Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19950221Aspen City Council Special Continued Meeting February 21, 1996 Mayor Bennett called the special continued meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. with Councilmembers Marolt, Paulson, Richards and Waggaman present. INDEPENDENCE PLACE Stan Clauson, community development director, reminded Council the last meeting on Independence Place was January 23. The packet contains that information and includes a more recent letter from City Market. This letter states City Market is not interested in pursuing this project unless the city were to become the applicant and carry forward this proposal. Clauson said at the last session, Council looked at their options and providing staff and architectural fees which could total $100,000 to $200,000. Mayor Bennett said part of the problem with this issue is that it is so big and entails so many different concepts and details that Council keeps going in circles. Council has discussed architectural fees, parking, NC zoning, what should the rent be, how is this keep to “local” type businesses. Mayor Bennett suggested discussing architectural fees as part of a negotiation strategy during an executive session. Randy Ready, transportation director, pointed out there were two basis of support for Independence Place from TIC. One is for summer intercept parking in the east end from Independence Pass before cars have to get into the grid and circle around and around. The second is there is currently a $3/day permit to park in the residential zones. The TIC’s recommendation is that this daily permit be abolished if and when there is sufficient off-street parking. These are two strong reasons to look seriously at Independence Place. Clauson said the memorandum lists 7 reasons to support Independence Place. Clauson said staff views this as a reallocation of parking, not an expansion of parking. The 7 reasons are: 1. the ability to remove on-street parking and replace it one for one with underground parking; 2. without a unified development plan, the properties could develop independently; 3. a reduction in the number of vehicles circulating in search of parking; 4. enhancing the pedestrian orientation and public open space east of the mall; making the east side of downtown more pedestrian friendly; 5. relocating an improved City Market below grade, which is a positive from a planning/design point of view; 1 Aspen City Council Special Continued Meeting February 21, 1996 6. this will provide a significant amount of employee housing in the downtown core; 7. the potential of expanding NC neighborhood/commercial space, which was a goal from the NAACP. Mayor Bennett said these sum up the pros of this project. Councilwoman Waggaman and Councilman Marolt said they agree with this list. Councilwoman Richards said she agrees but these can be fleshed out more. Councilwoman Richards noted this is also a fulfillment of the original parking plan even before the AACP, which identified the Rio Grande, Bell Mountain area, and Wagner park as parking areas. Mayor Bennett said one weakness of this project may be trying to pack too much into the site. Mayor Bennett said two parking goals of the city are downtown parking and residential parking. This cannot be accomplished with only 110 spaces. The scope of this project may have to be narrowed. Councilwoman Waggaman agreed this can be a more modest project than originally envisioned. However, if it is cut too much, it may defeat the purpose of the project. Clauson pointed out there is a history of the project in the packet. the parking has gone from 146 to 128 spaces; proposed floor area 97,000 to 54,000 square feet presently. Councilman Marolt said trying to include Gondola parking would be a mistake. This should be fast turnover parking to make it pay and work better. Councilwoman Richards moved to endorse the 7 project objectives listed as why Council continues to support or pursue an Independence Place project; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. Councilman Paulson said he sees a possibility for this project in the summer but feels it has not been carefully thought out for the winter. Councilman Paulson said he is not sure it makes economic sense to increase commercial square footage in the core right now. Councilman Paulson asked if staff has investigated applying the “K- Mart” rule to this development. Clauson said staff does not have a good handle on how to investigate this. Councilman Paulson said if grocery stores, like City Market, are allowed to expand, they put in a lot of general merchandise items that cut into other stores business. Councilman Paulson said he has not heard a lot of support from the community for this project. Councilman Paulson said the ski tourist industry is flat; this would be adding more square footage without more tourists. Councilwoman Richards said she has stated all along that this project would go to a vote of the public. Council is trying to define a package and a 2 Aspen City Council Special Continued Meeting February 21, 1996 product for this vote. Councilwoman Richards said she is anxious for the community to be able to have a say in this project. Mayor Bennett said this has been going through a public process including a public forum at the Given Institute followed by a number of public meetings. Mayor Bennett said the list of 7 issues in the motion does not contain any mention of a giant supermarket; that is not a community goal in this motion. Mayor Bennett said if this project goes forward, it will go back to P & Z and will go through more public meetings. The size of a market as well as the use of the underground parking lot will be discussed at these public meetings. Mayor Bennett said