Council prepared to support the SJV proposal alone? Ultimately if the City cannot or desires not to fund • • municipal parking will the City support of private venture that redevelops the Superblock with below grade parking? It is recommended you read the SJV proposal in Attachment A at this time. This memo is organized as follows: A. Staff's Recommendations B. Superblock Overview C. Superblock Existing Development And Zoning D. Summary Of SJV Proposed Development E. Evaluation Of Threshold Issues F. Staff's Debit And Credit Evaluations A. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Staff supports the Superblock concept and feels it creates an opportunity to solve existing traffic, parking and congestion problems as outlined. 2. Staff feels it is critical that Council address it's availability and timing of funding. Both parties are being asked to make financial and schedule commitments to one another. 3. Staff does not support the following items of the SJV proposal. a. Off -site Rio Grande parking for the employee housing. Staff feels this should be part of the SJV mitigation obligation. b. 24,000 sq. ft. of CL commercial uses. Under the proposed rezoning by staff, only 20,066 sq. ft. of CL commercial uses would be permitted and the remaining square footage of 19,934 sq. ft. would be new NC commercial uses. 4. Staff recommended rezoning and Code amendments. a. Rezoning 1. City Market Same 2. Bell Mtn LP to CL 3. Buckhorn CL to NC b. Code Amendments i. NC zoning amended for External Floor Area Ratio: 1:1, increasable to 1.5:1 by special review when sixty (60%) percent of the additional floor area is approved for residential use restricted to affordable housing. vo ii. Demolition and Reconstruction Mitigation. Rather than completely exempt mitigation of the Superblock proposal from employee and parking mitigation for the demolition and reconstruction of existing development, staff offers the alternative: Demolition and reconstruction mitigation of commercial space zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC) or rebuilt and rezoned as NC space would be exempt from the demolition and reconstruction mitigation required in the Code, Section 24-8-104 A.1.(a)(1). This is consistent with the way the code exempts the demolition and reconstruction mitigation of lodge space. It has been brought to the attention of Council and staff, time and again that the mitigation costs for commercial development are precluding new NC space. Local serving businesses cannot maintain the rents necessary to pay for mitigation costs. High mitigation requirements and neighborhood commercial rents are not compatible, unlike the CC zone district. One concept that has been discussed is deed restricting NC space. However, some members of Council and staff are uncomfortable with a perception of subsidizing one business over another. The AACP recommends to "study GMQS incentives for local serving neighborhood commercial uses". A policy of the Commerical/Retail Action Plan is that "development which includes locally oriented business should be encouraged via a menu of options". It is conceivable, although not being proposed at this time, that the S/C/I zone district could benefit from this type of incentive. Staff, unless directed otherwise, will pursue an analysis for the S/C/I zone district. 5. Staff feels the following items should be negotiated. a. Should the City provide interest -only construction financing for the affordable housing? If so, will the SJV pass this savings onto the affordable housing. b. Staff has concerns about the desirability of the rental housing being proposed along the alleyway of the Bell Mountain Building. Staff only identifies this as a potential problem and will reevaluate this based on more detailed plans. 3 C. The SJV and Council need to address who pays for the Town Plaza public space and its finishes. d. The SJV should pay for the total added cost of developing the Kraut Property in phases for its use of the property on an interim basis. 6. Council should designate two members to negotiate the Superblock proposal working with staff assistance. 7. If Council believes that a true cost/benefit analysis is necessary to determine the dollar value of what the City is giving vs. what the City is receiving, staff recommends employing assistant from a third party. Jim Curtis and Jonathon Rose are conflicted out having worked for both the City and SJV. City staff does not have the expertise nor the time to conduct an in-depth analysis. B. SUPERBLOCK OVERVIEW The Superblock concept has been recommended by both the Aspen Area Community Plan under the Transportation and Commercial/Retail Action Plans, and the Aspen Transportation Implementation Plan. Staff feels the Superblock concept has been recommended for the following reasons: 1. The Superblock provides increased private and municipal parking on the east periphery of town. Staff does not view this as a net increase in downtown parking and therefore encouraging more people to drive into town but as an opportunity to relocate and eliminate existing on -street parking from the commercial core to make downtown more pedestrian oriented, and to handle much of the existing overflow parking impacting the residential areas east of town. Staff emphasizes it does not view the Superblock parking as simply a net increase in downtown parking but as an opportunity to solve existing downtown parking and congestion problems. Through the Transportation Implementation Plan approximately 250 regular parking spaces will be converted to High Occupancy Vehicle spaces, Tal number of parking spaces will be eliminated on Galena and E. Cooper Streets as part of downtown pedestrian enhancements, and a range of 700-1100 parking spaces (depending upon the time of day and year) will be eliminated within Aspen's neighborhoods. 2. The Superblock parking is well located to serve the gondola traffic in the winter; Independence Pass traffic in the summer; and east end residential traffic. 4 3. The Superblock Town Plaza redevelopment creates a logical downtown pedestrian link along Cooper and Galena Streets to the existing malls and the Rio Grande parking. 4. The Superblock redevelopment provides significant downtown on - site affordable housing. 5. As part of the redevelopment, approximately 19,934 square feet of additional commerical space will be zoned Neighborhood Commercial. 6. The Superblock redevelopment provides a mix of local and tourist oriented commercial uses versus only high -end tourist commercial uses. 7. The City Market redevelopment provides a more attractive upgraded and competitive market for the community. 8. The Superblock redevelopment provides a public -private partnership opportunity where both parties can mutually benefit. There is virtually no other property in town that is this large, with as much redevelopment potential, and only three private property owners willing to form a partnership with the City. C. SUPERBLOCK EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING To evaluate the SJV proposal, it is important to understand the existing development and zoning of each property. The SJV proposal emphasizes that without the Superblock redevelopment, the status quo will be that the Bell Mountain Lodge will rebuild under its February 1993 GMQS approvals consisting of 40 lodge rooms, employee housing for 7 employees (3,000 sq. ft.) and 23 underground parking spaces. City Market and Buckhorn Lodge will not undertake a demolition and redevelopment that requires GMQS approvals and employee and parking mitigation for demolished space. Staff generally agrees with the SJV position concerning the status quo and feels it is unlikely each property would try to redevelop on its own. Each property is summarized below: 1. City Market. The property is 27,000 sq. ft. zoned NC (Neighborhood Commercial) with a 1:1 floor area ratio. The existing market is approximately 13,000 sq. ft. above grade, 13,000 sq. ft. below grade, parking for 29 cars and no employee housing. Based on additional research, staff has determined the K-Mart rule 12.000 sa. ft. limitation does not apply to City Market. Per the Code, the K-Mart rule only applies to CC, C-1, and S/C/I zone districts and not the NC zone districts. City Market could therefore expand its market 5 by 13,000 sq. ft. for a total size of 26,000 sq. ft. today by using its existing below ground space without any City zoning or GMQS approvals and without any new employee or parking mitigation. City Market has acknowledged a 2 level market is not the most desirable but they emphasize they could technically expand to 26,000 sq. ft. without any City approvals or new mitigation cost. This is important new information which has been determined by staff. Clark's Market is also zoned NC but its initial size limitation of sq. ft. was set by its SPA Plan in The Clark's Market SPA Plan was subsequently amended in and as of today Clark's Market has a total FAR of per the Planning Office records. 2. Bell Mountain Lodge. The property is 20,066 sq. ft. zoned LP (Lodge Preservation) with a 1:1 floor area ratio. Under its February 1993 GMQS approvals, the lodge can redevelop up to 40 lodge rooms, employee housing for 7 employees (3,000 sq. ft.) and 23 underground parking spaces. The new owners have represented they will redevelop the property under its February GMQS approvals if the Superblock concept does not proceed and would like to proceed in one fashion or another in a timely manner. GMQS allocations have a 3 year time limit. If they are not used within 3 years of being awarded they expire. 3. Buckhorn Lodge. The property is 6,934 sq. ft. zoned CL (Commercial Lodge) with a 1:1 floor area ratio restriction per its rezoning approval of 1983. CL zoning per the Code has a 2:1 floor area ratio. ting struct has 9 lodge rooms on the 2nd level jjlWois rsq. ft. ±) , sq. ft. of commercial uses on the 1st level, approximately-4 sq. ft. of underground commercial space, 1 manager's apartment underground and parking for approximately 7 cars. Under its existing 1:1 FAR restriction, the property has no expansion development potential. In addition, the Buckhorn has solid tenants, a new roof, and other recent upgrades that have extended the operation and life of the building. There is no f pressing need for the owners to pursue redevelopment on their own. 4. Surrounding Neighborhood. The Superblock is bounded by the y� , Office zone district to the north, Residential Multi -Family � to the east, Commercial - 1 and Commercial Lodge to the west, Q� and Lodge/Tourist Residential to the south. The Hannah Dustin,�� office building is approximately 36.5 feet high, the Kraut Affordable Housing development is proposed to be up to 30 feet in height. The Aspen Square buildings are 37 feet high and the Durant Mall buildings are 37.5 feet high. / Cat t 9 6 D. SUMMARY OF SJV PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Table 1 Preliminary Development Program from the SJV proposal is given on page 8 and summarizes the proposed development. Table 1 is supplemented by the Charles Cunniffe drawings. The drawings are only conceptual to illustrate the Town Plaza concept and how the buildings would generally work. The drawings do not exactly represent the square footage proposed in Table 1 but are generally close. The SJV correctly did not wish to refine the drawings until the basic threshold issues are resolved. The SJV proposes, and staff supports, a Specially Planned Area overlay designation as part of the redevelopment plan. An SPA may be designated by the City Council if, because of its unique historic, natural, physical, or locational characteristics, it would be of great public benefit to the city for that land to be allowed design flexibility and to be planned and developed comprehensively as a multiple use development. The proposed development is summarized below: City Market (26,000) sq. ft. Market, below ground 5,000 Deli/bakery, above grade Lodge Uses 20,000 Bell Mtn Building, 2nd & 3rd floors CL Commercial Uses 24,000 Distributed among buildings including Bell Mt. 1st floor NC Commercial Uses 16,000 Distributed among buildings Employee Housing 25,500 Distributed among buildings Sub -Total 90,500 sq. ft. Above Ground Sub -Total (26,000) sq. ft. Below Ground 7 .7 TABLE 1 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM CITY MARKET 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level Below Ground (Not counted in FAR) NEW SW. BLDG. 1st Level 2nd Level BELL MTN. BLDG. 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level 1st, 2nd & 3rd levels BUCKHORN BLDG. 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level FAR Sq.Ft. 5,000 sq. ft.Deli/bakery 8,000 emp. housing 7,000 emp. housing 20,000 (26,000) market 5,000 N/C Redefined 5,000 N/C Redefined 10,000 18,000 N/C Redefined 10,000 lodging rooms 10,000 lodging suites 6,500 emp. housing 44,500 6,000 N/C Redefined 6,000 N/C Redefined 4,000 emp. housing 16,000 TOTAL Private Uses 65,000 FAR 1.20, F A R 0.88 w/street ABOVE GROUND Emp. Housing 25,500 FAR 0.47, F A R 0.34 w/street 90,500 FAR 1.67, FAR 1 . 2 2 w/street Below Ground (26,000) PARKING 1st Level 110 cars (26,000) sq.ft. Market 2nd Level 215 cars 3rd Level 215 cars 540 cars NOTES• 1. N/C Redefined is Neighborhood Commercial zoning proposed to be redefined. Excluding City Market development (31,000 sq. ft. total), of the 40,000 sq. ft. of N/C redefined commercial, 24,000 sq. ft. is proposed to be C/L commercial uses and 16,000 sq. ft. of additional N/C commercial uses. N • TABLE 2 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Existing & Existing Approved Zoning Existing Proposed Dev. FAR 1:1 Parking Dev. CITY MARKET Market Ab. Gr. 13,000 sq. ft. 29 spaces 5,000 sq. ft. Leasable Space Be. Gr. (13,000) (26,000) 26,000 311000 BELL MTN. BLDG. Approved Lodge 20,000 23 Be.Gr. 38,000 (w/ 3,000 sq.ft. employee hsg.) BUCKHORN BLDG. Existing C/L 3,500 7 Ab. Gr. - Existing Lodge 3,500 Existing C/L (1,500) 8,500 12,000 New SW Bldg. 10,000 New Emp. Housing 25,500 SUB -TOTAL Private Uses 40,000 65,000 ABOVE GROUND - Emp.Housing 25,500 40,000 54,000 59 90,500 SUB -TOTAL (14,500) n/a (26,000) BELOW GROUND NOTES: 1. Ab. Gr. = Above Ground and Be. Gr. = Below Ground. 2. Table 2, Existing And Proposed Development, compares the existing and proposed development. 9 E. EVALUATION OF THRESHOLD ISSUES The SJV proposal outlined several threshold issues. Staff has also identified several threshold issues. These issues have been evaluated by staff and are outlined below generally in the order of importance. 1. Proposed Parking And Who Pays The SJV proposal is the following: 1st Level - 26,000 sq. ft. market 110 spaces $ 5,000,000 cost pd. by SJV 2nd Level - 215 spaces $ 5,000,000 cost pd. by City 3rd Level - 215 spaces $ 5,000,000 cost pd. by SJV 540 spaces $15,000,000 cost The SJV proposes to pay for, own, operate and receive the revenue from the 1st and 3rd levels equalling 325 spaces and costing an estimated $10,000,000 (first level parking is free parking as part of mitigation requirements). The SJV proposes the City to pay for, own, operate and receive the revenue from the 2nd level equalling 215 spaces and costing an estimated $5,000,000. The SJV proposal is evaluated below: SJV Project Mitigation Parking Emp. Housing Parking SJV Parking Provided Excess Spaces SJV Proposal 143 spaces 51 194 - 325 131 spaces As If Total New Dev. Per Code 213 spaces 79 292 - 325 33 spaces Based on Table 4, Parking Mitigation Analysis of the SJV proposal, the SJV calculated their project parking mitigation requirement at 143 spaces based on meeting the Code requirement for their net new development only and replacing their existing parking for their existing development. The SJV also proposes 51 studio equivalent units of employee housing requiring 51 spaces at 1 space per bedroom. The combined total project parking is 194 spaces (143 + 51 spaces). The SJV is providing 325 spaces creating an excess of 131 spaces for the community. 10 Table 4-A, Parking Mitigation Analysis With No Credit For Existing Development, based upon the staff's evaluation in Attachment B (Table 4-A) illustrates the parking mitigation requirement based on evaluating the total development as if it was totally new development which must comply with the Code. Under this evaluation, the project parking mitigation requirement increases from 194 to 292 spaces. The excess spaces therefore reduce from 131 to 33 spaces. The parking calculations above illustrate the significant impact of the Code's regulation for demolition and reconstruction. The Code states To obtain approval to reconstruct demolished commercial or office floor area, the applicant shall demonstrate that affordable housing and parking is provided for the reconstructed floor area as if it were newly constructed space. This provision has a significant economic impact on the Superblock and the financial viability of the project for the SJV. Generally, this provision is why the City has seen little office and commercial demolition and reconstruction since the regulation was enacted. The Katie Reed redevelopment was exempted from this provision due to the historic designation of the property. The SJV argues that evaluating the total development as if it was totally new development which must comply with the Code's demolition and reconstruction provision is unrealistic. The SJV argues that if the Superblock does not proceed, the following status quo will occur, i.e. the Bell Mountain Lodge will redevelop under its prior approvals and City Market and Buckhorn will not redevelop. Staff generally agrees with the SJV position that the status quo will prevail. The Table 4 mitigation analysis is appropriate. The SJV proposed on -site employee housing, yet proposes that the employee parking (approximately 51 spaces) be provided at the Rio Grande garage. This would free -up an additional 51 parking spaces for the SJV to generate revenue to cover their cost of constructing the parking. Staff does not support the SJV proposal. This is inconsistent with the Code; inconsistent with the requirement of other employee housing developments; is likely to create spill -over parking problems for the surrounding residential neighborhoods; and most importantly, sends the wrong message to the employees. Staff can not support this request especially if the City provides construction financing for the employee housing. 2. Employee Housing The SJV proposes to construct 25,500 sq. ft. of employee housing on - site as outlined in Table 3 Employee Mitigation Analysis of their proposal. The 25,500 sq. ft. would be 51 studio equivalent units housing 63 employees. The unit mix between studios, 1-bedrooms, etc. would be refined working with the Housing Office. The 25,500 sq. ft. would be a mix of ownership and rental housing as follows: 11 • • Sq. ft. Ownership Housing 15,000 4,000 19,000 Rental Housing 6,500 TOTAL 25,500 Studio Units 30 2nd & 3rd levels of City Market 8 3rd level of Buckhorn 38 13 1st, 2nd, 3rd levels of Bell Mtn. 51 For comparison, the Kraut Project is conceptually proposed for 27 studio & 1-bedroom units totalling 16,500 sq. ft. The SJV proposal is evaluated below: AS IF TOTAL SJV NEW DEV. PROPOSAL PER CODE Employee Mitigation a. Employees housed 63 99 b. Studio units equiv. 51 79 C. Sq. Ft. 25,500 39,500 Based on Table 3 Employee Mitigation Analysis of the SJV proposal, the SJV calculated their employee housing mitigation requirement of 25,500 sq. ft. based on meeting the Code requirement for their net new development onlv and onlv replacina the existina emolovee housina for their existing development. Table 3-A Employee Mitigation Analysis With No Credit For Existing Development from the staff s evaluation in Attachment B, illustrates the employee housing mitigation requirement based on evaluating the total development as if it was totallv new development which must comply with the Code. Under this evaluation, the employee housing mitigation requirement increases from 25,500 to 39,500 sq. ft. as summarized above. Again, the Code's demolition and reconstruction regulation is the critical issue. The SJV argues that evaluating the total development as if it was totally new development which must comply with the Code's demolition and reconstruction regulation is unrealistic. The SJV argues that if the Superblock does not proceed, the following status quo will occur, i.e. the Bell Mountain Lodge will redevelop under its prior approvals and City Market and Buckhorn will not redevelop. Again, staff agrees that the status quo will prevail. Their Table 3 mitigation analysis is appropriate. Staff does support the City providing construction financing for the employee housing. It is assumed the City can obtain lower -cost construction financing than the SJV. However, it is recommended the 12 cost savings in the construction financing be passed directly to the employee in the form of lower sales prices or rents. A height variance is being requested. The height of the buildings, with a third level of employee housing, is estimated to up to 35 feet. Staff does support the building height variance which will be necessary to build employee housing on the 3rd level. The variance can be granted under the SPA provisions of the Code. Encouraging on -site employee housing downtown is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and other existing Code incentives. The proposed heights are consistent with the surrounding buildings. 3. Excess FAR (Upzoning) As shown on Table 2 Existing And Proposed Development of the SJV proposal, an upzoning of 11,000 sq. ft. of allowable commercial floor area from the existing 54,000 to 65,000 sq. ft. allowable floor area is being requested. Technically, per the Code, the upzoning is 36,500 sq. ft. from the allowable 54,000 to 90,500 sq. ft. allowable floor area but this includes 25,500 sq. ft. of employee housing. However, the SJV correctly does not attribute any economic profit to the employee housing upzoning and sees the employee housing as required for their mitigation purposes. The existing and proposed zoning FAR are summarized below: Existing Zoning Zoning Buildout Proposed Development SJV commercial/ lodge space Employee Housing 54,000 sq. ft. 65,000 sq. ft. 25,500 90,500 sq. ft. w/street FAR 1:1 (all parcels) FAR 1.20, FAR 0.88 w/street FAR 0.47, FAR 0.34 w/street FAR 1.67, FAR 1.22 Staff supports the upzoning especially with the inclusion of on -site employee housing. The upzoning is felt to be acceptable especially when the vacated Cooper Street (20,250 sq. ft.) is included. The upzoned 1.67 FAR (1.22 with street) is still less than the 2:1 FAR zoning of the CC (Commercial Core) and Commercial Lodge (CL) when on -site employee housing is provided. The SPA provisions of the Code do not allow Council to increase the FAR of the underlying properties without an underlying rezoning of the properties. Staff therefore recommends the SJV properties be rezoned and that an employee housing bonus be codified for the NC zone district 13 • • for the inclusion of on -site employee housing. Both the rezoning and employee housing bonus are consistent with similar code provisions and the Aspen Area Community Plan. The recommended rezoning and on -site employee housing bonus are outlined below: SIZE OF PROPERTY-sq.ft. City Market 27,000 Bell Mtn. 20,066 Buckhorn 6,934 54,000 Proposed Development FAR EXISTING PROPOSED REZONED ZONING REZONING FAR-sg.ft. NC@ 1:1 to NC@ 1.5:1 40,500 LP@ 1:1 to CL@ 2:1 40,132 CC@ 1:1 to NC@ 1.5:1 10,401 91,033 90,500 The City Market property keeps its same NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning but the NC zoning is amended to allow for an increase in FAR from 1:1 to 1.5:1 if a minimum of 60% of the additional floor area is used for on -site affordable housing. This is consistent with how the Code treats the CC and O zone districts with the incentive for the provision of on -site affordable housing and consistent with the recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The Bell Mountain property is rezoned from LP (Lodge Preservation) to CL (Commercial Lodge) with a 2:1 FAR. The CL zoning more correctly represents the lodge and commercial mixed -uses being proposed for the property. The LP zone district does not allow commerical uses. Note: there is no FAR bonus proposed with the rezoning of LP to CL. The FAR in the CL zone district is 2:1. The Buckhorn property is rezoned from CL (Commercial Lodge) to NC (Neighborhood Commercial) and the NC zoning is amended to allow for an increase in FAR from 1:1 to 1.5:1 if a minimum of 60% of the additional floor area is used for on -site affordable housing. The existing lodge use in the Buckhorn building will be eliminated as part of this redevelopment proposal. The NC zoning more correctly represents the commercial and affordable housing use of the property without the existing lodge use and the incentive for the provision of on -site affordable housing is consistent with the Code and the AACP. 4. Construction Schedule And City Funding The SJV are requesting some financial commitments from Council before spending time and money on preparing a major SPA and GMQS Plan for a November 15 application. If the Council decides to make a $5,000,000 dollar commitment or a multi -million dollar commitment to the garage, where does the funding come from and what is the timing of the funding. It is staff's understanding the 1/2(,' sales tax proposed for the November 2, 1993 ballot does not allocate any funds to the Superblock garage. Therefore, it is 14 staff's understanding that under Amendment One the only funding alternatives would be the following: a. A ballot question on the November 2, 1994 general election requesting funding for the garage. This would push construction to the Spring of 1995. b. A ballot question on the May, 1995 City election requesting funding for the garage. This would push construction to the Fall/Winter of 1995. It is staff's understanding a May, 1994 City special election with a funding ballot question is not permitted under Amendment One because this is not a regular scheduled City election date. Determining a realistic funding and construction schedule for the Superblock is a major threshold issue. However, if the City does not have the ability to commit funds until after a November 1994 election, the SJV requests the ability to proceed with a land use application and development review process of this proposal. In the event, the City cannot ultimately fund municipal parking, the SJV proposes to redevelop the Superblock on their own with two levels of parking. 