Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20161129 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION November 29, 2016 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Council Discussion II. Trunk Sales and Art Shows III. Public/Private Partnerships P1 Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Nancy Lesley, Director of Events and Marketing Tom Rubel, Parks Department DATE OF MEMO: November 8, 2016 MEETING DATE: November 29, 2016 RE: Aspen Ice Garden Rentals and the ACRA Arts Festival REQUEST OF COUNCIL: In response to some citizen comments and feedback that commercial events have a significant negative impact to local businesses, staff is bringing attention to council the following commercial events on public property. Staff is asking if council would like staff to continue working with these events. DISCUSSION: The (ACRA) Aspen Arts Festival has been coming to Aspen since 2003 when they were in Wagner Park. Historically held middle to later weekend in July, in 2017 the event will be July 22 and 23. In 2012 the Parks Department requested the festival move to the streets. This event takes approximately 4 city blocks and utilizes both sides of the street and generally brings approximately 170 juried artist vendors to Aspen over the weekend. Pro’s It brings vitality to down town It brings lodging and restaurant revenue via the vendors who participate It brings sales tax revenue to the city It generates revenue for the Chamber Con’s It closes streets in the core during the busiest month of the year – and because of Saturday Market, there are already street closures It’s a strain on the city infrastructure It negatively impacts the businesses that are on the closed streets Need for oversized vehicle parking as some vendors camp in RV’s P2 II. Page 2 of 2 The Aspen Ice Garden hosts two commercial events. One is the Aspen Antiques Jewelry and Fine Arts Fair produced by Scott Fetzer since 2009. This event is held historically the first part of July and is a 14-day event and brings approximately 25 vendors to the AIG. The other is Art Aspen and is produced by Urban Exposition LLC Timothy von Gal Partner/COO and is in its 7th year. This is an 8-day event and historically held the first week in August. There is an entrance fee to get in with approximately 40 exhibitors. This event specializes in important art from 1950 to present. Pro’s It brings a vitality to town Low impact to neighborhood No safety concerns Generates revenue for the AIG/Rec budget that could potentially cost $100,000 to replace Con’s Impacts local businesses – they see it as direct competition No sales tax revenue as most things are shipped Takes the AIG off line for ice use FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: ACRA partners with Howard Allan Events to produce the Arts Festival, and has since 2003. The revenue to ACRA is approximately $30,000 and helps to offset other event costs and is a revenue generator to their budget. The Aspen Ice Garden has been rented for private use for 7 years. This revenue has allowed the Recreation Department to lower its subsidy to the City by over $100,000. While this number is more than the revenue generated by the contract, staff and maintenance costs would increase if the ice were in year round. This also enables the local ice user groups to rent the ice at a reduced rate. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Both events are under contract and each entity, (Chamber and City, Recreation Department) have signed contracts to produce these events in 2017. ATTACHMENTS: A: Aspen newspaper article from 2003 B: Art Aspen overview P3 II. ART ASPEN Aspen’s First And Only Fine Art FAir FOr impOrtAnt COntempOrAry Art Limited in size to just 30 dealers, this intimate and impeccably designed setting provides fairgoers an elegant and manageable viewing and buying experience. It is the ideal setting for both art dealers and art collectors to meet and mingle while experiencing the most dynamic marketplace for important art, ranging from 1950-present. A pAssiOn FOr pOssessiOn 2017 will mark the 8th edition of Art Aspen and will ignite visitors’ passion for possession as they explore the aisles, discovering rare museum-caliber treasures and new frontiers in contemporary art. The Fair serves as an access point for discovery, dialogue and inspiration. Art dealers and collectors have the opportunity to personally engage in discussion about the museum-quality artwork on exhibit with much of the displayed artwork to find a new home in Aspen while other art works will be shipped to fairgoers’ second or third homes. Art Aspen will create the perfect setting for art collectors, dealers, curators, art patrons and philanthropists to come together in a semi-private, world-class, relaxed and art-centric environment. With over 2,000 visitors in the 2016 edition of the fair and 27 exhibiting galleries, Art Aspen delivers $4.1 million to Aspen’s local economy. The fair has made charitable donations in previous years to Anderson Ranch Arts Center and The Aspen Institute, and works tirelessly with local and regional arts organizations as Cultural Partners to promote the rich, cultural history of the arts in Aspen, as well as the surrounding region. Art Aspen delivers $4.1 million to Aspen’s local economy P4 II. “For the last 6 years, Aspen Peak has sponsored Art Aspen’s opening night. And what an honor it has been. Art Aspen happens when the world’s art aficionados converge on our little village to celebrate their acquisitions. Aspen Peak is honored to help bring great art and ideas to our readers and clients. It’s like a mini MOMA right here at the base of the mountain for 4 days in August.” Alexandra Halperin, Publisher, Aspen Peak “The Aspen Art Fair has proven to be a wonderful asset to the Aspen community and events. Local businesses have been benefiting from this event with participation from out of town tourism.” Christine Rueggeburg, General Manager, Casa Tua “As an established gallery in Aspen, Opening Night was well attended with many of our friends and collectors present. We’ve had a good amount of interest in the selection of paintings we brought.” Robert Casterline and Jordan Goodman of Casterline | Goodman Gallery “Art Aspen returned in August to once again enlighten us with the contemporary works of 30 dealers around the world. The Inn at Aspen was delighted to be recognized as a host hotel for many of the coordinators, vendors and participants of this event, which brings life and vitality to Aspen during this weekend. This annual event helps Aspen businesses thrive during a summer month that was once a little quieter and calmer. The Inn at Aspen’s experience this summer was exceptional and we look forward to welcoming the event back year after year.” Kelly McDonald, Sales and Marketing Manager, Inn at Aspen P5 II. Art Aspen Cultural Partners, Media Partners, and Sponsors CULTURAL PARTNERS American Society of Interior Designers Anderson Ranch Arts Center Aspen Community Theatre Aspen Public Radio Aspen