HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Independence Pl.A194Independence Place SPA Desig.,
Conc SPA, Commercial GIQS, etc.
Al-94 2737-182-41-nil1•-27-003/
S
Z-7 V2-00 (
Z13"1- IS2-2--7-00"3
Z'13"?- ($Z - 21- Oo `{
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
pen Colorado 81611
(303)920-5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
CITY:
-63250-134
-63270-136
-63280-137
-63300-139
-63310-140
-63320-141
-63330-150
-63432-157
-63432-157
-00100RT00 31070
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
-63335-151
-63336-152
-63337-153
-63338-154
-63339-155
COUNTY:
-63160-126
-63170-127
-63180-128
-63190-129
-63200-130
-63210-131
-63220-132
-63230-133
-63240-149
-63450-146
-63235-148
REFERRAL FEES:
-63360-143
00115-63340-163
001-63340-190
00125 63340-205
PLANNING OFFICE SALES:
-63080-122
-69000-145
GMP/Conceptual
GMP/Final
SUB/Conceptual
SUB/Final
All-2 Step Applications
All 1 Step Applications
Staff Approval
Zoning Plan Check
Sign Permit
Use Tax for Sign Permits
Exemption
Minor
Major Devel.
Signif. Devel.
Demolition
GMP/General
GMP/Detailed
GMP/Final
SUB/General
SUB/Detailed
SUB/Final
All 2 Step Applications
All 1 Step Applications
Staff Approval
Board of Adjustment
Zoning Plan Check
Engineering - County
Engineering - city
Housing
Environmental Health
County Code
Other (Copy Fees)
p
TOTAL
Name:--�-----
Address: �/ 3 6 / u one: -
- Project:.
Check #:
Date: /
No of Copies: __
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 01 03 94 CASE NO. Al-94
DATE COMPLETE: STAFF MEMBER:
Parcel ID #2737-18 42-001: 2737-182-27-003 & 004
PROJECT NAME: Independence Place (Sunerblock) SPA Desianation
Conceptual SPA Plan, Text & Map Amendments, Commercial GMQS & GMQS
Exemption
Project Address:
Legal Address: Lots A -I, Block 106; Lots K-P & part of Q, Block
105 ; Lots R-S & part of Q, Block 105
APPLICANT: Bell Mountain Limited Liability, City
Market, & Buckhorn
Lodge
REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman
Representative Address/Phone: Box 3613
Aspen, CO 81612 920-1125
---------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING $3925 # APPS RECEIVED
25
ENGINEER $ 234 # PLATS RECEIVED
5
HOUSING $ 140
ENV. HEALTH $ 140
TOTAL $4439
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF PPROVAL: 1 STEP:
2 STEP: X
P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING:
ES NO
VESTED RIGHTS:
YES NO
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING:
YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS:
YES NO
DRC Meeting Date v 2)
REFERRALS:
City Attorney _. Parks Dept.
School District
x_ City Engineer Bldg Inspector
Rocky Mtn NatGas
>— Housing Dir. _ Fire Marshal
CDOT
Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board
City Electric Mtn. Bell
Open ace Board
Envir.Hlth. ACSD
Othe
Zoning Energy Center _�_�QZher
DATE REFERRED: 4w
DUE: (Z `
INITIALS:
---------
________`___=__________-------- ____________-
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED:
INITIAL:
City Atty City Engineer Zoning
Env. Health
Housing Open Space Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
• 0 \j
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Stan Claus , m nity Development Director
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Interim City Planning Director
DATE: September 11, 1994
RE: Bell Mountain Lodge GMQS Extension Request - Second
Reading Ordinance 51, Series of 1994
SUMMARY: The applicant, Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company,
has requested an extension to their 1992 GMQS allotment for the
redevelopment of the Bell Mountain Lodge at 720 East Cooper Avenue.
The extension request is for fourteen (14) months beyond the
expiration of the 1992 allocation in February 1996. The request
extends the allocation to April 22, 1997.
Staff recommends approval of a six (6) month extension to August
22, 1996.
Please see attached Ordinance 51, Series of 1994.
Council approved Ordinance 51 at first reading September 12, 1994.
However, Council also requested the applicant to explain the GMQS
extension request well in advance of the February 1996 expiration
deadline of the development allocations.
As stated in the application, Bell Mountain Limited Liability
Company believes they need to begin design and construction
planning for a building permit to be issued by the February 1996
deadline. The applicant will be in attendance at second reading
to provide Council with a thorough explanation for the request.
BACKGROUND: Council approved the 1992 GMQS allocation for 10 lodge
rooms, a future allocation from the 1993 GMP competition of 10
lodge rooms, and a future allocation from the 1994 GMP competition
for 2 lodge rooms, for a total of 22 new lodge rooms for the Bell
Mountain Lodge redevelopment. Please see Ordinance 3, 1993
attached for your review, exhibit A.
Since Council's approval of the Lodge allocation, the lodge
acquired new owners and the City has begun working with the lodge
owners, City Market, and the Buckhorn Lodge to redevelop the entire
block.
1
The City has been working with the private property owners for over
14 months in an attempt to create an underground parking garage and
significantly redevelop the Bell Mountain Lodge, City Market and
the Buckhorn Lodge as a unified project, referred to as
Independence Place.
It is because of the work between the City and private property
owners that the Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company requests
an extension of the 1993 GMQS allocation in case Independence Place
is not realized. The Company also requests a 14 month extension
which is equal to the amount of time that they have spent working
with the City on the Independence Place development.
Although the GMQS allocation does not run out until February of
1996, the Company needs to know whether they should prepare to
initiate the Lodge redevelopment based upon the GMQS proposal that
was approved in 1993. Please see the submitted request from the
Company's representative, exhibit B.
STAFF COMMENTS: Section 24-8-108 of the Municipal Code states that
a development allotment and all other development approvals shall
expire on the day after the third anniversary of the latest date
of project approval, unless a building permit is obtained and the
project is developed, or unless an exemption from or extension of
the approval is obtained.
For developments other than a subdivision, an application for
extension shall be submitted prior to the third anniversary of the
date of approval of a site specific development plan which shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of city council that:
(a) Those conditions applied to the project at the time of its
final approval which were to have been met as of the date of
application for exemptions have been complied with; and
RESPONSE: Any conditions of approval that were required are
required prior to the issuance of any building permits. To comply
with those requirements at this time would be premature.
(b) Any improvements which were required to be installed by the
applicant prior to construction of the project have been installed;
and
RESPONSE: No public improvements were required of this project
until the issuance of building permits.
(c) The project has been diligently pursued in all reasonable
respects, and the extension is in the best interest of the
community.
RESPONSE: The application has diligently pursued, with the City,
the Independence Place development for the last 14 months.
06
•
•
Although the applicant has requested a 14 month extension, staff
can only recommend a six month extension.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval for a six (6) month
extension of the 1993 Lodge GMQS allocation for 720 East Cooper
Avenue.
The six (6) month extension shall begin at the date of expiration
which is February 22, 1996 and expire on August 22, 1996.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance 51, Series of
1994, which extends the 1992 Lodge GMQS allocation for 720 East
Cooper Avenue from February 22, 1996 to August 22, 1996."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Ordinance 51, Series of 1994
EXHIBIT:
A. Ordinance 3, Series of 1993
B. Extension Request
C. Public Notice
3
18t The Aspen Times - Saturday -Sunday, September 17-18, 1994
ORDINANCE 51
(SERIFS OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF TIIE ASPEN Cr1Y COUNCIL
GRANTING A SIX MONTH EKIFE'ISION OF THE 1993
LODGE GMQS ALLOTMENT GRANTED BY ORDI-
NANCE 3. SERIFS OF 1993 FOR 720 EAST COOPER
AVENUE, ASPEN COLORADO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 244 1-108 of the
Aspen Municipal Code, City Council may grant an
oaenslon of GMQS allocations up to six months;
and
WHEREAS, on f ebruary 22, 1993, City Council
approved a GMQS allocation for the redevelopment
of the Bell Mountain Lodge at 720 East Cooper
Avenue, and on the
WHEREAS, development allotments expire
day after the third anniversary of the date the GMQS
allocations or other development approvals, have
been awarded; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, Bell Mountain Limited
Liability Company. has requested a fourteen (14)
month extension of the GMQS allocation in order to
cond ue working with the City to develop the Inde-
pendence Place project without losing the ability to
utilize the 1993 allocation is fix project is not real,
Ized;and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having la reviesix wed
the application recommends approval
month extension of the GMQS allounents approved
in Ordinance 3, Series of 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having consid-
ered the Planting Oflice's recvmunetndatbn for the
GMQS extension does wish to grant an extension for
slot (6) months.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN. COL-
ORADO:
Section 1:
Pursuant to Section 2441-108 of the Municipal
(ode, City Council does hereby grant the applicant
a six (6) month enetulon of the 1993 judge GMQS
allocation approved by Ordinance 3, Series of 1993
br 720 East Cooper Avenue beginning February 22
1996 and ending August 22,1996.
Section 2:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of come
pelent jurlsdiction, such provision and such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining Portions
thereof.
Section 3:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litiga-
tion and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by
virtue of the ordinaries repeated or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted
and concluded under such Prior ordinaries.
Section 4:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held
on the I I day of October 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in file City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Col-
orado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a
public notice of the same shall be published one in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on One 12 day of September,1994.
John Bennett, Maya
ATTFSr: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved tills
day of .1994.
Julm Bennett. Mayor
ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch. City Clerk
published in The Aspen Times on Segxteinber 16,
1994.
•
lU_ 91/_ l ► : ►illil r
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Jim Curtis, Kraut Consulting Team
DATE: June 7, 1994
RE: Informational Memo
Potential Additional Cost Of Phasing The Kraut Housing Project
At the May 23 Council meeting, Council requested an informational memo on the
potential cost of phasing the Kraut Housing Project so all parties could be aware of these
costs during the Superblock discussions. This memo sets forth the potential costs and the
key assumptions.
The potential cost increase could be $400,000 - $450,000 based on up to a 2 year
time gap between completing Phase 1 construction and commencing Phase 2 construction.
Phase 1 construction would be the 55 car garage, sidewalks, curb and gutters suitable to
accommodate a temporary City Market. Phase 2 would be finishing the 27 affordable
housing units.
The main additional cost factors are listed below:
1. The increase in construction costs between Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction.
2. The interest cost on financing the garage between Phase 1 and Phase 2
construction.
3. The length of the "time gap" between completing Phase 1 and commencing Phase 2
construction.
These factors outlined below are based on a 2 year time gap between Phase 1 and
Phase 2 construction. This estimate is extremely rough given all the uncertainties
involved.
$ 2,885,000 Baseline total project cost
- 1,200,000 Phase 1 cost estimate
$ 1,685,000 Phase 2 cost estimate
10 % 2 yr delay @ 10% cost incr. @ 5% incr. per yr
$ 168,500 Construction cost increase
$ 1,200,000
Phase 1 cost estimate
8.5 %
Phase 1 fin. @ 8.5% interest/year @ 2 yrs
102,000
Year 1 interest cost
102,000
Year 2 interest cost
$ 204,000
Interest cost increase
50,000
Other miscellaneous costs
$ 422,500 Total
— Change order modifications for Phase 1
— Garage insurance for 2 years
— Inc. sewer tap fees
— Inc. prof. fees
— Garage operating exp. for 2 years
I have assumed a 2 year time gap as outlined below. If the time gap is less, the
cost of phasing will be less.
Start Phase 1 const. June 15, 94
Finish Phase 1 const. Jan. 1, 95
Set -Up Temp. City Market Jan. -June, 95
Superblock Groundbreaking June 1, 95
C.M. Back to Superblock Jan. 1, 97
Start Phase 2 const. Jan. 1, 97
Finish Phase 2 const. Dec. 1, 97
Occupancy of units Dec. -Jan., 98
2
5 months
19 months
24 months
11 months
2 months
13 months
SUMMARY COMMENTS
1. A construction contract was signed June 6, 1994 for the project with a fixed price
cost of $2,885,000.00 for a non -phased project. The contract gives Council a 60
day window, until August 4, to decide to phase the project. I request Council
communicate its phasing decision to me by August_ 1 so I can communicate to the
contractor.
2. If Council decides to phase the project, there will be some cost increase to modify
the Phase 1 construction. This cost increase is undetermined at this time based on
Council's past directive not to worry about this until the Superblock discussions
proceeded farther. However, a very rough cost estimate to modify Phase 1
construction may range from $15,000 - $50,000. It is important to emphasize that
this cost increase will be incurred before a November 2 election date if an election
is part of the Superblock decision.
3. The Superblock discussions should determine a conceptual agreement on how and
who will be responsible for all of the Kraut cost increases. This is especially
important for those cost increases incurred prior to a November 2 election if an
election is part of the Superblock decision.
4. Construction schedule update. Construction mobilization is tentatively scheduled
to start June 13 and excavation approximately June 20. Phase 1 construction is
estimated to be completed by January 1, 1995.
c
.1
r-
L.J
•
Notes on Independence Place Issues
8/8/94
1. Overall Size of Project. Majority of Council supports 1.35 to 1. (If
the street/plaza were included as part of the overall project, this
figure would approach 1 to 1.)
2. City Market. Majority of Council supports:
-Total Gross = 26,000 sq. ft.
- Total Net Leasable = 22,450
- Net Leasable Above Grade = 2,500
- Above grade escalators and entry way will not count in net
leasable but will count in project's overall FAR
3. ParkinLy Lot. Independence Place (IP) proposes:
- 168 parking places beyond requirements of code.
- 68 of these to be sold or leased.
- 100 of these available for municipal day parking.
Questions to be resolved:
- Will we accept only 100 spaces for muni. day parking?
- Who owns the spaces? Who controls them?
Are we willing (& able) to fund these and/or any additional
municipal spaces? �,: �� _: <: �!s l ' ;�, n , ;= - S4✓\
- If so, what sources should be pursued? How much do we aim for?
- Do we wish to pursue revenue bonds? ...Tax increment bonds?
Sell more spaces Q $25,000 ea.? Other?
4. Lodge conversion. IP proposes:
- Conversion of 40 lodge units to 7-10 free market units, totalling
25,000 sq. ft.
- Exemption from GMQS, but subject to "change in use" provisions.
Questions to be resolved:
- Do we support the concept?
- If so, how do we justify exemption from GMQS?
- Do we support 7 units, or 10?
- Will we allow 20K sq. ft. (existing) or the proposed 25K sq. ft.?
- Will we allow any units to be on the ground floor?
- Will we require any additional housing mitigation?
5. Cost of Improvements. IP proposes that City pay for:
Half of all application expenses to date
- All public improvements: water, electric, sewer, roads, tap fees,
park development fees.
C - All public plaza & surface improvements to alleys
cl- Phasing costs of Kraut
Questions to be resolved:
- Which of the above are we willing (or able) to pay?
- Are any costs legitimately the city's?
1 `L,
�kei
- What are the approximate phasing costs of Kraut?
- Approx. how much rent would City Market pay to use Kraut?
- Who pays ongoing maintenance of plaza? (City, private owners or
tenants?)
6. Neighborhood Commercial Issues. IP proposes:
- NC uses, plus locally owned, non -chain uses not allowed in NC
and paying substantially higher rents.
- Council has expressed some support for this idea, but wishes to
keep additional uses close to the intent of NC zoning.
Questions to be resolved:
- Do we agree to go beyond simple NC uses?
- Exactly how far? For example, what size & type restaurant would
be allowed, etc? How specific can (or must) we be at this time?
- How many total sq. ft. of "NC+" would we allow?
7. Co -application. etc. IP proposes:
- City to be its co -applicant in the land use approval process.
- City to make "best efforts" to obtain low interest rates for parking
structure
- City to agree not to "devalue" parking until debt reduced
Questions to be resolved:
- Do we agree to the above?
a 0 0 LCS I e L&
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SUPERBLOCK
August 4, 1994 AUG - 9
John, Rachel, Georgeann, Augie.
1,
Cost associated with building our own 168 space parking garage, assuming 40 /
spaces sold or leased at $25,000 and same revenue/operating expenses as the Rio
Grande would have an annual $200,000 shortfall.
Other Costs:
Sanitation District: Sewer line behind City market needs to be fixed. No costs
given.
Electric: Switching stations needs to be replaced = $60 - $100,000.
Streets: No cost for drainage.
$110,000 = redesign intersection and curve
$10,000 = streets
$15,000 = widen S. Spring
supemtun
Superblock
Cost Overview
Low
Hi eh
Electric
60,000
110,000
Streets
60,000
110,000
Streets
259000
25,000
Water line
200,000
300,000
Tap Fees
2501,000
250,000
Mall
800,000
100,000
Mall Operations
2001-000
300,000
(annual)
Total $1,395,000 $1,785,000
plus mall
operations 400.000 300,000
$1,595,000 $2,085,000
T
0
0
AUG
lu! 1§M1XM:WNM 1205
TO: LESLIE LAMONT, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: PHIL OVEREYNDER, WATER DIRECTOR
DATE: AUGUST 4, 1994
SUBJECT: INDEPENDENCE PLACE IMPACT OF FEE WAIVERS AND
UTILITY RELOCATION
You requested an estimate of the water utility costs which would apply to the proposed private
partnership development on the Aspen "Superblock". The Water Department has only very
rough information regarding the details of the project in order to evaluate the project's impacts
on the Water Fund. We have identified two potential areas of impact: relocation of the 14-inch
water main located in Cooper Avenue, and the request for water tap fee waivers. We estimate
the total impact of these two items to be approximately $550,000 as detailed below.
Water Main Relocation
• There are two options available for relocating the existing water main located in Cooper Avenue.
These costs would only apply in the event the combined "Superblock" project includes
development beneath the right of way for Cooper Avenue. The Water Department has indicated
a preference for relocating the line around the structure through either Hyman or Durant
Avenue. Given the extensive amount of utility work necessary to relocate the water line, the
need for temporary service, and the number of surface features which would need to be restored
following the replacement, we estimate a cost of approximately $200 to $250 per lineal foot.
For budget purposes, it is estimated that 1000 to 1200 feet of water main would be relocated for
a total cost of $200,000 to $300,000. Because of uncertainties regarding the scope of
modifications necessary, the Water Department recommends the use of the higher end of this
estimate.
There are a number of factors which could reduce these costs which would require further
research. The most obvious is to combine the replacement of the 14-inch line in Cooper Avenue
with the replacement of the older cast iron line in Hyman Avenue in conjunction with ongoing
work on the Kraut Property. The Water Department and Housing Authority will be requesting
Council to allocate the cost of this work under a separate action. Regardless of how the costs
of the Hyman Avenue main replacement are allocated between the Water and Housing Funds,
there is a potential to eliminate part or all of the estimated $85,000 to $95,000 for the main line
replacement.
0
Water Utility Connection Charge Waivers
• The public/private partnership proposal envisions that water "tap fees" will be waived under the
development agreement. There are no preliminary plans available to review for purposes of
establishing the value of the tap fees, so this information should be considered to be very
preliminary. We used the following assumptions in estimating water tap fees for the project:
• Two restaurants (similar in scale to the Steak Pit) @ 12.5 ECU's = 25 ECU's
• 12,000 sf commercial (in addition to restaurants) @ .0001 ECU's/fe = 1.2 ECU's
• 33 employee units @ .7 ECU's/unit = 23.1 ECU's
• 10 free market units (3 bedroom/3 bath) @ 1.8 ECU's/unit) = 18 ECU's
• Miscellaneous irrigation (at 500 s. f. /residential unit) = 2.2 ECU's
Total 69.5 ECU's
The water utility connection fee in Service Area 1 is $3585/ECU's. The estimated tap fees are
therefore approximately $250,000.
• PO:rl
/phillindependence.mem
0
I
•
•
•
C]
•
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Bill Earley, Electric
Date: 8/4/94
Subject: Independence Place (Superblock)
You have asked me to examine three different possible situations
and how they would impact the electric system. I have limited
information to base my cost numbers on so I have very little
confidence in them. They are based upon what I know of the project
and could vary widely depending upon the final design of the
project.
Option 1: Development going alone
This option would have about the same impact as my original memo
states. The two switch gear would have to be moved and a
transformer behind the existing City Market would have to be moved.
A new location and probably a much larger transformer would be
needed to provide service to the bigger City market. A larger
transformer or three phase power may be needed at the Bell Mountain
Lodge however I do not have adequate information on this issue to
know what exactly is needed. Once again, without detail
information on the scope of this work it is extremely difficult to
prepare an accurate cost estimate so these numbers are basicly my
gut feeling based upon my existing knowledge of the project.
Move Switch gear by City Market
10,000
Move Switch gear by Bell Mountain
10,000
One new switch gear if needed
20,000
Purchase and install new 3 phase transformer
18,000
at City Market.
Purchase and install new 1 phase transformer
7,500
at Bell Mountain Lodge
Install a 3 phase loop to provide three phase
20,000
service to Bell Mountain Lodge
Install a new three transformer for three phase
10,000
service to Bell Mountain Lodge
Streetlights one new with new circuits
5,000
one old with new circuits
3,000
one light pole and fixture
2,000
•
E
•
•
•
I didn't know how many streetlights so I gave you unit costs.
All in all, a low end cost for this would be move two switch gears
and to install two new transformers at a total of $45,500.
Depending upon the actual needs of the customers and streetlight
requirements, the amount could easily get to the $60,000 to
$100,000 range.
Option 2: Only required for Superblock
The power requirements for Superblock would be slightly increased
due to the additional floor space. The same changes as above would
be needed however it is likely that a new three phase loop would
not be needed for the Bell Mountain Lodge. Its three phase power
could come from the alley next to City Market. This depends upon
the load that Bell Mountain Lodge would need.
To upsize the transformers would only cost a few thousand more
dollars when they are being bought so a low end cost for this
option would be $48,500. The high end again depends upon the
customers needs. Overall, it would be very close to the
developments going alone without utilizing the street or city
property for additional building.
Option 3: Additional items but not needed by Superblock
The only additional item that I wanted was the placement of conduit
in open trenches for upgrading of the electric system. I did not
think that this would be the responsibility of the Superblock
project because it was being done for the good of the City electric
system. As such, I felt the electric department would be solely
responsible for the cost associated with placing conduit in open
trench. I am not sure how much trench will be open but a rough
guess on this amount would be $7500 if we were not asked to share
in the cost of trenching and $40, 000 if we were to pay for some
excavation costs.
I feel that this is too good of an opportunity to let slip.
We know the system will need upgrading and this will keep us from
tearing up the street again.
•
f
•
r:
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont
From: Robert Gish, Public Works Director
Date: August 4, 1994
Re: Superblock Streets Costs
You will be getting separate memos from Bill Earley, Tom Bracewell and Phil Overeynder
for Electric, Sewer and Water.
Street Impact items should include:
1. Intersection redesign Original/Cooper $60,000
2. Street Maintenance during construction for patching $10,000
and cleaning
3. Street widened at the Original/Main curve to accommodate $50,000
increased traffic with safety improvements
4. Widen street on South Spring
0 M134.94
$15,000
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 2, 1994
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Amy Margerum
Steve Barwick
Leslie Lamont
RE: Comments on Superblock
Summary
The key elements of the proposal are:
Sy Kelly's property is out, however;
The Kelly's would like to have their property upzoned
to allow for office on the top floor:
- A.289 space parking garage will be constructed and
operated by the applicants (121 required spaces for the
project and 168 municipal spaces).
- Of the 168'municipal spaces, the applicants -will lease
68 spaces to downtown business owners. The remaining
100 spaces will be at daily municipal rates.
- The project's FAR will be 1:1 with an aLra3-.35 to1
for the required affordable housing androof-over-
hang area for trash and loading, etc1
Uses will be:
v I � PA
Neighborhood Commercial uses;
Locally owned, non -tourist orientated, no chains,
no subsidiaries of a public corporation, uses
which may not be allowed in the NC zone district;
7-10 free market residential conditions in lieu of
40 lodge units (exempt from GMQS but consistent
with "change in use" provisions of the code).
- City Market will,limit the store to 29,500 gross
square feet.
* The plaza level City Market deli will be
3,500 gross sq. ft. and only 3,000 sq. ft. of
net leasable. This is exclusive of shared
Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
August 2, 1994
Page 2
loading -and entrance spaces with other busi-
nesses, etc.
* The below grade store will be no more than
26,000 gross floor area and will be limited
to 19,450 sq. ft. of net leasable.
Employee housing will be per City Council direc-
tion; except there may be -a -question about housing
mitigation for the condo units (see issues).
Develop a public/private partnership agreement
with the City as a co -applicant sharing all ex-
penses to date for the application.
- The City will pay for public improvements (water,
electric, sewer, roads, tap fees, park development
fees) .
The City will pay for costs of phasing the Kraut
project.
The City will pay for the public plaza and surface
improvements to the alleys.
The City will make "best efforts" to obtain Federal tax
incentives for lower interest rates for the parking
structure.
The City will contractually obligate itself not to
devalue the parking until a substantial portion of its
debt has been reduced-.
Comments/Issues:.
* Staff feels the FAR is acceptable for the site and will
facilitate a good design, 'scale and massing given the open
space in the plaza.
* Municipal parking rates should be set by the City.
* We need to ensure "quality" or "customer service "'::nature of
the municipal parking operations.
* Is Council willing to convert lodge to residential without
going through GMQS and just using the change in use provi-
sions to the code?
V
Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
August 2, 1994
Page 3
* City costs will need to.be quantified:
(1) Expenses for application to date = $47,000
(2) Future expenses for application = $70,000?
(3) Public improvements: (Leslie to coordinate getting
estimates on these costs from various departments.)
- water system =
- electric system =
- storm sewer system = minimal
- road network =
- tap fees =
- Sanitation District fees =
- park development fees = probably nothing
rPhasing costs for Kraut = $144,000 - $450,000
(5) Public plaza improvements = (Leslie to get costs)
* The City may be unable to offer lower interest rates or
provide tax incentives for the parking garage because it may
not be primarily "municipal" in nature.
* Who will handle costs of ongoing maintenance of the plaza
and public spaces? This may be able to be handled by in-
creased sales taxes on this site or by "plaza leases" such
as we do on the mall. 'This could be passed along to ten-
ants.
* The developer would have to voluntarily agree to limit uses
to local serving/local ownership to avoid legal challenges.
This still needs to be researched according to the Attor-
ney's office.
* The upzoning of the Kelly's property is a separate issue.
Sy Kelly can submit a stand alone application if he so
chooses.
* Is the ratio of 68 leased spaces to 100 municipal :spaces
correct? On first blush staff felt the leased spaces were
ok because this can fill a niche for local businesses.
However, 100 municipal spaces may seem too low to the pub-
lic.
0 •
Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
August 2, 1994
Page 4
* Employee housing parking could be designed so the public
could use these spaces when empty. Employees would simply
get a pass and be guaranteed a slot somewhere in the garage.
* Staff does not feel that residential on the first floor of
the plaza would be an appropriate land use -- the SPA should
be used.to trade uses to ensure the plaza is a lively place
to interact.
* Staff feels the size of City Market is generally consistent
with Council's direction.
* Our understanding is that the costs of a temporary City
Market would be borne by the applicants. Staff recommends
that City Market still pay "rent" or we take a percentage of
sales as rent.
* We may have no apparent revenue source for the proposed
funding scheme,.but by not bonding it removes the time
pressure to have to go to an election this November.
rilaa ,'�ick�c��
Tax 3613, .4 , e44vmr4&, 51612
August 1, 1994
Ms. Amy Margerum, City Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P (3O3) 920-1125
RE: PROPOSAL FOR PARTNERSHIP TO DEVELOP THE ASPEN SUPERBLOCK
Dear Amy,
This letter represents the response by the private landowners to the letters we have received
from the City and the work session held in your office on July 26, 1994.
Buckhorn Lodge
The Kelly's, owners of the Buckhorn Lodge, have considered the direction provided by the
City. They have analyzed the costs of joining in the project versus remodelling their building
and independently placing parking below their site. They have shared this analysis with City
staff in a confidential meeting.
Their analysis demonstrates that excluding the costs of a new building, it would cost the
Kellys over $1 million in lost income, lease buyouts, increased parking costs, utilities, Kraut
moving/phasing costs and other items which would not be expenses if they proceeded
independently. The 1:1 commercial FAR which the City is willing to consider provides the
Kellys less income than they currently obtain from the property, and will not enable them
to pay the interest on a loan for its re -development. The Kellys have determined, therefore,
that this project will not work for them in its current form.
The Buckhorn Lodge is the only property in the City zoned CL which is limited to a 1:1
FAR. It has proven extremely difficult to effectively operate a small 9 unit lodge, and lodge
units are the only use allowed on the second floor by the underlying zoning. In
consideration of the substantial amount of time, money and effort expended by the Kellys
to date as a member of the joint venture, they seek a rezoning of their property which will
allow them to change the use of the second floor of their building from lodge to office. Such
zoning would return the property to its status during the 1970's, before it was downzoned
by the City, and would serve the community need for office space. The Kellys would like
to see their zoning problem resolved by the end of 1994.
•
•
Ms. Amy Margerum
August 1, 1994
Page Two
Bell Mountain Lodge and City Market
During the July 26, 1994 work session, the City offered to allow the Bell Mountain Lodge
to be converted to residential condominiums as an economic incentive for the private
property owners to build more than their share of the parking garage. That offer allows us
to make agreements among ourselves which make the following proposal possible:
1. The Bell Mountain Limited Liability Co. and City Market will provide for the
construction and operation of the parking structure. The structure will contain 289
spaces in two levels. Using factors you have provided to us (2 spaces per 1,000 s.f,
new net leasable commercial area, 1 space per bedroom for free market units and
1 space per unit for affordable housing) we calculate that 121 spaces are required for
the project, leaving 168 spaces for municipal purposes.
We will offe 68 the spaces r sa fo/long term lease. These spaces will be offered
to downtown bu mess owners on a first come, first served basis. The remaining 100 _
spaces will be offered to the public at hourly/daily rental rates.
2. The project will have a floor area ratio of 1:1 (47,066 s.f.), with these two additions:
a. That area necessary to provide affordable housing for the project, which we G
estimate at 13,000 s.f. (.28:1); and
•� f
b. An area whose size is still to be determined, to account for above -grade areas --�
under a roof overhang (covered parking, trash and loading areas) which the
Code counts as floor area.
We expect the project's total floor area ratio, including these two additions, to be in
the range of 1.30:1 to 1.35:1, pending our actual design of the revised project. If the
Cooper Street land area is included in the calculation, we expect the project's FAR
to be in the range of 0.95:1 to 1:1.
�3 The project's 1:1 floor area ratio will be split as follows:
a. Commercial uses will comprise approximatelo D1000
.f.
(1) Uses will include those allowed by right and as conditional uses in the
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district.
(�) The SPA will also permit other commercial uses not listed for the NC
zone district, provided they are locally owned, are not a "national chain
operation" and are not a subsidiary of a public corporation.
Ms. Amy Margerum
August 1, 1994
Page Three
(3) Purely tourist oriented businesses (eg., art galleries, fur salons, jewelry
stores, and T-shirt shops) will be prohibited from the project,
regardless of the form of their ownership.
b. Free market residential condominiums will comprise approxima 251000 s.
There will be seven (7) to ten (10) such units, containing approxim (:
bedrooms, which will replace the approved forty (40) unit Bell Mountain
Lodge. The units will be exempt from GMQS competition, pursuant to the
"change in use" provisions of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
4. City Market will limit its store size to a total of not more than 29,500 .f. of gross
floor area.
a. The deli itself at the plaza level will contain no more than 3,500 s.f. of gross
CQ , floor area and be limited to 3,000 s.f of net leasable area. The deli's gross
3 area is exclusive of entrance spaces shared with other businesses, stairs/
S o 3 elevators to the below grade store, loading docks and trash storage areas.
The below grade store will ntain no more th n 26,000 s.f._ of gross floor
area, and be limite o 19,450 s.f. of net leasable a
5. Employee housing will be provided for the new net leasable commercial space using
the factors specified in your letter of June 14, these being a generation factor of 2.3
employees per 1,000 s.f. and 60% of employees generated to be housed.
Research we have conducted in several resort communities, including Aspen,
demonstrates that tourist condominiums which have no on -site management generate
fewer employees than do traditionally managed lodges, on a bedroom for bedroom
basis. Therefore, no housing mitigation has been considered for such units.
6. The City and the owners will immediately begin to formalize the January, 1993
public/private partnership agreement between the parties, whereby the City becomes
a co -applicant for this project. That agreement, offered by the City and accepted by
the private property owners, was used in 1993 to engage and pay the Teague/Curtis
parking facility consulting team. The City will become current with the private
property owners for the City's pro rata share of expenses to date on the application
by either: (a) reimbursing the private property owners for their pro rata share; or (b)
agreeing to expand their pro rata share on upcoming expenses until they have
become current.
The total expenditure to date by the private property owners on the application is
approximately $94,000.
Ms. Amy Margerum
August 1, 1994
Page Four
7. In return for the private land owners taking responsibility for the parking structure,
a $4.2 million investment/risk (168 spaces @ $25,000 per space), the City will be
responsible for the following costs:
ka.)i Those public improvements to City facilities requested by City departments
---.O' and referral agencies, including, but not limited to, improvements to/re-
routing/relocation of portions of the City's water system, electric system, storm
sewer system and road network; the project's tap fees for the City's water
system and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; and the project's park y
development impact fees; �-..Al^ rn r h�
b. The costs of phasing the Kraut project; an
C. The cost of improvements to the lands the City owns within the project site,
including the plaza improvements within Cooper Avenue and surface
improvements to the alleys.
8. The City will make its best efforts to help obtain any possible Federal tax incentives
which allow advantageous interest rate financing to be obtained for the construction
of the parking structure, without any obligation by the City to repay the bonds.
9. The City will contractually obligate itself not to devalue the parking provided in this
facility until a substantial portion of its debt has been reduced through parking
operations.
We look forward to discussing this proposal with you at your earliest convenience. Please
do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
/1)00% ,
Alan Richman, AICP, On behalf of:
John Caldwell, City Market, Inc.,
Si Kelly, Buckhorn Lodge
Jim Valerio, Bell Mountain Lodge L.L.C.
r ri
Vex 3613. 444". (44sad . 8161 e
July 13, 1994
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
c/o Ms. Leslie Lamont
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
m+f&• 13O31 924--r 125
_j, -
RE: TABLING OF INDEPENDENCE PLACE PUBLIC HEARING
Dear Leslie,
You have brought to my attention the fact that the public hearing for Independence Place
has previously been tabled to the upcoming Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting on July 19. You have also indicated to me that the Commission has expressed some
concern as to the repeated tabling of this application since our initial public hearing.
The purpose of this letter is to formally request, on behalf of the applicants, that the
Commission table this application to a date certain. As you know, subsequent to our initial
hearing with the Commission, the City Council asked us to participate in two public forums.