5. Size Of City Market Staff supports the increase in size for City Market. As previously highlighted, City Market is exempted from the K-Mart 12,000 sq. ft. limitation under the Code. Therefore, City Market could increase its existing size by expanding into its below ground space without any City approvals or employee and parking mitigation. Based on this, the City Market request for a 26,000 sq. ft. market is basically what they can do today. Therefore, the true increase is the 5,000 sq. ft. above ground deli/bakery. Staff sees this as a supplemental and somewhat separate operation from the below ground market. From the experience of the shopper, the deli/bakery is likely to seem like a separate retail store. 6. Commercial Lodge Zoning The SJV has requested 24,000 sq. ft. of Commercial Lodge retail uses which can be distributed among the properties as they choose. The SJV is requesting CL retail uses because these uses are the same as the CC (Commercial Core) retail uses of the Code which are more broad in terms of permitted uses than the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) permitted uses. Excluding City Market which is requesting 26,000 sq. ft. of market and 5,000 sq. ft. deli/bakery, the SJV is requesting a total of 40,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses as follows: CL commercial uses - 24,000 sq. ft. NC commercial uses - 16,000 sq. ft. new 40,000 sq. ft. 15 Staff supports this request; however, because of the proposed rezoning of the Bell Mountain property to CL only 20,066 sq. ft. of CL commercial uses would be available under the rezoning. The Commerical Lodge zone district permits commerical uses only on the first floor. Using just the proposed rezoning, the commercial split would be the following: CL commercial uses - 20,066 sq. ft. NC commercial uses - 19,934 sq. ft. new 40,000 sq. ft. Staff feels a mix of CL and NC commercial uses is appropriate for the Superblock and staff understands that CL commercial uses may permit higher rents to support the project. But staff suggests that an approximate 50% 50% split between CL and NC uses is more appropriate given Council's desire to encourage NC uses. 7. Redefined NC Staff supports the SJV request to redefine the current NC uses only if the SJV supports a 50%-50% split between CL and NC commerical uses. This is a recommendation in the AACP in order to prevent further erosion of our local serving business. However, the SJV seeks a redefinition of NC to create a broader permitted use category. 8. CL & INC GMQS Allocations The 1993 allocation for the NC zone district is the full quota - 6,000 sq. ft. The 1993 allocation for the CL zone district is the full quota - 2,000 sq. ft. 9. Kraut Property Interim Use Staff supports the use of the Kraut Property for an interim City Market use unless another workable site can be found. Other sites including the Ski Club Lift 1-A site have been suggested. However, staff supports the use of the Kraut property because of existing traffic patterns and the close proximity of the relocated use to the current site of City Market. The Kraut Property is scheduled to be under construction next summer. Phasing the construction of the Kraut affordable housing will add additional cost to the project as follows: A. Additional construction cost from the general contractor for phasing. B. Additional construction financing cost if the 1st phase garage is financed during the interim use. C. Additional project management and administrative cost. The City has paid off the land cost therefore the phasing will add no additional carrying land cost. Staff recommends that the SJV pay for or be debit with the total additional cost of using the Kraut Property on an interim basis. 16 • • 10. Condominiumization Staff supports the SJV request to condominiumize the parking paces. E. Staff's Debit And Credit Evaluation Staff has made a debt and credit evaluation of the SJV proposal similar to the debit and credit evaluation of the SJV. This evaluation is presented below. SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS CITY TRADE-OFFS CITY RECEIVES 1. SJV pays for 131 spaces of parking beyond their mitigation requirement. 131 spaces at $22,400/space equals $2,934,400. 2. Opportunity to remove existing on -street parking spaces in the commercial core to create a more pedestrian downtown and to relieve parking overflow in the east -end residential neighborhoods. 3. Redevelopment of properties will create a Town Square public space. 4. Redevelopment of properties will be coordinated under a SPA Plan. 5. Receives the underground rights at no cost to develop 215 municipal parking spaces. 6. Implements one of the recommendations of the Aspen Transportation Implementation Plan. 7. Implement several recommendations of the AACP with regard to expansion of the NC zone district, pursuit of Superblock parking, mixed use development, significant amount of employee housing downtown. 8. SJV provides ownership employee housing which would allowed Kraut Property employee housing to be rental, if desired. 9. Increase sales and property tax revenues. 10. Excluding City Market redevelopment, increase of 19,934 sq. ft. NC commercial uses over existing NC uses. Increase of 15,000 sq. ft. CL commercial uses over existing CL uses. 11. Expanded City Market to better serve the community. 17 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS CITY TRADE-OFFS CITY GIVES 1. Increase in new development. A. 16,566 sq. ft. increase CL commercial floor area: total 20,066 sq. ft. CL uses above ground. B. 8,434 sq. ft. increase NC commercial floor area: total 24,934 sq. ft. NC uses above ground. C. 11,500 sq. ft. increase NC commercial leasable space: total 26,000 sq. ft. NC uses below ground. 2. Full exemption from employee mitigation for reconstruction of 34,500 sq. ft. of existing development. City Market 26,000 sq. ft. and Buckhorn 8,500 sq. ft. The exemption equals 36 employees, 28 studio units, and 14,000 sq. ft. of housing. 3. Partial exemption from parking mitigation for reconstruction of 34,500 sq. ft. of existing development. Existing development only replaces their existing parking: City Market 29 vs. 84 spaces and Buckhorn 7 vs. 22 spaces, exemption equals 70 spaces. 4. Redefines NC zoning to accommodate additional commercial uses. This may be unnecessary. However, it was an AACP recommendation. 5. Vacates Cooper Street and 30 on -street spaces replaced under -ground at the cost of the City. 30 spaces at $22,400/space equals $672,000. 6. Building height variance for employee housing will allow buildings up - to 35 feet. 7. FAR incentive of 25,500 sq. ft. to accommodate on -site employee housing. 8. Allow 9 Buckhorn lodge rooms (3,500 sq.ft.) to be reconstructed as NC or CL commercial uses. 9. Temporary use of the Kraut Property for interim City Market. • ATTACHMENT A SJV PROPOSAL • MEMORANDUM Date: August 5, 1993 From: Superblock joint venture To: Aspen City Council and staff Subject: Superblock outline We believe that the benefits of the Superblock are greater than the sum of the benefits of the individual parts. We also believe that the benefits of doing the entire project and doing it at once produce intangible benefits that are not easily captured by traditional cost benefit analysis and are not readily analyzed under the existing land use code. In many ways, the Superblock is like the Aspen Area Community Plan in that it seeks to remedy problems that the code either indirectly created or failed to address. We think that the Superblock will help bring life and vitality to downtown, will provide part of the antidote to the "commuter culture" and will provide necessary retail services to the community. We believe having 25,500 square feet of affordable housing on the edge of downtown with no land costs is exactly what the community had in mind when the community plan asked to bring more life and activity to the downtown area. We also believe getting visitors and residents out of their cars at the edge of the commercial core will help promote the pedestrian ambience this community desires. And we believe the addition of neighborhood commercial retail space and an expanded City Market will be able to provide competitively priced goods and services thereby diverting locals from the downvalley trips that have contributed to the "commuter culture" that the community plan seeks to remedy. None of this is possible piecemeal: the Superblock is uniquely situated to serve as downtown parking, a housing site and as neighborhood commercial retail space. None of the individual partners, including the City of Aspen, have the resources to provide this unique combination of benefits. Enclosed with this memo you will find a summary of the likely development alternatives with and without our proposal (one page), a two page outline of threshold requirements, two pages of plus and minus analysis for the city and the joint venture, a preliminary list of expanded NC zone uses and four pages of detailed calculations of code required parking and housing mitigation. m93 super804.mem We feel that this is the net of the situation. If the City Community plan had not thought of the Superblock then this is what would happen. Bell Mountain would rebuild under the Feb 93 GMQS approval and 23 underground parking spaces will be built along with 3000 sq ft of housing. City Market and the Buckhorn Lodge will do nothing requiring GMQS. Therefore, the area will have : Parking Housincr 30 Street 0 29 City Market 0 7 Buckhorn 0 23 Bell Mtn 3000 sq ft 89 Totals 3000 If the Superblock proceeds Parking Housim 215 Street — 0 325 City Market 15,000 spaces to Buckhorn 4,000 be built Bell Mtn 6,500 privately 540 Totals 25,500 To accomplish this the city agrees to : a) Build/operate only the second floor of the garage rather than the entire garage saving $10,000,000 in costs and liability but still increasing their parking space inventory by 21� spaces and increasing the overall parking space count in the East End from 89'to 540. b) ' Upzone by 11,0oo sq ft. c) Upzone some areas to cL. d) Allow City Market to grow from 26,000 sq ft to 31,000 sq ft. e) Agree that the mitigation formulas for housing that City Market/Buckhorn could be subject to do not apply since City Market/Buckhorn would not be demolished if it were not for this City inspired Superblock idea. The Bell Mtn mitigation housing required under Feb 93 GMQS will be built. 9 We feel that these are the crucial threshold areas where a meeting of the minds is required. We hope that an agreement can be reached on these areas and that the City will agree to commit further funds combined with further private funds so that formal construction drawings and engineering tests can be pursued for the garage. Housing We will build the amount of housing that the City formulas ask us to build, without mitigating the Buckhorn/City Market properties. The estimate of that 25,500 sq ft of housing is enclosed (created by Curtis/Lamont). We request the City be the interest only construction lender for the housing, recourse to the condominiumized housing plats. We propose to build sale housing above the Deli/Bakery on the second/third floor, also sale housing on the third floor of the Buckhorn. We propose to build rental housing behind Bell Mountain for the use of employees of the Superblock only. We propose that when the construction is complete the City be responsible for selling the sale units and getting their money back from the buyers. We will be responsible for leasing the lease units and when they are 100% leased we will get takeout financing and repay the City. Although John Bennett offered to have the City buy down our housing costs thereby spending city housing money this method saves the City money by loaning it for housing construction rather than spending it and in addition the City gets the housing built without paying a Management Fee. We will take the risk that the housing is built for the amount we borrow. A height variance is required for us to build housing on the third floor as the City has requested. We expect that our third floor will be less than the Durant mall building but it will need a height variance. We propose that the parking for the housing be located at the Rio Grande garage due to the fact that the auto's should not be required for daily use since the rental housing is for Plaza employees and the sale housing is for employees working elsewhere in the City, also it is more effective to have these parking spaces used to get cars off the East end streets and the Rio Grande garage has the space available for these 51 cars. Parking we will build, pay for, and operate the the upper level of the garage and the Lower level of the garage with the City being responsible for building and operating only the Middle level of the garage. The City will have to enter into non compete agreements with us regarding their suggestions about how we might use our spaces in the marketplace ie term leasing. This will allow the City to have an inventory of spaces that they control and those spaces compete with other spaces they control ie Rio Grande, street, intercept, however they do not compete with us. Excess FAR We request excess FAR according to the attached schedules created by Leslie Lamont and aim Curtis the estimate is 11,000 sq ft. Commercial Lodge Zoning We request that 24,000 square feet of first and second floor space located anywhere on the Plaza be allowed Commercial Lodge retail uses. We will build the extra housing required over N/C zoning for this space. We will agree that at all times not more than 24,00 square feet of space in the Superblock will be such Commercial Lodge retail uses rather than designate specific spacer, Redefine N/C We request that the City redefine N/C to include in addition to its current definition the following as attached hereto. We suggest that this be updated as we proceed to include additional items both the Planning department and we feel are appropriate. The amount of retail N/C space will be 16,000 sq ft. Condominiumization We propose that the entire project be Condomiumized so that the City will still own the same amount of surface area as will each of the private property owners, each will probably own different shaped surface area. Also, each of the floors of the garage should be condominiumized for lien purposes etc. Kraut Property We accept Leslie Lamont's idea of building the Kraut parking and than allowing City Market to construct their temporary Utennis bubble' space so they can operate and preserve approximately 70 Aspen jobs/employees. Size of City Market Allow city Market to grow from 26,000 sq ft to 31,000 sq ft. Private Property Owners e Debit Credit Loss of revenues during construction $2,500,000.00 Cost to rebuild Buckhorn Lodge and City Market structures that do not have to be rebuilt $3,300,000.00 Cost to buy-out Buckhorn Lodge's lessees with long term leases Cost to demolish Buckhorn Lodge and City Market Cost to build parking garage $1.0,000,000.00 for 110 spaces on first and 215 spaces on third levels Upzoning of 11,000 square feet Partial CL upzone Allow City Market to grow from 26,000 square feet to 31,000 s.f. Use of Kraut property 0 City of Aspen 0 Debit Give up Cooper Street Square foot area Give up 30 Cooper Street parking spaces Give up 29 City Market, 7 Buckhorn Lodge, 23 Bell Mountain Lodge parking spaces (Total 59 spaces) Give up 11,000 square feet in upzoning and redefine N/C so that in this plaza, 24,000 square feet can have commercial lodge uses and 16,000 N/C redefined uses Give up having parking on site for plaza housing. Let Rio Grande parking spaces be used, employees work on site or in town therefore they don't need daily auto Give up "housing mitigation" Credit Get same square foot area back in different shape as a part of plaza and an opportunity to build 75,600 square feet of parking for 215 cars under the 20,250 square foot right of way it own; - on Cooper Street Get 131 spaces in excess of the mitigation spaces paid by private property owners for public use Get 143 mitigation parking spaces in return paid by private property owners Get 25,500 square feet of housing in 51 studio unit equivalents Get 51 parking spaces paid for and controlled by private owners to address east end "defacto parking lot problem." More effective use of these spaces You are not giving this up since it will not occur. The "housing mitigation" formula assumes that the private property owner is demolishing/reconstructing. The Buckhorn Lodge/City Market will not be demolished/reconstructed if this Superblock is not approved therefore "mitigation" does not exist for those properties. As for Bell Mountain, we are committing to build the housing mitigation required under the February 1993 GQMS approval. Preliminary List of Additional N/C uses dour D' Fete type store with more than to tables, no waitperson service. Ski, Bike, Rollerblade, etc type shop. Manicure type shop. Pizza, KFC, Yogurt, food take out type shop. Hairdresser shop. We think that the current list of approved/conditional uses are okay but there needs to be additional uses added. These are our initial thoughts, we need to meet with planning to discuss their thoughts and then jointly create an agreed upon list of uses that will be allowed in addition to the current approved and conditional uses. d 00 T1 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FAR Sq•Ft• CITY MARKET — 1 st Level 5,000 sq. ft. Deli/bakery — 2nd Level 8,000 emp. housing — 3rd Level 7,000 emp. housing 20,000 — Below Ground (26,000) market (Not counted in FAR) NEW SW. BLDG. — 1st Level 5,000 N/C Redefined — 2nd Level 5,000 N/C Redefined 10,000 BELL_MTN. BLDG — 1st Level 18,000 N/C Redefined — 2nd Level 10,000 lodging rooms — 3rd Level 10,000 lodging suites — 1st, 2nd & 3rd levels 6,500 emp. housing 44,500 BUCKHORN BLDG 8/4/93 — 1st Level 6,000 N/C Redefined — 2nd Level 6,000 N/C Redefined — 3rd Level 4,000 emp. housing 16,000 TOTAL — Private Uses 65,000 FAR 1.20 FAR 0.88 w/street ABOVE GROUND — Emp. Housing 25,500 FAR 0.47 FAR 0.34 w/street 90,500 FAR 1.67 FAR 1.22 w/street — Below Ground (26,000 NOTES: 1. N/C Redefined is Neighborhood Commercial zoning proposed to be redefined as part of the SPA Plan. Excluding City Market development (31,000 sq. ft. total), of the 40,000 sq. ft. of N/C redefined commercial, 24,000 sq. ft. is proposed to be C/L commercial uses and 16,000 sq. ft. to be N/C commercial uses. • i TABLE 2 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CITY MARKET — Market — Ab. Gr — Leasable Space — Be. Gr. BELL MTN. BLDG. — Approved Lodge (w/ 3,000 sq.ft. emp. housing) BUCKHORN BLDG. — Existing C/L — Ab. Gr. — Existing Lodge — Existing C/L — Be. Gr. New SW Bldg. New Emp. Housing, SUB -TOTAL — Private Uses ABOVE GROUND — Emp.Housing Existing & Approved Deve. 13,000 sq. ft. (13,000 26,000 20,000 3,500 3,500 (1,500 8,500 40,000 40,000 SUB -TOTAL (14,500 ) BELOW GROUND NOTES: 1. Ab. Gr. = Above Ground and Be. Gr. = Below Ground. Existing Zoning FAR 1:1 54,000 n/a 8/4/93 Proposed Deve. 5,000 sq. ft. (26,000 31,000 38,000 12,000 10,000 25,500 65,000 25,500 90,500 (26,000 ) 0 TABLE 3 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EMPLOYEE MITIGATION ANALYSIS Mitigation Sq. Ft. CITY MARKET - Existing Market - Ab. Gr. 13,000 credit - Existing Market - Be. Gr. 13,000 credit - Expansion Market - Ab. Gr. 5,000 - Expansion Market - Be. Gr. 0 net 31,000 Sub -Total - Ab. Gr. 5,000 Sub -Total - Be. Gr. ( 26,000 ) NEW SW BLDG - Expansion C/L - I st Level 5,000 - Expansion C/L - 2nd Level 5,000 10,000 BELL MTN. BLDG - Approved Lodge - Expansion N/C - Expansion C/L BUCKHORN BLDG - Existing N/C - Ab. Gr. - Existing N/C - Be. Gr. - Existing Lodge - L. to C/L - Expansion C/L 8/4/93 Emp. Est. Emp. Est. Emp. Housed Studio Units Sq. Ft. 0 0 0 sq. ft. 0 0 0 5 4 2,000 0 0 0 5 4 2,000 8.4 6.5 3,250 8_4 6_5 3,250 16.8 13 6,500 20,000 7 6 3,000 11,000 12 10 5,000 7,000 12 10 5,000 38,000 31 26 13,000 3,500 credit 0 0 0 1,500 credit 0 0 0 3,500 credit 4 3 1,500 3,500 6 5 2,500 12,000 10 8 4,000 TOTALS 91,000 Sg.Ft. 63 51 25,500 Sq.Ft. NOTES: 1. Ab Gr. = Above Ground and Be. Gr. = Below Ground. 2. Excluding City Market development (31,000 sq. ft. total), there is 40,000 sq. ft. of commercial development of which 24,000 sq. ft. is CL commercial and 16,000 sq. ft is N/C commercial. 3. N/C employee mitigation is based on employee generation ratio of 2.3 employees/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable and housing 60% of the net new employees generated per code. C/L employee mitigation is based on employee generation ratio of 3.5 employees/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable and housing 60% of the net new employees generated per code. TABLE 4 8/4/93 ,• r SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PARKING MITIGATION ANALYSIS Per Per N/C & CL Trueman Bldg. Zoning Ratios Ratios Existing & Existing & Mitigation Expansion Expansion SoFt. Parking Spaces Parking Snaces CITY MARKET — Existing Market — Ab. Gr. 13,000 sq.ft. 29 Existing 29 Existing — Existing Market — Be. Gr. 13,000 - - - Expansion Market — Ab. Gr. 5,000 16 New 11 New — Expansion Market — Be. Gr. 0 net 0 New 0 31,000 45 40 Sub -Total — Ab. Gr. 5,000 Sub -Total — Be. Gr. (26,000 ) NEW SW BLDG — Expansion C/L — ist Level 5,000 8 New 11 New — Expansion C/L — 2nd Level 5.000 8 New 11 New 10,000 16 22 BELL MTN. BLDG — Approved Lodge 20,000 23 Approved 23 Approved — Expansion N/C 11,000 35 New 24 New — Expansion C/L 7,000 11 New 16 New 38,000 69 63 - BUCKHORN BLDG — Existing N/C — Ab. Gr. 3,500 7 Existing 7 Existing — Existing N/C — Be. Gr. 1,500 0 0 — Existing Lodge — L. to C/L 3,500 0 2 — Expansion C/L 3.500 6 New 8 New 12,000 13 17 SUB -TOTAL 91,000 Sq.Ft. 143 Spaces 142 Spaces EMPLOYEE HOUSING 51 Units 51 Spaces 51 Spaces TOTALS 194 Spaces 193 Spaces NOTES: 1. Ab. Gr. = Above Ground and Be. Gr. = Below Ground. 