Film Fest Aspen Historical Society Blue Sage Center for the Arts Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art Challenge Aspen Colorado Creative Industries Colorado Photographic Arts Center Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center Colorado State University, Gregory Allicar Museum of Art Fort Collins Museum of Art Garfield County Public Library Grand Junction Commission on Arts & Culture Harwood Museum of Art International Interior Design Association Museum of Contemporary Art, Denver Red Brick Council for the Arts Sangre de Cristo Arts & Conference Center Steamboat Art Museum The Aspen Institute The Creamery Arts Center Theatre Aspen MEDIA PARTNERS American Art Collector American Fine Art Art & Antiques Art in America Art Ltd. Artillery Aspen Daily News Aspen Public Radio Aspen Sojourner Fine Art Connoisseur Modern Luxury Aspen New American Paintings Observer Santa Fean The Aspen Times Venu SPONSORS Premier Sponsor Mercedes-Benz (with Mercedes-Benz of Denver, Littleton, Loveland, and Westminster) Supporting Sponsors American Society of Interior Designers Anderson Ranch Arts Center Aspen Chamber Resort Association Harrison Browne Residential and Commercial Interior Design Honest Tea Orest Design Isberian Rug Company The Ritz-Carlton Residences VOSS Artesian Water P6 II. Art Aspen National Museum Partners 108 Contemporary 92nd Street Y Adler Planetarium Women’s Board Akron Art Museum Albrecht-Kemper Museum Allen Memorial Art Museum American Institute of Architects American Textile History Museum American Visionary Art Museum Arkansas Art Center Art Alliance for Contemporary Glass Art Institute of Chicago Art Jewelry Forum ArtTable Asheville Art Museum Asia Society Asian Art Museum American Society of Interior Designers Aspen Art Museum Association of American Art Curators Association of Israel’s Decorative Arts Baltimore Museum of Art Bank of America Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts Design & Culture Barnes Foundation Bellevue Arts Museum Bergstrom-Mahler Museum Berkshire Museum Boise Art Museum Broad Art Museum Brooklyn Museum Butler Institute of American Art Canton Museum of Art Carnegie Museum of Decorative Art Cedar Rapids Museum of Art Cedarhurst Center for the Arts Chazen Museum of Art Chicago Art Dealers Association Chicago Botanic Garden Chicago Design Museum Chicago Public Library Foundation, Junior Board Chicago Shakespeare Theater Chicago Symphony Orchestra Children’s Memorial Hospital Jr Council China Institute Chrysler Museum of Art Chubb Personal Insurance Cincinnati Art Museum Cleveland Institute of Art Cleveland Museum of Art Collectors of Wood Art Columbus Museum of Art Contemporary Art Museum St. Louis Contemporary Arts Center Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Museum Houston Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum Corning Museum of Glass Crabtree Farm Craft and Folk Art Museum Cranbrook Art Museum Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art Dallas Museum of Art Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art Dallas Museum of Art Daum Museum David Owsley Museum, Ball State University Dayton Art Institute Denver Art Museum Detroit Institute of Arts Dinnerware Museum Driehaus Museum Field Museum Figge Art Museum Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco FLAG Art Foundation Flint Institute of Arts Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy Frank Lloyd Wright Trust Frick Collection Friends of Fiber Art International Fruitlands Museum Fuller Craft Museum Furniture Society Glass Alliance of Los Angeles Greenwich House Pottery Guggenheim Museum & Guggenheim YCC Harris Bank High Museum of Art Hispanic Society of America Houston Center for Contemporary Craft Hyde Park Art Center Indianapolis Museum of Art Instituto Cervantes of Chicago Instituto Italiano di Cultura di Chicago International Association of Professional Art Advisors International Center for Contemporary Photography International Interior Design Association International Sculpture Center Intuit: The Center for Intuitive and Outsider Art James Renwick Alliance Japan Society Japanese Art Society of America Jewish Museum Joffrey Ballet John Michael Kohler Art Center JPMorgan Kansas City Art Institute Kemper Museum of Contemporary Art Kentucky Museum of Art & Craft Kohler Foundation, Inc. Krannert Art Museum, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Lillstreet Art Center Lincoln Park Zoo Long Beach Museum of Art Longhouse Reserve Los Angeles County Museum of Art Lowe Art Museum Lubeznik Center for the Arts Lurie Children’s Hospital Madison Museum of Contemporary Art Mary & Leigh Block Museum Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art Massillon Museum McNay Art Museum Metropolitan Museum of Art Miami Art Museum Milwaukee Art Museum Minneapolis Institute of Arts Mint Museum of Craft + Design Mississippi Museum of Art Morean Arts Center Museum of American Glass at Wheaton Arts & Cultural Center Museum of Arts and Design Museum of Contemporary Art Museum of Contemporary Art Cleveland Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego Museum of Contemporary Craft Museum of Craft & Design Museum of Fine Arts Boston Museum of Fine Arts Houston Museum of Fine Arts St. Petersburg Museum of Glass Museum of International Folk Art Museum of Modern Art Museum of Modern Art Junior Associates Museum of New Mexico Foundation Museum of Northwest Art Muskegon Museum of Art Nasher Sculpture Center National Arts Club National Basketry Organization Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art New Bedford Museum of Glass New Museum Newark Museum Newcomb Art Gallery at Tulane University Nixon Art Associates Northwestern Memorial Foundation Oakland Museum Palm Springs Art Museum Parsons the New School for Design Perez Art Museum Philadelphia Art Alliance Philadelphia Museum of Art Philbrook Museum of Art Phoenix Art Museum Pilchuck Glass School Pittsburgh Glass Center Portland Art Museum Pratt Fine Arts Center Racine Art Museum Renaissance Society Reva and David Logan Center for the Arts Rice University Art Gallery Ringling Museum River North Chicago Dance Company Rockford Art Museum Rubin Museum of Art Rush University Cancer Center Saint Louis Art Museum School of the Art Institute School of the Art Institute, Board of Directors Seattle Art Museum Shelburne Museum Smart Museum of Art Smith College of Art Smithsonian Women’s Committee Society for Contemporary Craft Sonoran Glass Speed Museum Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies Springfield Museum of Art Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute Streeterville Chamber of Commerce Taft Museum of Art The Arts Club of Chicago The Clay Studio The Textile Museum The Textile Society Toledo Museum of Art UBS Art Collection Union League Club of Chicago University Club of Chicago Urban Gateways Walker Art Center Watershed Center for the Ceramic Arts Board Wexner Center for the Arts Whitney Museum William Blair & Company LLC Williams College Museum of Art Willis Insurance