In May, the Council provided us with direction on the project. Since that time, we have
been seeking clarification of that direction, to determine in what form the project can
proceed.
We need to continue the public hearing, so the discussions which Council initiated can be
compieted. We expect those discussions will soon be concluded, allowing the next steps in
the public hearing process to occur.
Please let me know the date to which the Planning Commission tables this application.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
,011 AO-U
Alan Richman, AICP
0 . 0 b� (i e LawmJ-
* MEMORANDUM *
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Amy Margerum, City Manage
Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: May 16, 1994
RE: Independence Place: Development Alternatives and Time Line
SUMMARY
We have now held two "retreats" to discuss this project with the development team
and the community. Based on what staff heard we have developed some very general
development scenarios and a "menu" of options for Council to consider in moving this
project forward. I'll have to ask Council to bear with me and not worry too much
about exact square footage numbers etc. but to instead focus on the general size and
direction you would like the project to move in.
The goal of this work -session is for Council to provide clear direction to the
development team so they can proceed with preparation of an application in concert
with the City of Aspen.
A general time line for this project and the Kraut affordable housing project is
attached to this memo.
BACKGROUND
We are dealing with 3 parcels as well as City right-of-way for this project. Under
eydsting zoning all three parcels allow:
* FAR of 1:1
* FAR (above grade or massing) = 54,000 square feet
* Employee Housing requirement (included in the above 54,000 sq.ft.) _
7,000 sq. ft
For comparison purposes the proposal we have been discussing has 97, 000 sq ft
(versus 54, 000 sq ft) of which 33,400 is employee housing.
Right now, the existing development you actually see is:
* All three parcels have about 39,000 sq. ft.
* City Market has about 12,000 sq.ft. above grade
* Bell Mountain has 20 lodge rooms and 15 parking spaces for a total of about
20,000 sq. ft.
* Buckhorn Lodge has about 7,100 sq ft above grade and about 100 sq ft
below grade.
Assumptions:
* The goal of this exercise is to provide Council with a rough "feel" of the
development options;
* All square footage unless otherwise noted is gross sq ft;
* Numbers are for illustrative purposes only;
* All scenarios assume an SPA overlay and a level of public participation for
parking as well as the closure of Cooper Ave for a pedestrian plaza;
* Only one level of municipal parking is assumed ( 200 - 237 cars);
* Employee housing requirements are rough and are based on studio units
housing 1.25 employees each. All housing is assumed to be on -site.
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
What staff heard at the two work -sessions was that Council is still interested in
pursuing this project to help meet the following community goals:
* Provision of affordable housing downtown;
* Increased Neighborhood Commercial (NC) development;
* Some level of municipal parking and reduced on -street parking
* Opportunity for a pedestrian plaza which promotes interaction/vitality
Staff also heard and concluded:
* The proposal is too large (both massing and overall sq footage);
* NC and local businesses are desired over new commercial space;
* We may not need to have more housing on -site than is required by the
AACP (which helps to reduce the bulk on -site);
* We may only need one level of municipal parking which could reduce the
City's cost and risk;
* The existing code penalizes NC development by requiring more parking than
we do for other commercial development; we may be able to reduce the
required parking for the NC development thereby putting some of those
resources towards the municipal spaces;
* The overall size (not massing) of City Market is too big for this community.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
If Council agrees with the above conclusions, staff believes that there are several
options and a myriad of sub -options for your consideration:
Scenario One:
Just keep the development to what is allowed under existing zoning (no commercial
other than NC) but do it under the SPA so as to allow a pedestrian plaza, coordinated
design and one level of underground municipal parking.
This scenario is somewhat complicated because under existing zoning City Market
could simply expand the existing market up to a 1:1 FAR (27,000 square feet above
grade) and then keep or expand the below grade space as well. However, part of that
27,000 st ft would need to be affordable housing (about 4,000 sq ft). So you can
imagine from a massing point of view some expansion over what is there now plus a
second story. This scenario may not help too much with Council's concern over the
total size of the market because the below grade area could be an additional 12,000 sq
feet of NC space for a total of 35,000 sq.ft. of City Market space.
Under this scenario about 74 parking spaces would be required for City Market.
The Bell Mountain Lodge would stay as approved under GMQS which allows them to
expand up to 40 rooms, 3,000 sq ft of employee housing and 23 underground parking
spaces. The massing on this lot is about 20,000 sq.ft.
Buckhom would stay pretty much as it is today with 7,000 sq feet of massing and his
•
existing 7 at grade parking spaces. Some minimal expansion would be allowed.
The totals for this scenario are:
* 130,000 gross square feet
* 7,000 sq ft (+/-) employee housing
* 35,000 sq. ft of NC
* 40 lodge rooms
* 104 parking spaces
* 54,000 sq ft of FAR (massing)
Discussion of Scenario One:
The advantages are:
* scale and massing is consistent with existing zoning
* preservation of small lodge
* no additional commercial sq ft
* still allows for pedestrian plaza and underground parking
* employee housing is on -site at AACP requirements
The disadvantages are:
* no increase in NC zoning
* no increase in housing on -site over and above what the AACP calls for
* potential that developers will not participate in municipal parking costs
* City Market could build a flat, windowless bldg across the entire block ( although
this could be handled through the SPA process)
* Lodge rooms on the public plaza don't offer good community interaction
Scenario Two:
This option is the same as the above option, but you require City Market to place the
store below grade.
The differences in massing and overall square footage are described on the attached
charts.
Discussion of Scenario Two:
In addition to those outlined in Scenario One, the advantages are:
Z/
* still consistent with underlying zoning;
* provides more NC space as called for in the AACP
* most of large grocery store below grade
The disadvantages are:
* If we agree that new NC space (with existing mitigation requirements) loses money
as per the Fleischer report this option may not be palatable to the developers
* Only NC uses may not bring vitality to the public spaces (i.e. an outdoor restaurant
is not allowed in the NC zone district)
* lodge rooms on the plaza level detract from public/active space
Scenario Three:
Still keep the redevelopment to underlying zoning but allow:
* a floor area bonus of .5:1 for only employee housing (this is still consistent with
what we allow in the CC zone)
* make the parking mitigation for NC the same as for CC
* require City Market to be below grade
* allow Local Owned only commercial uses on the first floor of Bell Mountain.
* don't require mitigation for demolished/replaced NC space (an added incentive for
NC development as discussed in the AACP)
The advantages of this scenario potentially are:
* Stays with existing zoning but doesn't penalize NC development any more so than
CC development
* Encourages and supports employee housing on -site, as well as NC development, by
providing the additional .5 FAR for housing only
* Reduces the parking mitigation for NC to that of CC which may make sense given
our overall parking/transportation plan, the underground garage in this location and
the fact that we want to make NC more palatable to developers
* Increases overall NC sq footage as per the AACP
* The benefits of this approach should be clear to the developers and should get them
to put more into the municipal parking/public plaza
* Allowing limited (we can restrict uses in an SPA) locally -owned commercial uses
on the first floor of the lodge increases interaction and helps another community goal
which is to encourage local ownership of businesses.
The disadvantages might be:
* City Market may still be about the same size as originally proposed due to below
L�
•
grade space
* Overall development larger than Scenarios 1 & 2.
MENU OF OPTIONS
With any of these scenarios, the City Council can mix and match the following:
* Use limited CC zoning as a way to get developers to put in more NC space and/or
pay for parking (the Robin Hood approach)
* Use designation of local retail to support expansion of local serving uses rather than
focusing on just the typical NC versus CC approach
* Reduce parking requirements for NC space to make them equal to CC space
requirements
* Use free-market condominiums to support NC and/or parking
* Require City Market to lease some of the above grade NC space to local businesses
* Lease a certain number of parking spaces to businesses and/or require employee
housing tenants to pay for their parking.
We are sure there are may other options but we hope this memo provides you with
some food for thought as we proceed to obtain guidance on this project.
We think with a few tweaks we can accomplish the community goals without
additional taxes and without massing/scale above that which is acceptable to the
community.
alm:moderateblk
/,
•
�I
Qo
00
z�
o
¢a
a v,
`}
H
cd
o 0
C)o�
o
Cld
03
�o
o
�
O
C7 �
W
�
�
x
�
�
U
�
W
�
•
•
O r
�'
o
0
0
z
N
w
cn
z
�
�
o
•
•
z
z
0
QD
z
w
q
z
a'
a
�
&
V
o
0
0
0
C/,
O
O
o
z_
�
71-
a
0
z
z C:)
'
p
N
o
kr o
0
Nt
M U
z
03
O U
Ow
o
g
o
gzcl
o
0
C7
v�
.7
N
O
w
w
O
�
N E "O
C)
4:4
cn
cn
cn
a
V)
cn
cn
cn
N
�
�
En
cn
o 0 0
cn
cn
W
W
V)
cn
pw
b
oo
V)
040
w
w
UCH
O N O
z
o
w
d
zW
OU
o
M
Q
�
C1
U
¢z
w
o
U
C/)
O
�o
ao
b
�S
o
O
o
�,
O
U
o
C7
0
N
�
N
C�
O
Otn
O
O
o
o
M
z
�
•
v
Jour De Fete that a delicatessen with limited seating and no waiter service be
a conditional use in the NC Zone District; a formal Text Amendment to this
effect was never pursued by that applicant, so the change was never codified.
Add "Sporting goods store (primarily oriented to bike, ski, roller blade and
similar equipment and repair, but can also include clothing)".
Revise the currently listed 'barber and beauty shop use" to also include
"manicure and hairdresser".
During the staff and public review of this application, it is anticipated that other uses
appropriate to the NC zone district will be suggested, to implement the concepts found in
the Aspen Area Community Plan. Such changes will require a Code Amendment to the NC
zone district use list if they are to be applicable to all properties in the City which are
designated NC.
The proposed new net leasable commercial area (37,200 s.f.) will be equally split between
uses which comply with the NC zone district use limitations and those which comply with the
CL zone district use limitations. All of the reconstructed commercial area (18,300 s.f.) will
comply with the NC zone district use limitations. The City has indicated that as long as the
project can maintain a 50150 split for the new commercial space, then it will not be necessary
to "assign" the space to particular buildings within the development. Instead, it is anticipated
that market conditions will dictate where within the project NC and CL uses actually are
located, provided that at no time will the amount of new NC space drop below its 50%
share (18,600 s.f.). A mechanism to allow the City to monitor and enforce this commitment
will be proposed as part of the Final SPA Plan.
Dimensional Limitations
The dimensional limitations proposed for Independence Place reflect the design
considerations necessary to accomplish the many public and private objectives for this site.
As illustrated in Table 4, on the following page, certain elements of the proposed limitations
reflect those applicable to the underlying zoning, while others are based on the limitations
applicable to the surrounding zone districts, as might typically be expected in a Specially
Planned Area.
Setbacks vary throughout the site. The building in the southwest corner of the property is
located along the Spring Street property line in a commercial core style of development, to
accent its strong pedestrian orientation. The Bell Mountain building is set back 15' from this
property line, except for a portion of the building which is directly on the property line. The
City Market building is set back about 45' from Original Street, allowing room for 4-5
parking spaces at grade. The Buckhorn building is set back about 15' from Original Street,
except for its stairs, which are located along the property line.
Development Application For Independence Place Page 29
TABLE 5
PROPOSED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INDEPENDENCE PLACE
Dimensional Requirement
Proposed Standard
Comparison to Underlying
Applicable to Project
& Adjacent Zone Districts
Minimum Lot Area
6,000 sq. ft.
Same as requirement in
CL; exceeds that for NC
Minimum Lot Area Per
For multi -family dwellings,
Similar to current
Dwelling Unit
where 100% of the units
requirements for
built on -site are restricted
affordable housing in C-1
as affordable housing:
and R/MF zones; no such
Studio: 500 s.f.
requirements are in effect
1 bedroom: 600 s.f
in the NC or CL zones
2 bedroom: 1,000 s.f.
3 bedroom: not applic.
Minimum Lot Width
30'
Same as requirement in
NC; no requirement in CL
Minimum Front, Side and
Varies from building to
No requirement in CL or
Rear Yard
building, as illustrated on
C-1 zones; NC requires
the Site Plan
10', 5' and 5' respectively
Maximum Height
40'
Same as in C-1; exceeds
maximum allowed in NC
and CL, but equals the
height of the adjacent uses
in these zones
Minimum Distance
No requirement
Same as in CL, NC and
Between Principal and
C-1 zones
Accessory Buildings
Percent of Open Space
25%
Same as requirement in
Required for Building Site
CL, NC and C-1 zones
External Floor Area Ratio
CL portion of site: 2.0:1
Same as existing in CL;
NC portion of site: 1.7:1
reflects proposed
amendment to NC
Internal Floor Area Ratio
CL: no requirement
Same as existing in CL;
NC: no more than 1:1 may
reflects proposed
be commercial, the
amendment to NC
remainder may only be
affordable housing
Source: Alan Richman Planning Services, December, 1993.
Development Application For Independence Place I Page 30
04-27-1994 01:04PM FROM BONE CON5TRLETI0N TO 1046513039205439 F.01
AMY R. LEVEK
POST OFFICE BOX 350
TELLURIDE, COLORADO 8143$
TELEPHONE: (303) 728-6168
FAX: (30)i 728-5179
FAX TO: ZAW,15—' Z. cY- (9 ZO �5Y--�
FROM:
DATE:
0 PAGES: iZ, �� • � �
l
/-I'
-�
p'�r'..
_ram. f _
/ t
te.'Cs!y'r/
r �
- .-71
AM
-- -
Z0'd 62PSOZ6£0£TSSVOZ DI NOII-'IISNDD 3NDH WDU WdVO:TO V,661-LZ-170
r
�0'd 6�bS0�6£0zLSybOT 01
NO I31408 140dJ WdSO : TO h66T-L.E-b0
V:a-d 62VSOE6202TS9VOT ai NOI1,-A-NlS14O--, 31,10a 14DdJ Wd&O:TO h66Z--c.-b0
0
S�'d 6�bSOZb�OLLSSbOZ 01 NCI1XNiSN0D 3408 WOd=l Wc5go:70 bEET--c-b0
.P_. . ...... Alw"�
90'd 6£dS0Z6£0£TS9b0T 01 NDIADF lLSNOa 3NOH WO&A WdSO:TO k766T-LZ-170
9 0
_0
Y
80'd 60bS0Z6002TS9V0T 01 9hd0E WOcl9 WdL0:T0 PGGT-1Z—b0
f !
/r �rrr � _t � .. �i�r' ..•
60'd 6£t7SOZ6£0£TS9b0T
NOI LDFNISN09 3NM WD2U
WdSO : TO V661-�Z-t�0
OT *d 6E:VSOZ6R02TG9170T
WAO
NOI-LDndiSNCK) 3NCK3 WC)rd:l WdeO:TO V661-LE-170
01
T L ' d s2t;, cFGEWTSRPOT Ol
NOI1.DMiS16 3 M WO2W
Wd60: TO O66T-a-t O
•
ZT . d -Yd101
ZT'd 6DGOZ6£0£TS9h0T 01 NOIiXNISN0a 3NOH W02dd Wd60:TO b66T-1.Z-170
AGENDA - INDEPENDENCE PLACE ROUND TABLE - MAY 2
I. Summary - April 15 Meeting
ideas/comments/opinions
II. Current Zoning
III. Amount/Type/Local vs. Non Local "CC" Space
IV. Size of City Market
V. Interim Use of Kraut Property
VI. What Can We Live With
VII. Next Steps
public/private partnership
regroup
ASSUMPTIONS
Parking garage as an intercept lot? (Rather than as additional CC
parking).
Independence is closed 8-9 months of year - is this really the
place for an intercept lot?
What will happen to Rio Grande garage if Tiehack Intercept Lot is
built? Will it be empty?
Would like to eliminate/limit on -street parking in City -
therefore, more garage spaces are needed (& public transit).
In combination with Kraut property development (i.e., employee
housing). Is this too much congestion?
Reduce office and commercial space before eliminating housing in
this development.
Some businesses require having parking near the door.
If you have mixed use on site (service commercial and residential),
the number of car trips and need for cars will be reduced.
Aspen is not a suburb, it is a city (or is it a small rural town?)
Independence Place is a big step towards making Aspen a real city
(density).
Mixed use developments give downtown vitality - it is a traditional
part of Aspen.
Aspen has a lot of big city features (+ and
Aspen is a magnet. Find some ways to be less of a magnet (severely
limit number of cars) without lowering our quality of life.
Southwest building is new growth and may overload the site.
What would the applicant's propose for the site if this review
process was different? (If Superblock concept didn't exist?)
SPA process allows a lot of flexibility (in massing as well as in
uses). Will this sap market from other businesses?
This is not the right location for municipal parking garage.
Just because AACP recommends this site become Superblock, it should
not be thought of as written in stone. Must be thoroughly
evaluated.
1
E
is
COMMUNITY VALUES
Locally owned, "homespun" character of Aspen businesses.
Uniqueness. This isn't a place for shopping malls and escalators.
Should the business district continue to expand? We don't need
more business downtown. Don't build a church for Easter Sunday.
Dream: Increased density, mixed use, local's services, open space
could be a real benefit to community. Nightmare: Slick, glitzy
mall, trinket shops.
Need to be able to provide affordable goods and services to
community. Keep people here in Aspen. Loss of sales tax dollars.
Can't afford any more Commercial Core, but we need Neighborhood
Commercial.
Don't want this to be another Hyman Mall. Scale is too big.
Don't make Aspen an Anytown, USA.
Will the distinction between Commercial Core and Neighborhood
Commercial create an Us vs. Them condition? (Local business
ghetto) .
Integrate this project into the existing business community.
Do we need this much new commercial? It's tough for businesses to
make it as it is. They close for off-season, not just to take a
vacation, but because they can't afford to stay open.
Don't shut existing businesses out of this project.
Become more aggressive to reach community goals. Eliminate
parking, do rent control, etc.
Does city/code have the power to really keep national chains out
of NC space? NO.
Even though City Market is small and doesn't fill all needs, it
creates interaction between people. Too large a market (or any
development) makes you just another face in the crowd.
Do we really need this commercial space? We already have flower
shops, dry cleaners, video stores, etc.
2
Will we be able to find employees for these businesses? It's
already hard to find help. Where will these new employees live?
Are we increasing our employee housing problem?
Superblock shouldn't just focus on itself. Relate to rest of
community.
The businesses in Superblock will have an advantage over others in
town (easy access to parking). Don't think this has any value to
community at all (it has value to the resort).
SUMMARY
Want to protect existing businesses, want to limit size and
possible uses of space.
How will this affect the town as we know it today or in the future?
3
•
•
PARKING
1. GO/Revenue Bond
2. Parking District
3. Affordable Housing pays - change per egress question; AH
paying when housing is mitigation vs. voluntary housing
4. Corporate: Fee is equalizer? Add debt financing.
5. 63/20 Corp. Public/Private Sponsorship
Bonding source
6. Smaller lot alternative
Ideas on Above•
1. The parking garage could make a profit.
2. Parking spaces can be leased or sold. Space under Grog Shop
sold for $35,000 last year.
3. City Market foresees a "no car zone" in Aspen's future. Want
to be located on periphery of town and near a parking
facility. They want there to be municipal parking on site.
They want the City to have something at stake.
4. The City is in a position to control the amount of parking and
the costs to users.
5. It isn't appropriate for City to own and sell parking spaces.
6. It isn't fair for parking privileges only be given to those
who can afford to buy a space.
7. This garage is taking the City parking problem and burdening
this lot with the solution.
4
RELATED IDEAS
Will streets throughout town be made into "malls" when street
parking is eliminated?
Are we bringing the Wal-Mart syndrome to Aspen? (NC doesn't
include the K-Mart rule).
What could be done on this site without SPA or Superblock concept?
City Market should not be a "full service" market (i.e., hardware
store, auto parts, pet shop).
Do any other cities have the kind of controls in place to keep
chain stores out?
Close Independence Pass to thru traffic - doesn't benefit town.
Replacement for skier parking that use lot/structure - will
displace commercial parking needs.
Diversion of funds from affordable housing?
Test is Rio Grande - when it's full go for another.
Parking garage is antiquated solution.
Certain level of parking needed for expansion of City Market.
Extra parking lots are a disaster for Aspen.
Grocery stores are traffic magnets. If you build one large store,
you increase congestion.
Pollution is a year around problem.
What about the tourist? Will they come to Aspen if there are too
many parking controls in place?
In the future - require development mitigation by providing lower
rent commercial space (as opposed to ADU's or parking spaces).
5
CITIZEN COMMENTS/INPUT
•
April 24,1994
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Senior Planner
Aspen.Pitkin
Planning and Zoning Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen 81611 CO.
Dear Leslie,
�1
Blaich Associates
nn��
Design Management Consultants
2 3 A4 319 North Fourth Street
Aspen, 81611, Colorado, U.S.A.
fel. 303 - 920 92 76
Fax 303 - 920 34 33
I am basicly in favor of an integrated design and develop-
ment plan for Independence Place. I am concerned that if
each party developes their own property that it will be
of lesser quality.
I share the concerns raised by the tenents of the build-
ing to the South regarding the service alley. I think that
it should be basicly pedestrian access and of the same
quality as the mall area. This could be accomplished
by using the S.E. section for service only. ( note the
enclosed plan) T-is of co-u-se would be a problem for
delivery access to the proposed nF.w commercial building
on the SW corner.
If anything were to be given up by the developers I think
that this commercial building might be considered. I am
concerned with the number of vacant commercial spaces
that already exist and the negative effect it might have
on the Clarks Market -Puppy Smith shopping area. ( Note
enclosed) I suggest that a survey be done of existing
vacant space, locations and sq.ft. rent costs as this might
give us a clearer picture of the effect of additional
commercial space.
The additional parking space will relieve congestion in
the area and should intercept traffic from the East if
properly signed and controlled. The on -site employee
housing is important and should be reserved first for the
employees of the Independence Square facilities and then
for other local employees.
This letter is for your planning purposes only and I
hope that it is of help.
Sincerely,
mO
C m
m=;
0
O
m
0
m
c�
D
r
SPRING STREET
I
I
q Q
q c
I
I b
- — I a
LIr Pal
0
z
m
41-
0
•
ORIGINAL STREET
J*b*IaAAjm
N D E P E N D E N C E P L A C E CHARLFS CUNN►FPE ARCHITECTS
i THE ASPEN SUPERBLOCK .'o G►B.SON & RENO ARCHITECTS
ASPEN C O L O R A D O -E DESIGN WORKSHOP, INC
O
<0
m0
Z •
m m
0
r'--
m
Cm ORIGINAL STREET
L
SPRING STREET
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
cn
T H E
ASPEN
S U PERBLOCK
GIBSON & RENO ARCHITECTS
A S P E N
C O L O R A D O
DESIGN WORKSHOP, INC
L
•
•
LAIN-D USE REGULATIONS § 5-212
mitigate traffic circulation and parking problems, and to serve the daily or frequent trade or
service needs of the neighborhood. n
o n S o i s r R i+ c
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) zone district.
CA&&J*.- *
1. Drug store; ,
1
V
2. Food store; MkA,
3. Liquor store; fib,..
T
4. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up station;
Cxrll 1-
(�
� S�J
a
5. Barber shop;
t'/j''�"� O
'
6. Beauty shop; Cjtv�.
v
7. Post office branch;
8. Record store;
9. T.V. sales and se: rice shop; t.Q*A• u
W �L�••
10. Shoe repair shop;
11. Video rental and sale shop; C1.*�
t
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 uses in the Neigh-
borhood Commercial (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; Jjsv '
5. Paint and wallpaper store;
6. Carpet, flooring and drapery shop;
7. Business and .professional office;
8. Free market dwelling units which are accessory to other permitted uses;
9. Home occupation; and 10. 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
Supp. No. 3 1647
9
Donna S. Fisher 0
APR 26
April 25th, 1994
Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning & Zoning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Leslie:
Thank you for your letter of April 20th regarding the rescheduled meeting for
Superblock. I plan to attend.
You asked that I present ideas for a development scenario that "I could live with". For
reasons discussed at the April 15th work session, I do not believe that any new
commercial space should be put on the property and disagree with affordable housing for
that site. Consequently, I don't feel that I could live with any of the proposed
redevelopment as currently discussed. My feelings are that this should be
abandoned.... letting each of the current owners redevelop their property within the
current zoning regulations, as they see fit. It is my understanding that this would put
about 54,000 s.f. of above ground building on the property, which is all that I am in favor
of seeing in that area.
Since the April 15th meeting, I have had the opportunity to discuss this impending
development with many Aspen long time locals..... none of whom are in favor of the plan.
There is overwhelming support to see this abandoned and I hope that these views will be
taken into consideration.
Yours truly,
Donna S. Fisher
1235 Riverside Drive Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2786
•TO Leslie Lamont MESSAGE DISPLAY
From: Randy Ready
Postmark: Nov 22,93 10:26 AM
Subject: Reply to: cooper street parking
Reply text:
From Randy Ready:
$ value in parking fees is estimated at $6/space/312 days/year, or
approximately $56,160/year. Construction (i.e. off-street
replacement) cost is estimated at $15-$20k/space, or
$450,000-$600,000.
Preceding message:
From Leslie Lamont:
what would you estimate the $value in 30 on -street public parking
spaces?? do ya have a clue??? thanks
•
0
• • 0Y�
The Fleisher Company
Commercial Real Estate in Aspen
April 27, 1994
Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner P 2 3
Amie Margerum, City Manager `
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Independence Plaza
Dear Leslie and Amie:
After attending the worksession on April 15th , I have given
additional thought to the concept of the Independence Plaza (IP)
project. I think the proposed development contains enough elements
of a great project for our community that it is appropriate at this
stage of planning to isolate the desirable features from those that
I perceive most citizens of Aspen find unacceptable. This project
could become reality if the City can successfully negotiate out of
the project those elements that are not desirable and, at the same
time, nurture all of those elements that will ensure its success.
The following summarizes those elements that give credibility to
the concept of IP:
UNDERGROUND PARKING I am confident that a majority of
residents and tourists would agree that whatever parking is
required for this neighborhood would be more desirable located
underground rather than as exists on the surface. Locating all of
the required parking (and existing off -site spaces) underground
goes a long way in justifying the concept of the project by i)
removing a visual pollutant, ii) contributing to cleaner air (cars
won't be driving around looking for a space), iii) reducing the
noise factor of surface parking and iv) creating the opportunity
for a pedestrian plaza. Anyone who considers the existing
conditions more desirable by associating it with the catch phrase
"messy vitality", in my mind, is missing the original intent of
that phrase.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING I don't know any resident who does not support
development of employee housing, particularly located downtown
rather than down valley.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL I am uniquely qualified to inform you that
here is a definite need for expanding neighborhood commercial
zoning in Aspen.
ECONOMICS Rachael Richards was absolutely correct in her
statement that combining all of the parking requirements of the
200 East Main Street • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •3031925-2122 • Fax 920-1628
9
•
three landowners into a single underground facility is far more
economic, and will result in a far superior facility than three
separate developments. It will certainly be better for the users
of the spaces to ingress and egress in a single location.
COOPER AVENUE Converting Cooper Avenue between Spring and
Original Streets from off -site parking to a pedestrian plaza is,
again, a very desirable amenity of the project. I disagree that it
makes Aspen too much like NY/LA. I think the "existing condition"
is like NY/LA and the proposed plaza with attractive landscaping
and seating areas will enhance the pedestrian experience in the
downtown area. Is Volk Plaza too much like NY/LA...or do locals and
tourists love it?
REPLACEMENT PARKING Depending on how many spaces are created
underground, the opportunity exists to relocate some existing
parking on streets contiguous to or in the vicinity of the project
to the newly created underground spaces. John Coldwell brought up
a very interesting point when he discussed how the City has the
ability to control demand. By reducing (not eliminating) off -site
parking in the vicinity of IP increases demand for the underground
municiple spaces, which in effect, increases revenue.
If there enough reasons in support of the "concept" of IP, then the
City of Aspen, Council and staff, should have confidence in the
project and come forward with the king of leadership required to
see it through.
To do that requires very careful consideration to the pitfalls or
undesirable features of the project, and address them head
on ... without jeopardizing the project altogether. The following
summarizes what I perceive to be the undesirable elements of the
project, or elements that this community won't support:
SIZE It is very clear to me that the most significant
objection to the project is size. It must be reduced to win this
communities support. Implicit in the problem of size is the "K-
Mart Effect". Very few people that I have spoken to support a
26,OOOsf supermarket. Someone at the April 15th worksession
recommended a need for a small supermarket located west of town.
To me, that makes a lot of sense compared with compelling residents
located west and in Snowmass to drive all the way to the current
City Market location. In addition, a single jumbo market precludes
the opportunity for a third competitor. It encourages a monopoly -
like affect, which is not in the consumers best interests.
ZONING In my opinion zoning has driven some of Aspen's current
problems, both auto and use related.
1. We here comments like "why accommodate the car if we want
to get rid of the car". Zoning, in and of itself, demands
that almost 200 spaces be located on the site of this
project. Maybe current parking requirements should be
relaxed.
2. Zoning is the reason there is not a location in the City
of Aspen for a third supermarket (in scale with the
communities needs and desires), and zoning is the reason
why the community has failed to meet the needs of NC
uses. Maybe NC zoning in another part of town should be
created.
I would like to reiterate two recommendations from my March 17th
letter.
RISK The City should contract to purchase parking spaces from
the JV partners rather than take the responsibility of developing
them.
USE There is little support from the business community for
expanded CC uses in the project. I recommend that the CC uses in
the CL zone be substantially restricted.
PARKING 500 plus parking spaces in this location may be too many.
I recommend reducing the amount of spaces to what can be created
in a two level garage. This compromise goes hand -in -hand with
reducing development risk and reducing overall size/bulk of the
project.
I am concerned that many of the citizens comments are made out of
fear and lack of fact and understanding.
It does not make sense, for instance, to recommend that in
place of the affordable housing requirement the City should
place rent control on NC uses. That is the antithesis of a
sound, just and economic plan.
There is no reason why a pedestrian plaza needs to be a
sterile environment. It can be a people environment -
beautifully landscaped, children friendly... one that is
compelling to visit.
Whereas it is true that there are an abundance of homeowners,
permanent and second who can afford to, and probably would,
purchase a parking space for as much as $35, 000.. , a potential
profit to the City, the proposed underground parking spaces
have nothing to do with those people. They are proposed for
i) owners/tenants of affordable housing units in the project,
ii) for customers of commercial spaces in the project, iii)
for customers of lodging units customarily parking in the
vicinity of the Gondola and, v) consumers who heretofore park
on Cooper Street between Spring and Original and in other
blocks in the vicinity of the project for general shopping in
the "commercial core.
In summary, I conclude that the concept of the project contains far
more virtuous elements than undesirable features and if the City
can negotiate a substantial reduction in bulk, which may include
0
all uses -residential, lodging and commercial, IP has the potential
for becoming a true asset to the Community.
Sincerely,
onaldVF1,�h
cc: John Bennett, Mayor
•
1* APR 27!�4,
Howdy:
a
What could I live with. First let me change the I to we, what
could the community live with. If this is an entrance corridor toy
Aspen, we feel that the character of Aspen must be reflected
in all areas. Specifically this means scale and massing. We perceive
any increase in FAR to be a loss to the community. No mittigation
of anything but parking. All required housing to be on site, If
there were any benefits to be given to the developers they should
be in exchange for good design, lower FAR, rent controled units
specifically for local sales and services.
I think City Market should be kept to a minimum. No bigger than
clarks Market. This is a non acceptable traffic generater. If
they go underground, and up half a story, the massing should be
acceptable.
I have a theory that probably should be looked at with the legal
dept. The code reads allowable FAR. I believe this means that
no one is automatically entitled to max FAR. They must first
meet all community guidelines in regards to scale- massing
compatibility etc.
We still feel that any accom6dation to the automobile must be
permanent. If the city goes underground, the parking taken away
from above ground must be done be deed restriction etc.
review
I. no increase in scale and mass
2. rent control for local services
3. small city mkt.
4. minimum parking underground.
5. all required employee housing to
allowable FAR
6. come local housing to have small
7. Design review by HPC
be on site within existing
commercial space.
La /4*t ef
Sew. 6CC4.4,0 **%
Comments From Jack Fry:
1. not favorable of the full sized project, ok to develop as per
existing zoning
2. has concern for the SW corner building and the potential to
"turn its back" on the businesses across the alley
3. traffic from Gondola should not be diverted just down center
of pedestrian plaza
4. could SW corner building be set back from property line to
provide more open area in alley
5. deliveries to the Durant Mall building already pose a problem
in the alley, new service/delivery ideas should be explored
6. tend to agree that there is a danger that chains will push
local businesses out
7. town's people should come first, business second
oli v i Lv
ct,--?:� re
DI "Ao wy - ,1PR 2 9
IF �-
1.:�-Qcii.ce i✓, � ca,.CwAA � mY
Ac S�y�ebP�.k p Je�F
n4c,t� 4e- 5l-ael- od 4ke
6f) oao sq.,A.ae rarcrI�
b+o kl C Ct,. �l 7
�o np�
347 +�
sMp
+"Rj)%vWeK a� '�,n�,,s/w
keiez.
eacC,
slamsj"4
n&4 � P.:4 y 44..
c4fe••• an VocunE is qs�{'��a.� fin-
Pw, k;..°" n """` p-P-1 fe f
eV,k_
.,im�(O TnW� LQv.ct�Gtbr 'fnv>e. 5. I ��q AMAt,
�'qy�aw.�� Qt �cc tw orkor �aum ,im Anea4+�ca � �o q;.,..�
s�.y� �/II ^no 'neen Si S+�n eYCWy w�u.c �w�` We �o vc
Jn R«wclk.
iF 1410
AGENDA - INDEPENDENCE PLACE ROUND TABLE - APRIL 15TH
I. Introductions
H. Overview of Project & Review of Process
M. Assumptions
A. Overview of Assumptions
B. Confirmation of Assumptions
IV. Community Values
A. Identification of Community Values the Project Should
Accomplish
B. How Should This Project Relate to the Community?
C. Confirmation of Those Values
V. Parking Garage
A. Overview of Parking Elements of Transportation
Implementation Plan
B. Size of the Garage & Allocation of Parking Spaces
C. financing the Garage
i. Revenue Bond
ii. Parking District
iii. AH - Pay to Park
iv. Other Corporate Sources
VI. Size of City Market
VII. Amount/Type of "CC" Space
VIII. Interim Use of Kraut Property
IX. Next Steps
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR PARTICIPANT PACKET
Overview of Project.............................page 1
Assumptions.....................................page 5
Communityvalues................................page 7
Parking Garage..................................page 8
Size of City Market.............................page 9
Amount/Type of "CC" Space .......................page 10
Interim Use of Kraut Property...................page 12
Appendix - Permitted Uses
OVERVIEW OF PROJECT: Following is a summary of the Independence
Place development proposal. The summary includes a background of
the properties and the events that have led the city and property
owners to this point, and site and project descriptions.
