The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.sp.Independence Place ~I /Xj ~ e . \ ~~ At.W~'-.~V. .... p~~~ tr_ 8618. ,,~ (t~M44,. (1612 'Phtw(808) 92()-1I25 Decelllber 31, 1993 , . , , . , BANDDELIVEtmD Ms. Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner Aspentpitkin. County Planning Office 130 SoutbGalenaStreet Asp~n;Colorado 81611 ", ........ " RE: . INDEPENllENCEPLACE DEvELOPMF;NTAPPl,ICATION Dear LesJie; Attached please .fin.dJweJ:jty-five(25) .. copies' of the Independence place Development. .Application. ill ad<iitioII to. the reduced sizecopi~sofall drawings, ""hich are included in theapplica~ionbooklet, fiye (5) copjesofthefull scale drawings have also been proVided. Also attached.are:checksfrom~achoftheproperty owners, which total'$4,439,. ?fwhich $3,925 is in payment ofth~Plannin~ Office devel?pment applicationfee,al1dtbe rell:lainde~ of which isdnpayrnent ofthe.El1gineering DepaJ;tment,Environ.mental Health Department and HOl).sing Office. referral agency .review fees; . \',' , I, . anticipate thafY(lU~ill find the application to t>ecomple~eandready for referral. . If, . questions should arise, however; which require additional materials to be submitted, orfQr thesubrnittedmaterilils to be clarified, I willpromptly.respon,d. to . such. requests on the App!icants'byhalf. Should tms occur, please (eel free to contactme attiJe address or phone number above.. .' .. .. . . . . Thal1kyouforyour con~iderableassistanc~'oVhi~etheapplicatlon was being prepared and for your COntinuing . attention tothisprojectdu~ing .its staff and public review stages. Very truly Yours, . ALAN RICHMAN PLAN .'41".' .......................--.. .," .~ Alan Riclmlan, AlCI> . ,~ t'""\. , \ MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: FROM: Mayor and Council Amy Margerum, City Manager Diane Moore, City Planning Director Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: December 7, 1993 RE: Superblock Executive Worksession Bih_itllillIl1t\~t:~t&IJ.~lm1'ttwl_lfl1ilfll11rfi.t~tX'~~t[i{f.'l.'.ti The purpose of this worksession is for Council to review the preliminary analysis of the costs of developmentpfthe East End parking garage, the values created by the upzoning of the property, a priority list of key issues for negotia~ion purposes and a list of what the City gives verses what the City receives and other .relevant information. Staff has attached the following memos for your r~ference: - September 15, 1993 Staff Memo; September 21, 1993 Staff Memo; September 24, 1993 Curtis Memo; and November 01, 1993 Curtis Memo regarding the Kraut property garage. t.,I.lf{ttfl.~I&~r*tilittil._'N7I%iif.lt<<~ti~%t"t~t%tlt~fllWI%E:.::::i 1. The cost of the 2nd level of parking, 215 spaces, is estimated at $4,810,000 in 1995 dollars, the estimated earliest construction date of the garage. 2. The operating revenues (most probable estimate) of the 2nd level of parking are estimated to support a parking revenue bond of $1,688,000. 3. The "shortfall" cost of the 2nd level of parking is estimated at $3,122,000, i.e, $4,810,000 vs $1,688,000 bonding capacity. 4. Only about 1,000 square feet will be delivery/storage and office space of the new City Market proposal. 5. . Is the 5,000 sq, ft. of City Market space above grade negotiable? DoeJ that space have to be City Market's? , , 6. 7. 9. f"""'\. ,~ Aspen/Snowmass trade area, based upon 1991-1992 population projections, can support 55,540 sq; ft. of supermarkets. Staff approximates that there is 16,500 gross square feet of additional CL space added to the project property with a value of $1,755,600. .- 8. Staff approximates that there is 17,500 gross square feet of additional NC space added to the project property representing a loss of $(126,000). If the cost of employee parking was added into the purchase price/rents of the . dwelling units, SJV would save approximately $1,000,000 that could be used to offset the cost of the municipal parking spaces. The code amendments and policy changes outlined in the memo, are supported by staff and are consistent with recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan. 10. U.. Vacating Cooper Street will eliminate 30 pl}blic parking spaces. The cost,pf those . spaces is $56, 160/year. 12, If Council is uncomfortable with the allowed commercial uses in the CL zone . district, the use of the SPA overlay could establish a range of uses more . appropriate for this site. . . CL - Commercial Lodge zone district LP - Lodge Preservation zone district NC - Neighborhood Commercial zone district FAR - Floor Area Ratio SJV - Superblock Joint Venture Partnership SPA - Specially Planned Area NC Floor Area Ratio- I: I CL Floor Area Ratio ~ 2: I LP Floor Area Ratio - I: I The floor area ratio is calculated on above grade space only. The below grade space does not count in the floor area ratio calculation. Net leasable space is all commercial space, above and below grade, excluding storage. bathrooms, corridors, stairways, circulation and mechanical areas. 2 " A The operating revenues (most probable estimate) of the 2nd level of parking are J:,le~ estimated to support a parking revenue bond of $1,688,000. '(, ~~ t>. ~. I~ t Wlilmm@Wllltf1.liiP"W,1.lililM@!limiii1tW'il%tliWiiiWG4Wif"'!WW"@. ~~~ttt.~_?{t~Ral~{:.:' Jim Curtis provided an overview of the construction and operating costs of the second level of the garage and revenues from that operation. The current proposal is for the City to build and operate the second level of parking estimated at 215 spaces. Jim used information from both Bob Gish and Randy Ready to determine approximate costs/space and anticipated revenues and determined the following: . 1. The cost of the 2nd level of parking is estimated at $4,810,000 in 1995 dollars, the estimated earliest construction date of the garage. 2. 3. The"shortfall" cost .of the 2nd level of parking is estimated at $3,122,000, i.e. $4,810,000 VS' $1,688,000 bonding capacity.- . Jim suggested options that could cover the shortfall. Staff only agre\:iS with the following: 1. Increase SN contribution. 2. Increase City contribution/subsidy. - - 3. State or federal contributions. 4. Increase the parking revenues and bonding capacity. 5. Reduce the SJV employee housing subsidy. 6. Combinations of aU the above. Please see Tables I - 3 for garage analysis. This is Jim Curtis' analysis. Staff agrees with his analysis. City Market proposes to rebuild their existing space completely below grade. The below grade space represents 26,000 square feet. Currently, City Market owns the entire building on the site. There is 26,000 gross square feet in the entire structure, which includes 1,000 - 2,000 square feet that would not be considered net leasable space. City market could take over the entire building without mitigation costs or GMP allocations (K-Mart rule does not apply in the NC zone district). 3 (') ~ Although the proposed below grade space does not represent calculable "floor area" it is "net leasable". Council has requested a clarification of what amount of the proposed space is actual sales space (net leasable) and what amount of space is deliverylstorage space. In conversations with John Caldwell, Director of Real Estate for City Market, he has said that in order to justify the redevelopment of this property they must "intensely" merchandize every possible square foot as some form of sales space. He anticipates that only about 1,000 square feet will be deliverylstorageand office space. As a point of comparision, the Circle Super in Carbondale is 25.000 square feet a~rding to City Market figures andco~firmed by the Carbondale buildin~ department. It IS a conventional store and apprO'lumately 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 a1readyin the .store and probably will not add new departments, such as a phllllllacyor 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 Council visit the Circle SuRer store in Carbondale to gain a perspective of a 25,000 square foot store. Keep in mind that an Aspen City market would be less conventional. Staff did not discuss the additional 5,000 square feet of above grade commercial space with John Caldwell. The SNhas proposed that this would. also be a City Market function and be either a bakery/delior "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: * Population projections include both permanent residents, seasonal residents and tourists; * Peak seasons coincide with the winter tourist seasons and summer tourist seasons; 4 ~. ~ * 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 modem 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. Staff has reviewed the number's analysis prepared by Jim Curtis for upzoning the property. We have also prepared our own analysis based upon different square footage. These analyses are based upon rezoning related to the proposed project. However, rezoning is a quasi-judicial procedure that requires public hearings and review. 5 n ~ Although staff supports the following text amendments, it does not negate the public review of these proposals and the ability of Council to deny the proposed amendments. A. Jim calculated the value of the upzoning based solely on the increase in commercial floor area that is added to the entire project property. He then used the increased floor area (11,000 sq. ft.) and assigned a separate value for CL space and far NC space. Existing buildout for all 3 properties, based upon current FAR requirements = 54,000 square feet. Proposed buildout for all 3 properties, FAR requirements based upon rezoning = 65,000 square feet (excluding employee housing and below grade City Market). The difference = 11,000 square feet added to the property. Value of 11,000 square feet of CL commercial space = $1,067,600. Value of 11,000 square feet of NC commercial space = , $(158200). ... B. Staff disagrees that values should be based onl)r on the additional floor area that is added to the site.. We contend that the project must be analyzed as a whole. First, upzoning Bell Mountain from LP to CL creates the potential for 20,000 square feet of CL commercial space that does not currently exist on the site. The floor area ratio for LP is 1: I and commercial uses are not permitted. The floor area ratio for CL is 2: I and those commercial uses that are permitted in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district are allowed uses in the CL zone district only on the first floor of the lodge. The Bell Mountain Lodge parcel is approximately 20,000 square feet and, at a 2: I floor area ratio it is possible that 20,000 square feet (or the entire first floor) could be commercial uses. In the current proposal, the Buckhorn Lodge which is now zoned CL, would be rezoned to NC. Therefore, approximately 3,500 square feet (the first floor of the existing building) would be downzoned from CL uses to NC uses. Rezone Bell Mountain LP to CL: Downzone Buckhorn CL to NC: + 20,000 sq. ft. commercial space 3,500 sq. ft. commercial space . 16,500 sq. ft. Total New CL commercial space Value of 16,500 square feet = $1,755,600. 6 ,.-.." r'\ T Please see Tables 4, 5, and 6 for those calculations. Second, it is true below grade space does not count as "floor area". However, without City Market's ability to participate with other property owners, including the City, there would be no ability for City Market to build 26,000 square feet below grade and 15,000 square feet of NC space above grade and provide required parking on-site. Therefore, staff concludes that there is a 17,500 square feet of additional NC space . added to the project property that should be considered. (Downzoning of the Buckhorn Lodge from CL to NC has been already factored into the equation with the CL analysis.) The value of the additional 17,500 square feet of NC space is $(126,000). Please see the calculations on Tables 7, 8, and 9. C. Total value of upzoning to CL oommercial space and additional NC space = $1,629,600. . What the calculations do indicate is the 17,500 square feet of NC space has no value to the developer and the ability to increase the City's amount of NC is a gift. Staff believes that the parking requirement in the NC zone diStrict is a significant impact when developing NC space (4 spaces/l,ooo sq. ft). Therefore Council may want to consider using the SPA overlay variance process to reduce die amount of the required parking for additional NC space that is developed on the site. . . In addition, because the NC space. represents a loss, Counc.. il may want to consider accepting the 16,500 CLl17,5oo NC as an appropriate split of uses on the site. _1._;:~~~W'.~w.~~:.. Based upon the current proposal, the following amendments to the Municipal Code have been suggested. (As stated above in Part IV, rezoning and text amendments are a quasi- judicial procedure that require public notice and hearings before the Council shall make a final determination with regard to the proposals.) As a companion to those text amendments, several policy shifts are also proposed. Code Amendments 1. Amend External Floor Area Ratio for NC zone district: currently it is 1: I and it is proposed to be increasable to 1.5: 1 by special review when sixty (60%) percent of the additional floor area is approved for residential use restricted to affordable housing. . 7 , . 1"""". i"""'\ , This amendment is consistent with the AACP that recommends more incentives for employee housing downtown. It is also consistent with the CC zone district that enables a bonus for on-site employee housing. ii." Demolition and Reconstruction Mitigation. Rather than completely exempt mitigation of the Superblock proposal from employee and parking mitigation for the demolition and reconstruction of existing development, staff offers the alternative: Demolition and reconstruction mitigation of commercial space. zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC) or rebuilt and rezoned as NC space would be exempt from the demolition and reconstruction mitigation required in the Code, Section 24-8~104, A.I.(a)(l). This is consistent with the way the code exempts the demolition and reconstruction mitigation of lodge space. It has been brought. to the attention of Council and staff, time and again, that the mitigation costs for commercial development are precluding new NC space. Local serving businesses cannot maintain the rents necessary to pay the mitigation costs. Unlike the OC and C-l zone districts, high mitigation requirements and neighborhood commercial rents areitot 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 CommerciallRetail 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 allocati(JO and mitigate development impacts. Other 8 ,~ ~ parcels in town could seek to use 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. Policy Changes 1. Employee parking has always been required, on-site, for employee housing developments. The costs oferoviding approximately 51 employees parking spaces (I space/unit) in the Superblock is about $1 million to be paid by the SJY. Originally, the SJY proposed to provide parking off-site for employees housed on the Superblock. They suggested the Rio Grande parking garage. Their reasoning was that the intent of providing resident housing downtown is to, among others, reduce the need for private cars ona daily basis. What is needed, SJY claimed, is storage for employee's cars to be used for the occasional trip out of town. Staff recommended against the SJY proposal. Primarily because we have always required at least one parking space per unit on-site. However, one suggestion that has been raised duri~ discussions is why not include the cost of the parking space in the cost of the dwelling unit. If the cost of the parking space were included in the employee dwelling unit, the price of the unit could be higher but may still be within the affordability range. This alternative should be discussed with the Housing Office. . If Council were to support this scenario, SJV would save approximately $1,000,000 that could be used to offset the cost of the municipal parking spaces. 11. Condominiumization of parking spaces has not been a concept that the City has embraced during development reviews. Previous requests have been for parking that had been a requirement of development. Staff believes that required parking should be made available to residents, customers, etc. without cost. SlY proposes to provide 100 spaces on the first level as their required parking at no charge. The third level is proposed to be condominiumized or leased. Staff supports this practice as long as the leased spaces are spaces that are not required for the redevelopment of this property. 111. 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 9 !~ h 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 0f 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 staff's opinion, oftheir close proximity to the public sidewalk and street. lit addition, the Bell Mountain Lodge received a GMP allocation for the redevelopm.ent of the lodge for 40 units. This is not a redevelopment proposal for a small, family run lodge. s IV. The vacation of Cooper Street will eliminate 30 on-street public parking spaces. According to Randy Ready the value of those spaces is $56,160/year. SJV has hired Gordon Shaw of Leigh, Scott and Cleary to develop a pedestrian/transportation/circulation study in order to determine the level of impacts associated with the vacation of the street and building of multi-level parking garage. It is anticipated that the study will be included in the December 31, 1993 GMQS submittal. Fortunately, Gordon Shaw is very familiar with Aspen's transportation needs. He helped prepare the Transportation Implementation Plan. Staff has always recommended rezoning the property with an SPA overlay. (Again, rezoning is a quasi-judicial procedure that requires public notice and public hearings. Any rezoning is subject to approval or denial based upon Council's review at public hearing.) The purpose of the SPA is to provide design fl"xibility for land which requires innovative consideration in those circumstances where traditional zoning techniques do not adequately address its historic signifi.cance, natural features, unique physical character, or locations, and where potential exists for community benefit from comprehensive development. The purpose of SPA is also to allow the development of 10 ,-, A mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative design practices which permit variations from standard zone district land uses and dimensional requirements and establish a procedure by which land upon which multiple uses exist, or are considered appropriate, can be planned and redeveloped in a way that provides for the greatest public benefit. . _ The underlying zone district shall be used as a guide. but not an absolute limitation, to the uses and development. which may be considered during the development review process. SPA will allow the review to mix up land uses and, more importantly, establish land uses which best fit the project. In otherwords, if Council is uncomfortable with the allowed commercial uses in the CL zone district, the use of the SPA could establish a range of uses more appropriate for this site. The SPA also requires a four step review process which will be necessary for a proj~t of this complexity. . lliilli!BX4.'WX"It.'WP4'l" - . ~f*$tlilllt*,; ~. The SJV proposal requests the ability to relocate City Market on an interim basis while the project is being developed. City Market contends that to be closed for approximately one year would be a significant loss of jobs and ~venues both to the company and the a~ . . Staff suggested the Kraut property as a possible interim site. The affordable housing proposal for the Kraut property includes a below grade parking structure. The proposal, as just approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, includes a 56 car garage one level below grade. If the Kraut property were to be considered as an interim use for City Market, the garage would be built and topped off, a temporary building erected on the site, and shoppers would use the parking garage on-site. There is precedent in the City for allowing temporary uses on parcels that are not otherwise zoned for that use. The Temporary Use permit, approved by Ordinance, is the vehicle to allow the temporary use of a parcel under special circumstances. Sy Kelley. the owner of the Buckhorn Lodge, has requested that some space consideration on the Kraut property be given for his commercial uses that would be disrupted during project development. It is unclear how much space City Market will need. The property is 15,000 square feet. If the Kraut property were to be used as a temporary relocation for City Market, the deCision is necessary around mid-February 1994 for construction bidding and phasing of II r; .~ , the Kraut housing project. The Kraut development team has taken into consideration the interim use of this site. Related to the interim use of the Kraut property and the proposed housing development on the property, is the question of what size parking garage should be developed under the Kraut property. ' The application for the employee housing proposal included several garage scenarios. The largest garage, 146 spaces, would include George Vicenzi's A-frame ,property. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a 56 space garage with the condition that if the size of the garage increased, the P&Z would review the new plans due to different .:, operating ~haracteristics of a large municipal garage. In past meetings, Council has. remarked that unless the Superblock proposal is discontinued and the City gets a better deal from George. Coullcil is not interested in a large municipal garage under .the.Kraut property. Attached.te this memo is a memo from Jim Curtis outlining the garage scellariosand indicating the time frame by which his project team needs decisions. In order to prepare construction drawings, they need to know (at the December 13, first reading of the Kraut housing development) what size garage Council will support. (An updated estimateofor parking under the Kraut property is being prepared and will be included in the December 13 memo. It appears that the cost will be higher by 20% per space.) Although, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a 56 space garage, they strongly urge Council to consider as much parking as possible. Fifty-seven spaces will be lost when the property is developed and the Commission was concerned about a parking deficit at this busy end of town. Some members of the P&Z do not understand Council's motto that no new parking should be built downtown. Other's believe that connecting the Superblock to the Kraut should still be on the table. TheP&Z is supportive of more parking under Kraut and staff strongly recommends a worksession with the P&Z and Council to update the P&Z on the Superblock project and related transportation philosophy. 12 ,'-'" ~ _....,. , ....;..!WtltW€4J\.... ..:.,:..... >>;.. ".0=""':,;,;,;~.,..,.,,. ....w. ..>;:..,....::x>~?,;,~;,:,;~.,. ,'.~ . ,.,.,..>_~w.:-:~.:-..:-:.>:.>:.x.x.:.:.:.:...:,>>:-*"x:Xl'.~.v. City Gives SJV . Vacation of Cooper Street and 30 Parking Spaces Temporary Use of Kraut Property for Interim City Market Upzone 16,500 gross sq. ft. to CL Commercial Space & LP to CL Increased FAR & Heights Associated with Rezoning & Text Amendments No Mitigation for Demolition Reconstruction of NC Space SPA Dimensional Requirement Variances Ability to Utilize Municipal Land in Construction of the Parking Garage Allow 9 Buckhorn Lodge Rooms to be Reconstructed as NC Uses City Gets From SJV Additional Municipal Parking! Ability to Implement Pedestrian Enhancement Measures Downtown Public Plaza (approx. 5,400 sq. ft.) 17,500 gross sq. ft. Additional NC Space 26,500 gross sq. ft. Employee Housing Downtown Coordinated Redevelopment of Properties . Increased Sales & Property Taxes Expanded City Market *This list is not in priority order, nor are the items intended to be a match, 13 ~ ~ r~?J tMWftW~tJ0.!W~~~.%ilWXWi'i%f4%~~ ij%W[~W. .:~~:r8~mffi%W>>J$ffj~"?;k't::::DB'ftltit~i~m:~'AA~*~~$~~ Staff recommends the following priority for negotiating the development issues of this project with the SJV. . ~l. 2. ~ 3. .9 ~. /4J 5. ~Q) ~ 7. ~ Should Council use the $1,629,600 value of upzoning to offset the cost of municipal parking? ~. 0,. p-"Ij <>j!:) f:-.1' Is the size of City Market negotiable? Is t~ ft. above grade negotiable? Does that space have to be Ci~ If 26,000 sq. ft. is too big, what should it be reduced to? Should Council request the $1,000,900 saved by SJV on employee parking be used to offset municipal parking.<4ts? If City Market uses the Kraut property on an interim basis, should a subsidy or rent be charged for that use? Would Council like to more narrowly define the type of commercial uses in . the CL zone district using the SPA overlay? Does Council want use the SPA overlay variance process to reduce the amount of the required parking for additional NC space that is developed on the site? . . In addition, because the NC space represents a loss, would Council consider the 16,500 CLf17,5oo NC split appropriate given the fact that the additional NC space is .a loss? <:!) If CL is to be narrowly defined, is the split between 16,500 sq. ft. of CL commercial space and 17,500 sq. ft. of new NC space acceptable? q, ~~o~, I~s~ JV1~..