another issue is residential, how many units, what size. These details will be worked out in a public process. Councilwoman Waggaman said this process will give some control over the way City Market will grow. Councilwoman Waggaman said the addition of commercial space or neighborhood commercial space will be debated because that type of space does cause growth. Councilwoman Waggaman said she supports putting a project package together as soon as possible so this can be taken to the voters. Clauson noted large stores typically are located on the edges of town and are threats to the on-going vitality of the older, existing core. Clauson said a solution has been to develop a store that can be placed in the central core so that the store becomes an anchor rather than pulling shopping away from the core. Clauson said a big concern is that the commercial core no longer represents a vital shopping community to locals. Councilman Paulson suggested a meeting with the business community find out how they feel about expanded commercial space. Mayor Bennett said the issue of neighborhood commercial deserves its own debate. Clauson said if the project does move forward, it will go through a 4-step planning and public process; the NC district and list of appropriate uses will be debated. Councilman Marolt said Council can establish their goal at this meeting, which may be traffic mitigation, more parking and employee housing, which is what the motion accomplishes. Mayor Bennett said neighborhood commercial is the most vulnerable part of this project. Mayor Bennett said it is both a goal of his and it is in the AACP and it is the one that there is the most public criticism about. Councilman Paulson said he does not feel this project will mitigate the traffic; it seems like it would be inviting 3 Aspen City Council Special Continued Meeting February 21, 1996 more traffic with the garage. Councilwoman Richards said the proposal is for 1 to 1 curbside reduction; not new spaces. Councilman Paulson said this project represents everything that is going on in town; growth, commercial space and traffic mitigation. Councilwoman Richards said it is time to move this forward to let the public debate and vote on this. Councilwoman Waggaman said Council has made progress on this project since 1993, has trimmed it considerably and has formed it into something concrete. Councilwoman Waggaman said she is not interested in discussing what the project was in 1993. Clauson said the memorandum outlines various options; one is the city undertaking bond funding for certain costs associated with the project, like utility upgrades and infrastructure; the second is to have the city responsible for the land use review fees and architectural renderings to go through the approval process, not building permit drawings; the third option is to require the applicant to take the project through conceptual and GMQS allotment and after that the city would undertake a 50/50 split of fees. Clauson pointed out the most recent letter from City Market states they will not be the primary applicant and will not bring the project forward unless the city chooses to be the applicant. Mayor Bennett said the private applicants are very clear that they are not willing to go forward unless the city is, formally or informally, a partner in this process. Council needs to decide what form this partnership will take. Mayor Bennett said he has no problem with being a partner if the project is something that is beneficial for the city of Aspen. Mayor Bennett reminded Council several years ago they started to get outside financial consulting on what were the values of the things Council was giving up. This was not followed through. Mayor Bennett said it is difficult to talk about commitments without having a more clear idea of the business side of the project. Mayor Bennett suggested having a financial consultant analyze some the issues, like parking, condominiumization of spaces, etc. Mayor Bennett said in the September 1994 answer from Alan Richman responding to all the things the city was doing for them, the biggest one was that the city is granting a conversion from lodge units to free market residential townhomes and an exemption from GMQS. The applicant’s response was, “we agree that this is a benefit but it is being given back to the community in the form of 110 municipal parking spaces costing at least $3 million plus the $1.7 subsidy it will cost the owner to develop new NC space for a total of $4.5 to $5 million”. Mayor Bennett said he would like 4 Aspen City Council Special Continued Meeting February 21, 1996 to discuss with a consultant if this is real and how much the applicants would be getting back. Clauson said the city could hire an accounting firm specializing in pro forma analysis. Councilwoman Waggaman said Council should change their thinking to wanting this project to go forward, which will lead into having some of the details worked out and get the private applicants interested again. If the private persons are not interested, Council will have to re-evaluate this. Councilwoman Richards said the private applicants cannot ask the city to absorb all their risk nor to shelter them from a negative community opinion. Councilwoman Richards agreed she would like the financial pro forma so Council can agree on what may be the appropriate amount for the municipal benefits in the project. The public will then have this figure to vote on. Councilwoman Richards said she feels this project needs to go to the electorate. The private applicant has to put up a certain amount of risk, like architectural drawings, how the project would benefit the community and campaign to inform the voters. Councilman Marolt asked if the city can go forward