A. Background - All three of the existing buildings located
in the Independence Place (IP) redevelopment area have used this
property for many years. According to the application, the Bell
Mountain and Buckhorn lodges were built approximately 30 years ago.
Because of its location, the older condition of the lodges, and the
undersized City Market building, this area has been the focus of
several redevelopment ideas. The 1987 Transportation Element to
the Aspen Comprehensive Plan identified the IP area as a site for
underground municipal parking. It was ranked second behind the Rio
Grande site for municipal parking and considered a primary site
because of the potential to intercept summer traffic from
Independence Pass and the proximity to the Gondola.
When the Kraut property was purchased and rezoned by the City for
affordable housing in mid-1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission
urged Council and staff not to eliminate the potential to include
the Kraut property as part of the IP redevelopment. Council
appointed a private sector consultant team to work with staff and
the property owners of the Bell Mountain/Buckhorn Lodges and City
Market to pursue the superblock concept and include the Kraut
property and the Vicenzi A -frame property.
As part of the study, the team considered one below grade parking
structure stretching from the alley between City Market and the
Durant Mall to East Hyman Avenue, but excluding the Hannah Dustin
building. Ultimately, seperate garages were recommended because
one full garage would necessitate the relocation of utilities
without gaining more parking spaces than two garages and timing the
development of the Kraut property with the IP development could
unreasonably hold up the housing on Kraut.
However, as a result of the garage study, redevelopment of the IP
area was encouraged and the City recommended that the private
property owners submit a development proposal for this area.
(Prior to the submittal of the application, staff and the owners
continued to work on the proposal within the context of the Land
Use Code and the recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan.)
Following closely behind the Kraut rezoning, the Aspen Area
Community Plan (AACP) was developed and included several references
to the superblock. The AACP recommends a managed parking system in
downtown that combines paid parking with the elimination of parking
downtown offset by pedestrian and transit improvements. The AACP
specifically recommends the construction of the a public parking
facility beneath the subject property and Kraut property as an
action in the 1993-1995 timeframe.
1
4
The AACP also recommends rezoning the "superblock" for neighborhood
commerical development to create a balance between local and
tourist -oriented shopping opportunities.
The AACP Transportation Implementation Plan (TIP), adopted in June
of 1993, found the IP area to be "the most appropriate location for
additional public off-street parking, as it is convenient of many
employment sites as well as the ski base area."
Although the Plan was designed to substantially reduce parking
demand in the commercial core, it was recognized that the provision
of additional off-street parking in the commercial core was needed
to address remaining long-term parking demand. The "superblock"
area was identified as an appropriate location for additional
public off-street parking. It is important to understand that
these municipal spaces would be managed to replace the residential
neighborhood's on -street spaces used in the Day Parking Pass
program and spaces located within the commercial core that would
be converted to enhance the pedestrian experience. The IP spaces
are not intended to "attract" additional auto trips into the
commercial core.
The TIP concludes with the following comment regarding the
"superblock" facility: The Transportation Implementation Committee
strongly recommends that the City move forward to begin
construction on this joint public -private project within the next
two years."
B. Site Description - The site consists of the three private
properties: City Market, Buckhorn Lodge and Bell Mountain Lodge and
the Cooper Avenue public right-of-way (ROW). The private property
entails approximately 54,000 square feet and the public ROW is
20,250 square feet owned by the City of Aspen.
The site is essentially flat with a drop in elevation of about 10
feet from the southeast corner to the northwest corner. The
existing vegetation includes significant cottonwood trees and
spruce trees primarily surrounding the Bell Mountain and Buckhorn
lodges.
The site is within two blocks of the downtown commerical core and
within two blocks of the Silver Queen Gondola. It is easily
accessed from the tourist/residential neighborhoods of the east end
of town.
The Bell Mountain Lodge, 20,066 square feet zoned LP, is a lodge
with 20 lodge units and a manager's unit. Six of the lodge units
and the manager's unit have kitchens. There are 10-15 surface
parking spaces and an outdoor pool on the site. The property has
received a GMQS allocation for a redevelopment to expand the
capacity to 40 lodge rooms including an underground parking garage
2
with access off of the alley.
The Buckhorn Lodge, 6,934 square feet zoned CL, is a mixed lodge
commercial building containing approximately 3,100 square feet of
net leasable commercial/office space, including a manager's unit,
and 9 lodge rooms. The property includes 7 surface parking spaces.
The property was rezoned to CL in 1983 and as a condition of
rezoning, the allowable floor area for this property was restricted
to a 1:1 FAR verses the allowable FAR for the CL zone district
which is 2:1.
The City Market parcel is 27,000 square feet and zoned NC (PUD).
The building is approximately 26,000 gross square feet. The
current food store square footage is approximately 12,085 square
feet. There is approximately 3,200 square feet of net leasable
restaurant space below grade. There are 29 surface parking spaces
on the property and several ornamental trees.
The proposed redevelopment area is surrounded by a variety of zone
districts. To the north is the Hannah Dustin and A -frame office
buildings that are zoned Office and the Kraut property zoned
Affordable Housing. To the east is the residential neighborhood
zoned Residential/Multi-family. To the south is the Durant Street
Mall, the Butcher's Block building and the Durant/Original building
all zoned Neighborhood Commerical. To the west is the Aspen Square
complex zoned Commerical Lodge and the Chateau Aspen and Hunter
Plaza block zoned Commercial (C-1).
The site is served by all major utilities. Water mains are found
in Spring and Original Streets and in Cooper Avenue. Sanitary
sewer lines and natural gas lines are found in both alleys.
Electric, telephone and cable TV service has been placed
underground in the alleys. A 24" storm sewer is located in Spring
Street. Two fire hydrants serve this property.
C. Project Description - The applicants propose to redevelop
their three properties and construct a three level parking garage
below the private properties and Cooper Avenue.
The applicants propose to expand and reconstruct the City Market
food store one level below grade. Above grade, on City market
property, the applicants propose to build additional City Market
retail space, other commerical space and employee housing in a
three story building. On the southwest corner of the City Market
property a two -three story building is proposed for commerical
space and employee housing.
The Bell Mountain Lodge is proposed to be rezoned from Lodge
Preservation (LP) to Commerical Lodge (CL). The first floor of the
lodge will be commerical space and employee housing. The second
floor is proposed for lodge rooms and employee housing and the
third floor is proposed for "hotel suites".
3
•
•
The Buckhorn Lodge will be rezoned from CL to Neighborhood
Commercial (NC). Commercial space is proposed one level below
grade. Above grade, the first floor is proposed for commerical
space, the second floor is proposed for employee housing, and the
third floor is proposed for office space.
4
11
0
ASSUMPTIONS: The following assumptions Were either adopted as part
of the AACP process and Transportation Implementation Plan, or
agreed upon by the Council and Commission at the February 9, 1994
worksession.
1. TIP - In the Transportation Implementation Plan, the
"Superblock" area was identified as an appropriate location for
additional public offstreet parking. The municipal spaces would
be managed to replace the residential -area onstreet spaces used in
the Day Parking Pass program and spaces located within the
commerical core that would be converted to enhance the pedestrian
experience.
Although the Plan was designed to substantially reduce the parking
demand within the commercial core, it recognized the provision of
additional offstreet parking in the commercial core was needed to
address remaining long-term parking demand.
2. AACP
The project is consistent with the following AACP policies:
Housing Action Plan
"Encourage inf ill development within the existing urban
area ... to allow more employees to be able to live close to
where they work."
"Locate permanent resident housing near desired activity
centers."
"Encourage more incentives for providing affordable housing
on -site in the commercial core.
* Increase the use of upper floors of commercial buildings
by revising existing zone district ratios to increase
square footage for affordable housing.
* Revise zone district requirements to promote more on -
site affordable housing on upper levels of buildings for
in town sites.
* Give a higher priority to on -site housing in the
commercial core, such as providing additional points in
the Growth Management Scoring System."
Commercial/Retail Action Plan
"Study GMQS incentives for local serving neighborhood
commercial uses. Ensure that projects which receive such
incentives are restricted as local serving uses."
61
•
•
"Zone additional areas for NC and S/C/I development within the
City, specifically to include the superblock bounded by
Durant, Hyman, Original and Spring."
Design Quality Action Plan
"Study which areas in the downtown core could be developed in
order to attract social activity in specific places (i.e.,
people magnets at intersections or ends of corridors and
corners)."
"Investigate programs for enhancement of alleyscapes, both
commercial and residential."
Transportation Action Plan
"Pursue the construction of a public parking facility beneath
the Kraut property/Buckhorn Lodge/Bell Mountain Lodge/City
Market site; this was recommended as Phase II in the 1987
Transportation Element."
"Reduce the number of on -street parking spaces within the
commercial core by phasing out a portion of the parking spaces
in conjunction with parking and transit alternatives."
"Implement the recommendations in the Pedestrian Walkway and
Bikeway Plan in a phased capital improvement program."
In addition, the group added the goal to: Maintain the Design
Quality and Historic Character of the Community; "Messy Vitality."
3. Specially Planned Area
The applicants propose to rezone the property with an SPA overlay.
The purpose of an SPA designation 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
location, and where potential exists for community benefit
from comprehensive development.
* Allow the development of mixed land uses through the
encouragement of innovative design practices which permit
variations from standard zone district land uses and
dimensional requirements.
6
*1 0
* 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 designation 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.
Variations permitted: The final development plan shall comply with
the requirements of the underlying zone district, provided,
however, that variations from those requirements may be allowed
based on the standards of section 7-804(B). Variations may be
allowed for the following requirements: open space, minimum
distance between buildings, maximum height, minimum front yard,
minimum rear yard, minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum
lot area, trash access area, internal floor area ratio, number of
off-street parking spaces and uses, and design standards of section
7-1004(C)(4) for streets and related improvements. Any variations
allowed shall be specified in the SPA agreement and shown on the
final development plan.
The Commission and Council agreed to the following:
yes the SPA overlay is necessary;
yes, the SPA provided the flexibility for the review of a
unified project;
yes, the SPA should be used to its fullest extent, i.e., use
variation, dimensional requirement variations; and
yes, the SPA overlay should be used to vary the use and the
size of the commercial space.
4. Affordable Housing
The applicants propose to house 75.75 employees on -site and
proposes 51 AH dwelling units: 22 rental units and 29 sale units.
The Council and Commission support affordable housing on the site,
but have scale and balance concerns.
In addition, a rational pricing system could be explored for
financing the parking for the affordable units.
COMMUNITY VALUES: These will be developed at the meeting.
7
0 to
GARAGE FACTS:
The garage is proposed for a total of 546 spaces.
Level One - 100 spaces
Level Two - 237 spaces
Level Three - 209 spaces
Required parking for the redevelopment is 195 spaces.
Levels one and three will be built by the developer.
The second level will consists of 237 municipal parking spaces, the
question of financing must be discussed.
Municipal Funding: The following outlines various potential
sources of capital to pay for the municipal spaces.
1. Revenue Bond Depending upon the number of municipal
spaces and the charge/space/day the City can finance
approximately a portion of the total cost of the
municipal spaces with a revenue bond.
2. Parking District: With careful planning, a parking
district could be approved by certain
landlords/tenants in close proximity to the parking
garage. With nothing more than a cursory analysis,
Don Fleisher estimated that there may be as much as
350,000 sf nla between Spring and Galena Streets and
between Durant and Hyman Avenue. At a cost of just
.30/sf nla/year within the above described zone, a
proposed district could generate approximately
$105,000 in annual revenue. Using the same bonding
criteria for a revenue bond -1.25 debt cover, 7%
interest rate and 30 year amortization -the district
could support approximately $1,050,000 in debt.
3. AHU Contribution: With cooperation from the Housing
Authority it is possible that the purchaser of cash
AH "for sale" unit be required to purchase its
required one parking space. On a monthly basis, at
7% interest amortized over 30 years, $25,000 would
cost the owner only $166.
4. Other Corporate Sources: Given that the other
companies generate a large portion of cars in the
IP area, it is only reasonable to consider them as
potential sources.
8
THE SIZE OF CITY MARKET
City Market proposes to rebuild their existing space completely
below grade.
Currently the City Market building represents:
26,000 gross square feet
12,000 square feet of net leasable above grade
3,200 square feet of net leasable below grade
It is important to note that City Market can take over the
entire building without mitigation costs or GMP allocations
(the K-Mart rule does not apply in the NC zone district) as
long as no new net leasable space is developed.
The proposed City Market represents:
26,000 gross square feet below grade
19,500 square feet of net leasable below grade
7,500 gross square feet above grade, 1st floor
5,000 square feet of net leasable City Market space above
grade, 1st floor
As a point of comparison, 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 Caldwell, Director of Real Estate of City Market, 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 a pharmacy or video section. He stressed that as a new
store opens, departments evolve and grocery stores are constantly
changing the types of departments that are offered, depending on
their market.
In an effort to understand how the proposed size of the redeveloped
Citv 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 contained a Safeway supermarket, which was
located 1/2 mile from Truckee, California. Truckee, California is
a tourist community of 9,000 residents located north of Tahoe and
9
four miles from Squaw Valley. Similarities between Truckee and
Aspen would include:
* Population projections include both permanent
residents, seasonal residents and tourists;
* Peak seasons coincide with the winter tourist seasons
and summer tourist seasons;
* 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.
Additionally, all the commercial/retail space in downtown Truckee
has remained 100% leased.
10
AMOUNT/TYPE OF "CC" SPACE
The applicant proposes to follow the use limitations of the
underlying NC and CL zone districts with some variations proposed
to the permitted and conditional uses in these zone districts.
Please see attached Permitted and Conditional uses for NC and CC
in Appendix I.
1. Coa ercial Coro Uses (CC) - The applicants propose that
the new net leasable space (37,200 square feet) developed on
the property be equally split between NC uses and CL uses on
the site (which are CC type uses). All reconstructed
commercial space (18,300 square feet plus the 26,000 square
foot City Market below grade) will comply with permitted or
conditional uses of the NC zone. Therefore the development
will add 18,600 square feet of new NC use square footage and
18,600 square feet of CL commercial use space. The applicant
also proposes to allow the "market" to dictate where NC and
CL space should be located rather than assign a particular
space to NC or CL use. But under no condition will the NC
space drop below it's 50% share. A mechanism to monitor and
enforce the 50/50 split will be necessary to ensure the
appropriate use of commerical space in the SPA plan. The
applicant proposes to prepare that "mechanism" for final SPA
review.
The increased net leasable for CC commerical space has been
a point of discussion with the Council and Commission for
several months. Rather than discuss whether CC uses are
appropriate in this SPA plan, staff would suggest that the
SPA use variation flexibility be utilized to identify those
CC uses that may be appropriate, given the location and mix
of land uses that are desired, for a vital community oriented
project. For example, a restaurant with outdoor seating would
enhance the plaza vitality but a "tourist oriented trinket
shop" may not work. Using the SPA as a tool for specific uses
may be identified for this site while others are excluded.
2. Neighborhood Commercial (NC) the applicants propose the
following variations to the use list for this SPA:
* add "Fast Food take-out (pizza, yogurt, no seating)";
* add "Food Service establishment with no more than 15 seats,
having no waiter service" (this was adopted by Council in 1989
based upon a request by Jour De Fete but was never codified);
* add "Sporting goods store, primarily oriented to equipment
sales and service but could include clothing";
* add "manicure and hairdresser";
11
The Commercial Core and Lodging Commission (CCLC) has served
as a referral agent to staff for the proposal. The CCLC
strongly recommends that the concept of the NC zone district
is a district whose uses are dedicated to community support
and provide essential services. They also recommend that a
sewing supply store and dry good store which sells every day
essential items be added to the NC zone. In addition a
pediatrician/doctor emergency clinic may be appropriate but
a beauty shop and ski shop are not.
There are other uses that staff would like to include in a
revised NC use list. Permitted and conditional uses for the
NC zone are still evolving. Please note: the changes proposed
for the NC and CL zone districts should be codified and
available for use by other NC and CL zone districts.
3. Commercial Lodge (CL) - the applicants request that "lodge
units with pre-existing kitchens" be a permitted use for this
SPA. This is a permitted use in the LP zone district. The
applicants seek to rebuild only four of the six Bell Mountain
Lodge units that have pre-existing kitchens. They point out
that the Aspen Square and North of Nell buildings all have
kitchens. Staff is unconcerned that pre-existing kitchens are
redeveloped in the lodge. However staff does have concerns
that the ultimate configuration of the "lodge units" with pre-
existing kitchens are in fact short-term lodge rooms and not
de -facto residential condominium units that are permitted in
the Lodge/Tourist Residential zone district and not the
Commercial Lodge zone district.
TEMPORARY USE OF KRAUT PROPERTY
There is a general willingness to allow the Kraut property to be
used as an interim site for City Market and Buckhorn Lodge
commercial uses.
The, applicants request the ability to relocate City Market on an
interim basis while the project is being developed. In addition
some of the Buckhorn businesses are interested in using the Kraut
property. 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 approved by the
Commission and includes a 55 car garage one level below grade.
If the Kraut property were to be considered as an interim use for
12
•
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 Temporary
Use permit, approved by Ordinance, is the vehicle to allow the
temporary use of a parcel under special circumstances.
It is unclear how much space City Market will need. The property
is 15,000 square feet.
The Kraut development team has taken into consideration the interim
use of this site.
VIII. OTHER ISSUES: The following issues require a level of
discussion and review but have not been placed on the agenda for
the April 15, 1994 meeting.
A. Zone District Map Amendments -
1. The applicants propose to rezone the Buckhorn Lodge
property from Commercial Lodge to Neighborhood
Commercial. The implications of this rezoning are to
gain additional NC space, the allowable FAR remains the
same because the 1983 rezoning to CL only allowed a 1:1
FAR.
2. The applicant propose to rezone the Bell Mountain Lodge
from Lodge Preservation (LP) to Commercial Lodge (CL).
Currently the allowable FAR is 1:1. The allowable FAR
in the CL zone district is 2:1. The only allowed use in
the LP zone district is lodge. The CL zone district
allows commercial space, as permitted in the commercial
core, on the first floor of the lodge.
B. Test Amendments -
1. The applicants propose to amend the external Floor Area
Ratio for NC zone district: currently it is 1:1 and it
is proposed to be increasable to 1.7:1 by special review
when 100% percent of the additional floor area is
approved for residential use restricted to affordable
housing. This is consistent with the existing commerical
core, C-1 and office zone districts. It is also
consistent with the AACP that recommends "more incentives
for providing affordable hosing on -site in the commerical
core ... by revising existing zone district ratios to
increase square footage for affordable housing."
13
However, another policy in the AACP recommends reducing
allowable FAR for commercial square footage to create a
greater percentage of affordable housing within allowable
floor area ratios. Staff acknowledges a conflict in the
AACP and recommends a full discussion about the
applicability with regard to this proposal and the NC
zone district.
2. The applicants and staff have developed this text
amendment proposal to eliminate the demolition and
reconstruction mitigation for the NC zone district. 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".
Staff offers the following 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 the Commission, 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 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.
14
0
The Clark's Market complex is also zoned NC and could
utilize this provision. Although it is unlikely that the
Trueman Center would be redeveloped 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 parcels in town
could seek to apply this code provision but the site
would have to be rezoned to NC for it to apply.
This code amendment reinforces the need to reexamine the
permitted and conditional uses in the NC zone district
to ensure that the district meets the goals of providing
local oriented services.
15
LAND USE REGULATIONS 5 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
5. Minirnum side yard (feet): 20
6. Minimunf rear yard (feet): 20
7. Maximum height (feet): 28
8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet): No requirement
9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement
10. External floor area ratio: No requirement
11. Internal Zoor area ratio: No requirement
E. Off-street par.zLng require.merc_ The following otf-street parking spaces shall be pro-
vided for eac h use in the R.,..: al Residential (RR) zone district, subject to the provisiors of
Article 5, Division 3.
1. All residential uses: 1 space.,bedroom
2. Lodge uses: Ni
3. All other uses: Requi-es special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4.
(Ord. No. 47-1988. $ 2) A040011 0
�
Sec. 5.209. Commercial Core (CC). _
A. Purpose T:ze 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 ser.Zce character in the central business core of the
city. Hotel and principal Ion; -term residential uses may be appropriate as conditional uses,
while residential uses are permitted or may be appropriate as conditional uses.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial Core
(CC) zone district.
1. Medical and dental clinic;
2. Professional anal business office;
3. Open use recreation site;
4. Recreation. club;
5. Theater;
6. Assembly hall;
7. Church;
Supp. No. 1
163,
0
1 5-209
ASPEN CODE
8. Public building for ad_:.inistration;
9. Restaurant, cabaret and night club, tea room;
10. Retail commercial establishment limited to the following and similar 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;
11. Service commercial establishments limited to the following and similar uses: Cater-
ing service. financial institution, personal se. ice including barber and beauty shop.
custom sewing, az: ciean_ ng pickup station, laundromat, ski repair and rental,
shoo -craft industr_., tailoring and shoe repair shop, parking lot or parking garage.
studio for instruct:or. 'n the arts, radio or television broadcasting facility;
12. Rental, repair and wholesaling facilities in conjunction with any of the uses provided
in Section 5-209.3.:-1 1, provided all such activity is clea-rly incidental and accessor,
to the permitted use and conducted within a buildi ng;
13. Storage of material's accessor: to any of the uses provided in Section 5-''_09.3.1.
through 12., provided ail such storage :s located within a structure;
14. Residential dwelling units which are located above street level commercial uses in
historic landmarks. prodded 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;
V. Newspaper publishing office;
18. Home occupations; and
19. Accessory buildings and uses.
C. Conditional uses. 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. No. 1
1638
LA_ND USE REGULATIONS
6. Timesharing;
7. Sacel7ite dish antennae;
d. Residential dwelling units which are Iocated 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 5-508(3);
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. Reser fed; and
12 Accessory: dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 5-510.
��. Dimensionc[ re t tr2me^.;. c •.�
4 The .oilowing dimensional requirements shall apply to all
Permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district.
1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 3.000 -
2• Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet):
Multi -family: One bedroom per 1.000 square feet of lot area
3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement
4. Minimum front yard (feet): -No requirement
5. :Minimum side vard (feet;: No requirement
6• Minimum rear yard (feet): No requirement except trashiutility service area shall be
required abutting alley. The dimensional requirement for the utility/trash service
areashall 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 I 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, may be reduced by special review
pursuant to Article 7, Division 4.
Supp. No. I
§ 5-211 ASPEN 1 CODE
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of
lot area.
For artist's st•,:dios with accessary 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 bed -room: 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 ('1I:il 3
Spring), 10 from all other streets.
5. Minimum side ya--d (feet): No requirement
6. Minimum rea-r yard (feet): No requirement
7. Mxdmum heig_^.t (feet;: 32
8. Minimum distance between principal and accessoi-I buildings (feet): 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 SerAce/CommerciaOndustrial (SCI) zone district, subject to
the provisions of Article 5, Division 3.
1. Lodge use:
2. Residential uses: 1 space bedroom
3. All other uses: 3 spaces/1,000 square fee: of net leasable area.
(Ord. No. 9-1992, § 1)
Now -
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
Supp. No. 3 1646
LAND USE REGULATIONS § 5-212
mitigate traffic circulation and parking problems, and to serve the daily or frequent trade or
service
needs of the neighborhood. n c 2 h n e ` i s r*f i. er
B.
Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) zone district.
1.
Drug store;
2.
Food store;
3.
Liquor store;
4.
Dry cleaning and laundry, pick-up station;
6.
Barber shop;
6.
Beauty, shot);
7.
Post of —Lice branch;
8.
Record store;
9.
T.V. sales avid ser-.:ce
10.
Shoe repair shcn:
11.
Video rental and sale shoo:
12.
Accessory residential dwellings restricted to'at ordable housing guidelines. and
13.
Accessory buildings and uses.
C.
Conditional uses. The following uses are per fitted as conditional uses in the Neigh-
borhood Commercial (NC) zone dist_ict, 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.
Business and professional oc ice;
8.
Free market dwelling units which are accessor— to other permitted uses;
9.
Home occupation; and 10. 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
Supp. No. 3 1647
•
•
§ 5-212
ASPEN CODE
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
3 bedroom: 3,000
Emits with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feel of
lot area -
For accessory dweiling 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 wit, more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of
lot area.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): 30
4. Mi:iimum front yard (feet-: 10
5. Minimum side yard ';feet): 5
6. Minimum rear yar3'feet): 5
7. Maximum height (feet): 23 (increasable to 32 by special review pursuant to � �-ticle 7,
Division 4)
8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet): 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 Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district, subject to the provisions
of Article 5, Division 3.
1. All residential uses: 1 space/bedroom
2. Lodge uses: N/A
F_
Suoo. No. 3 1648
LANTD USE RBGM AMONS § 3-213
3. All other uses: 4 spaces/1,000 square feet of -let leasable area.
(Ord. No. 47-1988, § 8)
Sec. 5-213. Office (0).
A. Purpose. The pur-pose of the Office (0) zone district is to provide for the establishment
of offices and associated care-mercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and
character of former residential areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas,
and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume ti:oroug^fares.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are pe-r:nitted as of right in the Of -lice (0) zone
district.
1. Detac...hed resident'_a1 dwellings and multi -family d:vellingc;
2. P-ofessional busi^e_s offices;
3. Accessorl residential dwellings restricted to a-foraiaale housing��IQeares;
4. Horne occupat:0nS:.
6. Group homes;
6. Accessory buildings and uses;
7. Dor---„itorr; and
8. A mi.Yed-use buildings, comprised of a .residential dwelling unit and permitted and
conditional uses in the Office (0) zone district so long as such conditional use has been
approved subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3
of this chapter.
C. Conditzoncl uses. T e following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Office (0)
zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Division 3.
1. Only for those str-c^.ires that have received historic landmark designation: antique
store, art studio, bakery, bed and breakfast, boarding house, bookstore, broadcasting
station, church, dance studio, florist, fraternal lodge, furniture store, martuary, music
store (for the sale of musical instriments), music studio, restaurant, shop craft in-
dus6.-7 visual a_-ts fiery, and provided, however, that (a) no more than two (2) such
conditional uses shall be aLowed in each structure, and (b) off-street parking is pro-
vided, with ai1e_% access for those conditional uses along -Main Street;
2. , Duplex r esidential dwelling, of which one unit shall be restricted as affordable housing
to the :riddle intone price and occupancy o ide1.ines. The affordable housing unit
shall comprise a minimum of one-third (Y3) of the total floor area of the duplex. In the
alternative, both may be free market units if an accessory dwelling unit shall be
provided for each unit;
S. Two (2) detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot containing a historic
landmark with a minimum area of 6,000 square feet, of which one unit shall be
Sapp. No. 3 1649
COMMERCIAL
• APARTMENTS
_j—u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,
VIEWS
I�l REI
OUN Ion
0
0
0
0
0
ir0
0 V)
0
0
`o
VIEWS TO o�
COOPER ------
1OWN uu0000o01
PEDESTRIAN I
WI<
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
0( -- — -
u 1
0 1
0 1
ASPEN SQUARE 0 0
0 Z
0
o R
0 Q
o In
0
0 1
o l(Ly
u
0
•
0
0
0
0
P UT�STU IA
ASPEN SQUARE LI y< FROM
n
ONDOI A
0
0
0
0 11
0
oogyj`p-_gO MI, 111,000
u ,00uoo oo
V L WAS J At (X.)
I IYMAIJ AVENUE
L_ I PI101'()SU1) IuiAUF
p
LE FAMILY
AF►'ORDA111 E IIOUSIN(i VIE S I
OFFICE SMI (i(il. E 1
1 M 11N IAI J
N
_.._. ._..—..—.._.._ N
i Q
Z
PROPOSED SITE j Q
N a APART ENTS
I—
I (n
w
VEIIICUF_AR—__----_ _—
MAJOR AXIS _ I d VIEWS TO
AVE--- — -
uou 0 ouu00000u0000u000uuuouoouo o.ngR00000000u000 0000000000 u INDEPENDENCE
EXISTING BUS I-JOU I ES
1 AGGE. S PEDESI RIAN ACCESS
I
I �
j 2 PARI TENT`
IAI
0
PEDFSI UIIAN ZONE ' / � IjVI(.',v kcjN6 /
H L1'�
N DURAN T MAI.1_
PARIMENII
D1IRANT AVENUE
- - - .. ---- rl AN N0RT11
SITE ANALYSIS
i
3
______________________________
- --- -- Z
Q
t.. 1 71MCK11,O)RIN,
X
IL
�ILItill J1_ IM DINGI-HI-J.IA1(111141 AIN III III DIN(; Q U
'\ r R I..r II..Y w Y C'
o -c
CD
Si. ilwy 82 I„
0
1
1 II'I R AVI NI11- I, \ f 1 � IFM I - � a v
� •Y.� - 'r•' li ilk
I A II
(,:)
I a
W W Q
C S
• I�I,'Iltl �i 1 � ~
S(11NJIWPSf('0RNfR IWH NIN(7 L II I FIY KIARK17I fit II I)ING
I I
LANMC'AM:MAN Nan +
�� Snlr
CoOPEII
AVENUE
U
-
rNticltxt --
ItEIoW _ I
I I MPL )YEI 110 1SIN
I
I
I
I
tj
COMMEVICIAL
I
F0Ool� PAVII ION
z
i
II
In
i
r--n n--�Ii�lilll li
COMMEIICIAL
iPl; I
11
111iI
CII SI IUPsKEr
COMMEIICIAL -
-
t MS11
I � � uttli�tllLLJ .
I
rI
I
[-) �CVLL
SCR E: 1/16' - 1* O.I �\
IIWY 82
I
F
COOPEn in
AVENUE (7
Z
Ir
in
MI'I )Yf 1 110 )SIN 3
�- —- -- - - -- — -- I PI YMOl
s L
COMMEncIAL
w
cc
n I I I
�I r SC_C_OND_ LEVEL
F1�1
SCALE 1/16' - 1-0' --� I
f IWY 82
J
Cnof Eft
AVENUE
fli
IEn
(7
z
cr
(L
U)
IIOIEL sulrr_s t ---- ---- '
I
j - - - - - -- - - - OFFICE
i
I I I
I
EMPI-OYE = -- -
---
IIOUSIN( I
EMPL(YEE H )USING
I
IIWY 82
I I
THIRD LEVEL —
ScAl E 1 /16' - f 0
I
0
rb
I at SUBGRADE LEVEL PLAN
1116*=I, 0'
plot
FARKWO grACIS PMOVIND
;*,d llVtl X, "tc,,
I' v c d trvit p" ,a
lot t. . '. :,.Cc::
0
211d SUBGRADE LEVEL PLAN
Ifla-:1 0-
ELM
•
•
Frl-171-1-17
f-ftifi�iif�iiifiii��
-_ LLHiLulitll1"It WAY
1J LI11J
3rd SUBGRADE LEVEL PLAN
vie-_ r o.
rive
I
U ~ 2
z i
N
U O
Ir O 0
� W
Y
Uoo
(D¢
J W cc �
CL aU
U)z
zw
wa
w-Q
z w
w=
0
z
w
0—
w
Q
z
10
! • •
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
TODAY'S DATE:
April
12,
1994
TO RUN THRU:
April
14,
1994
On Friday, April 15th there will be a round table discussion concerning the proposed
Independence Place "Superblock" Project. Members of the City Council, the project
development team, and members of various community organizations have agreed to participate.
The public is invited to come and listen to the discussion. The meeting takes place at the Given
Institute for Biomedical Research, 100 E. Francis, from 8:30 until 4:30 p.m. Parking is
extremely limited, so please walk, park at the Rio Grande Parking Plaza or take a RFTA bus to
reach the meeting. For more information, contact Leslie Lamont, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office,
920-5101.
flsPa"- Twns's
p� YViW5
�SPu
IC S k)0
Sr.mw„vk0"5S S v,
•
SUPERBLOCK MEETING
April 9 and April 15
Can Attend
Can Not Attend
Shellie Harper
✓Hal Clifford
Lee Pardee
Hov6e Mallory
David Brown
Sara Garton
U/s' y Coleman
Robert Blake
-sw---F ---
vEes Holst
Ha
Maw
)Roger
YTim Mooney
Hunt
. Bruce Kerr ) S
ari
* MEMORANDUM *
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Amy Margerum, City Manager
DATE: March 13, 1994
+ Sill L VN'�
RE: Superblock Retreats
5`_..
Staff still feels we should go forward with the 9th and the 15th meetings but to take a
bit of a different approach given the below circumstances.
* Most people can't attend (they are not interested or they can't make one of the
days). See attached list.
* I have been unable to get a facilitator to commit for both days. I have tried Floyd
Mann, Barbara Chambliss, Michael Kingsley, Larry Dragon and Sally Barlow -Perez
locally as well as several people in the Denver area.
* The development team and City Council can all make the 9th and the 15th as well
as some Planning Commissioners and local citizens.
Leslie, Alan Richman and I met and offer the following proposal:
1) Keep the meeting on the 9th and invite all those citizens who can attend even if
they can't make it on the 15th as well. Limit the discussion to just the issue of
municipal parking: how large should it be, who should pay for it, discuss various
ways of paying for it, etc.
2) On the 15th, continue to discuss the Superblock but focus on issues of design,
scale, size of City Market, affordable housing, density, neighborhood commercial,
historic qualities etc ... I think we will have greater participation on this date and if they
issue of the parking is more fully resolved on the 9th we might have a more
productive meeting on the 15th. By splitting the issues, it may be ok to not have all
the players at both meetings.
3) By splitting the meetings we can probably use two different local facilitators.
Please let us know what you think AS SOON AS POSSIBLE as we will have to make
calls and send out another letter as well as arrange for facilitators. THANKS.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Superblock Design Committee
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Upcoming Meeting
DATE: March 28, 1994
---------------------------------------------------
The first meeting of the Superblock Design Committee will be held
on Wednesday, March 30, from 4-6 p.m. The meeting will be held in
City Council Chambers.
Attached is the original submission for Planning Department review
of the Superblock project. At this time, the applicant is no
longer proposing the architectural designs which are shown. The
role of this committee will be to give input on appropriate design
concepts for this site and neighborhood, including the most basic
issues of scale, massing and site planning. (Please note that
Design Workshop Inc. has been retained to work on this project.)
It is anticipated that this committee will meet about two more
times, so it is very important that everyone attend on Wednesday.
If you are unable to do so, please contact me immediately at 920-
5096.
•
r�
u
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and Council
Amy Margerum, City Manager
Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
March 28, 1994
RE: Independence Place - Don Fleisher Report
Staff has been working with Don Fleisher in a review of the
proposed Independence Place and the "values" associated with the
requested development including the costs to develop three levels
of underground parking.