~&r1lo.~.1 ~'V\~. ATTACHMENTS: . . J \J v ":1 ^ . v., . 6 ptl1'\ ~/ A. Tables 1-9 B. September 15, 1993 Staff memo C. September 21, 1993 Staff memo D. September 24, 1993 Curtis memo E. November 01, 1993 Curtis memo F. Permitted & Conditional Use Sections of CL, CC and NC Zone Districts 14 ~ [> .g :g o,n ... ~ ~ l' '" . ~l'W l' - ..... <> en' n I:: ..... :g[:S fH~' w Pl>~~61 ",".,0" ~('}rr' Pl>on~ NS!:l..... n -. \C ",. e \C --~ ~ m"d I I * "l'alilie10~~* * ('}l:l"C!!~~SJ ~g~~~ 8 0 n v e1 l' ::l en l' ::l en.c e1 11 ~~ ~ ~ 8<t,5~.g ~li g. ., 8 0' ~ ::l ~ ~. IS: ;s. a l!l > '" ., I:: 8< l' a _. ",., o-:PO < l' (') en 8 0; ",. en :E "'" ..... f> .; .:;. '" '" 0 ~ ~ E- \C ... '< 0:> ,., 0 ',", !Ii 'C Jil. m .... .... 0; S.... > -. ~ ::r ""'~ '<:I'"''''' QQ ';' _' e: ii! rJ ~ iil ~~ o I>i"I:: I:: < Ii 7' 0- !:l 0 :E - o' 5' '<:I ~ '" :> "C la", '< 0 3 '" ~ g g. - QQ )>~ ~~~ en>tli _CI:l~ (I) ~ tIj ~ Ztli Z (I) tJ :s. CI:l tli ~ ~ Z "C1-Io"l(1 a ~ tli g to ~ C/l ~ ~ "t 0 > en (1(1 ~~tli CitT1"'..!.' * * HH~Hn'~~i >g.-< ii! ~ st;5~.g li '" ~. IS: ;s a l!l . "," c 8< ::l a _. o' e. 0- (') ::I. g (') en 8 0; ~'!:l :E - QQ '<:I ~. '" '" - c en ~ ~. ~ ~ .... g, a 3 ~ ~ ~. (') 08""'::-: ~'"' t; ~g 3;'-.e:ii! g'" e;l' ~. ga "'~ S en ",< 0 D. '< ., _ ~. _ '<:1- o .g ., :> 3 .g o '" 0 . ~ " <1 ~~~~ ~ '" <> <' 0 0 3 0 ....::l 8 0.. tT1 ,- (') 0 ~ * * ~~~~~~~~~acggEaSw~ g",~gO~3>Ne100~oc~""';s:> ~['g..~~,,",g~Z~ g",~.'" .,IllO~"'",e- ",:>('}S en ~en 1:iH;.8.~" ~~i;;"~PU~ C) 0" ~ '<:I (') <> ;z:l a 5 ~ g. Eo ~ Jg ~ ~ ~ '< ::r:: 8: ~ g ti ~ (') '<:I a IT, :;z 0"" ~~'>i3'" e: Z 3N .g' fl. ~ g. 3 ::r:: :> Q '" gJg.3:> g ~~ g: en g _. '" 0 - :> ~ Q ~ e. g..... 0; P. III ~ :> .. g 8. :> en p * * ~~. :31'<:1 <> * * ~ "g [.g ~ ;;l C)o.. tT1 0 ;z:l * * ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~U ~i~~~ ~ to~ a ~ Pi: ~ ~ iif e. ~ g. ~ R ~ . ii' g ~ ~ ! 1!i~~~.~[~"~P~n < 3 P. ~'" :> ~ g ti g t'" 3 Eo!:j a -. '" '" g .,., III en .c o;"t:l ~ P. ::l 0 ~ _ g en _' S4 g ~~. 5 8 III . ~ '" a (') _~ gO'> <>0 ~p3'e:~.,g .,::r:: p.3 . 0 0 :::::::l ~ ~ g g :> ~! ~ i=l' g <>. '" 0 _ 0.. 8 g lil '" =:::: J:;. ....8' ~ '" '" S loot ~ g ~. p.. > en 0 0' O:;j cr ~ ~ ., Z Q m >< ::I: - c:J =i - o - - // ,/// .""'-. ~ ~ N ~ * * ~:8 ~] () d e!. 'tl p,.<eno ~ e!. "t1Q ~. > ~ I::J ~ 0 '" < ~ a 'tl .g ~ ~ e!. = ~ ~ ~ , ---, * * * * * o >-:lQ " ~>-:l()Sl ., m() 00~fttr1Z0~t""'= 'tl=g 8 .g ,0 8 ~ ()~ ~ 8 0 ] Q ri 80en08N.,>zEl: <lilg g ~ tr1 ir-"g g o. 8 () '" ~. e!. 0 (') ::r 000 "'= ::r> ~. ~ 0 So = = ., i=:' 8 aq -C::8p,.0~"'Q.=~ oo() ori'tlZ~,Y ~~8 g5.~' ] o. () (') ~ g ~,gB 'tl~ ., n i>l~geng~ "'~ /;)- 0.::1 ~ "0 CI'.I ..c~ a 0 c g g. g 2 ~. () n ..... ~ '" .. (') t" t""' = t::; g~?d g'~ 8. ~ ~ g,s. ~ if ~ ~ ~ g-W ., 0 ~ a =,g ""0 =: o ~ ~ I . . - 00 o I::J ~ I ~~ ~~ ~tn ~8 C'/.)tn ~z ~n Idtn tots ~> On .n tn ~ .r, S' > ("'"\ !i':g t:I ?l ;::: '" '" '" '" !i'~;'" '" - ..... '" CI:l' '" C ..... ::gg":8 ~ e...., '" '" ~~~~ '1:In~. Rool'l,;.o NS"'..... !l. S' :8 -",-I:> ~ tTf'"ct I I * ..."'(3ffffe?'::;l'1:l" " gno"d-S ~ ~ Sla S"~~ ~~ d~ e?",,,,,,,"''''CI:l.oe? ?l g.-< ~ ~ ~tJS~.g ~5 g. .. S 8' -< '" '" 1;;' s: ;S. a ~ 00 > '" .. c 9- '" ~ ~. ",,,, 0-. < '" '"' '" B - .... '" liE "'" !",_~~",,,,"'g~ CI:l Potc; ::l?l-<oa ,.,'" '1:1 g\O ~ ::! a:: ..., '" ~ e: > ~.-I:> o;'s.ej~ a ~..~ 9.. ~c '" < ffN ',' .. - '" '" - liE - 0' 0' l'l a:: ~ '" ~ .gg g. g ~ S' _ -<0Cl )> .~ 3'~Z t: tr.l 0 ~>tr.l _CI:2- (1) ~ tIj ~ .ztI1 Z (1) 0 :5.C1:2 tr.l ; e z -o:gn o l.l.J tr.l n ,:::0 - (1) .0:; t.; rn ~ ~ '1 0 > C/)nn ~ .~ tr.l ~. 1:1'j.~ .4 I * * ?i~l(382~~[::g~~~ .. ~ "8 e? '" g '" ~ 5 >.0 >::r i>l=9-t:lS~.g 5 ' ... 0- n ::l '" '"' '" B '" .... '" ., "'" ~. 0Cl' _ ~~ '" '" g ~ <: CI:l Po-< ::r?l-< 0 a ,., '" '1:1 g 6::!~""'" ~e: > OQ'~ ';"> 8... ::-: ~ t:I S S liE-..i>l C '" -'" ..S'~s '" ~ "'=: '< " _ f!l. 0' "d g "0 (3 o ~ "g :-to '" ~ - '< ~iWg · s 0 ;S. '" '" Po' .,!, n' "" " 1~~~i~~~~s~g~Easw~ '" '" .. 0 0 0 S > e? i5 '" 0 C '" ~ < '" '" :g s '< ;::: "d ::t: l:! = Z I"L S '" '" 10 Ii' e. 1fi'(3.....g~- ",'" ~S~e:CI:lliE ~fl!l~! it€tl~llal o a" '1:1 'i n '" ~ a - S ~. g '" '" "'"' ~ a::,<::r:""'0 ;:a"'0..0.....~0Cl < ~~~!~i ~api"{~~ ~~ NPo "'", a "'"'->a'" ej z ~N CI:l S. g' g. S ::r: ~ e. Q '" ?l~'S'" g "'"'B 0' CI:l a n. .. 0 _ g'" 0 '1:1 .. J;:t...., -.. ~ ~- _ 0 '" J;:t. '" ., 0 '" Po '" P " -<.. " ","d:31"d"'~" ~ "d ",' (3 0 '" 0 Po" " ai~i~S~8r~l~p~~.CI:l" ~e.'1:I~~~"8C1:l~SNc--",~gn~ 0Cl > '" ~'''d 0 - > 0 '" '" - ~ ~ W ~cr[g~~~~o~l~ "d g. 1i l'l "d z;:a > '" 9- ~ l'l' ..., n i:::: ] 0 "~~nn~ s~_~.~o < ~ ~",~",~g;:a a~S ~l:!S.~ .. '" '" "" .. '" .0 '" 'tI ~ 't' '" g '< _ a '" _' g g g~. i5 i5.. . ~ '" fil n ::g g1f~ g,8 ~p~ ej~~g ~ ~ g g ~ ~ g: ",' g n. .. 0-"'" B ..,fil"- S ...,8' c: '" .. 0 '"1 C'I:l ::s =- p.. "- '" _ 0' "" ..- r:.n::s 0 ::t: 8' '" .. .. z Q ~ tv ~ f ~l.. 1""\ * * * * .* * ~j [~~l~g~~i[~~ Q.<l:I>~80l:l>g.8~">Ze: ~ e;.> "tl,< ~ ill tt1 g:'g g g. ~ ("') ~ O<l ~..:;! >< (D 90 :s:S r:o ",. ::r tj e;. cd~ Q. 0 ~ '" g. :s II '" $! O~"dZg::tl ~Q.8 ~ l!. ]"tl ff("') 0 (1 S t;;~ 'i:l .g e;O:Sl:l>:s,.c "'o-e o 8 ~.;:t..","d"'= - t:l e g ~a.51g~~r r.pg - 08'> ::r.8 5 g. "tl :S"liJ:i 00 Q. B i ~ ~~ ~ ~ = ... '='> - ~ 5l .,~ * 0("') ~ tt1 0 "d :s :s a ~ ~ < .. :s .e;.l'5 ;. r g 0- .... S Q..:e lr:o~ - <> l::: g~ 3 ~ o a~ "'''d - ~. <> ~ - o .~ o o o - 00 o tj .. '< 'f . o ~z tl1tj >tl1 c:n~ ~~ Ztj c:ntl1 saZ tl1n :;;otl1 t:dts t""'4> On ntl1 ~ l' I"""'. ~a (')~ ~;;r ~. ~; o\;' ~[ o\;' p. p. II ~ It o- . "" "" "" ~ .... -iI'- 00 "00 00 - - - p 0 0 0 Q Q 8 0 g 0 . . "" ,.:; t; .... ~ Q ~ 0 0 '" (")_.~~.{.fJ-otf.l=~U'J g~2..8..!?!~~ar.:gQg- 5-n s:: .!.a (tl <1l :3 () (ll CD ::l !=i' ~ ~ e. (') .~ 0- 0 ~ g; ~ ii,;O 00 .a0l0= j:t.>o g g 8. ~ ~ O('j en "T1 o El .a " ::J. ~ <> -. '-1 " i;l g:' d sr ",g~ <;" . j.J..... .":0'" 0.. o ..CT cr' ~. c:: (iI C" ()..n .... l-f)OQ 0 S. O"d n ,5: 0 0 ::3 ;I Ei ~." N e:" " " ~< s.g ~<t.!i.~> e-O(fQ Erag [c::::=: ogl-l C1Cl"'C i:t,ct.A 01 (tl "'"' 0 0 '::;I ~Ul..p o~ ==~. ~8. ~~ t ~ g :a ~ " 0 0. _, S' '" OQ tl. $? '"" eo. 0. cr" '< '" < gl ~. 0- o s-~ ~('l"" ~-'El -~ g: POQ 9::0 1~ g " lttl:> " 0 " 0. "" " 0: cr" '< '" :;:: (') I "'I '" g' 0. S' OQ "'I ~ ~ o ~ " " .-., ~ , , TABLE 2 SUPERBLOCK GARAGE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES The cost estimates are based on 215 cars per level to determine the per car and oer level cost for the 2nd and 3rd levels, understanding that City Market is underground in the 1st level. The costs are estimated Spring 1995 costs. 2 Levels 430 Cars Construction Cost Parking Spaces $ 8,513,500 430 19,800 Isp , Appr9vals, Permits Arch.IBng. Prof. Fees Contractor Bonding Project Mgnt. Fee Miscellaneous/Other Construction Inflation (2 yrs @ 3%/yr=6%) Fin. Underwriting Cost ,Contingency 5% 1% 2% 1% 6% 50,000 425,700 85,100 170,300 85,100 559,800 197,800 504.365 , -2% 5% os TOTAL COST PARKING SPACES COST PER SPACE $ 10,591,700 430 $ 24,630 Ispace COST PER LEVEL ~ 5.295.900JLevel NOTES: 1. The construction cost estimates are based on very preliminary estimates by Shaw Construction and , the soft cost estimates by Jim Curtis. 2. The hard construction cost is approximately $39 a square foot for either the two- or three-le\'el garag~, The Rio Grande has 34"0 spaces, was constructed in -approximately 14 months and was officially opened in June 1990. Its 1989 total development cost including .financing underwTiting cost was $7,514,400 divided by 340 spaces, or $22.100/soace. Of the $7,514,400 cost, approximately $432,200 was related to unbudgeted, unforeseen cost related to ground water. The garage is 3 'h levels of parking and ACRA office space totaling approximately 136,200 square feet, including the upper plaza top. The cost per square foot is $55 ($7,514,400 divided by 136,200 square feet); or $52 a square foot deducting the $432,200 water problem ($7,082,200 divided by 136,200 square feet), r". i"""" TABLE 3 SUPERBLOCK GARAGE PRELIMINARY OPERATING PRO FORMA POR MUNICIPAL PARKING 215 SPACF$: TOTAL .,;......,- 1st 2nd 3rd Level Level Level - 11 0 spaces and City Market - 215 spaces municipal parking - 215 spaces leased parking - SNowned - City owned - SN owned A. Revenue Matrix Based on 215 municipal spaces - 2nd level - and no City revenues 1st & 3rd levels. B. Revenue Matrix . $2.OOIDay $3.OOIDaY $4.00IDay Turnover Ratel24 Hours 365 DavsfYr 365 DavslYr 365 DavsIY r Rio Grande .58 $ 91,030 $ 136,546 $ 182,062 Targeted 1.50 235,420 353,140 470,850 Optimistic 2.00 313,900 470,850 627,800 Ooeratini! ProForma Revenues S2.00IDav ~.oolDav S4.00IDav Targeted \.S Turnover Rate $ 2.35,420 $ 353,140 $ 470,850 Exoenses Labor 78,000 78,000 78,000 Utilities 32,000 11 32,000 32,000 Maintenance Labor 7,006 7,000 7,000 Maintenance Materials 4,000 4,000 4,000 Security 6,000 6,000 6,000 hJsurance 5.,000 5,000 5,000 AdminJAcc. Overhead 16,000 16,000 16,000 Contingency 5% 6.000 6.000 ....Ml!Q. 154;000 154,000 154,000 Operating Income 81,420 199,140 316,850 Capital Repair & Replac. Reserve - 30.000 - 30.000 - 30.000 Available for Debt Service 51,420 169,140 286,850 Debt Coverage Ratio \.25 1.25 1.25 Debt Service Amount 41,136 135,312 229,480 Bondim! Caoacitv 7% Int. over 20 years $ 442.130 $1.454.340 t2.466.460 c. NOTES: I. The preliminary operation pro forma has been reviewed "it" Randy Ready, City Transporation Director. The parking revenues of the garage' are dependent on the City implementing paid parking downtown. 2. The 7% interest bonding capacity is conservative and basea on City.G.O. backing, . What will be the City revenue source for the G.O. backing? 3. Operating expenses are estimated using Rio Grande Garag-e comparables. Utilitie5 cost increased 20% over Rio Grande for added ventilatioc, - electric cost, ~ .~ TABLE 4 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS UPZONING/BUlLOOUT ANALYSIS FOR CL COMMERCIAL USES Upzoning Enables 16,500 Square Feet of CL Commercial Uses ~ 1. The upzoning analysis below only includes Above Ground square footage per the Code and considers new commercial space that may be used for CL commercial uses. 2. The 25,500 square feet FAR of proposed Employee Housing is not included because it has no economic "profit" to the SJV and is an economic "loss" to the SJV. 3. . The downzoning of the Buckhorn Lodge reduces the CL potential by 3,500 square feet. .,' Existinl!J Allowed Buildout Pro.POsed 7,OOOsq it NC Buckhorn Lodge Bell Mountain Lodge 3,500 sqit CL 3,500 sq ft Lodge 20,000 sq it Lodge ... 20,000 sq it CL 20,000 sq it Lodge Total gross square footage of additional CL space = 16,500 ,1"""\ ~ TABLE 5 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EMPLOYEE AND PARKING MITIGATION FOR CL UPZONING 16,500 Square Feet of FAR is Upzoned to CL Commercial Space A. Gross FAR to Net Leasable Adjustment Gross FAR Sq Ft 20% Gross to Net Adj. Net Leasable Sq Ft 16,500 sq ft - 3.300 13,200 sq ft B. Emoloyee Mitigation for Upzoning CL Net Leasable Sq Ft Employee Generation Ratio Employee Generation Employee Mitigation Ratio Employees Housed Employees/Studio Unit Ratio Studio Units Studio Units Minimum Size Net Liveable Sq Ft Net to Gross Sq Ft Adjustment Gross Employee Mitigation Sq Ft 13,200 3.5 46 60 28 1.25 22 400 8,800 : 25 11 ,000 C. Parking Mitigation for Upzoning: 1. CL Net Leasable Parking Ratio Parking Mitigation Employee Parking Mitigation Parking Ratio Parking Mitigation 13,200 2 26 22 1 22 2. sq ft empll,ooo sq ft net leasable employees . % minimum threshold employees employees/studio unit studio units * sq ft minimum unit size sq ft net liveable % net to gross sq ft gross sq ft net leasable spacesll,ooo sq ft net leasable spaces studio units spacelbedroom spaces ** * The studio unit was used as an example of the greatest subsidy for employee mitigation. ** Note that the parking requirement is subject to special review, and if 2-bedroom units were contemplated, staff will still consider I space per unit for AH units. ,'-' .Ai TABLE 6 , , SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS ECONOMIC VALUE OF 16,500 SQ. Fr. FAR CL UPZONING Upzoning is 16,500 Sq. Ft. FAR of CL Conunercial Space Retail Rents at $35 Sq. Ft. A vg. - Most Probable Estimate Economic Value of UDzomn2 A. Capitalized Value', Development Cost B. Canitalized Value Retail Rents - Most Probable Vacancies Opt Expenses Capitalization Rate Value Per !:'et Leasable Sq Ft C. Development Cost 13,200 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable 16,500 Sq. Ft. Gross Construction I. Land Cost 2. Building Cost Approvals Hard ConstrUction Arch./Eng. Prof. Fees Contractor Bond BIdg Permitsrrap Fees Construction Insur. Prqject Mgt. Misc. Fees/Other Const. Loan Points Const. Interest Rental Lease Up Rental Leasing Fees 3. Parking Mitigation Cost Parking Reduction by SJV 13,209 sq. ft. leasable @ 358 sq ft = 16,500 sq. ft. gross @ 186 sq ft = $ 4,730,366 - 3.069.000 -$ 1,661,366 $ 462,000 - 13.860 $ 448,140 22.407 $ 425,733 $ .09 4,730,367 358 sq ft $35 sq ft avg @ 13,200 sq ft net leasable 3% 5% 9% $ o . . 25,000 990,000 79,200 9,900 26,400 7,500 49,500 19,800 18,109 60,365 77 ,000 69.300 1,432,074 581,620 75.610 506,010 $60 sq ft @ 16,500sq ft gross 8 % constrUction 1 % construction $2,000/1,000 set ft leasable 5 % construction 2 % construction 1.5 pts.@ $1,207,300 10% @ 1 year draw@$1,207,300 2 months rent 15% of 1st year's rent + 26 spaces @ $22,370/sp 143 to 1I0 spaces = 13% reduction 4. El11rloye~ Housing Mitigation Cost 22 studio units - \,;O$t 22 parking space.s - cost 22 studio units - revenue 5. Project Contingency Developer's Profit 6. Total Development Cost Total Development Cost - Gross Sq Ft 11,000 sq ft @ $IOO/sq ft 22 spaces @ $22,370/space 22 studios @ $59,000 Cat. #2 sales ],100,000 + 492.140 1,592,140 L.298.000 294,140 223,222 + 613.861 837,083 i 3.069.307 186/sq ft 10% 25 % total cost t"'\ ~ TABLE 7 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS BUILDOUT ANALYSIS FOR NC COMMERCIAL USES Notes 1. Moving City Market below grade enables an additiol\al14,OOO square feet of net leasable NC space to be developed above grade that could not otherwise be built based upon underlying zoning. 2. Rezoning the Buckhorn Lodge from CL to NC enables an additional 3,500 square feet of NC space which was once Lodge units. . 3. The 3,500 square feet of CL space in the Buckhorn Lodge that is converted to NC is factored into the CL analysis. 4. The 25,500 square feet FAR of proposed Employee Housing is not included because it has no economic "profit" to the SlV and is an economic "!pss" to .~he SlV. Total new NC space provided due to the project is 17,500 square feet. Existing! Allowed Buildout /,/ , o'P,ooo s4 ft NC ',;", ) '-,,-:-'~"'. /" '''''''''_'_ f s Proposed '211,000 sq ft below grade NC 5,000 sq ft above grade NC 10,000 sq ft above grade NC 7,000 sq ft NC . City Market Buckhorn Lodge 3,500 sq ft CL 3,500 sq ft Lodge Total gross square footage of additional NC space = 17 ,500 ) ! ~.. ,,<.,;:"~ ('J~; cQ /y", () "cD '~"'V .' ~ if . ,~, ()- / ' 'J' . ?'----.~ 0 ........ . J S-.. " \J ) -;2 (J;2> / /~. \) \..:)"'-':1 V ,'-" , ,-. I TABLE 8 SUPERBWCK ANALYSIS EMPWYEE AND PARKING MITIGATION FOR ADDmONAL NC SPACE 17,500 Square Feet of FAR of NC Commercial Space is Added to the Propel'ty A. Gross FAR to Net Leasable Adjustment Gross FAR Sq Ft 20% Gross to Net Adj. Net Leasable Sq Ft B. Employee Mitigation for Upzoning Neigh. Comm. (NC) Net Leasable Employee Generation Ratio Employee Generation , Employee Mitigation Ratio Employees Housed Employees/Studio Uni,t Ratio Studio Units Studio Units Minimum Size Net Liveable Sq Ft Net to Gross Sq Ft Adjustment . Gross Employee Mitigation Sq Ft C. Parkin!! Mitigation for Upzoning 1. Neigh. Comm. (NC) Net Leasable Parking Ratio Parking Mitigation Employee Parking Mitigation Parking Ratio Parking Mitigation 2. * 17,500 sq ft - 3.500 14,000 sq ft 14,000 2.3 32 60 19 1.25 15 400 6,000 _ 25 ;'500 14,000 4 56 15 1 15 sq ft empfl,ooo sq ft net leasable emp10yees- % minimum threshold employees employees/studio unit studio units * sq ftminimumunit size sq ft net liveable % net to gross sq ft gross sq ft net leasable spacesfl,OOO sq ft net leasable spaces studio units spacelbedroom spaces ** The studio unit was used as an example of the greatest subsidy for employee mitigation. Note that the parking requirement is subject to special review, and if 2-bedroom units were contemplated, staff will still consider I space per unit for AH units. ** ,~ TABLE 9 ,,-.\ SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS ECONOMIC VALUE OF 17,500 SQ. liT. ADDITIONAL NC FAR Additional Space is 17,500 Sq. Ft. FAR of NC Commercial Space Retail Rents at $25 Sq. Ft. Avg. - Most Probable Estimate , ~. A. Economic Value of Upzoning Capitalized Value Development Cost B. Capitalized Value Retail Rents-Most Probable VaCancies Opt Expen~ Capitalization Rate Value P.er Net Leasable Sq Pt C. Develonment Cost 14,000 Sq. Ft. Net Leasabi.', 17;500 Sq. Ft. Gross Construction I. 2. Land Cost 14,000 sq ft leasable @ 256 sq ft = 17,500 sq ft gross@217 sq ft = $ 3,584,000 - t797.500 $ 213,500) $ 350,000 - 10.500 $ 339,500 16.975 $ 322,525 $ .09 3,583,611 $ ~6 Building Cost Approvals HatdConstruction Arch./Eng. Prof. Fees Contractor Bond BldgPennitslTap Fees Construction lnsur. Project Mgt. Misc. Fees/Other Const. Loan Points Const. Interest Rental Lease Up Rental Leasing Fees 3. Parking Mitigation Cost Parking Reduction by SlV $25 sq ft avg @ 14;000 sq ft net leasable 3.% 5% 9% $ o - - $60 sq ft @ 17,500 sq ft gross 8 % construction I % construction $2,00011,000 sqft leasable 25,000 1,050,000 84,000 10,500 28,000 7,500 52,500 21,000 19,177 63,925 58,333 52.500 1,472,435 1,252,720 162.853 1,089,867 5 % construction 2% construction 1.5 pts. @ $1,278,500 10% @ I year draw @ $1,278,500 2 months rent 15% oUst year's rent + 56 spaces @ $22,370/space 143 to 110 spaces = 13 % reduction 4. Employee Housing Mitigation Cost 15 studio units-cost 15 parking spaces-cost 15 studio unit::;';revenue 5. Prqject Contingency Developer's Profit 7,500 sq ft @ $l00/sq ft 15 spaces @ $22,370/space 15 studios @ $59,000 Cat. #2 sales + 750,000 335.550 1,085,550 885.000 200,550 276,285 759.784 1,036,069 3.,798.921 _17/sq It 6. Tolal Development Cost Total Devdopl11cnt Cost - Gross Sq Fl 10% 25 % total cost + ~ . t""""\ f"') MEMORANDUM THRU: Mayor and Council Amy Margerum, City Manager Diane Moore, city Planning Director TO: THRU: FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner Jim curtis, Technical Assistance DATE: September'15, 1993 RE: Superblock Proposal and Evaluation - Council Worksession ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION As requested by Council, the Superblock private property owners (Superblock Joint Venture) presented their detailed development proposal, given in Attachment A, to the Planning Office on August 9th. This memo outlines staff's review and evaluation of the proposal. The Superblock Joint Venture (SJV) has requested Council respond to their proposal in a timely and specific manner. The SJV has expressed their desire to submit their SPA & GMQS Plans by the amended November 15, 1993 GMQS date and potentially start construction of the garage next Spring/Summer. This construction schedule may be unrealistic given the City's approval process and the City's ability to bond for funds under Amendment One. Council may either accept, reject or negotiate the SJV proposal. If Council wishes to negotiate the proposal, it may do this as a collective body, designate two council members to negotiate or designate key staff members to negotiate. The Consulting Team of Jim curtis, Jonathan RoSe and Harry Teague can not negotiate the proposal because u~er-their present contract they are working for both parties. Staff recommends Council negotiate the proposal and designate two council members to negotiate similar to the RFTA- Ski company bus contract negotiations. The base decisions that Council must make tonight are the following: * Does Council wish to discontinue the exploration of this development proposal? * What issues does Council feel should be negotiated? * Is Council prepared to support the SJV proposal alone? Ultimately if the city cannot or desires not to fund " .--- r-,. municipal parking will the City support of private venture that redevelops the Superblock with below grade parking? It is recommended you read the SJV proposal in Attachment A at this time. This memo is organized as follows: A. Staff's Recommendations B. Superblock Overview C. Superblock Existing Development And Zoning D. summary Of SJV Proposed Development E. Evaluation Of Threshold Issues F. Staff's Debit And Credit Evaluations A,STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Staff supports the Superblock concept and feels it creates an opportunity to solve existing traffic, parking and congestion problems as outlined. 2. Staff feels it is critical that Council address it's availability and timing of funding. Both parties are being asked to make financial and schedule commitments to one another. 3. Staff does not support the following items of the SJV proposal. a. Off-site Rio Grande parking for the employee housing. Staff feels this should be part of the SJV mitigation obligation. b. 24,000 sq. ft. of CL commercial uses. Under the proposed rezoning by staff, only 20,066 sq. ft. of CL commercial uses would be permitted and the remaining square footage of 19,934 sq. ft. would be new NC commercial uses. 4. Staff recommended rezoning and Code amendments. a. Rezoning 1. 2. 3. city Market Bell Mtn Buckhorn Same LP to CL CL to NC b. Code Amendments i. NC zoning amended for External Floor Area Ratio: 1:1, increasable to 1.5:1 by special review when sixty (60%) percent of t~e additional floor area is approved for residential use restricted to affordable housing. 2 ,r; .~ ii. Demolition and Reconstruction Mitigation. Rather than completely exempt mitigation of the Superblock proposal from employee and parking mitigation for the demolition and reconstruction of existing development, staff offers the alternative: Demolition and reconstruction mitigation of commercial space zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC) or rebuilt and rezoned as NC space would be exempt from the demolition and reconstruction mitigation required in the Code, section 24-8-104 A.1.(a)(1). This is consistent with the way the code exempts the demolition and reconstruction mitigation of lodge space. It has been brought to the attention of Council and staff, time and again that the mitigation costs for commercial development are precluding new NC space. Local serving businesses cannot maintain the rents necessary to pay for mitigation costs. High mitigation requirements and neighborhood commercial rents are not compatible, unlike the CC zone district. One concept that has been discussed is deed restricting NC space. However, some members of Council and staff are uncomfortable with a perception of subsidizing one business over another. The AACP recommends to "study GMQS incentives for local serving neighborhood commercial uses". A policy of the CommericallRetail Action Plan is that "development which includes locally oriented business should be encouraged via a menu of options". It is conceivable, although not being proposed at this time, that the SICII zone district could benefit from this type of incentive. Staff, unless directed otherwise, will pursue an analysis for the SICII zone district. 5. Staff feels the following items should be negotiated. a. Should the City provide interest-only financing for the affordable housing? If SJV pass this savings onto the affordable construction so, will the housing. b. Staff has concerns about the desirability of the rental housing being proposed along the alleyway of the Bell Mountain Building. Staff only identifies this as a potential problem and will reevaluate this based on more detailed plans. 3 .0 1"""'\ .......... , c. The SJV and Council need to address who pays for the Town Plaza public space and its finishes. d. The SJV should pay for the total added cost of developing the Kraut Property in phases for its use of the property on an interim basis. 6. Council should designate two members' to negotiate the Superblock proposal working with staff assistance. 7. If Council believes that a true cost/benefit analysis is necessary to determine the dollar value of what the City is giving vs. what the city is receiving, staff recommends employing assistant from a third party. Jim curtis and Jonathon Rose are conflicted out having worked for both the City and SJV. city staff does not have the expertise nor the time to conduct an in-depth analysis. B. SUPERBLOCK OVERVIEW The Superblock concept has been recommended by both the Aspen Area Community Plan under the Transportation and Commercial/Retail Action Plans, and the Aspen Transportation Implementation Plan. Staff feels the Superblock concept has been recommended for the following reasons: 1. The Superblock provides increased private and municipal parking on the east periphery of town. Staff does not view this as a net increase in downtown parking and therefore encouraging more people to drive into town but as an opportunity to relocate and eliminate existing on-street parking from the commercial core to make downtown more pedestrian oriented, and to handle much of the existing overflow parking impacting the residential areas east of town. Staff emphasizes it does not view the Superblock parking as simply a net increase in downtown parking but as an opportunity to solve existing downtown parking and congestion problems. Through the Transportation Implementation Plan approximately 250 regular parking spaces will be converted to High Occupancy Vehicle spaces, ~ number of parking spaces will be eliminated on Galena and E. Cooper Streets as part of downtown pedestrian enhancements, and a range of 700-1100 parking spaces (depending upon the time of day and year) will be eliminated within Aspen's neighborhoods. 