2. Parking ratio for N/C zoning is 4 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable and for C/L zoning is 2 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable. 3. Actual parking ratio for Trueman Building/Clark's Market complex is 2.78 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable based on parking count and building sq. ft. analysis of Building Permit Plans. OwY. L2/cRiglla— hf Kp.—r fRG.RTY • Nrww. vuynra -- 3 TCwi1LTION�� Bal4.�L. yT% 9ra N4 6T -I'lo ALTERNATIVE MAIN PLAZA LEVEL 0 a Q w o z 8 0 U Y U 0 00 w a N Z W a W. N n Q i I �I<nwlNc, "OH 1i> IA ell ClI�� F-7.�, I - • MIME dNosv%4 COMMERCIAL/ PARKING LEVEL PLAN 1-20-0- • 11 ATTACHMENT B STAFF'S EVALUATION TABLE 1 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FAR Sq.Ft. CITY MARKET — 1st Level 5,000 sq. ft. Deli/bakery — 2nd Level 8,000 emp. housing — 3rd Level 7,000 emp. housing 20,000 — Below Ground (26,000) market (Not counted in FAR) NEW SW. BLDG. — 1st Level 5,000 N/C Redefined — 2nd Level 5,000 N/C Redefined 10,000 BELL MTN. BLDG — 1 st Level 18,000 N/C Redefined — 2nd Level 10,000 lodging rooms — 3rd Level 10,000 lodging suites — 1st, 2nd & 3rd levels 6,500 emp. housing 44,500 BUCKHORN BLDG 8/4/93 — 1st Level 6,000 N/C Redefined — 2nd Level 6,000 N/C Redefined — 3rd Level 4,000 emp. housing 16,000 TOTAL — Private Uses 65,000 FAR 1.20 FAR 0.88 w/street ABOVE GROUND — Emp. Housing 25,500 FAR 0.47 FAR 0.34 w/street 90,500 FAR 1.67. , FAR 1.22 w/street — Below Ground (26,000 NOTES: 1. N/C Redefined is Neighborhood Commercial zoning proposed to be redefined as part of the SPA Plan. Excluding City Market development (31,000 sq. ft. total), of the 40,000 sq. ft. of N/C redefined commercial, 24,000 sq. ft. is proposed to be C/L commercial uses and 16,000 sq. ft. to be N/C commercial uses. 0 0 TA13LE 2 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CITY MARKET — Market — Ab. Gr — Leasable Space — Be. Gr. BELL MTN. BLDG. — Approved Lodge (w/ 3,000 sq.ft. emp. housing) BUCKHORN BLDG. — Existing C/L — Ab. Gr. — Existing Lodge — Existing C/L — Be. Gr. New SW Blde. New Emp. Housing SUB -TOTAL —Private Uses ABOVE GROUND — Emp.Housing Existing & Approved Deve. 13,000 sq. ft. 13,000 1 26,000 20,000 3,500 3,500 1,500 8,500 40,000 40,000 SUB -TOTAL (14,500 ) BELOW GROUND NOTES: 1. Ab. Gr. = Above Ground and Be. Gr. = Below Ground. Existing Zoning FAR 1:1 54,000 n/a 8/4/93 Proposed Deve. 5,000 sq.ft. 26,000 31,000 38,000 12,000 10,000 25,500 65,000 25,500 90,500 (26,000 ) TABLE 3 8/4/93 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EMPLOYEE MITIGATION ANALYSIS Mitigation Emp. Est. Emp. Est. Emp. Sq. Ft. Housed Studio Units Sq. Ft. CITY MARKET - Existing Market - Ab. Gr. 13,000 credit 0 0 0 sq.ft. - Existing Market - Be. Gr. 13,000 credit 0 0 0 - Expansion Market - Ab. Gr. 5,000 5 4 2,000 - Expansion Market - Be. Gr. 0 net 0 0 0 31,000 5 4 2,000 Sub -Total - Ab. Gr. 5,000 Sub -Total - Be. Gr. ( 26,000 ) NEW SW BLDG - Expansion C/L - 1st Level 5,000 8.4 6.5 3,250 - Expansion C/L - 2nd Level 5,000 8_4 6_5 3.250 10,000 16.8 13 6,500 BELL MTN. BLDG - Approved Lodge 20,000 7 6 3,000 - Expansion N/C 11,000 12 10 5,000 - Expansion C/L 7,000 12 10 5,000 38,000 31 26 13,000 BUCKHORN BLDG - Existing N/C - Ab. Gr. 3,500 credit 0 0 0 - - Existing N/C - Be. Gr. 1,500 credit 0 0 0 - Existing Lodge - L. to C/L 3,500 credit 4 3 1,500 - Expansion C/L 3.500 6 5 2.500 12,000 10 8 4,000 TOTALS 91,000 SQ.Ft. 63 51 25,500 Sa.Ft. NOTES: 1. Ab Gr. = Above Ground and Be. Gr. = Below Ground. 2. Excluding City Market development (31,000 sq. ft. total), there is 40,000 sq. ft. of commercial development of which 24,000 sq. ft. is CL commercial and 16,000 sq. ft is N/C commercial. 3. N/C employee mitigation is based on employee generation ratio of 2.3 employees/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable and housing 60% of the net new employees generated per code. CIL employee mitigation is based on employee generation ratio of 3.5 employees/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable and housing 60% of the net new employees generated per code. 0 0 TABLE 4 SUPCRBLOCK ANALYSIS PARKING MITIGATION ANALYSIS CITY MARKET — Existing Market — Ab. Gr. — Existing Market — Be. Gr. — Expansion Market — Ab. Gr. — Expansion Market — Be. Gr. Sub -Total — Ab. Gr. Sub -Total — Be. Gr. NEW SW BLDG — Expansion C/L — 1st Level — Expansion C/L — 2nd Level BELL MTN. BLDG Mitigation S9 Ft. 13,000 sq.ft. 13,000 5,000 0 net 31,000 5,000 (26,000 ) 5,000 5,000 10,000 8/4/93 Per Per N/C & CL Trueman Bldg. Zoning Ratios Ratios Existing & Existing & Expansion Expansion Parking Spaces Parking Spaces 29 Existing 29 Existing 16 New I 1 New 0 New 0 45 40 8 New 11 New 8 New 11 New 16 22 — Approved Lodge 20,000 23 Approved 23 Approved — Expansion N/C 11,000 35 New 24 New — Expansion C/L 7,000 11 New 16 New 38,000 69 63 BUCKHORN BLDG — Existing N/C — Ab. Gr. 3,500 7 Existing 7 Existing — Existing N/C — Be. Gr. 1,500 0 0 — Existing Lodge — L. to C/L 3,500 0 2 — Expansion C/L 3.500 6 New 8 New 12,000 13 17 SUB -TOTAL 91,000 Sq.Ft. 143 Spaces 142 Spaces EMPLOYEE HOUSING 51 Units 51 Spaces 51 Spaces TOTALS 194 Spaces 193 Spaces NOTES: 1. Ab. Gr. = Above Ground and Be. Gr. = Below Ground. 2. Parking ratio for N/C zoning is 4 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable and for C/L zoning is 2 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable. 3. Actual parking ratio for Trueman Building/Clark's Market complex is 2.78 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable based on parking count and building sq. ft. analysis of Building Permit Plans. • • TABLE 3-A 8/16/93 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EMPLOYEE MITIGATION ANALYSIS WITH NO CREDIT FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Mitigation Emp. Est. Emp. Est. Emp. Sq. Ft. Housed Studio Units Sq. Ft. CITY MARKET - Existing Market - Ab. Gr. 13,000 no credit 14 11 5,500 sq.ft. - Existing Market - Be. Gr. 13,000 no credit 14 11 5,500 - Expansion Market - Ab. Gr. 5,000 5 4 2,000 - Expansion Market - Be. Gr. 0 net 0 0 0 31,000 33 26 13,000 Sub -Total - Ab. Gr. 5,000 Sub -Total - Be. Gr. ( 26,000 ) NEW SW BLDG - Expansion C/L - 1st Level 5,000 8.4 6.5 3,250 - Expansion C/L - 2nd Level 5.000 8_4 6_5 3,250 10,000 16.8 13 6,500 BELL MTN. BLDG - Approved Lodge 20,000 7 6 3,000 - Expansion N/C 11,000 12 10 5,000 - Expansion C/L 7,000 12 10 5,000 ' 38,000 31 26 13,000 BUCKHORN_BLDG - Existing N/C - Ab. Gr. 3,500 no credit 4 3 1,500 - Existing N/C - Be. Gr. 1,500 no credit 2 1 500 - Existing Lodge - L. to C/L 3,500 no credit 6 5 2,500 - Expansion C/L 3.500 0 1 2,500 12,000 18 14 7,000 TOTALS 91,000 SQ.Ft. 99 79 39,500 Sa,Ft. NOTES: 1. Ab Gr. = Above Ground and Be. Gr. = Below Ground. 2. Excluding City Market development (31,000 sq. ft. total), there is 40,000 sq. ft. of commercial development of which 24,000 sq. ft. is CL commercial and 16,000 sq. ft is N/C commercial. 3. N/C employee mitigation is based on employee generation ratio of 2.3 employees/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable and housing 60% of the net new employees generated per code. C/L employee mitigation is based on employee generation ratio of 3.5 employees/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable and housing 60% of the net new employees generated per code. TABLE 4-A SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PARKING MITIGATION ANALYSIS WITH NO CREDIT FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CITY MARKET — Existing Market — Ab. Gr — Existing Market — Be. Gr. — Expansion Market — Ab. Gr — Expansion Market — Be. Gr. Sub -Total — Ab. Gr Sub -Total — Be. Gr, NEW SW BLDG 8/16/93 Per Per N/C & CL Trueman Bldg. Zoning Ratios Ratios Mitigation Sq. Ft. Parking Spaces Parking Spaces 13,000 sq.ft. 13,000 5,000 0 net 31,000 5,000 (26,000 ) 42 29 42 29 16 11 0 0 100 69 — Expansion C/L — 1 st Level 5,000 8 11 — Expansion C/L — 2nd Level 5.000 8 11 10,000 16 22 BELL MTN. BLDG — Approved Lodge 20,000 23 23 — Expansion N/C 11,000 35 24 — Expansion C/L 7,000 11 16 38,000 69 63 BUCKHORN BLD — Existing N/C — Ab. Gr. 3,500 11 8 — Existing N/C — Be. Gr. 1,500 5 3 — Existing Lodge — L. to C/L 3,500 6 8 — Expansion C/L 3.500 6 8 12,000 28 27 SUB -TOTAL 91,000 Sq.Ft. 213 Spaces 181 Spaces EMPLOYEE HOUSING 79 Units 79 Spaces 79 Spaces TOTALS , 292 Spaces 260 Spaces DOTES: 1. Ab. Gr. = Above Ground and Be. Gr. = Below Ground. 2. Parking ratio for N/C zoning is 4 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable and for C/L zoning is 2 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable. 3. Actual parking ratio for Trueman Building/Clark's Market complex is 2.78 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable based on parking count and building sq. ft. analysis of Building Permit Plans. ' MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Diane Moore, Planning Director FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: September 21, 1993 RE: Superblock Worksession - September 22 At the September 14 worksession Council requested additional information. Attached is a FAX from City Market listing the sizes of other supermarkets in the Roaring Fork Valley (total square footage). I have also included,,for your recollection, the August letter to Council from John Caldwell (City Market representative) in which he discusses the proposed size of City Market. Council also requested a review of the existing parking on the Superblock site. They are: Cooper Street between Spring & Original - 30 City Market - 29 Buckhorn Lodge - 7 Bell Mountain - 10 Total 76 I have attached the preliminary site plans for your convenience. The other items that staff will continue to work on for Council are: impacts to traffic/circulation patterns; eliminating mitigation requirements for demolished and replaced structures and implications to other zone districts; rezoning LP to CL or amending the LP zone district to allow commercial space; and employee mitigation impacts for parking garage. A final numbers analysis is forthcoming but will not be available for this Wednesday's worksession. • • J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C. A Professional Corporation Attorneys At Law J. Nicholas McGrath' Michael C. Ireland Ms. Leslie Lamont Senior planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Leslie: September 21, 1993 Re: Superblock - competing supermarket sizes 600 East Hopkins Avenue Suite 203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-2612 Telecopier (303) 925-4402 SEP 2 p ': - Please find enclosed a summary of the supermarkets in the Roaring Fork Valley as requested by City Council at last week's work session. In our view, the "destination" markets are the markets that are presently attracting Aspen residents with their larger selection and those include Glenwood Springs City Market (50,000 square feet) and the Glenwood Springs Safeway (45,000) at present and the future City Market in El Jebel (52,500 square feet). The smaller markets (Carbondale, Basalt at present and the Village Market in Snowmass) are not capturing Aspen sales tax dollars becad'se they are comparable or smaller in size and thus don't offer much that isn't available locally. Thank you. m93 super921.1tr Sincerely, J. NICHOLA 2MMGRATP, P.C. BY: Michael C. Ireland Member, Colo. (f971), Calif (1969), and D.C. (1966) bars JCI\ I is i • J— 1 / — JJ O • UO l I I 1 1gr11CI�G I y JUJ�L� �UL : ;�/ 3 SUMMARY OF ROARING FORK VALLEY SUPERMARKET SIZES SEPTEMBER, 1993 COMPARE.WK1 TOTAL SIZE OPERATOR LOCATION (SQ. FT.) EXPANSION CArABILITY City Market Glenwood Springs 50,000 In 1093 purchased vacant land behind Canter Drug for store expansion of up to 20,000 sq. ft. Safeway Glenwood Springs 45,000 Unknown. Circle Super (City Market) Carbondale 25,000 Store volume justified expansion; shopping center has no additional. space.. City Market Basalt 19,000 To be aupplemented by new El Jebel store. City Market E1 Jebel (planned) Village Market Snowmaes Village Clrark's Market Aspen Clark's Market Airport Bus. Ctr. City Market Aspen Total (excluding Aspen City Market basement) 52,500 Has spaoe for additional. 10,000 square feet. 12,000 gone known. 18,000 Unknown. 4,000 Unknown. 13,U00 Main floor. 13,000 Available in basement. 238,500 JGI\ I D I 0— 1 1 — 00 u • Uu I I LW.WL1%L. 1 JUi1CJLc7�f UL . it J! J SUMMARY OF ROARING FORK VALLEY SUPERMARKET SIZES SEPTEMBER, 1993 C(�MYARE . WP.1 TOTAL SIZE OrNRATOR LOCATION (SQ. FT.) EXPANSION CArADILITY City Market Glenwood Springe 50,000 In 1993 purchased va,cantT�^ land behind Center Drug for store expansion of up to 20,000 sq. ft. Sufawey Glenwood Springs 45,000 Unknown. Circle Super (City Market) Carbondale City Market Basalt City Market E1 Jebel (planned) Village Market Snowmaees Village Clark' a Market Aspen Clark's Market Airport Bus. Ctr. City Market Aspen Total (excluding Aspen City Market basement) 25,0O0 Store volume justified expansion; shopping center has no additional space. 19,000 To be supplemented by new E1 Jebel store. 52,500 Has spaoe for additional 10,000 square feet. 12,000 Rone known. 18,000 Unknown. 4,000 Unknown. 13,000 Main floor. 13,000 Available in basement. 238,500 sn'l by:. O-lU-00 r O•LU 9 %.111 .....-..__ Inc. August 6, 1993 Members of the City Council City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: Proposed supermarket size in the "Superblock" Project Ladies and Gentlemen: We are encouraged by the support for the above project apparent at our recent workshop meeting with the council. We also understand from that meeting that both the size of the proposed supermarket and the need for additional employee housing are concerns for some members of council. Accordingly, we are in the process of revising our plans to add employee housing, and to delete the second floor store office space. This change results in a proposed supermarket of about 32,000 square feet. We submit that the benefits to Aspen of the supermarket designed in this project include significant additional sales tax dollars to Aspen and Pitkin County, materially less traffic on Highway 82, a wider and more desirable selection of groceries available in Aspen and enhanced business volume for other Aspen merchants, and that such benefits outweigh the few potential adverse impacts of the project. As discussed below, these benefits are only available if the grocery store is significantly larger than today. In addition, we are unable to financially justify destruction of the existing store, and reconstruction with the parking, housing and other associated burdens, without at least a doubling of the existing store size. We believe we have designed only this minimum necessary increase.into the project. We should first address the increase proposes: over the size of our existing Aspen store. The existing store is in a two story building of about 26,000 square feet (one floor below ground). About 4,500 square feet of the basement of this building is currently rented to the Steak Pit Restaurant. The net leasable space in this building today is thus about 16,000 square feet. The balance of the building is utilized for hallways, equipment compressor rooms, rest rooms and similar uses not included in the definition of net leasable space. The interior of the proposed supermarket has yet to be designed. However, the new store will also need equipment and HOME OFFICE: 105 W. COLORADO AVE. • P.O. BOX 729 - GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81502-0729 • (303) 241-0750 • FAX 244-1052 SENT 6Y b-10-Uj ; tS:2b ; L111 LV1HAAL1-OUJJL.UCJAJO 0 Aspen City Council/Page 2/August 6, 1993 storage areas, -and the net leasable space in the proposed market is unlikely to be double the total net leasable spare 'in the existing store building. Alternatively, we might recognize that the bakery/deli operations on the surface level of the proposed project are, like the Steak Pit, on a separate level from the grocery store, and, also like the Steak Pit, will consist of retail food preparation and sales. Perhaps the surface level bakery/deli can be considered an offset against the current Steak Pit area, and the increase in grocery store size be reflected in the increase of the proposed lower level store over that of our existing store. Again, when equipment and storage areas are deducted from the size of that lower level, the net leasable area of the new market approximates about twice that of the existing store. Thus, we suggest for discussion of store size that we agree that the proposed store is effectively twice the size of the current store. The advantages of this increased store size are substantial, as follow: I. The January, 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) presents as one of its goals an increase in the amount of commercial space dedicated to locally serving businesses. We suggest that few businesses serve the local population to a greater degree than does a supermarket. Thus, the increase proposed herein is in direct conformity with primary goals of the AACP. 2. Less than two years ago, we analyzed the entire Roaring Fork Valley grocery market to evaluate our proposed store at R1 Jebel. While' the details of this study are confidential trade information, we can divulge that over 50% of the grocery dollars of Aspen residents are spent "down valley" generally in Glenwood Springs. When our El Jebel store is completed (projected for December, 1994), the percentage of resident grocery dollars leaving Aspen will increase, because of the convenience of a closer "full - service" supermarket. We draw two conclusions from this: (1) the grocery shopping needs of Aspen residents are not today met locally, and (2) there are substantial additional grocery dollars to be captured locally without taking significant trade dollars from other local Aspen grocery merchants. In other words, most of the sales dollars available to be captured with an expanded Aspen store will come from other City Market and Safeway stores down valley, not from Aspen competitors. The down -valley stores that successfully attract Aspen shoppers are large - 50,000 square feet, and more. Rebuilding the Aspen City Market to reduce this leakage can only succeed if the size differential with competing stores is measurably reduced. Proof of SEND BY: O-IU- JJ I O.Z1 r t_11 1 L1!l11UU-1 E Aspen City Counci;rPage 3/August 6, 1993 this argument is avai 17,ble locally - Clark' s has had a larger store than City Market fo. many years, with no ill effect on City Market's ability to ompete with Clark's. Neither Aspen store, however, competes suc_,essfully with the down -valley stores. The data in this study are now over a year old - residential growth in the Asp r, community (another goal of the AACP) will increase the amou , of sales leaving Aspen, unless additional grocery capability .3 provided. 3. When res-' tents go down -valley to buy groceries, they also use those trips to buy other items there - and Aspen resident serving merchants suffer the consequences. Similarly, the lack of a grocery store adequate to resident's needs is one more reason for workers to live elsewhere, and Aspen merchants are again impacted. Adequate grocery facilities for residents is a clear benefit to local merchants. 4. The inability of local stores to meet the existing grocery needs of residents has significant impact on transportation issues in Aspen, and to a greater degree, in Pitkin County. Shopping patterns generally reflect that, when shoppers must travel a long distance to a store, they shop with a "stock up" mentality - they make fewer trips to the store, and buy more on each trip. Such shoppers are resistant to mass. transportation, even if conveniently available, because of the amount of groceries (and other items) they carry home. Thus, they drive to the store. Accordingly, whatever amount of traffic on Highway 82 is necessary and unavoidable, it will remain significantly increased above that level so long as residents are making round trips down valley to buy groceries', regardless of the mass transit opportunities available. The most effective solution to this problem is to expand the availability of local Aspen grocery shopping, especially if it can be done in a facility that provides additional parking for those shoppers. 5. The fact that a substantial percentage of Aspen residents shop elsewhere drains significant sales tax dollars from Aspen and Pitkin County to those other communities. Sales tax revenues collected in Aspen are spent for the benefit of Aspen and Pitkin County residents, while those same revenues when collected elsewhere are used for the benefit of those communities. This is reflected in the recent concerns expressed in Glenwood Springs over the sales tax dollars it could lose as the result of our proposed E1 Jebel store, which is intended to cut off much of the Aspen to Glenwood Springs traffic. in snort, Aspen sales tax dollars collected elsewhere amount to a subsidy by Aspen residents of those communities. we suggest that this in no way works to the benefit of Aspen area residents. SENT BY: Lill IVIAO "L— 1 U V UL V J l aJ 1 Aspen City Council/Page 4/August 6, 1993 6. One of the fundamental objections to stores larger than now permitted has been that such large featureless buildings normally don't contribute to the ambiance that is Aspen. This project provides a.unique opportunity to the city, and to City Market, to incorporate a larger store without undesirable visual impacts on the surface. 7. We have heard of reluctance to abandon the "K-Mart Rule." We are unable to find that the K-Mart Rule applies to the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. Thus, we submit that the city's retention or abandonment of that rule is not relevant to this project. Finally, there is the matter of simple economics for City Market. City Market's share of the "Superblock" project, for the first floor of the parking garage, plus construction of the store itself, plus the costs of a temporary store during construction (the profits of which will not cover the costs of installation and removal), are estimated at more than eight million dollars, before taking into consideration the very considerable value of the existing land and building to be contributed to the project. This is three or four times the cost of a conventional 32,000 square foot store elsewhere, and greater than the cost of simply buying land and building a new store, even in Aspen. Under these circumstances, it is a fair question why we might proceed. The answer is that we believe that the goals in the AACP, from restricted downtown auto transportation to increased residential housing, will likely occur, and that the merchants with the best long term opportunities to succeed in this community are the ones participating in and planning for these developments. Nonetheless, this represents a very expensive undertaking, and a gamble that the city will timely persevere in pursuit of the AACP goals, and even with the most optimistic sales projections, cannot be justified with only a modest increase in store size. We simply need the scale of sales volume appropriate to a store this size to justify the proposed investment. Even a 32,000 square foot store costing this much is only feasible in a community like Aspen, where the shopping needs of the residents are not being met with current market facilities, where the increased sales volume does not have to be taken from local competitors, and where parking and traffic restrictions will concentrate customers at locations which provide parking opportunities. In summary, we hope that you will concur that the proposed 32,000 square foot store size is reasonable under current Aspen area market conditions and should be of significant benefit to the SLNT EY: O•LO , 1 I lrinl\I�LI 'U uuai�u is .