Mr. Fleisher used several resources during his evaluation:
* Aspen Appraisal Group's appraisal;
* Jim Curtis' evaluation which included bonding information;
* Staff's review of the value of upzoning;
* Staff's assistance with regard to the Land Use Code; and
* The December 31, 1993 application that was submitted by the
IJV (Independence Joint Venture) partnership.
Mr. Fleisher was however operating from a deficit of information
as the actual land values of the three properties, Bell Mountain,
Buckhorn Lodge and City Market, were not available. In spite of
this lack of information, he felt confident that he could use his
personal knowledge of land values within the commercial core and
surrounding zone districts. Therefore, his project analysis, based
on one lot, can be reviewed with confidence.
In summary, Mr. Fleisher makes the following recommendations:
1. Rather than negotiate with IJV for more monetary benefits,
position ourselves to negotiate for other non -monetary
community benefits. Based upon the economics to develop a
square footage of commercial space in this community, the IJV
partnership may have offered the most they can offer to the
City.
2. Negotiate out of assuming any risk of building the underground
parking.
3. Because of the huge unknown of what lies below the surface
(water, mine shafts or both) , consider a two level garage with
IJV building 100 spaces on the first level and contributing
in cash -in -lieu for an additional 95 spaces on the second
level to be included in the "municipal parking". IJV, based
upon the Land Use Code, is committing to mitigate their
parking with 195 spaces, the municipal parking is proposed at
209 spaces on the second level (this is assuming no third
level and the constraints that only allowed 209 spaces on the
third level would apply to the second/last level). With this
scenario, IJV will still mitigate 195 spaces but 100 of those
spaces will be actual customer/non-fee parking on the first
level and 95 of their spaces will be municipal parking that
are built with IJV cash -in -lieu.
4. Explore other financing mechanisms to help pay for the
municipal parking which includes revenue bonds, parking
district, ASC, and incorporate the cost of parking for the AH
units in the price of the AH units.
Following is the detailed information provided by Mr. Fleisher.
PURPOSE: The following report is made in response to your
request for advice on how to resolve two basic issues
regarding the proposed IP. How can the City of Aspen (City)
nurture the development of IP without contributing to the cost
of the municipal parking portion of the overall parking
garage; and how much of the $3,000,000 shortfall in the total
cost of the garage could be covered by Independence Joint
Venture (IJV)? How can the City negotiate effectively with
IJV to induce IJV to cover the shortfall disclosed in the IJV
proposal (Development Application)?
ECONOMICS: After my cursory review of various sources of
information provided for my analysis, I conclude that IJV may
have already offered the City "the most there is to get". The
project analysis attached to this letter as Exhibit I
describes the economics of the development of a hypothetical
single lot in IP. If value is assigned to existing land,
along with assumed soft and hard costs plus the single lot
contribution to the estimated cost of required parking
($25,000 +/- per space), the cost per square foot of new
commercial space would be approximately $357. Based on $30/sf
triple net rent, and the valuation of the property based on
a 11% cap rate, the value of the property would be
approximately $259/sf nla. Based on a 10% cap rate the value
would be $285/sf nla. I chose 11% for this study to reflect
the high degree of risk involved in developing this project.
A 9% cap rate would be appropriate for a completed project
with seasoned tenants and a history of net operating income.
As a result of the above, it appears that the project could
cost far in excess of its value. I don't think a lot more
2
time is justified to analyze the economics of this project in
greater detail.
Whereas I do not recommend negotiating with IJV for more
economic/monetary contributions to IP than what they have
already proposed, I do recommend that the City position itself
to negotiate for a series of other substantial, non -monetary
issues/benefits.
REDUCE RISK: Who should develop the underground parking: the
City or IJV? As a result of potential sub -surface water
problems throughout the commercial core of Aspen, a problem
that significantly affected the development program and
economics of the Rio Grande Parking Garage, I strongly
recommend that the City not assume the extraordinary
development risk for the IP parking garage. The down -side
risk is substantially greater than the opportunity for up-
side gain on this project. Rather than negotiate for
additional capital contributions from IJV, which may not be
available, I recommend that the City negotiate themselves out
of development responsibility. Various studies available for
my review indicated a disparity in estimated construction
costs between $23,500 and $27,500 per parking space. Assuming
the mid -level (municipal garage) contains 237 cars, the $4,000
disparity in cost translates into almost $950, 000 for just the
municipal level of the project without taking into
consideration the possibility of potential sub -surface
construction cost over -runs.
LEVELS: Due to the extraordinary per car cost of the garage,
the difficulty in finding financial sources to cover the cost
of the 237 unit municipal parking level coupled with the high
risk of developing 3 levels underground, I recommend that the
garage be only two levels. The allocation of the proposed 2
level concept would be:
Total
Paid by
Level
Spaces
IJV
City/ Other
1
100
100
2
209
95
114
Total
309
195
114
Based on the above, 195 units satisfies all IJV required
parking mitigation per their submitted application (this
amount could vary based upon the alternate parking
requirement), leaving 114 municipal spaces.
MUNICIPAL FUNDING: I am confident that the entire cost of the
municipal spaces can be achieved without the City being
required to make any capital contribution. At a estimated
cost of $25,435/space, the total cost of the 114 municipal
spaces would be approximately $2,900,000. The following
0
outlines my recommendation for various potential sources of
capital to pay for the 114 municipal spaces.
1. Revenue Bond Based on Exhibit II attached to this
report, and based on the criteria set forth in the
"Revenue Matrix" and "Operating Pro Forma" provided
by The Aspen Appraisal Group, at $3.50/day/space the
City can finance approximately $1,125,000 of the
total cost of the municipal spaces with a revenue
bond.
2. Parking District: I am very confident that, with
careful planning, a parking district could be
approved by certain landlords/tenants in close
proximity to the parking garage. With nothing more
than a cursory analysis, I estimate that there may
be as much as 350,000 sf nla between Spring and
Galena Streets and between Durant and Hyman Avenue.
At a cost of just .30/sf nla/year within the above
described zone, a proposed district could generate
approximately $105,000 in annual revenue. Using the
same bonding criteria from the above revenue bond -
1.25 debt cover, 7% interest rate and 30 year
amortization - the district could support
approximately $1,050,000 in debt. This amount
combined with the revenue bond covers $2,175,000 and
the $2,900,000 estimated cost of the 114 municipal
spaces.
3. Ski Company: Given that the Ski Company generates
a large portion of cars in the IP area, it is only
reasonable to consider the Ski Company as a
potential source for the remaining $725,000
shortfall. Again, based on the same debt service
criteria above - 7% interest rate and 30 year
amortization - the annual cost to finance the
balance of the required capital is only $84,000.
At 8% interest amortized over 20 years the cost
would be only $73,000. The Ski Company could
benefit enough from their participation in this
project to justify their contribution.
4. AHU Contribution: With cooperation from the Housing
Authority it is possible that the purchaser of cash
AH "for sale" unit be required to purchase its
required one parking space. On a monthly basis, at
7% interest amortized over 30 years, $25,000 would
cost the owner only $166.
CONCLUSION: I recommend that IJV be the developer of a 2
level parking garage with 114 spaces earmarked for the Cities
municipal share of the facility. I recommend that the City
4
negotiate to contribute a pre -determined, fixed amount (ie.,
$25,000 +/- per space) for their share of the cost, with IJV
assuming full risk of development. I recommend that the City
pursue the following four sources of capital to cover the cost
of the municipal spaces: i) revenue bond - $1,125,000 +/-, ii)
parking district - $1,050,000 +/-, iii) Aspen Skiing Company -
$725,000 +/-, and iv) AHU - $725,000 (29 AHU X $25,000/space).
I am prepared to answer any questions you may have regarding this
report.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to assist you.
k,
•
0
EXHIBIT I
Project Analysis
------------------
(Based on One Lot)
Description
-------------------------
Land Value
Development Costs:
Hard Costs:
Core & Shell
Tenant Improvements
Permits & Fees
Subtotal
Contingency
Total Hard Costs
Soft Costs:
Project Manager
Approvals
Arch., Eng., Des.
Contractors
Construction Insurance
Financing:
Points
Interest
Rental Lease Up
Rental Lease Fee
Subtotal
Contingency
Total Soft Costs
Exaction:
Parking
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Revenue
Less Expenses
NET OPERATING INCOME
VALUE (11% Cap Rate)
Amount Total Comments
------------------- --------------------------
450,000 3,000 sf @ $150/sf
325,100 4,500 gsf X $85/sf
114,800 3,825 nla X $30/sf
9,000 $2,000/1,OOOgsf
448,900
44,400 9.9%
493,300
19,800
4% Hard Costs
6,800
$1.50/gsf
33,300
7% Hard Cost
4,800
1% Hard Cost
3,400
$.75/gsf
5,000 $500,000 X 1.0%
12,500 $500,000 X 10.0% X .5 X .5
19,100 2 Months Rent
28,700 3,825sf X $30 X 5yrs X 5%
133,400
13,300 10.0%
146,700
® Epp®
275,000 11 spaces X $25,000
1,365,000 $357/nla
114,800 3,825sf nla X $30/sf NNN
5,800 5% (non pass-throughs)
109,000 $28.50/sf nla
991,000 $259.00/sf nla
ASSUMPTIONS: 990
1. Average Project FAR 1.5:1
2. Lot Size 3,OOOsf
3. Gross Square Feet (gsf) 4,500sf
4. Net Leaseable Area (nla) 3,825sf
5. Required AHU could be sold for an amount sufficient
cover construction costs. Therefore no cost is
indiciated under exaction.
•
EXHIBIT II
Municipal Spaces Operating Pro Forma
------------------------------------
Description
---------------------------------------
Revenue: 114 X 1.5 turnover X $3.50/day
Less: Operating Expenses ($697/space)
Reserve for Capital Replacement
Available For Debt Service
Debt Coverage Ratio
Available For Debt Service
Bonding Capacity (7%, 30 years)
Amount
218,500
(79,500)
(27,000)
112,000
1.25
89,600
1,125,000
•
r1
* MEMORANDUM *
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Amy Margerum, City Manager
Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: March 16, 1994
RE: Superblock Retreats: April 9 and 15
Time and Place of Meetings:
Both meetings will be held at the Given Institute:
�. • 3p - /a 30
April 9, Saturday, from . - M
April 15, Friday, from 8:30 a.m. to pm
People need to walk or carpool to the meeting as parking is limited.
Suggested List of Invited Participants:
We are recommending the following attendance list. The citizen's will need to be
filled in once Council as a group agrees on who to invite.
Name
Representing
1
John Bennett
City Council
2
Rachel Richards
City Council
3
Georgeann Waggaman
City Council
4
Terry Paulson
City Council
5
6
Development Team
Development Team
& , ,< y.-\
7
,d� I c4 , �1 ; ,�.,.�
Development Team
8
Development Team
9 6C—,.
Planning Commission
10
Planning Commission
11
Planning Commission
12
Planning Commission
13
HPC
14
CCLC
3)d9
15 ACRA
16 BOCC
17 Clean Air Board--)1.c-,--) vim,--1!
18 Trans Implementation Committee
19 Neigh. Advisory Committee �� L
20 Aspen Ski Company
21 Environmental Groups
22 Citizen At Large
23 Citizen At Large
24 Citizen At Large
25 Citizen At Large
26 Citizen At Large
27 Citizen At Large
28 Citizen At Large
29 Citizen At Large
30 Citizen At Large
31 Citizen At Large
Council Recommendations for Citizen Participants:
GW:
Lee Pardee ( in favor of parking)
David Swersky (in favor of parking)
Les Holst (not in favor of parking)
JB:
Hal Clifford
Shellie Harper — Q4�, e)
Les Holst
Suzanne Caskey
Howie Mallory i ►Q-
Mollie Campbell -
Harry Teague
TP:
Sy Coleman _ e(
RR:
Sy Coleman
Peter Guy
Don Sheely
Donna Fisher
Mari Peyton
0
•
Ernie Frywald
Facilitator:
We believe the meeting should be facilitated. We are exploring free facilitation
locally and/or are looking at potentially bringing over the former Planning Director in
Telluride, Amy Levek, to facilitate. We will ensure the facilitator is someone all of
Council is comfortable with.
Food and Drink:
We will provide sandwiches and drinks on both days for the invited participants.
Coffee and snacks will be available in the morning.
Financial Analysis:
As Council asked at the retreat, we hired Don Fleischer to review the numbers for the
development and give us an indication of the financial issues and the City's negotiating
stance in getting the developers to pay for most or all of the municipal parking. We
will have a report to you before the retreat.
Budget Needs:
We will need to ask Council for money from contingency funds for:
Room rent: $300
Food and drink: $600
Facilitator: $0 - $600
Recommendations/Action:
* Council needs to come to a consensus as to who to invite as citizen participants so
we can either telephone or send out invitiations. We suggest you get together over a
lunch to do this as soon as possible.
* Council needs to approve the above budget. If this is generally ok, we will add it
to the next appropriation ordinance.
Q. &.On- 0 0
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: March 8, 1994
RE: SPA Designation and Conceptual SPA Review for
Independence Place
SUMMARY: The property owners of the Bell Mountain Lodge, the
Buckhorn Lodge and City Market (the applicants) have submitted an
application for the redevelopment of their properties. The project
has been named Independence Place (IP) after informally being
called the Superblock.
The applicants are requesting a rezoning to overlay the three
properties with a Specially Planned Area (SPA).
A full SPA review is a four step process with conceptual and final
reviews. This memo and the subsequent March 8 Commission meeting
is the first step in the four step process. Therefore the memo
only considers the rezoning of the property with an SPA overlay and
conceptual SPA Plan review; further development review such as the
other rezonings, text amendments, special reviews etc. will be
reviewed during final SPA development review. Conceptual SPA
review and rezoning is a two step process with the Commission
making a recommendation to Council.
Although the SPA designation and conceptual SPA review are the only
land use reviews formally addressed in this application, several
threshold issues are included in the memo for discussion purposes.
Please refer to the Independence Place application that was handed
out prior to the February 9, 1994 worksession with Council.
Staff recommends approval of the SPA designation and conceptual SPA
approval.
APPLICANTS: City Market Inc., Bell Mountain Lodge Limited
Liability Company and Simon and Nora Kelly, represented by Alan
Richman
LOCATION: 720 East Cooper Avenue, 730 East Cooper Avenue, and 711
East Cooper Avenue: the block bounded by Original and Spring
Streets and the alley between the Durant Street Mall and City
Market and the alley between the Kraut/Hannah Dustin properties and
the Buckhorn and Bell Mountain Lodges.
ZONING: Bell Mountain Lodge - Lodge Preservation (LP), Buckhorn
Lodge - Commercial Lodge (CL), and City Market - Neighborhood
Commercial (NC)
•
•
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Official designation of Independence Place
with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay and conceptual SPA
approval.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referral comments, exhibit
A.
PROCESS: In order to officially designate the property SPA overlay
a map amendment (rezoning) review must occur. A rezoning is a two
step review process with the Commission making a recommendation to
Council.
SPA review is a four step review process with conceptual and final
reviews. For conceptual review the Commission, at a public
hearing, shall make a recommendation to Council. If Council
approves conceptual review the applicant will submit a final SPA
development application, within two years of conceptual approval,
for review by the Commission and Council.
In addition to the formal SPA review process with the Commission
and Council, and in response to the complexity and overwhelming
community nature of this project staff has also started the
following review tracks:
* the Public Projects Review Group (PPRG), with a HPC member
and AACP Character Committee member, to work with the
applicants on the plaza and building/massing design;
* a review of the project's economics as a resource for
Council's pending negotiations with the applicant; and
* the development of a visual, detailed plan for pedestrian
enhancements downtown to offset the proposed garage.
The goal is for all four "tracks" to be completed in time for final
SPA review.
STAFF COMMENTS:
I. Background - All three of the buildings located in the
Independence Place (IP) development area have used this property
for many years. According to the application, the Bell Mountain
and Buckhorn lodges were built approximately 30 years ago. Because
of its location, the older condition of the lodges and the
undersized City Market building, this area has been the focus of
several redevelopment ideas. The 1987 Transportation Element to
the Aspen Comprehensive Plan identified the IP area as a site for
2
1
underground municipal parking. It was ranked second behind the Rio
Grande site for municipal parking and considered a primary site
because of the potential to intercept summer traffic from
Independence Pass and the proximity to the Gondola.
When the Kraut property was purchased and rezoned by the City for
affordable housing in mid-1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission
urged Council and staff not to eliminate the potential to include
the Kraut property as part of the IP redevelopment. Council
appointed a private sector consultant team to work with staff and
the property owners of the Bell Mountain/Buckhorn Lodges and City
Market to pursue the superblock concept and include the Kraut
property and the Vicenzi A -frame property.
As part of the study, the team considered one below grade parking
structure stretching from the alley between City Market and the
Durant Mall to East Hyman Avenue, but excluding the Hannah Dustin
building. Ultimately, seperate garages were recommended because
one full garage would necessitate the relocation of utilities
without gaining more parking spaces than two garages and timing the
development of the Kraut property with the IP development could
unreasonably hold up the housing on Kraut.
However, as a result of the working group of property owners, staff
and private consultants redevelopment of the IP area was encouraged
and the City recommended that the private property owners submit
a development proposal for this area. (Prior to the submittal of
the application, staff and the owners continued to work on the
proposal within the context of the Land Use Code and the recently
adopted Aspen Area Community Plan.)
Following closely behind the Kraut rezoning, the Aspen Area
Community Plan (AACP) was developed and included several references
to the superblock. The AACP recommends a managed parking system in
downtown that combines paid parking with the elimination of parking
downtown offset by pedestrian and transit improvements. The AACP
specifically recommend the construction of the a public parking
facility beneath the subject property and Kraut property as an
action in the 1993-1995 timeframe.
The AACP also recommends rezoning the "superblock" for neighborhood
commerical development to create a balance between local and
tourist -oriented shopping opportunities.
The AACP Transportation Implementation Plan (TIP), adopted in June
of 1993, found the IP area to be "the most appropriate location for
additional public off-street parking, as it is convenient of many
employment sites as well as the ski base area."
Although the Plan was designed to substantially reduce parking
demand in the commercial core, it was recognized that the provision
of additional off-street parking in the commercial core was needed
3
to address remaining long-term parking demand. The "Superblock"
area was identified as an appropriate location for additional
public off-street parking. It is important to understand that
these municipal spaces would be managed to replace the residential
neighborhood's on -street spaces used in the Day Parking Pass
program and spaces located within the commercial core that would
be converted to enhance the pedestrian experience. The IP spaces
were not to "attract" additional auto trips into the commercial
core.
The TIP concludes with the following comment regarding the
"superblock" facility: The Transportation Implementation Committee
strongly recommends that the City move forward to begin
construction on this joint public -private project within the next
two years."
II. Site Description - The site consists of the three private
properties: City Market, Buckhorn Lodge and Bell Mountain Lodge and
the Cooper Avenue public right-of-way (ROW). The private property
entails approximately 54,000 square feet and the public ROW is
20,250 square feet owned by the City of Aspen.
The site is essentially flat with a drop in elevation of about 10
feet from the southeast corner to the northwest corner. The
existing vegetation includes significant cottonwood trees and
spruce trees primarily surrounding the Bell Mountain and Buckhorn
lodges.
The site is within two blocks of the downtown commerical core and
within two blocks of the Silver Queen Gondola. It is easily
accessed from the tourist/residential neighborhoods of the east end
of town.
The Bell Mountain Lodge, 20,066 square feet zoned LP, is a lodge
with 20 lodge units and a manager's unit. Six of the lodge units
and the manager's unit have kitchens. There are 10-15 surface
parking spaces and an outdoor pool on the site. The property has
received a GMQS allocation for a redevelopment to expand the
capacity to 40 lodge rooms including an underground parking garage
with access off of the alley.
The Buckhorn Lodge, 6,934 square feet zoned CL, is a mixed lodge
commercial building containing approximately 3,100 square feet of
net leasable commercial/office space, including a manager's unit,
and 9 lodge rooms. The property includes 7 surface parking spaces.
The property was rezoned to CL in 1983 and as a condition of
rezoning, the allowable floor area for this property was restricted
to a 1:1 FAR verses the allowable FAR for the CL zone district
which is 2:1.
4
The City Market parcel is 27,000 square feet and zoned NC (PUD).
The building is approximately 26,000 gross square feet. The
current food store square footage is approximately 12,085 square
feet. There is approximately 3,200 square feet of net leasable
restaurant space below grade. There are 29 surface parking spaces
on the property and several ornamental trees.
The proposed redevelopment area is surrounded by a variety of zone
districts. To the north is the Hannah Dustin and A -frame office
buildings that are zoned Office, the Kraut property is zoned
Affordable Housing. To the east is the residential neighborhood
zoned Residential/Multi-family. To the south is the Durant Street
Mall and the Butcher's Block building and the Durant/Original
buildings all zoned Neighborhood Commerical. To the west is the
Aspen Square complex zoned Commerical Lodge and the Chateau Aspen
and Hunter Plaza block zoned Commercial (C-1).
The site is served by all major utilities. Water mains are found
in Spring and Original Streets and in Cooper Avenue. Sanitary
sewer lines and natural gas lines are found in both alleys.
Electric, telephone and cable TV service has been placed
underground and also located in the alleys. A 24" storm sewer is
located in Spring Street. Two fire hydrants serve this property.
III. Project Description - The applicants propose to
redevelop their three properties and construct a three level
parking garage below the private properties and Cooper Avenue.
The garage is proposed for a total of 546 spaces. Level one will
consists of 100 spaces as required by the land use code for the
redevelopment of commercial/retail and lodge development. The
second level will consists of 237 municipal parking spaces and the
third level will consist of 209 lease/sale parking spaces.
The applicants propose to expand and reconstruct the City Market
food store one level below grade. Above grade, on City market
property, the applicants propose to build additional City Market
shops, other commerical space and employee housing in a three story
building. On the southwest corner of the City Market property a
two -three story building is proposed for commerical space and
employee housing.
The Bell Mountain Lodge is proposed to be rezoned from Lodge
Preservation (LP) to Commerical Lodge (CL). The first floor of the
lodge will be commerical space and employee housing. The second
floor is proposed for lodge rooms and employee housing and the
third floor is proposed for "hotel suites".
The Buckhorn Lodge will be rezoned from CL to Neighborhood
Commercial (NC). One level below grade is proposed for commercial
space. Above grade, the first level is proposed as commerical
5
space, the second story is proposed for employee housing, and the
third floor is proposed for office space.
The following table, from the application, illustrates the proposed
floor areas and gross areas of the project:
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL, HOTEL AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AREAS
Gross Area Net Leasable/Net Count as
Livable Area Floor Area
Commercial Uses 70,720 55,500 44,005
Hotel Uses 18,978 14,192 19,586
Affordable Housing 33,084 26,174 33,422
Total All Uses 122,782 95,866 97,013
Please see attached site plans, exhibit B.
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA
I. Designation of Property as SPA - Section 24-7-803 A. of
the Municipal Code the standards for designation of property as a
Specially Planned ARea (SPA) is as follows:
Any land in the city may be designated specially planned
area (SPA) 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 Code also states that a parcel of land designated SPA shall
also have an underlying zone district designation. 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.
RESPONSE: Utilizing the SPA overlay process enables comprehensive
planning and development of this property "for which the whole is
far greater than the sum of its parts."
SPA designation provides for the three properties to be combined
for one development plan. If the property is developed separately
then the Bell Mountain Lodge will redevelop based upon the 1993
GMQS approval expanding the lodge to 40 rooms with its own
underground parking garage. The Buckhorn Lodge will most likely
remain untouched and City Market could expand into the net leasable
space below grade that was recently vacated by The Steak Pit. No
additional parking or employee mitigation will be required for this
type of expansion as no new net leasable space will be created.
SPA designation also provides a four step review process requiring
conceptual then final review of the development proposal. The
longer review process provides the applicant, staff, the public,
and the Commission and Council plenty of time to address the many
elements of this proposal.
SPA designation also encourages flexible design and development
planning. The ability to use the underlying zoning as a guide
rather than as "an absolute limitation" allows a mix of land uses
that together further the goals identified in the AACP by the
community. In addition, the SPA overlay enables variations from
the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district.
Which, again support design and planning of a large complicated
project.
Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 the following standards of review for
an amendment to the Official Zone District Map are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: Official designation, on the Zone District Map, of the
property with a SPA overlay will not be in any conflict with this
chapter. Detailed review of this project, based upon the
underlying zoning will not be negated with a SPA overlay. If for
some reason it is found that the SPA designation no longer meets
the standards for establishing the overlay district, the Commission
and Council may remove the designation form the parcel.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) makes reference to
this parcel in several sections of the Plan. The SPA overlay
enables the kind of flexible design and planning of a property this
size to better accomplish the goals identified in the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The SPA overlay does not change the underlying zone
district. Although some additional map amendments and text
amendments are proposed, those amendments will be thoroughly
7
a
reviewed as to the compatibility with surrounding properties.
However, because there is a variety of surrounding zone districts
ranging from residential to intensive commerical, the SPA overlay
with the ability to vary uses and dimensional requirements will
help create a project that includes characteristics of surrounding
properties and is more compatible with the surrounding zone
districts.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: With an SPA overlay parking requirements may be varied.
However, if the property is developed as a whole, a variety of
traffic and road safety measures can be implemented in the entire
block and surrounding area verses a small parcel that is
independently developed.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: The project will be reviewed based upon its impacts to
public facilities and services regardless of the SPA overlay.
Again, the larger project may be able to make necessary upgrades
to the public facilities in a manner that a small independent
project would be able to afford.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: The SPA overlay, by itself, will not provide for
additional growth on the property. Therefore the proposed map
amendment (SPA designation) will not have a significant adverse
impact on the natural environment.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Using the flexible tools found in the SPA review section
of the code, a project can be designed and developed in a way that
is compatible with the character of the surrounding property and
zone districts and the community.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
8
RESPONSE: For years this area of town has been considered a prime
site for an East End municipal parking structure. However, several
timely circumstances have converged to bring this project forward:
* the City's transportation focus as outlined in the AACP and
the Transportation Implementation Plan;
* the effort toward more pedestrian enhancements downtown;
* the State Implementation Plan for the reduction in PM-10;
* the development of the Kraut property for affordable
housing;
* the sale and pending redevelopment of the Bell Mountain
Lodge; and
* the City's request of the private property owners to submit
a development application.
The use of a SPA overlay will aid designers and planners to blend
the many goals that this project has been targeted to accomplish.
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The rezoning of this property would further the public
interests as identified in the AACP.
II. Conceptual SPA Review - For the conceptual plan the
applicants considered surrounding land uses, pedestrian and
vehicular circulation patterns, views, and site service
requirements. Please refer to the attached site plans, exhibit B,
for this section of the memo.
The application makes the following points about the existing site:
1. Pedestrians enter this site from virtually all directions,
with particularly strong links coming from the west along
Cooper Avenue, from the Gondola, through the Durant Mall mid -
block break, and along Original Street.
2. The site is located at the entrance to downtown for cars
arriving from Independence Pass and the Eastern portion of
Pitkin County.
3. The Hunter Creek and Mountain Valley bus routes traverse
the site on Cooper Avenue and all of the City's RFTA bus
routes pass by the site, travelling south on Spring Street.
9
•
•
4. Service vehicles currently use the alley between City
Market and the Durant Mall. City Market also receives large
delivery vehicles directly off Cooper Avenue.
The proposed conceptual site plan for the project consists of the
following elements (as illustrated on the site plans):
1. Four buildings are proposed, their footprints are located
entirely within private property lines.
2. Mid -block pedestrian breaks are included in each block
allowing pedestrians to enter the site from the Durant Mall
and the Kraut affordable housing.
3. An enhanced (different street texture) Spring Street
crossing is proposed to draw pedestrians to and from the
downtown area.
4. The plaza includes food booths, fountains, benches,
outdoor cafes, planters and lawn area to encourage "messy
vitality".
5. Street level shops are intended to compliment the historic
Aspen commercial pattern.
6. The entire expanded City Market food store is proposed to
be located one level below grade thus eliminating the visual
problems with large, windowless, grocery stores.
7. Skylights will allow natural light to penetrate to the
City Market space and first level of below grade parking.
8. The entire plaza will use a snow -melt system and elevators
and stairs will access the garage from the plaza.
9. Bus shelters are included on the site.
10. The primary service/loading area for City Market will be
relocated along Original Street next to the alley between the
Durant Mall and City Market thus eliminating the problematic
delivery area at the Cooper and Original intersection. This
loading area will accommodate two trucks and include a trash
compactor.
The garage is proposed to be three levels of underground parking.
There will be one entrance/exit ramp at the Cooper Avenue and
Original Street intersection. The ramp is proposed for one lane
of entry and two lanes for exiting. The middle lane allows exiting
vehicles to make left turns only heading west on Highway 82. The
other exit lane will allow through traffic up Cooper Avenue or
traffic turning right on Original Street. The ramp will also be
high enough to accommodate cars with bike racks. A second entry
10
ramp is proposed off of Spring Street adjacent to the alley between
the Hannah Dustin building and the Bell Mountain Lodge.
To accommodate traffic entering and exiting the garage at the
Cooper and Original intersection some on -street parking should be
removed on the north and south sides of Highway 82.
The garage includes a total of 546 spaces. The first level will
be 100 spaces and the footprint of City Market and the Buckhorn
Lodge. The second level provides 237 spaces and the third level
309 spaces. The second level of parking has been identified, by
the applicants, as municipal parking to be built and operated by
the City. The first level of parking some spaces on the third
level are parking that is required as part of the development of
this project. Extras spaces on the third level are intended to be
either leased or sold as long-term parking. Finally, there are 12
above grade parking spaces proposed behind the Buckhorn Lodge and
the above grade City Market space for short-term/delivery type use.
Above grade there is an entire range of uses proposed for the
project. Please see Section III. Project Description of this memo
for a review of the proposed uses on the site.
The applicants propose to provide 70%, or 26,174 square feet of net
liveable space devoted to on -site affordable housing. A pedestrian
bridge is proposed to connect the affordable dwelling units on the
City Market site with the affordable units in the new southwest
corner building.
Although the application provides a general description of the
architectural design concept of the project, it is staff's
understanding that in conjunction with the PPRG the applicant is
returning to the "drawing board" to develop a design concept that
is compatible with the community yet creates a vital and active
plaza space. Therefore, a general description of the architectural
design concept is not provided.
Pursuant to Section 7-804 (B) the review standards for development
in a Specially Planned Area are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or
enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the
parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture,
landscaping and open space.
RESPONSE:
1. Following is a description of the surrounding development's
existing heights and floor area ratios:
a. Durant Mall - commerical/residential complex, current peak
height is 40.85 feet, existing FAR is over 1.8:1. The two
11
smaller buildings on either side are two story buildings with
an existing FAR of 1:1.
b. Aspen Square - commercial lodge with retail on the first
floor and lodge units on the second floor except for along
Durant Avenue where lodge units are on the first floor. The
current maximum height is 40 feet and the existing FAR is
about 1.8:1.
C. Chateau Aspen - tourist accommodation project. It is two
stories with an existing FAR of 1.7:1.
d. Hunter Plaza - commerical/retail complex. It is two
stories with a 1:1 FAR.
e. Hannah Dustin - commerical/office building. It's height
is 34 feet, the combined FAR for the office building and the
adjacent A -frame is about 0.5:1.
f. Kraut Property - 27 affordable dwelling units with an
approved height of 30 feet with a proposed FAR of 1.1:1.
g. Multi -family Neighborhood to the East - zoning is R/MF
with an allowable floor area of 1:1 and a maximum height limit
of 25 feet.
2. For a SPA review it is necessary to establish the use
dimensional and parking limitations for the proposal. Although
underlying zone districts are to be used as a guide, it is not an
absolute limitation.
a. Use Limitations - The applicant proposes to follow the use
limitations of the underlying NC and CL zone districts with some
variations proposed to the permitted and conditional uses in these
zone districts.
In the CL zone district the applicants request that "lodge
units with pre-existing kitchens" be a permitted use for this
SPA. This is a permitted use in the LP zone district. The
applicants seek to rebuild only four of the six Bell Mountain
Lodge units that have pre-existing kitchens. They point out
that the Aspen Square and North of Nell buildings all have
kitchens. Staff is unconcerned that pre-existing kitchens are
redeveloped in a lodge development. However staff does have
concerns that the ultimate configuration of the "lodge units"
with pre-existing kitchens are in fact short-term lodge rooms
and not de -facto residential condominium units that are more
permitted in the Lodge/Tourist Residential zone district and
not the Commercial Lodge zone district.
12
In the NC zone district the applicants propose the following
variations to the use list for this SPA:
* add "Fast Food take-out (pizza, yogurt, no seating)";
* add "Food Service establishment with no more than 15 seats,
having no waiter service" (this was adopted by Council in 1989
based upon a request by Jour De Fete but was never codified);
* add "Sporting goods store, primarily oriented to equipment
sales and service but could include clothing";
* include "manicure and hairdresser";
The Commercial Core and Lodging Commission (CCLC) has served
as a referral agent to staff for the proposal. The CCLC also
recommends that a sewing supply store and dry good store which
sells every day essential items be added to the NC zone. In
addition a pediatrician/doctor emergency clinic may be
appropriate. The CCLC also recommends that the a beauty shop
and ski shop should not be included. The CCLC strongly
recommended that the concept of the NC zone district is a
district whose uses are dedicated to community support and
provide essential services.
There are other uses that staff would like to include in a
revised NC use list. Permitted and conditional uses for the
NC zone is still evolving. A proposed list will be included
in the final SPA development application. The Commission
should suggest uses that they would like to include in a
revised NC use list.
The applicants propose that the new net leasable space (37,200
square feet) developed on the property be equally split
between NC uses and CL (which permits CC type uses) uses on
the site. All reconstructed commercial space (18,300 square
feet plus the 26, 000 square foot City Market below grade) will
comply with permitted or conditional uses of the NC zone.
Therefore the development will add 18,600 square feet of new
NC use square footage and 18,600 square feet of CL commercial
use space. The applicant also proposes to allow the market
to dictate where NC and CL space should be located rather than
"assign" a particular space to NC or CL use, but under no
condition will the NC space drop below it's 50% share.
A mechanism to monitor and enforce the 50/50 split will be
necessary to ensure the appropriate use of commerical space
in the SPA plan. The applicant proposes to prepare a
"mechanism" for final SPA review. The increased net leasable
for CC commerical space has been a point of discussion with
the Council and Commission for several months. Rather than
discuss whether CC uses are appropriate in this SPA plan,
13
•
•
staff would suggest that the Commission and Council utilize
the SPA use variation to identify those CC uses that may be
appropriate, given the location and mix of land uses that are
desired, for a vital community oriented project. For example,
a restaurant with outdoor seating would enhance the plaza
vitality but a "tourist oriented trinket shop" may not work.