2. The Superblock parking is well located to serve the traffic in the winter; Independence Pass traffic summer; and east end residential traffic. gondola in the 4 ., r; ,~ 3. The Superblock Town Plaza redevelopment creates a logical downtown pedestrian link along Cooper and Galena Streets to the existing malls and the Rio Grande parking. 4. The Superblock redevelopment provides significant downtown on- site affordable housing. 5. As part of the redevelopment, approximately 19,934 square feet of additional commerical space will be zoned Neighborhood Commercial. 6. The Superblock redevelopment provides a mix of local and tourist oriented commercial uses versus only high-end tourist commercial uses. 7. The City Market redevelopment provides a more attractive upgraded and competitive market for the community. 8. The Superblock redevelopment provides a public-private partnership opportunity where both parties can mutually benefit. There is virtually no other property in town that is this large, with as much redevelopment potential, and only three private property owners willing to form a partnership with the city.' C. SUPERBLOCK EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING To evaluate the SJV proposal, it is important to understand the existing development and zoning of each property. The SJV proposal emphasizes that without the Superblock redevelopment, the status quo will be that the Bell Mountain Lodge will rebuild under its February 1993 GMQSapprovals consisting of 40 lodge rooms, employee housing for 7 employees (3,000 sq. ft.) and 23 underground parking spaces. city Market and Buckhorn Lodge will not undertake a demolition and redevelopment that requires GMQS approvals and employee and parking mitigation for demolished space. Staff generally agrees with the SJV position concerning the status quo and feels it is unlikely each property would try to redevelop on its own. Each property is summarized below: 1. ci tv Market. The property is 27,000 sq. ft. zoned NC (Neighborhood Commercial) with a 1:1 floor area ratio. The existing market is approximately 13,000 sq. ft. above grade, 13,000 sq. ft. below grade, parking for 29 cars and no employee housing. Based on additional research, staff has determined the K-Mart rule 12.000 sa. ft. limitation does not applY to city Market. Per the Code, the K-Mart rule only applies to CC, C-1, and S/C/l zone districts and not the NC zone districts. city Market could therefore expand its market 5 4. I""'. r; by 13,000 sq. ft. for a total size of 26,000 sq. ft. today by using its existing below ground space without any City zoning or GMQS approvals and without any new employee or parking mitigation. city Market has acknowledged a 2 level market is not the most desirable but they emphasize they could technically expand to 26,000 sq. ft. without any City approvals or new mitigation cost. This is imoortant new information which has been determined by staff. Clark's Market is also zoned NC but its initial size limitation of ___ sq. ft. was set by its SPA Plan in The Clark's Market SPA Plan was subsequently amended in and as of today Clark's Market has a total FAR of per the Planning Office records. 2. Bell Mountain Lodqe. The property is 20,066 sq. ft. zoned LP (Lodge Preservation) with a 1:1 floor area ratio. Under its February 1993 GMQS approvals, the lodge can redevelop up to 40 lodge rooms, employee housing for 7 employees (3,000 sq. ft.) and 23 underground parking spaces. The new owners have represented they will redevelop the property under its February GMQSapprovals if the Superblock concept does not proceed and would like to proceed in one fashion or another in a timely manner. GMQS allocations have a 3 year time limit. If they are not used within 3 years of being awarded they expire. 3. Buckhorn Lodqe. The. property is 6,934 sq. ft. zoned CL (Commercial Lodge) with a 1:1 floor area ratio restriction per its rezoning approval of 1983. CL zoning per the Code has a 2:1 f.loor area ratio. ~~'j~ist.ing struc~as 9 lodge 'Q/b rooms on the 2nd level ~sq. ft. :t), ~ sq. ft. of '0\/ commercial uses on the 1st level, approximately 1,-^~~)/ of underground commercial space, 1 manager's apartment v~ underground and parking for approximately 7 cars. Under its ~ existing 1:1 FAR restriction, the property has no expansion ~. development potential. In addition, the Buckho.rn has solid ~~ ~ tenants, a new roof, and other recent upgrades that have ,..,7.J extended the operation and life. of the building. There is no ~ ~ pressing need for the owners to pursue redevelopment on their Q~ own. w; Surroundinq Neiqhborhood, The Superblock is bounded by the ~~ Office Zone district to the north, Residential Multi-Family ~~Q( to the east, Commercial - 1 and Commercial Lodge to the west, ~~ and LOdge/Tourist Residential to the south. The Hannah Dustin ~~_ y. office building is approximately 36;5 feet high, the Kraut '~u( Affordable Housing development is proposed to be up to 30 feet ~ in height. The Aspen Square buildings are 37 feet high and the Durant Mall buildings are 37.5 feet high. /G: u>'~cz: 8 6 , 1"""""\. ~ D. SUMMARY OF SJV PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Table 1 Preliminary Development Program from the SJV proposal is given on page 8 and summarizes the proposed development. Table 1 is supplemented by the Charles Cunniffe drawings. The drawings are only conceptual to illustrate the Town Plaza concept and how the buildings would generally work. The drawings do not exactly represent the square footage proposed in Table 1 but are generally close. The SJV correctly did. not wish to refine the drawings until the basi.c threshold issues are resolved. The SJV proposes, and staff supports, a Specially Planned Area overlay designation as part of the redevelopment plan. An SPA may be designated by the City Council if, because of its unique historic, natural, physical, or locational characteristics, it would be of great public benefit to the city for that land to be allowed design flexibility and to be planned and developed comprehensively as a multiple use development. The proposed development is summarized below: City Market (26,000) sq. ft. 5,000 Market, below ground Deli/bakery, above grade Lodge Uses 20,000 Bell Mtn Building, 2nd & 3rd floors CL Commercial Uses 24,000 Distributed among buildings including Bell Mt. 1st floor NC Commercial Uses 16,000 Distributed buildings among Employee Housing 25.500 Distributed buildings among Sub-Total 90,500 sq. ft. Above Ground Sub-Total (26,000) sq. ft. Below Ground 7 .~ TABLE 1. SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FAR Sa.Ft. CITY MARKET 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level 5,000 8,000 7.000 20,000 (26,000) Below Ground (Not counted in FAR) NEW SW. BLDG. 1st Level 2nd Level 5,000 5.000 10,000 BELL MTN. BLDG. 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level 1st, 2nd & 3rd levels 18,000 10,000 10,000 6.500 44,500 BUCKHORN BLDG. 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level 6,000 6,000 4.000 16,000 TOTAL Private Uses 65,000 ABOVE GROUND Emp. Housing 25.500 90,500 Below Ground 126.000) PARKING 1st Level no (26,000) sq. ft. 2nd Level 3rd Level 215 215 540 NOTES: ~ sq. ft. Deli/bakery emp. housing emp. housing market N/C Redefined N/C Redefined N/C Redefined lodging rooms lodging suites emp. housing N/C Redefined N/C Redefined emp. housing FAR 1.20, FAR o . 8 8 w/street FAR 0.47, FAR 0.34 w/street FAR 1.67, FAR 1 . 2 2 w/street cars Market cars cars cars 1. N/C Redefined is Neighborhood Commercial zoning proposed to be redefined. Excluding City Market development (31,000 sq. ft. total), of the 40,000 sq. ft. of N/C redefined commercial, 24,000 sq. ft. is proposed to be C/L commercial uses and 16,000 sq. ft. of additional N/C commercial uses. . 8 r-.. ~ . . TABLE 2 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1. Ab. Gr. = Above Ground and Be. Gr. = Below Ground. 2. Table 2, Existing And proposed Development, compares the existing and proposed development. 9 . r, ~ ~: ) E. EVALUATION OF THRESHOLD ISSUES The SJV proposal outlined several threshold issues. staff has also identified several threshold issues. These issues have been evaluated by staff and are outlined below generally in the order of importance. 1. proposed parking And Who pays The SJV proposal is the following: 1st Level 26,000 sq. ft. market 110 spaces $ 5,000,000 cost pd. by SJV $ 5,000,000 cost pd. by city 2nd Level 215 spaces 3rd Level 215 spaces 540 spaces $ 5.000.000 cost pd. by SJV $15,000,000 cost The SJV proposes to pay for, own, operate and receive the revenue from the 1st and 3rd levels equalling 325 spaces and costing an estimated $10,000,000 (first level parking is free parking as part of mitigation requirements). The SJV proposes the city to pay for, own, operate and receive the revenue from the 2nd level equalling 215 spaces and costing an estimated $5,000,000. The SJV proposal is evaluated below: SJV Proposal As If Total New Dev. Per Code SJV Project Mitigation Parking Emp. Housing Parking 143 spaces --.2], 194 213 spaces 79 292 - 325 33 spaces SJV Parking Provided Excess Spaces - 325 131 spaces Based on Table 4, parking Mitigation Analysis of the SJV proposal, the SJV calculated their project parking mitigation requirement at 143. spaces based on meeting the Code requirement for their net new development onlY and replacina their existina parkina for their existina development. The SJV also proposes 51 studio equivalent units of employee housing requiring 51 spaces at 1 space per bedroom. The combined total project parking is 194 spaces (143 + 51 spaces). The SJV is providing 325 spaces creating an excess of 131 spaces for the community. 10 1""\ ,~ Table 4-A, Parking Mitigation Analysis With No Credit For Existing Development, based upon the staff's evaluation in Attachment B (Table 4-A) illustrates the parking mitigation requirement based on evaluatina the total development as if it was totallY new development which must complY with the Code. Under this evaluation, the project parking mitigation requirement increases from 194 to 292 spaces. The excess spaces therefore reduce from 131 to 33 spaces. The parking calculations above illustrate the significant impact of the Code's regulation for demolition and reconstruction. The Code states To obtain approval to reconstruct demolished commercial or office floor area. the applicant shall demonstrate that affordable housina and parkina is provided for the reconstructed floor area as if it were newlY constructed space. This provision has a significant economic impact on the Superblock and the financial viability of the project for the SJV. Generally, this provision is why the City has seen little office and commercial demolition and reconstruction since the regulation was enacted. The Katie Reed redevelopment was exempted from this provision due to the historic designation of the property. The SJV argues that evaluating the total development as if it was totally new development which must comply with the Code's demolition and reconstruction provision is unrealistic. The SJV argues that if the Superblock does not proceed, the following status quo will occur, i.e. the Bell Mountain Lodge will redevelop under its prior approvals and city Market and Buckhorn will not redevelop. Staff generally agrees with the SJV position that the status quo will prevail. The Table 4 mitigation analysis is appropriate. The SJV proposed on-si te employee housing, yet proposes that the employee parking (approximately 51 spaces) be provided at the Rio Grande garage. This would free-up an additional 51 parking spaces for the SJV to generate revenue t9 cover their cost of constructing the parking. Staff does not support the SJV proposal. This is inconsistent with the Code; inconsistent with the requirement of other employee housing developments; is likely to create spill-over parking problems for the surrounding residential neighborhoods; and most importantly, sends the wrong message to the employees. Staff can not support this request especially if the city provides construction financing for the employee housing. 2. Employee Housing The SJV proposes to construct 25,500 sq. ft. of employee housing on- site as outlined in Table 3 Employee Mitigation Analysis of their proposal. The 25,50.0 sq. ft. would be 51 studio equivalent units housing 63 employees. The unit mix between studios, 1-bedrooms, etc. would be refined working with the Housing Office. The 25,500 sq. ft. would be a mix of ownership and rental housing as follows: 11 1"""'\ r, Sa. ft. studio units Ownership Housing 15,000 30 2nd & 3rd levels of City Market 4.000 -.fi. 3rd level of Buckhorn 19,000 38 Rental Housing 6.500 13 1st, 2nd, 3rd levels of Bell Mtn. TOTAL 25,500 51 For comparison, the Kraut Project is conceptually proposed for 27 studio & 1-bedroom units totalling 16,500 sq. ft. The SJV proposal is evaluated below: SJV PROPOSAL AS IF TOTAL NEW DEV. PER CODE Employee Mitigation a. Employees housed b. Studio units equiv. c. Sq. Ft. 63 51 25,500 99 79 39,500 Based on Table 3 Employee Mitigation Analysis of the SJV proposal, the SJV calculated their employee housing mitigation requirement of 25,500 sq. ft. based on meeting the Code requirement for their net new development onlY and onlv replacina the existina employee housina for their existina development. Table 3-A Employee Mitigation Analysis With No Credit For Existing Development from the staff's evaluation in Attachment B, illustrates the employee housing mitigation requirement based on evaluatina the total development as if it was totallv new development which must comply with the Code. Under this evaluation, the employee housing mitigation requirement increases from 25,500 to 39,500 sq. ft. as summarized above. Again, the Code's demolition and reconstruction regulation is the critical issue. The SJV argues that evaluating the total development as if it was totally new development which must comply with the Code's demolition and reconstruction regulation is .unrealistic. The SJV argues that if the Superblock does not proceed, the following status quo will occur, i. e. the Bell. Mountain Lodge will redevelop under its prior approvals and city Market and Buckhorn will not redevelop. Again, staff agrees that the status quo will prevail. Their Table 3 mitigation analysis is appropriate. staff does support the City providing construction financing for the employee housing. It is assumed the ci ty can obtain lower-cost construction financing than the SJV. However, it is recommended the 12 1""\ (""\ cost savings in the construction financing be passed directly to the employee in the form of lower sales prices or rents. A height variance is being requested. The height of the buildings, with a third level of employee housing, is estimated to up to 35 feet. Staff does support the building height variance which will be necessary to build employee housing on the 3rd level. The variance can be granted under the SPA provisions of the Code. Encouraging on-site employee housing downtown is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and other existing Code incentives. The proposed heights are consistent with the surrounding buildings. 3. Excess FAR (Upzoning) As shown on Table 2 Existing And proposed Development of the SJV proposal, an upzoning of 11,000 sq. ft. of allowable commercial floor area from the existing 54,000 to 65,000 sq. ft. allowable floor area is being requested. Technically, per the Code, the upzoning is 36,500 sq. ft. from the allowable 54,000 to 90,500 sq. ft. allowable floor area but this includes 25,500 sq. ft. of employee housing. However, the SJV correctly does not attribute any economic profit to the employee housing upzoning and sees the employee housing as required for their mitigation purposes. The existing and proposed zoning FAR are summarized below: Existina Zonina Zoning Buildout 54,000 sq. ft. FAR 1:1 (all parcels) Proposed Development SJV commercial/ lodge space 65,000 sq. ft. FAR 1.20, FAR 0.88 w/street Employee Housing 25.500 FAR 0.47, FAR 0.34 w/street 90,500 sq. ft. w/street FAR 1.67, FAR 1.22 Staff supports the upzoning especially with the inclusion of on-site employee housing. The upzoning is felt to be acceptable especially when the vacated Cooper street (20,250 sq. ft.) is included. The upzoned .1.67 FAR (1.22 with street) is still less than the 2:1 FAR zoning of the CC (Commercial Core) and Commercial Lodge (CL) when on-site employee housing is provided. The SPA provisions of the Code do not allow Council to increase the FAR of the underlying properties without an underlying rezoning of the properties. Staff therefore recommends the SJV properties be rezoned and that an employee housing bonus be codified for the NC zone district 13 ~ I (""\ for the inclusion of on-site employee housing. Both the rezoning and employee housing bonus are consistent with similar code provisions and the Aspen Area community Plan. The recommended rezoning and on-site employee housing bonus are outlined below: SIZE OF EXISTING PROPOSED REZONED PROPERTY-sa. ft. ZONING REZONING FAR-sa. ft. City Market 27,000 NC@ 1:1 to NC@ 1.5:1 40,500 Bell Mtn. 20,066 LP@ 1:1 to CL@ 2:1 40,132 Buckhorn 6.934 CC@ 1:1 to NC@ 1.5:1 10.401 54,000 91,033 Proposed Development FAR 90,500 The city Market property keeps its same NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning but the NC zoning is amended to allow for an increase in FAR from 1:1 to 1.5:1 if a minimum of 60% of the additional floor area is used for on-site affordable housing. This is consistent with how the Code treats the CC and o zone districts with the incentive for the provision of on-site affordable housing and consistent with the recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The Bell Mountain property is rezoned from LP (Lodge Preservation) to CL (Commercial Lodge) with a 2:1 FAR. The CL zoning more correctly represents the lodge and commercial mixed-uses being proposed for the property. The LP zone district does not allow commerical uses. Note: there is no FAR bonus proposed with the rezoning of LP to CL. The FAR in the CL zone district is 2:1. The Buckhorn property is rezoned from CL (Commercial Lodge) to NC (Neighborhood Commercial) and the NC zoning is amended to allow for an increase in FAR from 1:1 to 1.5:1 if a minimum of 60% of the additional floor area .is used for on-site affordable housing. The existing lodge use in the Buckhorn building will be eliminated as part of this redevelopment proposal. The NC zoning more correctly represents the commercial and affordable housing use of the property without the existing lodge use and the incentive for the provision of on-site affordable housing is consistent with the Code and the AACP. 4. Construction Schedule And City Funding The SJV are requesting some financial commitments from Council before spending time and money on preparing a major SPA and GMQS Plan for a November 15 application. If the Council decides to make a $5,000,000 dollar commitment or a multi-million dollar commitment to the garage, where does the funding come from and what is the timing of the funding. It is staff's understanding the 1/29 sales tax proposed for the November 2, 1993 ballot does not allocate any funds to the Superblock garage. Therefore, it is 14 1""\ i'""") staff's understanding that under Amendment One the only funding alternatives would be the following: a. A ballot question on the November 2, 1994 general election requesting funding for the garage. This would push construction to the spring of 1995. b. A ballot question on the May, 1995 City election requesting funding for the garage. This would push construction to the Fall/winter of 1995. It is staff's understanding a May, 1994 City special election with a funding ballot question is not permitted under Amendment One because this is not a regular scheduled City election date. Determining a realistic funding and construction schedule for the Superblock is a major threshold issue. However, if the city does not have the ability to commit funds until after a November 1994 election, the SJV requests the ability to proceed with a land use application and development review process of .this proposal. In the event, the city cannot ultimately fund municipal parking, the SJV proposes to redevelop the Superblock on their own with two levels of parking. 5. Size Of City Market Staff supports the increase in size for City Market. As previously highlighted, City Market is exempted from the K-Mart 12,000 sq. ft. limitation under the Code. Therefore, City Market could increase its existing size by expanding into its below ground space without any City approvals or employee and parking mitigation. Based on this, the city Market request for a 26,000 sq. ft. market is basically what they can do today. Therefore, the true increase is the 5,000 sq. ft. above ground deli/bakery. Staff sees this as a supplemental and somewhat separate operation from the below ground market. From the experience of the shopper, the deli/bakery is likely to seem like a separate retail store. 6. Commercial Lodqe zoninq The SJV has requested 24,000 sq. ft. of Commercial Lodge retail uses which can be distributed among the properties as they choose. The SJV is requesting CL retail uses because these uses are the same as the CC (commercial core) retail uses of the Code which are more broad in terms of permitted uses than the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) permitted uses. Excluding city Market which is requesting 26,000 sq. ft. of market and 5,000 sq. ft. deli/bakery, the SJV is requesting a total of 40,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses as follows: CL commercial uses NC commercial uses 24,000 sq. ft. 16.000 sq. ft. new 40,000 sq. ft. 15 ~. .~ staff supports this request; however, because of the proposed rezoning of the Bell Mountain property to CL only 20,066 sq. ft. of CL commercial uses would be available under the rezoning. The Commerical Lodge zone district permits commerical uses only on the first floor. Using just the proposed rezoning, the commercial split would be the following: CL commercial uses NC commercial uses 20,066 sq. ft. 19.934 sq. ft. new 40,000 sq. ft. staff feels a mix of CL and NC commercial uses is appropriate for the Superblock and staff understands that CL commercial uses may permit higher rents to support the project. But staff suggests that an approximate 50% 50% split between CL and NC uses is more appropriate given Council's desire to encourage NC uses. 7. Redefined NC staff supports the SJV request to redefine the current NC uses only if the SJV supports a 50%-50% split between CL and NC commerical uses. This is a recommendation in the AACP in order to prevent further erosion of our local serving business. However, the SJV seeks a redefinition of NC to create a broader permitted use category. 8. CL & NC GMQS Allocations The ft. sq. 1993 The ft. allocation for the NC zone district is the full quota - 6,000 sq. 1993 allocation for the CL zone district is the full quota - 2,000 9. Kraut property Interim Use staff supports the use of the Kraut Property for an interim City Market use unless another workable site can be found. Other sites including the Ski Club Lift 1-A site have been suggested. However, staff supports the use of the Kraut property because of existing traffic patterns and the close proximity of the relocated use to the current site of city Market. The Kraut Property is scheduled to be under construction next summer. Phasing the construction of the Kraut affordable housing will add additional cost to the project as follows: A. Additional construction cost from the general contractor for phasing. B. Additional construction financing cost if the 1st phase garage is financed during the interim use. C. Additional project management and administrative cost. . The city has paid off the land cost therefore the phasing will add no additional carrying land cost. Staff recommends that the SJV pay for or be debit with the total additional cost of using the Kraut Property on an interim basis. 16 1""'\ r"""'\ 10. Condominiumization staff supports the SJV request to condominiumize the parking paces. E. staff's Debit And Credit Evaluation staff has made a debt and credit evaluation of the SJV proposal similar to the debit and credit evaluation of the SJV. This evaluation is presented below. SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS CITY TRADE-OFFS CITY RECEIVES 1. SJV pays for 131 spaces of parking beyond their mitigation requirement. 131 spaces at $22,400/space equals $2,934,400. 