�, Aspen City Council/Page 5/August 6, 1993 community, we would be pleased to review these matters further with you at the next workshop meeting. truly yours, Jo n L. Caldwell, Director, Real Estate cc: Superblock file Leslie Lamont Jim Valerio Jim Curtis Mack Ireland RANDUM Cy��'tl TO: Aspen City Council V Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner r FROM: Jim Curtis, Superblock Consulting Team DATE: September 24, 1993 RE: Updated Superblock Economic Analysis. Based On SJV Proposal Submitted August 5, 1993 This memo is in response to Leslie Lamont's request of 9/17/93 to update my prior Economic Analysis of the Superblock based on the SJV Proposal submitted August 5, 1993. This memo addresses the following key questions on the SJV Proposal: What is the City's cost for the 2nd Level of parking under the SJV Proposal? 2. What are the City's options to pay for the 2nd Level of parking? 3. What is the economic value of the upzoning requested by the SJV Proposal? This memo and analysis is in outline form to be used as a working document for a personal presentation to Council and to accomplish the time schedule you requested. The memo is not intended to be a complete cost -benefit analysis of the SJV Proposal which was not part of our Consulting Agreement. The memo is a working document to assist Council in evaluating the economics of the proposal on a preliminary basis. SUMMARY COMMENTS 1. The cost of the 2nd Level of parking is estimated at $4,810,000 in 1995 dollars, the estimated earliest construction date of the garage. 2. The Operating Revenues (Mcst Probable Estimate) of the 2nd Level of parking are estimated to support a parking revenue bond of $1,688,000. 3. The "shortfall" cost of the 2nd Level of parking is estimated at $3,122,000, i.e. $4,810,000 cost vs $1,688,000 bonding capacity. 4. The $3,122,000 shortfall could be covered by the following options: a. Increased SJV contribution b. Increased City contribution/subsidy —what funding source? c. Ski Corp. contribution d. Downtown Commercial Core Special Improvement District Tax e. Increased Upzoning (FAR) to SJV f. State or federal contributions g. Reduce the SJV employee housing mitigation cost h. Increased the parking revenues and bonding capacity i. Combinations of all the above. 5. The economic value of the 11,000 sq. ft. FAR Upzoning of the SJV Proposal is estimated at: a. If 11,000 sq. ft. is CL Connnercial Uses — $1,067,600 Most Probable Estimate b. If 11,000 sq. ft. is CL Commercial Uses — $1,498,800 Optimistic Estimate a. If 11,000 sq. ft. is NC Commercial Uses — $(-158,200) Most Probable Estimate 6. If the SJV increased its contribution by the $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 estimate above, the City's shortfall would be still in the $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 range. • U ° F q U a 0 � .U-. � •� •� 0. Op w C N 0°D O' o o 'o ° o = o on U U U O O cG0 b a a 0, w�U "�FFcz b o as 0 G, U 4M .n 4`d O U U 0 e o .-� � v� �1 .- C/S C4 ..- U C. 0 0 C 0 C 00 N O 00 N ;0, lO 00 vr 69 1 69 O O O O v v 69 6'i O O O O 0o v v ; F aO Q)O .O -o •--C/) CV U M C) TABLE 2 • • SUPERBLOCK GARAGE 9/20/93 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES The cost estimates are based on 215 cars per level to determine the per car and per level cost for the 2nd and 3rd levels, understanding that City Market is underground in the 1st level. The costs are estimated Spring 1995 costs. Construction Cost Parking Spaces Approvals, Permits Arch./Eng. Prof. Fees Contractor Bonding Project Mgnt. Fee Miscellaneous/Other Construction Inflation (2 yrs @ 3%/yr=6%) Fin. Underwriting Cost Contingency TOTAL COST PARKING SPACES COST PER SPACE COST PER LEVEL NOTES: 2 Levels 430 Cars $ 8,513,500 430 19,800 /sp 3 Levels 645 Cars $ 11,615,500 645 18,000 /sp 50,000 50,000 5% 425,700 580,800 1% 85,100 116,200 2% 170,300 232,300 1% 85,100 116,200 6% 559,800 762,700 2% 197,800 269,500 5% 504,365 687,200 $ 10,591,700 430 $ 24,630 /space $ 5,295,900 /Level $ 14,430,400 645 $ 22,370 /space $ 4,810,100 /Level 1. The construction cost estimates are based on very preliminary estimates by Shaw Construction and the soft cost estimates by Jim Curtis. 2. The hard construction cost is approximately $39 a square foot for either the two- or three -level garage. 3. The Rio Grande has 340 spaces, was constructed in approximately 14 months and was officially opened in June 1990. Its 1989 total development cost including. financing underwriting cost was $7,514,400 divided by 340 spaces, or $22,100/space. Of the $7,514,400 cost, approximately $432,200 was related to unbudgeted, unforeseen cost related to ground water. The garage is 31h levels of parking and ACRA office space totaling approximately 136,200 square feet, including the upper plaza top. The cost per square foot is $55 ($7,514,400 divided by 136,200 square feet); or $52 a square foot deducting the $432,200 water problem ($7,082,200 divided by 136,200 square feet). TABLE 3 SUPERBLOCK GARAGE /29 0/93 PRELIMINARY OPERATING PRO FORMA FOR MUNICIPAL PARKING 215 SPACES TOTAL 1st Level - 110 spaces and City Market - SN owned 2nd Level - 215 spaces municipal parking - City owned 3rd Level - 215 spaces leased parking - SN owned A. Revenue Matrix Based on 215 municipal spaces - 2nd level - and no City revenues 1st & 3rd levels. B. Revenue Matrix $2.00/Day $3.00/Day $4.00/Day Turnover Rate/24 Hours 365 Days/Yr. 365 Dayss/Yr 365 Da s/Yr Rio Grande .94 $ 147,530 $ 221,300 $ 295,070 Targeted 1.50 235,420 353,140 470,850 Optimistic 2.00 313,900 470,850 627,800 C. Operating Pro Forma Revenues 2.00/Da 3.00/Da 4.00/Da Targeted 1.5 Turnover Rate $ 235,420 $ 353,140 $ 470,850 Expenses a Labor 52,000 52,000 52,000 Utilities 2'/,00i, 27,000 27,000 Maintenance Labor 7,000 7,000 7,000 Maintenance Materials 4,000 4,000 4,000 Security 6,000 6,000 6,000 Insurance 5,000 5,000 5,000 Admin./Acc. Overhead 16,000 16,000 16,000 Contingency 5% 6,000 6,000 6,000 123,000 123,000 123,000 Operating Income 112,420 230,140 347,850 Capital Repair & Replac. Reserve - 30,000 - 30,000 - 30,000 Available for Debt Service 82,420 200,140 317,850 Debt Coverage Ratio - 1.25 - 1.25 _ 1.25 Debt Service Amount 65,936 160,112 254,280 Bonding Capacity Q 7% Int. over 20 years 695,160 1 688 O50 2 6$ 80,870 NOTES; w� b 1. The preliminary operation pro forma has been reviewed with Randy Ready, City Transporation Director. I TABLE A SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS 9/20/92 UPZONING ANALYSIS Upzoning Is 11,000 Sa Ft FAR Of CL Commercial Uses NOTES: 1. The FAR Buildout Analysis below only includes Above Ground square footage per the Code and does not include the SN proposed 26,000 sq. ft. City Market Below Grade which is not counted in the FAR. 2. The 11,000 sq. ft. FAR upzoning is 11,000 sq. ft. of CL Commercial Uses to simplify the economic analysis. 3. The 25,500 sq. ft. FAR of proposed Employee Housing is not included because it has no economic "profit" to the SN and is an economic "loss" to the SJV. _ Existing Zoning FAR Buildout City Market 27,000 sq. ft. NC Buckhom 3,500 sq. ft. CL 3,500 sq. ft. Lodge Staff Rec. Zoning Zoning FAR Buildout Change 5,000 sq. ft. NC Deli - 2,000 sq.ft. NC 20.000 sq. ft. NC Other 25,000 sq. ft. NC 20,000 sq. ft. CL + 16,500 sq. ft. CL - - 3,500 sq. ft. Lodge Bell Mtn 20,000 sq. ft. Lodge 20,000 sq. ft Lodge 0 54,000 sq. ft. Total 65,000 sq. ft. Total 11,000 sq. ft. CL Upzoning TAB; E 5 9/20/93 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EMPLOYEE AND PARKING MITIGATION FOR CL UPZONING Upgoning Is 11,000 S . Ft. FAR Of CL Commercial Uses A Gross FAR To Net Leasable Adiustment Gross FAR Sq. Ft. 11,000 sq. ft. 20% Gross To Net Adj. - 20% Net Leasable Sq. Ft. 8,800 sq. ft. B. Employee Mitigation For Upzonin Comm. Lodge (CL) Net Leasable Emp. Generation Ratio Emp. Generation Emp. Mitigation Ratio Emp. Housed Emp./Studio Unit Ratio Studio Units Studio Units Min. Size Net Liveable Sq. Ft. Net To Gross Sq. Ft. Adj. Gross Emp. Mitigation Sq. Ft. Parking Mitigation For Upzoning 1. Comm. Lodge (CL) Net Leasable Parking Ratio Parking Mitigation 2. Employee Parking Mitigation Parking Ratio Parking Mitigation 8,800 sq. ft. net leasable 3.5 emp./1,000 sq. ft. net leasable 31 emp. 60 % min. threshold 19 emp. 1.25 emp./studio unit 15 studio units 400 sq. ft. min. unit size 6,000 sq. ft. net liveable 1.25 net to gross 25% 7,500 sq. ft. gross 8,800 sq. ft. net leasable 2 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable 18 spaces 15 studio units 1 space/bedroom 15 spaces TABLE 6 • 9/20/93 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS ECONOMIC VALUE OF 11 000 SO. FT. FAR CL UPZONING Upzoning is 11,000 Sq. Ft. FAR Of CL Commercial Uses Upzoning Retail R nts At 35 S . Ft. Av . - Most Probable Estimate Economic Value of Upzonin 8,800 = sq. ft. leasable @ $190 qq' $ 3,153,600 Capitalized Value Development Cost 11,000 s358 sq. ft. gross @ ft. _ - 2 086,000 $ 1,067,600 Capitalized Value_ Retail Rents -Most Probable $35 ft. net leasable sq. ft. avg. @ 8,800 sq. 1 . $ 308,000 9,240 Vacancies 3% 298,760 14,940 Opt Expenses 5% 283,820 - .09 Capitalization Rate 9% 11,.U3 000000 $ 358 Sq. Ft. Value Per Net Leasable Sq. Ft. Development Cost 8'800 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable 11,000 Sq. Ft. Gross Construction $ 0 1. Land Cost 2. Building Cost 25,000 Approvals Hard Construction g 11,000 sq. ft. gross $60 sq. @ 660,000 52,800 Arch./Eng. Prof. Fees 8% construction 1% construction 6,600 Contractor Bond $2,000/1,000 sq. ft. leasable 17,600 Bldg. Permits/Tap Fees 7,500 Const. Insurance Project Mgt. 5% construction 33,000 13,200 Misc. Fees/Other 2% construction 1.5 pts. @ $815,700 12,200 Const. Loan Points 10% @ 1 year draw @ $815,700 0,800 41,300 Const. Interest Rental Lease Up 2 months rents 46,200 Rental Leasing Fees 15% 1st yr. rents 966,200 3. Parking Mitigation Cost 18 s $22,370 sp. @ aces P o = 13/o reduction 402,700 - 52,400 Parking Reduction By SJV 143 to 110 spaces 350,300 4. Emp. Housing Mitigation Cost 7,500 sq. ft. @ 100 sq. ft. cost 750,000 15 studio units - cost 15 parking spaces - cost 15 spaces @ $22,370 sp. 33500 1,085,600 15 studio units - revenue 15 studios @ $59,000 Cat. 42 sales - ,00 885885,000 151,700 5. Project Contingency 10% 25% total cost 417,200 Developer's Profit 568,900 2,086,000 6. Total Development Cost $ 190 sq. ft. Total Development Cost Gross Sq. Ft. TABLE 7 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS 9/20/93 ECONOMIC VALUE OF 11,000 SO. FT. FAR CL UPZONING Upzoning is 11,000 Sq. Ft. FAR Of CL Commercial Uses Upzoning Retail Rents At $40 Sq Ft Ave.- Ostimistic Estimate A. Economic Value of Upzoning, Capitalized Value 8,800 sq. ft. leasable @ $410 sq. ft. = $ 3,604,100 Development Cost 11,000 sq. ft. gross @ $191 sq. ft. = - 2,105,300 $ 1,498,800 B. Capitalized Value Retail Rents -Optimistic $40 sq. ft. avg. @ 8,800 sq. ft. net leasable $ 352,000 Vacancies 3% - 10,560 341,440 Opt Expenses 5% 17,070 324,370 Capitalization Rate 9% - 09 3,604,100 Value Per Net Leasable Sq. Ft. $ 410 Sq. Ft. C. Development Cost 8,800 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable 11,000 Sq. Ft. Gross Construction 1. Land Cost $ 0 2. Building Cost Approvals 25,000 Hard Construction $60 sq. ft. @ 11,000 sq. ft. gross 660,000 ArchJEng. Prof. Fees 8% construction 52,800 Contractor Bond 1% construction 6,600 Bldg. Permits/Tap Fees $2,000/1,000 sq. ft. leasable 17,600 Const. Insurance 7,500 Project Mgt. 5% construction 33,000 Misc. Fees/Other 2% construction 13,200 Const. Loan Points 1.5 pts. @ $815,700 12,200 Const. Interest 10% @ 1 year draw @ $815,700 40,800 Rental Lease Up 2 months rents 58,700 Rental Leasing Fees 15% 1st yr. rents 52,800 980,200 3. Parking Mitigation Cost 18 spaces @ $22,370 sp. 402,700 Parking Reduction By SJV 143 to 110 spaces = 13% reduction - 52,400 350,300 4. Emp. Housing Mitigation Cost 15 studio units - cost 7,500 sq. ft. @ 100 sq. ft. cost 750,000 15 parking spaces - cost 15 spaces @ $22,370 sp. 335,600 1,085,600 15 studio units -revenue 15 studios @ $59,000 Cat. #2 sales - 885,000 200,600 5. Project Contingency 10% 153,100 Developer's Profit 25% total cost 421,100 574,200 6. Total Development Cost $2,105,300 Total Development Cost Gross Sq. Ft. $ 191 sq. ft. TABLE 8 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS 9/20/93 EMPLOYEE AND PARKING MITIGATION FOR NC UPZONING Upzonine Is 11,000 Sg Ft FAR Of NC Commercial Uses A Gross FAR To Net Leasable Adiustment Gross FAR Sq. Ft. 11,000 sq. 8. 20% Gross To Net Adj. - 20% Net Leasable Sq. Ft. 8,800 sq. ft. B. Employee Mitigation For Uvzonin Neigh. Comm. (NC) Net Leasable Emp. Generation Ratio Emp. Generation Emp. Mitigation Ratio Emp. Housed Emp./Studio Unit Ratio Studio Units Studio Units Min. Size Net Liveable Sq. Ft. Net To Gross Sq. Ft. Adj. Gross Emp. Mitigation Sq. Ft. C. Parkin Miti ag tion For Upzoning. 1. Neigh.Comm. (NC) Net Leasable Parking Ratio Parking Mitigation 2. Employee Parking Mitigation Parking Ratio Parking Mitigation 8,800 sq. ft. net leasable 2.3 emp./1,000 sq. ft. net leasable 20 emp. 60 % min. threshold 12 emp. 1.25 emp./studio unit 10 studio units 400 sq. ft. min. unit size 4,000 sq. ft. net liveable 1.25 net to gross 25% 5,000 sq. ft. gross 8,800 sq. ft. net leasable 4 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable 35 spaces 10 studio units 1 space/bedroom 10 spaces , •T�BL�E J SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS 9/20/93 ECONOMIC VALUE OF 11,000 SO. FT. FAR NC UPZONING Upzoning is 11,000 Sq. Ft. FAR Of NC Commercial Uses Upzoning Retail Rents At $25 Sa, Ft. Ave, - Most Probable Estimate A. Economic Value of Upzoning Capitalized Value 8,800 sq. ft. leasable @ $256 sq. ft. = $ 2,252,600 Development Cost 11,000 sq. ft. gross @ $219 sq. ft. = - 2,410,800 $(- 158,200 ) B. Capitalized Value , Retail Rents -Most Probable $25 sq. ft. avg. @ 8,800 sq. ft. net leasable $ 220,000 Vacancies 3% 6,600 213,400 Opt Expenses 5% - 10,670 202,730 C4pitalization Rate 9% - 09 2 252 600 Value Per Net Leasable Sq. Ft. $ 256 Sq. Ft. C. Development Cost 8,800 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable 11,000 Sq. Ft. Gross Construction 1. Land Cost $ 0 2. Building Cost Approvals 25,000 Hard Construction $60 sq. ft. @ 11,000 sq. ft. gross 660,000 Arch./Eng. Prof. Fees 8% construction 52,800 Contractor Bond 1% construction 6,600 Bldg. Permits/Tap Fees $2,000/1,000 sq. ft. leasable 17,600 Const. Insurance 7,500 Project Mgt. 5% construction 33,000 Misc. Fees/Other 2% construction 13,200 Const. Loan Points 1.5 pts. @ $815,700 12,200 Const. Interest 10% @ 1 year draw @ $815,700 40,800 Rental Lease Up 2 months rents 36,700 Rental Leasing Fees 15% 1st yr. rents 33,000 938,400 3. Parking Mitigation Cost 35 spaces @ $22,370 sp. 782,950 Parking Reduction By SJV 143 to 110 spaces = 13% reduction - 101,780 681,200 4. Emp. Housing Mitigation Cost 10 studio units - cost 5,000 sq. ft. @ 100 sq. ft. cost 500,000 10 parking spaces - cost 10 spaces @ $22,370 sp. 223,700 723,700 10 studio units -revenue 10 studios @ $59,000 Cat. #2 sales - 590,000 133,700 5. Project Contingency 10% 175,330 Developer's Profit 25% total cost 482,160 657,490 6. Total Development Cost 2,410,800 Total Development Cost Gross Sq. Ft. $ 219 sq. ft. 0 MEMORANDUM 0 � l TO: Aspen City Council Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Jim Curtis, Kraut Consulting Team DATE: November 1, 1993 RE: Kraut Project Parking Garage Decisions Introduction The Kraut Property Subdivision Application was submitted to the Planning Office October 12, 1993. The application is scheduled before P & Z on November 16 and 1st reading before City Council on December 13. At the December 13 meeting, the Consulting Team needs the following decisions from Council. 1. Does Council wish to maintain the tentative July 1, 1994 groundbreaking date? 2. What size parking garage will be constructed and how will it be funded? 3. The Consulting Team also wishes to raise ja secondary question which can be decided later, but one which we wish to identify for your deliberation. Does Council wish to construct the Kraut Project in phases to accommodate a temporary City Market? This decision will be necessary around mid -February, 1994 in order to establish the construction bidding and phasing for the project. July 1, 1994 Groundbreaking To maintain this groundbreaking date, the Consulting Team is scheduled to start construction drawings and specifications January 1, 1994. To start construction drawings, we need to know the size of the parking garage at the December 13 Council meeting. Size of Parking_ Garage The attached September 9, 1993 memo outlines the parking garage issues. Council and staff should review this information to establish the size of the garage. The Consulting Team is available to provide any additional information to assist Council in its decisions. Thank you. i TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Leslie Lamont, Tom Baker, Randy Ready, FROM: DATE M Introduction Jim Curtis, September 9, 1993 MEMORANDUM Planning Office Housing Office Transportation Office Kraut Consulting Team Kraut Affordable Housing Conceptual Development Issues And Council Decisions The Consulting Team of Jim Curtis, Affordable Housing Deve. Corp. and Harry Teague Architects have been selected to act as project managers for the Kraut Property. The Consultants are scheduled to submit the Subdivision Application October 11 and are targeting construction groundbreaking for July 1, 1994. When the Council last reviewed the Kraut Project in April, it decided to proceed with an 100% affordable housing project consisting of 27 studio and 1-bedroom units and generally preferred ownership to rental units but, was open to reconsider this item. The biggest unresolved issue was parking, i.e. how much and how to pay for any extra parking. The Consultants would like Council's input on the following points to prepare the Subdivision Application. A. How Much Parking B. Parking Partnership With George Vicenzi C. Ownership vs. Rental Units D. Development Schedule To update all parties, the Kraut property was purchased in 1991 using Housing/Day Care funds. The property is the vacant lot south of the Aspen Athletic Club and currently parks approximately 50 cars. The property is 15,000 sq. ft. and zoned AH (Affordable Housing). The conceptual plan is a total of 27 units with 13 studios and 14 1-bedroom units with underground parking. Additional parking beyond the requirement of the 27 residential units can be provided either in a 1 or 2 level underground garage. Any additional parking would be leased under year leases or sold to the public, and not operated for short-term municipal parking like the Rio Grande garage to minimize the operational cost of the garage. The garage would have a gated entrance operated by an electronic card, and not a manned booth. A. How Much Parking The three questions are: 1. How much parking should be built? 2. How will the City pay for any extra parking? 3. What is the timing of the City funding for any extra parking? The table below illustrates the various parking options and their estimated cost. The estimated cost is the total development cost including design, project mtg., construction and financing. The starting point is Option A which is parking for 27 cars only for the 27 residential units at 1 space per bedroom. This is the cheapest option and will be paid for by Housing/Day Care funds which are already available. The other options are compared against the Option A starting point, and the cost of this extra parking will be paid for by other funding sources. IncremenMI Incremental Incremental Total Inc. Above Cost Cost Above Total Parkinsz 27 Cars Per Car 27 Cars Costs Option A — 1st level 27 - $ 16,500 $ - $ 445,500 Option B — 1st level 42 15 21,344 320,160 765,660 Option C — 1st level 56 29 17,575 509,675 955,175 Option D — 1st level 76 49 19,398 950,502 1,396,002 Option B-2 — 2nd level 84 57 23,563 1,343,091 1,788,591 Option C-2 — 2nd level 107 80 21,816 1,745,280 2,190,780 Option D-2 — 2nd level 146 119 21,849 2,600,031 3,045,531 Option A — 27 cars total, 1st level. Parking for 27 residential units only at 1 space per bedroom. Option B — 42 cars total, 1st level. This was the parking plan of the prior feasibility study and is totally within the property. Parking dimensions result in a single loaded parking aisle which is an inefficient layout and therefore a higher cost per car. 2 Option C — 56 cars total, 1st level. This is the most efficient parking layout with all parking aisles double loaded. The parking extends off the property and 9 feet under East Hyman Avenue to make all parking aisles double loaded. No utilities in East Hyman Avenue would be impacted. Existing 15 cars of on -street parking removed during construction, but street traffic would not need to be closed during construction. The Streets and Engineering Departments conceptually have no problems with extending the parking under the street. Option D — 76 cars total, 1st level. Parking under George Vicenzi A -Frame property and East Hyman Avenue similar to Option C. The cost per car is more expensive than Option C because of additional costs to build the garage under the A -Frame property without having a specific building design for the property above. Existing 19 cars of on -street parking removed during construction., but street traffic would not need to be closed during construction.. Option B-2 — F4 cars total, 2nd level under Option B. Option C-2 — 107 cars total, 2nd level under Option C. Option D-2 — 146 cars total, 2nd level under Option D. Consultants' Recommendations The Consultants would like Council to make a decision on this issue now, but that may not be possible given Council's discussions on the Superblock, its evolving position on an in -town parking policy, and its ability to fund any extra parking without a municipal vote. The Consultants are not prepared to recommend a specific parking option. This is a public policy issue based on the overall transportation, parking and financial objectives of the City. The Consultants have requested City staff prepare a recommendation for Council's review, which is included herein. The Consultants do offer the following comments: 1. To give Council the greatest flexibility possible, it is suggested the SubdiN ision Application show the greatest amount of parking possible under Option D-2 «yith 146 spaces. The application would emphasize that the amount of parking above the 27 car residential requirement is optional at the discretion of Council. and 9 Council is not committing to build any more than 27 spaces at this time. However, a final decision on the parking will be necessary by December 13 to start engineering design work for the construction drawaigs which are scheduled to start January 10 to meet the July 1 groundbreaking. By December 13, the Consultants need to know exactly what parking is to be built and how it will be funded. 2. It would greatly assist the Consultants if Council could suggest a "most probable" parking option given the information presented tonight so that the Consultants can use this option for project architectural refinement and cost estimating after the October 11 submission date and before Council makes it final parking decision. Staff has recommended Option C, 56 cars at 1 Level as being the "most probable" until the Superblock decision is made. 3. Council may feel the maximum 146 spaces of "flexibility " is sending the wrong political message and that it will be publically locked into building the 146 spaces. Council may also feel comfortable making the parking decision now and simply resolving the issue. 4. The 2nd level spaces are more costly than the 1st level spaces by $21,816 vs. $17,575 per car estimate respectively. The 2nd level spaces are approximately the same cost as the 3 level Superblock paring at $21,816 vs. $22,400 per car estimate respectively. 