without having City Market and Bell Mountain in the same meeting. Mayor Bennett said it is important for Council to decide whether they are interested and what are their negotiating points. Mayor Bennett said if Council comes up with a project they believe in that meets important goals for the citizens of Aspen, would the Council be willing, conceptually, to talk about a form of collaboration, sharing expenses, design work, sharing ideas, maybe sharing the application after which it would go to a vote of the electorate. Councilman Paulson said he is uneasy about subsidizing private businesses and making deals that private enterprise cannot make. Councilwoman Richards said she could go along with defining the partnership as to what the roles will be but this should be ratified by the vote of the electorate. Councilwoman Richards said she does not think it would be wise to spend money to develop material for the partnership before the community has agreed this should go forward. Councilwoman Richards said the terms of the partnership should be part of what is being voted on. Hans Gramiger said at an earlier meeting, the Council discussed selling the parking spaces. Gramiger said he would want to know whether this proposal will lead to that or not. Mayor Bennett said that would be part of the conceptual plan that would go to a vote. Mayor Bennett said he feels it is premature for that type of detail. Mayor Bennett said personally he feels this should be short term municipal 5 Aspen City Council Special Continued Meeting February 21, 1996 parking and the spaces should not be sold or condominiumized. Mayor Bennett said he views this parking garage as a way to get cars off the street and underground. Mayor Bennett said selling parking spaces may have been a discussion when the talk was of a 500 car garage. Councilman Marolt agreed the private sector should be involved and there should be an election on this project. Mayor Bennett reminded Council this idea did not originate with the private property owners but with the city. This came out of the AACP and as the Kraut housing project was being developed. Mayor Bennett said the community would get benefits out of this joint public/private project and the public sector should be involved in the creation of the project. Mayor Bennett reiterated a majority of Council supports the concept of a collaborative effort with the private sector as long as the project offers substantial positive attributes for the citizens of Aspen. Mayor Bennett said the terms of the partnership should be defined and the city should not spend a lot of money before an election. Clauson said the two issues that would be most useful for the election are a financial analysis of the pro forma to show what the city is spending or giving up and to determine if the citizens will get something of par or better value on the project. The second is an urban design analysis. Clauson said this project is different from earlier presentations and some image is needed in order to understand what the project might look like and what it’s physical attributes might be. Clauson said there should be a bulk and massing study to show how this project would physically appear on the horizon and how Cooper would look as a mall with parking entrances and how it would relate to the existing streetscape. Clauson said he would need to report back to Council costs of these two analysis. Councilwoman Richards said she would also like to see a conceptual plan of the parking garage operations and where the 1:1 parking will come from, the core or residential day permit parking, and how this would connect with the Galena street shuttle. Mayor Bennett asked how far into the public process should this be before this issue is taken to the electorate. Councilman Paulson said it is not known how the businesses in the core feel about taking out more parking, about putting in a superblock, how alternative H or the EIS will finish out. Councilman Paulson said this project ought to wait until June. Councilwoman Waggaman said the EIS/Alternative H will probably go to the electorate in November, and this may confuse the issue. 6 Aspen City Council Special Continued Meeting February 21, 1996 Mayor Bennett said if this goes to an election with a conceptual plan, then have it goes to P & Z, the project may change substantially during review and this could cause problems with the voting public. Clauson said the city could go through the entire approval process before going to an election. The problem with this is that the developers are asking the city to undertake the approval process and the city would have to undertake the expense and staff time. The city could take this project to the voters after conceptual approval. The city could take this to the voters early on with a small urban design study and pro forma study. This would be asking the voters to affirm what Council has affirmed in going through the 7 points of value. This would minimize the costs. If there is bonding required, this may have to go to the electorate again. Councilman Paulson aid he is afraid if this goes to the voters before it goes to P & Z, the P & Z may not give it their full attention. Mayor Bennett said the threshold is at what point Council addresses sensitive issues, like size, amount of NC; before or after the election. Council is committed to an election. Four Council people are in agreement that the election should be earlier in the process rather than later. Councilwoman Waggaman left the meeting. Councilwoman Richards moved to go into executive session at 6:50 p.m. for the purpose of discussing negotiations; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to adjourn at 7:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 7