2. Opportunity to remove existing on-street parking spaces in the commercial core to create a more pedestrian downtown and to relieve parking overflow in the east-end residential neighborhoods. 3. Redevelopment of pr?perties will create a Town Square public space. 4. Redevelopment of properties will be coordinated under a SPA Plan. 5. Receives the underground rights at no cost to develop 215 municipal parking spaces. 6. Implements one of the recommendations of the Aspen Transportation Implementation Plan. 7. Implement several recommendations of the AAcp with regard to expansion of the NC zone district, pursuit of Superblock parking, mixed use development, significant amount of employee housing downtown. 8. SJV provides ownership employee housing which would allowed Kraut Property employee housin~ to be rental, if desired. 9. Increase sales and property tax revenues. 10. Excluding city Market redevelopment, increase of 19,934 sq. ft. NC commercial uses over existing NC uses. Increase of 15,000 sq. ft. CL commercial uses over existing CL uses. 11. Expanded city Market to better serve the community. 17 1""\ .~ SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS CITY TRADE-OFFS CITY GIVES . 1. Increase in new development. A. 16,566 sq. ft. increase CL commercial floor area: total 20,066 sq. ft. CL uses above ground, B. 8,434 sq. ft. increase NC commercial floor area: total 24,934 sq. ft. NC uses above ground. C. 11,500 sq. ft. increase NC commercial leasable space: total 26,000 sq. ft. NC uses below ground; 2. Full exemption from employee mitigation for reconstruction of 34,500 sq. ft. of existing development. City Market 26,000 sq. ft. and Buckhorn 8,500 sq. ft. The exemption equals 36 employees, 28 studio units, and 14,000 sq. ft. of housing. 3. Partial exemption from parking mitigation for reconstruction of 34,500 sq. ft. of existing development. Existing development only replaces their existing parking: City. Market 29 vs. 84 spaces and Buckhorn 7 vs. 22 spaces, exemption equals 70 spaces. 4. Redefines NC zoning to accommodate additional commercial uses. may be unnecessary. However, it was an AACP recommendation. This 5. Vacates Cooper Street and 30 on-street spaces replaced under-ground at the cost of the city. 30 spaces at $22,400/space equals $672,000. 6. Building height variance for employee housing will allow buildings up- to 35 feet. 7. FAR incentive of 25,500 sq. ft. to accommodate on-site employee housing. 8. Allow 9 Buckhorn lodge rooms (3,500 sq.ft.) to be reconstructed as NC or CL commercial Uses. 9. Temporary use of the Kraut Property for interim city Market. ,~ ~ ., ATTACHMENT A SJV PROPOSAL r""", .~ MEMORANDUM Date: . . August 5, 1993 From: Superblock joint venture To: Aspen City Council and staff Subject: Superblock outline We belieye thatthe benefits of the Superblock are greater than the sum of the benefits of the indiyidual parts. We also believe that the benefits of doing the entire project and doing it at once produce intangible benefits that are not easily captured by traditional cost benefit analysis and are not readily analyzed under the existing land use code. In many ways, the Superblock is like the Aspen Area Community Plan in that it seeks to remedy problems that the code either indirectly created or failed to address. We think that the Superblock will help bring life and vitality to downtown, will provide part of the antidote to the "commuter culture" and will provide necessary retail services to the community. We believe having 25,500 square feet of affordable housing on the edge of downtown with no land costs is exactly what the community had in mind when the community plan asked to bring more life and activity to the downtown area. We also believe getting visitors and residents out of their cars at the edge of the commercial core will help promote the pedestrian ambience this community desires. And we believe the addition of neighborhood commercial retail space and an expanded City Market will be able to provide competitively priced goods and , servi"ces thereby diverting locals from the downvalley trips that have contributed to the "commuter culture" that the community plan seeks to remedy. None of this is possible piecemeal: the Superblock is uniquely situated to serve as downtown parking, a housing site and as neighborhood commercial retail space. None of the individual partners, including the City of Aspen, have the resources to provide this unique combination of benefits. Enclosed with this memo you will find a summary of the likely development alternatives with and without our proposal (one page), a two page outline of threshold requirements, two pages. of plus and minus analysis for the city and the joint venture, a preliminary list of expanded NC zone uses and four pages of detailed calculations of code required parking and housing mitigation. m93 8uper804.mem '-";;J ...~' ~.....-v... "1U.VVJ. I .vL ,~ .~ We feel that this is the net of the situation. If the city Community Plan had not thought of the Superblock then this is what would nappen. Bell Mountain would rebuild under the Feb 93 GMQS approval and 23 underground parking spaces will be built along with 3000 sq ft of housing. City Market and the Buckhorn < LOdge will do nothing requiring GMQS. Therefore, the area will have : ,. '. ParJdnq Housinq 30 street 0 29 city Market 0 ? .BUCkhorn 0 23 Bell Mtn 3000 sq ft 89 Totals 3000 If the sUperblock proceeds . .. Parldl}g Houlii~.!!9: 215 Street 0 325 ci ty Market . 15,000 spaces to Buckhorn 4,000 be built Bell Mtn 6,500 privateiy 540 Totals 25,500 To accomplish this the city agrees. to . . a) Build/operate only the second floor of the garage rather than the entire garage saving $10,000,000 in costs and liability bUt still increasing their parking space inventory by 215 spaces and inc~easing the overall parking space count in the East End from 89.to 540. b). up zone by. 11,000 sq ft. c) Upzone some areas to CL. d) Allow city Market to grow from 26,000 sq ft to 31,000 sq ft. e) Agree that the mitigation formulas for housing that City Market/Buckhorn could be subject to do not apply since city Market/Buckhorn would not be demolished if it were not for this City inspired Superblock idea. The Bell Mtn mitigation housing required under Feb 93 GMQS will be built. 1""\ !""'\ We feel that these are the crucial threshold areas where a meeting of the minds is required. We hope that an agreement can be reached on these areas and that the City will agree to commit further funds combined with further private funds so that formal construction drawings and engineering tests can be pursued for the garage. Housing ~ o. We will build the amount of housing that the City formulas ask us to build, without mitigating the Buckhorn/city Mar.ket properties. The estimate of that 25,500 sq ft of housing is enclosed (created by Curtis/Lamont). We request the City be the interest only construction lender for the housing, recourse to the condominiumized housing plats. We propose to build sale housing above the Deli/Bakery on the second/third floor, also sale housing on the third floor of the Buckhorn. We propose to build rental housing behind Bell Mountain for the use of employees of the Superblock only. We propose that when the construction is complete the city be responsible for selling the sale units and getting their money back from the buyers. We will be responsible for leasing the lease units and when they are 100% leased we will get takeout financing and repay the city. Although John Bennett offered to have the city buy down our housing costs thereby spending city housing money this method saves the City money by loaning it for housing construction rather than spending it and in addition the city gets the housing built without paying a Management Fee. We will take the risk that the housing is built for the amount we borrow. ~ height.variance is required for us to build housing on the third floor' as the City has requested. We expect that our third .floor will be less than the Durant mall building but it will need a height variance. We propose that the parking for the housing be located at the Rio Grand~ garage due to the fact that the auto's should not be required for daily use since the rental housing is for Plaza employees and the sale housing is for employees working elsewhere in the city, also it is more effective to have these parking spaces used to get cars off the East end streets and the Rio Grande garage has tb.espace available for these 51 oars. Parking We will build, pay for, and operate the the Upper level of the garage and the Lower level of the garage with the City being responsible for building and operating only the Middle level of the garage. The city will have to enter into non compete agreements with us regarding their suggestions about how we might use our spaces in the marketplace ie term leasing. This will allow the City to have an inventory of spaces that they control and those spaces compete with other spaces they control ie Rio Grande, street, intercept, however they do not compete with us. !""'") l~ " Excess FAR We request excess FAR according to the attached schedules created by Leslie Lamont and Jim Curtis the estimate is 11,000 sq ft. Commercial Lodge Zoning ~ .. We request that 24,000 square feet of first and second tloor space located anywhere on the Plaza be allowed Commercial Lodge retail uses. We will build the extra housing required over N/C zoning for this space. We will agree that at all times not more than 24,00 square feet of space in the Superblock will be such Commercial Lodge retail uses rather than designate specific spaces. Redefine NjC We request that the city redefine NjC to include in addition to its current definition the following as attached hereto. We. suggest. that this be updated as we proceed to include additional items both th~ Planning department and we feel are appropriate. The amount of retail N/C space will be 16,000 sq ft. Condominiurnization We propose that the entire project be CondOmiumized so. that the City will still own the same amount of surface area as will each of the private property owners, each will probably own different Shaped surface area. Also, each of the floors of the garage should be condominiumized for lien purposes etc. Kraut property We accept Leslie I.amont's idea of building the Kraut parking and then allowing City MaJ:'ket to oonstJ:'uct their temporary "tennis bubble" space so they can operate and preserve approximately 70 Aspen jobs/employees. Size of City Market Allow city Market to grow from 26,000 sq tt to 3~,000 sq ft. " 1""'\ Private Property Owners ("\ Debit Loss of revenues during construction $2,500,000.00 Cost to rebuild Buckhorn Lodge and City Market structures that do not have to be rebuilt $3,300,000,00 Cost to buy-out Buckhorn Lodge's lessees with long term leases . Cost to demolish Buckhorn Lodge and City Market Cost to build parking garage $10,000,000.00 for 110 spaces on first and 215 spaces on third levels Credit Upzoning of 11,000 square feet Partial CL upzone Allow City Market to grow from 26,000 square feet to 31,000 s.f. Use of Kraut property " .1'""'\ City of Aspen 1"""1, Debit Give up Cooper Street Square foot area Give up 30 Cooper Street parking spaces Give up 29 City Market, 7 Buckhorn Lodge, 23 Bell Mountain Lodge parking spaces (Total 59 spaces) , Give up 11,000 square feet in upzoning and redefine N/C sothat in this plaza, 24,000 square feet can have commercial lodge uses and 16,000 N/C redefined uses Give up having parking on site for plaza housing. Let Rio Grande parking spaces be used, employees work on site or in town therefore they don't need daily auto Give up "housing mitigation" Credit Get same square foot area back in different shape as a part of plaza and an opportunity to build 75,600 square feet of parking for 215 cars under the 20,250 square foot right of way it owns on Cooper Street Get 131 spaces in excess of the mitigation spaces paid by private property owners for public use Get i43 mitigation parking spaces in return paid by private property owners Get 25,500 square feet of housing in 51 studio unit equivalents Get 51 parking spaces paid for and controlled by private owners to address east end "defacto parking lot problem." More effective use of these spaces You are not giving this up since it will not occur. The "housing mitigation" formula assumes that the private property owner is demolishing/reconstructing. The Buckhorn Lodge/City Market will not be demolished/reconstructed if this Superblock is not approved therefore "mitigation" does not exist for those properties. As for Bell Mountain, we are committing to build the housing mitigation required under the February 1993 GQMS approval. ;,.......;::J v'-" -"v ....:_.vv !'lU.VUk ..VI I; ( r-., ,I""\, ", Preliminary List of Additional N/C Uses Jour D' Fete type store with more tban 10 tables, no waitperson service. ~ Ski, Bike, Rollerblade, ete type shop. Manicure type shop. Piz~a, KFC, Yogurt, food take out type shop. ~ ". Hairdresser shop. We think that the current list of approved/conditional uses ara okay but there needs to be additional uses added. These are our initial thoughts, we need to meet wit~ planning to discuss their thoughts and then jointly create an agreed upon list of uses that will be allowed in addition to the current approved and conditional uses. .-., .. - Below Ground TABLE 1 .~ SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM CITY MARKET - I st Level - 2nd Level - 3rd Level - Below Ground (Not counted in FAR) NEW SW. BLDG. - I st Level - 2nd Level BELL MTN. BLDG. - 1st Level - 2nd Level - 3rd Level - 1st, 2nd & 3rd levels BUCKHORN BLDG. - 1 st Level - 2nd Level - 3rd Level TOTAL - Private Uses ABOVE GROUND - Emp. Housmg FAR So.Ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 8,000 7.000 20,000 . (26,000 ) 5,000 5.000 .10,000 18,000 10,000 10,000 6.500 44,500 6,000 6,000 4.000 16,000 65,000 25.500 90,500 126.000 ) Deli/bakery emp. housing erop. housing market N/C Redefined N/C Redefined N/C Redefined lodging rooms lodging suites emp. housing N/C Redefined N/C Redefined emp. housing FAR 1.20 . FAR 0.47 FAR 1.67. 8/4/93 FAR 0.88 w/street FAR 0.34 w/street FAR 1.22 w/street NOTES: I. N/C Redefined. is Neighborhood Commercial zoning proposed to be redefined as part of the SPA Plan. Excluding City Market development (31,000 sq. ft. total), of the 40,000 sq. ft. of N/C redefined commercial, 24,000 sq. ft. is proposed to be CIL commercial uses and 16,000 sq. ft. to be N/C commercial uses. 1"", 1"", , '. TABLE 2 814193 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Existing & Existing Approved Zoning Proposed Deve. FAR 1:1 Deve. CITY MARKET - Market - Ab. Gr. 13.000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. - Leasable Space - Be. Gr. I 13.000 ) I 26.000 ) 26,000 31,000 BELL MTN. BLDG. - Approved Lodge 20,000 38,000 (wi 3,000 sq. ft. emp. housing) BUCKHORN BLDG. - Existing CIL - Ab. Gr. 3,500 - Existing Lodge 3,500 - Existing CIL - Be. Gr. 11.500 ) 8,500 12,000 New SW Bide. 10,000 New Emo. HousinlZ 25,500 SUB-TOTAL - Private Uses 40,000 65,000 ABOVE GROUND - Emp.Housing 25.500 40,000 54,000 90,500 SUB-TOTAL ( 14,500 ) nla ( 26,000 ) BELOW GROUND NOTES: I. Ab. Gr. = Above Ground and Be. Gr. = Below Ground. " I r-. , \ ,~ TABLE 3 , SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EMPLOYEE MITIGATION ANALYSIS 8/4/93 r'\ ~1 8/4/93 23 Approved 24 New lQ New 63 7 Existing o 2 ..B. New .17 142 Spaces 51 Soaces 193 Soac.. 2. Parking ratio for N/C zoning is 4 spaces/I,OOO sq. ft. net leasable and for elL zoning is 2 spaces/I,OOO sq. ft. net leasable. 3. Actual parking ratio for Trueman Building/Clark's Market complex is 2.78 spaces/I,OOO sq. ft. net leasable based on parking count and building sq. ft. analysis of Building Permit Plans. TABLE 4 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PARKING MITIGATION ANALYSIS BELL MTN. BLDG - Approved Lodge - Expansion N/C - Expansion elL 20,000 1l,000 7.000 38.000 23 Approved 35 New 11 New 69 BUCKHORN BLDG - Existing N/C - Existing N/C - Existing Lodge - Expansion C!L - Ab. Gr. - Be. Gr. - L. to CIL 3,500 1,500 3,500 3.500 12,000 7 Existing o o J!New 13 SUB-TOTAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING 91,000 Sq.Ft. 51 Units 143 Spaces 51 Soaces TOTALS 194 Soaccs NOTES: 1. . Ab. Gr. = Above Ground and Be. Gr. = Below Ground. ,~~:~LO~S,~~,~~~F~~,~,~~~~,T=~~ D ~ 'OOWOOW",OO'" ",,,"00 '",oe",,,,,,,, ",,,,,",,m. oo.w,m..". II f"""\ r-'\ I ! ~ . ! '-' 4 ~ , ! ~ -< '"< 1 ~U U -----~---~"... ~ ~~ . 00 ~ . T , + . , * , ~ : L I -1-,--1_ j , , oog~ J , -- ! 00 0 o 0 0 I, ~, f , , , " , ~ , i i """,,PIf:FO..,........ ~ ! , ~ A"'IOO'.#N> + .RI~ '.'~ ~~ ~J < . ! ~ .z , ! , , o~ , , l, " I '. "', ~ i !' , ~~ , 1! , " *' ~ < Cj ! m :D z ~ Ii :( e m ~ !: > l ~ ~ z > " i ~ N ~ i m < m i '\lll ./ ~I i-I '! I -~f- ~ , en en ""'L~'( 1".l 'I i F9n~ ~ I =fl ! . . I , l , .. , ! Q ~ ! ~ / ASPEN SUPERBLOCK CONCEPT ~'~, '" ~' ~S"'EN. . OOLOR....oO L if ~~ " . HWY.e:z~!I:. , . ~ . " rr:ll ~il l.:.J -I': 8 !:: !:: m " o > I"" , ~ " 1\ Z C) I"" m < m I"" 11 I"" > Z !>r . ~ . ",....., t ' ~ , n i, " . ~ ~ " , i > " . ! , 0 I , " . , . ! , , , . r~-1 ~--~ H : r-----I '1----1 I t1 : : ' Tj : II -l-~t----- .l--+ I I I I: I <:: ASPEN SUPERBLOCK CONCEPT ;~ ~ :'~.CUN~:~:= D~ ASPEN. , COI..ORADO r'\ ........., . ATTACHMENT B STAFF'S EVALUATION ("'""\ ~ , , TABLE 1 8/4/93 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FAR Sa.Ft. CITY MARKET - 1st Level - 2nd Level - 3rd Level .. .... '_n. - Below Ground (Not counted in FAR) 5,000 sq. ft. 8,000 7.000 20,000 . (26,000 ) Delilbakery emp. housing emp. housing market NEW SW. BLDG. - I st Level - 2nd Level 5,000 5.000 .10,000 N/C Redefined N/C Redefined "; ~..:.:.;. .;-::.;.;.::;.:,,::::;.; BELL Mm. BLDG. - 1st Leyel - 2nd Level - 3rd Level - 1st, 2nd & 3rd levels 18.000 10,000 10,000 6.500 44,500 N/C Redefined lodging rooms lodging suites emp, housing ..:.c......-::..:- ......,..w BUCKHORN BLDG. - 1st Level - 2nd Level - 3rd Level . 6.000 6,000 4.000 16,000 N/C Redefined N/C Redefined emp. housing 1.11 .:7.f.:5:~$:;; '.':::.'.-s;_~' ..,-..:........:..:-. :;;;.,:-:-,:..:*; '::;::::':::~:~:9f ?:.::N:~i? TOTAL - Private Uses ABOVE GROUND - Emp. Housing 65,000 25.500 90,500 FAR 1.20. , FAR 0.47 , FAR 1.67. , FAR 0.88 w/street FAR 0.34 wfstreet FAR 1.22 wfstreet - Below Ground 126.000 ) ....'...'..,....,:..... .. ..... .... :':';':'.::i:' NOTES: I. NfC Redefined. is Neighborhood Commercial zoning proposed to be redefmed as part of the SPA Plan. Excluding City Market development (31,000 sq. ft. total), of the 40,000 sq. ft. of NfC redefined commercial, 24,000 sq. ft. is proposed to be CIL commercial uses and 16,000 sq. ft. to. be NfC commercial uses; '::~~~~:t~:~~~ ;-,:.,t.:,',;o.::. .........:..K..... ....... .~,::Z.i:;;1:;:, ..::~::~::;:;'i*:: !thh_3j~ -0<:1 .....'...:....... I "-"'0 i,'. :::. ~,.,.. \,)) I .i. '"!II.::.'.}}' ,>.:;::.:.;.",:;.;.. 1""\ ..~ TABLE 2 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Existing & Approved Deve; CITY MARKET - Markel -Leasable Space - Ab. Gr. - Be. Gr. 13,000 sq. ft. r 13.000 ) 26,000 BELL MTN. BLDG. - Approved Lodge (wI 3,000 sq.ft. emp, housing) 20,000 BUCKHORN BLDG. - Existing CIL - Ab. Gr. - Existing Lodge - Existing CIL - Be. Gr.. 3,500 3,500 I 1.500 ) 8,500 New SW Bld~. New Emo; Housing ','F"i:f:.,. SUB-TOTAL - .frivale Uses 40,000 ABOVE GROUND - Emp.Housing - 40,000 SUB-TOTAL ( 14,500 ) BELOW GROUND ',:,'r.,'r: ::,":U. .. "'/li'."::':"';-, ...:'..:.:,;,,:.;.:.: /:f.55~~;~: 'i~~~~~~: NOTES: 1. Ab. Gr. = Above Ground and Be. Gr. = Below Ground. .......,:.:r.:. ..':'::~:::'Z';': jij;~m ~@t~~~tt :}.::::{:~~> :':,",',"'.w ..."',.....:.. '::.:::,~::4:::'?;~ ';;:'::~:::~::r?;;:::' ..;:::::~;"i'i.~~X' .{WI~: .:)._~;j~~:. ';::Ti::g)~:: ':~::::::.;;:~:;~~. <'wrl .......:........: ........:.:";.:.:. Existing Zoning FAR 1:1 54,000 nta 8/4/93 Proposed Deve. 5,000 sq. ft. r 26.000 ) 31,000 38,000 12,000 10,000 25,500 65,000 25.500 90,500 (26,000 ) .. , r-", ,~ . TABLE 3 8/4/93 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSffi EMPLOYEE MITIGATION ANALYSIS NOTES: 1. Ab Gr. = Above Ground and Be. Gr. = Below GroWld; \ . '...'.';.';!;: > :; ~.;.-;t;:. ~~ \-:;:~:g::f 2. Excluding City Market development (31,000 sq. ft. total), there is 40,000 sq. ft. of commercial development of which 24,000 sq. ft. is CL commCl'cial and 16,000 sq. ft is N/C' commCl'cial. ....... .... ;':'-:-:'~:':a: ,;':::;:':'ii:;:-, '::,':~~~~f . ",,:'ir-1..{. ... 3. N/C employee mitigatioll is based on employee generation ratio of 2.3 employeesll,OOO sq. ft. net leasable and housing 60% of the net new employees generated per code. C/L employee mitigation is based on employee generation ratio of3.5 employeesll,OOO sq. ft. net leasable and housing 60% of the net new employees generated per code. .. ...'-'N.", :::{:;~;:~;~: ""~'..r..:.::.' :::~~:::;~~~:~ ~~;~~~~~::' -'0'::: .~'_~":..c '~1~~;~~: ';'7:,:~':~':':i.- ,..........u......:. .:,...... 1"""\, ,,-0;, TABLE 4 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PARKING MITIGATION ANALYSIS BELL M1N. BLDG - Approved Lodge - Expansion N/C - Expansion CIL . 20,000 11,000 ..1.Ql!Q 38,000 23 Approved 35 New 11 New 69 BUCKHORN BLDG - Existing N/C - Existing N/C - Existing Lodge - Expansion CIL - Ab. Gr. - Be. Gr. - L. to CIL 3,500 1,500 3,500 ~ 12,000 91,000 Sq.Ft. 51 Units 7 Existing o o ..2 New 13 SUB.TOTAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING 143 Spaces 51 Soaces TOTALS 194 Seaees NOTES: 1. . Ab. Gr. = Above Ground and Be. Gr. = Below Ground. 8/4/93 23 Approved 24 New 16 New 63 7 Existing o 2 ..! New ,17 142 Spaces 51 Soaces 193 Seaees 2. Parking ratio for N/C zoning is 4 spaces/l,OOO sq. ft. net leasable and for CIL zoning is 2 spacesll,OOO sq. ft. net leasable. 3. Actual parking ratio for Trueman Building/Clark's Market complex is 2.78 spaces/I.OOO sq. ft. net leasable based on parking count and building sq. ft. analysis of Building Permit Plans. ,1""\ ,~ TABLE 3-A 8/16/93 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EMPLOYEE MITIGATION ANALYSIS WITH NO CREDIT FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT .'.:.:-:,;.;:.: ..-...........,... '::)?~~:' .'X:.:::~:*:~~::. 'U~"';:'::.:'::-: ,..,:.....".=:.. 'l1i@jit ~gi~tit .:...,............., NOTES: 1. Ab Gr. = Above Ground and Be. Gr. = Below Ground. 2. Excluding City Market development (31,000 sq. ft. total), there is 40,000 sq. ft. of commercial development of which 24,000 sq. ft. is CL, commercial and 16,000 sq. ft is N/C commercial. :.':.~-.....''', ..:::;.:.:.:.:.:~.' ......... 3. N/C employee mitigation is based on employee generation ratio of2.3 employeesll,OOO sq. ft. net leasable and housing 60% of the net new employees generated per code. C/L employee mitigation is based on employee generation ratio of 3.5 employeesll,OOO sq. ft. net leasable and housing 60% of the net new employees generated per code. . ;:/::~::;tl.~ ;::.:.:.;.:.:-:.G.~ .::......:.w .1""\ I] TABLE 4-A 8/16/93 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PARKING MITIGATION ANALYSIS WITH NO CREDIT FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT BELl MTN. BLDG - Approved Lodge - Expansion N/C - Expansion elL . 20,000 11,000 ~ 38,000 23 35 II 69 23 24 jg 63 ......",t: BUCKHORN BLOG - Existing N/C - Existing N/C .., Existing Lodge - Expansion elL - Ab. Gr. - Be. Gt. - L. to elL 3,500 11 8 1,500 5 3 3,500 6 8 ~ ..2 ! 12,000 28 27 91,000 Sq.Ft. 213 Spaces 181 Spaces 79 Units 79 Snaces 79 Snaces 292 Soaces 260 Snaees ':'::~i :.' -::u. .:,.::<t:!M;:. SUB- TOTAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING TOTALS .\. ;;::~.~:1:: .:".-:,':'r:':':' ..:....".... . ::k~~:'Z;;: :.':':'.::-:{':;';': ~;I ':':::;i:~Y;~:2i; .,:.;r,f}Jri \;::::rit~: ,.',.~".',"".' ..:':;~;;5::W:~. .. NOTES: 1. Ab. Gr. = Above Grolllld and Be. Gr. = Below Ground. 2. Parking ratio for N/C zoning is 4 spaces/I,ooO sq. ft. net leasable and for elL zoning is 2 spacesll,OOO sq. ft. net leasable. 3. Actual parking ratio for Trueman Building/Clark's Market complex is 2.78 spacesll,ooo sq. ft. net leasable based on parking count and building sq. ft. analysis of Building pennit Plans. .. ",h'-::.: -:'\';:;::*~: ;i:" . r-, .~ ., . ,\ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Diane Moore, Planning FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Directo~ Planner THRU: DATE: September 21, 1993 Superblock Worksession - September 22 RE: At the September 14 worksession Council requested additional information. Attached is a FAX from city Market listing the sizes of other supermarkets in the Roaring Fork Valley (total square footage). I have also included, ,for your recollection, the August letter to Council from John Cal.