5. Based on the prior pro formas, the additional 1st level spaces were projected to be leased or sold at a profit to help subsidize the project due to their cheaper cost. Additional 1st level spaces were projected to be leased at $190/month or sold for $22,000. For example, under Option C, the most efficient 1st level layout, the 29 additional cars are projected to generate a profit of $128,325 to help subsidize the project based on a sale price of $22,000/space and a construction cost of $17,575/space. The 2nd level space- were projected to be leased or sold at a loss due to their higher cost and � ;-)uld require a public subsidy. 6. If Council is interested in pursuing any additional parking, especially the 2nd level of parking, one option is for the City to prepare and advise a Request For Prop osals(RFP) to see if any private investors would submit bids to pay for, own and operate the additional parking at no public cost to the City. 7. Under the leased or sold arrangement any additional parking is not available for open municipal use. The same expenditure could go towards open 11 municipal parking, i.e. Superblock or other transportation uses. This same argument can be made for the extra parking on the 1st level, but the difference is simply maximizing the efficiency of the 1st level parking layout with double loaded parking aisles. 8. Open municipal use of the parking vs. the leased or sold arrangement is not recommended because any high turnover use of the garage will negatively impact the liveability of the units and is not operationally practical given the small size of the garage. Staffs' Recommendations 1. Staff feels the parking decision on Kraut can not be made until the Superblock decision is made. If the Superblock does not proceed, Staff would recommend the flexibility to .construct the 2nd level of parking under Kraut. If the Superblock- -does proceed, staff would support Option C for Kraut, 56 cars at 1 level, for the following reasons: A. The additional 29 cars under Option C are projected to make a profit of up to $128,325 and can help subsidize the project. B. The additional 29 cars will help replace some of the 50 cars presently parking on the property. Loss of this parking has been expressed as a concern by the neighborhood. Also, the present parking leaseholders could be given a priority to lease or buy spaces in the garage. 2. Staff supports submitting the October 11 Subdivision Application at 146 cars at 2 levels to give Council the greatest flexibility possible. 3. Staff supports Option C, 56 cars at 1 level, for the aichitecural refinement and cost estimating for the project prior to a final decision by Council by December 13. B. Parking Partnership With George Vicenzi George Vicenzi owns the adjoining A -Frame and Hanna -Dustin property. Based on the prior request by Council, the Consultants met with George on 8/12 to discuss a parking partnership using the A -Frame property. The A -Frame property can accommodate 20 additional cars on the 1st level and 19 additional cars on the 2nd level for a total of 39 additional cars. 5 George is interested in a partnership if some zoning issues can be resolved for his property. The property is zoned Office (0) which has the ability to increase its FAR from .75:1 to 1:1 if 60% of the additional floor area is used for affordable housing and has a 25 foot building height limitation. George would like to accomplish the following: 1. Increase his FAR beyond 1:1 based on taking the underground space he could build under his current Office zoning and transferring that to above ground space. George's position is that by agreeing to a cooperative parking partnership he is precluded from building any underground office space, which he can do under his present Office zoning. 2. Increase his building height up to 30 feet to build a 3 story building. The current 25 foot building height limitation practically restricts him to a 2 story building. 3. Provide the full employee and parking mitigation requirements of the Code on - site in a new 3 story building with underground parking. Unless George can accomplish the above, it doesn't make economic sense for him to consider a partnership. These issues have been discussed with staff and can be addressed as follows if Council wishes. 1. The only way the FAR can be increased beyond the 1:1 is to upzone his property to C-1 at 1.5:1 FAR or CC at 2:1 FAR. 2. The building height issue is resolved by the rezoning, i.e. both the C-1 and CC zones have 40 foot maximum building heights. The partnership arrangement that was discussed was that the City would pay for and build the parking up -front at its cost. George would give the underground building rights to the City at no cost and he would receive an "option" to buy from the City up to 20 spaces on the 1st level at the City's total cost to create the spaces plus an inflation or price appreciation index. The City would have the right to lease the spaces until George exercised his option. George was only interested in up to 20 spaces on the 1st level and had no interest in any 2nd level spaces; however, he would give the City the underground rights to build and lease any 2nd level spaces at no cost. George did not feel he could pay for the parking up -front but would have to pay for it at the time he decided to build a building and pay for the parking out of the financing of the building. The earliest George would proceed is a GMQS application in September, 1994 and construc.ion in the Spring of 1995. He stressed this is his 6 earliest schedule and he could choose to delay any building beyond this schedule. If the garage is constructed and ready for use in the Fall/Winter 1993 and George's building is constructed and ready for occupancy in the Fall/Winter 1995, the City would have the 20 spaces for two years. George noted that the 20 spaces would be greater than the estimated Code requirement for his building, i.e. up to 15 spaces and that the other spaces would be available for his tenants in his Hanna -Dustin building. These tenants are presently parking on the streets so there would be a benefit to the City. Consultants' Recommendations 1. The Consultants feel the value of the partnership to the City, as discussed, is based on the City's decision to build 1 or 2 levels of parking. With 2 levels of parking, the partnership is beneficial because the City would receive permanent control of the 19 spaces on the 2nd level at no land cost. With 1 level of parking, the partnership is not beneficial because the City assumes the responsibility and headaches to build and finance the 20 _spaces on the 1st level and only use the spaces for municipal purposes for a limited time, maybe only 2 years. George would receive an upzoning and his garage spaces and the foundation for his building already built at minimal responsibility to him. The next step is for Council to decide its overall parking objective and determine if it wishes to proceed with any additional discussions with George. Staffs' Recommendations 1. Staff agrees the partnership with George only makes sense if the Council wishes to build 2 levels of parking. Again, Staff feels this decision is linked to the Superblock. 2. Staff emphasizes the only manner to accomplish George's objectives is to upzone the property to C-1 or CC. Any upzoning will need to justify why an upzoning, i.e. rezoning, is appropriate given the criteria of the Code and the Community Plan. C. Ownershio Versus Rental Housin Council may feel it is premature to finalize this decision at this time until it reviews the Superblock housing proposal and makes its parking decision. Council has previously stated a preference for ownership units and the Housing Board and Consultants have also stated a preference for ownership units. 7 • • Council should also be aware there are important implications with a rental project as follows: 1. If the project is a rental project, the subsidy for the project will increase. Based on the prior pro formal, the subsidy for the project excluding the $1,100,000 land cost are given below: From Prior Pro Formas Development 27 Units & 1 Level Parking at 42 Cars Subsidy a. 27 Rental Units $ 1,522,000 b. 27 Rental Units with Inv. Tax Credits 671,000 C. 27 Sales Units 547,000 2. The value of the Low -Income Housing Investment Tax Credits have been reduced by approximately 20% by the recent Federal Tax B kll Act. Therefore, the subsidy of $671,000 for the Tax Credits Option b. above would increase approximately 20% to a $805,200 subsidy. 3. The Low -Income Housing Investment Tax Credits regulations have a lower maximum household income restriction than the applicable household incomes permitted under the 1993 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. Using Tax Credits for the project, the maximum household income restrictions would be: a. 1 person household — $25,680 max. household income b. 2 person household — $29,400 max. household income The prior pro forma assumed the Tax Credit Option b. as a Category #2 rental project allowing up to a $35,000 maximum household income per the 1993 Guidelines. Using Tax Credits would lower the maximum household incomes permitted; thereby, reducing the number of people who could qualify who would have otherwise qualified under the $35,000 maximum household income of Category #2 of the Guidelines. Consultants' Recommendations 1. Design the project and units as if it were a "For Sale" ownership project at a slightly higher quality level. Council can then wait on the oNN-nership or rental decision based on their evaluation of the Superblock housing. However, during 8 the subdivision approval process the neighborhood may request a decision as part of the project approval and has stated a preference for ownership units. The project is tentatively scheduled before Council December 27 for its first subdivision hearing. 2. Confirm the restrictions and applicability of Investment Tax Credits and investigated other options for financing a rental project if Council wishes to consider a rental project. 3. Prepare updated ownership and rental pro formas prior to Council's December 27 subdivision hearing. Staff's Recommendations 1. Staff agrees with the Consultants' recommendations. D. Development Schedule The preliminary development schedule is given in Attachment A. Key targeted dates are the following: — Groundbreaking — July 1, 1994 — Completion of 1st Level Garage — Dec. 1, 1994 - Assume 76 spaces — Building Occupancy — Aug. 1995 If a 2nd level garage is constructed add 2 months to the construction schedule assuming 70 spaces. Consultants' Recommendations 1. Proceed with the development schedule as presented. Staffs' Recommendations 1. Proceed with the development schedule as presented understanding City Mark -et has requested to use the Kraut Property on a interim basis as part of the Superblock proposal. 9 W Q tn OHO 00 N \Q .-.� .--i ...r V� 0 O Q�-,wwwd►-, ►-�QCad dd r~ E-� ce o a N p' t-u °� � •L� cCd C � •b � O bA N U O � a���� �Cd En -c� .0 i a, o °: 00 0 o � U v U U V O p+ > C CQ. C C C C to C O O o o U o 0 0 o 0 o �. N b •b V adUUaUUUUZU 0.-•tnW —M N U N C L1� N CT4 a u, ; •o cs iy ... > bb > o a N E E ^' U .D v�w�v�w z (D V) N U U O U U � -o O O Z Q L ti w C U ••= bA O N •b cj > +-.� I I c3 o o v�p�waUUw 0 9 LAND USE REGULATIONS Lot Size (Square Feet) 0-3,000 3,000-6,000 6,000-9,000 9,000-15,000 15,000-50,000 50,000+ All other uses: 1:1. 11. Internal floor area ratio: DUPLEX Allowable (Square Feet) § 5-215 90 square feet of floor area for each 100 square feet in low area, up to a maximum of 2,700 square feet of floor area. 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30 square feet of floo, area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,600 square feet of floor area. 3,600 square feet of floor area, plus 16 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet of floor area. 4,080 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,440 square feet of floor area. 4,440 square feet of floor area, plus 5 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 6,190 square feet of floor area. 6,190 square feet of floor area, plus 3 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lo" area. Multi -family: No requirement Lodge, rental space: Maximum of 0.5:1, which can be increased to 0.75:1 internal F.A.R. of lodge rental space provided 33%% of the additional floor area is ap- proved for residential use restricted to affordable housing for employees of the lodge. Lodge: Non -unit space: Minimum of 0.25:1 E. Off-street parking requirement. The following off-street parking spaces shall be pro- vided for each use in the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) zone district, subject to the provi- sions of Article 5, Division 3. 1. Lodge use: 0.7 space/bedroom, of which 0.2 space/bedroom may be provided via a payment in lieu pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. 2. Residential use: 1 space/bedroom 3. All other uses: 4 spaces/1,000 square feet of net leasable area, which may be provided via a payment in lieu pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. (Ord. No. 47-1988, §§ 2, 5, 17; Ord. No. 7-1989, § 1) Sec. 5-215. Commercial Lodge (CL). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial Lodge (CL) zone district is to provide for the establishment of mixed use commercial development and lodge units by permitting commer- cial uses at street level but requiring that all additional stories be lodge accommodations. Supp. No. 1 1652.3 § 5-21u • ASPEN CODE , B. permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial Lodge (CL) zone district. 1. All street level uses allowed as permitted uses in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district, Section 5-209, with lodge accommodations on second and other stones; 2. Lodges on all but first floor of all buildings; and 3. Accessory buildings and uses. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Com- mercial Lodge (CL) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3. ` 1. Timesharing; and ' 2. Satellite dish antennae. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial Lodge (CL) zone district- 1. Minimum lot size (square feet?: 6,000 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement 3. Minimum lot width (feet?: No requirement 4. Minimum front yard (feetr No requirement 5. Minimum side yard (feet): No requirement 6. Minimum rear yard (feet No requirement except trash/utility service area shall be required abutting alley. The dimensional requirement of the trash/utility service area shall be as follows unless reduced pursuant to Article 7, Division 4: For up to 6,000 square feet of net leasable floor area within a building. An area a minimum of 20 feet in length, measured parallel to the alley, with a minimum vertical clearance of 10 feet and a minimum depth of 10 feet at ground level. For each additional 1,200 square feet of net leasable floor area within a building, the minimum length measured parallel to the alley shall be increased by one (1) foot. 7. Maximum height (feet): 28 (32 by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4) S. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet): No require�,�nt 9. Percent of open space required for building site: 25 10. External floor area ratio: 2:1 11. Internal floor area ratio: No requirement E. Off-street narking requirement The following off-street parking spaces shall be pro- vided for each u,,e in the Commercial Lodge (CL) zone district, subject to the provisio ----: of Article 5, Division 3. Supp. No. 1 1652.4 v LAND USE REGULATIONS • § 5-209 1. Minimum lot size (acres): 2 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (acres): 2 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 200 4. Minimum front yard (feet): 30 6. Minimum side yard (feet). 20 6. Minimum rear yard (feet): 20 7. Maximum height (feet): 28 S. Minimum distance between principal and aooesemy buildings (fee* No requirement 9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement -10. Eztrrnsl floor area ratia No iegW meat = -- 11. Internal floor area ratio: No requirement E, Off4b eet Perking r egu&vn=t The following off ea eet parking spaces shall be pro- . vided for each use in the Rural Residential mae district~ subject to the Provisions of Article 5, Division 3. L All residential uses+ 1 spaeehedroom 2. Lodge uses: N/A S. All other user Requires special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. (Ord. No. 47-1988, § 2) Sec. 5-209. Commercial Core (CC). A, purpose- The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) zone district is to allow the use of land for retail and service commercial, recreation and institutional purposes with customary accessory uses to enhance the business and service character in the central business core of the city. Hotel and principal long-term residential uses may be appropriate as conditional uses, while residential uses are permitted or may be appropriate as conditional uses. 13. Permitted uses The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial ". ,ore (CC) zone district. 1. Medical and dental clinic; 2. Professional and business office; 3. Open use recreation site; 4. Recreation club; 5. Theater; 6. Assembly ball; G 7. Church; r Supp. No. 1 7 f�:�•i 11. • ASPEN CODE 0 Public building for administration; Restaurant, cabaret and night club, tea room; Retail commercial establishment limited to the following and similes: uses: Antique store, appliance store, art supply store, art gallery. bakery, bookstore, camera shop, candy, tobacco or cigarette store, clothes store, computer sales store, florist shop, food . market, furniture store, gift shop, hardware store, hobby shop, jewelry shop, job printing shop, key shop, liquor store. MUSIC store, office supply store, pet shop. paint and wallpaper store, photography shop, record store, shoe store, sporting goods store, stationery store, variety store, video sales and rental store; Service commercial establishments limited to the following and similar uses: Cater- ing service, financial institution, personal service including barber and beauty shop, custom sewing. dry cleaning pickup station, laundromat. ski repair and rental, shop -craft industry. tailoring and shoe repair shop. parking -lot-or parking garage, studio for instruction in the arts, radio or television broadcasting facility. 12. Rental, repair and wholesaling facilities in cogjunction with any of the uses provided in Section &209.B1-11, provided all such activity is clearly incidental and accessory to the permitted use and conducted within a building; 13. Storage of materials accessory to any of the uses provided in Section 5-209.B.L through 12., provided all such storage is located within a structure; 14. Residential dwelling units which are located above street level commercial uses in historic landmarks, provided that the residential dwelling unit is restricted to six- month minimum leases; 15. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines; 16. Detached residential dwellings designated as historic landmarks; 17. Newspaper publishing office; 18. Home occupations; and 19. Accessory buildings and uses. C. Conditional use& the following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Commer- cial Core (CC) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3. 1. Recreational and entertainment establishments limited to the following and similar uses: Business, fraternal or social club or hall; ice or roller skating rink; 2. Gasoline service station; 3. Hotel; 4. Newspaper and magazine printing; 5. Day care center; Supp. Igo. 163E 11 0 0 0. Timesharing; LAND USE REGULATIONS § 5-209 1. Satellite dish antennae; 8. Residential dwelling units which are located above street level commercial uses in buildings which are not historic landmarks, provided that the residential dwelling unit is restricted to six-month minimum leases as provided in Section 6508(A), 9. Residential dwelling units which are located above street level commercial uses in historic landmarks and which are not restricted to six-month minimum leases; and 10. For properties which contain a historic landmark; bed -and breakfast~ two detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot with a minimum area of 6,000 square feet; 11. Reseived; and 12. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 6610. D. Dineemional requwementa The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and eoaditiaaal uses in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. L Minimum lot sue (square feet): SAW 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square fee* Multi4ami-ly: One bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area 3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement 4. Minimum front yard (feet). No requirement 6. Minimum side yard (feet): No requirement 6. Minimum rear yard (feet). No requirement except trash/utility service area shall be required abutting alley. The dimensional requirement for the utility/trash service area shall be as follows, unless reduced pursuant to Article 7, Division 4: For up to 6,000 square feet of net leasable floor area within a building: an area a minimum of 20 feet in length, measured parallel to the alley, with a minimum vertical clearance of 10 feet and a minimum depth of 10 feet at ground level. For each additional 1,200 square feet of net leasable floor area within a building, the minimum length measured parallel to the alley shall be increased by 1 foot. 7. Maximum height (feet): 40, not to exceed 4 stories above grade. 8. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): 10 feet between two detached residential dwellings, no requirement between principal and accessory buildings. 9. Percent of open space required for building site: 25, maybe reduced by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. Supp. No. 7 § 5-211 • ASPEN CODE • f For artist's studios with accessory residential dwelling units and for other acces- sory dwelling units on lots more than 9,000 square feet, the following square feet requirements apply: Studio: 1,000 1 bedroom; 1,250 2 bedroom: 2,100 3 bedroom: 3,630 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom plus 1,000 square feet of lot area. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement 4. Minimum -front yard (feet): 20 from right-of-way lines of arterial streets (Mill & Spring), 10 from all other streets. 5. Minimum side yard (feet): No requirement 6. Minimum rear yard (feet): No requirement 7. Maydmum height (feed~ 32 8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (Beet): No requirement 9. Percent of open space required for building site: 25 10. External floor area ratio: 1:1 11. Internal floor area ratio: No requirement E. Off-street parking requirement. The following off-street parking spaces shall be pro- vided for each use in the Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone district, subject to the provisions of Article 5, Division 3. 1. Lodge use: N/A 2. Residential uses: 1 space/bedroom 3. All other uses: 3 spaces/1,000 square feet of net leasable area. Sec. 5-212. Neighborhood Commercial (NC). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district is to allow small convenience retail establishments as part of a neighborhood, that are designed and planned to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, to reduce traffic generation. and mitigate traffic circulation and parking problems, and to serve the daily or frequent trac= or service needs of the neighborhood. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Neighborhoc Commercial (NC) zone district. 1. Drug store; 2. Food store; Supp. No. 1 1646 LAND USE REGULATIONS § 5-212 3. Liquor store; 4. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up station; 5. Barber shop; 6. Beauty shop; 7. Post office branch; 8. Record store; 9. T.V. sales and service shop; 10. Shoe repair shop; 11. Video rental and sale shop; 12. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to affordable housing guidelines; and 13. Accessory buildings and uses. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional usejs in the Neigh borhood Comumercial (NC) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3. 