Using the SPA as a tool for specific uses may be identified
for this site while others are excluded. Please note: the
changes proposed for the NC and CL zone districts should be
codified and available for use by other NC and CL zone
districts.
b. Dimensional Limitations - The conceptual dimensional variations
reflect the design considerations necessary to accomplish the many
public and private objectives for this site. However as part of
the four "track" review process, the applicant will be working with
the Public Projects Review Group, with members from HPC and the
AACP Character Committee, to better design the plaza and the
buildings character and compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood. Conceptually the following dimensional variations
for the development are as follows:
* The heights vary around the site but generally the
buildings are at the proposed 40' height limit. The
stair tower in the northwest corner of the Bell Mountain
building is proposed at 42.5' to the mid -point of the
peaked form and the four stair towers along the north
property line are approximately 41'-42' to the mid -point
of the peaked form.
* The proposed project FAR is 1.8:1 (97,822 square feet)
which is within the external FAR as proposed for the
project with the suggested text amendment that enables
the FAR for the NC zone district to be increased from 1:1
to 1.7:1 if 100% of the increase floor area is fully deed
restricted affordable housing.
Rather than restrain the floor area assigned to each
parcel to that parcel the applicants propose to utilize
the 97,822 throughout the site to create the maximum
amount of design flexibility possible for the project.
Please see Table 5 on the next page for a quick reference of the
dimensional variations compared to the underlying zone district.
14
•
ri
TABLE 5
PROPOSED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INDEPENDENCE PLACE
Dimensional Requirement
Proposed Standard
Comparison to Underlying
Applicable to Project
& Adjacent Zone Districts
Minimum Lot Area
6,000 sq. ft.
Same as requirement in
CL; exceeds that for NC
Minimum Lot Area Per
For multi -family dwellings,
Similar to current
Dwelling Unit
where 100% of the units
requirements for
built on -site are restricted
affordable housing in C-1
as affordable housing:
and R/MF zones; no such
Studio: 500 s.f.
requirements are in effect
1 bedroom: 600 s.f
in the NC or CL zones
2 bedroom: 1,000 s.f.
3 bedroom: not apphc.
Minimum Lot Width
30'
Same as requirement in
NC; no requirement in CL
Minimum Front, Side and
Varies from building to
No requirement in CL or
Rear Yard
building, as illustrated on
C-1 zones; NC requires
the Site Plan
10', 5' and 5' respectively
Maximum Height
40'
Same as in C-1; exceeds
maximum allowed in NC
and CL, but equals the
height of the adjacent uses
in these zones
Minimum Distance
No requirement
Same as in CL, NC and
Between Principal and
C-1 zones
Accessory Buildings
Percent of Open Space
25%
Same as requirement in
Required for Building Site
CL, NC and C-1 zones
External Floor Area Ratio
CL portion of site: 2.0:1
Same as existing in CL;
NC portion of site: 1.7:1
reflects proposed
amendment to NC
Internal Floor Area Ratio
CL: no requirement
Same as existing in CL;
NC: no more than 1:1 may
reflects proposed
be commercial, the
amendment to NC
remainder may only be
affordable housing
Source: Alan Richman Planning Services, December, 1993.
Development Application For Independence Place
Page 30
15
C. Parking Requirements - Parking will meet the parking
requirements of the NC and CL zone districts with three exceptions:
* no on -site parking is proposed for the 22 rental
affordable dwelling units, the residents are expected to
work on -site and will not require a car on a daily basis;
* the parking requirement to replace the spaces that are
lost due to the reconstruction of the site (36 spaces);
and
* the text amendment that does not require employee and
parking mitigation for the demolition and reconstruction
of NC space.
The Housing Office has suggested a closer examination of the policy
of not providing parking for rental units. The Planning Dept. also
has some concerns with their proposal regarding parking for rental
units. The Marolt Housing has limited parking and in the winter
it proves very problematic.
The SPA overlay enables a variation in the parking requirement.
However, until the applicant and the City resolve the issue of how
the municipal parking is to be financed, the ultimate number of
parking spaces required and provided should not be determined at
this time.
b. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to
service the proposed development.
RESPONSE: Impacts to roads and traffic were analyzed by Leigh,
Scott and Cleary, traffic Engineers, please see the attached report
exhibit D. As part of a broader traffic study of this end of town,
the City anticipates an additional analysis of the impacts to
traffic patterns and the road network as a result of this project.
Sufficient services exists to service this project. However,
significant relocation and upgrading of the existing services will
be necessary as a result of this project. Specific details of
necessary specific service adjustments will be included in the
final SPA plan application. At a conceptual level, there were no
issues or problems raised by the public service agencies that
cannot be resolved.
C. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally
suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability
and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and
flood hazards.
16
RESPONSE: Detailed investigations of sub -surface conditions will
be conducted prior to final SPA plan submittal. Results of those
investigations shall be included in the final SPA application.
d. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land
planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid
adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and
similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at
large.
RESPONSE: There are no designated view planes on this site. The
southwest corner building is proposed to step down to two stories
at the street to preserve views toward Aspen Mountain and be more
compatible with the adjacent Butcher's Block building which is two
stories. Proposed buildings have been kept out of the Cooper
Avenue public ROW to ensure the views down Cooper toward
Independence Pass are not obstructed.
The applicant shall address mid -block views and any other view
impacts to surrounding properties due to the proposed heights of
some buildings.
e. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The following pages (Table 2) indicate the number of AACP
goals and policies that the proposed redevelopment is attempting
to compliment.
f. Whether the proposed development will require the
expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities
for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
RESPONSE: The applicants shall be responsible for all costs
associated with the provision of utilities to service this site.
Two bus shelters will be provided on the site. The applicants are
committing to build the parking required by the Code for new
development. Whether the City will build the public parking on
this site is an outstanding issue that the Council and the
applicant are attempting to resolve prior to final SPA development
plan review.
For the public plaza the applicants, according to the application,
will provide a majority share of the cost of construction and
maintenance of the public plaza. They propose that responsibility
for these costs be based on the percentage of the plaza level owned
by each private landowner and by the City. Approximately 27% of
the site is within the Cooper Avenue ROW and the remaining 73%
being under the private ownership of the applicants.
q. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty
percent meet the slope reduction and density requirement of Section
7-903 (B) (2) (b) .
RESPONSE: Not applicable.
17
C y ^
U
syy
Qr
'z
'y b y
a U of
.i 'C
a
n ca
U
y
.. L O y y y
.M
`-° c
3 a T c
C
E m
y C.
w
c,
O C
c0 G.
L
= L C C y
k •= �' C
y
C
O •� U y 0 0
ot
L°°
C.
C L y
30
Cu-
r b C +r C C. C.
U
=
c- y H
� '�
C.
CZ
y •�
•� O cC
-O
v�
c L�
y G
�cc
i-.
u
N
y y O
y C
V C. p cC .w'
y'
�..
C • C
U
�
z
� C
J
y •V •= C y ,�
� y
�
"C � C � = •C C �
U
a
j
.�.
y
.�
�
� J �
� = �n
L
V
Gr■
�
C 6•. i.
c;
�
z
-- y
� .�
C. L C .0
C 3 0
U
C
6.
.0 L
�
O U C Cp `� G � • `� V y
y y L.
cC
cz
y u C ca
CUa—zcz
cn y
G=
O C � y � •� �
u
� •—
cC �
cC C C
rn
U
c
i �
6.
RS � y
L
7.�
'"• H
O ']G CTl
cz
w C
U U
C C
U 0 cz
v'
y
N c0 00 U
C,, G.
C/7
6-
v C
C C
�. �
cu3
a.
G� y
�'
C O
c
ti
C= C
E c cc s
y p
E�^ c73
c
p
p> cC
G,
C. Q.
y
C. V ca °c°
c u
H
�' .''
U
s y c-
'�
U
0 0
E
4 y`
cv
c
cd C CQ C Q
c U c
'�+ C y
c
.,
Z
c o
c C.
c
u .r n0 7
s
L
Cl. c
G O y j
an G.
C G U G,
U `c. = C
�' = m
y
y
lucC
I-.
y cC
Ci L. i~•.
cs C
a.i O cd cS3
G.
m
C
N
�
y y
U y
G U
O
V
F" c0
.
I. y
x
C3 �. y �
cC v� O
O
CM
✓ G y
y c U
s �.
C
y _L u U
c
y m ItC C
(u>+•�
..+
E
L.
J y
>
C.�_ E
v Vf 1i
C.E E
c on cUa `4 :o
C6— c
= c y c
c
�- C
o
.. U
70 y
G.
U
U �.
= cz
c.
C
c
Z
c. 3
C, n �.
_
C, y
c- --
to
c,
C.
E-v�IC--
" 0
c 3
N.E
u CAE
N
C
-
y
u
to
C c • �
1
c
6.
y
'c
C
U
J
CA .A C
G
w,
�
c •v � y
'�
Vi .O C
C cs y
(U
6.
^ 'CC
C c6.
_.
j`
L
cz
C-M 'J7 .�
y ='
.+
.n
C•
.ii
6.
to
:z
a
>, x
a c
E E
cz
6.
V
U
.0
CC C C U
6.
p
C I.. A «.
C 6. C
U [1
SO
E >
C' C C
�,
O y u
�,
�' E
2L
:•
c c s
� y
U �
.c E �
3
L
�„
C
G. •?e 1°.
19
h. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the
proposed development.
RESPONSE: The application requests a GMQS allocation in the NC zone
district and the CL zone district. Pursuant to Section 24-6-2-5
A.8(a) the GMQS review process, consolidated with a SPA review
process shall occur at final development plan review. Multi -year
development allotments will be requested as part of the GMQS
allocation request.
THRESHOLD ISSUES: The following issues have been considered
threshold and require a level of discussion and review by the
Commission and Council. Although final action cannot be taken on
these issues, this is an opportunity for the review bodies to
request additional information or guide staff and the applicant
toward a different solution.
I. Zone District Map Amendments -
A. The applicants propose to rezone the Buckhorn Lodge
property from Commercial Lodge to Neighborhood
Commercial. The implications of this rezoning are to
gain additional NC space, the allowable FAR remains the
same because the 1983 rezoning to CL only allowed a 1:1
FAR, and the property could take advantage of the
proposed code amendment to eliminate the requirement for
demolished and reconstructed NC space to mitigate
employee and parking impacts.
B. The applicant propose to rezone the Bell Mountain Lodge
from Lodge Preservation (LP) to Commercial Lodge (CL).
Currently the allowable FAR is 1:1. The allowable FAR
in the CL zone district is 2:1. Because the property is
proposed to be rezoned to CL this parcel could not take
advantage of the code amendment to eliminate mitigation
for demolition and reconstruction in the NC zone
district. Development on this parcel would mitigate for
all new commercial space.
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 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
o
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. This is a dull,
inactive area. Most occupants keep their shades drawn
and rarely use the balconies because, in staffs opinion,
of their close proximity to the public sidewalk and
street.
In addition, the Bell Mountain Lodge received a GMP
allocation for the redevelopment of the lodge for 40
units. This is not a redevelopment proposal for a small,
family run lodge.
II. Text Amendments -
A. The applicants propose to amend the external Floor Area
Ratio for NC zone district: currently it is 1:1 and it
is proposed to be increasable to 1.7:1 by special review
when 100% percent of the additional floor area is
approved for residential use restricted to affordable
housing. This is consistent with the existing commerical
core, C-1 and office zone districts. It is also
consistent with the AACP that recommends "more incentives
for providing affordable hosing on -site in the commerical
core... by revising existing zone district ratios to
increase square footage for affordable housing."
However, another policy in the AACP recommends reducing
allowable FAR for commercial square footage to create a
greater percentage of affordable housing within allowable
floor area ratios. Staff acknowledges a conflict in the
AACP and recommends a full discussion about the
applicability with regard to this proposal and the NC
zone district.
B. The applicants and staff have developed this text
amendment proposal to eliminate the demolition and
21
reconstruction mitigation for the NC zone district.
Rather than completely exempt mitigation of the
Independence Place 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 the Commission, 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
22
mitigate development impacts. Other parcels in town
could seek to apply this code provision but the site
would have to be rezoned to NC for it to apply.
This code amendment reinforces the need to reexamine the
permitted and conditional uses in the NC zone district
to ensure that the district meets the goals of providing
local oriented services. This issue was discussed in the
SPA review section criteria A, page 13.
III. Temporary Use of the Kraut Property
The applicants request the ability to relocate City Market on
an interim basis while the project is being developed. In
addition some of the Buckhorn businesses are interested in
using the Kraut property. 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
approved by the Commission and includes a 55 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
Temporary Use permit, approved by Ordinance, is the vehicle
to allow the temporary use of a parcel under special
circumstances.
It is unclear how much space City Market will need. The
property is 15,000 square feet.
The Kraut development team has taken into consideration the
interim use of this site.
IV. 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 approximately 12,000
square feet of City Market space and 3,200 square feet of what
was The Steak Pit. City market can take over the entire
building without mitigation costs or GMP allocations (K-Mart
23
rule does not apply in the NC zone district) as long as no new
net leasable space is developed.
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 of
the new store will be delivery/storage and office space.
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 a pharmacy or
video section. He stressed that as a new store opens,
departments evolve and grocery stores are constantly changing
the types of departments that are offered, depending on their
market.
Staff suggests that the Commission and 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.
The applicants have proposed that an additional 5,000 square
feet of above grade commercial space 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 contained a Safeway
supermarket, which was located 1/2 mile from Truckee,
California. 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:
24
* Population projections include both permanent
residents, seasonal residents and tourists;
* Peak seasons coincide with the winter tourist seasons
and summer tourist seasons;
* 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. Additionally, all the commercial/retail
space in downtown Truckee has remained 100% leased.
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).
On a weekly basis, the average person spends approximately
$30/week for food. Based on the trade area, this translates
into $1,050,000 in 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 supermarkets. It should be noted that these
figures are based on current peak populations as opposed to
"buildout" peak populations.
Another factor to consider is the "spinoff" of business to
adjacent stores. Supermarkets tend to "capture" the local
25
C,
•
market and draw customers to that location. Adjacent
businesses then benefit from the customers additional
purchases.
V. Encroachment Permit for Cooper Avenue Right -of -Way
The applicant is pursing an encroachment permit into the
Cooper Avenue ROW. The encroachment provides for the public
and private use of Cooper Avenue, with ownership of the ROW
remaining with the City. As proposed on the site plan, the
street will be closed to through traffic, with the entrance
ramp to the parking structure located near the Original Street
intersections, and with the remainder of the ROW being
enhanced into a landscaped, public pedestrian plaza. If the
City chooses not to close Cooper Avenue to traffic, the
project can be modified to permit traffic to flow on either
side of the proposed parking ramp. Leaving the street open
to traffic would significantly limit pedestrian aspects of the
proposed public plaza. Is the Commission and Council
interested in closing Cooper Avenue?
VI. Payment for Municipal Parking
Council and the applicant are attempting to resolve the issue
of who will pay for the municipal parking. As part of the
four "track" review process, this primary economic question
is intended to be resolved prior to final SPA development
review.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the SPA designation
for the Independence Place site area which includes Lots K-S Block
105 of the Aspen Townsite, Lots A-J, Block 106 of the Aspen
Townsite, and the Cooper Avenue public right-of-way between Spring
and Original Streets.
Staff also recommends approval of conceptual SPA review with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to final SPA plan review:
a. The City, in conjunction with the applicant, shall provide
an additional analysis of the impacts to traffic patterns and
the road network as a result of this project.
b. The applicant shall, in conjunction with public service
agencies, develop a relocation and upgrading plan of existing
infrastructure and services to accommodate the redevelopment.
The plan shall address the following but not limited to:
i. relocation of electrical transformers and switch
gears and natural gas regulator station;
26
•
ii. prevention of electrical line exposure;
iii. installation of new and extra electrical conduits;
iv. installation of street lights consistent with
current City street light and mall light system;
V. relocation of the 14" water mainline in Cooper
Avenue;
vi. current and expected flow information for the
Sanitation District's assessment;
vii. upgrade of Galena Street sewer line;
viii.televising the sewer line segments on the northern
ann southern edges of the project to ensure that the
system is not damaged during construction;
ix. review by the Sanitation District of shoring
methods;
X. review of alignment and design of sewer service line
connections by the Sanitation District;
xi. upgrades in pavement widths at Cooper and Original
intersection to accommodate the right turn lane and
the through lanes;
xii. an examination of lane widths, turning radii,
superelevation, sight distance verses traffic
volumes and traffic safety (including accident
history), for possible improvements at the
Original/Cooper intersection;
xiii. consultation with CDOT;
xvi. review with the Engineering Department and the
Neighborhood Advisory Committee of changes to on -
street parking, hotel drive -through turn -out design
and pedestrian circulation surrounding the project;
xv. storm runoff and drainage system upgrades;
xvi. a traffic control plan for pedestrian and auto
convenience during construction; and
xvii. an emergency access plan for the garage to be
coordinated with the Fire Marshall;
27
•
c. The applicant shall explore with the Environmental Health
Department additional PM-10 mitigation measures that can be
implemented in the development.
d. The applicant shall redesign the City Market loading area
taking into consideration the concerns raised by the
Engineering Department. Loading/service delivery and trash
areas for the other three buildings shall be further defined.
Perhaps a central loading area should be considered for all
the buildings.
e. Detailed investigations of sub -surface conditions shall
be conducted with the results of those investigations included
in the final SPA application.
f. The applicant shall address mid -block views and any other
view impacts to surrounding properties due to the proposed
heights of some buildings.
g. The applicant shall work with RFTA for a new bus routing
plan and location of bus shelters and Galena Street shuttle
stop and the costs of shelter construction.
h. The applicant shall continue to work with the PPRG to
revise the plaza and site plan to include accurate
descriptions of all dimensional variations.
i. The applicant shall continue to work with staff and other
referral agencies to identify the most appropriate land uses
for the SPA plan and how to best monitor the split between CL
and NC uses.
2. The applicants shall be responsible for all costs associated
with the provision of utilities to service this site including site
improvements.
3. A detailed landscape plan, including tree removal mitigation,
shall be submitted in the final SPA development application for
review by the Parks Department.
4. The applicants shall submit a detailed affordable housing plan
for review by APCHA with the final SPA development application.
The housing plan shall include:
i. specific size of dwelling units;
ii. number of units and size of units that are category 1 and
which are category 2;
iii. employee generation for public plaza and parking
maintenance; and
W.
Z4
iv. City financial assistance concept.
5. The applicant shall submit dimensional calculations and open
space calculations with the final SPA development plan.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to designate the Independence Place
development site with a Specially Planned Area overlay."
"I move to recommend to Council approval of conceptual SPA review
for the Independence Place development with the conditions as
outlined in Planning Office memo dated March 8, 1994."
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Referral Comments
Exhibit B - Conceptual SPA Plan & Elevation
Exhibit C - Outline of SPA Review Process
29
-2
c
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: INDEPENDENCE PLACE (SUPERBLOCK) SPA DESIGNATION, AMENDMENT TO
THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND CONCEPTUAL
SPA PLAN REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, March 8, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application
submitted by Bell Mountain Limited Liability Company, 720 E. Cooper
Ave., Aspen, CO, City Market, 711 E. Cooper Ave., Aspen, CO, and
the Buckhorn Lodge, 730 E. Cooper Ave., Aspen, CO, requesting SPA
Designation and approval of a Conceptual SPA Development Plan. The
Independence Place property is located at 711, 720 and 730 E.
Cooper Ave.; Lots A-J, Block 106, and Lots K-S, Block 105, City and
Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont
at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 920-
5101
s/Bruce Kerr, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on February 18, 1994
City of Aspen Account
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
FROM: Diane Moore, City Planning Di Q oe
Leslie Lamont, Senior Plan
DATE: February 9, 1994 `
RE: Independence Place Worksession
PURPOSE: The purpose of this worksession is threefold:
* presentation of the project by the applicant;
* encourage Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission
to review the project as a "team"; and
* review and discuss the major concepts of the project to
provide direction for the project.
Attached are several "worksheets" for your use. We have attempted
to briefly lay out the threshold concepts of the project for your
discussion, recognizing that there are many issues associated with
a project of this magnitude. The detailed review of the project
and its various components, i.e. proposed text amendments or
rezoning, will occur during the public hearings before the
Commission and Council for conceptual and final review.
In addition, the application as submitted, did not include economic
feasibility studies or cost estimates which is appropriate. At
this point there are several conceptual, threshold issues that
should be reviewed before a discussion of "who pays for what" takes
place.
Staff assumes that if this project is conceptually approved, based
upon the land use standards in the Code, then the monetary aspects
of the project will be negotiated. Staff has done some work in
that regard and we hope to also utilize Don Fleisher's expertise.
Staff will also provide the Council and P&Z with a proposed time
line for Independence Place.
•
•
INDEPENDENCE PLACE WORKSHEETS
February 9, 1994
Aspen Area Community Plan Goals
The following AACP policies lend support toward this project:
Housing Action Plan
"Encourage infill development within the existing urban area... to allow
more employees to be able to live close to where they work. "
"Locate permanent resident housing near desired activity centers."
"Encourage more incentives for providing affordable housing on -site in
the commercial core.
* Increase the use of upper floors of commercial buildings by
revising existing zone district ratios to increase square footage for
affordable housing.
* Revise zone district requirements to promote more on -site
affordable housing on upper levels of buildings for in town sites.
* Give a higher priority to on -site housing in the commercial core,
such as providing additional points in the Growth Management
scoring system."
Commercial/Retail Action Plan
"Study GMQS incentives for local serving neighborhood commercial
uses. Ensure that projects which receive such incentives are restricted
as local serving uses."
"Zone additional areas for NC and S/C/I development within the City,
specifically to include the superblock bounded by Durant, Hyman,
Original and Spring."
Design Quality Action Plan
"Study which areas in the downtown core could be developed in order
to attract social activity in specific places (i.e., people magnets at
intersections or ends of corridors and corners)."
"Investigate programs for enhancement of alleyscapes, both commercial
and residential. if
Transportation Action Plan
"Pursue the construction of a public parking facility beneath the Kraut
property/Buckhorn Lodge/Bell Mountain Lodge/City Market site; this
was recommended as Phase II in the 1987 Transportation Element."
Cc
educe the number of on -street parking spaces within the commercial
re by phasing out a portion of the parking spac s i co juncti n w'thrking and transit alternatives. " i x a p�
"Implement the recommendations in the Pedestrian Walkway and
Bikeway Plan in a phased capital improvement program. "
Question #1: Do Council & P&Z agree that these policies should be
pursued within the context of this project?
Y N
Question #2: Are other AACP recommendations more important to
promote in this project?
i. CL,� (,,� Y N
2
Question #3: Are any missing? If so which ones?
i . iA_L w n . \ r /) n - w ' / _ ., n A . , I /_ // I
o ':6- rQ
*Detailed, formal review will analyze whether this project goes far enough in achieving the AACP
goals.
Specially Planned Area (SPA)
The applicants propose to rezone the property with an SPA overlay.
The purpose of an SPA designation 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 location, and where
potential exists for community benefit from comprehensive
development.
* Allow the development of mixed land uses through the
encouragement of innovative design practices which permit
variations from standard zone district land uses and dimensional
requirements.
* 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.
K
•
•
* The underlying zone district designation 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.
Variations permitted: The final development plan shall comply with the
requirements of the underlying zone district, provided, however, that
variations from those requirements may be allowed based on the
standards of section 7-804(B). Variations may be allowed for the
following requirements: open space, minimum distance between
buildings, maximum height, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard,
minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access
area, internal floor area ratio, number of off-street parking spaces and
uses, and design standards of section 7-1004(C)(4) for streets and
related improvements. Any variations allowed shall be specified in the
SPA agreement and shown on the final development plan.
Question #4: Is an SPA overlay necessary?
Y N
Question #5: Do Council & P&Z agree that SPA provides the
flexibility for the review of a unified project?
Y N
0
Question #6: Would Council & P&Z use the SPA overlay to it's
fullest extent, i.e., use variations, dimensional requirement variations?
Y N
Question #7: Do Council & P&Z want to use the SPA overlay to
vary the use and the size of the commercial space?
Y N
jj
AH Concept
The applicants propose to house 75.75 employees on -site and proposes
51 AH dwelling units: 22 rental units and 29 sale units.
Question #8: Are the applicants headed in the right direction with AH
housing (e.g., provision of housing on -site)?
Y N
'0C&L",/ coy�,CVUIXO kzuj 0- lf_�tk j
fQb n
F
TP
rI
•
The applicants also propose to not provide on -site parking for the 22
AH remunits. Council, in the past, indicated a willingness to discuss
alternatives to on -site employee parking.
Question #9: Are Council and P&Z still interested i this concept?
-= km'- e,
fC
Question #10: S
AH units?
be included in
Size of City Market
ice of the
Y mn N
.e�C�
oa 0
00 o
The applicants propose to expand City Market to 26-,6— 4,net leasable
square feet Gross s.f.). The application does not indicate the
exact use for the expanded space, i.e., .pharmacy, hardware aisles,
specialty food ounters, etc.
6
Question #11: Are Council & P&Z comfortable with the proposed
expansion?
�o Y N
V V (�' rods �?, 060
U-7�e
Question #12: Would Council and P&Z like a market study focusing
on the future needs of supermarkets for the metro area (market study
to be conducted by an independent expert and cost to be borne by
applicant)?
I
—Tp— Y N
tea-
7
Kraut Property Interim Use J
The conceptual application does not request the use of the Kraut
property as an interim City Market Site. However, it has been
discussed in several worksessions. The City's Temporary Use Permit
process, which requires a public hearing (we used this for Fall Line
Productions in the Red Brick School) would be the actual review
process for that relocation. The applicant has stated that this is a
critical component to maintaining continual operations.
7
•
•
Question #13: Are Council and P&Z willing to keep this option open?
r)g_ Y N
Il o Transportation
The proposed underground parking structure consists of 3 levels of
parking. Level 1 (100 spaces) will satisfy the parking requirements for
the new commercial and lodge development. Level 2 (237 spaces) ,ao
would be earmarked as municipal parking. Level 3 (209 spaces) would
be leased/sale spaces for long term parking and these spaces would be
controlled by the applicant. There are 12 surface spaces designated for
the short term customer and for delivery purposes.
Question #14: Do the Council and P&Z consider the use of long term
lease/sale spaces as an appropriate use?
Y N
-rP -Cy
Q'W _ V 0
ern_ 3�
Question 15: If the City does not pursue municipal parking, would
Council & P&Z still consider cl sing Cooper Avenue?
Y N
FP-
Question #16: Through the creation of additional parking spaces for
commercial development and for leased/sale spaces, vehicle miles of
travel would be increased. The State Implementation Plan for PM-10
(SIP) has not been incorporated into the City's Land Use Code. Do
Council and P&Z want the applicants to offset all their PM-10
emissions (ve icle Iles of travel) created by this project?
Y N
Question #17: Assuming Council proceeds with the municipal parking,
do Council and P&Z want to pursue a parallel "action plan" that
provides for a reduction in on -street spaces in the c cial core and
within the residential permit parking areas alo g wassociated
pedestrian improvements?
Y N
The applicant is pursuing an encroachment permit into the Cooper
Avenue right-of-way and the encroachment provides for the public and
private use of Cooper Avenue, with ownership of the right-of-way
remaining with the City. As proposed on the Site Plan, the street will
be closed to through traffic, with the entrance ramp to the parking
structure located near the Original Street intersection, and with the
remainder of the right-of-way being enhanced into a landscaped, public
pedestrian plaza. If the City chooses not to close Cooper Avenue to
traffic, the project can be modified to permit traffic to flow on either
side of the proposed parking ramp. Leaving the street open to traffic
would significantly limit pedestrian aspects of the proposed public plaza.
Lt
•
Question #18: Are Council
Avenue?
and P&Z interested in closing Cooper
Y N
Plaza Concept
The applicant proposes an active public plaza/park environment in the
midst of the project and provides mid -block pedestrian breaks. The
plaza area encompasses approximately 13,500 sq. ft. which is 25 % of
the site excluding Cooper Avenue. If the Cooper Avenue right-of-way
were included, the open space would increase to 39 % of entire project
area.
It is suggested that the plaza area include a small food pavilion, outdoor
cafes, and several mobile food carts. Seating areas would be provided,
with tables and benches, supplemented by informal, seating -level walls,
steps, planters and a lawn area.
Question #19: Are Council and P&Z comfortable with the level of
activity proposed for the plaza area?
Y N
-.LQ
10
scoring system."
-Q=erci l etail AdIon Pla'
"Study GMQS incentives for local serving neighborhood commercial
uses. Ensure that projects which receive such incentives are restricted
as local serving uses."
"Zone additional areas for NC and SICII development within the City,
specifically to include the superblock bounded by Durant, Hyman,
Original and Spring."
02/07/1994 00:02 FROM The Hunt Family Trust TO 13039205197 P.02/11
FtL—l�4-1yy4 1'/ 1/ rKUM *1VF'1 1K11*1 11� J&11, IU �1464561J1�—{d`� F',03
Design Quality Action P1 n
"Study which areas in the downtown core could be developed in order
to attract social activity in specific places (i.e., people magnets at
intersections or ends of corridors and corners). "
"Investigate programs for enhancement of alleyscapes, both commercial
and residential. "
"Pursue the construction of a public parking facility beneath the Kraut
property/Buckhorn Lodge/Bell Mountain Lodge/City Market site; this
was recommended as Phase II in the 1987 Transportation Element."
"Reduce the number of on -street parking spaces within the commercial
core by phasing out a portion of the parking spaces in conjunction with
parking and transit alternatives."
"Implement the recommendations in the Pedestrian Walkway and
Bikeway Plan in a phased capital improvement program."
Question #1: Do Council & P&Z agree that these policies should be
Pursued within the context of this protect?
7Y)
N
Question #2: .Are other AACP recommendations more important to
promote in this project?
Y N
2
02/07/1994 00:02 FROM The Hunt Family Trust TO 13039205197 P.03i11
• 0
Question ##3: Are any missing? If so which ones?
*Derailed, formal review will analyze whether this project goes far enough in achieving the AACP
goals.
The applicants propose to rezone the property with an SPA overlay.
The purpose of an SPA designation 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 location, and where
potential exists for community benefit from comprehensive
development.
* Allow the development of
endouragement of innovative
variations from standard zone
requirements.
mixed land uses through the
design practices which permit
district land uses and dimensional
* 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.
3
02/07/1994 00:03 FROM The Hunt Family Trust TO 13039205197 P.04i11
• 0
* The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide,
but not an absolute limitation, to the uses and development which
may be considered during the development preview process -
Variations permitted: The final development plan shall comply with the
requirements of the underlying zone district, provided, however, that
variations from those requirements may be allowed based on the
standards of section 7-804(B). Variations may be allowed for the
following , requirements: open space, minimum distance between
buzldings, maximum height, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard,
minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access
area, internal floor area ratio, number of off-street parking spaces and
uses, and design standards of section 7-1004(C)(4) for streets and
related improvements. Any variations allowed shall be specified in the
SPA agreement and shown on the final development plan.
Question #4: Is an SPA overlay necessary?
Y N
Question #5: Do Council & P&.Z agree that SPA rovides the
flexibility for the review of a unified project?
Y N
4
02/07/1994 00:03 FROM The Hunt Family Trust TO 13039205197 P.05i11
Question #6: Would Council & P&Z use the SPA overlay to it's
fullest extent, i.e., use variations, dimensional requirement variations?
Y N
tj
Question #f7: Do Council & P&Z want to use the SPA overlay to
vary the use and the size of the commercial space?
CK) N
AH Concept
The applicants propose to house 75.75 employees on -site and proposes
51 AH dwelling units: 22 rental units and 29 sale units.
Question #8: Are the applicants headed in the right direction with AH
housing (e.g., provision of housing on -site)?
Y N
5
02/07/1994 00:04 FROM The Hunt Family Trust TO 13039205197 P.06i11
------------------------------ .. •---- -
FES-04-1994 17:19 FROM ASPEN/PITKIN BLDG DEPT TO 9-17146456190-090 P•07
The applicants also propose to not provide on -site parking for the 22
AH rental units. Council, in the past, indicated a willingness to discuss
alternatives to on -site employee parking.
Question #9: Are Council and P&Z still interested in this concept?
Y N
Question #10: Should parking be included in the purchase price of the
AH units?
Y N
Sipe of City 1 rke�
The applicants propose to expand City Market to 26,670 net leasable
square feet (29,156 gross s.f.). The application does not indicate the
exact use for the expanded space, i.e., pharmacy, hardware aisles,
specialty food counters, etc.
RI
02/07/1994 00:04 FROM The Hunt Family Trust TO 13039205197 P.07i11
-------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEB-04-1994 17:20 FROM ASPEN/PITKIN BLDG DEPT TO 9-1?146456190-040 P.08
Question #11: Are Council & P&Z comfortable with the proposed
expansion?
,�0— 3a/ `-Y N
ro
zfiYo �
)Leo ee D!� . c�/eff�r �c�4Q/L�S�•
Gr / Tarts rZ�
-- S14Y�' ID�ID %'t8 �I �7d.1Cy
Question #12: Would Council and P&Z like a market study focusing
on the future needs of supermarkets for the metro area (market study
to be conducted by an independent expert and cost to be borne by
applicant)?
Y rN
� Py°z7� r t..�Ga-i'"? I �J� � �(c= S f'1 �-c_c_c�° M�•�c'7'S �4- �
lJbr 07;�D Ngre—, A-�e;Sb
®'0 f n Kraut Pronerty.hterim Use
The conceptual application does not request the use of the Kraut
property as an interim City Market Site. However, it has been
discussed in several worksessions. The City's Temporary Use Permit
process, which requires a public hearing (we used this for Fall Line
Productions in the Red Brick School) would be the actual review
process for that relocation. The applicant has stated that this is a
critical component to maintaining continual operations.
7
02/07/1994 00:05 FROM The Hunt Family Trust TO 13039205197 P.08i11
Question #13: Are Council and P&Z willing to keep thi o tion open?
Y N
The proposed underground parking structure consists of 3 levels of
Parking. Level 1 (100 spaces) will satisfy the parking requirements for
the new commercial and lodge development. Level 2 (237 spaces)
would be earmarked as municipal parking. Level 3 (209 spaces) would
be leased/sale spaces for long term parking and these spaces would be
controlled by the applicant. There are 12 surface spaces designated for
the short term customer and for delivery purposes.
Question #14: Do the Council and P&Z consider the use of long term
lease/sale spaces as an appropriate use?
Y N
(XVL�P bzz-
Question #15: If the City does not pursue municipal parking, would
Council & P&.Z still consider closing Cooper Avenue?