~well'(City Market representative) in which he,dis~usses the proposed size of city Market. Council also requested a review of the existing parking on the Superblock site. They are: Cooper Street between City Market Buckhorn Lodge Bell Mountain Total Spring & Original . - 30 - 29 7 - 10 76 I have attached the preliminary site plans for your convenience. The other items, that staff will continue to work on for Council are: impacts to traffic/circulation patterns; eliminating mitigation requirements for demolished and replaced structures and implications to other zone districts; rezoning LP to CL or amending the LP zone district to allow commercial space; and employee mitigation impacts for parking garage. A final numbers analysis is forthcoming but will not be available for this Wednesday's worksession. ~ ""'"'. J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. P.C. A Professional Corporaffon Attomeys At Law 600 Eest Hopkins Avenue Suite 203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925..2612 Telecopler (303) 9254402 J. NlcholosMcGroth* Michael C. Ireland September 21, 1993 Ms. Leslie Lamont Senior planner AspenlPitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 SEP 2 0 / He: Superblock - competing supermarket sizes Dear Leslie: Please f'iild enclosed a summary of the supermarkets in the Roaring Fork Valley as requested by CityCGuncil at last week's work session. In 'Our view, the "destination" markets are the markets that are presently attracting Aspen residents with their larger selection and those include Glenwood Springs City Market (50,000 square feet) and the GlenwoodSprings Safeway (45,000) at present and the future City Market in EI Jabal (52,500 square feet). The smaller markets (Carbondale, Basalt at present and the Village Market in Snowmass) are not capturing Aspen sales tax dollars becalfse they are comparable or smaller in size and thus don't offer much that isn't available locally. Thank you. Sincerely, J.N~~;1- BY: Michael C. Ireland m93 super921.ltr 'Member, COlo, (1971), Colif. (1969). and D,C. {1966} bars SUMMARY OF ROARING FORK VALLEY SUPERMARKET SIZES SEPTEMBEI~, 1993 TOTAL SIZE (SQ. FT.) ~t.I~1 DI; tj-l/-utl ~ ,-, ~ . , , OPERATOR LOCATION ~______________ _________________ __________ ________~._________________w EXPANSION CAPABILITY o.ua , Ll j I l"li-lMJ:.J-" wUw~~~~U~;~ ~I ~ ~ COMf'ARE.WKl Ci~y Market. Glen~ood Springe 50,000 In 1993 purchased vacan~ land behind Center Drug for store expansion of up to 20,000 sq. ft. Safoway Glenwood Springs Circle Super (City Market) Carbondale City Ms:r.ket Basalt City Msrket El Jebel (planned) Village Mt.ol.ltet Snowm6-$/S Village Clark's Market Aspen Clark's Market Airport Bus. Ctx-. City Market Aspen Total (excludir~ Aspen City Market basement) 45,000 Unlmown. 25,000 Store volume justifies expansion; shopping center has no adpitional spaoe.: 19.000 To besupplElmented by new El Jebel store. 52,500 Has spaoe for additional 10,000 square feet. 12,000 Aone known. 18,000 Unknown. 4,000 Unknown. 13,000 Main floor. 13,000 Available if I basement. 238,000 .....-----.----- ----------- SUMMARY OF ROARING FORK VALLEY SUPERMARKET SIZES SEPTEMBER, 1993 TOTAL SIZE (SQ. FT.) 3D". 01. ir.LI-LJw r'. ~ " OPERATOR LOCATION --------------- ----------------- City Market Glen~ood Springe Safoway Glen~ood Springs Circle Super (City M&.rket) Carbondale City Market Basalt City Market EI Jebel (planned) Village Maloket SnO~li1al!llS Village Clo.rk'/3 Market Aspen Clark's Market Airport Blls. Ctr. City Market Aspen Total (excludir~ Aepen City Market basement) o.uu , ---------- 50,000 '-'II. I LtJ~'1.I\.n.LI..., UUU~~U~~U~1" vi. U ~ COMPARE.WKl EXPANSION CAPABILITY --------------------------~ In 1993 purchased vacant land behind Center Drug for store expansion of up to 20,000 sq. ft. 46,000 Unknovm. 25,000 Store volume justifies expansion; shopping center ha$ no adpitional spaoe, 19,000 To be supplemented by new El Jebel store. 52,500 Has spaoe for additional 10,000 square %eet. 12,000 Aone known. 18,000 Unknowr.. 4,000 Unknown. 13,000 Main floor. 13,000 Available in basement. 238,500 ----------- ---_._------ SENT In; O-lU-~u t 04~O t .....,11 l.tolnJuu...t .'-'...'-'u................. -'111/11!!.~ ,~ August 6, 1993 Me~bers of the City Counoil City of Aspen Aspen, colorado 81612 Re: Proposed supermarket size in the "Superblook" Project Ladies and Gentlemen: . We are encouraged by the support for the above project apparent at our recent workshop meeting' with the council. We' also understand from that meeting that both the size of the proposed supermarket and the need for additlonalemployee housing are concerns for some members of council. Accordingly, we are in the process of revising our plans to add employee housing', and to delete the second floor store office space. This change results in a proposed supermarket of about 32,000 square :feet. We submit that the benefits to Aspen of the supermark€t designed in this project include sig.nificant additional Sales tax dollars to Aspen and Pitkin county, materially less traffic on. Highway 82, a wider and more desirable selection of groceries availallle in Aspen and enhanced business volume for other Aspen merchants, and that such benefits outweigh the few potential adverse impacts of the project. As discussed below, these benefits are only available if the grocery store is significantly larger than today. In addition, we are unable to financially justifY destruction of the existing store, 'and reconstruction with the parking, housing aJ;1d other associated burdens, without at least a dOubling of the existing store size. We believe we have designed only this minimum necessary increase. into the project. . We should first address the increase propose~ over the size of our existing Aspen store. The existing store is in a two story building of about 26,000 sq.uare feet (orie floor below ground), About 4,500 square feet of the basement of this building is , currently rented to the Steak Pit Restaurant. The net leasable space in this building today is thus about 16,000 s~uare feet. The balance of the building is utilized for hallways, equipment compressor rooms, rest rooms and similar uses not included in the definition of. net leasable space. The interior of the proposed .supermarket has yet to. be designed. However, the new store will also need equipment and HOME OFFICE: 105 W. COLORADO AVE, . p.o. BOX 729. GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81 502-0729 . (303) 24HI750 . FAX 244-1052 G ,..ll11'ClllUEG'WlUDI'MGI SENT BY: ll-lO-ll::l 1l:2ti ~III l~t~uuuu~UU~ul 'JT UI \.I ,'1 ~ . . Aspen City Council/Page 2/August 6, 1993 storage areas, :and the net leasable space in the proposed market is unlikely to be double the toeal net leasable space ln the existing store building. . Alternatively,. we might recognize that the bakery/deli operations on the surface level of the proposed project are, like the Steak Pit, ona separate level from the grocery store, and, also like the Steak pit, will consist of retail food preparation and sales . Perhaps the surface level bakery/deli can be considered an offset against the current steak Pit area, and the increase in grocery store size be reflected in the increase of the proposed lower level store over ~hat of our existing store. Again, when equipment and storage iueas are deducted from the size of that lower level, the net leasable area of the new market approximates about twice. that of the existing stora. Thus, we suggest for discussion of store size that we agree tha,t the'proposed store is effectively twice the size of the current store. ' The advantages of this increased store size are substantial, as follow: 1. The January, 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) presents as onecf its goals an increase in the amount of commercial space dedicated to locally serVing businesses. We suggest that few bullinessea serve the local population toa greater degree than does a supermark$t. 'rhus, th$ increase proposed herein is in direct conformity with primary goals of the AACP. 2. . Less than two years ago, we analyzed the entire Roaring Fork Valley grocery market to evaluate our proposed store at 1::1 Jebel. While' the details of this stUdy are confidential trade information, we can divulge tha.t over 50% of the grocery dollars of Aspen residents are spent "down valley" - generally in Glenwood Springs. When our EI Jebel store is completed (projected for December, 1994), the percentage of resident grocery dollars leaving Aspen will increase, because of the convenience of a closer "full- se.rvice" supermarket. We draw two conclusions from this: (1) the grOcery shopping needs of Aspen residents are not today met locally, and (2) there are substantial additional grocery dollars to be captured locally without taking significant trade dollars from other local Aspen grocery merchants. In other words, most of the sales dollars available to be captured with an expanded Aspen store will come from other City Market and Safeway stores down valley, not from Aspen competitors. The down-valley stores that successfully attract Aspen shoppers are large - 50,000 square feet, and more. RebUilding th~ Aspen City Market to reduce this leakage can only succeed if the size differential with competing stores is measurably reduced. Proof of SENT BYl O-W-lliJ, O;~/; \.d II lW1JU\L.J 'uuuu""UIJ......,. r". ~ . . Aspen City council/Page 3/August 6, 1993 this argument is avaHable locally - Clark's has had a larger store than City Market fo',; many years, with no ill effect on City Market's ability to ~~mpete'with Clark's. Neither Aspen store, however, competes ~Uo~essfully with th~ down-valley stores. The data in this study ,are now over a year old - residential growth in the Aspilncommuni ty (another goal of the AACP) will increase the amou~1i; of sales leaving Aspen, unless additional grocerycapabilitYlilprovided. 3. When res~<dents go down-valley to buy groceries, they also use those trips to buy other items there - and Aspen resident serving merchants sUffer the consequences. Similarly, the lack of a grocery store ade~ateto resident' s needs is one more reason for workers to live elsewhere, and Aspen merchants are again impacted. Adequate grocery facilities for residents is a clear benefit to local me.rchan1;s. 4. The. inability of local stores to meet the eXisting grocery needsofresldents has significant impact on trl:lnsportation issues in Aspen, and to a greater degree, in Pitkin County. Shopping patterns generally reflect that, when shoppers must travel a long distance to. a store , they shop wtth a "stock up" mentality - they make fewer trips to the store, and buy more on each trip. Such shoppers are resistant to mass. transportation, even if conveniently available, because of the amount of groceries (and other. items) th6Y carry home. ThuS', they drive to the store. Accordingly, whatever amount of traffic on Highway 82 is necessary and unavoidable, it will remain significantly increased above that level so long as rellidents are making round trips down valley to buy groceries',. regardless of the mass transit opportunities available. The most effective solution to this problem is .to expand the availability of local Aspen grocery Shopping, especially if it can be done in a facility that provides additional parking for those shoppers. 5. The fact that a substantial percentage of Aspen residents shop elsewhere drains significant sales tax dollars from Aspen and pi tlcin County to those other communi ties. Sales tax revenues collected in Aspen are spent for the benefit of Aspen and Pitkin County residents, While those same revenues when collected elsewhere are used for the benefit of those communities, This is reflected in the recent concerns expressed in Glenwood Springs over the sales tax dollars it could lose as the result of our proposed El Jebel store, which is intended to cut off much of the Aspen to Glenwood Springs traffic. In short, "spen sales tax dollars collected elsewhere amount to a subsidy by Aspen residents of those communities. We suggest that this in no way works to the benefit of Aspen area residents. SENT BY: . '.. lS-lU-lj" lS:<!lS .....111 LW11\.I\.L....\Juu...,"'uu..-.u, .11 ...n .... ,1""'\ ~ , . Aspen City Council/Page 4/August6, 1993 6. One of the fundamental objections to stores larger than now permitted has beenth~t such large featureless building's normally don't contribute to the alnbiance that is Aspen. This project provides a .unique opportunity to the city, and to City Market, to incorporate a larger store without undesirable visual impacts on the surface. 7. We have b.eardof reluctance to abandon the "K-Mart Rule." We are unable to find that the K-Mart RUle applies to the Neigh):)orhood Commercial Zone. Thus, we submit that the oi ty' s retention or abandonment of that rule is not relevant to this project. Finally, there is the matter of simple economics for City Market. City Market's share of the "Superblock" project, for the first floor of the parking garage, plus construction of the store itself, plus the costs of a temporary store during construction . (the prOfits of WhiCh Will not cover the costs, of installation and removal), are estimated at more than eight million dollars, before taking into consideration the very considerable value of the existing land and building to be contributed to the project. This is three or four times the cost of a conventional 32,000 square fo.ot store elsewhere, and greater than- the cost of simply buying land and building lInew store, even in Aspen. Under these circumstances, it isafair question why we might proceed. The answer is that we believe that the goalS in the AACP, from restricted downtown auto transportation to increased residential housing, will likely occur, and that the merchants with the best long term opportunities to succeed in this community are the ones participating ln and planning for these developments. Nonetheless, this represents.a very expensive undertaking, and a gamble that the city will timely persevere in pursuit of the MCP goals, and even with the most OPtimistic sales projections, cannot be justified with only a modest increase in store size. We simply need the scale of sales volume appropriate to ,a store this size to justify the proposed investment. Even a 32,000 square foot store costing this mu~h is only feasible in a community like Aspen, where the shopping needs of the residents are not being met with current market facilities, where the increased saies volume does not haVe to be taken from local competitors, and where parking and traffic restrictions will concentrate customers at locations which provide parking opportunities. . In summary, we hope that you will concur that the proposed 32,000 square foot store size is reasonable under current Aspen area market conditions and should be of significant benefit to the 1""""., ,1""")). PIr \.I. .... "- \ SENT ISY: U-1U-~~ t o;~o t '-'I J J lWUUuu';'l .",u",..,~UU.L'" I , . Aspen City Council/Page 5/August 6, 1993 community. We would be pleased. to review these matters further with you at the next Workshop meeting. truly yours, Jo n L. Caldwell, Director, Real Estate 00: Superblock file Leslie Lamont Jim Valerio Jim Curtis Hiok Ireland - TO: f""'"";, M... . <lRANDUM Aspen City Council I ...1 \:!': Leslie1Lamont, Senior Planner :filf=~S~~ (]./vl .' ,', Ofl -;,"',~ /1/1(? ..-- , I FROM: Jim Curtis, Superblock Consulting Team DATE: September 24, 1993 RE: Updated Superblock Economic Analysis: _. Based On SJV Proposal Submitted Augbst S, 1993 This memo is in reswnse to Leslie Lamont's request of 9/17/93 to update my prior Economie Analysis .ofthe Superblock based on the SJV ProWsal submitted AugustS, 1993. This memo addresses the following key questions on the SJV Prowsal: 1. What is the City's cost for the 2nd Level of parking under the SJV Proposal? 2. What are the City's options to pay for the 2nd Level of parking? 3. What is the economic value of the upzoning requested by the SJV Prowsal? This memo and analysis is in outline form to be used as a working docwnent for a personal presentation to Council and to accomplish the lin!_e schedule you requested. The memo is not intended to be a complete cost-benefit analysis of the SJV ProWsal which was not part of our Consulting Agreement The memo is a working document to assist Council in evaluating the economics of the proposal on a preliminary basis. SUMMARY COMMENTS 1. The cost of the 2nd Level of parking is estimated at $4,810,000 in 1995 dollars, the estimated earliest construction date of the garage. - 2. The Operating Revenues (Most Probable Estimate) of the 2nd Level of parking are estimated to suPWrl a parking revenue bond of $1,688.000. 3. The "shortfall" cost of the 2nd Level of parking is estimated at $3,122,000, i.e. $4,810,000 cost vs $1,688,000 bonding capacity. 4. The $3,122,000 shortfall could be covered by the following options: a. Increased SJV contribution b. Increased City contribution/subsidy -what funding source? c. Ski Corp. contribution d. Downtown Commercial Core Special Improvement District Tax e. Increased Upzoning (FAR) to SJV f. State or federal contributions g. Reduce the SJV employee housing mitigation cost h. Increased the parking revenues and bonding capacity i. Combinations of aU the above. 5. The economic value of the 11,000 sq. ft. FAR Upzoning of the SJV Proposal is estimated at: a. If 11,000 sq. ft. is CL Commercial Uses - $1,067,600 Most Probable Estimate b. If 11,000 sq. ft. is CL Commercial Uses - $1,498,800 Optimistic Estimate a. If 11,000 sq. It. is NC Commercial Uses - $(-158,200) Most Probable Estimate 6. If the SJV increased its contribution by the $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 estimate above, the City's shortfall would be still in the $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 range_ . ,,,;.. ~ .. ~ ~ I "ll o II al- II ~' o ~d :.:;; e-- :. '-:ol ",u'E e-.s 0 1::nt'J u ~ '" $' ." 'Oil '" <:> 0 0 '" 0 0 0 f-< 0 0 0 '" 0 0 0" ~'.O - - - u .. .. .. .,." .,." .; .. .. .. t; _<l:l ~ " , u ig' '" ::EO f"l 0 ;:> e-O" z ,- '" s: @j UN "'~ ~ + Vl~ ~~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ :. .. 3 ~ uj u:.:;; :.:;; ;.:0 :=: :. ~ :. ~ :. uU '" -'" N'" N '" 0>- - ...:iP: ~ gj< f"l::E al !5~ ." ." "0 ~ " v ~ " "'''' <l ~ ;> :< on 1>0 jo jO ~~ "00 'E~ " .- -'" NU "'''' ~ 1il ~ .l;j f-< ~ '" $' ." 'Oil '" ~ u ] ~ i _ _ 0 ~ ~ I~ ~" '~"b gS ':~ e.~.g Q.~ [~o .ll" .is lS Jl ,~ .. " oS :( 11'.6 'g <iI 2 lS ,S e 'il .. """ ,- "," '., !l ~ 8 8 j lt~ 'g ~ ,g j'S !3~~8~<:"E" It:. ~ '" ~ ,~(.t,.. 8 " ""., ~ ~ ~8e-s ~81! ,81.l] l5 ~ ~ ..~ e;B 0 ':::lee t'J.s.si5J8.E~3l~.E8 1""\ TABLE 2 ~ER'BLbCK GARAGE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES t'i 9120/93 The cost estimates are based on 215 cars per level to determine the Der car and ocr level cost for the 2nd and 3rd levels, understanding that City Market is underground in the 1st level. The costs are estimated Spring 1995 costs. 2 Levels 430 Cars 3 Levels 645 Cars Construction Cost Parking Spaces $ 8,513,500 430 19,800 Isp 50,000 425,700 85,100 170,300 85,100 559,800 $ 11,615,500 . 645 18,000 Isp 50,000 580,800 116,200 232,300 116,200 762,700 269,500 687.200 $ 14,430,400 645 $ 22,370 Ispace Approvals, Permits hch.lEng. Prof. Fees Contractor Bonding Project Mgnt. Fee Miscellaneous/Other Construction Inflation (2 yrs @ 3%/yr-6%) Fin. Underwriting Cost Contingency 5% 1% 2% 1% 6% 2% 5% 197,800 504.365 TOTAL COST PARKING SPACES COST PER SPACE $ 10,591,700 430 $ 24,630 Ispace COST PER LEVEL $ 5.295.900 /Level $ 4.810.100 ILevel NOlES: f(f '0 fY''V4i ~ ~~, . t. The construction cost estimates are based on very preliminary estimates by Shaw Construction and the soft cost estiinates by Jim Curtis. 3. 2. The hard construction cost is approximately $39 a souare foot for either the two- or three-level garage. The Rio Grande has 340 spaces, .was constructed in approximately 14 months and was officially opened in June 1990. Its 1989 total development cost including. fmancing underwriting cost was $7,514,400 divided by 340 spaces, or $22.100/sDace. Of the $7,514,400 cost, approximately $432,200 was related to unbudgeted, unforeseen cost related to ground water. The garage is 3'h levels of parking and ACRA office space totaling approximately 136,200 square feel, including the upper plaza top. The cost per square foot is $55 ($7,514,400 divided by 136,200 square feet); or $52 a souare foot deducting the $432,200 water problem ($7,082,200 divided by 136,200 square feet). ~ . , ,~ TABLE 3 .\ , SlfiSERBL()CK GARAGE ~ PRELIMINARY OPERATING PRO FORMA FOR MUNICIPAL PARKING 215 SPACES TOTAL I I ! 1st 2nd 3rd Level Level Level 11 0 spaces and City Market - 215 spaces municipal-parking 215 spaces leased parking SN owned City owned - SNowned A. Revenue Matrix Based on 215 municipal spaces - 2nd level- and no City revenues 1st & 3rd levels. . B. Revenue Matrix Turnover..Rate/24 Hours Rio Grande .94 Targeted 1.50 Optimistic 2,00 C. Ooeratine Pro Forma Revenues Targeted 1.5 Turnover Rate Exnenses Labor Utilities Maintenance Labor Maintenance Materials Security Insurance Admin.lAcc. Overhead Contingency 5% Ooeratine Income Capital Repair & Replac. Reserve ~ Available for Debt Service . & Debt Coverage Ratio tl Debt Service Amount 'c.-., BondinQ: Caoacitv . 1j\J "" 7% Int. over 20 years /; $2.00IDay $3.00lDay $4.00IDay 365 Davs/Yr 365 Davs/Y r 365 Davs/Yr $ 147,530 $ 221,300 $ 295,070 235,420 353,140 470,850 313.900 470,850 627,800 , , I $2.00IDav $3.00IDav $4.00/Dav $ 235,420 $ 353,140 $ 470,850 52,000 52,000 52,000 2'i,OOO 27,000 27;000 7,000 7,000 7,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 ~ ~ 6.000 123,000 123,000 123,000 112,420 230,140 347,850 30.000 - 30.000 - 30.000 82,420 200,140 317,850 1.25 1.25 1.25 65,936 160,112 254,280 $ 695.160 $1.688.050 $2.680.870 NOTES: I. The preliminary operation pro forma has been reviewed with Randy Ready, City Transporation Director. .~, .--r T~LE 4 : SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS UPZONING ANALYSIS 9120/92 Uuzonin2 Is 1l.000 Sa. Ft. FAR Of CL Commercial Uses NOTES: I. The FAR Buildout Analysis below only includes Above Ground square footage per the Code and d<:>es not include the SJV proposed 26,000 sq. ft City Market Below Grade which is not counted in the FAR. . 2. The 11,000 sq. ft. FAR upzoning is 11,000 sq. ft. of CL Commercial Uses to simpllfy the economic analysis. 3. The 25,500 sq. ft FAR 9f proposed Employee, Housing is not included because it has no economic "profit" totheSNandisan economic "loss" to theSN.. " 3,500 sq. ft. CL 3,500 sq. ftL9dge Staff Rec. Zoning FAR Buildout 5,000 sq. ft NC Deli 20.000 sq. ft. NC Other 25,000 sq. ft. NC 20,000 sq. ft. CL Zoning Chan2e 2,000 sq.ft NC City Market Existing Zoning FAR Buildout 27,000 sq. ft. NC - Buckhorn + 16,500 sq. ft CL . 3,500 sq. ft Lodge Bell Mtn 20.000 sq. ft. Lodge 54,000 sq. ft. T9tal 20.000 sq. ft Lodge , 65,000 sq. ft Total o II ,000 sq. ft. CL Upzoning ,,-.., , . ,........., J'ABUi: 5. t SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EMPLOYEE AND PARKING MITIGATION FOR CL UPZONING 9120/93 Upzonin.. Is 11.000 Sa. Ft. FAR or CL Commercial Uses A. Gross FAR To Net Leasable Adiustment Gross FAR Sq. Ft. 11,000 sq. ft. 20% Gross To Net Adj. . 20% Net Leasable Sq. Ft. 8,800 sq. ft. B. Emolovee Mitieation For .Uozonine: Comm. Lodge (CL) Net Leasable 8,800 sq. ft. net ..leasable Emp. Generation Ratio ~ emp./l,ooO sq. ft. net leasable Emp. Generation 31 emp. Emp. Mitigation Ratio -.m. % nUn. threshold Emp. Housed 19 emp. Emp./Studio Unit Ratio --1..Zi emp./studio unit Studio Units IS studio units Studio Units Min. Size 400 sq. ft. nUn. unit size Net Liveable Sq. Ft. 6,000 sq. ft. net liveable Net To Gross Sq. Ft. Adj. --1..Zi net to gross 25% Gross Emp. Mitigation Sq. FI. 7,500 sq. ft. gross C. Parkin.. Miti..ationFor Uozoning I. Comm. Lodge (CL) Net Leasable 8,800 sq. ft. net leasable Parking Ratio .......l spaces/I,OOO sq. ft. net leasable Parking Mitigation 18 spaces 2. Employee Parking Mitigation 15 studio units Parking Ratio . ---1 spacelbedroom Parking Mitiga,tion 15 spaces r". ,~ TABLE 6 , ~.~, 1 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS ECONOMIC VALUE OF 11.000 SO. FT. FAR CL UPZONING 9120/93 Upzoning is 11,000 Sq. Ft. FAR Of CL Commercial Uses Upzoning Retail Rents At $35 Sq. Ft. Ave. - Most Probable Estimate Economic Value ofUozonimr Capitalized Value 8,800 sq. ft,. leasable Development Cost 11,000 sq. ft. gross @ $358 sq. ft. = @ $190 sq. ft. $ 3,153,600 - 2.086.000 $ 1,067,600 Caoitalized Value Retail Rents-Most Probable $35 sq. ft. avg. @8,800 sq. ft. netl~ble $ 308,000 Vacancies 3% 9.240 298,760 Opt Expenses 5% 14.940 283,820 Capitalization Rate 9% .09 $ 3.153.600 Value Per Net Leasable Sq. Ft. $ 358 Sq. Ft. :;;:. Develooment Cost 8,800 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable 11,000 Sq. Ft. Gross Construction 1. Land Cost - $ 0 2. Building Cost Approvals 25,000 Hard Construction $60 sq. ft. @ 11,000 sq. ft. gross 660,000 Arch./Ellg. Prof. Fees 8% construction 52,800 Contractor Bond 1% construction 6,600 Bldg. PermitsfIap Fees $2.000/1 ,000 sq. ft. leasable 17,600 Const. Insurance 7.500 Project Mgt. S% construction 33,000 Misc. Fees/Other 2% construction 13,200 Const. Loan Points 1.5 pts. @ $815,700 12.200 Const. Interest 10% @ I year draw @$815,700 40,800 Rental. Lease Up 2 months rents 51.300 Rental Leasing Fees 15% 1st yr. rents 46.200 966,200 3. Parking Mitigation Cost 18 spaces @ $22,370 sp. 402,700 Parking Reduction By SJV 143 to 110 spaces = 13% reduction . 52.400 350,300 4. Emp. Housing Mitigation Cost 15 studio units - cost 7,500 sq. ft. @ 100 sq. ft. cost 750,000 15 parking spaces - cost IS spaces @ $22,370 sp. 335.600 1,085,600 IS studio units - revenue IS studios @ $59,000 Cat. #2 sales . 