Winterthur Museum Woman’s Athletic Club of Chicago Zanesville Museum of Art P7 II. Art Aspen Art Fair Group Mailing List Art Aspen Art Fair Group Mailing List total: 90,383 P8 II. (https://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/click? xai=AKAOjss0u4Y2oVqMiT1sjji_acBKLaKnKZH47KzPC0BLqlNcxEArgnXKHEYjrT6D6cLfa3tisXvOjsioKk6ZWe9C8m5wpYedzHFqADi6C9kS9-2M- vAQOzf9i0teidiDQgchIIYQeb7IsGqy4ldYpkho9EAIMOL2tZ6onqCY- lGjdzsjMKFM7g5teufd1ovZaJf_Ywn1gywVc2CR7dIEDh1eelGJBtkJB8MMcDd81PUg14GcO03Wi6TdqJRGVDdGqzQ&sig=Cg0ArKJSzDZDAlRgZKzEEAE&urlfix=1&adurl=http://summitforlife.kintera.org)Arts fair brings mixed reviews Janet UrquhartAspen Times Staff Writer August 5, 2003 Last weekend’s art festival at Wagner Park drew scores of people into downtown Aspen, but the event drew mixed reviews from local merchants.Some business owners reported an upswing in business, some saw none at all; some were pleased to see the crowds wandering through town, and others questioned the wisdom of creating yet more competition for the tourist dollar.The Aspen Chamber Resort Association produced the fair along with Howard Alan Events, which has coordinated a similar fair in Beaver Creek for the past six years.While ACRA President Hana Pevny said she fielded calls from apprehensive merchants before the event, the feedback afterward had all been positive on Monday.”I’ve gotten incredible feedback,” she said. “I’ve gotten e-mails, I’ve gotten voice mails.”City Hall even received a call from someone praising the event, said Mayor Helen Klanderud.”I think it was a very successful weekend,” she said. “There were so many people in town this weekend and so much going on.”In fact, the first weekend in August is typically one of the busiest of the summer in terms of hotel and lodge bookings, according to Bill Tomcich, president of Stay Aspen Snowmass, a local reservations agency.How many of the visitors were lured by the arts fair or simply strolled through the park because they were already here is difficult to say, resort officials concede, though Klanderud said she ran into people from Summit County who came specifically for the event.”We are in a very busy month,” Pevny said, “but I can also tell you that we did a tremendous amount of advertising on the Front Range.”Neither the Ute Mountaineer nor Pitkin County Dry Goods, both with locations near the park, reported any noticeable jump in sales during the arts fair, but restaurants appeared to be hopping, several observers noted. No food or drink was sold in the park.”It made a difference for us. We did very, very well. We did much better this weekend than we did this same weekend last year,” said `Wabs’ Walbert, owner/manager of The Red Onion. “It’s the kind of thing we need to make some energy in town for us.””Anything to draw more people into town is good for business,” agreed Keith Hatanaka, general manager of Bentley’s, a bar/restaurant. “It was a zoo downtown. It seemed busier than the Fourth of July weekend.””There were a gazillion people in town. The mall was full,” agreed Ginger Swenson, owner of the Aspen Mountain Gallery on the Hyman Avenue mall.Having more than 150 arts and crafts vendors in the park, however, did little to improve business at Swenson’s gallery. In fact, it may have hurt it, she said, but she praised the event nonetheless.”It was great to see all the people in town.”David Floria, whose own art gallery is located a stone’s throw from the park, said he prefers high-end events like the Aspen Food & Wine Magazine Classic, held each June in the park. The arts fair didn’t draw the patrons who would bring him business.”I’m not sure that that kind of kind of an art fair really benefits the retailers and art galleries in town,” he said. “It’s a lower-priced, lesser-quality competition.”Randy Scott, owner of Rare Optiks on the Hyman mall, didn’t see a boost in business as a result of the fair and suspects the crowds may have kept high-end customers away.”It’s a mixed blessing, I’d have to guess,” he said. “I think it gave good vitality to the downtown. My knee-jerk reaction is, it was probably good for the town.”On the other hand, Rasol Noori said business was booming at his shop, making it one of the best weekends of the summer. Even one of the vendors at the fair bought a couple of Noori’s oriental rugs.”For us, it was great,” he said. “It was so busy Saturday.”Another longtime retailer, however, questioned why the ACRA would produce an event that competes with merchants who must meet the challenges of doing business here day-in and day-out.”If they want to bring more people, they can bring more people, not more businesses,” complained the shop owner, who asked not to be identified.The arts vendors did buy temporary business licenses in order to set up shop in Aspen for the weekend, and they were required to pay sales taxes, according to the chamber. How much the fair generated in sales for vendors at the park is not something the city finance office can calculate until the reporting deadline has passed.Special events in general, however, have been pegged by some in the community as something Aspen should be doing more of in hopes of bringing more people to town.”I’d rather see it in late August, early June or September, when we really need it,” said David Fleisher, owner of Pitkin County Dry Goods.The timing of the arts fair, though, wasn’t entirely in the chamber’s control. The vendors were already coming to Colorado for the Beaver Creek fair, so the ACRA worked to bring the event here first in order to capture shoppers who might otherwise go there, Pevny said.The chamber will also bring a Decorative Arts and Antiques Fair to Paepcke Park on Sept. 25-28 and the second annual Cocktail Classic will take place Oct. 3 at Whiskey Rocks.The chamber is also working on the Aspen/Snowmass Photo Challenge, tentatively planned in mid-September.[Janet Urquhart’s e-mail address is janet@aspentimes.com (mailto:janet@aspentimes.com)] Page 1 of 1Arts fair brings mixed reviews | AspenTimes.com 11/15/2016http://www.aspentimes.com/news/arts-fair-brings-mixed-reviews/ P9 II. Retail Task Force Meeting Notes October 18th, 2016 Arts Festival: -Thoughts are very specific to Aspen antique, jewelry & art fair at the ice rink every July and to the recent abuse of the Library at The Hotel Jerome. -Events should not be “sponsored” by the city and/or run on City property. -We also believe that the City’s intentional use of commercial space in lodging locations was for permanent/long term use, i.e. bars/restaurants/leases. The Library has the history of long term retail lease as does the Little Nell and the Little Nell Residence and the Aspen Square. -We are vehemently opposed to utilizing city property to allow predatory outside retailers to have trunk shows DURING critical prime season retails dates. -The private art fair with high rental fees doesn’t fit. I’d rather this be managed by the city or ACRA to minimize predatory tactics. -Offer marketing opportunities for brick & mortar businesses during events -Support local