�I� �V�V �., r � � r P,e 5 �f �rS N
0,0057WV-)1
02/07/1994 00:06 FROM The Hun! Fam;is Trust TO i3039205197
FFB-04-1994 17;21 FROM �/P I TK I N BLDG DEPT TO 1017146456190-090
P.09i11
P.10
Question #16: Through the creation of additional parlang ' spaces for
commercial development and for leased/sale spaces, vehicle .miles of
travel would be increased. The State Implementation Plan for PM-10
(SIP) has not been incorporated into the City's Land Use Code. Do
Council and P&Z want the applicants to offset all their PM-10
emissions (vehicle miles of travel) created by this project?
bvE 1; r*�uc P . ,—Arm A c�� r__ / 4"' A N
� % � . ,/S i �•4T �� �r��-7 L`� wr�/4�, tvo .42�: i ,eY•c�.,� 2�
Question #17: Assuming council proceeds with the municipal parking,
do Council and P&Z want to pursue a parallel "action plan" that
provides for a reduction in on -street spaces in the commercial core and
within the residential permit parking areas along with associated
pedestrian improvements?
Y N
The applicant is pursuing an encroachment permit into the Cooper
Avenue right-of-way and the encroachment provides for the public and
private use of Cooper Avenue, with ownership of the right-of-way
remaining with the City. As proposed on the Site Plan, the street will
be closed to through traffic, with the entrance ramp to the parking
structure located near the Original Street intersection, and with the
remainder of the right-of-way being enhanced into a landscaped, public
Pedestrian plaza. if the City chooses not to close Cooper Avenue to
traffic, the project can be modified to permit traffic to flow on either
side of the proposed parking ramp. Leaving the street open to traffic
would significantly limit pedestrian aspects of the proposed public plaza.
02/07/1994 00:06 FROM_The_Hunt_Fanily_Trust
FEB-04-1994 1?= 21 FROM W/PITKIN BLD(.' DEPT
TO 13039209197
TO �7146456190-090
P . 1 0 l ♦
P.11
Question #18: Are Council and P&Z interested in closing Cooper
Avenue?
(3 N
PJaz— Concgpt
The applicant proposes an active public plaza/park environment in the
midst of the project and provides mid -block pedestrian breaks. The
plaza area encompasses approximately 13,500 sq. ft. which is 25 % of
the site excluding Cooper Avenue. If the Cooper Avenue right-of-way
were included, the open space would increase to 39 0 of entire project
area.
It is suggested that the plaza area include a small food pavilion, outdoor
cafes, and several mobile food carts. Seating areas would be provided,
with tables and benches, supplemented by informal, seating -level walls,
steps, planters and a lawn area.
Question #19: Are Council and P&Z
activity proposed for the plaza area?
13u &j E---, a-,uD OF P��q
10
comfortable with the level of
X N
8F r e,A.rs1 T_��_LLS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, Planning Director
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: January 11, 1994
RE: City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission
Worksession - Downtown Transportation Philosophy,
State Implementation Plan, Kraut Parking Garage and
Superblock Review Process
SUMMARY: The latest Kraut property and the "superblock" concept
discussions by staff, Council, and the Commission began in mid-
1992. Since that time: the Kraut property was rezoned from Office
to Affordable Housing; the Aspen Area Community Plan was adopted
recommending a concentrated study of both properties for housing,
parking, and local serving businesses; a working group of property
owners and local consultants was organized to study development
possibilities of both properties; the development proposal for 27
dwelling units on the Kraut property has begun a formal review
process; and a GMQS application for a "superblock" development has
been submitted by the property owners of the Bell Mountain/
Buckhorn Lodges and City Market.
As a formal review process has begun for the Kraut affordable
housing development and an application has been submitted for the
"superblock", it has become apparent to staff that the Commission
and Council should review previous decisions and together consider
the larger issues raised by each proposal in a formal worksession.
In preparation of this worksession, staff has prepared this packet.
The packet includes:
* a brief history of the joint parking garage study, past
memos from staff and the consultant team with recommendations
based upon the study;
* a review of the parking/transportation concepts for
downtown that were included in the AACP; and
* the Transportation Implementation Plan endorsed by Council;
and
* a quick synopsis of the SIP and how these two projects are
affected.
HISTORY OF KRAUT/SUPERBLOCK PROCESS:
The Kraut property was rezoned from Office to Affordable Housing
in mid-1992. As part of the rezoning review the Commission urged
Council and staff not to eliminate the potential to include the
Kraut property as part of the superblock redevelopment - a
redevelopment concept that had been around for many years. The
1987 Transportation Element to the Aspen Comprehensive Plan
identified the superblock area as a site for underground municipal
parking.
Following closely behind the rezoning, the Aspen Area Community
Plan (AACP) included several references to the superblock including
expansion of the Neighborhood Commercial zone district and
additional municipal parking.
Council appointed a private sector consultant team to work with
staff and the property owners of the Bell Mountain/Buckhorn Lodges
and City Market to pursue the superblock concept including the
Kraut property and the Vicenzi A -frame property.
As part of the study, the team considered one below grade parking
structure stretching from the alley between City Market and the
Durant Mall to East Hyman Avenue, excluding the Hanna Dustin
building. The study also considered a mixed -use concept for the
Kraut property including live/work space and neighborhood
commercial space with affordable housing.
The study found that one full garage would necessitate the
relocation of utilities in the alley behind the Bell
Mountain/Buckhorn Lodges. Relocation of the sewer line would cost
approximately $350,000 while connecting the garages underneath the
alley would not provide more parking spaces than two garages
separated by the alley. There was also an issue of timing.
Preparing the Kraut property for development, including the review
process, would take less time than a review of the superblock
proposal. The Kraut property may be ready for housing as soon as
the summer of 1994.
Finally, the mixed -use development on the Kraut property was
defeating the goal of the original purchase of the property. After
building housing to off -set the employee generation of the new
commercial space, only 8 units could be added to our housing
inventory. It was believed that the superblock development would
be a better location for neighborhood commercial development and
that Kraut should be left to fill the need for employee housing
only.
E
Therefore, staff advised both the Commission and Council that there
should be two garages: one underneath the Kraut property with the
potential to expand underneath the A -frame property if necessary;
and a separate garage underneath the superblock from alley to
alley.
Council also directed the staff to begin the development process
of the Kraut property for 100% affordable housing.
Please see these attached memos for a recap of Kraut/Superblock
discussions: staff memo dated April 6, 1993, Curtis memo dated
April 22, 1993, and Curtis memo dated January 4, 1994 pages 5-7.
DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION/PARKING PHILOSOPHY
The intent of the AACP Transportation Action Plan is to provide a
balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors,
and commuters that reduces congestion and pollution. The goal
outlined in the Transportation Action Plan is to move away from an
auto dominated transportation system to a balanced system which
limits auto use while increasing mobility via transit, carpooling,
park -and -ride lots, pedestrian and bicycle modes.
The Action plan recommends items that would make the use of the
single -occupant vehicle less convenient while developing more
attractive transportation alternatives. The Plan is based on the
conclusion that proactive steps are needed, such as paid parking,
to reduce the attractiveness of the personal automobile. "Carrot"
approaches such as improved transit will not by themselves induce
reductions in traffic and congestion.
The policies stated in the AACP seek to:
* Create a less congested downtown core;
* Balance public and private transportation both within and without
the Aspen Metro area by increasing the number of available
transportation choices;
* Implement a valley wide mass transit system.
The City Council appointed a citizen's committee in August of 1992
to focus on the implementation of the AACP Transportation Action
Plan recommendations and this resulted in the "Transportation
Implementation Plan" (see attached). While a significant number
of the recommendations in the Implementation Plan focused on the
need to reduce the number of vehicles entering Aspen through
transportation alternatives, the committee also recognized the
importance of better management of vehicles once they have entered
Aspen.
3
Through numerous surveys conducted by the committee members, it was
determined that over 700 parking spaces in the residential area
(adjacent to the commercial core) are occupied by drivers destined
for the commercial core. These vehicles were representative of
employees in need of long term parking. Employees were also
parking in both public and private spaces within both the
commercial core and in the "commercial fringe" area (commercial
land uses adjacent to the commercial core). The observed mid and
long term parking demand for the commercial core would be reduced
by a series of factors reflecting other elements of the Plan
(implementation of transportation alternatives) as well as driver
reaction to the parking fee program.
The Plan also provided for a residential parking control program
to maintain the attractiveness of the residential area and to
insure that commuters do not park "at will" in the residential
areas. In that some of the drivers will want to park for more that
the time period allowed in the commercial core and for the program
to be effective, it was determined that a limited amount of all -
day parking passes would be available in the residential parking
control areas.
Additionally, although the Plan was designed to substantially
reduce parking demand in the commercial core, it was recognized
that the provision of additional offstreet parking in the
commercial core was needed to address remaining long-term parking
demand. The "Superblock" area was identified as an appropriate
location for additional public offstreet parking. It is important
to understand that these municipal spaces would be managed to
replace the residential -area onstreet spaces used in the Day
Parking Pass program and spaces located within the commercial core
that would be converted to enhance the pedestrian experience.
These spaces were not to "attract" additional auto trips into the
commercial core.
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The Aspen Element of the PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) was
revised and adopted by the City and County, and the revised SIP
was adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on
November 12, 1993. In order to comply with the federal Clean Air
Act, the SIP must contain control measures that will lower PM10
(particulate) levels enough so they comply with federal health
standards. The SIP assumes a 2%/year growth in automobile
emissions from uncontrollable and unavoidable increases in traffic
due to already -approved developments and downvalley projects over
which we have no control.
The SIP prohibits the use of federal funding and/or the issuance
of federal permits for projects which would cause emissions not in
4
0
conformity with the SIP. In addition, the Council and Board of
County Commissioners should not approve projects that would
increase PM10 emissions and render this area in non-compliance with
the SIP.
Council could amend the SIP to allow for future new development
projects. However, the amendment process is an arduous one,
involving hiring consultants to document the acceptability of
proposed amendments, hearings before the state Air Quality Control
Commission, and obtaining EPA approval.
Although the SIP has not been incorporated into the city's Land Use
Code, Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, it was adopted by Council.
In addition, requirements to use all practical means to prevent
increases in emissions are included in the air quality section of
the Municipal Code.
The SIP has implications for new development projects. Staff
recommends that new developments offset all of their PM10
emissions. Otherwise, the difficult measures which have been
undertaken in the SIP would be negated by new development, and a
new round of stricter controls would be required. And it is good
health policy to maintain and protect our air quality. If Council
wanted to approve a project whose PM10 emissions would cause
violation of federal PM10 standards, the project could be approved,
but the SIP would then have to be amended. Additional community
control measures would need to be devised to offset the emissions
from the development. The need to comply with federal clean air
standards could prevent new development if that development did not
contain enough mitigation of increased air emissions, so that
Council felt that it would cause us to no longer comply with
federal PM10 standards. However, there are many ways in which a
development's PM10 emissions can be offset, for example, by
construction of bike paths, extending the Galena St. Shuttle,
charging for parking, by removing parking spaces elsewhere, by
removing fireplaces, and so on.
Although the Kraut property has a Planning and Zoning Commission
approval for a 55 car parking garage, there is a 50-car parking
lot currently on the property. The elimination of this lot
combined with the potential elimination of 8 more spaces on Hyman
Avenue would fully offset the PM10 emissions from the new 55-car
garage, with 3 left over to be used elsewhere.
As stated above in the Downtown Transportation section of this
memo, support of the superblock garage is rooted in the proposed
elimination of on -street parking in the downtown. However, it will
probably not be possible to eliminate as many spaces downtown as
are being added by the proposed superblock garage. The elimination
of commuter parking in the neighborhoods was calculated in the SIP
and credit has already been taken for this reduction: therefore
7
this elimination cannot be included in the mitigation for the
superblock garage. However, as listed above, there are other
measures that an applicant may use to offset the proposed garage.
At least part of the mitigation may be able to be achieved by
charging for parking at the Superblock garage. If the fee is high
enough (comparable to the $1/hour being charged elsewhere
downtown), it might be possible to consider these spaces to not be
an auto incentive. However, spaces which are either sold or leased
long-term would encourage people to drive their cars into Aspen,
so should still be offset in some other way.
SUMMARY OF INDEPENDENCE PLACE (SUPERBLOCK) APPLICATION
The private property owners of the Bell Mountain/Buckhorn Lodges
and City Market have submitted an application for the development
of their properties including a town plaza and a three level,
below -grade, parking garage.
The purpose of this worksession is not to review in detail the
submitted application. That level of review and discussion would
be more appropriate once a formal presentation of the project has
been made and the review bodies have had the opportunity to review
the application. However, as the review process begins the
Council and Commission may want to consider scheduling either a
joint review or a formal discussion to review the boarder planning
issues of this project. It would be important to the process if
the Commission and Council were in agreement with certain issues
and aspects of the proposal and there was an understanding as to
why various members disagreed.
Staff has scheduled the first review of this project at the
Planning and Zoning Commission for March 8, 1994. This will be the
first review of a four step review process.
CONCLUSION: Staff would recommend that the Council and Commission
consider the following at this worksession:
* review the downtown transportation/parking recommendations
from the TIP and hopefully reach a consensus as to the
implications for future development downtown;
* provide direction to the Kraut property development team
for final review -
Second reading of the development proposal was continued to
January 24, 1994 in order for the Council and Commission to
discuss the various issues that have surfaced during the
review of this property. The Kraut property proposal provides
information related to a 146 car parking garage. The
Commission approved a 55 car garage but is encouraging Council
G
0
•
to consider a larger garage and the preservation of angle
parking on Hyman Avenue. Hopefully, with the review of
Council's goals with respect to parking and transportation
downtown, the summary of the Kraut/Superblock garage split,
and an introduction to the SIP, the Council and Commission can
finalize review of this proposal;
* an understanding of the SIP implications for the Kraut and
Superblock development proposals; and
* schedule another worksession to review the Independence
Place application and discuss the boarder planning issues that
are proposed by this application.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. April 6, 1993 staff memo
B. April 22, 1993 Curtis memo
C. January 4, 1994 Curtis memo
D. AACP Transportation Implementation Plan
V1
•
6TTACHMENT A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: April 6, 1993
RE: Superblock Worksession
SUMMARY: Two months ago, Council and the property owners of the
Buckhorn Lodge, Bell Mountain Lodge, City Market and the Hannah
Dustin office building contributed money to a conceptual study of
the "Superblock" concept.
The scope of work included the review of underground parking and
above grade site planning; this was a recommendation contained
within the Aspen Area Community Plan Transportation Action Plan.
The proposed underground parking structure is one component of the
draft Transportation Plan; the Plan is currently being discussed
by the Transportation Committee members with numerous organizations
in order to gain input and recommendations.
The superblock study area included the Kraut property and the land
bounded by the alleys on the Kraut property block and the City
Market block.
A consultant team comprised of Jim Curtis, Joede Schoeberlein,
Harry Teague and Jonathavn Rose orchestrated several meetings with
surrounding property owners, city staff, and Council. The team has
developed recommendations for the Commission and Council for
pursuit of the "superblock" concept.
The purpose of this worksession is to introduce the Commission to
the work and ideas generated by the property owners and consultant
team.
An April 21, 1993 worksession with Council has been scheduled.
Staff will make recommendations for both the Kraut property and the
"superblock" concept.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Parking
One Garage: The team considered the design and costs of one large
parking garage beginning underneath the Kraut property (including
the A -frame parcel) and ending at the alley between City Market and
the Durant Mall.
Most utilities except water and storm drainage are located in the
alley. A parking garage underneath the alley between Kraut and
Bell/Buckhorn Lodges would require the relocation of utilities.
Relocation would be very costly. The alternative is to build a
vault to house the utilities in the alley which would allow a
continuation of the garage at the second level.
In order to build one garage, a development plan for the
redevelopment of all the properties would have to be in place. A
development plan of this nature will be very time consuming and
complex.
Two Garages: The second parking scenario was two seperate garages,
one underneath Kraut including the A -frame parcel and one
underneath Bell Mountain/Buckhorn Lodge/City Market.
If separate garages were built the utilities in the alley would
remain untouched. The Kraut property could be developed next year
without waiting for the development of the rest of the superblock.
If the garage was tucked under Hyman Avenue no parking spaces would
be lost by splitting the garages.
The team recommends developing two garages. The garage underneath
the Kraut property would accommodate the Kraut property development
and build -out on the A -frame parcel (some extra spaces will be
available for lease). As a result, the City can focus resources
on a municipal parking structure underneath the superblock.
Site Planning
At the request of the property owners the City has begun to explore
a variety of land use tools to create redevelopment flexibility on
the superblock.
One possibility is a SPA overlay. Through a SPA overlay many
redevelopment strategies are available. Among those that have been
discussed are: pursue a "superblock town square" concept, rezone
the LP zone district to NC with lodge on the second floor, flip
City Market property to the other side of Cooper Avenue, enable
the expansion of City Market, combine employee housing on one site,
develop 100o employee housing on the Kraut property, and close
Cooper Avenue.
Details
Jim Curtis together with Jodie Schoeberlein will make a detailed
presentation to the Commission emphasizing the difference between
one and two parking garages, traffic and pedestrian circulation,
and conceptual ideas for the "superblock town square" concept.
Wd
E
&TTACHMENT B
MEMORANDUM
To: Aspen City Council
From: Jim Curtis, Superblock Consulting Team
Tom Baker, Housing Office
Date: April 22, 1993
Re: Superblock & Kraut Property Update For
Wednesday, April 21 City Council Worksession
SUPERBLOCK UPDATE
At the third meeting of the Superblock property owners on April 13, the property owners
asked that the April 21 worksession with Council be postponed until early June. This request
is based on the Bell Mountain Lodge property being Under Contract with a scheduled mid -May
closing. The potential new owner of the property is abreast and supportive of the Superblock
planning but cannot make any plans or representations until he closes on the property. The
potential new owner is having conversations with the other property owners with the hope that
the property owners can agree on a consensus recommendation for the Superblock. A fourth
meeting with the property owners is scheduled for May 12. The Consulting Team supports
postponing the Council meeting until early June.
KRAUT PROPERTY
Based on the above, the Consulting Team would like to use the April 21 worksession to
discuss how Council would like to proceed with the Kraut Property. The Superblock owners and
Consulting Team agree the Kraut Property is independent of the Superblock and can proceed on
a quicker development schedule. The following key issues on the Kraut Property are outlined
below:
100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING VS. MIXED USE
The Superblock property owners and Consulting Team agree the Kraut Property should
be 100% affordable housing, if the Superblock Town Square concept is likely to occur.
However, at this time, no one can definitely determine if the Superblock will be implemented.
Also, based on our Superblock presentation to P & Z on April 6, some members of P & Z still
favor a mixed -use Kraut development. The Consulting Team supports 1000t affordable housing
for the following reasons:
•
is
MEMORANDUM
To Aspen City Council
April 22, 1993
Page 2
1. Many public policy issues of neighborhood commercial development are still unresolved
— mainly, should the City be involved in commercial development on City owned
property.
2. The City can focus its neighborhood commercial efforts on the Superblock using private
sector zoning incentives and rezonings.
3. Residential development is less risky than commercial development relative to known
demand and users. However, as the earlier pro formas indicated, commercial
development at $25 sq. ft. rents generate significantly more revenue than the residential
use.
4. The property was purchased with Housing/Day Care funds and a $250,000 contribution
from the County for housing. However, the earlier pro formas indicate the "bulk sale"
of the 6,700 sq. ft. commercial space at $225 sq. ft. would make an approximate $200,000
income after an allocated land cost of $400,000 which could partially reimburse the
Housing Fund and County.
RENTAL VS. SALE HOUSING
Per the attached letter, the Consulting Team requested the Housing Board make a
recommendation on this question at its April 14 special meeting. Generally,the Housing Board
was split on this issue; however, the majority of the Board preferred sale units on the site. The
primary reason for preferring sales units is that our current inventory is deficient in sales units,
especially in the studio and 1-bedroom configuration. The Board is willing to reconsider this
recommendation if it can be demonstrated a rental project with low income housing investment
tax credits can provide significant future income to fund future housing projects or housing office
operations. Jonathan Rose will be at the worksesson to answer questions on how investment tax
credits work. Tom Baker will also be at the worksession to discuss the Board's recommendation.
1ST & 2ND LEVEL UNDERGROUND PARKING
The Consulting Team has meet with George Vicenzi and he has expressed an interest in
having the City build parking under the adjoining A -Frame property as part of the Kraut
development. We feel this is conceptually a good idea but before a specific "partnership" can
be negotiated with George, it is recommended updated cost estimates be undertaken in order to
negotiate with George. Based on a preliminary cost analysis by Harry Teague, parking under the
A -Frame property will be more expensive due to several reasons which can be explained at the
worksession.
Under the revised Kraut Parking Plan using the A -Frame property, approximately 72
spaces can be constructed on one level. The 27 residential units at 1 spaceibedroom will need
•
•
MEMORANDUM
To Aspen City Council
April 22, 1993
Page 3
27 spaces, George may need up to 26 spaces based on the A -Frame property buildout, thus
leaving an "extra" 19 spaces that can be long-term leased to the surrounding businesses and
public, and generate a profit to help pay for the housing.
The 2nd level of parking using the A -Frame property can have 66 spaces for a total of
138 spaces. However, based on preliminary cost estimates, the 2nd level spaces are significantly
more costly than the 1st level spaces by approximately 75%. A very preliminary estimate for
the 66 spaces is $1,674,000 or $25,400 per space. Does the City have funds to even consider
constructing the 2nd level spaces? If the City bonds for this construction, this will require a
November 2 Bond Election under Amendment 1. The Consulting Team recommends the 2nd
level parking continue to be investigated even though it appears to be not cost effective at this
time. Follow-up investigation would include:
1. Refine the cost estimates for the 2nd level spaces.
2. Determine what a probable long-term lease rate might be.
3. Determine if any private party might have an interest in funding and owning the 2nd level
spaces.
The'�m
etTeam for Kraut during the next phase of work should make follow-up specific
ecommendations to Council on the following:
1. Should parking go under the A -Frame property?�v
How should a partnership be structured with George Vicenzi?
Should �there be 2nd level of parking? How paid for?
b,,p r Q L
KRAUT DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION
The Consulting Team requested the Housing Board make a recommendation on this
question at its April 14 meeting. The Board recommended that the Council retain the services
of the existing Consulting Team (if the cost of their services is competitive) for the purposes of
managing the design, approvals, financing and construction of the project and providing sales
assistance to the Housing Office. The Consulting Team would act as contract consultants to the
City. The Board recommended the actual construction contract for the project be competitively
bid.
The reason for this recommendation is two fold: first, the existing Consulting Team will
bring valuable history and experience to this project; and second, the Board feels this approach
will give the City the most control over the design, development and sale of the project.
0
0
CUPITIS
OAssoc►a-rEs
March 19, 1993
Mr. Tom Baker, Director
Aspen/Pitkin Housing Office
530 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Kraut Property Rental or Sales Housing Recommendation
Dear Tom,
At a March 18 work session on the Superblock concept, City Council preliminary agreed
to proceed with development of the Kraut Property as 100% affordable housing vs. a mixed -use
of commercial and housing. The primary reason for this was the opportunity to create
significantly more and better located neighborhood commercial as part of the Superblock using
private sector incentives and rezonings. Council has therefore requested a recommendation from
the Housing Board as to:
1. Should the Kraut housing be rental or sale?
2. What is the recommended development implementation strategy?
RENTAL OR SALES HOUSING
The preliminary Kraut Development Study by Jim Curtis, Harry Teague and Jonathan
Rose determined 27 studio and 1-bedroom units could be developed under the full 16,500 sq. ft.
FAR of the property with 1 level of underground parking (42 cars). The studio and 1-bedroom
unit mix was determined by Jim Curtis in consultation with Housing Office staff and Board
policies. The conceptual design by Harry Teague is given in Attachment A.
The Kraut Development Study ran several financial proformas for the project. The
additional development subsidy of the proformas excluding the $1,100,000 land cost are
summarized below and the full proformas are given in Attachment B.
117 South Monarch Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-1395
•
•
1. 100% HousinLy
- 27 Units
- 1 level underground parking @ 42 cars
a. 27 Rental Units
b. 27 Rental Units with Investment Tax Credits
c. 27 Sales Units
Development
Subsidv
$1,522.000
671.000
547.000
For comparison purposes only, the Mixed -Use development subsidies are summarized
below:
2. Mixed Use
- 6,700 sq. ft. Commercial
- 16 Units
- 1 level underground parking @ 41 cars
- Surface alleyway parking @ 12 cars
a. Comm. Rental - $25 sq. ft.
b. Comm. Rental - $25 sq. ft.
c. Comm. Rental - $25 sq. ft.
d. Comm. Bulk Sale - $225 sq. ft.
e. Comm. Bulk Sale - $225 sq. ft.
f. Comm. Bulk Sale - $225 sq. ft.
& 16 Rental Units $
901,600
& 16 Rental Units
240,200
with Investment Tax Credits
& 16 Sales Units +
51.000
& 16 Rental Units
488.000
& 16 Rental Units +
175,100 *
with Investment Tax Credits
& 16 Sales Units +
192.000 *
* These three alternatives pay for themselves and recapture some of the land cost.
2
•
0
100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION
Proiect Description: The project is a mix of 27 Studio and 1 Bedroom units built around a
central courtyard. All units have single loaded entrances and good sun exposure. Only 6 of the
27 units are on the 3rd level to allow variation in the roof line of the building. The predominate
mass of the building will read as a 2 story structure. A laundry/commons room is provided.
Individual locked storage closets are provided in the parking garage. The underground parking
garage is designed to be either 1 or 2 levels.
Proforma Assumptions: The actual proformas are given in Attachment B. The key assumptions
of the proformas are highlighted below.
A. The rental prices are outlined below:
Income
Rent
Category
a.
10
Studios
-480 sq. ft. -$1.05 sq. ft.
_ $504/mon
High
#2
b.
4
1-Bedrooms
-544 sq. ft. -$1.05 sq. ft.
_ $571
High
#2
C.
7
1-Bedrooms
-640 sq. ft. -$1.05 sq. ft.
_ $672
Low
#3
d.
2
1-Bedrooms
-660 sq. ft. -$1.05 sq. ft.
_ $693
Low
#3
e.
4
1-Bedrooms
-768 sq. ft. -$1.05 sq. ft.
_ $806
Mid
#3
27
B.
The rental prices with Investment Tax Credits are
outlined below.
Income
Rent
Category
a.
10
Studios
-480 sq. ft. -$1.08 sq. ft.
_ $518/mon
High
#2
b.
4
1-Bedrooms
-544 sq. ft. -$ .95 sq. ft.
_ $518
Mid
#2
C.
7
1-Bedrooms
-640 sq. ft. -$ .87 sq. ft.
_ $555
Mid
#2
d.
2
1-Bedrooms
-660 sq. ft. -$ .84 sq. ft.
_ $555
Mid
#2
e.
4
1-Bedrooms
-768 sq. ft. -$ .72 sq. ft.
_ $555
Mid
#2
27
C. The sales prices are outlined below:
Sales
Income
Price
Category
a. 10
Studios
-480 sq. ft. -$115 sq. ft.
_ $55,200
High
#2
b. 4
1-Bedrooms
-544 sq. ft. -$115 sq. ft.
_ $62,560
High
#2
C. 7
1-Bedrooms
-640 sq. ft. -$115 sq. ft.
_ $73,600
Low
#3
d. 2
1-Bedrooms
-660 sq. ft. -$115 sq. ft.
_ $75,900
Low
#3
e. 4
1-Bedrooms
-768 sq. ft. -$115 sq. ft.
_ $88,320
Mid
#3
27
3
D. Rental and sales prices have been escalated at 5%/year for 2 years to adjust for the
estimated 2 years time frame to develop the project.
E. Development Costs.
Estimates provided by Shaw Construction.
Construction Costs
-$1,203,000 16,500 sq. ft. - $73/sq. ft.
Parking Garage
- 467,000 42 cars - $11,119/car
5% cont. & 5% esc.
- 167.000
Sub -Total
- 1,837,000
Soft and Fin costs
- 975.000
Total
- 2,812,000 16,500 sq. ft. - $170 sq. ft.
F. Construction costs have been escalated at 5% with a 5% contingency to adjust for the
estimated 2 years time frame to develop the project.
G. Parking. 15 of the 42 parking spaces in the garage are leased for $175/month under year
leases to the pubic or sold for $20,000/space. The lease amount and sales price were
reviewed with the Aspen Appraisal Group. The balance of the 27 spaces are assigned to
the 27 Residential Units at 1 space/bedroom.
H. Construction financing at 9% interest and 'fz points.
Permanent financing at 10.5% interest and 2.00 points.
I. Project Administration Fee = $ 60,000
Project Developer Fee = $281,000 = 10% Total Development Cost
Summary Points:
1. A mix of studios and 1 bedroom units is felt to be most appropriate for this in -town site.
This will accommodate single living for individuals and couples. The in -town site is not
felt to be appropriate for larger family type units.
2. The proposed rents ($1.05/sq. ft.) and sale prices ($115/sq. ft.) are generally high
Category #2 and low Category #3. The proposed rents with Investment Tax Credits
($0.93/sq. ft. avg.) are generally Mid Category #2 and are approximately 12% lower than
the rents without the Tax Credits.
3. Parking for the project is a big concern for the neighborhood. Parking at 1 car/bedroom
may be felt to be insufficient. However, additional parking for the residential units will
reduce the extra revenue from leasing parking to the public. Also, by leasing parking to
the public it should help alleviate some of the parking congestion already existing in the
neighborhood especially if the surrounding businesses are given a priority to lease the
garage spaces.
rd
PJ
•
4. The soft costs of the proforma are higher than the standard Housing Office development
costs. A big component of the soft costs is the Project Administration Fee ($60,000) and
10% Developer Fee ($281,000). These fees will vary based on how Council decides to
structure the public -private partnership. The proforma fees assume the private developer
will own the project and be responsible for full project management, subdivision
approvals, arrange for construction and permanent financing, pay for development cost
overruns, assume market risk for leasing commercial and residential space, and provide
for property management. If the project is bid under an RFP, these costs may be reduced
by the competitive bidding and/or how the public -private partnership is structured.
PRIOR PLANS OR POLICY REFERENCES
To assist in the rental vs. sales decisions, the following prior plans or policy references
are outlined.
1. Aspen Area Community Plan
The recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan made the following recommendations
for the Kraut Property specifically or generally as to affordable housing policies.
A. Kraut Property housing should be considered as a component of a mixed -use
project, good site for a public/private project, needs to include underground
parking for housing associated with the site.
B. Affordable housing should emphasize year-round ownership units since such
projects, both public and private, have imposed fewer costs on the public, have
blended with the community and are best suited to foster a long-term commitment
to the community. This housing should be compatible with the scale and
character of the community and should emphasize quality construction and design
even though that emphasis necessarily increase costs and lessens production.
C. Encourage government agencies to be the catalyst for the acquisition of property
to be used for affordable housing. Also encourage public\private partnerships for
development and management of affordable housing. The ultimate goal being to
achieve the best quality housing possible for the community.
D. Revise zone district requirements to promote more on -site affordable housing on
upper levels of buildings for in -town sites.
5
2. 1993 Housing Guidelines
The 1993 Housing Guidelines recommended the following housing preference
by unit type.
* Family oriented sales units (Category 3 & 4)
* Entry level sales units (studio/1-bedroom, Category 1 & 2)
* Rental units (Category 1 & 2)
* All other unit types are of secondary preference.
3. Existing Affordable Housing Inventory
1. The composition of the existing total affordable housing inventory (1,300f units)
is given in Attachment C. The inventory shows 459 ownership units (35%) and
856 rental units (65%) including 202 rental dorms/seasonal rooms. The
composition of the inventory by unit type i.e. studios, 1-bedrooms, etc. for
Ownership, Rental and Seasonal Units is also given in Attachment C as well as
a listing of the principal projects.
4. West Hopkins Lottery Experience
It is suggested staff contact some of the West Hopkins lottery losers and determine how
they view the Kraut Property for ownership vs. rental housing. Would they be interested in
buying at the sales prices of the proforma.
5. Truscott Renovations To Long -Term Rental
It is suggested staff evaluate how the renovation of the Truscott rooms to long-term
rentals might influence the Kraut decision, if any.
DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
The Housing Board has discussed various development implementation strategies in the
past for other properties. The Kraut Development Study recommended a public/private
partnership under a RFP (Request for Proposals) format for the following reasons:
The Housing Office does not have the staff to handle this level of complicated project.
The project will easily require 1 three-quarter to full-time project manager over an 18
month period. It is not recommended the Housing Office staff up to handle this one
project.
31
2. The RFP and bidding process will hopefully give Council the opportunity to negotiate a
more favorable deal than the proformas' herein. The proformas should only be used as
a guideline to evaluate different bids.
3. The RFP process will allow experimenting with a public -private partnership. It is felt a
successful public -private partnership is an arrangement the community would like to
encourage.
4. An RFP objective would be to shift all the construction risk, cost overrun risk and market
risk to the private partner and not the City.
However, with the 100% Affordable Housing scenario the complexity and risks of the
project to the City are much less than under a Mixed -Use scenario. Therefore, Council may wish
to consider a more simplified alternative to implement the project as follows:
One alternative would be for Council to select its preferred development alternative and
assume the pre -development costs to take the alternative through the subdivision approval
process. Once the project was approved, Council could then go out for a RFP to develop
the approved project. The downside of this approach is that Council would lose the
flexibility to consider RFP variations and the selected developer may wish to make
changes in the approved plan.
2. Another alternative would be for Council to develop the project in-house using Housing
Office staff or to simply contract with a development management team. The
development management team would manage the approvals and construction of the
project on a fee basis and turn the project over to the City on a turn -key basis.
3. If Investment Tax Credits for a rental project are used, it is my understanding the City
and a private investor would form a partnership for tax reasons, but that the City could
play as active or passive a role as it wished for subdivision approvals, construction and
property management. Therefore, the City could proceed under any of the
implementation alternatives outlines above.
Please feel free to give me a call on any questions.
Respectfully,
V
�aut
m Curtis
Development Study Team
7
0
iWACHMENT C
To:
Thru:
From
Date:
Re:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen City Council
Aspen P & Z Commission
Leslie Lamont
Tom Baker
Jim Curtis
January 4, 1994
Planning Office
Housing Office
Kraut Consulting Team
Kraut Project History And Summary
Coming from the Kraut Project subdivision application meeting on December 13
with City Council, I thought it would be beneficial to summarize the history and
Council's past decisions on the project for the January 11 worksession with the Council
and P & Z. This memo summarizes the 7 meetings the Kraut Consulting Team has had
with Council concerning the project over the past 17 months as follows:
Aug. 9, 1992 — Council contracts for feasibility study of the Kraut
development options.
Nov. 30, 1992 — Council reviews the Kraut development options and ask to
examine the interconnectness with the Superblock.