885.000 200,600 5. Project Contingency 10% 151,700 Developer's Profit 25% total cost 417,200 568,900 6. Total Development Cost $ 2.086.000 Total Development Cost Gross Sq. Ft. $ 190 sq. ft. ~ (~ TABLE 7 , , ~~c ~ , SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS ECONOMIC VALUE OF 11.000 SO. FT. FAR CL UPZONING 9120/93 Upzoning is 11,000 Sq. Ft. FAR Of CL Commercial Uses Upzoning Retail Rents At $40 Sa. Ft. AVl!. - Ontimistic Estimate A. Economic Value of Uozonimz Capitalized Value 8,800 . sq. ft. leasable @ $410 sq. ft. $ 3,604.100 Development Cost 11,000 sq. ft. gross @ $191 sq; ft. '" - 2.105.300 $ 1,498,800 B. Caoitalized Value . Retail Rents-Ootimistic $40 sq. ft. avg. @ 8,800 sq. ft. net leasable $ 352,000 Vacancies 3% 10.560 341,440 Opt Expenses 5% 17.070 324,370 Capitalization Rate 9% .09 $ 3.604.100 Value Per Net Leasable Sq. Ft. $ 410 Sq. Ft. C. Develooment Cost 8,800 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable 11.000 Sq. Ft. Gross Construction 1. Land Cost $ 0 2. Building Cost Approvals 25,000 Hard Construction $60 sq. ft. @ 11,000 sq. ft. gross 660,000 ArchdEng. Prof. Fees 8% construction 52,800 Contractor Bond I % construction 6,600 Bldg. PermitslTap Fees $2,00011,000 sq. ft. leasable 17,600 Const. Insurance 7,500 Project Mgt. 5% construction 33,000 Misc. Fees/Other 2% construction 13,200 Const. Loan Points 1.5. pts. @ $815,700 12,200 Const. Interest 10% @ I year draw @ $815,700 40,800 Rental Lease Up 2 months rents 58,700 Rental Leasing Fees 15% 1st yr. rents 52.800 980,200 3. Parking Mitigation Cost 18 spaces @ $22,370 sp. 402,700 Parking Reduction By SJV 143 (0 110 spaces = 13% reduction - 52.400 350,300 4. Emp. Housing Mitigation Cost 15 studio units - cost 7,500 sq. ft. @ 100 sq. ft. cost 750,000 15 parking spaces ~ cost IS spaces @ $22,370 sp. 335.600 1,085,600 IS studio nnits w revenue IS studios @ $59,000 Cat. #2 sales - 885.000 200,600 5. Project Contingency 10% 153,100 Developer's Profit 25% totai cost 421.100 574,200 6. Total Development Cost $2.105.300 Total Development Cost Gross Sq. Ft. $ 191 sq. ,ft. 1"""'\ ,~ TABLE 8 , , ...AP ~ . .' SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EMPLOYEE AND PARKING MITIGATION FOR NC UPZONING 9120/93 Unzoninf! Is 11.000 Sa. Ft. FAR Of NC Commercial Uses --.-"..;.... .. . ....._....:-..c.~ft. .~ ~LE!l SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS . ECONOMIC VALUE OF 11.000 SO. FT. FAR NC UPZONING Upzoning is 11,000. Sq. Ft. FAR Of NC Commercial Uses Upzoning Retail ReI\ts At $25 Sa. Ft. Avl!. - Most Probable Estimate Economic Value of Uozonina Capitalized Value 8,800 sq. ft. leasable Development Cost 11,000 sq. ft. gross A. @ $256 sq. ft. @ $219 sq. ft. B. Caoitalized Value Retail Rents-Most Probable $25 sq. ft. avg. @ 8,800 sq. ft. net leasable Vacancies 3% Opt Expenses <:4pitaJizatio!l Rate Value Per Net Leasable Sq. Ft. Co DeveloomentCost 8,800 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable 11,000 Sq. Ft. Gross Construction 1. Land Cost 2. Building Cost Approvals . Hard Construction Arch.lEng. Prof. Fees Contractor Bond Bldg. Permitsffap Fees Const. Insurance Project Mgt. Misc. Fees/Other Const. Loan Points Const. Interest Rental Lease Up Rental Leasing Fees 3. Parking Mitigation Cost Parking Reduction By SN 4. Emp. Housing Mitigation Cost 10 studio units . cost 10 parking spaces - cost 5% 9% $60 sq. ft.@ 11,000 sq. ft. gross 8% construction I % construction $2,000/1,000 sq. ft. leasable 5% construction 2% construction 1.5 pts. @ $815,700 10% @ I year draw @ $815,700 2 months rents 15% 1st yr. rents 35 spaces @ $22,370 sp. 143 to 110 spaces = 13% reduction 5,000 sq. ft.@ 100 sq. ft. cost 10 spaces @ $22,370 sp. 10 studio units - revenue 10 studios @ $59,000 Cat. #2 sales 5. Project Contingency 10% Developer's Profit 25% total cost 6. Total Development Cost Total Development Cost Gross Sq. Ft. !"""'\ 9120/93 = $ 2,252,600 = . 2.410.800 $(- 158,200 ) $ 220,000 6.600 213,400 10.670 202,730 .09 $ 2.252.600 $ 256 Sq. Ft. $ 0 25,000 660,000 52,800 6,600 17,600 7,500 33,000 13,200 12,200 40,800 36,700 33.000 938,400 782,950 - 101.780 681,200 500,000 223.700 723,700 - 590.000 133,700 175,330 482.160 657,490 $2.410.800 $ 219 sq. ft. .. .'.--- r'\ ~, MEMORANDUM '+ ~ TO: Aspen City Council Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Jim Curtis, Kraut Consulting Team DATE: November I, 1993 RE: Kraut Project Parking Garage Decisions Introduction The Kraut Property Subdivision Application was submitted to the Planning Office October 12, 1993. The application is scheduled before P & Z on November 16 and 1st reading before City CoUI1cilon December 13. At the December 13 meeting, the Consulting Team needs the following decisions from Council. . . 1. Does Council wish to maintain the tentative July I, 1994 groundbreaking date? 2. What size parking garage will be constructed and how will it be funded? 3. The Consulting Team also wishes to raise Ji secondary question which can be decided later, but one which we wish to identifY for your deliberation. Does Council wish to construct the Kraut Project in phases to accommodate a temporary City Market? This decision will be necessary around mid-February, 1994 in order to establish the construction bidding and phasing for the project. Julv 1. 1994 Groundbreaking To maintain this groundbreaking date, the Consulting Team is scheduled to start construction drawings and specifications January I, 1994. To start construction drawings, we need to know the size of the parking garage at the December 13 Council meeting. Size of Parking: Garage The attached September 9, 1993 memo outlines the parking garage issues. Council and staff should review this information to establish the size of the garage. The Consulting Team is available to provide any additional information to assist Council in its decisions. Thank you. r-.. r-, it,! MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council TIlRU: Leslie Lamont, Tom Baker, Randy Ready, Planning Office Housing Office Transportation Office FROM: Jim Curtis, Kraut Consulting Team DATE: September 9, 1993 RE: Kraut Affordable Housing Conceptual Development Issues And Council Decisions Introduction The Consulting Team of Jim Curtis, Afford~ble Housing Deve. Corp. and Harry Teague Architects have been selected to act as project managers for the Kraut Property. The Consultants are scheduled to submit the Subdivision Application October II and are targeting construction groundbreaking for July 1, 1994. When the Council last reviewed the Kraut Project in April, ,it decided to proceed with an 100% affordable housing project consisting of 27 studio and I-bedroom units and generally preferred ownership to rental units but, was open to reconsider this item. The biggest unresolved issue was parking, i.e. how much and how to pay for any extra parking. The Consultants would like Council's input on the following points to prepare the Subdivision Application. A. How Much Parking B. Parking Partnership With George Vicenzi C. Ownership vs. Rental Units D. Development Schedule To update all parties, the Kraut property was purchased in 1991 using HousinglDay Care funds. The property is the vacant lot south of the Aspen Athletic Club and currently parks approximately 50 cars. The property is 15,000 sq. ft. and zoned AH (Affordable Housing). The conceptual plan is a total of 27 units with 13 studios and 14 I-bedroom units with underground parking. Additional parking beyond the r.equirement of the 27 residential units can be provided either in a 1 or 2 level ~ ~ 1f ~ underground garage. Any additional parking would be leased under year leases or sold to the public, and not operated for short-term municipal parking like the Rio Grande garage to minimize the operational cost of the garage. The garage would have a gated entrance operated by an electronic card, and not a manned booth. A. How Much Parkinl: The three questions are: 1. How much parking should be built? 2. How will the City pay for any extra parking? 3. What is the timing of the City funding for any extra parking? The table below illustrates the various parking options and their estimated cost. The estimated cost is . the total development cost including design, project mtg., construction and financing. The starting point is Option A which is parking for 27 cars only for the 27 residential units at I space per bedroom. This is the cheapest option and will be paid for by HousinglDay 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 ()therfunding sources. Incremenad Incremental Incremental Total Inc. Above Cost Cost Above Total Parking 27 Cars Per Car 27 Cars Costs Option A - 1st level 27 $ 16,500 $ $ 445,500 Option B - 1st level 42 15 21,344 320,160 765,660 Option C - 1st level 56 29 17,575 509,675 955,175 Option D - 1st level 76 49 19,398 950,502 1,396,002 Option B-2 - 2nd level 84 57 23,563 1,343,091 1,788,591 Option C-2 - 2nd level 107 80 21,816 1,745,280 2,190,780 Option D-2 - 2nd level 146 119 21,849 2,600,03 I 3,045,531 Option A 27 cars total, I st level. Parking for 27 residential units only at I space per bedroom. Option B 42 cars total, 1st level. This was the parking plan of the prior feasibility study and is totally within the property. Parking dimensions result in a single loaded parking aisle which IS an inefficient layout and therefore a higher cost per car. 2 ~ r- I; Option C 56 cars total, 1st level. This is the most efficient parking layout with all parking aisles double loaded. The parking extends off the property and 9 feet under East Hyman Avenue to make all parking aisles double loaded. No utilities in East Hyman Avenue would be impacted. Existing 15 cars of on-street parking removed during construction, but street traffic would nofneed to be closed during collStruction. The Streets and Engineering Departments conceptually have no problems with extending the parking under the street. Option D 76 cars total, 1st level. Parking under George Vicenzi A-Frame property and East Hyman Avenue similar to Option C.The cost per car is more expensive than Option C because of additional costs to build the garage under the A-Frame property without having a specific building design for the property above. Existing 19 cars of on-street parking removed during construction, but street traffic would not need to be closed during Construction. Option B-2 3'4 cars total, 2nd level under Option B. 101 cars total, 2nd level under Option C. Option C-2 . Option D-2 146 cars total, 2nd level under Option D. Consultants' Recommendations The Consultants would like Council to make a decision on this issue now, but that may not be possible given Council's discussions on the Superblock, its evolving position on an in-town parking policy, and its ability to fund any extra parking without a municipal vote. The Consultants are not prepared to recommend a specific parking option. This is a public policy issue based on, the overall transportation, parking and financial objectives of the City. The Consultants have requested City staff prepare a recommendation for Council's review, which is included herein. The Consultants do offer the following comments: I. To give Council the greatest flexibility possible, it is suggested the Subdivision Application show the greatest amount of parking possible under Option D-2 with 146 soaces. The application would emphasize that the amount of parking above the 27 car residential requirement is optional at the discretion of Council, and 3 I"""'- ~ , , 'I , Council is not committing to build any more than. 27 spaces at this time. However, a final decision on the parking will be necessary by December 13 to. start engineering design work for the construction drawings which are scheduled to start January 10 to meet the July 1 groundbrcaking. By December 13. the Consultants need to know exactly what parking is to be built and how it will be funded. 2. It would greatly assist the Consultants if Council could suggest a "most probable" parking option given the information presented tonight so that the Consultants can use this, option for project architectural refinement and cost estimating after the October 11 submission date and before Council makes it fmal parking decision. Staff has recommended Option C. 56 cars at I Level as being the "most probable" until the Superblock decision is made. 3. Council may feel the maximum 146 spaces of "flexibility " is sending the wrong political message and. that it will be publically locked into building the 146 spaces, Council may also feel comfortable making the parking decision now and simply resolving the issue. ' 4. . The 2nd level spaces are more costly than the 1st level spaces by $21,816 vs. $17,575 per car estimate respectively. The 2nd level spaces are approximately the same cost as the 3 level Superblock pm:lting at $21,816 vs. $22,400 per car estimate respectively. 5. Based On the prior pro formas, the additional 1st level spaces were projected to be leased or sold at a profit to help subsidize the project due to their cheaper cost. Additional 1st level spaces were projected to be leased at $190/month or sold for $22,000. For example, under Option C, the nl\)st efficient 1st level layout, the 29 additional cars are projected to generate a profit of $128,325 to help subsidize the project based on a sale price of $22,000/space and a construction cost of$17,575/space. The 2nd level space: were projected to be leased or sold at a loss due to their higher cost and v 'Juld require a public subsidy. 6. If Council is interested in pursuing any additional parking, especiaIIy the 2nd level of parking, one option is for the City to prepare and advise a Request For Proposals(RFP) to see if any private investors would submit bids to pay for, own and operate the additional parking at no public cost to the City. 7. Under the leased or sold arrangement any additional parking is not available for open municipal use. The same expenditure could go towards open 4 . ,1""'\ r4 I, , municipal. parking, Le. Superblock or other transportation uses. This same argument can be made for the extra parking on theIst level, but the difference is simply maximizing the efficiency of the 1st leyel parking layout with double loaded parking aisles. 8. Open municipal use of the parking vs, the leased or sold arrangement is not recommended because any high turnover use of the garage will negatively impact the liveability of the units and is not operationally practical given the small size of the garage. Staffs' Recommendations 1. Staff feels the parking decision on Kraut can not be made until the Superblock decision is made. If the Superblock does not proceed, Staff would recommend the flexibility to ,lxmstruct the 2nd level of. parking under Kraut. If the Superblock-'Q~ proceed, staff would support Option C for Kraut, 56 cars at I. level, for the following reasons: A. The additional 29 cars under Option C are projected to make a profit of up to $128,325 and canhelp subsidize the project. - - B. The additional 29 cars will help replace some of the 50 cars presently parking on the property. Loss of this parking has been expressed as a concern by the neighborhood. Also, the present parking leaseholders could be given a priority to lease or buy spaces in the garage. 2. Staff supports submitting the October II Subdivision Application at 146 cars at 2 levels to give Council the greatest flexibility possible. ' 3. Staff supports Option C, 56 cars at I level, for the architectural refmement and cost estimating for the project prior to a. final decision by Council by December 13. B. Parkin!! Partnership With Geor!!e Vicenzi George Vicenzi owns the adjoining A-Frame and Hanna-Dustin property. Based on the prior request by Council, the Consultants met with George on 8/12 to discuss a parking partnership using the A-Frame property. The A-Frame property can accommodate 20 additional cars on the 1st level and 19 additional cars on the 2nd level for a total of 39 additional cars. 5 ~ ~.+ , ~: , ',', '. George is interested in a partnership if some zoning issues can be resolved for his property. The property is zoned Office (0) which has the ability to increase its FAR from .75:1 to 1:1 if60% of the additional floor area is.used for affordable housing and has a 25 foot building height limitation. George would like to accomplish the following: 1. Increase his FAR beyond 1:1 based on taking the underground space he could build under his current Office zoning. and transferring that to above ground space. George's position is that by agreeing to a cooperative parking partnership he is precluded from building any underground office space, which he can do under his present Office zoning. 2. Increase his building height up to 30 feet to build a 3 story building. The current 25 foot building height limitation practically restricts him to a 2 story building. 3, Provide the full employee and parking mitigation requirements of the Code on- site in a new 3 story building with underground parking. Unless George can accomplish the above, it doesn't make economic sense for him to consider a .partnership. These issues have been discussed with staff and can be addressed as follows if Council wishes. - 1. The only way the FAR can be increased beyond the 1:1 is to upzone his property to C-1 at 1.5:1 FAR or CC at 2:1 FAR. 2. The building height issue is resolved by the rezoning, i.e. both the C-I and CC zones have 40 foot maximum building heights. The partnership arrangement that was discussed was that the City would pay for and build the parking up-front at its cost. George would give the underground building rights to the City at no cost and he would receive an "option" to buy from the City up to 20 spaces on the 1st level at the City's total cost to create the spaces plus an inflation or price appreciation index. The City would have the right to lease the spaces until George exercised his option. George was only interested in up to 20 spaces on the 1st level and had no interest in any 2nd level spaces; however, he would give the City the underground rights to build and lease any 2nd level spaces at no cost. George did not feel he could pay for the parking up-front but would have to pay for it at the time he decided to build a building and pay for the parking out of the financing of the building. The earliest George would proceed is a GMQS application in September, 1994 and construction in the Spring of 1995. He stressed this is his 6 r". ~ 'j- 'ehrliest schedule and he could choose to delay any building beyond this schedule. If the garage is constructed and ready for use in the Fall/Winter 1993 and George's building is constructed and ready for occupancy in the Fall/Winter 1995, the City would have the 20 spaces for two years. George noted that the 20 spaces would be greater than the estimated Code requirement for his building, i.e. up to 15 spaces and that the . other spaces would be available for his tenants in his Hanna-Dustin building. These tenants are presently parking on the streets so there would be a benefit to the City. Consultants' Recommendations 1. The Consultants feel the value of the partnership to the City, as discussed, is based on the.City's decision to build I or 2 levelS of parking. With 2 levels of parking, the partnership is beneficial because the City would receive permanent control of the 19 spaces on the 2nd level at no land cost. With 1 level of parking, the partnership is not beneficial because the City assumes the responsibility and headaches to build and finance the 20.spaces on the 1st level and only use the spaces for municipal purposes for a limited time, maybe only 2 years. George would receive an upzoning and his garage spaces and the foundation for his building already built at minimal responsibility to him. The next step is forC,ouncil to decide its overall parking objective and determine if it wishes to proceed with any additional discussions with George. Staffs' Recommendations - - 1. Staff agrees the partnership with George only makes sense if the Council wishes to build 2 levels of parking. Again, Staff feels this decision is linked to the Superblock. 2. Staff emphasizes the only manner to accomplish George's objectives is to upzone the property to C-I or CC. Any upzoning will need to justify why an upzoning, i.e. rezoning, is appropriate giyen the criteria of the Code and the Community Plan. C. Ownership Versus Rental Housinl! Council may feel it is premature to finalize this decision at this time until it reviews the Superblock housing proposal and makes its parking decision. Council has previously stated a preference for ownership units and the Housing Board and Consultants have also stated a preference for ownership units. 7 ,I""'"', f""l , . .,..... , -~ Council should also be aware there are important implications with a rental project as follows: 1. If the project is a rental project, the subsidy for the project will Lflcrease. Based on the prior pro formas, the subsidy for the project excluding the $1,100,000 land cost are given below: From Prior Pro Formas 27 Units & I Level Parkin!! at 42 Cars Development Subsidy a. b. c. 27 Rental Units 27 Rental Units with lilY. Tax Credits 27 Sales Units $ 1,522,000 671,000 547,000 2. The value of the Low-Income Housing Investment Tax Credits have been reduced by approximately 20% by the recent Federal TaxBHl Act.. Therefore, the subsidy of $671,000 for the Tax Credits Option b. above would increase approximately 20% to a $805,200 subsidy. 3. The Low-Income Housing Investment Tax Credits regulations have a lower . maximum household income restriction than the applicable household incomes permitted under the 1993 AspenlPitkin County Housing Guidelines. Using Tax Credits for the project, the maximum household income restrictions would be: a. b. 1 person household 2 person household $25,680 max. household income $29,400 max. household income The prior pro forma assumed the Tax Credit Option b. as a Category #2 rental project allowing up to a $35,000 maximum household income per the 1993 Guidelines. Using Tax Credits would lower the maximum household incomes permitted; thereby, reducing the number of people who could qualify who would have otherwise qualified under the $35,000 maximum household income of Category #2 of the Guidelines. Consultants' Recommendations 1. Design the project and units as if it were a "For Sale" ownership project at a slightly higher quality level. Council can then wait on the ownership or rental decision based on their evaluation of the Superblock housing. However, during 8 r"\ ~ it" " 11 the subdivision approval process the neighborhood may request a decision as part of the project approval and has stated a preference for ownership units. The project is tentatively scheduled before Council December 27 for its ftrst subdivision hearing. 2. Confirm the restrictions and applicability of Investment Tax Credits and investigated other options for ftnancing a rental project if Council wishes to consider a rental project. . 3. Prepare updated ownership and rental pro fonnas prior to Council's December 27 subdivision hearing. Staff's Recommendations 1. Staff agrees with the Consultants' reconunendations. D. DeveloDment Schedule The preliminary development schedule is given in Attachment A. Key targeted dates are the following: : Groundbreaking - July I, 1994 Completion of 1st Level Garage - Dec. I, 1994 - Assume 76 spaces Building Occupancy - Aug. 1995 If a 2nd level garage is constructed add 2 months to the construction schedule assuming 70 spaces. Consultants' Recommendations I. Proceed with the development schedule as presented. Staffs' Recommendations 1. Proceed with the development schedule as presented understanding City Market has requested to use the Kraut Property on a interim basis as part of the Superblock proposal. 9 f'l ~ ~ ~,,~ " Jj r:ol 5 Cl r:ol := u r:F.J 1-< Z r:ol ~ p.. o :>;....:l ~~ ~~ ~E- -~ ....:l~ ~~ ~ t=: u ~ 0 ....:l t=: g;J u ~~.~ E- r:F.J ~ 8 o u o ~1-< o~ sp.. a:l Zr:F.J O....:l -<t; en> >0 -0:: Qp.. ~~ en ,i-\ ~oo~,~.....oo ~('f"aM,~__N\O .-...4..... o 0.0.0.0 !a....~.~~c:: o.s:;~~~::E<'::E::E::E~ p.. p..v~ '"" 0 ~ g '" p.. '-'~ ~"Cl~"" ~ ,:x; ~ ~ ._,:x; ~ o "tl ",c::a:l"tl.l:l~ 0, ,'~.1:: B ,~"O.~ Ba:= ~,:x;eop.. .Ueou:E ~ ..0 ..2 ~ 0'"O-..c ~ 0 v = v,:x; v._ = V v~ il.!!lenrn vci::a:lrnrn1;j-"i !a t: . '!a ' . . .'.;:l . &~~~&~~~~~~ ....;::OO...OOOOZVO p.........uup...uuuu u ,.....r:---O......N NN c:!a !a !a ~ .s:;~~~~ '" o v '" P. tI] Om t) U) '(n . OJ P. c:: .... P''''dP. {/)"'Ui- QJ ..... ~ P."tl .~' - ~ oh.!!l _.. Ct Q) '"0 cd c.. . '-'00;:::: > bll>- 0 ~:Ee sa _.o-+oIIc.. .o.c: "'.- '" ~",ee- " '-U)..o d c:: ...._ c:: ....., .:- d -"- en~_rn~ .....-l \Ot"t--.::tV. ...... ....... C'""lC"'l- ......,.......>OOc..D OOZOQ~~ c:: U 0 :.= 00 :.a P. bOont:: ~ 0.. bO t:: t::.- U <t; u t::.- .+= Q) ,. ~,o.tj ~ ~ Q.) ;> .::: rt ~ 8 8 8 OJ ]_"'8...."0:> _""O+->~CI).&:8 .... CI) c:: ........ ('l en"'_N I 18: .......~ I l:::=~ ('j .- t: N N U U 8 c:c:- .D~OdOd",,,,,,, '" OJ 0 0 .s enO::p..p..UU~ ~ . ......--,.......... oobll -.0 v = ~OO<t; ci. '" - \Obll t--c: 1'_ gf~~ ~ El <l:l . ~ ~ cilO ..0- "0 . ]~:cU s:: ~~ I..Icn.....- O_rna:l -^ on on 0\ 0"1 iffr rn en ijObO = = <t;<t; ~ .- o ':; "tl v -5 <Il ui ~ "tl c:: ~ .c: .... -.:T "tl ~ "tl c: N >. o ~~ .S g. <Il 0 .!au UO cilcil "tl"Cl aiai C o .- ~ '" - = ....