1. Service station; 2. Laundromat; 3. Garden shop; 4. Hardware store; 5. Paint and wallpaper store; 6. Carpet, flooring and drapery shop; 7. L1 Business and professional office; 8. Free miarket dwelling units which are accessory to other permitted uses; 9. Home occupation; and 0. Satellite dish antennae. - D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district. 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 3,000 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): For accessory dwelling units on lots between 3,000 and 9,000 square feet, the following square feet requirements apply: Studio: 1,000 1 bedroom; 1,200 2 bedroom: 2,000 Supp. No. 1 1647 0 MEMORAND • UM TO: Aspen City Council Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner FROM: Jim Curtis, Superblock Consulting Team DATE: September 24, 1993 RE: Updated Superblock Economic Analysis Based On SJV Proposal Submitted August 5, 1993 This memo is in response to Leslie Lamont's request of 9/17/93 to update my prior Economic Analysis of the Superblock based on the SJV Proposal submitted August 5, 1993. This memo addresses the following key questions on the SJV Proposal: 1. What is the City's cost for the 2nd Level of parking under the SJV Proposal? 2. What are the City's options to pay for the 2nd Level of parking? 3. What is the economic value of the upzoning requested by the SJV Proposal? This memo and analysis is in outline form to be used as a working document for a personal presentation to Council and to accomplish the time schedule you requested. The memo is not intended to be a complete cost -benefit analysis of the SJV Proposal which was not part of our Consulting Agreement. The memo is a working document to assist Council in evaluating the economics of the proposal on a preliminary basis. SUMMARY COMMENTS 1. The cost of the 2nd Level of parking is estimated at $4,810,000 in 1995 dollars, the estimated earliest construction date of the garage. 2. The Operating Revenues (Most Probable Estimate) of the 2nd Level of parking are estimated to support a parking revenue bond of $1,688,000. 3. The "shortfall" cost of the 2nd Level of parking is estimated at $3,122,000, i.e. $4,810,000 cost vs $1,688,000 bonding capacity. 4. The $3,122,000 shortfall could be covered by the following options: a. Increased SJV contribution Increased City contribution/subsidy —w tf fundi-ng...sou-rce? Ski Corp. contribution Downtown Commercial Core Special Improvement District Tax Increased Upzoning (FAR) to SJV Q� State or federal contributions +� Ch Reduce the SJV employee housing Increased the parking revenues and bonding capacity f i. ) Combinations of all the above. 5. The economic value of the 11,000 sq. ft. FAR Upzoning of the SJV Proposal is estimated at: a. If 11,000 sq. ft. is CL Commercial Uses — $1,067,600 Most Probable Estimate b. If 11,000 sq. ft. is CL Commercial Uses — $1,498,800 Optimistic Estimate a. If 11,000 sq. ft. is NC Commercial Uses — $(-158,200) Most Probable Estimate q � S (6. If the SJV increased its contribution by the $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 estimate above, the City's shortfall would be still in the $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 range. I C�4 �,- C'�4 - I- ;� V'r 14 , i (J)JaA-,o �,� C44 .. • TABLE 4 • SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS 9/20/92 UPZONING ANALYSIS Unzoning Is 11.000 Sq. Ft FAR Of CL Commercial Uses NOTES: 1. The l Analysis below only includes Above Ground square footage per the Code and deft n'.0"nnc4ud8'1ffie-917propc-'se -26. 000sq:- ft: City-Market-B-el6W-GMdnq-which is not counted -in tithe �'_.�".,.....�..;,..'C..�..a_.�.ti.(� 1/V�O i f , / ` The 11,000 sq. ft. FAR upzoning is 11,000 sq. ft. of CL Commercial Uses to simplify the economic analysis. 3. The 25,500 sq.. ft. FAR of proposed Employee Housing is not included because it has no economic "profit" to the SJV and is an economic "loss" to the SJV. Staff Rec. Existing Zoning -Zoning $uildout—Buildout C� hangs 1 City Market 27,000 sq. ft. NC 5,000 sq. ft. NC Deli - / 42C.0, �' 0.000 sq. ft. NC Other +.. ,999- sq. ft. NC Buckhorn 3,500 sq. ft. CL � i040 sq. ft. CL 3,500 sq. ft. Lodge n <-�}d�o0 ,500 sq. ft. Lodge C .Qo� J #. CL, f C Bell Mtn � 20.000 sq. ft. Lodge_ - s . ft Lodge 0 i _4,000 sq. ft. Total 65,000 s . ft. Tota �1 00 ft. L Upzoning SC; C;uk u �, . TABLE 5 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS 9/20/93 EMPLOYEE AND PARKING MITIGATION FOR CL UPZONING Unzoning Is 11,000 Sq. Ft. FAR Of CL Commercial Uses A. Gross FAR To Net Leasable Adjustment Gross FAR Sq. Ft. 11,000 sq. ft. 20% Gross To Net Adj. - 20% Net Leasable Sq. Ft. 8,800 sq. ft. ) B. Employee Mitigation For Upzonina Comm. Lodge (CL) Net Leasable 8,800 sq. ft. net leasable Emp. Generation Ratio 3.5 emp./1,000 sq. ft. net leasable Emp. Generation 31 emp. ✓ Emp. Mitigation Ratio 60 % min. threshold Emp. Housed 19 emp. -2 Emp./Studio Unit Ratio 1.25 emp./studio unit Studio Units 15 studio units a a Studio Units Min. Size 406 sq. ft. min. unit siz , Net Liveable Sq. Ft. 6,000 sq. ft. net liveable,(�) Net To Gross Sq. Ft. Adj. 1.25 net to gross 25% Gross Emp. Mitigation Sq. Ft. 7,500 sq. ft. gross 11 $� C. Parking Mitigation For Upzoning 1. Comm. Lodge (CL) Net Leasable Parking Ratio Parking Mitigation 2. Employee Parking Mitigation Parking Ratio Parking Mitigation 8,8pk sq. ft. net leasable paces/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable 18 spaces (/ 15 studio units 1 space/bedroom 15 spaces a� • TABLE 6 • SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS /6I J CJQ 9/20/93 ECONOMIC VALUE OF'H-;000..SQ. FT. FAR CL UPZONING Upzoning issl1lu,0�Sq. Ft. FAR Of CL Commercial Uses Upzoning Retail Rents At $35 Sq Ft Avg - Most Probable Estimate A. Economic Value of Upzoniny- ! Capitalized Value '--8;801� sq. ft. leasable @ $358 sq. ft. _ $ 3;1�90 "'C Development Cost-44-,000- sq. ft. gross @ $T90,sq. ft. _ - sl-;08f�;000,.ac� 1 B. Capitalized Value Retail Rents -Most Probable $35 sq. ft. avg. @�KB sq. ft. net leasable $ 308 060 Vacancies 3% - -9-,240- 29�-760 Opt Expenses 5% - -1- a a '1 Capitalization Rate 9% _ .09 3,153,60.0 Z4� xj Value Per Net Leasable Sq. Ft. $ 358 Sq. Ft. C. Development Cost a'fi".77'8,t156-Sq. Ft. Net Leasable 11,,000 Sq. Ft. Gross Construction Land Cost 2. Building Cost Approvals Hard Construction Arch./Eng. Prof. Fees Contractor Bond Bldg. Permits/Tap Fees Const. Insurance Project Mgt. Misc. Fees/Other Const. Loan Points Const. Interest Rental Lease Up Rental Leasing Fees $60 sq. ft. @ I-t;080-sq. ft. gross 8% construction I % construction $2,000/1,000 sq. ft. leasable 5% construction 2% construction 1.5 pts. @ $815,700 10% @ 1 year draw @ $815,700 2 months rents 15% 1st yr. rents 3. Parking Mitigation Cost-Mspaces @ $22,370 sp. Parking Reduction By SJV 143 to 110 spaces = 13% reduction 4 4. Emp. Housing Mitigation Cos' i j , GLX— S studio units - cost 7,500 sq. ft. @ 100 sq. ft. cost -4-'L parking spaces - cost paces @ $22,370 sp. studio units - revenue 15, studios @ $59,000 Cat. #2 sales a� 5. Project Contingency 10% Developer's Profit I 25% total cost 6. Total Development Cost Total Development Cost Gross Sq. Ft. $ 0 25,000- !� LJ c 7,500 --33,000- 12;200-- 'r 40,800 --� �r 51,300 =� �- 46,200--sj .....966,,20.0 42;790 - 52,400 _�-°5 `330;39.0 __ i 7'.'", Il I 10;.),U,.)c, 3.3500. 1.1C, .......1;08�00 2e6;600. sq. ft. Fc� TABLE 7 • is SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS 9/20/93 ECONOMIC VALUE OF 11,000 SO. FT. FAR CL UPZONING Upzoning is 11,000 Sq. Ft. FAR Of CL Commercial Uses Upzoning Retail Rents At $40 Sq. Ft. Avg. - Optimistic Estimate A. Economic Value of Upzoning Capitalized Value 8,800 sq. ft. leasable @ $410 sq. ft. Development Cost 11,000 sq. ft. gross @ $191 sq. ft. B. Capitalized Value Retail Rents - Vacancies Opt Expenses Capitalization Rate $40 sq. ft. avg. @ 8,800 sq. ft. net leasable 3% Value Per Net Leasable Sq. Ft. 5% 9% C. Development Cost 8,800 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable 11,000 Sq. Ft. Gross Construction 1. Land Cost 2. Building Cost Approvals Hard Construction Arch./Eng. Prof. Fees Contractor Bond Bldg. Permits/Tap Fees Const. Insurance Project Mgt. Misc. Fees/Other Const. Loan Points Const. Interest Rental Lease Up Rental Leasing Fees 3. Parking Mitigation Cost Parking Reduction By SJV $60 sq. ft. @ 11,000 sq. ft. gross 8% construction 1 % construction $2,000/1,000 sq. ft. leasable 5% construction 2% construction 1.5 pts. @ $815,700 10% @ 1 year draw @ $815,700 2 months rents 15% 1st yr. rents 18 spaces @ $22,370 sp. 143 to 110 spaces = 13% reduction 4. Emp. Housing Mitigation Cost 15 studio units - cost 7,500 sq. ft. @ i 00 sq. ft. cost 15 parking spaces - cost 15 spaces @ $22,370 sp. 15 studio units - revenue 15 studios @ $59,000 Cat. #2 sales 5. Project Contingency 10% Developer's Profit 25% total cost 6. Total Development Cost Total Development Cost Gross Sq. Ft. $ 3,604,100 5`-{ 1 0 a+c;) - 2,105,300 $ 1,498,800""""�------- 3 1�v $ 352,000 - 10,560 341,440 - 17,070 324,370 .09 3,604,100 $ 410 Sq. Ft. �,W 25,000 660,000 52,800 6,600 17,600 7,500 33,000 13,200 12,200 40,800 58,700 52.800 980,200 402,700 - 52,400 350,300 750,000 335.600 1,085,600 - 885.000 I11 .IP 153,100 421,100 574,200 105 300 $ 191 sq. ft. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: July 19, 1993 RE: Superblock Worksession ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY The purpose of this worksession is to update Council on the status of planning efforts for the Superblock concept. The Bell Mountain Lodge changed hands in early May and the new partnership is still very interested in the Superblock concept. Charles Cunniffe Architects has been retained by the property owners to continue the creation of the Superblock concept. Charles has created several conceptual site plans that include all of the various properties and land uses on the block. However, until the Group knows what Council is willing to consider and what the City's goals are, individual property owners are still unsure if they have the ability or desire to proceed. The Superblock Consultant Team of Jim Curtis, Jonathon Rose, Harry Teague, and Joede Schoeberlein have not been brought up to date with regard to Cunniffe's designs although the Consultant Team has essentially completed their work. As a result, the Consultant Team is not in a position to comment on the Charles Cunniffe's presentation for this worksession. The Consultant Team will make a brief presentation regarding their findings to wrap up their contract. For the remaining portion of the worksession, Mr. Valerio, a partner in the Bell Mountain Lodge, will review his attached outline that represents threshold issues (from the owners perspective) that the Group would like to introduce to Council. Charles Cunniffe will then present the plans, and Mr. Valerio will return to the outline for a more in-depth discussion of each issue. Staff is prepared to answer any questions regarding the Land Use Code and it's affect on the proposal. Please see Attachment 1. Based on the information presented tonight, Council may wish to: 1. Ask the private property owners to refine their thoughts and return to Council with a specific conceptual development plan and cost sharing proposal. 2. Consider a partnership with the private property owners to a more detailed 2nd Phase planning effort which could consist of preparing and processing a Conceptual SPA and Rezoning Plan for City review and approval, and refining development costs, financing and cost sharing plans. A GMP application must also be submitted by September 15, 1993. 3. Decide it is not prepared to proceed with the Superblock planning effort at this time until other transportation and transit issues are resolved, and request the private property owners to "hold" the planning effort for 6-8 months. 4. Decide it is not interested or cannot afford the Superblock Concept and underground parking, but would encourage the private property owners proceeding on their own and consider the vacation of Cooper Street (or not be willing to vacate Cooper Street). 5. Decide to pursue any number of alternatives in the spectrum between no development to a full public/private partnership with the Group. PROJECT UPDATE The Consulting Team of Jim Curtis, Jonathan Rose and Harry Teague Architects were retained by the City and the private property owners in February to undertake a quick feasibility study of the Superblock Concept. Charles Cunniffe Architects has also assisted the private property owners. The Consulting Team has met with the private owners 3 times and gave Council an interim update in March. SUMMARY OF SUPERBLOCK PROJECT A summary of the Superblock properties are given below and illustrated on the map in Attachment 2. The following information was provided by the Consulting Team of Curtis, Rose and Teague. Size Zoning & FAR Representative City Market 27,000 sq. ft NC @ 1:1 John Caldwell Bell Mtn Lodge 20,066 " LP @ 1:1 Jim Valerio Buckhorn Lodge 6,934 " CL @ 1:1 Sy & Nora Kelly Cooper Street 20,250 sq. ft N/A N/A 74,250 sq. ft The Feasibility Study has focused on 4 basic questions for the Superblock using the analogy of a box for simplicity: 1. What is the shape of the box? 2. What and how much goes into the box? 3. How much does the box cost? 4. How is the box paid for? 2 1. What is The Shape of The Box? The box includes the properties referenced above. The Consulting Team and the private property owners agree the surrounding Kraut property and the A -Frame and Hanna -Dustin Building property are separate from and not integral to the development of the Superblock. This conclusion was reached primarily due to the high cost of relocating major utility lines in the alley between the properties. 2. What And How Much Goes Into The Box? The parties generally agree the following uses are appropriate for the Superblock? a. Expanded City Market b. Expanded moderate -priced lodging C. New neighborhood commercial d. Town Square public space e. Transit stop f. Private and public underground parking g. Affordable housing (the private property owners question the on -site location for affordable housing) 3. How Much Does the Box Cost? The Consulting Team working with Shaw Construction Company have put together preliminary cost estimates for 2 or 3 levels garages as summarized below and outlined in Attachment 3: Preliminary Cost Cars Cost Per Car 2 Levels 430 Cars $10,550,000 $241500 3 Levels 642 Cars $14,370,000 $22,400 For reference, The Rio Grande Garage has 340 spaces, was open in June, 1990, and cost approximately $7,450,000 or $21,900 per car in 1989 dollars. The Rio Grande Garage is paid by a .25% sales tax and user fees, and the early years deficits were covered by the City's General Fund. The private property owners (the Group) are in the process of identifying the costs for the above grade redevelopment of their properties. At this worksession, they wish to discuss various development options and get Council feedback. 3 4. How Is The Box Paid For? At this time, the private property owners do not have a specific cost sharing proposal to discuss with Council. However, the Group is concerned because they believe that the potential income from the total redevelopment is less than what is necessary to meet the debt service. Redevelopment of this entire area presents a unique opportunity for both the City and the private property owners. All of the private entities are in the position to consider redevelopment of their property. City Market has long expressed a desire to expand their facility. Bell Mountain Lodge has just received a Growth Management Allocation for the complete redevelopment and expansion of the lodge. The owners of the Buckhorn Lodge, because of the Superblock discussions, are also considering redevelopment of their property. And the City, with the recent adoption of the Transportation Plan, has the opportunity to move forward with a significant component of the plan - the East End parking structure. In consideration of all the alternatives and trade-offs to both the City and private property owners, this worksession should provide the next steps direction for both the staff and property owners to pursue. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Private Property Owners Outline 2. Map 3. Preliminary Cost Estimates n • • Items to be discussed during July 19 worksession Private landowners have reached agreement to be one cooperative group The objective is to present a Superblock concept that complies with the Aspen Area Community Plan and accomplishes the following goals of that plan : Creates neighborhood service space Off street parking, out of the commercial core Meets Goal 8 of the Transportation Action Plan, parking is on RAFTA routes Shuttle from garage not needed Meets Goal 14 of the Transportation Plan, pursuit of parking structure in this location Pursues the intent and goals of the Commercial/Action Plan by accomplishing goals numbered 1,2,3,6,8 Create acceptable definition of "locally" serving uses GMQS incentives tied to restrictions FAR bonuses zone the "superblock" N/C and Service/Commercial Vertical zoning Will provide rent controlled, by deed restriction, N/C leasing space so that people can shop in the community where they live ie we will produce deed restricted commercial space analogous to affordable housing Will provide private sector financing for $7,500,000 to $lo,000,000 of the $15,000,000 garage ie we will pay for 1.5 to 2 floors of the garage thereby reducing the City budget restraints under Amendment One and reducing City risk The private sector will incur the following costs by providing their locations during the time to build just the garage Cost to business's during 12 month garage construction Approximately $2,500,000 lost revenues Buyout of Buckhorn leases Cost to demolish To produce economic feasibility that will insure the success of the project we will need relief from certain GMQS housing requirements and City Code section 8-104 mitigation requirements as contemplated under the Aspen Area Community Plan Growth Section Goal number 6 (b) and 16 where redefining GMQS to encourage compatibility with the AACP is recommended and providing incentives for locally serving uses are encouraged. We request that we be allowed a variance to FAR of 40% ie we would like to build 40% above our allowable FAR. Due to the fact that the majority of City Market will be underground this excess PAR will not produce unsightly density. we request that this area be viewed as one project so that we may move the spaces within the project to accomplish the above. We propose the mitigation housing requirements be waived in lieu of the fact that we will provide financing for between $7,500,000 to $10,000,000 of the garage. We also propose that the housing we will be subject to build be calculated on the basis of the excess FAR that we request and that the square footage required to build that housing become deed restricted leasable space instead of housing. Due to the time required to build the garage and rebuild the businesses the City will lose approximately $1,200,000 in sales tax revenue and 75 jobs could be at risk. We would propose that the CITY allow City Market permission to build cost effective temporary space nearby so that in fact approximately $1,000,000 in sales tax revenue can be saved and at least 70 jobs can be preserved. Can we discuss the Kraut property ? • • ATTACHMENTS SUPERBLOCK GARAGE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES 2 Levels 3 Levels 430 Cars 642 Cars Construction Cost $ 8,513,500 $11,615,500 Parking Spaces 430 642 19,800 /sp 18,100 /sp Approvals, Permits 50,000 50,000 Arch., Eng., Prof. Fees 5% 425,700 580,800 Contractor Bonding 1% 85,100 116,200 Project Mgmt. Fee 2% 170,300 232,300 Miscellaneous/Other 1 % 85,100 116,200 Contingency 5% 425,700 580,800 Construction Inflation 6% 585,300 797,000 (2 yrs @3%/yt=6%) Fin. Underwriting Cost 2% 206,800 281,800 TOTAL COST $10,547,500 $14,371,100 PARKING SPACES 430 642 COST PER SPACE $ 24,530 /sp $ 22,380 /sp July 8, 1993 Revised REVIEW DRAFT ONL MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Jim Curtis Superblock Consulting Team DATE: July 15, 1993 RE: Superblock Update COUNCIL DECISIONS The property owners requested this meeting to share their thoughts with Council on the Superblock Concept and to have some direct communications with Council. As of the date of this memo, July 15, the property owners do not have a specific conceptual development plan or cost sharing proposal they wish to present, but several possibilities they wish to discuss. Based on the information presented tonight, Council may wish to: '1. Ask the private property owners to refine their thoughts and return to Council with a specific conceptual development plan and cost sharing proposal. 2. 446awnbirr partnership with the private property owners to a more detailed 2nd Phase planning effort consisting of preparing and processing a Conceptual SPA and Rezoning Plan for City review and approval, and refining development costs, financing and cost sharing plans. This activity could cost from $50,000 - $100,000 and processing the SPA Plan could take 8 - 12 months. The City's prorata cost could be from $13,000 - $27,000 based on a cost allocation by square footage of land ownership, i.e. City ownership of Cooper Street.prntldg-nat-st�t}� -2nd-Phas"Aamjgg -ej� a£%t..e.. 3. Decide it is not prepared to proceed with the Superblock planning effort at this time until other transportation and transit issues are resolved, and request the private property owners to "hold" the planning effort for 6 - 8 months. 4. Decide it is not interested or cannot afford the Superblock Concept and underground parking, but would facilitate the private property owners proceeding on their own and be willing to vacate Cooper Street (or not be willing to vacate Cooper Street). ) �! • • PROJECT UPDATE The Consulting Team of Jim Curtis, Jonathan Rose and Harry Teague Architects were retained by the City and the private property owners in February to undertake a quick feasibility study of the Superblock Concept. Charles Cunniffe Architects has also assisted the private property owners. The Consulting Team has meet with the private owners 3 times and gave the Council an interim update in March. Also, in early May, the Bell Mountain Lodge property was purchased by a group headed by Jim Valerio and Harry McNamara. A summary of the Superblock properties are given below and illustrated on the map in Attachment 1. Size Zoning & FAR Representative City Market 27,000 sq. ft NC @ 1:1 John Caldwell Bell Mtn Lodge 20,066 " LP @ 1:1 Harry McNamara Buckhorn Lodge 6,934 " CL @ 1:1 Sy & Nora Kelly Cooper Street 20,250 " N/A N/A 74,250 sq. ft. The Feasibility Study has focused on 4 basic questions for the Superblock using the analogy of a box for simplicity: 1. What is the shape of the box? 2. What and how much goes into the box? 3. How much does the box cost? 4. How is the box paid for? What Is The Shape Of The Box? The box includes the properties referenced above. The Consulting Team and the private property owners agree the surrounding Kraut property and the A -Frame and Hanna -Dustin Building property are separate from and not integral to the development of the Superblock. This conclusion was reached primarily due to the high cost of relocating major utility lines in the alley between the properties. 2. What And How Much Goes Into The Box? The parties generally agree the following uses are appropriate for the Superblock? 1. Expanded City Market 2. Expanded moderate -priced lodging 3. New neighborhood commercial 4. Town Square public space 5. Transit stop 6. Private and public underground parking Fa • • 7. Affordable housing (the private property owners question the on -site location for affordable housing) At this time, the private property owners have not reached a consensus recommendation on a specific conceptual development plan for their properties. At the meeting, they wish to discuss various development options and get Council feedback. 