businesses by offering special advertising opportunities for chamber members -What are the facts as to the “marketing”? -Ensure sales tax compliance -Tax auditing? -Create an event free weekend dedicated to brick & mortar stores -Can the art fairs be moved to other times? -Look at controlling dates and length -These should go to the shoulder season, early June or early September. -Art shows take place in shoulder seasons? -Hold during September (fall or early spring) -Percent of fair shoppers that are tourists versus 2nd homeowners? -They should be here on our terms. -Do they bring art buyers to town? -These should work for Aspen as a community. -I agree that we need to keep as much control as we can. Don’t let them go underground (to St. Regis) P10 II. -I agree that the City should make this work for Aspen. Perhaps curate or say no altogether. -How to operate more local focus and local galleries -Take control of event to benefit local galleries -Ensure variety of locally produced pieces -A tremendous amount of money is leaving town through these events, benefitting companies that do not support our local community year round. -Producers of fairs do 4 shows in different towns a year and make a bundle. Increase the rent? -How much can we increase the rental fee at Ice Rink to make it more financially beneficial to the town? -Perhaps charge more to outside groups vs. local groups. -It sounds like this kind of festival not only doesn’t pay the overhead that bricks & mortar pays but it makes a significant dent on booth rental fees. So a lose/lose for Aspen. -Possibly require a percent of booth space offered to local merchants at a dramatically discounted rate? 25% of booths at ½ price? -Organizers profit greatly. Extracting funds from community and directly compete with local galleries. -Prohibit them from local spaces -Explore different management when in City buildings -Require local businesses only or require certain percentage of local businesses -Limit amount can charge for booth space or do no more art shows in City buildings – ever or at certain times of the year -Unsure how to address this when it’s in legitimate commercial spaces -Should reconsider goals for these within City space, ice garden, streets. -Another piece of the pie Aspen does not receive any benefit! Trunk Shows: -In favor of keeping as long as they have a local brick & mortar sponsor. -Business licenses for pop ups should be expensive enough to compete more fairly with brick & mortars. -Can lodging license give access to retail zoning? -Large space legal under zoning for commercial use? -Increase short term business license. Short term should be dramatically more than permanent. Much like short term rentals are dramatically more than a year lease. -These are allowed in commercial spaces. Not allowed in hotel rooms. P11 II. -Only allow trunk shows for brick & mortar – not sure legal issues. -What about longer term pop ups? These should be allowed to fill vacant commercial spaces. -Explore options to regulate in ballrooms and lobby areas. Maybe active letter or contact to hotels about what can and can’t be done in individual spaces. -Difficult to regulate some of these issues but: Hotel trunk shows hurt local businesses and do not support the community. Conference room trunk shows do the same. -I really hope the City will make some public decisions that show support to local year round businesses and dissuade out of town businesses from coming in. -Focus on retail happening in ballrooms and conference rooms that are not retail spaces. -Have to have brick & mortar to hold. -Pop ups held in hotels -How to support local vendors in appropriate areas. -Obtain the support of local lodge/hotels to NOT utilize hotel rooms for trunk shows and or conference space for trunk shows e.i. Warren Klug support of local retailers/businesses in the Aspen Square and NOT rent his conference space!! How do we get other lodges similar support. -NOT allow the use of large posters and sandwich board signs outside hotel conference room locations on Main Street and other key locations to detract from the beauty of our resort town. Tony DiLucia meet with Ricki McHugh & Becky Dumeresque and I believe he has agreed to NOT utilize sandwich board signs and large window posters. We need to confirm this! -Change the terms of Aspens short term business license and attach them ONLY to brick & mortar retail location that are (long term, one year or a minimum of 6 months sharing the shoulder season) -The outside predatory retailers can/be allowed to have trunk shows within current brick & mortar locations and drive traffic to their stores. -Business licenses are only given to businesses that are in good standing with all taxes paid (property taxes/sales tax) again retailers with minimum of 6 month brick & mortar lease. -Business licenses can be passed to 401© charities for short term (1-2 days) events where there are charity contributions passed to local charities i.e. Buddy Program/Shining Stars (this needs to be monitored to ensure NOT abused) -We need the support of City government to NOT give out 2017 business licenses until we get councils support on the above issues or all of our work/group effort will be diminished. -If we can get the City to agree to business licenses for brick & mortar stores at a 6 month MINIMUM ONLY then hotels/lodges or conference room space that is used for pop ups WILL be aggressively FINED. -We need the City support of small business in the new moratorium to change long term policy! They have supported restaurants with NO food trucks allowed we are asking for equal support! -I’m okay with a retail shop having a trunk show. P12 II. P 1 3 I I . P 1 4 I I . P 1 5 I I . P 1 6 I I . P 1 7 I I . P 1 8 I I . Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager THRU: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: November 25, 2015 MEETING DATE: November 29, 2015 RE: Outreach and zoning for AHP/PPP affordable housing development REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Topic #1: Request for Council approval to proceed with community outreach for affordable housing at city-owned properties. Topic #2: Initial discussion on re-zoning alternatives, no decision from Council is sought at this time. BACKGROUND: In December 2015, and after a prior community outreach process, the City released an RFP to seek public/private partnership (PPP) development of affordable rental housing at City-owned properties located at 802 West Main Street, 517 Park Circle, and 488 Castle Creek Road. At a work session on November 1, 2016, City Council verified the selection of Aspen Housing Partners (AHP) as the City’s development partner, and on November 14, 2016 Council approved Resolution #165, Series of 2016: Summary of Agreement Terms for Affordable Housing Development between the City of Aspen and Aspen Housing Partners. The summary agreement states that AHP will perform a public outreach process with a target completion date of April 1, 2017 and that the public outreach process will be used