- 000 o u 3 .Bc:0 <Il.gU .c:...."tl g g ;J e~..s NOC "tlu~ "Cli3:4-< = C'j 0 .:::~ 'S CZ) ~ ..0 ,>-. c-: ~.o-o . '" ~....: (U '" '" '" oVE- t--V-o "-"'"5l.... V"OM bO v _'" "'.c:"O ... U .... '" '" '" bO "d) a U') > '.c t) VUe; - 2 E "0 .... t:: "'N N c:: .. "-' UO Od U'J""'"'"' 0... i-1.l f- o Z'-:NM <Il 'is v e . < 1 : '~~l::.~,~~ t '..,..." .~: J -, \ i \ , ~ . ~ 'r'i LAND USE REGULATIONS ~ 5-215 DUPLEX Lot Size (Square Feet) 0-3,000 3,000-6,000 Allowable (Square Feet) 90 square feet of floor area for each 100 square feet in lor area, ~p to a JI'l,,'rimum of 2,'100 sqwire feet of floor area 2,'100 square feet of floor area, plus 30 square feet of floor areafor each additional 100 square feet in lot ~ ~p to a ",,,'rimum of3,OOO'square feet of floor area; 3,600 square feet of floor area, plus 16 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a "''''rimum of 4,080 square feet of floor area. 4,080 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in IQt area, ~p to a . ",,,'ri"'um of 4,440 square feet of floor area 4,440 ~ feet of floor ~'pl1is 6 square feet ofltoor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a ",,,'rimum of 6,190 square feet of floor area . 6,190 squ8re feet of floor area, plus 8 square feet 'Of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in 101; area. 6,000-9,000 9,000-15,000 15,~,oOO 50,000+ . All other uses: 1:1. 11. Internal floor area ratio: Multi.family: No requirement Lodge, rental space: Me.ximum of 0.5:1, v&ich can be increased to 0.'15:1 internal F.A.R. of lodge rental space provided 33W~ of the additional floor area is ap. proved for residential use restricted ~ affordable housing for employees of the lodge. Lodge: Non-umt space: M;n;mum of 0.25:1 E. Off-street parking requirement. The following off-street parking spaces shall be pro- vided for each use in the Lodgell'ourist Residential (UTR) zone district, subject to the JlI'O"i. sions of Article 5, Division 3. - 1. Lodge use: 0.7 spacelbedroom, of which 0.2 spacelbedroom may be proVided via a payment in lieu pursuant to Article 7 ,Division 4. 2. Residential use: 1 spacelbedroom 3. All other uses: 4 spacesll,ooo square feet of net leasable area, which may be provided via a payment in lieu pursuant to Article 7, Division.4. (Ord. No. 47-1988, lili 2, 5,17; Ord. No. 7-1989, li 1) '~-;";,T.s.t Sec. 6-215. Commercial Lodge (CL). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial Lodge (CL) zone district is to provide for the establishment of mixed use commercial development and lodge units by permitting commer- cial uses at street level but requiring that all additional stories be lodge accommodations. Supp. No.1 1652.3 " , '. L~ .~ !)-215 ; , r~ ASPEN CODE ~ , ....:---.. B. Permitted uses. The following uses an'; permitted as of right in the Commercial Lodge (CL) zone district. 1. . All street level uses allowed as permitted uses in.the Commercial Core (00) zone district, Section 5.209, with lodge aooommodations on second and other sto..;es; 2, Lodgel\ on all but fU'St floor of all buildings; and 3. A~ buUdings and uses.. C. Conditionalll$es. The following WIe8 are permitted as conditional WIe8 in the Com. mercial Lodge (CL) Zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Article '1, Division 3. -' . 1. Timesharing; and 2. Satellite dish antennae. D. Dimensional requirements. 'l'hetollowing ...;.......$ional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial Lodge (CL) zo~e district. 1. Minimum lot size (squatll feet): 6;000 2. Minimumlot area pet' dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement 3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requireDient 4. Minimum front yard (feet): No requirement 5. Minimum sidfl yard (feet): No requirement:"- 6, Minimum rear yard (feet): No requirement except tr8sb1utility service area shall be requ.ired abutting alley. The dimensional requirement of the trashlutility serv;ice area shall be as follOWll1U1less l'e!1uced pursuant to Article '1, Division 4: For up to 6,000 square feet of net leasable floor area within a building: /u1 area a minimum of 20 feet in length, measured parallel to the alley, with a ...inimwn verticsl clearance of 10 feet and a ...;n;mum depth of 10 feet at ground level. For each additional 1,200 square feet of net leasable floor area within a building, the minimum length measured parallel to the alley shall be increased by one (1) foot. 7. Maximum height (feet): 28 (32 by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 41 8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet): No requiret:i'nt 9. Percent of open space required for building site: 25 10. External floor area ratio: 2:1 11. Internal floor area ratio: No requirement E. Off-street parking requirement The following off.street parking spaces shall be pro- vided for each U'>B in the Commercial Lodge (eLl zone district. subject to the provisio::..;; of Article 5, Divisi"" ,3. Supp. No.1 1652.4 . '. ,~ t""'\ t'<- "...., , . ....', . ..' LAND USE REGULATIONS !i 5.209 1, Minimum lot size (acres): 2 2, Minimumlot area per dwe1lliigunit (acres): 2 8. Minimum lot width (feet): 200 4. Minimum front yard (feet): ~O 5. Minimum side yerd.(feet): 20 . 6. . Vl..t.....,.u:e..r yarcl (feet): 20 1. )f...n"'UDl height(feet): 28 " 8. Vi.."""", dWtI_ bdC." ~l!Il PrmdPa1 aa ell C 1881117 \mildi,,&!, (feet): No reqah-ement 9. ~of open space l'tortuh..aror builili"g ~ No 1CCi.~.....eut '10. JMwuf~erearatio:Nci-n iih~' -, . . !Ill. _ .. . IL .lnterJIa1 floor area t'atio: No requiret.lent E. .0000-parIcfng ~ "!'he foUowiac ~ t-1hc IIpIICeI aba1l be po- . . ~ for eaeh 1I8e In the 1lura1 _~.1 CRB) _ &trict. ~ to the ,pnmsioas of . Atticle 5.Division8. . L An~~~111se&:I~ 2. Lodge 1IIIeS: NlA 8. ABotberaaes: Rc4uh.... ~tl review"""""::'" to ArW:1e 1.Dmsion4. (Ord. No. 41.1988. S 2) . See. 6-209. Commercial Core (CO). A. Purpou. '!'he purpose of the Commercial Core (00) _ district is to aUoirthe use of land for retail ad service eommerdal;reoreation ana il'Atituti....tJ1Jt...}>OBeS with ~d-......." '. . lI~cess~ry usest,o-""~ the business ana senice cbaraeter,in the centn1 bn.n-ess Core oftbe city. Hotel and principallong-term residential uses may be eppJ'Opllate as conditional uses. while residential uses are permitted or may be appIoprlate 8.lI ~ona1.uses. . B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted 8.lI of right in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. , ! 1. Medical and dental clinic; 2. Professional and business office; \, , t ,. l' 3. Open use recreation site; 4. Recreation club; 5. Theater; 6. Assembly hall; t f ~ 7. Church; I Supp. No.1 ( 1637 ~ '- :1 I '1 '~"'-' , '. " ,~ n '. ~ 5.209 ASPEN CODE '. .. , , " 8. Public building for administration; 9. Restaurant, cabaret and night club,teal'OOI11; .10. Retail commercial eStablishment luinted to the following and "i";iI~.. uses: Antique store, appliance store, art supply store, art gallery, bakery, ~~re, camera shop, candy, tobacco or cigarette store, clothes store, computer sales store, florist shop, food. market, furniture store, gift shop, hard'Wanl store, hobby shop, jewehy shop, job printing shop. key shop, liquor store.1Il1IIIic &tore, office supply store, ~t shop, paint and wallpaper store, photography shop, reccri store,ahoe store, sportiDggoods store, . stationay store, vari~ store, video ea1es andlelltal store: . . .IL Servke (lflft'Im_ciai-establl..h_l....~ to thefoUowiDg and ftimil.... uses: Cater. ing service. fmancia1 institution.. pel'lIOII81 service including barber and beauty shop, ~m sewing, dry cl-";"g pickup ~ laundromat, ski repair and re.ntal. sh~ iDd.ustry. tailoring and 8boe i-etsm sbop.parldug.Iot-or-par1dDg .~_. c--~ studio for iDsttuction in the arts, radio or television brQal!J~di'lg r8ciIity; . 12. R~tAl, Tep8itand who1......,~gf'AeUlfWtineu.4I".-clion'Witb~OCtbe_.prvvided in Sec:tionM09~.1-11, ~aU81IdI..aetivitcYlacleerly wc:idAn+al and 8IY Q n;q to the ~ USe and conductecl within a buildiug; 13. Stm8ge or materials aoms'M3" to 8JQ' of the _provided in ~O" 6-209.B.L through u.. provided all sw;h storagela 1oeetec1 within a etzucture; 14. Residential dwelling units which are ~ above stl'eet level commercia1_ in historic leMmA"1cs, provided that the ft8i<t'.l1ltialdweUing unit is restricted to six. month minimum leases; 15. Acee$sory residential dwellings restric:tea to aft'ordable housing guidelines; 16. Detached residential dwellingsd....;gT'A~ as historic ~dm8l'ks; 17. Newspaper publi..lii..g office; ,r or [ ii:' 18. Home.occupations; and. 19. A~ry ~uildings and ~ C. Conditional uses. the following uses are permitted as conditioual uses i~ the Commer- cial Core (CCl rone 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 01" hall; ice or 1"ol1e1" skstingrink; 2. Gasoline service station; ,~\' i ~ ~: i t r t 3. Howl; 4. Newspaper and magazine printing; 5. Day care center; Supp, No.1 1638 r..... '.. ("""I 1""'\ , . ,.~ ,p._ J , , LAND USE IlEGULATIONS !ll?-209 '. 6. Timesharing; 7. Satellite dish antennae; .' . .',. . . 8. Residential dwelling units which ~ located above street level comniercia1 uses in buildillgs which are not historic landmarks, provided that the residential dwelling unit is'nstric:tecl to six-monthmmimum leases as provided in Section 6.608(A); . . '.9. Residential ~ units whk:Jl are located above street leve1comniercia1- in historic1anc1marks and which ere DOt restricted to six-month mi"b..um leases; and 10. For p.opeaties.which ClOJlttIi" a lUatoric ,.-...r1i:; lieCf miCf~irr~ twO detached resid~.l dwe1liDgB or a duplex on a lot with a minimum area 0(6,000 square feet; 11. 'Resehea; and '- - . 12. ki:eBBDI7dwe1liDg units ---'gtbe~ of Section 6-610.'" . " D. D~~ 'lhef~.1i~"""";9~requiremeIltallballapp1)'toa1l _~llIldcoG<iiH",;,.,_ iIltbeC'mL....:,.Ja1 eare(OC)zone c1istrict. . L 'Mi..iml'lDllot size (square feet): a.ooo 2. Mbnm.....1otarea per a1l'e1UJlianit (squarefeeQ: . Mu1ti-t'.a1Dily: One bec1roOm ~ 1.000 square feet of lot area . . . 3. )A'mimum lot width (feet): No requirement 4. MiDiinum ftcmtyard (feet): No 1~-.ent 5, Minimum side yard (feet): No requirement 6. . )A'i"bftuJn 1'll81' yard (feet): No I....uhement except trasbIutility service area sba1l be requiJed abutting alley. The dimeusiODal requirement for the utilityltrasb. service area sball be as follows, unless reduced pursuant to Article 7. Division 4: For up to 6,000 square feet ofnet leasable floor area within,a building: an area a minimum of 20 feet in length, measured parallel to the alley, with a minimum vertical clearance of 10 feet and a minimum depth of 10 feet at ground level. For each additional 1,200 square feet of net leasable floor area within a building, the minimum length measured parallel to the alley shall be increased by 1 foot. 7. Maxim~m 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. Perce.nt of open space required for building site: 25, may be reduced by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. Supp. No.1 1639 ~ 5.211 ("", ASPEN CODE .~ , .,' :.--'J. i "'-.i" For artist's studios with accessory .residential dwelling units and for other e,cces. sory dwelling units on lots more than 9,OOO'square feet, the following square feet requirements apply: Studio: 1,000 '1 bedroom; 1,250 2 bedroom: 2,100 3 bedroom: 3,630 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One {l} bedroom plus 1,000 square feet of lot aieli. 3, Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement . . . . 4, Minimum front yard (feet): 20 from right-of.way lines of arterial streets (Mill & Spring), 10 from all other streets. 5. Minimum side yard (feet): No requirement 6. Minimum rear yard (feet): No requirement' . .' 7. Maximum height{feet): 32 8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet): No requirement 9. Percent of open apace 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_ in the ServicelCommerciallIndustrial (SOD zone district, subject to the provisions of Article 5, Division 3. . 1. Lodge use: N/A 2. Residential uses: 1 spacelbedroom 3. All other uses: 3 spacesl1,000 square feet of net leasable area. ,...-s::.' 5-212. Neighborhood Commercial (NC). . , 1.. 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 sUIT,?unding neighborhood, to reduce traffic generation. and mitigate traffic circulation and parking problems. and to serve the daily or frequent trace or service needs of the neighborhood. . B. Permitted U$es. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Neighborhoc.d Commercial (NC) zone district. 1. Drug store; 2. Food store; Supp. No.1 1646 i~ f'"'\ LAND USE REGULATIONS ~ ~ 5-212 " f- .iL t i.. . ..' 3_ Liquor store; 4. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up statiOl!; 5. Barber shop; 6. Beauty shop; 7. Post office branch; '~ 1. r 2. { 3. 4. 5, 6. 7, 8. 8. Record store; 9. T.V. sales and service shop; 10. Shoe repair shop; 11. Video rental and sale shop; 12. Accessory residential dwellings restrieted to affordabl~ housing guidelines; and 13, Accessory buildings and uses. . C. Conditional uses. The following uses.are permitted as conditional ~ in the Neigh- borhood Commercia}. <NC) zone district, subject.to the standards and ,procedures established in Article 7, Division 3. Service station; Laundromat; Garden shop; Hardware store; - - Paint and wallpaper store; Carpet, flooring and dntpery shop; Business and professional office; Free market dwelling units which are accessory to other permitted uses; 9. . Home occupation; and 10. Satellite dish antennae. . D. Dime/l$ional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses In the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district. 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 3,000 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): For accessory dwelling units on lots between 3,000 and 9,000 square feet, the following square feet requirements apply: Studio: 1,000 1 bedroom; 1,200 2 bedroom: 2,000 Supp.No. 1 1647 '"c .,~ , rr" ~ TO: Aspen City Council Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner MEMORANDUM FROM: Jim Curtis, Superblock Consulting Team DATE: September 24, 1993 RE: Updated Superblock Economic Analysis Based On SJV Proposal Submitted August 5, 1993 This memo is in response to Leslie Lamont's request of 9/17/93 to update my prior Economic Analysis of the Superblock based on the SN Proposal submitted August 5, 1993. This memo addresses the following key questions on the SN Proposal: 1. What is the City's cost for the 2nd Level of parking under the SN Proposal? 2. What are the City's options to pay for the 2nd Level of parking? 3. What is the economic value of the upzoning requested by the SN Proposal? This memo and analysis is in outline form to be used as a working document for a personal presentation to Council and to accomplish the time schedule you requested. The memo is not intended to be a complete cost-benefit analysis of the SN Proposal which was not part of our Consulting Agreement. The memo is a working document to assist Council in evaluating the economics of the proposal on a preliminary basis. SUMMARY COMMENTS 1. The cost of the 2nd Level of parking is estimated at $4,810,000 in 1995 dollars, the estimated earliest construction date of the garage. 2. The Operating Revenues (Most Probable Estimate) of the 2nd Level of parking are estimated to support a parking revenue bond of $1,688,000. 3. The "shortfall" cost of the 2nd Level of parking is estimated at $3,122,000, i.e. $4,810,000 cost vs $1,688,000 bonding capacity. 4. The $3,122,000 shortfall could be covered by the following options: \a) Increased .SN contribution .~ Increased City contribution/subsidy -.4=. tiawFl'8 EQlIl'se-?o )( Ski Corp. contribution ):I( Downtown Commercial Core Special Improvement District Tax )< Increased Upzoning (FAR) to SN .~ State or federal contributions ,,\' ~ ~ ! Reduce the SN employee housine 1""',>!!,~j~-':GMJ · . Increased fue parking revenues and bonding capacity i.' Combinations of all the above. I 6. I I \~.AL /) J(\Ji(jt..f.l '''3 ""0 The economic value of the 11,000 sq. ft. FAR Upzoning of the SN Proposal is estimated at: a. If 11,000 sq. ft. is CL Commercial lJses - $1,067,600 Most Probable Estimate b. If 11,000 sq. ft. is CL Commercial Uses - $1,498,800 Optimistic Estimate a. If 11,000 sq. ft. is NC Commercial Uses - $(-158,200) Most Probable Estimate ,c /S, If the SN increased its contribution by the $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 estimate above, the City's ./ shortfall would be still in the $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 range. -- / -- /' .-, ~ 1""\ TABLE 4 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS UPZONING ANALYSIS 9/20/92 Upzonine: Is 11,000 Sa. Ft. ~lR Of CL Commercial Uses 1. NOTES: ' ~~~ ~~~ The ~ .tIi Analysis below only includes Above Ground square footage pet the Code and does- net iml:Ittde me SJV proposetl:'":26;eee~ftrGity-Market--BetOW'"Omde wh:ich"1s'not"counted';1l,"1:he ~ \v.J...>-\ ~4~J"::> pecU-,. -H...,,j "'^CVJ~u~.~ CI-. C:A'vv-~L!t..<~ \J~, :x The 11,000 sq. ft. FAR upzoning is 11,000 sq. ft of CL Commercial Uses to simplify the economic analysis. 3. The 25,500 sq. ft. FAR of proposed Employee Housing is not included because it has no economic "profit" to the SJV and is an economic "loss" to the SJV. ~ ..;::;. ) (. '";,;0< Staff Rec. ZOning ll8BiB~ tc ~~~(J~~~I~O~G~\J.Eh\~n;;~ ~Wc. 5,000 s . ft. NC Deli - ~~1 . ~ 'Ie.. 'r~ ~:::~~g~",~ ~'"":~~:L~. 3,500 sq. ft. CL"\ ~Jl,8-ee sq. ft. CL Ri 16,588 3-i. fl. Q.l~ \ __?~O sq. ft.. Lod~ ;)~~ '~h,.~o:;;;;,"~;~~;~~L~L Existing Zoning K1lft Buildout City Market 27,000 sq. ft. NC Buckhorn ..) ~ , Bell Mtn ~,";~:,:. .,. c..;:;;... ~;:.:", ~). ,"t' C <\/ -t. ,. (' , ',j':.'- \/ 'Y:, r('~" . ~, \-L:" ""./ I,' / .. C./'" ~ ..,,;'0 "-"., ~ (,~-,-.\:::" ~' y """'."-"'" (-..- .. ,.~... . .,.... '( , \ '.. ""'" '. \..~.. ~v ( ... U '. ,. \ (:: . 0...1 r'. ". ""r" \ t1 \'..\\ uf; \.i \ ...... C' 4-~ <~ . i J I I I I I I I / i / / / I ,. / (" s; a r, v.' \) .","\ '--.-Yr.' "'.,,' / (.., "-.,, c'- ,.~,~=:: 50 ~~ . ~- g- ~~ ~ 5f "'c C,,> ,../ / /0 ! JJ c> ,,,,..>" ,. .cS' "' , , , " -'- r"""I , ~ TABLE 5 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EMPLOYEE AND PARKING MITIGATION FOR CL UPZONING 9/20/93 UDzoninl!: Is 11.000 SQ. Ft. FAR Of CL Commercial Uses A. Gross FAR To Net Leasable Adjustment Gross FAR Sq. Ft. 20% Gross To Net Adj. Net Leasable Sq. Ft. 11,000 sq. ft. . 20% 8,800 sq. ft. J(i!::'"<;;;:t~. I I,f)!:;.> '-' -- } J ~ ) 0(. B. Emplovee Mitigation For Upzoning Comm. Lodge (CL) Net Leasable Emp. Generation Ratio Emp. Generation Emp. Mitigation Ratio Emp. Housed Emp.lStudio Unit Ratio Studio Units Studio Units Min. Size Net Liveable Sq. Ft. Net To Gross Sq. Ft. Adj. Gross Emp. Mitigation Sq. Ft. ~,800 3.5 31 -2Q. 19 1.25 IS 400 ,6,000 1.25 7,500 sq. ft. net leasable emp.ll,OOOsq. ft. net leasable emp. '-( G, ~ % min. threshold emp. .:) f; ':J/- emp.lstudio unit ' studio uiUts Q~ sq. ft. min. unit size' sq. ft. net liveable ~?;f;jO net to gross 25% sq. ft. gross t I O?:-::2J:S- C. Parking Mitigation For Upzoning 1. Comm. Lodge (CL) Net Leasable Parking Ratio Parking Mitigation 2. Employee Parking Mitigation Parking Ratio Parking Mitigation 8,8PA.. sq. ft. net leasable ~aces/I,OOO sq. ft. net leasable 18 spaces Q I ~ IS studio units ----1 spacelbedroom IS spaces :)~ ." . ~, (""\ TABLE 6 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS 1~,500 ECONOMIC VALUE OF""tt:OOo..sO. FT. FAR CL UPZONING L. ~~- l;/;'"'.),-",-' Upzoning I~q. Ft. FAR O( CL Commercial Uses Upzoning Retail Rents At $35 SQ. Ft. Ave:. - Most Probable Estimate A. Economic Value of Uozoning} 3/@c~', Capitalized Value L B,8eQ. sq. ft. leasable Development Cost -+1,000. sq. ft. gross Ie 5c::.,C @ $358 sq. ft. = @ $tE)Q...sq. (t. = 1'80 B. Caoitalized Value Retail Rents-Most Probable Vacancies I.)., .:::KC"'i' $35 sq. ft. avg. @~sq. ft. net leasable 3% Opt Expenses 5% Capitalization Rate 9% Value Per Net Leasable Sq. Ft. C. Develooment Cost ! 3, ~lo"S o,8oe. Sq. Ft. Net Leasable ':"_ I 1';'6@9 Sq. Ft. Gross Construction I. Land Cost 2. Building Cost Approvals Hard Construction Arch.lEng. Prof. Fees Contractor Bond Bldg. PermitslTap Fees Const. Insurance Project Mgt. Misc. Fees/Other Const. Loan Points Const. Interest Rental Lease Up Rental Leasing Fees I (,Oo c:. ,,-,, .)-....)-"\....J $60 sq. ft. @Jt;OOO...sq. ft. gross 8% construction I % construction $2,000/1,000 sq. ft. leasable 5% construction : 2% construction 1.5 pts. @ $815,700 . 10% @ I year draw @ $815,700 , 2 months rents 15% 1st yr. rents 3. Parking Mitigation Cost Parking Reduction By SN QCo ~spaces @ $22,370 sp. 143 to 110 spaces = 13% reduction ~4. Emp. Housing Mitigation COS!\ It QOC) , 8.-~"+S studio units - cost '~ sq. ft. @ 100 s9. ft. cost ~& 45. parking spaces - cost 1-9..spaces @ $22,370 sp. S~ ' - revenueM..studios @ $59,000 Cat. #2 sales ~Q., .P t)~'- 5. Project Contingency , Developer's Profit &. c':'~ studio units 10% 125o/~total cost 6. Total Development Cost Total Development Cost Gross Sq. Ft. '" 9/20/93 $ 3~ 53,600 "r:r 3(;) '3V)(p - ~~oo." Jo. =t- 1\,",^ ~ $ I 667 6ee. . '/ '-'\.JVU , , ll::r G::O;:S (0 (Q $ 3U8;1lOO..: -9;24& 298,'i'W. ',,(:<; ('\ '", () --14 Q40 9 ~ y~ .283,820 "Cjn400 - 0<.) '12 ') f f,J..) + .09 $ 3.15;..600 L-r:,. 30 "3 to +1 $ 358 Sq. Ft. $ o 25,00o----"'? "'668 eoO- C')"'O, V\, , ,/ ,.........." \.) ~o.. ~~t;;,oo ~e. ,. '1'10 (; lr,we- D.G'-/ " 0 7,500--"" '"'13';f)eo.. '-( Cj, :) a 0 ~OO </c; a- 0(..; ~ '12;200--",1 ~ 40,800-'7 ><-51,300.--)10 ),.,.. 46.20Q-::;> ....~6~O'O/3 ~<f, '" j '00 402:'too " 0;<; 1_ r .,_' J v" ~aO .. '52;400 "'1 ""1' (. , . ~,'"'1"'~_"'Q ~/,... '0' ' ) (]'(;:,I..;{ " .) ~ 1)100;')00 -3-}5.,600, "Ii,!:} I t,./.^, . - --\ 1lw- l~(}8-5;@ol')(! <9. I 'In _ 8S"5::BOO ) '. :J '" .,~Q. ...L89'!$~oO ~,.. ' ';"o,,"~!{,.,c '131~-eI57.1. . x.~>":.,S=:~3"i' i~ - . 568,900 <3'09,Q~ /, $ 2.586.000 G ~ 'G,~ 181 $ 'i-9Q. sq. ft. I i / 1"80' ' -- ,< ....,,- ., ~, TABLE 7 ,r-'1 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS ECONOMIC VALUE OF 11.000 SO. FT. FAR CL UPZONING Upzoning is 11,000 Sq. Ft. FAR Of CL Commercial Uses Upzoning Retail Rents At $40 Sa. Ft. Av\!:. - Ootimistic Estimate Economic Value of Uozoning Capitalized Value 8,800 sq. ft. leasable Development Cost 11,000 sq. ft. gross A. B. Caoitalized Value Retail Rents-Ootimistic Vacancies $40 sq. ft. avg. @ 8,800 sq. ft. net leasable 3% Opt Expenses Capitalization Rate Value Per Net Leasable Sq. Ft. C. Develooment Cost 8,800 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable 11,000 Sq. Ft. Gross Construction I. Land Cost 2. Building Cost Approvals Hard Construction Arch./Eng. Prof. Fees Contractor Bond Bldg. Permits/Tap Fees Const. Insurance Project Mgt. Misc. Fees/Other Const. Loan Points Const. Interest Rental Lease Up Rental Leasing Fees 3. Parking Mitigation Cost Parking Reduction By SN . 4. Emp. Housing Mitigation Cost IS studio units .... -<:ost 15 parking spaces - cost @ @ $410 sq. ft. $191 sq. ft. 5% 9% $60 sq. ft. @ 11,000 sq. ft. gross 8% construction 1 % construction $2,000/1,000 sq. ft. leasable 5% constr1.lction 2% . constrUction 1.5 pts. @ $815,700 10% @ 1 year draw @ $815,700 2 months rents 15% 1st yr. rents 18 spaces @ $22,370 sp. 143 to 110 spaces = 13% reduction 7,500 sq. ft. @ 100 sq.ft.cest 15 spaces @ $22,370 sp. 15 studio units - revenue 15 studios @ $59,000 Cat. #2 sales 5. Preject Contingency Developer's Profit 10% 25% total cost 6. Total Development Cost Total Development Cost Gross Sq. Ft. 9/20/93 = $ 3,604,100 5Y I QQOl:. - 2.105.300 ~I":i 'S-/3 $ 1,498,80u 9~4:lcSo = $ 352,000 10.560 341,440 17.070 324,370 .09 $ 3.604,100 $ 410 Sq. Ft. $ o 25,000 660,000 52,800 6,600 17,600 7,500 33,000 13,200 12,200 40,800 58,700 52.800 980,200 402,700 - 52.400 350,300 750,000 335.600 1,085,600 - 885.000 200,600 153,100 421.100 574,200 ~.105.300 $ 191 sq, ft. v" r-, ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager Diane Moore, City Planning Director~ Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner THRU: FROM: DATE: July 19, 1993 Superblock Worksession RE: ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY The purpose of this worksession is to update Council on the status of planning efforts for the Superblock concept. The Bell Mountain Lodge changed hands in early May and the new partnership is still very interested in the Superblock concept. Charles Curmiffe Architects has been retained by the property owners to continue the creation of the superblock concept. Charles has created several conceptual site plans that include all of the various properties and land uses on the block. However, until the Group knows what Council is willing to consider and what the City's goals are, individual property owners are still unsure if they have the ability or desire to proceed. The Superblock Consultant Team of Jim curtis, Jonathon Rose, Harry Teague, and Joede Schoeberlein have not been brought up to date with regard to Cunniffe's designs although the Consultant Team has essentially completed their work. As a result, the Consultant Team is not in a position to comment on the Charles Cunniffe's presentation for this worksession. The Consultant Team will make a brief presentation regarding their findings to wrap up their contract. For the remaining portion of the worksession, Mr. Valerio, a partner in the Bell Mountain Lodge, will review his attached outline that represents threshold issues (from the owners perspective) that the Group would like to introduce to Council. Charles Cunniffe will then present the plans, and Mr. Valerio will return to the outline for a more in-depth discussion of each issue. Staff is prepared to answer any questions regarding the Land Use Code and it's affect on the proposal. Please see Attachment 1. Based on the information presented tonight, Council may wish to: 1. Ask the private property owners to refine their thoughts and return to Council with a specific conceptual development plan and cost sharing proposal. r"\ .r'1 . . 