3. How Much Does the Box Cost? This component of the box is the underground parking garage. The Consulting Team working with Shaw Construction Company have put together preliminary cost estimates for 2 or 3 levels garages as summarized below and outlined in Attachment 2: Preliminary Cost Cars Cost Per Car 2 Levels 430 Cars $10,550,000 $24,500 3 Levels 642 Cars $14,370,000 $22,400 For reference, The Rio Grande Garage has 340 spaces, was open in June 1990, and cost approximately $7,450,000 or $21,900 per car in 1989 dollars. The Rio Grande Garage is paid by a .25% sale tax and user fees, and the early years deficits were covered by the City's General Fund. 4. How Is The Box Paid For? At this time, the private property owners do not have a specific cost sharing proposal to discuss with Council. • ATTACHMENT 1 SUPERBLOCK MAP INSERT 0 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PARKING MITIGATION ANALYSIS CITY MARKET — Existing Market — Existing Market — Expansion Market — Expansion Market — Expansion Market NEW SW BLDG — Expansion Comm. — Expansion Comm. BELL MTN. BLDG — Existing Lodge — Approved Lodge — Expansion Comm. Mitigtion S4. Ft. — Ab. Gr. _1_3,_ 12-,M0 sq.ft. — Be. Gr. -- l3V oa 12;700 — Ab. Gr. 5,000 — Ab. Gr. 2,000 — Be. Gr. _@6"net -3 31 avo 36-,@6 7/21/93 Existing & Expansion Parking ZA'-29 Spaces Existing l ,,p9' New 5 6 New ,I- 'New 4y k-'' — 1 st Level 5,000 _ I I '1-5 —.2nd Level 5,000 II 4-5V 10,000 22 31T 10,000 _ 10 10 Existing 10,000 15 15 Approved 18,000 .5T New 38,000 TS' BUCKHORN BLDG — Existing Comm. — Ab. Gr. — Existing Comm. — Be. Gr. — Existing Lodge — L. to C. — Expansion Comm. SUB -TOTAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING 3,500 1,500 3,500 3,6eeC Sq.Ft. 0 .51,V Units 7 7 Existing -New g X New JA1 Spaces 4Z 5,-f Spaces TOTALS Spaces 7M q 3 0 0 A, --EA ��►� ZJ� la3 V1�G -D, -&, lob 3�, 07 �16 vie+ 1 �� 2, 7� "y,111 av�, ,N e-� �' � � � ►mil let O ► ►O +��m cNGu,J► 5 �1 t� -A �, �, V SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EMPLOYEE MITIGATION ANALYSIS Mitigation Emp. Est. Emp. Est. Emp. SQ. Ft. Housed Studio Units Sq. Ft. CITY MARKET - Existing Market - Ab. Gr.-J3,��1r0 credit 0 0 0 sq.ft. - Existing Market - Be. Gr. IV2�2 12-,760 credit 0 0 0 - Expansion Market - Ab. Gr. 5,000 ,& 5 1-y 4 2,300 Z,&00 - Expansion Market - Ab. Gr. 2,000 2, Z, 5 x Z 920 1, eoo - Expansion Market - Be. Gr. Q 9(l net s 7 0 w 0_ ao NEW SW BLDG - Expansion Comffih G Expansion 1 1st Level 5,000 � 5, 6 ¢,5 5,0 fl Z,� - Cei�n. - 2nd Level 5,000 �" -ff ¢ Z Zy0 10,000 .1'S' /I, 2 4-2z 5, 44 BELL MTN. BLDG - Existing Lodge 10,000 credit 0 0 0 - Approved Lodge 10,000 7 7 G 2,7W 3, a - Expansion Cen*n: 0/G 18,000 -2-9 20 .2-2 IG 38,000 w 2�2-90 12,980 � I� BUCKHORN BLDG - Existing GeTm.y)/G - Ab. Gr. 3,500 credit 0 0 0 - Existing -f 1C - Be. Gr. 1,500 credit 0 0 0 - Existing Lodge - L. to C. 3,500 credit 2.4 z, 4- 2 ZA' aml - Expansion Comff4. h/G 13' 3,87 171, 1,-Off z,- ao TOTALS 94 WSc .Ft. 6_r "Pf 24 S .Ft. -t� 1,0� �e 0 i SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FAR Sg.Ft. CITY MARKET — 1 st Level 5,000 sq. ft. — 2nd Level 2,000 �d — 3rd Level -9- ?.3;6f)U — Below Ground (Not counted in FAR) NEW SW. BLDG. — 1st Level 5,000 — 2nd Level 5,000 10,000 BELL MTN. BLDG. — 1 st Level 18,000 — 2nd Level 10,000 — 3rd Level 10,000 — 2nd & 3rd levels V-i 4 f1Q 7/22/93 -qu.elcfflarlfeVete; Ve-li1,j9 WCj C.M. offices emp. housing emp. housing market eamm./e€€iee n/G rej n h/G Vey o ej lodging f�^,7 lodging z,14,-p einp. housing BUCKHORN BLDG. 1st Level �i �O h1G kje — 0 hed — 2nd Level 51f" �� h/G Ped�oej — 3rd Level 4�_ 4,000 emp. housing TOTAL — Above Ground 90,WO LV, 05V FAR FAR j.r21 w/street TOTAL — Private Uses b5;0M 7, cam FAR yr20 FAR k.91 w/street — Emp. Housing 2---,-,t10 ZI, a-z� FAR JD-< FAR 0-<4 w/street 50-,W0 g FAR 1%�G 1 FAR ;,e w/street GROSS TOTAL — Above Ground I , 00 09,E w/ 65;600 sq. ft. mitigation — Below Ground �ezV _w_ / 29-,006 sq. ft. mitigation JJ�0 14.1Cl.'0 111l;Hf�U sq. ft. mitigation dc, {I. e "Jrlt� ,j iu;w ,,, .�.1, wwt e, ili 2. o �t oc-,Ut� cLvt� ., m�lo,.QM—/�fi Jo-il—C. w-t w-c,�U' • TRUEMAN BUILDING/CLARK'S MARKET COMPLEX ANALYSIS A. FAR ANALYSIS Below Ground — N/C — 1st Level — N/C & Market — 2nd Level — Emp.Hous. 18 — 1 Bedroom Apts. B. PARKING ANALYSIS — Total Parking Emp. Housing Alloc. — N/C & Market Parking C. QLARK'S MARKET ANALYSIS Main Level Basement 8/4/93 FAR NET LEASABLE SO. FT. SO. FT. 17,455 12,072 28,431 25,015 45,886 37,087 14,717 11,693 121 Spaces - 18 1 sp./bedroom per City Code 103 103 37,087 sq. ft. net leasable = 2.78 sp./1,000 sq. ft. net leasable 16,000 Sq. Ft. FAR from Planning Office files 2,000 Sq. Ft. FAR from Planning Office files 18,000 NOTE: 1. Parking count and building sq. ft. taken from analysis of Building Permit Plans of the complex. • MEMORANDUM To: John Caldwell Sy and Nora Kelly Harry McNamara Jim Valerio Charles Cunniffe Leslie Lamont From: Jim Curtis Superblock Consulting Team Date: May 14, 1993 Re: Superblock Analysis Attached is the "Summary Costs And Revenues Chart" reviewed at the May 12 meeting. Feel free to give me a call concerning any questions on the chart or the meeting. Coming from the meeting, I have continued to evaluate other possible scenarios. A more • minimal option is outlined in the attached 3 sheets which are briefly described below: 1. Private Properties Owners & City Objectives. This sheet outlines my current perception of the objectives of the various parties. This sheet should be revised and expanded accordingly to assist in the discussion with City Council. 2. Buildout Of Existing Zoning. This sheet outlines the parking and employee housing requirements, of the buildout of the existing 1:1 FAR zoning of the private properties. This may be the starting point for the property owners as to what they would like to accomplish at their lowest cost. The chart assumes the following: A. Redevelopment of the existing City Market FAR (12,700 sq.ft.) is only required to replace its existing 32 cars parking and no existing employee housing vs. compliance with the current City Code standards. The City Code standards would only apply to new expansion development. B. Bell Mountain Lodge proceeds to develop its current approvals. C. Buckhom Lodge receives a SPA zoning waiver from the City to convert its 2nd floor lodge rooms to commercial/office space. Under its current CL zoning, the 2nd floor is restricted to lodge rooms with the 1st floor restricted to commercial/office space. 0 Memorandum • Superblock Analysis May 14, 1994 Page 2 D. If the City is willing to vacate Cooper Street under this minimal proposal, I would expect the City to request the existing 30 on -street parking spaces be replaced underground by the private owners at no cost to the City. The private owners may wish to offer a different position on this item. 3. City Trade -Offs. This sheet outlines my perception of the City Trade -Offs of having the property owners proceed with the buildout program outlined above. These trade-offs may or may not be sufficient to encourage the City to proceed with the Superblock concept. Also enclosed are the conceptual drawings of the different redevelopment schemes we were prepared to discuss at the May 12 meeting. Prior to the Council worksession, we would like to review these concepts with the property owners as appropriate. Leslie will schedule the Council worksession for late June and communicate back with all parties. I will need to prepare a "Discussion Memo" for the Council's worksession which will is also be available to the public and press. The Council should have the memo a week before the meeting. I would like to prepare a draft memo and circulate it to the property owners for their comments prior to submitting it to Council. To accomplish all of this and put our best foot forward with Council, I suggest we have a final follow-up meeting or have the property owners designate a spokesperson to work with me on the memo and presentation to Council. Please communicate with me how you wish to proceed. 920-1395. Thank you. n U IU v 0 0 C O p C Es V] U O V� cn O 'Fj `��' O N Cf a C z as > I I I I 0 > ° °' 0 > C a� 3 �� ¢ 5 0 E a mow+ G m os cd m =. ~ p[¢z.Ur " U U U CO U U U > > > > �U w w o wM U U O M aU U U U cad ODU U .�CZ w o00 o0O 0000 oOOo 0 o 000 Ooo z N Co O -C cV 0 0 O O O O u] M �O O cOM O O[— Or CD �o> -I [ OW M cn O O O O O O O O O O� oq bq +I W z o � tI cd � b r + cq M • • • SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS & CITY OBJECTIVES 5/14/93 1. City Market - Expand market to 22,000 sq.ft. on one level - Provide existing and expansion parking underground as cost effectively as possible. - Do not lose existing underground commercial space FAR development rights. 2. Bell Mountain Lodge - Proceed to redevelop property with 40 lodge rooms, as approved. - Provide existing and expansion parking underground as cost effectively as possible. 3. Buckhom Lodge - City waives CL zoning restriction that 2nd floor space must be lodge rooms. - Convert 2nd floor lodge rooms to commercial or office use or continue to operate as lodge rooms at owner's discretion. - Do not lose existing underground commercial space FAR development rights. - Investigate up -zoning of the property, but only at an acceptable cost. 4. City Of Aspen - Provide underground municipal parking as cost effectively as possible. - Redevelopment of properties to produce a Town Square or public space. - Redevelopment of properties to be coordinated under a SPA plan. - Any up -zonings will be to generate funds to help pay for the municipal parking. • 1. 2. s Q 0 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS BUILDOUT OF EXISTING ZONING City Market - Existing Market - Market Expansion - Emp. Housing Exp. FAR @ 1:1 Bell Mountain Lodge - Existing Lodge - Lodge Expansion - Emp. Housing Exp. FAR @ 1:1 Buckhorn Lodge - Existing Comm. - Converted Comm. - Emm Housing Exp. FAR @ 1:1 Vacated Cooper Street TOTALS Existing & Expansion 12,700 sq.ft. 9,300 5,000 27,000 sq.ft. 9,000± sq.ft.-18 rms 9,000± sq.ft.-22 rms 2,066 20,066 sq.ft. -40 rms 3,467± sq.ft.-1st L. 3,467 -2nd L. 0 6,934 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 54,000 sq.ft. Existing & Expansion Parking 32 - existing 37 - 4 sp/1,000 sq.ft. 11 - 1 sp/bdrm 80 10 - existing 15 - .7 sp/rm 0 - as approved 25 4 - existing 6 - estimated 1 - 1 sp/bdrm 11 30 - on -street 146 cars 5/14/93 Expansion Employees & Housing 0 13 emp @ 11 units ± 13 emp. 0 7 emp @ 5 units ± 7 emp 0 0 2 enip @ 1 units± 2 0 22 emp @ 17 units± • • • SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS CITY TRADE-OFFS CITY GIVES: 5/14/93 1. Vacated Cooper Street to facilitate shared and cost effective underground parking and access for all parties. 2. SPA planning flexibility to facilitate coordinated planning and development of properties. 3. Allows Buckhorn Lodge rooms to be converted to commercial and office space at owner's discretion. 4. Allows redevelopment of City Market and Buckhorn Lodge to only mitigate for their new expansion for parking and employees vs. compliance with current City Code standards for their total redevelopment. • 5. Allows CityMarket and Buckhorn Lode to redevelop their existing underground g P g g commercial space in the garage with no additional parking or employee mitigation requirements. CITY RECEIVES: 1. Redevelopment of properties will be coordinated under a SPA plan. 2. Redevelopment of properties will produce a Town Square or public space. 3. Vacated Cooper Street — the 30 on -street parking spaces — will be replaced underground by the private owners at no cost to the City. 4. City receives the underground rights to develop as much additional underground parking as it can pay for. 5. Funds from any up -zonings will be used by the City to help pay for the municipal parking. 0 0 • B+Iti�'J��9II1'I(!II�� • • N by CC rcz `.J �i i-. RS raw }fl-9-Il�I[i IPI J'I� � 0 , � 0 • d , i J ORIGINAL STRELT RUN. S] Main Entrance I Ar.wi Mny�ri. Parking Garage Entrance only SIIKI\G J I RIX[* I i I s X I I I i i I I I East End Parking Garage Scheme #1 Site Plan ORIGINAL SR(EET I I I I I I I I I • N • C, • • m M W vn E—+ E- • W V) 0 • • I9 r,_ Lnun ' V V '7 O1, 00 CD U M � N (n cn w z j 2 � N M O -C; O O O W.ci� • rg d 3 F d EJ ORIGINAL STREET H.W.Y. B: 01UGUAL STREET Parking Garage Fnt� only SPRUNG STREC? Main Entraaae L, East End Parking Garage o, Scheme #2 Site Plan B 1. �o L.. • • • 0 Q M tn .b cz bb 0 ..o a� W v4 • • is dY ORIGINAL YTRLLT H.W.Y. a_ Buckhorn Lodge 6 r.iai 1'n gw,ty L_ ❑ edestrianT&F I lann.ih�lhnlin Ir1,11J1,1e I ORIGINAL STREET o AtIGroce y Storc Cooper street One way Traffic I� i I II i I East End Parking Garage Scheme #3 Site Plan • • • V c U � O �J fC 3—. 3 o � w� 0 • • • • 0 '�In I�IInI1�-'III W W v� M co U U O l— r-4 r-i N cM N M w w MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: February 8, 1993 RE: Contract Award - Consulting Work on Super Block SUMMARY: Council directed staff to pursue a short planning study for the Super Block to include a conceptual study of a potential below grade parking structure. The Super Block planning area is between Hyman Avenue and the alley behind City Market, and Original and Spring Streets. Jim Curtis and Associates were asked to prepare a proposal for the planning study. Staff requests Council to approve Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract with Curtis and Associates for planning services related to the Super Block planning study. A scope of work is attached as Exhibit "A" to the contract. BACKGROUND: Council hired Curtis and Associates, which included Jonathan Rose and Harry Teague, to analyze development scenarios for the Kraut Property. When considering the Kraut Property, questions were raised about the development potential for public parking underneath the entire area (consideration with the 1987 Transportation Plan and AACP) and on -grade development regarding vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Given the interest of time and a desire to utilize prior knowledge, Curtis and Associates were asked to prepare a proposal for a three month study that would appraise the broader issues facing this parcel of land. STAFF COMMENTS: The property owners of the Bell Mt. Lodge, Buckhorn Lodge, City Market and the A -frame on Hyman Avenue were all asked to participate in the three month study both financially and creatively. All property owners have agreed to participate in the planning study. The planning study fee is $12,500 and was divided among all five property owners based upon the proportion of land they owned. The City's land area included the Cooper Street right-of-way and the alley adjacent to the Kraut property. Property owners will contribute in the following manner: City Market = $3335.00 Bell Mt. _ $773.00 Buckhorn = $760.00 Vicenzi A -frame = $773.00 City = $6860.00 The City will contract with the planning team and will arrange for reimbursement from the individual property owners through a letter of agreement. FINANCIAL IMPLICATION: The City has $5,000.00 left over from the first Kraut planning study. This money should be reappropriated to the Super Block planning study. An additional $1860.00 is necessary for the City's share of this work. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the contract for the three month planning study to be performed for the Super Block concept. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to authorize the City Manager to execute the contract with Curtis and Associates for the Super Block planning study." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution _ B. Contract for Services Pa • • RESOLUTION NO. _ Series of 1993 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CURTIS & ASSOCIATES AND THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTATION SERVICES RELATING TO THE KRAUT PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a professional services agreement between Curtis & Associates and the City of Aspen, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that professional services agreement between Curtis & Associates and the City of Aspen, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1993. John S. Bennett, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk c urns. res AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement made and entered on the date hereinafter stated, between the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and Curtis & Associates, ("Professional"). For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth in its Consulting Proposal dated January 11, 1993, and aattached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. Completion. Professional shall commence work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all work pursuant to this agreement shall be completed in the time allocated in Professional's Proposal, Exhibit "A", attached hereto. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project coordinator for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authoritites having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. 3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional a total of twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($12,500). This fee shall be paid as follows: $6,500.00 within 14 days of the issuance of a Notice to Proceed following approval of this agreement by the City Council of the City of Aspen, and the balance of $6,000.00 within 14 days upon the delivery of Professional's final report to the City Council. 4. Non -Assignability. Both parties recognize that this contract is one for personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other. Sub -Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the responsibilities or obligations under this agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors officers, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub -contractor. 5. Termination. The Professional or the City may terminate this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional may be determined. 6. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Professional warrants that s/he has not been employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Professional, to solicit or secure this contract, that s/he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For a breach or violation of this contract without liability, or in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee. 7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. 8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. The Professional also agrees to bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, including court costs and attorney fees, whether or not any such liability, claims, or demands alleged are groundless, false, or fraudulent. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. 9. Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. (b) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees. 10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Finance Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. 11. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. All terms and provisions contained in the Professional's Proposal in conflict with this Agreement are expressly hereby deleted from the Proposal and shall not be binding upon the parties. 12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered to the respective persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested, to: City: Amy Margerum, City Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Professional: Jim Curtis Curtis & Associates 117 South Monarch Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 13. Non -Discrimination; penalty. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment. 14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forebearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 15. Execution of Agreement by City. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwith- standing anything to the contrary contained herein, this agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same. 16. General Terms. (a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superceded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. (d) This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. 4 • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the date hereinafter written. Dated: ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: PROFESSIONAL: WITNESSED BY: LIN APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: curt;s.agr • EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK FOR SUPER BLOCK CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS The consulting team will consist of Jonathan Rose, Harry Teague, Jim Curtis and Greg Luth, Parking Engineer. Leslie Lamont of the Planning Office will also provide assistance. The consulting team will examine the following aspects of the Super Bloch: 1. Underground, Farkking and Access Point. Prepare sketch plan showing 1 and 2 levels of underground parking and alternative entry and exit points. Examine vehicular circulation into and out of the garage and the surrounding properties. Provide preliminary estimate of the construction cost and the potential cost savings of the underground parking it is constructed on a joint cooperative basis vs. the cost of the individual property owners providing their separate independent parking. 2. Utilities relocation. Determine the existing utilities in the alleyway between the Kraut property and Bell Mountain/Buckhorn lodges, and Cooper Avenue, and the feasibility/estimated cost to relocate the utilities or integrate them into a parking structure. 3. Cost allocation options for / the Underground Parking. Investigate possible cost allocationl✓ options and methods to fund construction of the underground parking. The investigation will be very conceptual and rely heavily on the input and objectives of the individual property owners. Options might be various Public/Private Partnerships, Special Improvement/Parking District, Municipal Bonding, etc. The objective is to outline a range of options for discussion among the involved parties. 4. Development Character Study. Provide a quick development character study of the Super Block. Examine pedestrian traffic, vehicular traffic, surface parking, service deliveries, architectural bulk and mass, viewplane, etc. Emphasis shall be place on the treatment of the alleyway and Cooper Avenue. The objective is to provide a conceptual planning framework so that the individual properties can be developed separately and at different times, but yet fit together and compliment one another. All work and meetings will be accomplished within three months from authorization to proceed. The consulting team will meet at least two times with the surrounding property owners to solicit their ideas and objectives, and thereafter one meeting with the City P&Z Commission and one meeting with the City Council to present our findings. The second meeting with the surrounding property owners will be scheduled during the week of March 15-19 and the presentation to City Council will be tentatively scheduled April 12 to coincide with Mr. Rose's travel schedule and to reduce the cost of the fees. If Mr. Rose is requested to make a third trip to Aspen other than the above, an additional billing will be required. The Planning Office will be responsible for scheduling these meetings. f.M • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. Bell Mountain A. Design 1. The garage should be built totally below ground with conforming commercial/residential uses at grade and above. 2. The Mazza proposal can be physically adapted to act as Parking Garage Phase I. 3. Through a 2-3 phase development involving both the Bell Mountain and City Market blocks, the City can achieve the 300 car garage by 1992. 4. This development would call for a below grade garage connection under Cooper. As a long range town planning goal, Cooper Street could be closed between Original and Spring, creating a traffic intercept at U.S. 82 and a pedestrian axis along Cooper back to Galena and the existing malls. B. Finance 1. Public/Private financing makes sense if the City assembles (or has assembled) the block and creates an increment of value to offset costs by increasing the zoning. 