Jan. 11, 1993 — Council contracts for conceptual analysis of inter-
connectness of Kraut and Superblock developments.
April 21, 1993 — Council decides to pursue 100% affordable housing project
for Kraut.
Aug. 2, 1993 — Housing Office pursuant to Council direction awards
architectural and project management contracts for Kraut.
Sept. 14, 1993 — Council gives direction for Kraut subdivision application.
Dec. 13, 1993 — Council has 1st Reading on subdivision application.
Regarding the pending subdivision application, there are several threshold issues
as follows:
1. What is the principal use of the Kraut Property — — — affordable housing with
supplemental parking or principally parking with supplemental affordable
housing?
2. Parking
A. What are the downtown parking objectives of Council — — — how much,
what cost, what type, i.e. public municipal parking or leased/sold parking?
B. What are the parking objectives for Kraut — — — how much, what cost,
what type, i.e. public municipal parking or leased/sold parking?
3. What are the pros and cons of connecting the Kraut and Superblock proposals?
To update all parties, the Kraut Property was purchased in January, 1991 using
Housing/ Day Care funds and County housing 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, not a manned booth.
A. What Is The Principal Use Of The Kraut Property
The Kraut Consulting Team has designed the project with affordable housing as
the principal use and parking as a supplemental use based on the Council
direction from the April 21, 1993 worksession. All design decisions have been
based on providing the most housing for the best value and providing additional
parking as a secondary use to housing. The reasons supporting this decision are
the following:
1. The property was purchased in 1991 using Housing/Day Care funds from
the City ($850,000) and Housing Bond funds from the County ($250,000).
Both of these funds are specifically earmarked for affordable housing. If
affordable housing is no longer the principal use of the Kraut Property,
then these funds should be reimbursed in some manner.
-2-
2. Council felt there were too many unresolved public policy issues in being
a direct developer of affordable neighborhood commercial space on the
property. Council felt they could better encourage neighborhood
commercial development by giving incentives to the private sector like
rezonings and code amendments as currently being discussed with the
Superblock proposal.
3. If neighborhood commercial was developed on the property, once the
employee housing mitigation requirement of the code was met, then only
8 net new affordable housing units would be created by the project.
Council felt this was inconsistent with why the property was originally
purchased and the use of the Housing/Day Care and County funds.
4. Council recognized an immediate need for affordable housing and the
ability to develop the Kraut Property relatively quickly to help meet the
housing need.
B. Parking
Council must determine its overall parking policy for downtown. However, if
Council wishes to provide additional public municipal parking, the Kraut
Consulting Team recommends the Superblock is the better location for public
municipal parking than the Kraut Property for the following reasons:
1. The Superblock is better located relative to Highway 82 summer traffic,
the gondola and the downtown commercial core.
2. The Superblock is large enough to efficiently operate as public municipal
parking similar to the Rio Grande Garage.
3. The Superblock will have a cheaper construction cost per car due to its
larger size.
4. The Superblock offers a town plaza focus tied to Cooper and Galena
Streets linking the existing malls and the Rio Grande Garage.
-3-
•
Any additional parking for the Kraut Property has always been proposed to be
leased or sold parking vs. public municipal parking for the following reasons:
1. The Kraut parking is too small to efficiently operate as public municipal
parking with a manned booth. Even at its largest size of 146 spaces, only
99 spaces would be available for public municipal parking. (146 spaces
total - 27 spaces for residents - 20 spaces alloc. to George Vicenzi). At
its next largest size of 108 spaces, only 81 spaces would be available for
public municipal parking. (108 spaces total - 27 spaces for residents.)
2. Public municipal parking is felt to negatively impact the liveability of the
units because of the increased level of traffic into and out of the garage,
the increased traffic in the block, and the control, security and operational
aspects of the garage.
3. Public municipal parking with a manned booth would require a two-way
entrance/exit ramp into the garage which is much larger than the one-way
ramp presently proposed. The two-way ramp and booth would result in
losing 2 units from the 27 units currently proposed.
4. A 2nd level of public municipal parking would require an elevator. To
incorporate the elevator into the currently proposed plan would increase
the cost of the project and may result in the loss of another unit.
The Kraut Consulting Team feels the public policy issues regarding parking for
Council are the following:
1. If Council desires additional public municipal parking, the Superblock is
the preferred location and size over Kraut. Council should therefore focus
all its parking efforts and dollars on the Superblock proposal.
2. What is the Council's public policy objective in using taxpayers funds to
create and subsidize expensive leased or sold parking on the Kraut
Property which will not be public municipal parking. The Kraut parking
is proposed to be leased for $190/month or sold for $22,000 space. The
proposed 28 additional spaces for the 1st level of Kraut parking under the
current plan are simply to make an efficient parking layout with double
load aisles and to generate revenue to help subsidize the project due to
their cheaper 1st level construction cost.
Ma
3. Proponents of additional downtown parking argue that if the Superblock
is not developed for whatever reasons, then Kraut is the fallback position
for additional downtown parking. This argument represents a timing
problem in that if Council wishes to retain the Kraut Property as a
fallback to the Superblock, then any development on the Kraut Property
should be delayed until the Superblock is commenced or denied over the
next 12 to 18 months. If the Superblock does not proceed, Council can
reexamine the use of the Kraut Property at that time. If Council decides
parking should be the principal use of the property, it should consider both
underground and aboveground parking and/or a parking, commercial,
office mix for the property. If parking is the principal use, the Housing/
Day Care funds and County funds for the purchase of the property should
be repaid. At this time, the City does not have a funding/revenue source
to pay for public municipal parking or repayment of the purchase of the
property.
4. Does the City have an obligation to replace the 50 leased parking spaces
currently on the Kraut Property? Clearly, there is no legal or subdivision
obligation to replace the leased spaces. No private developer would be
required to replace the leased spaces. Again, if the Council feels it has a
"moral" obligation to replace the spaces, is it better to replace the spaces
as public municipal parking in the Superblock or as leased or sold spaces
in Kraut. Again, what is the Council's objective in using taxpayers funds
to create and subsidize expensive leased or sold parking which will not be
public municipal parking?
A detailed description and cost estimates of the Kraut Parking Options are given
in Attachment A.
C. Pros And Cons Of Connecting The Kraut and Superblock Developments
As directed by Council at its January 11, 1993 worksession, the Kraut Consulting
Team was asked to analyze this issue. At the Council's April 21, 1993
worksession, the Consulting Team recommended the two developments should
not be connected and that they could proceed under separate development
timetables for the following reasons:
-5-
0
1. To
connect the properties
would require
relocating major utilities in the
alleyway which was estimated to cost approximately
$350,000 as follows:
a.
Sewer
$174,000
b.
Electric
$170,000
C.
Gas
$ 10,000
d.
Telephone
---
relocation not necessary,
run thru garage
e.
Cable TV
---
relocation not necessary,
run thru garage
$354,000
Moreover, by connecting the properties no additional parking spaces would be
created. The only thing that would happen is that the Kraut parking currently
proposed under East Hyman Street would be eliminated from under the street and
relocated in the alleyway land under a double loaded aisle parking layout. The
only reason to connect the properties and relocate the utilities is to have public
municipal parking under Kraut operated in conjunction with the Superblock. The
only reason to do this is if the Superblock proposal is not providing enough
public municipal parking and therefore more public municipal parking is required
by connecting the Kraut Property.
2. To only connect the 2nd level of parking and not relocate the utilities was
also examined. Again, it was determined this would not increase the total
number of parking spaces for the prior reason. The only reason to connect
the properties is to have public municipal parking under Kraut because the
Superblock proposal doesn't provide enough public municipal parking.
3. Based on the Kraut Property being developed as affordable housing, the
Kraut Consulting Team felt the properties had different parking needs and
operational characteristics. Kraut was viewed as resident parking and
private yearly leases, and the Superblock was viewed as public municipal
parking similar to the Rio Grande Garage. It was also discussed that
public municipal parking would negatively impact the liveability of the
units.
4. It was felt the properties had different development timeframes. Council
previously had indicated they would prefer Kraut to be under construction
in the Spring of '94 and the Superblock timeframe would be 1 or 2 years
later.
In
•
5. Based on the recent Superblock proposal, City Market has proposed that
a temporary City Market be located on the Kraut Property while the
Superblock garage is being constructed.
The Kraut and Superblock separation or interconnection essentially goes back to
the threshold questions posed earlier.
1. What is the principal use of the Kraut Property? Is it housing, parking or
neighborhood commercial. The property would be designed completely
differently if the principal use is public municipal parking.
2. What are the Council's downtown parking objectives? How much
parking, what cost and what type of parking is desired? If Council desires
additional public municipal parking the Superblock is the preferred
location and size. If the Superblock doesn't provide enough public
municipal parking then addition municipal parking could be gained by
connecting Kraut. However, then the overall use, design and development
schedule for Kraut would be different than currently proposed.
D. Summary Conclusions
1. The Kraut Consulting Team continues to recommend the 27 unit 1-level
55 car parking option. The 1-level parking option does not negatively
impact the liveability of the units, is the most cost effective 1-level
parking layout, the additional parking will generate revenue to help
subsidize the project and the additional parking will replace some of the
existing lost parking.
2. If Council desires to add additional parking downtown, it is recommended
the focus be on public municipal parking as part of the Superblock
proposal. The Consultants do not recommend using taxpayer funds to
create and subsidize expensive lease or sale parking for the 2-level of
Kraut parking. Under the 1-level 55 car parking option for Kraut, the
additional 28 spaces proposed to be leased or sold are only proposed to
make an efficient double loaded parking layout. These 1st level spaces
are cheaper to construct and should be leased or sold at a profit to help
subsidize the project.
-7-
3. If Council feels the Superblock proposal does not provide enough public
municipal parking, it should first try to revise the Superblock proposal to
provide more public municipal parking and secondly, only consider
connecting the Kraut Property if more public municipal parking is desired.
As previously stated, the Kraut Consulting Team would then recommend
reexamining the use of the Kraut Property and changing its use from the
100% affordable housing currently proposed.
4. If Council wishes to retain Kraut as a fallback to the Superblock proposal,
it is recommended no development occur on the Kraut Property until the
Superblock proposal is commenced or denied over the next 12 to 18
months. This is the best manner for Council to retain complete flexibility
to decide the principal use of the Kraut Property based on the fate of the
Superblock. It is recommended the subdivision approvals be completed
for the currently proposed plan and then Council should put the project
"on hold" over the next 12 to 18 months until the fate of the Superblock
is decided. Council should then focus its housing efforts elsewhere.
5. If Council wishes to proceed with 2 levels of parking under Kraut now,
Council must give direction if this should be public municipal parking or
leased/sold parking; should include or not include the A -Frame property;
and if they wish to reexamine the neighborhood commercial use of the
property on the 1st level. Also, Council should determine if it wishes to
reimburse the Housing/Day Care fund and County fund for some or all of
the $1,100,000 purchase of the property
6. The 1-level 27 car parking option is not recommended for Kraut because
it results in a very high cost per car, does not efficiently use the 1-level
parking potential of the site, and does not generate any additional revenue
for the project.
ATTACHMENT A
KRAUT PARKING OPTIONS
This parking analysis updates my prior memo of September 9. Updated parking
cost estimates have been provided by Bill Vannice Construction working with more
detailed architectural drawings from Harry Teague Architects. The estimated costs
represent the total development cost of the parking including design, project
management, construction and financing. However, it has been very hard to estimate
the cost of the parking until final construction drawings are prepared and bid.
The table below illustrates the various parking options and their estimated cost.
The starting point is Option A which is parking for 27 cars only for the 27 residential
units at 1 space per bedroom. This option 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.
Incremental Incremental Incremental
Total Inc. Above Cost Cost Above Total
Parking 27 Cars Per Car 27 Cars Costs
Option A — 1 st level 27 - $ 25,000 $ - $ 675,260
Option B — 1st level 55 28 13,800 386,620 1,061,880
Option C — 1st level 74 47 15,000 669,200 1,344,460
Option B-2 — 2nd level 108 81 16,600 1,263,080 1,938,340
Option C-2 — 2nd level 146 119 16,600 1,859,410 2,534,670
Option A — 27 cars total, 1st level. Parking for 27 residential units only at I space
per bedroom. This is an inefficient high cost per car option as shown.
Option B — 55 cars total, 1st level. This is the most efficient 1-level 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 16 cars of on -street parking would be removed
during construction, but street traffic would not need to be closed
during construction. The Streets and Engineering Departments
Attachment A continued
conceptually have no problems with extending the parking under the
street.
Option C — 74 cars total, 1st level. Parking under George Vicenzi A -Frame
property and East Hyman Avenue similar to Option B. The cost per
car is more expensive than Option B because of additional costs to
build the garage under the A -Frame property without having a specific
building design for the property above. As previously discussed, for
the use of the A -Frame property George Vicenzi has requested an
upzoning of the property and an "option to buy" up to 20 parking
spaces on the 1st level under the property. Existing 22 cars of on -
street parking removed during construction, but street traffic would not
need to be closed during construction.
Option B-2— 108 cars total, 2nd level under Option B. This 2nd level will require
an elevator which has not been incorporated into the current design.
This option might require a two-way entrance/exit ramp, depending on
if it is leased, sold or public municipal parking, which has not been
incorporated into the current design. Also, no land cost has been
allocated to the 2nd level of parking at this time based on Council's
"principal use" decision for the property.
Option C-2— 146 cars total, 2nd level under Option C. This 2nd level will require
an elevator which has not been incorporated into the current design.
This option might require a two-way entrance/exit ramp, depending on
if it is leased, sold or public municipal parking, which has not been
incorporated into the current design. As previously discussed, for the
use of the A -Frame property George Vicenzi has requested an upzoning
of the property and an "option to buy" up to 20 parking spaces on the
1st level under the property. Also, no land cost has been allocated to
the 2nd level of parking at this time based on Council's "principal use"
decision for the property.
-10-
•
ATTACHMENT D
ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN
Transportation Implementation Plan
June, 1993
I
Prepared by the AACP Transportation Implementation Committee
Molly Campbell, Chairperson
Jon Butch
Bob Daniel
Pat Fallin
Brent Gardner -Smith
Shellie Harper
George Hart
Roger Hunt
Bill Lipsey
Howie Mallory
George Newman
Mary Ryerson
Chuck Torinus
Bob Wade
John Walla
With Staff Assistance by
Diane Moore, City Planning Director
Randy Ready, Parking/Transportation Director
Dan Blankenship, RFTA Director
Bud Eylar, County Engineer
Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Officer
Jack Reid, Streets Director
With Technical Assistance by Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc.
Debbie DuBord, Planning Office Manager
Illustrations:
Mark Henthorn, Cottle, Graybeal, Yaw Architects
Joede Schoeberlein, Harry Teague Architects
•
•
TITLE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY OF GOALS: FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PLAN .............. 2
PARKING ELEMENTS 3
1) Parking Control System ........... ..... . .. . . . . . . 3
2) Residential Parking Permit Program .................. 5
3) All -Day Parking Pass in Specific Spaces Within the Residential
Parking Control Areas ............... ..... . . . . 6
4) Preferential High Occupancy Vehicle On -Street Parking . . . . . 6
5) Onstreet Lodge Parking ............ ........ .. . . . 6
6) Annual Business Vehicle Parking Stickers .... ...... . . . 7
7) Increase in Loading and Service Vehicle Spaces .. ..... . . . 7
8) Other Non-residential Uses in the Residential Parking Control
Area................................... 7
9) East End Parking Facility .. . ........ ... . . _.. . .. . . . 7
MARKETING AND PUBLIC INFORMATION FOR. THE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM .................... 10
1) Parking Information Centers . . ... . ... . .... . . . . 10
TRANSIT SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS .... .... .... . . . . 10
1) Expansion in Downvalley/Snowmass Service ..... ... . . . . 10
2) Park -and -Ride Facilities .... ........... .. ... . . . . 11
3) The Upvalley .Transit Corridor: High -Frequency Free Transit
Service on Highway 82 between Aspen and the Upvalley
Park -and -Ride Lots ........................ 11
4) Return to and Expansion of Full Year -Round City Transit
Service .... . .... . . . . ...... . ........ . . . . 12
5) Cross -Town Shuttle . ... ... ........ ........ . . . . 12
6) Dial-A-Ride/Cab Coupon Program ...... .. . . . . .. . . . . 12
HIGHWAY 82 EASTBOUND/WESTBOUND HIGH OCCUPANCY
VEHICLE LANES ............................. 13
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES ................ 13
1) Improved Galena Pedestrian Corridor ... . . . .... .. . . . . 13
2) Improved Bicycle Connections . ...... . . . . . ... . . . . . . 15
3) Improved Sidewalks Between Commercial Core and Residential
Areas.................................. 15
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
PAGE
APPENDIX 1: ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
RECOMMENDATIONS ................... 17
APPENDIX-2: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETINGS ON ASPEN
TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN;
MARCH-APRIL, 1993 ................... . 21
APPENDIX 3: EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS ..:.. 24
ii
ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN
Transportation Implementation Plan
June, 1993
Through the Aspen Area Community Plan process, a broad spectrum of the Aspen community has
voiced a consensus that the City's transportation system is increasingly at odds with their vision of the
area (see Appendix 1). Again and again, the goal has been cited of moving from an auto -dominated
transportation system to a balanced system limiting auto use while increasing mobility via transit,
carpooling, pedestrian, and bicycle modes. This plan recognizes that there are diverse needs and
conditions that must be accommodated. There is not just one user, one season, nor one solution. The
steps presented below are designed to attain both transportation and environmental goals, while
maintaining the economic vitality and personal mobility that allows the community to function. In
addition, the design of our transportation system should be attractive and appropriately sophisticated.
If our system sets the standard for all its visual aspects such as signage, graphics, lighting, structures,
logos, then it will become a source of pride to the valley and attract more users. To accomplish this,
guidelines need to be developed which enhance the visual character.
This Plan is the result of hundreds of hours of effort committed by a broad -based citizen's committee
for more than nine months. It incorporates many of the comments suggested by the public at the
November, 1992 Transportation Forum. The first draft of the plan was completed in February 1993.
During the following months, City staff, council members and Transportation Implementation Committee
members attended more than twenty special meetings to provide- information and to listen to the concerns
and suggestions of the public regarding the Plan. Dozens of individual meetings and phone conversations
also took place during that time period. This revised draft responds directly to the concerns raised during
the public comment period --especially the concerns regarding the originally -proposed parking control
methodology (see Appendix 2).
A number of key findings drove the development of this Plan. First of all, the Plan is designed to be
equitable: all elements of the community (residents and commuters, visitors and employees) are required
under this Plan to make accommodations and changes in mobility patterns enabling the area as a whole
to limit personal automobile use. Secondly, this Plan is based upon the conclusion that proactive steps
are needed to reduce the attractiveness of the personal automobile: "carrot" approaches such as improved
transit service will not by themselves induce the substantial reductions in traffic and congestion that is
the goal of the Community Plan. In addition, the Plan is designed to be implementable, as revenues
generated by the Plan will cover a substantial portion of the Plan operating costs. Implementing the
elements of this Plan will require the City to utilize a number of funding sources beyond the City of
Aspen. The Plan is also designed to be flexible; adjustments can be made to the Plan if specific issues
are identified (after Plan implementation) and need to be corrected. To successfully implement this
plan, it will be critical that the alternatives be put into place before the auto restriction elements
(such as paid parking) are implemented.
This Plan is based upon a long history of transportation analyses conducted for Aspen and the Roaring
Fork Valley (see Appendix 3), including the Aspen Transit/Transportation Development Program (1986),
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element (1987), the Highway 82 Busway Plan (1988),
the Roaring Fork Railroad Plan (1991), the Draft State Highway 82 East of Basalt to Aspen
Environmental Impact Statement (1989), the Aspen Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan (1991), and the Snowmass
to Aspen Transportation Study (1992). In addition, a number of data collection efforts were conducted
in the fall of 1992 to obtain necessary up-to-date information, including an inventory of onstreet parking,
off-street parking, and parking use in neighborhoods adjacent to the commercial core.
•
SUMMARY OF GOALS: FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS WITH
IlVIPLEMENTATION OF THIS PLAN
As a whole, the Transportation Element developed through the Community Plan process will significantly
improve the liveability of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. Key findings of the implementation
analyses indicate the following:
► Overall demand for parking spaces generated by the Commercial Core are projected to drop by
800 vehicles during peak periods, which is equal to 30 percent of existing demand. Most
importantly, almost all of this drop in demand (750 vehicles) will be in long-term parking such as
employees; short-term parking demand will drop by only 50 vehicles.
► Parking availability will be increased dramatically. While onstreet parking in the commercial core
is currently 95 percent full during peak periods, future peak onstreet parking utilization under the
Parking Control Program will be 70 percent. At this overall level, onstreet spaces should be available
on even the most popular block. As a result, the unnecessary traffic congestion and driver frustration
caused by the search for available parking will be diminished.
► With reduced pressure for general public parking spaces, existing spaces can be used for increased
handicapped spaces, additional truck loading spaces, and conversion to pedestrian improvements.
► A key benefit of this plan is the improved availability of parking for visitors and shoppers. This plan
will not reduce the attractiveness of Aspen for shoppers. Experience in similar resort communities
indicates the attractiveness of more convenient parking resulting from this -plan will more than offset
any disincentive of pay parking.
► Another important benefit will be the reduction of parking impacts on the residential areas near
the commercial core. Commercial-core-parkers in the nearby residential areas are expected to
roughly total 200, a reduction of 500 vehicles (or 71 percent) from current peak winter levels.
To successfully implement this plan, it will be critical that the alternatives be put into place before the
auto restriction elements (such as paid parking) are implemented. This will allow auto users the time
needed to make the adjustments in work, childcare and shopping schedules necessary to accommodate
the loss of the instant mobility the private car provides. In addition, the participation and effectiveness
of the Plan needs to be continually monitored and evaluated so that adjustments can be made to the Plan.
The benefits of this Transportation Plan will extend far beyond the City limits. The reduction of traffic
along Highway 82 will substantially improve the quality of life in Basalt, El Jebel, Carbondale and
throughout the highway corridor by improving air quality and reducing congestion. Rather than simply
an Aspen plan, this Transportation Plan is a key part in an integrated solution to transportation problems
valley -wide.
This proposal promises to benefit all segments of the visitor and residential population. The transit service
improvements will be provided to year-round residents, both in Aspen and the Downvalley communities,
as well as for visitors. While funds are not yet available for the Highway 82 expansion project, and
proposals for the Downvalley commuter train and the Aspen -- Snowmass tram have to date foundered
upon their high capital requirements, the Community Plan transportation elements yield a timely and
achievable means of realizing the community's transportation goals.
Finally, a benefit of this plan is that it will not preclude additional future transportation improvements_
As paid parking programs remain the single most effective generator of transit ridership, moreover, the
institution of this plan would be a very strong spur for the development of future alternative transit capital
improvements.
Page 2
PARKING ELEMENTS
The Commercial Core parking area is bounded by Main (inclusive), Monarch (inclusive), Durant (in-
clusive), and Spring (exclusive). A total of 872 public parking spaces are available in the current
unstriped configuration (including six handicapped spaces) within this area. During the winter peak period
(early afternoon), approximately 95 percent of these spaces are occupied. In addition, there are 340
spaces in the Rio Grande Parking Facility, and 350 private spaces, for a total of 1,515 parking spaces
in the commercial core as a whole. Drivers destined for the core area also park in onstreet spaces in
the fringe commercial area (150 vehicles) private spaces in the fringe area (260 spaces), and onstreet
in nearby residential areas (700 vehicles). j
1) Parking Control System
Based upon a thorough evaluation of parking control system alternatives for the commercial core (see
map on the following page), the preferred alternative incorporates multi -space pay -and -display parking
ticket vending machines along with an optional in -vehicle parking meter system. A maximum time limit
of three hours is recommended for the commercial core, with a minimum parking fee equivalent to $1.00
per hour. The initial hours of enforcement would be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. Vehicles with valid handicap license.plates would be exempt.
The Pay -and -Display ("European") system requires someone parking on -street within the commercial core
to walk to the nearest ticket vending machine and insert payment (coin, bill or prepaid card). The
machine prints a ticket indicating transaction time and date, expiration time-, and amount paid. The
parking patron then returns to the vehicle to display the ticket on the dashboard. In order to
accommodate motorcycles or convertibles, the license plate number of the vehicle would need to be
written on the ticket before it was displayed.
One major advantage of this system is the flexible rate structure. Flat rates can be programmed to vary
by time of day or day of week. Rates can be set in increments so that parking patrons can select the
time they require and pay the corresponding fee. This feature can be utilized to help encourage turnover.
Parking beyond the three hour limit would not be able to be purchased in a single transaction. To further
discourage "meter -feeding," the license plate numbers of suspected abusers can be recorded and citations
with escalating fine amounts can be issued.
The in -vehicle parking meter option would complement the pay -and -display system by providing a
convenient alternative primarily to local residents. This option would require a commercial core parking
patron to purchase or borrow an in -vehicle meter, and then to purchase a smart card embedded with a
set amount of currency value (e.g., $40). The user then inserts the smart card into the in -vehicle meter
and hangs the device from the rear-view mirror. The meter debits units from the smart card automatically
and the user pays only for the parking time used. The same parking rate structure and time limits would
apply for the in -vehicle meters as for the pay -and -display system.
Enforcement of this tandem parking control program would be accomplished by parking control officers
walking along the curb checking for missing or expired receipts or for expired in -vehicle parking meters.
Revenue control and system management would be facilitated by automated audit reports, recording traffic
patterns and revenues on a daily basis for each vending machine.
' These figures are based upon an extensive survey of parking accumulation and turnover conducted in 1986, on- and off-street parking
supply counts conducted in 1992, parking accumulation surveys conducted in residential neighborhoods in 1992, an analysis of parking needs
based upon commercial core land uses, and City of Aspen records of parking activity in the Rio Grande Parking Facility.
Page 3
E MAIN ST
HOPKINS
E HYYAN AV,
CY t y o f As p e n
IllI1IIII111111111111111111111111UIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItIUll1111111IIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
c
� I
r
r �
c 1
AV
w
�E COOPER AVE
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII►III►IIIIIII►IIIIIIIIII►IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII►IIIIII►►►►IIIIII►IIIIIIII►IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII E
E MAIN ST Illllll
1 i n a 200 f t
AVF
Approximately 24 pay -and -display vending machines would be required if the in -vehicle parking meter
option is also available. The pay stations could be strategically located at northeast and southwest
corners of each block so that each pay station could service 30-35 spaces and parking patrons would need
to walk at most a half a block. The in -vehicle parking meters and smart cards would be available at City
Hall or another convenient location.
The visual impact of this parking control system would be minimized by the small number of pay stations
required and by the avoidance of on -street striping. Signage needs will be approximately the same for
'this system as for the existing 90-minute timed parking system. An additional advantage is that on -
street unstriped spaces require less space per vehicle than striped spaces. A block -by -block analysis of
available curb space indicates that striping would result in the loss of roughly 175 spaces.
Both the pay -and -display vending machines and the in -vehicle meters are proven technologies that have
been in use on -street primarily in Europe throughout the last decade. Implementing the system as
proposed would not only maximize ease of use and convenience for parking patrons while maintaining
the commercial vitality of the core, but it would also provide an essential travel demand management
tool as part of the overall Transportation Plan to reduce the impact of traffic and parking congestion on
our community.
2) Residential Parking Permit Program
If the disincentive of the paid parking program is to be achieved, and if the attractiveness of Aspen's
residential areas near the commercial core is to be maintained, it is crucial that a parking control
program be instituted in residential neighborhoods. Surveys indicate that up to 700 vehicles are already
parked in residential areas by drivers destined for the commercial core. If commuters and visitors can
continue to drive alone into Aspen and simply park a block or two farther from their destination, this
spillover problem would multiply, and the desired traffic reductions will not materialize. A goal of this
transportation plan, moreover, is to effect reductions in residential parking impacts.
A permit -based parking control system is therefore recommended for the residential/lodging areas
surrounding the commercial core with portions of the street reserved for only residential on -street parking.
In light of driver's willingness to park in residential areas and walk to the commercial core,2 all residential
areas south of the Roaring Fork River within a six -block walking distance of the commercial core should
be included initially in the parking control program. The boundaries should be expanded as needed.
Ultimately, three residential districts should be established — West, South and East -- with distinct
residential permits for each. By prohibiting residential permits for one district to be used in another,
residential permit -holders will be discouraged from driving between residential districts. The districts
should be comprised of the following areas:
P. West District — Area bounded by Monarch between Hallam and Durant (exclusive), Durant
(inclusive), Aspen Mountain, Fourth Street, Hallam Street, Second Street, Francis Street, the bluff
south of the Post Office, and Monarch between Bleeker and Hallam.
P. South District -- Area bounded by Durant between Aspen Mountain and Dean Street (exclusive),
Dean Street (inclusive) and Aspen Mountain.
► East District -- Area bounded by Spring Street (exclusive), the Roaring Fork River, Aspen Mountain,
and Durant between the ski base area and Spring Street (exclusive).
2 As evidenced by the effects generated by the imposition of pay parking in other communities.
Page 5
Each district should identify a representative to work with the Parking Department during the
establishment and implementation'of the residential parking control program.
Residential permits should be distributed by the City Transportation/Parking Department to current
residents providing proof (voter registration, property tax bill, lease, etcetera) of residency within the
specific district. A nominal fee should be required to cover the administrative costs of the program.
Residents' visitors staying over 90 minutes can purchase a Day Parking Pass (discussed below), or park
off-street. In addition, it is recommended that the residential parking program hours of enforcement
coincide with the commercial core parking control program (7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.). Evening visitors
to the residential areas are therefore not subject to the parking control program.
3) All -Day Parking Pass in Specific Spaces Within the Residential Parking Control Areas
Inevitably, some drivers will want to park for more than the three hour time period allowed in the
commercial core parking zone (without having the three vehicle occupants necessary for a HOV parking
permit). For the overall parking plan to be successful, it is necessary to provide these persons with an
opportunity to park, but at a relatively high cost. An all day parking pass valid in the Residential Parking
Control Areas should be made available for any driver willing to pay a fee between $3.00 and $6.00.
These passes should be displayed through the windshield, and should be color -coded for easy enforcement.
This strategy is included in the Transportation Plan as an interim measure until additional off-street public
parking (e.g. underground parking structure) can be developed in the commercial core and other
transportation alternatives are implemented.
4) Preferential High Occupancy Vehicle On -Street Parking
Providing incentives for carpooling is an important element in reducing auto travel. Given the parking
controls recommended, the provision of convenient, free parking for vehicles with three or more
occupants would be a very strong incentive. In light of existing vehicle occupancy figures' and
commuting patterns, 250 HOV spaces should -be provided. HOV free parking should be designated
along the following streets or in spaces designated for day pass use in residential parking control areas:
P. Monarch Street between Bleeker Street and Durant Avenue;
► Spring Street between Durant Avenue and Main Street;
► Rio Grande Place between Mill Street and Main Street; and
► Bleeker Street between Monarch Street and Mill Street.
Some spaces along these streets should also be available for residential parking permits and lodging
parking permits. Daily,. free HOV parking permits should be made available at the parking kiosks at
the Park -and -ride lots (discussed below), the Rio Grande Parking Facility, and other identified locations.
S) Onstreet Lodge Parkin
It is necessary to accommodate the legitimate parking needs of the many lodging properties located in
the residential parking control area. An appropriate number of parking permits should be provided to
lodging properties at a minimal cost. Lodging properties desiring onstreet parking permits for their guests
should be required to submit a simple application detailing their need for parking and the availability of
offstreet parking, paying a nominal fee for each annual permit. Only parking permits adequate to meet
each property's onstreet parking needs should be provided. Parking permits should be part of a flexibie
1 Forinstance,a survey ofvehicleoccupancyconducted during the 1991-92ski season indicated that approximately 175 private vehicles with three or
more occupants were entering Aspen on the Castle Creek Bridge during the AM commute period.
Page 6
and enforceable system that meets the needs of both the Parking Department and the lodging properties.
6) Annual Business Vehicle ParkinP Stickers
For some of the business establishments in the commercial core, the easy accessibility of a vehicle is
necessary to their operations. To avoid placing an onerous burden upon businesses that require a
vehicle for deliveries, an annual business parking sticker should be made available at a reduced fee to
allow business delivery vehicles to park in residential areas and in the municipal parking garages.
Businesses would be required to justify a sticker for business delivery use (other than simply commuting)
and adhere to strict qualifications. Businesses would also be required to use the designated loading zones
in the commercial core for deliveries. In order to meet the goals of the parking plan, a fee shall be
established that discourages frivolous use of the business sticker.
7) Increase in Loading and Service Vehicle Spaces
The lack of adequate loading/unloading and service vehicle spaces in specific areas of the commercial
core creates an operational problem for business, as well as creating congestion caused by double-
parking. Truck loading zones have already been designated in strategic locations throughout the core
to expedite. deliveries by truck. Additional service vehicle spaces are currently being evaluated by the
Commercial Core and Lodging Commission, in conjunction with the Aspen Police and Transportation
Departments.
In response to the need for additional short-term (15 minute)- loading zone spaces for shoppers and
merchants, the City is moving forward with the initial installation of 28 electronic duplex meters. Two
metered spaces will be located near the southwest corners of each blockface in the commercial core, with
four additional metered spaces located along Durant Ave. The number and location of the short-term
spaces will remain flexible and responsive to the changing needs for quick -turnover parking. The spaces
will be easy to find and consistently located relative to each. blockface. .The initial spaces also will be
located primarily in angle parking spaces along north -south streets to discourage constant circulation
around blocks in search of a space and to facilitate enforcement.
8) Other Non-residential Uses in the Residential Parking Control Area
It is recognized that there are a number of non-residential land uses in the residential parking control
areas, such as churches, schools, and restaurants. The legitimate parking needs of these land uses need
to be addressed on a case -by -case basis.
9) East End Parking Facility
Though this plan will substantially reduce parking demand in the commercial core, the provision of
additional offstreet parking in the area is needed to address remaining long-term parking demand. There
is interest in development of a joint facility that will serve City Market and the redevelopment of the city
block bounded by Cooper, Spring, Hyman and Original (Kraut/Bell Mountain Lodge). Two illustrations
that depict the potential redevelopment of this parcel are found on the following pages. This is the most
appropriate location for additional public offstreet parking, as it is convenient to many employment sites
as well as the ski base area. The municipal portion of the proposed underground parking facility should
provide a moderate amount of public spaces. Rather than "attracting" additional auto trips into the
core, these spaces should be managed to replace residential -area onstreet spaces used in the Day
Parking Pass program. This facility would also serve as a summer intercept lot for traffic entering the
city from Independence Pass.
The Transportation Implementation Committee strongly recommends that the City move forward to begin
construction on this joint public -private project within the next two (2) years.