to further develop the plans for the project. DISCUSSION: Topic #1, Community Outreach A description of the proposed community outreach program is provided in Exhibit A and contains details such as proposed event dates, venue, purpose of each meeting, and content to be discussed. A short summary is provided below: I. Initial community-wide open houses on two separate dates in early January 2017 II. Neighborhood-wide and Individual Key Stakeholder Meetings, January – February 2017 III. First City Council Work Session Check-In and Presentation, February 14, 2017 IV. Final community-wide open houses on two separate dates in early March 2017 V. Final City Council Work Session Check-In and Presentation, March 28, 2017 Staff has worked closely with AHP to design the program, and the dates have been vetted for community conflicts. Staff is requesting direction from Council that AHP should go ahead with the program as presented in Exhibit A or as revised with further input from Council. Topic #2, Re-Zoning The community outreach program will help shape the content of the development applications, and all of the development applications will need to include a request to re-zone the three subject properties. The project team has had numerous detailed discussions of the re-zoning possibilities with the Community Development director and with the City attorney. Viable alternatives are listed below: P19 III. Page 2 of 3 Current Zoning: 802 West Main Street Moderate-Density Residential, R-15 517 Park Circle Moderate-Density Residential, R-15 488 Castle Creek Road Moderate-Density Residential, R-15A Re-Zoning Process Type Pros Cons AH/PD Typical PD Locks dimensions Schedule, 12 hearings RMF/PD Typical PD Locks dimensions Schedule, 12 hearings AH/PD Public Project Locks dims & fewer hearings Public project designation RMF/PD Public Project Locks dims & fewer hearings Public project designation RMF Typical Fewer public hearings Dimensions not locked The project team has no preference as to the re-zoning which Council may choose nor the length and number of steps in the process which Council may choose. The project team wishes only to make Council aware of the effects of their choice. While the floor area and number of units to be proposed will be above the allowable levels for the current zoning at each property, the current AHP designs do not seek to “max out” the allowable levels under any of the potential re-zoning scenarios listed above, and each of the three neighborhoods do contain a mix of some or all of the zone districts listed above. It is also very important to note that the housing facilities to be proposed at each site will not vary depending upon which zoning or which re-zoning process is used. In any of the cases listed above, the dimensions of the housing facilities to be proposed (the final details of which will come out of the community outreach process) will be well within the allowable criteria of all of the zone districts listed above. Exhibit B shows a project timeline with numerous land use entitlements processes and the milestones and durations of each. Exhibit C shows more detailed pros and cons of the potential choices. A summary of some of the potential impacts are below. Re-zoning to AH/PD or RMF/PD using a typical PD process is likely to push the entitlements process out past the 2018 deadline for 9% tax credit applications. This could cause Council have to choose to either forego submitting a 9% tax credit application and settle for other tax credit application options ($4–$5 million difference) or to instead choose to wait nearly a year for the 2019 9% tax credit application deadline. Although not assured, this could adversely affect the City’s subsidy or the timeline for delivery of housing. Re-zoning to RMF using a typical process or re-zoning to AH/PD or RMF/PD using a Public Project process is more likely to allow Council to be ready to submit a 9% tax credit application in 2018. These options could provide Council its best chance to minimize subsidy and delivery time, however each of these alternatives comes with other factors which Council may wish to consider. Re-zoning to RMF using a typical process would leave the project dimensions “unlocked” within the RMF zone district. This could be deemed a drawback even though we will place deed restrictions on the property in perpetuity, and the City will maintain ownership of the property (with an AHP ground lease). Re- zoning to AH/PD or RMF/PD using a Public Project process could be deemed by some as the City treating itself in a special way by using the Public Project process even though the Public Project process would not curtail any citizen rights to be heard regarding these development applications. P20 III. Page 3 of 3 No decision on re-zoning is needed at this time, and the goal of including this topic is to simply get the discussion started so that when a final decision is needed – ideally by the first outreach check in with Council – the topic is not being discussed for the first time. However, if Council can voice any re-zoning preferences or concerns to the team, this will help the team be prepared for some of the needed studies and other due diligence that may be needed given certain Council preferences. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: As per the Summary of Agreement Terms for Affordable Housing Development between the City of Aspen and Aspen Housing Partners, if the Project is abandoned prior to the submittal of development applications, then AHP will not be entitled to receive any Development Fee or Project management fee, but is entitled to be reimbursed for the actual out -of-pocket third party expenses it has incurred to pursue the Project. Under those circumstances, the costs for the proposed outreach process would fit well within the approved 2016 project budget of $600,000. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council approve AHP to go ahead with the public outreach process either as presented or as modified with additional input from Co uncil. Staff additionally recommends that Council voice any re-zoning preferences or concerns so that the team can begin to understand what the nature of the development applications and entitlements processes will look like and how those may affect the pr oject financing and timeline. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Description of the proposed community outreach program Exhibit B: Project timeline with various land use entitlements processes Exhibit C: Detailed pros and cons of zoning choices P21 III. Aspen Housing Partners and City of Aspen PPP for the Development of Affordable Housing – Community and Stakeholder Outreach Process, Organization and Goals The following outline describes the various processes and tools that will be utilized throughout the public outreach process for the development of affordable housing on the thee City owned subject properties – 802 Main Street, 517 Park Circle and 488 Castle Creek Road. The projected timeframe for the public outreach process is estimated to be approximately three (3) months, commencing in early January 2017 and completing in March 2017. I. Initial Community Wide Open House A. Dates: January 5, 2017 from 3 to 7 pm; January 11, 2017 from 11 – 1 pm and 4 to 6 pm. B. Venue: Limelight Hotel Conference Room C. Details: Food and beverages will be served to participants on behalf of Aspen Housing Partners D. Purpose, Goals and Intended Outcome: The purpose of the initial community wide open house is to reintroduce the public the efforts made and data collected thus far and to solicit input on the scope of the designs for each of the three properties at this point in the process. The intended outcome is to establish general awareness and to obtain critical feedback on the project concepts established throughout the RFP and partnership establishment process to date, including but not limited to objective data as well as subjective input on such items as appropriateness to neighborhood context, mass, height, density, scale, parking, architectural, style, character, landscape site improvements and unit mix. The takeaways will inform the next round of design and programming modifications and then be used to present to key neighborhood stakeholders in more intimate breakout meetings and settings. E. Venue Setup and Process The organization of the initial community wide open house will be to provide extensive education on the background of the effort to date and the community input that has formed the basis for the establishment of the PPP to develop affordable rental housing. Additionally, the initial open house will present the background and education on each of the three sites – both what was pubic input to date on the three sites and specifically what the vision is for each of the three sites in greater detail. EXHIBIT A P22 III. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx 2 The conference room at the Limelight Hotel will be organized into multiple stations where participants can casually gain whatever level of education/information they would like to learn as well as provide anonymous and objective feedback and/or very detailed input and commentary regarding the current conceptual designs and processes being undertaken. 1. Background and History An informational station will be devoted to providing background on the history of prior public outreach on the matter and the purpose and functioning of the PPP. It will cover all matters related but not limited to the background, process, team, LIHTCs, timeline, entitlement process, construction, property management, etc. Specifically, this station will provide information on: a. Charts, tables and graphs - showing the historic public outreach data on the topic of developing new affordable housing. b. Organizational chart – highlighting the structure and purpose of the PPP and related team members. c. Broad timeline – identifying the key phases from partnership establishment through lease-up and operation. d. LIHTC background – describing the program, how it works, and how the PPP relationship benefits the City. e. Guiding principles – the key principles and commitments the development team in partnership with the City has made in seeing the projects through completion as outlined in the original RFP proposal material and providing additional description. 2. Site Specific Material and Information (x3) Each of the three (3) properties will have its own station to highlight the history of the site under consideration for affordable housing development, through the current design concepts that have been established for each. The material at each property’s station will start from a broad look at the proposed development within the context of town and the surrounding area and continue through a detailed look at planning, site, and building design details. The material presented will be done so in a manner to be able to obtain objective data and input from the participants as well as subjective thoughts, comments and opinions of the material presented. This input will then be used to further refine and adjust the design concepts as the process moves forward. EXHIBIT A P23 III. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx 3 a. Background and Prior Input – each station will have a board/material showing the considerations to date that established the current concepts, support by previously obtained data and input. b. Area context and surrounding precedent – each station will have a board/material showing the surrounding context and character including use-types, zoning, architectural and site design character, parking and traffic patterns, etc. c. Site plan and surrounding site pressures – each station will have a board/material highlighting the current design concept as well as design considerations made to alleviate and site pressures such as neighboring property relationships, views, access, parking, screening, etc. d. Architectural character studies – each station will have a board/material depicting a variety of architectural character both present in the surrounding area as well as appropriate to the area context and greater history of the neighborhood and greater community. e. Building design and proposed architectural character – each station will have a board(s)/material that highlights the following as it relates to the design of the buildings: i. Massing ii. Height iii. Architectural style iv. Material character This information will be communicated through architectural renderings and perspectives of the buildings within the context of the sites and surrounding and neighboring areas and buildings. f. Building floor plans, typical unit plans and unit mixes – each station will generally show each floor plan to highlight unit layouts, amenities, non-unit area, decks, etc. typical units and the related mix of units sizes will also be represented for each property. II. Neighborhood-wide and Individual Key Stakeholder Meetings A. Dates: as required from mid-January to end of February 2017. B. Venue: casual settings such as at the respective properties, meeting rooms, living rooms or cafes. EXHIBIT A P24 III. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx 4 C. Details: the needs and expectations of the neighborhood stakeholder will determine the details such as coffee meetings, smaller group pres entations and discussions, etc. D. Purpose, Goals and Intended Outcome: The purpose of the neighborhood and key individual stakeholder meetings is to solicit specific input and individual concerns regarding the design of the three projects as they relate to surrounding neighbors, properties, roads, alleys, etc. Participants will be contacted via mailings, sign- ups from other prior events, emails, website and known and identified stakeholders surrounding each of the three properties. The goals of the neighborhood and stakeholder meetings will be to discuss individuals’ concerns in a smaller intimate setting – whether that be over coffee at a coffee shop with a table full of neighbors, on-site to look and review specific concerns, or one-on-one meetings with immediate surrounding homeowners. The intended outcome of this phase of public outreach will be to specifically address design considerations, traffic/parking concerns or any other factors that are most critical and concerning to the most vested community stakeholders. Achieving any amount of greater neighborhood buy-in will be the ultimate outcome goal from the neighborhood stakeholder engagement. E. Venue Setup and Process The venue setup and engagement process will be very organic in nature, depending on the needs and desires of the neighborhood residents and key stakeholders. The expectation is a mix of meetings, consisting of larger group settings in a casual atmosphere to discuss questions and concerns that may be prevalent throughout the neighborhood. This phase of public outreach will also offer key stakeholders the opportunity to meet with members of the development team to specifically discuss questions and concerns on an individual level. III. First City Council Work Session Check-In and Presentation A. Dates: February 14, 2017 Following the Community-wide and Neighborhood-wide stakeholder public outreach phases, the project team will reconvene with City Council at a work session to present the findings and takeaways at this point in the process. This check-in will give Council the ability to review and provide any direction deemed appropriate based on the public feedback received and documented. EXHIBIT A P25 III. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx 5 IV. Final Community Wide Open House B. Dates: March 2, 2017 from 3 to 7 pm; March 8, 2017 from 11 – 1 pm and 4 to 6 pm. C. Venue: Limelight Hotel Conference Room D. Details: Food and beverages will be served to participants on behalf of Aspen Housing Partners E. Purpose, Goals and Intended Outcome: The final community-wide open house will be a consolidated version of the initial open house, with the intent of focusing on the refined design details for each of the three properties. The purpose will be to present the design modifications that have come about from the input and data gathered from the prior two phases of the public outreach process. The takeaways will further inform the final round of design and programming modifications that will provide the basis for the land use application material and process. F. Venue Setup and Process The organization of the final community wide open house will be to present and obtain final feedback from the community on the more detailed site and building designs for each of the three properties. The conference room at the Limelight Hotel will be organized into multiple stations where participants can casually gain whatever level of education/information they would like to learn as well as provide anonymous and objective feedback and/or very detailed input and commentary regarding the final designs leading into the land use review process. 1. Background and History To accommodate any new attendees to the open house, a consolidated version of the initial open house informational station will be devoted to providing background on the history of prior public outreach on the matter and the purpose and functioning of the PPP. It will cover all matters related but not limited to the background, process, team, LIHTCs, timeline, entitlement process, construction, property management, etc. Specifically, this station will provide information on: a. Charts, tables and graphs - showing the historic public outreach data on the topic of developing new affordable housing. b. Organizational chart – highlighting the structure and purpose of the PPP and related team members. EXHIBIT A P26 III. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx 6 c. Broad timeline – identifying the key phases from partnership establishment through lease-up and operation. d. LIHTC background – describing the program, how it works, and how the PPP relationship benefits the City. e. Guiding principles – the key principles and commitments the development team in partnership with the City has made in seeing the projects through completion as outlined in the original RFP proposal material and providing additional description. 2. Site Specific Material and Information (x3) Each of the three (3) properties will have its own station to highlight the history of the site under consideration for affordable housing development, through the current design concepts that have been established for each. The material at each property’s station will start from a broad look at the proposed development within the context of town and the surrounding area and continue through a detailed look at planning, site, and building design details. The material presented will be done so in a manner to be able to obtain objective data and input from the participants as well as subjective thoughts, comments and opinions of the material presented. This input will then be used to further refine and adjust the design concepts as the process moves forward. a. Background and Prior Input – each station will have a board/material showing the considerations to date that established the current concepts, support by previously obtained data and input. Additionally, the background will identify the modifications that have been made to each of the properties throughout this public outreach process. b. Area context and surrounding precedent – each station will have a board/material showing the surrounding context and character including use-types, zoning, architectural and site design character, parking and traffic patterns, etc. c. Site plan and surrounding site pressures – each station will have a board/material highlighting the refined site designs as well as design considerations made to alleviate and site pressures such as neighboring property relationships, views, access, parking, screening, etc. d. Architectural character studies – each station will have a board/material depicting the architectural character and precedent EXHIBIT A P27 III. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx 7 imagery that was informed and refined throughout the public outreach process. Opposed to presenting character variations and options at the initial public open house, this study for the final open house will show the character and styles that the design team arrived at through public and stakeholder input. e. Building design and proposed architectural character – each station will have a board(s)/material that highlights the following as it relates to the design of the buildings as revised throughout the public outreach process: i. Massing ii. Height iii. Architectural style iv. Material character This information will be communicated through architectural renderings and perspectives of the buildings within the context of the sites and surrounding and neighboring areas and buildings. f. Building floor plans, typical unit plans and unit mixes – each station will more specifically show each floor plan to highlight unit layouts, amenities, non-unit area, decks, etc. typical units and the related mix of unit sizes will also be represented for each property. This presentation will show greater detail and more firmed up layouts following the incorporation of public input. V. Final City Council Work Session Check-In and Presentation A. Dates: March 28, 2017 Following the last Community-wide open house, the project team will reconvene with City Council at a work session to present the final findings and takeaways leading into the land use application development and review process. Council will have the opportunity to review the revisions made throughout the process and make any final recommendations leading into the land use process. VI. Additional Tools and Process for Public Input To complement the open houses and direct stakeholder engagements that will be undertaken, the project team will also implement the following tools for soliciting and obtaining additional public and community input: B. Website – a user-friendly public engagement website platform similar to the Aspen Community Voice site. The team may also utilize the Aspen Community Voice website exclusively for the online outreach effort or in addition to a standalone website for these specific projects. The website will EXHIBIT A P28 III. Community Outreach - Organization and Goals Outline (11-23-2016).docx 8 function to provide additional material and information, post details such as event dates, and most importantly solicit, track and capture input data from subscribers to supplement the input and data captured through the various public outreach events and meetings. C. Email Blasts – informational email blasts to key lists of community members and employees of significant employers such as area school districts, ACRA, City of Aspen, SkiCo, Aspen Valley Hospital, valley non-profits, hotels, etc. The email blasts will primarily foucs on announcements such as event dates and details and any information related to the website or alternatives means for asking questions and providing input. D. Mailings – informative mailings will be sent out to all residents within the most appropriately determined radius from each of the project sites. The mailings will function similar to email blasts for informing neighbors of key events, and opportunities to ask questions, set up meetings and/or ask provide critical input to the project designs. E. Key Technical Stakeholder Meetings and Interviews – meetings with government and agency stakeholders that have technical insights and considerations with the development of each of the three properties. F. Newspaper and Radio Informational Ads – periodic newspaper and radio ads providing information on events and updates throughout the public outreach process. EXHIBIT A P29 III. AH P T i m e l i n e Page 1 of 3 Ex p o r t e d o n N o v e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 6 2 : 0 6 : 4 7 P M M S T EX H I B I T B P30III. Page 2 of 3 Ex p o r t e d o n N o v e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 6 2 : 0 6 : 4 7 P M M S T EX H I B I T B P31III. Page 3 of 3 Ex p o r t e d o n N o v e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 6 2 : 0 6 : 4 7 P M M S T EX H I B I T B P32III. Affordable Housing PPP - Zoning Options Comparison Consideration RMF Rezone Public Project Designation No Public Project Process Necessary Without Public Project Process With Public Project Process Without Public Project Process With Public Project Process Public Project Implication None, would not change review proceedings Would require a 3 step hearing process for each property Would reduce from a 3 step to a 2 step hearing process for each property Would require a 3 step hearing process for each property Would reduce from a 3 step to a 2 step hearing process for each property Land Use Preparation and Review Length Shortest Schedule Longer schedule Intermediate Schedule Longest schedule Intermediate Schedule Estimated Number of Public Hearings No less than 6, potential for 9.No less than 9, potential for 12 or more.No less than 6, potential for 9.No less than 9, potential for 12 or more.No less than 6, potential for 9. Detail of Review Material Full detail of material review at the point of rezoning from underlying zoning to RMF Full project detail review at P&Z and City Council Full project detail review at P&Z and City Council Full project detail review at P&Z and City Council Full project detail review at P&Z and City Council P&Z and Council Agenda scheduling conflicts Lowest Agenda Scheduling Conflicts Greatest agenda scheduling conflicts between the three projects Reduced agenda scheduling conflicts between the three projects Greatest agenda scheduling conflicts between the three projects Reduced agenda scheduling conflicts between the three projects Impact on City Resources Lowest impact on City Resources Greatest impact on City Resources Intermediate impact on City Resources Greatest impact on City Resources Intermediate impact on City Resources Soft Costs for Entitlements Lowest Cost Greatest Cost Intermediate Cost Greatest Cost Intermediate Cost Public Opportunity to Review and Comment Equal amount of public review and comment through concurrent review process. Equal amount of public review and comment through extended process. Equal amount of public review and comment through consolidated process. Equal amount of public review and comment through extended process. Equal amount of public review and comment through consolidated process. Meet all 2018 tax credit options per schedule? Greatest 2018 tax credit options per schedule Likely to miss 2018 tax credit options per schedule Should meet all 2018 tax credit options per schedule Likely to miss 2018 tax credit options per schedule Should meet all 2018 tax credit options per schedule Market and Financing Risk Lowest Market and Financing Risk Greatest Market and Financial Risk Moderate Market and Financing Risk Greatest Market and Financial Risk Moderate Market and Financing Risk Timeframe to deliver units Shortest time for delivery of units Longest time for delivery of units Short time for delivery of units Short time for delivery of units Longest time for delivery of units Precedent with surrounding area zoning?Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dimensional Standards Least restrictive on face, but could be controlled by concurrent project review. No dimensional standards other than density with guidance from underlying R-15 zoning No dimensional standards other than density with guidance from underlying R-15 zoning No dimensional standards other than density, but with guidance from rezone to RMF No dimensional standards other than density, but with guidance from rezone to RMF Curtailment of any opposition rights to input or opportunity to engage and contest No No No No No Lock in dimensional standards and other review criteria at point of approval? If project review and approval is completed concurrent to rezone Yes Yes Yes Yes No underlying rezone with AH-PD RMF underlying rezone and PD overlay EXHIBIT C P 3 3 I I I .