2. A less aggressive alternative would be to negotiate with Mr. Mazza for a slightly higher zoning. Phasing the garage then becomes the central issue. Land costs would be covered, financing the garage construction would still have to be done by other means such as a tax increment. C. Conclusions 1. Given the inherent conflicts between the City's Growth Management Plan and bargaining with the private sector to create an increment of value at Bell Mountain; focus should be placed on public financing options to defere garage costs. 2. The Mazza proposal can work as a Phase I development for the future 300 car garage. Executive Summary (Continued) However, to capitalize on its investment in possible zoning concessions and the cost of the garage, the City of Aspen must commit to putting in place a long range acquisition/development plan for the Bell Mountain/City Market block. RNL does not recommend proceeding with the phased development of the Bell Mountain garage without this long range plan. II. Rio Grande A. Design 1. The garage should be built into the north facing slope to mask it from Main Street. 2. A 450 car, 3 level garage can be developed on the Rio Grande site that would not require the Cap's Auto property and that could allow for the separate "zero lot line" development of a new county library. 3. A pedestrian corridor should be created along Galena to separate pedestrians coming from the garage from vehicular traffic at Mill and Main Streets. 4. Future public building(s) could be built on the roof of the garage structure. Additionally, the garage should be designed to include public and private tenants along its exposed outside edges at ground level. B. Finance 1. By designing the garage to avoid Cap's Auto, there is no major role for private development. 2. Minor opportunities for non -parking revenues involving "transit" and, perhaps, commercial tenants exist. A minimum of 6,000 - 10,000 s.f. of this use should be created to have a meaningful effect on debt reduction. The more the better Executive summary (Continued) 3. Tax revenues pledged to municipal bonds would finance the largest part of the capital improvements for this site. C. Conclusions 1. A clear separation of the parking garage from Cap's Auto and the new Library is possible. This is advantageous since it simplifies both the financial and design sides of the development equation. 2. The most attractive tax revenue source appears to be a central core development district utilizing a sales tax revenue increment. This would capitalize on the development of the Ritz Carlton and the proposed Aspen Ski Company hotel. %In ' F149A.�A�c�� 15�:�-Z- I�O'ZIIV7A-1" (1(-2(��7, f1p\1V4725) 4 ± Lnrs #AIVIIA -DasrN LOTS 60 k Mru. LOL�F OP77av c�x�r�c% RrrAic/c�cwc� 4�5" M04(NTA/1/ f/YMAIY GEn, � K�ur • 1 MAZU'K�-�Y 5 -r Lo7� ,49s;EkN5 ,V/ LOTS ,g�kyo��t/ Lo�F c,41,A,As5 tM144 A41 /IV CRElVeNT • � goo, axe �iV C /�� F�1��s ___. • T�i�'VF�OPM,E'it/T' 1.�lsTi�/cT'-�f %�o�,�RTY� o • 5AL5s T•4x �/Y- CCJINC /NV�ST/C�f %/ONs • F\E4�- E5747.. • P�a��cTFo ��T�r�/con����4L. c�xrrT,�,� �l �P�jo�( • TAX/l�lC� ��Fs��'�v��U�S ,��o cRA�vo� G4f�dc,� Gilr1.1. � �� urn ��1F�Llc S�PP��T 11 • �X7'G�. TAX (CIPSV5FAcFIC-4PI7.741- • MEW 7-,,iA C54Lr-,5) • DFLoPM�NT Z>/sT�/cT ����r� 0 5eLL 0 L a PHIL6;r LO�yE DLO'.%' Du aQ I IJLA HYMAr� �0 po -� • Qa o ? �,.. C �7 c � GooP6R _ - Z O IlDr�o P Qn C C _ � F�AS� z • � � i NoL-j E=D Mkzzlk P�60V5 G>�our to Ar�.lUsTr-1�N'(S • NSW 120 lA OELOI� G�An� 0 A �NA,�EI� f�EV��oPMENT SLENP,RIo �f id LI ri` L r I _J 40 WILI.-� � Q, ice' ram` � II,IN':Gvo ER� I L1 5. 82 _ I r t�URANT • N��J ns%vI;LoPM� oN KEL Lll KKAUt f'9arVKjY • N5W 6#RA 9, UNDER KELLY * KRAUT P2oraRTr • NEW 64ARA4aE UNDER GATY MARKET PARKING LOT, • Goo PER 5Ti?�.E'f iMrR�vEMENTS � LANt7S�Af�INi- 9 • • 11 (400 SPA6E�S) . NSW P&W+^Wj poR MAUJIr FAciHc4 o1QiC��r�A1. • Hw fL"tvmmTuk — BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE BLOCK Des4gn The parking facility located on this block should be constructed totally below ground. Input the design tear, has received at public meetings and from city staff all points in the direction of a below ground garage with mixed retail/commercial and residential uses at street level and above. This design approach has two major benefits: 1. The architectural scale of Aspen's Victorian town fabric is maintained by burying what is obviously a large, unsightly twentieth century building type. 2. The block's private property owner's are given the incentive to work with the City on developing a below ground garage since it increases the development potential of their property without consuming any of the sites allowable development square footage. A development proposal has recently been submitted to the City that incorporates what could be Phase I of the construction of the 300 car garage. Taking this proposal as a point of departure, RNL has designed a phased development scenario that could take place through cooperative public/private negotiations and financing. The following drawings diagram the Bell Mountain block in terms of ownership and show one possible phased development scenario. Each phase incorporates the following: Phase I This is essentially the proposal on the table now for the 6 2/3 lots composing the Bell Mountain Lodge site. RNL recommends that the above ground building be reconfigured to create the first part of a traffic intercept on Cooper Street. This will invite public parking into the garage and form a traffic intercept point for visitors coming off U.S. 82. See Appendix A, Town Planning Issues for more detail on why this design feature is critical. BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE BLOCK (Continued) Phase II It has become obvious that City Market is interested in parking facility development across Cooper on the Bell Mountain property. This phase assumes the public/private development of a garage under Cooper Street, the City Market surface lot, as well as the Kelly and Kraut properties. RNL recommends that Cooper Street be closed at mid -block by a traffic circle that would take cars directly into the underground garage. This eliminates the existing problem of summer visitors driving straight down Cooper and into the central core. Phase III The Bell Mountain and City Market blocks are in a transitional zone between the central core and the residential area east of Original Street. This phase invisions the construction of a new City Market over the garage while the old market stays in operation. After construction the old market is demolished and a new ^^ surface parking lot replaces it facing on Original. This flip-flop of land uses allows for a better "stepping down" of commercial density towards the residential area and provides a solid physical definition of the public parking entry on Cooper. TRAFFIC o Traffic to and from the Bell Mountain facility should not pass through the commercial core, but rather should pass around the core on Mill and Original. Access should therefore be provided along Original Street. If access is provided of off Cooper, street closures or other modifications should be provided to minimize traffic to the west and south of the site. o The major pedestrian access will be at the southwest corner of the site. Pedestrian facilities between the site and the ski area should be maximized. o The Bell Mountain Lodge Block site has a high potential for a program of phased construction. The parking facility can be designed so that it can be built in increments as individual private parcels are redeveloped. Y-. BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE BLOCK (Continued) o If a first phase underground structure is constructed on the actual Bell Mountain Lodge parcel, this structure should also extend southward under Cooper adjacent to the site. The inclusion cf this area allows for a more efficient parking space layout than is otherwise possible. o The provision of a transit shuttle to the Bell Mountain site is not of high importance, as it is within easy walking distance of the mall area and the ski gondola. See Appendix A, Parking Revenue Plan for a discussion of how parking rates and operating costs could be structured for the Bell Mountain garage. FINANCE The appropriate political climate is an obvious prerequisite for any type of public/private venture. In the case of the Bell Mountain site, a public/private strategy would require the Town to cooperate with a developer on the redevelopment of all of part of the Bell Mountain block. From an economic standpoint, the strategy would require the Town to acquire and assemble existing properties, ' a highPr rinngit-17 Qnrl i c r�rPcantl y allowed, and resell or lease the above -grade development rights. The increment of value created by the assemblage and increased F.A.R. (floor area ratio) could then be used to offset garage construction costs and/or enhance the financability of the parking garage. Given the inherent conflicts between the above strategy and the Town's growth management policy as well as the heavy up -front financial commitment of an acquisition program, a strong public/ private redevelopment program of this type appears unlikely. A less aggressive version of the above strategy which might be feasible is for the Town to allow slightly higher F.A.R.s in return for development rights for the parking garage. This approach would eliminate up -front acquisition costs and the assemblage process. As the Town would be reacting to proposals from individual developers and/or landowners, this approach might result in a parking garage under only a portion of the block. This approach would also have to address the physical issue of "phasing" an underground parking garage. The financing of the BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE BLOCK (Continued) garage construction would still have to be pursued through other means. For the Bell Mountain site, the annual public investment for each of the three alternatives was estimated. It was assumed that the land would be acquired through negotiations with developers with no developer subsidies for parking garage construction. Each alternative assumed that the land acquisition costs would be zero and that an average daily fee of $5.00 could be achieved. The estimated Bell Mountain fee was slightly higher than the Rio Grande fee because of its higher utilization from tourists. As shown, average annual public investments range from $80,000 per year for the more limited Alternative 1, to over $400,000 per year for the more aggressive Alternative 3. Ad ' JV, • • UA oz o In 3 _Q 1 z z o ! 3 �4 o � z z Op = S l p� w cfl � APPENDIX A (Continued) RNL wishes to acknowledge the interest and ideas put forward by concerned citizens during the planning process. We take every opportunity to listen to the people who know Aspen best - its citizens. We cannot always agree with each individuals design ideas, but from many minds comes the best solution. The following are some examples of citizen input and design ideas received to date. We look forward to much more, and extend a special thanks to Phoebe Ryerson for her watercolors. APPENDIX A (Continued) TOWN PLANNING RNL has taken a town planning approach to the design of the parking facilities. Rather than looking at the Bell Mountain and Rio Grande sites from their property lines inward, this town planning approach considers the big picture: 1. How the central core area is structured today and what effect the two new parking facilities might have on vehicular and pedestrian movement within the core in the future. 2. What new opportunities exist to use the parking facilities as generators of pedestrian and transit shuttle movement into the central core. 3. How can the parking facilities help define the extreme "edges" of the core area and limit its expansion. 4. How can the Bell Mountain and Rio Grande sites be developed as good neighbors to adjacent properties and maintain Aspen's small scall Victorian town character. The following drawings illustrate the major town planning opportunities that exist in parallel with the construction of new parking facilities. RNL incourages the City to consider these opportunities for improvements to the central core. However, we recommend that a clear separation be maintained between the parking facilities and other complimentary improvements which might be pursued after further study at a later date. The parking garages should be designed as stand-alone facilities with as few "strings" attached as possible. 0. • • Abstract Land Use Patterns APPENDIX A (Continued) This diagram illustrates how the central core can be bound by the parking facilities proposed in the Transit/Transportation Development Program. Several benefits are derived from this planning concept: 1. The parking facilities intercept vehicles at the edge of the central core before they enter downtown. 2. The parking facilities become generators of pedestrian movement into the central core. 3. The parking facilities (certainly the Rio Grande site) can become transit shuttle hubs for people preferring to ride into the central core. The existing Ruby Park transit station is one end of this shuttle route and will provide interface with down - valley RFTA buses. The shuttle system could be either the City's trolleys that are currently in storage, or conventional mini -buses. Site Relationships This diagram shows more site specific opportunities: 1. Two of the town's major open spaces, the ski mountain and the Rio Grande site along the river are pulled "closer" together by a Galena Street corridor. 2. The central core is clearly bounded to the east by the Bell Mountain parking facility and serves as the transition zone to the residential area east of Original Street. 3. Summer visitor traffic over Independence Pass is presented with a well defined pedestrian gateway to the central core that is also the automobile intercept point for public parking. 4. One possible shuttle loop is shown which incorporates Galena/Cooper/Spring and the Spring Street extension. Another alternative might be a "down and back" run on Galena from Ruby Park to Rio Grande. • • Connections APPENDIX A (Continued) This scale drawing shows how the existing Hyman, Mill and Cooper Street pedestrian malls can be connected to the pedestrian flow generated by the parking facilities. The Transit/Transportation Development Program and citizen input points to the necessity of separating pedestrians from the heavy vehicular traffic at the Mill and Main Streets intersection. By bringing pedestrians out of the Rio Grande garage at the base of Galena Street and by similarly introducing pedestrians at street level along the Cooper side of the Bell Mountain garage, two per pendicular pedestrian pathways intersect at the existing malls. These new pedestrian paths into the central core do not necessarily need to be full scale pedestrian malls that are closed to traffic. Construction of the parking facilities will enable the City to remove curbside parking along one side of both streets. This would enable the widening of the sidewalks to a 20-25 foot width. The wider sidewalks with continuous upgraded (brick) paving would clearly define the pedestrian path without completely closing the streets. 0. IPA 0 A3 vtZ$b- #(a to 140 Pit trrb "r Ir z S"Sm 79,9,rl iw HiNON < IN AOaendix A (Continued) o r�, , nP Revenues The ;canner in which parking revenues are venerated has an important impact on the effectiveness which a parking facility has in reaching community goals. Though it is attractive to maximize parking revenues, the desire to minimize the necessary; subsidy must be balanced against other objectives such as the increased availability of onstreet spaces, impact on traffic congestion, e:c. Due to concern over air quality, traffic conditions, and pedestrian safety, a consensus has formed within the Aspen community that the use of the auto should be discouraged, particularly for short trips where other modes are convenient alternatives. In addition, the business community has identified the need to increase the availability of spaces for shoppers and visitors in the commercial core. It is important that the parking fee schedule for the new facilties be developed in light of these goals There are two general ways in which parking fees are commonly collected. Under an hourly fee schedule, parkers are charged for the length of time they are in the facility, after a possible initial free period. A flat fee schedule. on the other hand, charges parkers a set fee upon entering or exiting the facility. The hourly fee schedule essentially "rewards" drivers who use their cars e� frequently. Indeed, if there is a two-hour initial free period, a driver t who uses the car for errands over the day may never pay a parking fee at all. (This driver may very well use the short-term spaces in the commercial core on these errands). correspondingly, the long term parker is ~ .penalized" for not using the car in the middle of the day. The flat fee schedule. on the other hand, rewards the long-term parker for not using the auto for mid -day trips, as they are only charged once for the entire day. Simplic'_t; is an additional attractive feature of the fiat fee schedule. In Aspen. as in other resort communities, there is a high proportion of visiting drivers that are unfamiliar with the local street and parking system. To these drivers, a simple "52.00 per car" increases the attractiveness of a parking facility. AarH na Revenues (.Continued) Appendix A (Continued) To assess the impact on revenues, an analysis of each parking fee schedule was performed, both with and without a Bell Mountain Lodge facility. A fee schedule appropriate to Aspen was developed for each type: Four'_v r.00 Schedule - Free First Two Hours - S1.00 per hour thereafter. to a maNimum of S5.00. - Pass program at S3.00 per day (S60.00 per month). ^lam rho Schedule - S2.00 per entrance at Rio Grande - S3.00 per entrance at Bell Mountain The higher price at the Bell Mountain facility under the flat fee schedule is necessary to avoid filling the facility with long-term parkers. 'these fee schedules were analyzed using the eXtensive parking demand data presented in the aspen/Pitkir. Count, Transit.'T-ansDortatior. Development Pro2--•am. As indicated in Table 1, the revenues generated by the flat fee scneau_e are substantially higher (roughtly 50o higher in 1988 if the facilities were available) than are the revenues under the hourly fee schedules. The analysis summarized in this table considered the following factors: € o The parking data presented in the T':DP was based upon counts conducted on weekdays in March. A Marcn weekday is therefore the 'starting point' for the analysis. o Future parking demand growth includes the effects of pedestrian and _ransit improvements; future parking supply is adjusted to reflect the e=4stin spaces lost to pedestrian improvements, the Spring Street ::tension, and the construction of the Rio Grande facility. o Monthly variation in total parking demand is based upon the monthly = variation in traffic volumes on the Castle Creek Bridge. :his variation is also factored to reflect the fact that the pay parking facilities are only used after the onstreet spaces are ful'_y utilized; parking facility revenues are therefore highly sensitive to changes in parking demand. o The parking revenues generated on Saturday and Sunday are 5C-- of that generated on a weekday. i • • Parking Revenues (Continued) Appendix A (Continued) o All revenue figures assume that the maximum number of vehicles in the facility is 9,., of the number of spaces. o In 1988 under the flat fee schedule. 200 long-term tS hour duration) packers would use the facility(ies). '"his figure wi:_ increase with the increase in overall parking demand. The remaining packers are relatively short-term; in the Rio Grande, the short-term parkers are assumed to have an average duration of 3 hours, while in the Bell Mountain Lodge they are assumed to have an average duration of 4 hours. o Parked car license plate counts indicate that approximately 75% of the parking movements in Aspen are for a duration of 2 hours or less. In light of this figure, it is not surprising the the hourly fee schedule generates a relatively low level of revenues. In total, the flat fee schedule maximized the potential parking facility revenue while also furthering the communities goals of reduced auto usage and increased short-term onstreet parking space availability. Operatino Costs :'able 2 presents estimates of the current operating costs of both facilities. The S9.00 per hour cost for booth attendants includes all fringe benefits and payroll costs. 6.6 0 c i o u o n o ' .c Y•1 n _ � �• o- � � � � Y-1 it '� s P .'1 �• I~ Y► M r 6l F m N N .• f�. M• � �. 11 r r r r r .—., C O Iy Y'1 fr � • Y'i N G m Y� In O •C � + + N tv ^ � Y7 u�9 • F V• •G fr O �•• _ m Y� v ry V �� � �� O N .✓ � G IM ^ r F O m fr S r. L+ C . ry s •o ✓. O Y7 r 1 y z I W ? _ � 1 F r• O + Y7 .� .•. r + + W r + + rt y i eG• s 61 :'0 1 N .� - r+ yv m h � � -o — � r• o _ F 11 _ r ry �• � .[• 1 r+ � .p .p N C+ 2 11 ; N Yr �. ..p H N m 11 ry r n• .i r ry Y7 1 '7 ^ F r •Yir� Y7 .� M r. 9 y G I C i ii i In w 1 1 m N - 1 K. ✓. R H W I N Yl P � r. M O .1 r•f R _O .O � 1 � 1 I M 1 1 1 ✓i JI � ,� 1 -• 1 6 N N 'O 11 � 1 � A 1 C •1 1 [D r 1 (:f G� W 1 ,Y � � L� O C 1 0• r 1 W W 1 0 W V• % — d y V i L W te C � Y. w - 1 W - M. I v w d W c � w i d i• i ,ti• W .. .i of .. i � � ¢ s �: >' c i •a `z d � s 1 J 1 Y ,s i y ¢ � s 1 1: ¢ ••J- � 1 i� lC = L G .�- i 1 1 = L= 6 � G 11 IC'; L: • N u u 1: ' n = n 11 ^ 11 y 11 �" 11 _ — — It •— — n _ — y n m U y II Vs V! b9 '^ u .. q II _ N n co 1 q u � a p v. a p u ^ C: n L. Y . n N c: It y — a J \ It t N a 18 It N C .. a r N c— G^ L: N r. Y - - ." — It . In J C —+ a C "" Y fA 409 fA Va !A IA it n M •� Y It v, u n = 11 Q N R v = tl � — Il — I I U u = — u u_ It = -- II — I — — G it L 11 cr ttCt ..J II r ..•. I 'A I1 •-� U I 11 1 Li ii c I n I �y u I C L n v I L 1 — C 11 11 I Al (Al F It _ 1 AN • APPENDIX A (Continued) Tax Revenue Sources The Town recently undertook a feasibility analysis of establishing a Downtown Development Authority (DDA). The purpose of the Authority would have been to finance the construction of improvements in the DDA District through the use of tax increment financing. The incremental property tax generated from the increased assessed valuation occurring within the District would be used to pay off the bonds. The tax base in the District would be frozen for the various existing tax districts and all growth revenues would be pledged to the TIF bonds. Another option would be to proceed with a Downtown Development Authority utilizing the increment from sales taxes rather than property taxes. The District would include the downtown core including the sites of the two proposed hotel projects. If the Ritz Carlton is developed, it may provide a window of opportunity for this financing technique. Preliminary estimates indicate that the Ritz Carlton alone would generate $28 million in taxable retail sales. The Town currently collects a 1% sales tax plus a share of the 2% county sales tax which currently amounts to approximately .432%. If a 1.432% tax is applied only to projected Ritz Carlton sales, an increment of $400,000 per year is created. The smaller hotel being developed by the Aspen Ski Corporation could increase this increment by another 25% to 30%. In addition, the District boundaries were drawn, some adjustment would have to be made for the fact that a portion of the new hotel market would be drawn from existing hotels and lodges. ' As has already been suggested by the Town staff, other taxing alternatives would include a Special Improvement District, ski lift tax, citywide mill levy, or city sales tax. The projected 1% sales tax revenue from 1988 is $1.9 million. Assuming total taxable sales of $190 million, a $.25 to $.50 tax rate would generate revenues of between $475,000 and $950,000 per year. 0 ow