Page 7
00
Illustration: Cooper Street Entrance
into Proposed East End Parking Facility
I
� 5 �
Illustration: A Potential Redevelopment Scenario
for the Area Above the Proposed East End Parking Facility
•
•
MARKETING AND PUBLIC INFORMATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
A key element in instituting a successful. transportation control program will be to conduct an aggres-
sive marketing program. Marketing efforts should include cable TV spots, development of a press kit,
and the development and distribution of brochures customized for the following groups:
► Residents of the Residential Parking Control area;
► All other residents and property owners in Aspen;
► Visitors (distributed through lodging properties and the Resort Association);
► Downvalley commuters; and
► Commercial Core business owners/employers.
These marketing materials should clearly lay out why the program is being implemented, what the
parking fees are to be used for (such as increased transit), and should particularly stress the alternatives
available to travellers (such as carpooling and transit service). -Furthermore, efforts should be made to
educate and encourage the public to form "casual carpools".
1) Parking Information Centers.
Several drive -up parking kiosks should be established to distribute information regarding the parking
program, transit services, carpooling and other alternative transportation modes. Flexible kiosk locations
should be established in areas associated with the Park -and -Ride facilities and/or other vehicle intensive
areas. Additionally, information regarding the transportation program should'be made available at other
auto intensive locations (e.g. car washes, gas stations, inspection. stations).
These kiosks should be staffed daily for at least 12hours during peak seasons, and as needed in the
off-seasons, and should serve the following functions: r _
► Distribute information regarding the parking program, transit services, carpooling, and other
alternate transportation modes;
► Distribute daily parking permits for HOV vehicles;
► Sell daily parking passes;
► Provide directions and information about Aspen.
These services should also be made available on a walk-up basis at the Rio Grande Parking Facility
and at future parking facilities.
TRANSIT SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS
1) pansion in Downvalley/Snowmass Service
A key element in reducing auto use is the provision of convenient and cost -competitive public transit
service. Both residents and visitors to the Roaring Fork Valley have proven to be eager to use transit;
indeed, ridership is often limited only by the availability of vehicles. Analysis of existing ridership and
potential demand indicates that substantial increases in service to Snowmass and Downvalley communities
are a cost-effective means of achieving Community Plan goals while benefiting transportation conditions
valley -wide. Up to three additional buses should be operated year-round between Aspen .and El
Jebel/Carbondale, and up to two additional buses between Aspen and Snowmass. During peak periods,
service would be provided approximately every 12 minutes on average to the Downvalley areas, and every
15 minutes to Snowmass Village.
Page 10
•
•
2) Park -and -Ride Facilities
A key element in the transportation plan is the expansion of free, park -and -ride facilities downvalley of
Aspen. Over the last few years, RFTA has been developing a series of park -and -ride facilities that
have proven very effective in generating increased transit ridership while reducing Highway 82 traffic
levels. An expansion program for these downvalley facilities should be vigorously pursued. In addition,
new facilities should be developed to serve mid -valley residents bound for Aspen, and to serve residents
of the Maroon Creek/Castle Creek areas. Pitkin County and CDOT should be participants in the
location and funding of the park -and -ride facilities.
Preliminary evaluation indicates that the most appropriate locations for new upper -valley facilities along
Highway 82 is between the Buttermilk Area and the Brush Creek Road intersection. This location would
potentially allow the facility to also serve as a lot for Snowmass Village, and to serve as a convenient
parking point for carpools arriving from downvalley with occupants destined for both Snowmass and
Aspen. Parking information centers provided as part of these facilities could also serve both Snowmass
and Aspen. Final determination of the phasing and construction of park -and -ride facilities (including
consideration of the Maroon/Castle Creek and the Marolt areas as alternate/additional candidate sites),
will ultimately depend upon land costs and availability, and the final results of the Aspen to Snowmass
transportation planning process.
Evaluation of existing travel patterns, the forecast response to pay parking implementation, and park -
and -ride activity in similar areas indicates that a lot with approximately 250 spaces should be provided.
A parcel of 4.0 to 5.0 acres will be required, depending upon the configuration of the parcel, and this
would include a transit loading area and other accessory uses. `
In addition, a smaller facility should be constructed in the vicinity of Maroon Creek Road and Highway
82. This lot would serve as a park -and -ride facility for the many residents of the Maroon Creek/Castle
Creek area. It should be located within convenient walking_ distance to Highway 82 and provided with
signalized access to the highway. In light of travel patterns in the area, a lot of 100 to 150 spaces
would be required. If overcrowding by drivers coming from other areas develops, a permit system
limiting use to nearby residents should be considered.
It is important to consider these parking facilities and the transit shuttle service that serves them as
only part of a comprehensive transportation plan. These lots serve as the last opportunity for drivers
destined to Aspen's commercial core to find free parking. They also serve as portions of a system of
park -and -ride lots throughout the Roaring Fork Valley, serving the mid -valley area between Aspen and
Lazy Glen.
It is recommended that the City solicit financial support from CDOT in expediting the phasing of the
park -and -ride facilities, incorporating multimodal design concepts for the intersections with Highway
82. In regard to the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Highway 82, the concept of a grade -
separated interchange is encouraged, but the proposed interchange system design that depicts a "modified
trumpet" interchange is unacceptable. Intersections should be designed as multipurpose, multifunctional
transportation facilities. The interchange design should also minimize visual impacts.
The City should prioritize the development of the park -and -ride facilities since they are a key component
of the Transportation Plan.
3) The Upvallev Transit Corridor: High -Frequency Free Transit Service on Highway 82 between
Aspen and the Upvallev Park -and -Ride Lots
Additional transit improvements should be implemented for the relatively congested and developed
corridor between Aspen, the Airport Business Center, and the free, Park -and -Ride lots. Up to three
Page 11
additional vehicles should be put into operation, initially providing free transit service every 10 minutes
throughout the corridor during peak periods and at most every half hour during non -peak periods. In
light of expected passenger loads, shuttle vehicles of moderate capacity should be operated. Considering
the Downvalley and Snowmass buses serving this corridor, peak -period service will be provided roughly
every five minutes in each direction.
In addition, all fares should be eliminated for service within this corridor. The elimination of fares
substantially increases the convenience and "user -friendliness" of transit service. This step would
essentially expand the existing free -fare area from its current terminus at Maroon Creek Road downvalley
to the Upvalley Park -and -Ride facilities.
4) Return to and Expansion of Full Year -Round City Transit Service
As a cost -savings measure, service hours and days have been reduced on RFTA's four City Routes in
the spring and fall, resulting in a reduction in service quality. The spring and fall service reductions
should be eliminated and full operation (free of charge) returned year-round through additional subsidy
funding. Additionally, the city transit service should be expanded to include additional areas not currently
served by transit. Ridership levels on routes should be monitored frequently to identify if smaller vehicles
can be effectively operated.
S) Cross -Town Shuttle
RFTA has recently been experimenting with a cross-town shuttle service between the commercial core
and the post office area using vans. This' service should be made permanent; and vehicles specifically
designed for such service (and of a size in keeping with the character of the area) should be purchased.
In addition to reducing short auto trips in the commercial core, this service promotes transit usage into
and out of the area by allowing passengers to run errands in town without their car. Based upon the
success of this shuttle to generate passenger -trips, an east -west shuttle system serving Main Street and
the lodges located on the west end of Main Street and alongDurant. Avenue should also be considered.
The Transportation Implementation Committee has approved the concept of a tracked trolley system,
constructed by private interests, for the Galena Street corridor as part of the long term cross-town
transportation solution. City Council supports allowing the trolley concept to proceed through the land
use review and public hearing process.
6) Dial-A-Ride/Cab Coupon Program
Even with the provision of a quality, free City transit system, there remains a potential transit "market
segment" that the existing fixed -route service is not reaching. Considering all of the potential options,
a dial-a-ride/cab coupon (or "user -side subsidy") program could be developed on a trial basis for a portion
of the community to assess the concept's effectiveness. For certain potential transit markets with a low
density of demand, a dial-a-ride/cab coupon can provide more transportation at a lower cost per
passenger -trip than the subsidy required to operate fixed -route service.
A trial cab coupon program should operate as follows:
► Based upon the experience of other communities, a general public subsidy rate of 50 percent would
be appropriate. A ticket -book approach is recommended, in which passengers can purchase taxi
coupons for a specified fee. Initial outlets could consist of City Hall, the Rio Grande Parking
Facility, and Rubey Park. Additional potential locations would include any banks or stores willing
to participate.
Page 12
•
► Residents of Aspen would be allowed to use these coupons to pay taxi fares for any taxi trip within
Aspen's city limits. For services outside the city, passengers would either have to pay full fare, or
would transfer to an RFTA bus.
► Over time, a pattern of regular cab coupon passengers will develop. The cab operator would be
encouraged to group these trips into a shared ride arrangement, providing a further discount to
passengers willing to share a ride. In this way, total vehicle -miles of travel (and therefore PM,,,
emissions) can be reduced by this program.
The primary advantage provided by a user -side subsidy program is its attractiveness to a transit "market
segment" not currently using the fixed -route service, including persons of higher income than the typical
existing transit rider, and persons making occasional trips. In addition, parking needs in the commercial
core would be reduced. By developing shared rides, total pollution emissions can also be reduced. Based
upon the results of the pilot program, the user -side subsidy program could easily be expanded to cover
other sections of the city.
Similarly, a pilot dial -a -ride program should be implemented. A subcommittee should be formed to
rigorously evaluate the feasibility of a dial -a -ride program, including the concept of a public -private
partnership with local cab companies.
HIGHWAY 82 EASTBOUND/WESTBOUND HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES
The preferred alternative in the Final Draft Environmental Impact Statement for SH 82 between Basalt
and Buttermilk includes High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes between Buttermilk and Gerbazdale.
Furthermore, considering the traffic reductions that will result from implementation of this plan, episodic
traffic congestion at the entrance to Aspen will continue to occur during both winter and summer. The
proposed High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes along eastbound and westbound Highway 82 between
the Castle Creek Bridge and Shale Bluffs should be evalrtated as part of the SH 82 EIS between
Buttermilk and Aspen as a cost-effective means -of promoting both transit ridership and carpooling. A
signalized pre-emption system to allow transit priority at bridges, with the longer term goal of
constructing bridges with HOV lanes, should be considered. It is acknowledged that the HOV lane
construction will need to be phased due to funding constraints.
The City should continue its involvement with the Snowmass to Aspen Transportation Plan and all three
jurisdictions should aggressively seek all available funding from CDOT to expedite the completion of
the EIS process and the construction of highway improvements that promote transportation alternatives.
Furthermore, this plan recognizes the critical importance of superior transit service linking Aspen with
the airport area as the probable first phase of an Aspen to Snowmass fixed guideway system. The
Snowmass to Aspen Transportation Plan Decision Makers are in consensus about the need to aggressively
explore the feasibility of such a system.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
1) Improved Galena Pedestrian Corridor
Substantial improvements to the pedestrian facilities along Galena Street should be made between Main
Street and Cooper .Street. Through the conversion of angled parking spaces to parallel spaces and the
construction of pedestrian improvements at the intersections, this important connection between the Mall
and the Rio Grande area can change from an "auto -dominated" to a "pedestrian -dominated" environ-
ment. An illustration that depicts potential improvements to Galena Street is found on the following
page.
Page 13
•
•
Illustration: Potential Pedestrian Improvements for Galena Street
2) Improved Bicycle Connections
Over much of the year, bicycling is an attractive travel alternative, particularly for Aspen residents.
Bicycle facility improvements should be constructed along Highway 82 and other arterials, as well as
within the offstreet trails system. The provision of bicycle storage facilities at the park -and -ride lots
should also be encouraged. Bicycle storage racks should also be made available throughout the
commercial core.
3) Improved Sideivalks Between Commercial Core and Residential Areas
Finally, there is a strong need for improved pedestrian connections between the commercial core and
the residential portions of Aspen. It is unrealistic to expect Aspen residents (as well as some lodging
guests) to walk to the commercial core if they are forced to walk in the road. The unattractiveness of
pedestrian travel is only made worse by snow on the road, which often requires walking in the travel
lane. The recent recommendations of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee regarding the
implementation of the Aspen Pedestrian and Bikeway System Plan are endorsed. Specifically, the
following improvements should be pursued:
* Construction of the north/south routes (sidewalks and trails) and this includes Smuggler sidewalk,
Neal Street sidewalk, Lone Pine sidewalk, and Lone Pine/Art Museum trail;
* The river trail system (easement acquisition, design and construction), and
* Completion of the Main Street sidewalks.
The Smuggler Sidewalk project is currently underway with a_Fall, 1993 completion date. An illustration
of this project is found on the following page.
dm/ur .plan.6_93
Page 15
cu
Illustration: Smuggler Sidewalk Project, Fall 1993 Completion
Alf ENDIX 1
TranspoRa&n Action PRn ■
Intent
visitors,integrated transportation system for residcaM
. commut= that .. .., congestion
• pollution.
Philosophy
The plan recognizes that reducing depen-
dency on the automobile requires offering alterna-
tives both for automobile use and storage and other
means of transport The well documented displace-
ment of a large portion of the community's resi-
dent work fora has created a need to both amelio-
rate the effects of increasing commuter transit into
the city and to reduce further displacement The
growth of the commuter culture fostered by the
displacement has degraded both the air quality and
the quality of life for Both residents and visitors as
they must compete for fewer parking spaces and
contend with the kind of traffic delays that both
visitors and residents sought to escape in coming
here.
Cities and towns that have not taken positive
action to plan for these effects have suffered
enormous environmental and social costs. Aspen
cannot build its way out of traffic problems
anymore than Los Angeles was able to solve its
problems with ever larger and wider freeways.
Avoiding the dilemma of more cars needing more
highways and more highways attracting more cars
means limiting vehicle trips into Aspen: imple-
menting an efficient valley wide mass transit
system; altering land use patterns: and moving
people within and around the City of Aspen
without automobiles. A comprehensive parking
management system within Aspen is one compo-
nent for creating a vehicle limited, less congested
downtown. But such a plan will be ineffective
unless it is accompanied by a downtown shuttle.
frequent transit servim enhanced pedestrian
waikNvays. improved bikeways, and accessible,
practical car storage facilities such as intemept lots
and garages at the outskirts of the city and metro
area.
Although all of these steps must be aocan-
plished together since none standing alone will
meet the desires and needs of the community, as a
practical matter, the community does not have the
resources to implemerit all of the required compo-
nents at once. Careful phasing of the plan will be
required to build community support for the entire
concept and to avoid creating new imbalances. The
community will need to take a long range view of
the problem and reject remedies that do not
contribute to a comprehensive set of solutions.
Aspen has risen to that sort of challenge In. the past
and we are confident that the community will put
its future first in making the hard choices required
by the transportation problems facing us.
Policies
■ Implement a valley wide mass transit system.
■ Seek to balance public and private
transportation both within and without the
Aspen Metro Area by increasing the number of
available transportation choices.
K Create a less congested downtown core.
■ Encourage the continued education and
marketing of transportation alternatives within
the Aspen metro area.
■ Insure the consistency between the AACP and
the Aspen-to-Snowmass transportation plan.
Page 17
Transportafion
Actirnts to C► ecttc' A 1'chicic Limitccf ■ ' ••• ` the parking fma with . • annual
Dvtrntn;i'n Cat e
21
City of Aspen with time limitations for
seivice/delivery vehicles.
G L Update fire imrentory of eaasting public
parkdng spaces within the commercial core
of Aspen.
Q 2. Determine the number of underutilized
private parking spaces within the
commercial core and create a plan for more
efficient utilization of these spaces for
public use.
d 3.. Pursue full utilization of the City parking
garage with 24 hour operation of the garage.
d 4. Utilize additional signage that effectively
promotes use of the parking garage by
visitors and residents.
CIS. Review all parking permit policim arming
towards a more restrictive use of special -
parking permits.
G 6. Provide free day parking in the city parking
garage,for High occupancy Vehicles that
contain three (3) or more persons in the
vehicle.
Q 7. Insure that the fees for the Aspen parking
garage are reasonable and affordable; the
fees (on an hourly basis) should be less than
those collected for the "pay for parking"
spaces located within the commercial core.
Q S. Insure that vehicle parldng/storage structures
are provided in association with transit
service to move people throughout the City
of Aspen.
a 1L Develop a commove service vehicle
loading and unloading policy and service
vehicle management plan.
Q 12. Create a parking department within city
government to oversee the management and
operations of the parking garage(s) and the
overall parking system.
{j 11 The City and County p&Z's shall hold
work sessions to discuss and develop
airport and rental car policies. If necessary.
this plan shall be amended to incorporate
these policies.
G 14. Pursue the construction of a public parking
facility beneath the Kraut property/Buckhom
Lodge/Bell Mountain Lodgelaty Market
site: this was recommended as Phase II in the
1987 Transportation Element.
15. Reduce the number of on -street parking
spaces within the commercial core by
phasing out a portion of the parking spaces
in conjunction with parking and transit
alternatives.
Q 16. Implement a "pay for parking" system
wid-dn the commercial core of Aspen which
includes the area from Spring St. to
Monarch St. and from Main St, to Durant
Ave. The lodging areas shall be provided
with parking permits and exempted from
paid parking. The "pay for paring" aml
Page 18
■ Transpoltation Action PW ■
should be enforced from 7 am to 6 pm,
seven days per week.. The pay for parking
spaces should be limited to ninety (90)
minutes and the parking fee should initially
be one (1) dollar per hour.
C� 17. Establish a resident paddng system which
rcstrictsparking in the residential
noighbodmds adjacent to the commercial
core to residents through a signage and a
permit system (administrative fee only).
This shall be established simultaneously
wiih the "pay for parking" system in the
commercial core.
a 18. Study and consider the establishment of an
alley easement for serviceldelivery vehicles
exclusively located at the north end of
wagrer park.
a 19. Develop intercept lots at Brush Creek Road/
State Highway 82, Buttermilk and/or other
appropriate locations, which would be free
to the users of the lot and secured. Provide
frequent, effective and free transit service
between the lot and the City of Aspen.
20. Create a long term car storage facility/
impound facility at Brush Creek/State
Highway 82 or the Airport Business Center.
0 21. Request that the U.S. postal Service provide
mail delivery outside of the metro area and
establish a postal sub -station at the Airport
Business Center.
0 22. Continue and enhance bus service between
Aspen and Glenwood Springs.
Cl 23. Implement a frequent, cross-town shuttle
utilizing the Galena Street Corridor with
t imination points at the Post Office and
the base of Aspen Mountain; consider
expanding the shuttle service to other arras
within the City. Encourage the continued
pursuit of the trolley option.
a 24. Implement the one-half cent sales tax
inaease for mass uwls-ponation funding
currently provided by State law.
25. Increase the frequency. service, and length
of hours of bus. service throughout the
Aspen A rea.
1993
Mid -Term
1995
0 26. Establish a high 0WTMCy_vddde (HOV)
lane on State Highway 82 between Brush
(reek Road and the City of Aspen-
27. Evaluate the utilization of a busAransit
corridor along Owl Creek Road.
d 28. Endorse the continued work of the Roaring
Fork Forum Transportation Task Form in
their efforts to develop an integrated valley -
wide transportation system.
C! 29. Recognize the Rio Grande right-of-way as a
multi -use transportation corridor.
30. Designate the Rio Grande property as a
terminus for transportation activities. This
does not preclude the use of other properties
for transportation activities.
d 31. Create a separate fund which would enable
the use of the fees collected for parking
"cash -in -lieu" fees and "pay for parking
fees" to be utilized for transit/pedestrian/
Page 19
■ Transj*rlafion Action bran 11
paridng alternatives within the City of
A-spen-
a 32.. Establish a designated transit corridor
between the Town of Snowmass Village
and tic City of Aspen (at such time the
corridor is designated me map shah be
amended).
0 33. Evaluate the establishment of tie Dial -A -
Ride concept within the Aspen metro area.
A dial -a -ride program is a door to door
service, scheduled by a dispatcher to make
the best use of the vehicles.
■ 34. Designate all existing•. corridors
a Rio Grande
-
j ;J- :1letions.to hnIn:orcthc:' t
_ -- �- ' Pccic:�tiici�t'Lic�•cae.S►stct�t� :..
• , milli
Q 35. Implement the recommendations in the
Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Planin a
phased capital improvement program -
a 36. Designate Galena Street as a priority for
capital improvements for enhancement as
the transit and pedestrian corridor within
the City of Aspen.
37. Improve, widen and maintain designated
bike and pedestrian shoulders on both sides
of Cemetery Lame.
❑ 3& Study. fund and implement improvements
to improve safety for bicyclists orLCastle
Creek. Maroon Creek and Brush Creek
Roads.
d 39. Pave the shoulders along State Highway 82
from tic city Limits to Difficult
Campgound.
0 40. Obtain bike and pedestrian easements
through_ the Meadowood Subdivision and
other landowners for the purpose of
creating a trail connection between the
Health & Human Services property and the
School Campus/Iselin Park area.
Page 20
•
•
APPENDIX 2
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
PUBLIC MEETINGS ON ASPEN TRANSPORTATION PLAN
MARCH-APRIL 1993
Between March 17 and April 23, City staff, council, members and TIC members attended twenty
special meetings to provide information about the draft Transportation Plan and to listen to the
concerns and suggestions of the public regarding the plan. Dozens of individual meetings and
phone conversations also took place (and will continue to occur).
Beyond these intensive public information and input gathering efforts, both the ACRA and the
Lodge Association have formed subcommittees to continue to work with the City through the
final plan implementation and evaluation stages. Similarly, meetings will continue to be held
with neighborhood associations and any other groups that would like to participate in the final
planning, implementation • and evaluation phases. In order for this plan to be successful in
reaching its ambitious goals, the City must continue to remain aware of and responsive to the
changing needs of all elements of the community.
This summary outlines the themes of the public input received regarding the various components
of the plan.
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND GOALS OF THE PLAN:
With very rare exceptions, there was consensus that parking and traffic congestion is a problem
that must be dealt with. However, many people expressed their skepticism about the extent of
the air quality problem, and many of those same people suggested that the City should resist
any EPA -mandated mitigation measures. Prefacing each presentation with an explanation of the
plan's genesis in the broad -based AACP process helped to clear up some of the
misunderstanding about "Why are we doing this?" But, it is fair to assume that a great deal
of skepticism and lack of trust in government, at all levels, still persists.
A small number of merchants disagreed that Aspen has problems with traffic and parking.
They maintained that congested streets is a sign of prosperity, and that no action should be
taken to reduce auto impacts.
Overall, there was widespread agreement about the existence of severe problems related to
parking and traffic congestion, as well as about the need for the City to "DO SOMETHING."
However, many people were very concerned that the City would only implement paid parking,
without putting viable transportation alternatives in place.
TRANSIT SERVICE AND TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES:
These elements of the plan evoked relatively little emotion or discussion at the public meetings.
There was a great deal of support expressed for transit improvements, cross-town shuttle service
(both Galena St. and east -west), and pedestrian/bikeway improvements.
Page 21
On the other hand, many people doubted the effectiveness of HOV lanes (especially without 4-
lane bridges), and several Downvalley commuters disagreed with a park -and -ride lot at Brush
Creek Road. Most of those who expressed opinions regarding a park -and -ride location wanted
the facilities constructed close to town and were very concerned about the convenience of the
shuttle service. The need for service at most every ten minutes was clearly expressed.
There was some interest expressed in the FAB's proposal. to discontinue the fares on all RFTA
buses. However, questions about how to equitably finance such a proposal consistently arose
at the meetings where the proposal was discussed.
Several people advocated the implementation of various transportation modes as the solution to
the traffic and parking problems. Valley -wide rail systems and upper -valley fixed guideway
approaches were most -often mentioned.
PARKING ELEMENTS:
Most of the discussions, phone conversations, correspondence, suggestion forms, letters to the
editor, etc. focused on parking --specifically the concept of paid parking. Even more to the
point, it is safe to say that most of the opposition expressed to date about this draft plan has
centered on the proposed parking card concept.
The single most -often expressed criticism was the perceived complexity of the parking card
system. Many people maintained that the parking cards would be too difficult to obtain or to
understand. Particular concerns were raised about the difficulties foreseen in communicating
with the large numbers of visitors, especially summer visitors. Local residents also objected
to the inconvenience of having to prepurchase the cards from local merchants, even if multiple
cards could be purchased at once. Still other concerns were raised about the perceived
probability of fraudulent or counterfeit cards, the cumbersome usage and enforcement logistics,
and the potential for widespread littering. -
A significant number of people suggested -that the City abandon the parking card concept in
favor of parking meters or a pay and display system.
Nearly every group raised concerns about accommodating their own parking needs economically
and conveniently. Realtors were especially vocal about their need for nearby parking due to
the number of trips necessary on any given day.
There was a great deal of support expressed for the superblock garage concept and for better
marketing to increase utilization of the Rio Grande Parking Plaza. In fact, many people
advocated the construction of more public parking spaces instead of implementing paid parking
or any other transportation demand management systems. Others said that the City only needed
to intensify parking enforcement and fine collection, rather than implement paid parking.
There was a great deal of concern about the lack of convenient transit serving the schools,
institutions, and businesses along the Maroon/Castle Creek Corridors. The inconvenience of
RFTA service was coupled with frustrations about the traffic congestion at the Maroon Creek
Rd. traffic signal. Many parents working in the core were anxious about the cost and
inconvenience that paid parking might add to their already -tight budgets and schedules. School
district representatives and parents also raised the problems related to transporting skis, hockey
skates, hockey sticks, etc. on school buses, as well as the lack of coordination between
recreation programs and school bus programs.
Page 22
•
•
One very common request of merchants was for increasing the number of short-term parking
spaces to accommodate loading, unloading and other quick "drop-off' activities in the core.
Questions and concerns regarding funding and phasing were raised at nearly every public
meeting. Likewise, complaints that implementing this plan would worsen the rift between
"Upvalley and Downvalley" were voiced on several occasions. Furthermore, any summary of
the comments from the public meetings would be remiss if it did not mention that issues related
to the safety and capacity of SH82 were brought up at nearly every event. Some people alleged
that the Aspen Transportation Plan was nothing more than a means of obstructing the widening
of the highway.
Page 23
. , , APPENDIX 3
Existing Conditions Driving the Development of
The Aspen Area Community Plan Transportation Plan
Transportation has become one of the key issues affecting the Aspen community. The effects
of our auto -dominated transportation patterns are manifested every day throughout the area.
Indicators of these problems include the following:
• Winter average weekday traffic volumes (1992) across the Castle Creek Bridge
are approximately 26,000 two-way vehicle trips.
• Overall, 2,400 cars are parking in and around the Aspen commercial core on a
peak day. Parking "spillover" problems generate approximately 700 vehicles
parking in the residential areas around the commercial core.
• The lack of available parking for visitors and shoppers has been identified as a
serious problem by many retailers.
• Traffic levels, combined with street sanding, have created levels of airborne small
particulate matter that exceed national health standards.
• The enjoyment and safety of walking and bicycling throughout Aspen are
degraded by the concentrations of traffic.
• Surveys of both visitors and residents have consistently identified transportation
issues as major detriments to the area.
Existing conditions, moreover, are expected to only worsen over the coming years. As one
indicator, traffic volumes crossing Castle Creek are forecast to increase to 43,200 average daily
trips by the Year 2015. A number of trends have converged over the last few years to focus
concern on the issue of appropriate transportation policy in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley:
• The loss of affordable housing in the Upper Valley has dramatically increased
commuter travel along Highway 82. The continued forecast growth in
employment in the Aspen area is expected to further this trend.
• The growth in competing resort areas, along with increasing pressures on both
traveller's time and money, have made the destination resort market much more
competitive over recent years. For Aspen to retain its pre-eminent position, the
quality of experience provided must rise above that of newer resort areas.
• The passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 have increased Federal
pressure on communities to address transportation -related air quality problems.
• National economic problems have reduced the potential for State or Federal
funding of capital -intensive transportation solutions. More and more, the
community must rely on its own resources to effect transportation solutions.
A strong consensus has emerged from the Community Plan process that these trends must be
addressed if the community is to avoid substantial degradation from increases in traffic. Put
simply, efforts to control auto use in the Aspen area must be made if the community is to retain
the liveability and attractiveness that draws visitors and residents alike.
Page 24
•
a
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
TO: ity Engineer
"Housing Director
"'�Aspen Water Department
environmental Health Department
'�lectric Department
arks Department
Zoning Administration
,Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Aspen Fire Protection District
Energy Center
lean Air Board
Sarki ng/Transportation
treets
RFTA - Dan Blankenship
CCLC
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
RE: Independence Place (Superblock) SPA Designation, Conceptual SPA Plan,
Text & Map Amendments, Commercial GMQS and GMQS Exemption
Parcel ID No. 2737-182-42-001; 2737-182-27-003 & 004
DATE: January 11, 1994
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Bell Mountain Limited
Liability, City Market and Buckhorn Lodge.
Please return your comments to me no later than February 12.
The Development Review Committee will be meeting on February 3, at 3:30 p.m., 1st floor
City Council Chambers. In order to make the best use of the DRC meeting, Planning expects
the referral departments to attend the meeting and to be fully prepared for detailed discussion
of the project. Our last DRC meeting for review of the Moore and Benedict applications was
very effective because we had full participation. If necessary, contact the applicants/consultants
ahead of time if you have any questions related to specifics of the project.
Thank you.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
SUMMARY SHEET
Date:, 3 Chairperson: 1, L--
REFERRAL COMMENTS SUMMARY:
City Engineer: (memo forthcoming: yes no
County Engineer: (memo : yes no )
Environme to 'Hea th (memo: yes no
Parks Department: (memo: yes no )
Building Department: (memo: yes no )
Housing Authority: (memo: yes no )
Attorney: (memo: yes no )
other:
General Comments:
1 0 0
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Leslie Lamont CC Bob Gish
CC Chuck Roth
From: Jack Reid
Postmark: Feb 17,94 8:11 AM
Subject: Inde. Pl. comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
ALL my concerns we covered quite well in Chuck's memo. If you could
make reference to that, I could avoid generating more paper.
Thanks -Jack
FROM K2 W PHONE NO. 9631545 Feb. 12 1994 04:43PM P01
ROARING FORK -ENERGY CENTF-Oi 242 MAIN STREET CARBONDALE, CO 81623 (30$)963-0311
Vebruaryr 11•,-' 1994
TO: Aspen/Pitkin.'Planning Office
FR. Steye Standi.ford. - Director.
RE:. Comments on -Development Application for independerice Place
The following comments are based in response tQ the,energy,
conservation representations on pages '44 at7d 45 -pf the
dev'elq&ient a'ppl. cat16n .
w nsulation-and the -Model Energy Code
The application proposes insulation values of R7211t6n walls
and.R-38.for roof 'assemblies..The applicatin further states
tha.ti this level of insulation wiJ.1 exceed minimum req iretpentB
of': th6 Model Energy..06de but, an ,analysis proves otiier*i,ge.
The Model Energy. Codo requires wall asmem4-lies to have' a u -
value of. 0 .11 Wrhi h , is equal 'to R=9.09 :. Howe. r, ' a wall
asseNnbly is composed 6t both solid walls a cf windows and .this
project' has exten"lgiVe glazing. . We .estimate .from' the elevaCions
include$ in the application that 40.-50k of'thewall-a'ssemblies.
will be.glaz.ing.- Even if Low E glass Is -used with,its overall
R-3.22 val'Ve; the compaeite R value of. the wall assemblies will
be R-6.55 .. This is less than the iequire *lit of R-9..09.
The project also falls short of the Model .BnOrgy.:Code.:
requirement for rgof assemblies of R=41.67 by pioposiing, R-3$
* Qlazing Aunts
The ap$)lication. proposes, the, use of Low E; double -glazed
.units. In order -to meet the Model Energy Code requirements
for overall wa11, assemblies as noted above, the project could
either..reduae glass areas.or chose a. higher performante '
glazing.product'. #nor example, the project 6o4ld consider. the.
use: Qf Argon ,Krypton gas filled units 'and/or, Heat MiXrgr
glazing. it dau I be relatively easy at 'little inCre&ee, to
hhg `project .cost to; double .ot even triple 1z values of- .the
glazing.
The appl ication represents that the buildin -have -been
oriented to take advantage of passive solax.' gain .-However, -
a -review .of .the alevations .shows .an. even distribution of
glazing'.on'a:ll' _sXdea '6f the buildinge, irrespective of thee
t ! ' PrWod on necyyow paper fo help corm" MUM M&Wroes- ��
FROM hZYW PHONE N0, 91331545 Feb. 12 1994 04:43PM P02
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIJd STREET • CARdONDALE, 00$1623 • (303jgg3,0311'
Orientation. -We would suggest that gla�ang hem cimized on
the south side 0'f buildings -and reduced on -east and'.west and
minimized on north sides... understanding that this might
create d marketingand disp],ay,disadvantage to north. facing
commercial •operatons, - we suggest that the project
ricoxporate, high. performance glazing I in these -areas
We`Commend-tha- project, for. deciding to locate''the'City .market
space below.grade,.as markets are typically windowless
anywaYs.' This subterranean locator should result in,
eigni:tiGnt energy savings•year round. We.,hdpe tue'market'
also incorporates energy -efficient lighting 'strategies,
*v
PIT educ ion.
Regarding vmrP reductipn, ,if the commmercial ,uses ass .locally,
serving, then we should see avalley wide reduction of ' '
aatomob le trips -find a resulting savings in"gasoli-n6 use.: .
Just twenty yearn ago, Aspen .had a nu�r of =local i' �sesvng
businesses inviuding Toms Market, Bullocks, two hardware
stores axid others. Recent local history has seen a.trand`to
"up'grade".t0'high-end, tourist -oriented commercial uses.. If
the project'is.to.reallV reduce VMT and gasoliue.consumptian,
then'the development must, resist this trend and &ezve t-he
loCdl. Pbpulatipli'.
AM fed on clod � ..
• r�1' Ate' to he�p:cCnY�rve »etWr81 resoure@�s. � �. .
9
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNINGOFFICE O C
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5197
January 11, 1994
Alan Richman
P.O. Box 3613
Aspen, CO 81612
Re: Independence Place (Superblock) SPA Designation, Conceptual SPA Plan, Text
and Map Amendments, Commercial GMQS and GMQS Exemption
Case A 1-94
Dear Alan,
The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We
have determined that this application is complete.
We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, March 8, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m.
Should this date be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date
of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule
or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The
Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining
to the application is available at the Planning Office.
Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners within 300' and to
post the subject property with a sign at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Please
submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing
prior to the public hearing.
If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner assigned to your case, at 920-
5101.
Sincerely,
Suzanne L. Wolff
Administrative Assistant
apz.ph
rev�o�s
0 �J
t
c�m� 1�3e • �
r
•
I.3sCWQ
A