2. Consider a partnership with the private property owners to a more detailed 2nd Phase planning effort which could consist of preparing and processing a conceptual SPA and Rezoning Plan for City review and approval, and refining development costs, financing and cost sharing plans. A GMP application must also be submitted by September 15, 1993. 3. Decide it is not prepared to proceed with the Superblock planning effort at this time until other transportation and transit issues are resolved, and request the private property owners to "hold" the planning effort for 6-8 months. 4. Decide it is not interested or cannot afford the Superblock Concept and underground parking, but would encourage the private property owners proceeding on their own and consider the vacation of Cooper street (or not be willing to vacate Cooper Street). 5. Decide to pursue any number of alternatives in the spectrum between no development to a full pUblic/private partnership with the Group. PROJECT UPDATE The Consulting Team of Jim Curtis, Jonathan Rose and Harry Teague Architects were retained by the city and the private property owners in February to undertake a quick feasibility study of the Superblock Concept. Charles Cunniffe Architects has also assisted the private property owners. The Consulting Team has met with the private owners 3 times and gave Council an interim update in March. SUMMARY OF SUPERBLOCK PROJECT A summary of the Superblock properties are given below and illustrated on the map in Attachment 2. The following information was provided by the Consulting Team of Curtis, Rose and Teague. Size Zonina & FAR Representative city Market Bell Mtn Lodge Buckhorn Lodge Cooper Street 27,000 sq. ft 20,066 " 6,934 II 20.250 sa. ft 74,250 sq. ft NC @ 1:1 LP @ 1:1 CL @ 1:1 N/A John Caldwell Jim Valerio sy & Nora Kelly N/A The Feasibility Study has focused on 4 basic questions for the Superblock using the analogy of a box for simplicity: 1. What is the shape of the box? 2. What and how much goes into the box? 3. How much does the box cost? 4. How is the box paid for? 2 r>,. n 1. What is The Shape of The Box? The .box includes the properties referenced above. The Consulting Team and the private property owners agree the surrounding Kraut property and the A-Frame and Hanna-Dustin Building property are separate from and not integral to the development of the Superblock. This ,conclusion was reached primarily due to the high cost of relocating major utility lines in the alley between the properties. 2. What And How Much Goes Into The Box? The parties generally agree the following uses are appropriate for the Superblock? a. Expanded city Market b. Expanded moderate-priced lodging c. New neighborhood commercial d. Town Square public space e. Transit stop f. Private and public underground parking g. Affordable housing (the private property owners question the on-site location for affordable housing) 3. How Much Does the Box Cost? The Consulting Team working with Shaw Construction company have put together preliminary cost estimates for 2 or 3 levels garages as summarized below and outlined in Attachment 3: Cars preliminary Cost Cost Per Car 3 Levels 642 Cars $10,550,000 $14,370,000 $24,500 $22,400 2 Levels 430 Cars For reference, The Rio Grande Garage has 340 spaces, was open in June, 1990, and cost approximately $7,450,000 or $21,900 per car in 1989 dollars. The Rio Grande Garage is paid by a .25% sales tax and user fees, and the early years deficits were covered by the city's General Fund. The private property owners (the Group) are in the process of identifying the costs for the above grade redevelopment of their properties. At this worksession, they wish to discuss various development options and get Council feedback. 3 r""":, ,1'""'\ 4. How Is The Box Paid For? At this time, the private property owners do not have a specific cost sharing proposal to discuss with Council. However, the Group is concerned because they believe that the potential income from the total redevelopment is less than what is necessary to meet the debt service. Redevelopment of this entire area presents a unique opportunity for both the City and the private property owners. All of the private entities are in the position to consider redevelopment of their property. city Market has long expressed a desire to expand their . facility. Bell Mountain Lodge has just received a Growth Management Allocation for the complete redevelopment and expansion of the lodge. The owners of the Buckhorn Lodge, because of the Superblock discussions, are also considering redevelopment of their property. And the City, with the recent adoption of the Transportation Plan, has the opportunity to move forward with a significant component of the plan - the East End parking structure. In consideration of all the alternatives and trade-offs to both the City and private property owners, this worksession should provide the next steps direction for both the staff and property owners to pursue. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Private Property Owners Outline 2. Map 3. Preliminary Cost Estimates 4 ~ ,~ Items to be discussed during July 19 worksession Iq"l~ Private landowners have reached agreement to be one cooperative group The objective is to present with the Aspen Area Community goals of that plan : Creates .neighborhood service space a superblock concept that complies Plan and accomplishes the following .;;. Off street parking, out of the commercial core Meets Goal s of the Transportation Action Plan, parking is on RAFTA routes Shuttle from garage not needed Meets Goal 14 of the Transportation Plan, pursuit of parking structure in this location Pursues the intent and goals of the Commercial/Action Plan by accomplishing goals numbered 1,2,3,6,8 create acceptable definition of "locally" serving uses GMQS incentives tied to restrictions FAR bonuses Zone the "superblock" N/C and Service/Commercial Vertical zoning Will provide rent controlled, by deed restriction, N/C leasing space so that people can shop in the.community where they live ie we will produce deed restricted commercial space analogoUS to affordable housing Will provide private sector financing for $7,500,000 to $10,000,000 of the $15,000,000 garage ie we will pay for 1.5 to 2 tloors of the garage thereby reducing the city budget restraints under Amendment one and reducing city risk f-1\6'" I 0 f Z-- '" ."" The private sector will incur the following costs by providing their locations during the time to build just the garage : Cost to business's during 12 month garage construction Approximately $2,500,000 lost revenues Buyout of Buckhorn leases Cost to demolish TO produce economic feasibility that will insure the success of the project we will need relief from certain GMQS housing requirements and City Code section 8-104 mitigation requirements as contemplated under the Aspen Area community Plan Growth section Goal number 6 (b) and 16 where redefining GMQS to encourage compatibility with the AACP is recommended and providing incentives for locally serving uses are encouraged. We request that we be allowed a variance to FAR of 40% ie we would like to build 40% above our allowable FAR. DUe to the fact that the majority of City Market will be underground this eXcess FAR will not produce unsightly density. we request that this area be viewed as one project so that we may mOve the spaces within the project to accomplish the above. We propose the mitigation housing requirements be waived in lieu of the fact that we will provide financing for between $7,500,000 to $10,000,000 of the garage. We also propose that the calculated on the basis that the .square footage deed restricted leasable housing we will be subject to build be of the excess FAR that we request and required to build that housing become spaCe instead of housing. Due to the time required to build the garage and rebuild the businesses the City will lose approximately $1,200,000 in sales tax revenue and 75 jobs could be at risk. We WOUld propose that the CITY allow C!ty Market permiss!on to build cost effective temporary space nearby So that in faot approximately $1,000,000 in sales tax revenue can be saved and at least 70 jobS can be preserved. Can we discuss the ~raut property ? r-"', ~1 ATTACHMENT ~ SUPERBLOCK GARAGE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES July 8, 1993 Revised 2 Levels 3 Levels 430 Cars 642 Cars Construction Cost $ 8,513,500 $11,615,500 Parking Spaces 430 642 19,800 /sp 18,100 /sp Approvals, Permits 50.000 50,000 Arch., Eng.. Prof. Fees 5% 425,700 580,800 Contractor Bonding 1% 85,100 116,200 Project Mgmt. Fee 2% 170,300 232,300 Miscellaneous/Other 1% 85,100 116,200 Contingency 5% 425,700 580,800 Construction Inflation 6% 585,300 797,000 (2 yrs @3%/yr=6%) Fin. Underwriting Cost 2% 206.800 281.800 TOTAL COST $10,547,500 $14,371,100 PARKING SPACES 430 642 COST PER SPACE $ 24,530 /sp $ 22,380 /sp .....-.....,..,!" ~ ~, REVIEW DRAFr ONLY MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Jim Curtis Superblock Consulting Team DATE: July 15, 1993 RE: Superblock Update COUNCIL DECISIONS The property owners requested this meeting to share their thoughts with Council on the Superblock Concept and to have some direct communications with Council. As of the date of this memo, July 15, the property owners do not have a specific conceptual development plan or cost sharing proposal they wish to present, but several p(lssibilities they wish to discuss. .~~~d Based on the information presented tonight, Council may wish to; Ask the private property owners to refine their thoughts and retum to Council with a specific conceptual development plan and cost sharing proposal. Q.~'I"\~ Q. fl' . partnership with the private property owners to a more detailed 2nd Phase planning effort consisting of preparing and processing a Conceptual SPA and Rezoning Plan for City review and approval, and refining development costs, financing and cost sharing plans. This activity could cost from $~O,OOO - $100,000 and processing the SPA Plan could take 8 - 12 months. The City's prorata cost could be from $13,000 - $27,000 based on a cost allocation by square footage of land ownership, i.e. City ownership of Cooper Street..,fL.e. ~...:.ul"" t'~apM) 8ynl........;r (.;r~~l~Q ATt li -"-~ '18_ r ..- p~ .fl -.L ... "2r1'9-oPRas.,.,.'~.ttg ---' all'!, I, l."li! t ~ 2. - 3. Decide it is not prepared to proceed with the Superblock planning effort at this time until other transportation and transit issues are resolved, and request the private property owners to "hold" the planning effort for 6 - 8 months. 4. Decide it is not interested or cannot afford the Superblock Concept and underground parking, but would facilitate the private property owners proceeding on their own and be willing to vacate Cooper Street (or not be willing to vacate Cooper Street). ~, " ~o~c~~~/: u,~tV~M:::-\_L_A.4 . ~ , fl. \ 70 C()~-)J)'C~ I __._.._-._.._..~._ ^) '-"- '-~~''''m'~,."''''' L_ ,--.. r / 'D " '\itj'",. ,,~~.. " ' I l ~.,~ J ~. ~. PROJECT UPDATE The Consulting Team of Jim Curtis, Jonathan Rose and Harry Teague Architects were retained by the City and the private property owners in February to undertake a quick feasibility study of the Superblock Concept. Charles Cunniffe Architects has also assisted the private property owners. The Consulting Team has meet with the private owners 3 times and gave the Council an interim update in March. Also, in early May, the Bell Mountain Lodge property was purchased by a group headed by Jim Valerio and Harry McNamara. A summary of the Superblock properties are given below and illustrated on the map in Attachment 1. Size Zoning & FAR Representative City Market Bell Mtn Lodge Buckhom Lodge Cooper Street 27,000 sq. ft 20,066 " 6,934 " 20.250 " 74,250 sq. ft. NC @ 1:1 LP @ 1:1 CL @ 1:1 N/A John Caldwell Harry McNamara Sy & Nora Kelly N/A The Feasibility Study has focused on 4 basic questions for the Superblock using the analogy of a box for simplicity: 1. What is the shape of the box? 2. What and how much goes into the box? 3. How much does the box cost? 4. How is the box paid for? 1. What Is The Shape Of The Box? The box includes the properties referenced above. The Consulting Team and the private property owners agree the surrounding Kraut property and the A-Frame and Hanna-Dustin Building property are separate from and not integral to the development of the Superblock. This conclusion was reached primarily due to the high cost of relocating major utility lines in the alley between the properties. 2. What And How Much Goes Into The Box? The parties generally agree the following uses are appropriate for the Superblock? 1. Expanded City Market 2. Expanded moderate-priced lodging 3. New neighborhood commercial 4. Town Square public space 5. Transit stop 6. Private and public underground parking 2 . , ~ 7. Affordable housing (the private property owners question the on-site location for affordable housing) ~, At this time, the private property owners have not reached a consensus recommendation on a specific conceptual development plan for their properties. At the meeting, they wish to discuss various development options and get Council feedback. 3. How Much Does the Box Cost? This component of the box is the underground parking garage. The Consulting Team working with Shaw Construction Company have put together preliminary cost estimates for 2 or 3 levels garages as summarized below and outlined in Attachment 2: Cars 2 Levels 430 Cars 3 Levels 642 Cars Preliminary Cost Cost Per Car $10,550,000 $14,370,000 $24,500 $22,400 For reference, The Rio Grande Garage has 340 spaces, was open in June 1990, and cost approximately $7,450,000 or $21,900 per car in 1989 dollars. The Rio Grande Garage is paid by a .25% sale tax and user fees, and the early years deficits were covered by the City's General Fund. 4. How Is The Box Paid For? At this time. the private property owner~ do . not have a specific cost sharing proposal to discuss with Council. ( 6 t ' - ~'<...A..JLv-R -i 1~d... -1'::I,\.J:., ";;a't~ , 'J.~~'~ (' '. !) -. \r" -'''--'''''''- " \.....,..'(",..; r .--"-. ..--t::-t.1), -'6-.,,\ lJ,..\. \. \ ) rJ fQ, i c.L,... t.~.D f\~~"" ../'" ,;""!;;,-,,L\ <':/-. '. ~. "'L '" \ "'.Jl,.! , . ~,.):.."'.. ..' \.~. f3 t'\ ~ \ "",. ,'t.;~ (y~ ~".~ _.~ ~~z; '\ 0" ~./' . 00 "'" t~~.~ ~ ,\../ ... "," t:'l: 0'-' ~. ~2V"~ ,,-). (4'\' 6'" ~~ 0-\1.\.. : oJ,.} ~ ~ .,,"!~ '1 t " lY. \,...'-" ~ . , '-""},{'''c.. \J ~~~ I l~ \)..~ + l\A.v\.. vi '11..Up.,..~...:</) , ~j} rp-I- ~ . -1-0 y\..J.#{A r),jj,O..... {b ,~.i,'_.~.'" ..'r\ . ~. i , 0"<". ......./ \ r f) ~ t t e. .-I.. (.. "f "....Q J. t> t;!j,'f ct,,,,,...(;.;f; J ^ -- t ~,_ \~h,1t~., CH'~>'.'::J .. l I. 'I .1 ... 1 I ~ "'. ",. /', i I; ..,."",,. \...l~\v.\~\.( c~"""!~ u_.i,.)..%...-c. .~ .(\ :~, ~; ~ .,....l....:..:.-J 3 -~....~....-- - .- . .... . ATTACHMENT 1 ~ ,-"" SUPERBLOCK MAP INSERT ~ .~., ~ ~_'%: --~1~-~ --l~~ :_X!LCL .. - t.1BJ '?r/J/~ 2f0'_~---~~~-~-1fy~~-~~. SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PARKING MITIGATION ANALYSIS 7/21/93 CITY MARKET - Existing Market - Existing Market - Expansion Market - Expansion Market - Expansion Market Mitigtion Sa. Ft. . Existing & Expansion '. Parking - Ab. Gr. '~~ U;1OO sq.ft. . - Be. Gr. ~.~ uaoo ' , - Ab. Gr. 5,000 - Ab. Gr. 2,000 - Be, Gr. 0 .3.6OO"'net ? )/~!7 3e;OO{Y P'1 79 Spaces Existing _~I---..ld New __..5._.ArNew _~gNew tf? oM' NEW SW BLDG - Expansion Comm. - 1st Level - Expansion Comm. - 2nd Level BELL MTN. BLDG - Existing Lodge - Approved Lodge - Expansion Comm. . BUCKHORN BLDG - Existing Comm. - Existing Comm. - Existing Lodge - Expansion Comm. SUB-TOTAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING TOTALS 5,000 5.000 10,000 ,_IL.~ -Jl:.---M' t-'P .af1' 10,000 10,000 18.000 38,000 1 10 _10 Existing _ 16 .J5 Approved 4'0 $New -'~-.-- ~? ~ ~ Ab. Gr. - Be. Gr. .,-L. to C. 7 7 Existing 3,500 1,500 3,500 '3,4t?!l MOO It,(#7 l.O;6OO '1~/~ ~Sq.Ft. 4-t M Units 4-' ....&'New '8; 4'New '- Ii .J1( \~ I m Spaces i{z, M Spaces - \'1"0 ~Spaces ~ ~. ?/~/1'? - j[u~B~. ~ &~~~(~4~~ ..... .......... .~ ~.I.~1t. ~b' A.. rA~~~~......".'~~"~'~~.:_L':I..' - ~~ ~@Vv1J - tIl0.. '.1 40-" Jt'o7? - 1?f-~&leI- ~& . ,.. ~..~..... ..'~~? -14% (. ,,,j-:J ... nf I dn' I._un '1 10. .... . ~, 14-,117 . ...111613~'.14% VJ4~'i(, ~JJ' - t~ ~Je~r~t' ~, p?y~~~ ~1~ -- ~ .~~t1I~ AI~, . .. f ... .....~.... .. l~[-?F~ . .. . . -1-.... I ?f'/~~' fI..t,h'~.. 103. . _ - Vile P~~t~ 'f;q~"'" 103 .... ~o7/687-{, 1'\41eq1#01le.- ~ . .............._.. n_",' t7f;.?j1'!'/c.0??(:.J"e+l&j~~'n_.. C. tlhl~~fVW~ef-~~\- ......... -~t:~. .~I~~ ~;tj;t~~~:,~* ~~ ..... ......... ...l~, tp?.................... ....~.....-- .... ~ Vl ~L, () ~. ..... L ...... ~... ~ ..ft.. L ~ .'C-' L.", . ~.wr,~~;1.Rt~Tfb.cb~~.Jftif~~f;:~~ r/l? ,~~;i~?#f-V1t- n, 1'-' ~l ~_._- T'v _rred-~(~ ~"~~f' ~I~ SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS EMPLOYEE MITIGATION ANALYSIS ~e,,\-?pJ ..t<J~ - 't.' ===__:b7Jf:, , Mitigation So. Ft. CITY MARKET - Existing Market - Existing Market - Expansion Market - Expansion Market - Expansion Market - Ab. Gr.l~~-lUfO'6 credit - Be. Gr ...r21~.u;:roO credit - Ab. Gr. 5,000 - Ab. Gr. 2,000 - Be. Gr, ~ 3..eeg' net ~ ~/0::t7 .39;00'0' NEW SW BLDG hie; - Expansion CQmtTI. - 1st Level - Expansion Cernffi~/v - 2nd Level 5,000 5.000 10,000 BELL MTN. BLDG - Existing Lodge - Approved Lodge - Expansion CQR1IR: VIle 10,000 credit . 10,000 18.000 38,000 BUCKHORN BLDG - Existing Gtm1m.l'l/c. - Ab. Gr. 3,500 credit - Existing Caaun. r/c:; - Be. Gr. 1,500 credit - Existing Lodge - L. to C. .. 3.500 credit - Expansion CQIRHl. JIl/C ,?,?z?. ~ I (" aP!7 J..Q;OOtr 7/21/93 Emp. Est. Emp. Est. Emp. Housed' Studio Units So. Ft. 0 0 o sq.ft. 0 0 0 .ff? %4- 2,JOO tf~ % t,? ~v 920 1,,,,,,0 .k~ 4'0 ~ () -- - g 1"~ %0 ~ PI <ZIt) .:M ? ~ ::k'5 If, (,. ~71,~ o 7 7 ..18" ~ - .M z,1 o o 2.4 ,,:;,4- 1,8' ", €:? - :::.-- k'r C" t.. 94..ootf'SQ.Ft. Jii r q~faX' ~,:f/"; ?z, TOTALS ...€t' <},7 4 <!-,? -~ ~ 4 o /6 ~ ~~ ..28' t/~ o o 2 z.. ~3-- %:;7 A!' 4-2- 2;l-6O t ,thO .2ifflO t, 'P1C?_ s.sw- 4 /;cx:? I o 2.;J.6fr ~ /!IC?O ~ '2>,ex:>O 1,2;880 -, I{ ~ o o 928' ..92e'" 1.&40' I/~ II J7C'O VI"'cx:? 24,.84(( So.Ft. / t 1,61:10 7t' 14: .~ ~~he,... ~ 1""'\ .-- " t 7/22/93 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FAR SQ.Ft. CITY MARKET - 1st Level - 2nd Level 5,000 sq. ft. 2,000 __ 0 a9e? --.., .J,GOO - 1tAA7- ~ vP~ == -T '. ) - -2J;OO(f _._ _Z!}-, t:W (29;eOO ) qliiek ma:rkel:/ettJ. 17d, /\lge,~.sV'l C.M. offices . . emp. housing emp. housing - 3rd Level - Below Ground (Not counted in FAR) market NEW SW. BLDG. - 1st Level - 2nd Level 5,000 5,000 10,000 ~gmm./affiee ~9HlfH./efL"'t;;; nlc red e.h,ntJ 'VI/v 'fede{1f'1J BELL MTN. BLDG. - 1st Level - 2nd Level - 3rd Level - 2nd & 3rd levels .- . 4- 62ll:' _"-'"-"'_"',.1__,...,:, "",- 4't, od' ~ (!i.OOQ) 10,000 10,000 .s.eoo 43;eOO comm.Mfieeflobc]/l".t. '(lIe; fd~hJ lodging ~ lodging ;P1.J..r? emp. housing BUCKHORN BLDG. - 1st Level - 2nd Level - 3rd Level _' ~I a90 .s,ooo __.G1CIt7O s.ooo .c4-, tilXI _ __A,OOO ~Ib,~ Jk,OOO' cefflffl./vffi.:e hie::;. ~e(:",eJ ~amffl./-efr;"e- l-1/c. ~~",eJ emp. housing . TOTAL - Above Ground !2O,Q6O eel t?Kl FAR j...6'( , FAR).2f w/street TOTAL - Private Uses .6S;OOO c'1, Q:C? FAR UO , FARJk81 w/street - Emp. Housing ~O z..l/~ FAR M6 , FAR ~ w/street ~ eh,r%C? FAR J:;67 , FAR.:Ld1 w/street GROSS TOTAL - Above Ground .5O;eOO ef3,(fJ:1O w/ 6S;BOO sq. ft. mitigation - Below Ground m ~,t:CO wI Z9;OOO" SQ. ft. mitigation , 0 1l4tax7 ~ sq. ft. mitigation 1""""\ ~ 8/4/93 TRUEMAN BUILDING/CLARK'S MARKET COMPLEX ANALYSIS 2nd Level 18 - Emp.Hous. - 1 Bedroom Apts. FAR SO. FT. 17,455 . 28.431 45,886 14,717 NET LEASABLE SO. FT. A. FAR ANALYSIS Below Ground - N/C 1st Level - N/C & Market 12,072 25.015 37,087 11,693 i , B. PARKING ANALYSIS Total Parking Emp. Housing Alloc. 121 Spaces - 18 1 sp./bedroom per City Code 103 N/C & Market Parking 103 37,087 sq. ft. net leasable = 2.78 so./1.000 sq. ft. net leasable C. CLARK'S MARKET ANALYSIS Main Level Basement 16,000 Sq. Ft. FAR from Planning Office files 2.000 Sq. Ft. FAR from Planning Office files 18,000 NOTE: 1. Parking count and building sq. ft. taken from analysis of Building Permit Plans of the complex. ~. ~, ~ ~, MEMORANDUM To: John Caldwell Sy and Nora Kelly Harry McNamara Jim Valerio Charles Cunniffe Leslie Lamont From: Jim Curtis Superblock Consulting Team Date: May 14, 1993 Re: Superblock Analysis Attached is the "Summary Costs And Revenues Chart" reviewed at the May 12 meeting. Feel free to give me a call concerning any questions on the chart or the meeting. Coming from the meeting, I have continued to evaluate other possible scenarios. A more !""""'"\ minimal option is outlined in the attached 3 sheets which are briefly described below: 1. Private Properties Owners & City Objectives. This sheet outlines my current perception of the objectives of the various parties. This sheet should be revised and expanded accordingly to assist in the discussion with City Council. 2. Buildout Of Existing Zoning. This sheet outlines the parking and employee housing requirements. of the buildout of the existing 1: I FAR zoning of the private properties. This may be the starting point for the property owners as to what they would like to accomplish at their lowest cost. The chart assumes the following: A. Redevelopment of the existing City Market FAR (12,700 sq.ft.) is only required to replace its existing 32 cars parking and no existing employee housing vs. compliance with the current City Code standards. The City Code standards would only apply to new expansion development. B. Bell Mountain Lodge proceeds to develop its current approvals. C. Buckhorn Lodge receives a SPA zoning waiver from the City to convert its 2nd floor lodge rooms to commercial/office space. Under its current CL zoning, the 2nd floor is restricted to lodge rooms with the 1 st floor restricted to commercial/office space. r- t"'"" ,~ t"'"" Memorandum Superblock Analysis May 14, 1994 Page 2 D. If the City is willing to vacate Cooper Street under this minimal proposal, I would expect the City to request the existing 30 on-street parking spaces be replaced underground by the private owners at no cost to the City. The private owners may wish to offer a different position on this item. 3. City Trade-Offs. This sheet outlines my perception of the City Trade-Offs of having the property owners proceed with the buildout program outlined above. These trade-offs may or may not be sufficient to encourage the City to proceed with the Superblock concept. Also enclosed are the conceptual drawings of the different redevelopment schemes we were prepared to discuss at the May 12 meeting. Prior to the Council worksession, we would like to review these concepts with the property owners as appropriate. Leslie will schedule the Council worksession for late June and communicate back with all parties. I will need to prepare a "Discussion Memo" for the Council's worksession which will r-. also be available to the public and press. The Council should have the memo a week before the meeting. I would like to prepare a draft memo and circulate it to the property owners for their comments prior to submitting it to Council. To accomplish all of this and put our best foot forward with Council, I suggest we have a final follow-up meeting or have the property owners designate a spokesperson to work with me on the memo and presentation to Council. Please communicate with me how you wish to proceed. 920-1395. Thank you. t"'"" u I""'"', ~, d ~ .;:: .;:: "l & i;f<e!o '" I::.gf I:: 1"""", ~ 0 8';::0 0 "" 0 c: ';:I . en 51 t- I;-;. .- 0 o '" g' 0 '" . t- g' '" 0 aJ!:; ;:;o@ "0 - ',d ..0 !-. ::s I:: ~ '" 8 '" OB b.O &l ~'c; 000 0 o OJ:! 'E I:: I:: I:: > ~oq,f-t ~ oEi .5 0 I:: 8 I:: og o@ e o~ l?l....\O o 6h S OB ~ 8 B og .5..8 gp ~ !lS;;; ....M '" . 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 50 ol::~ "'",oB:;<l > 0 .;:: 0 <e: 00> .0 ci. t;; 0C> <e:<> u;foBl::a '" '" '" ~ >> - op;.. 1::80"" ~ >>ed ededed - - -;;;frooooedOo >>> b.O.~ ~ .0> I::U o ~ ~ ~ u C,) ~ 0 "O~ ~~~ ~:€ 0 tUeeeBl:l]e U oa <e: ii:ii:ii: ..c:: ..8:>l<><><>s1S <> t:L.p;.. t:L. ~ <n <n<n.s.s.s<np;..~.s <n UJ or OOT 0 00 0 ::J 000 0000 0 00 0 Z N 00 0 ooNOO 0 00 0 UJ M\OO \f5\!5o('r) 0 MO r-: > 0\00 0<'l0"l 0 MO \0 ....t-O\ t-Mlrllrl N \Ot- 0 UJ .,f .,f -:.--t<""l M -:-~ M ~ .... .... "" I"" I""'"', 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <n q 0 0 0 F:-< 0 0 0 <n 0 0 0 0 0 0\ 0\ 0\ c-:. U "". .,f .,f "" .... "" "" F:-< Cl:: <e: ::z:: U +I en '" t;; b.O ~ <>Jj ::J Z UJ IX t;; ~ C> ......~ ;> ~ OJ ~ g en~ <e: "" tnQ C> .;:: <n ;;...Z - C> & '" ...l< o~ ~en Z '" '" '" ~ t;2 0 t;; b.O t;; b.O ~ I:: <>Jj <1;; ~ 0 <>:;<l <e: c-:. u ~ t;; ~ t;; ::.do t- o UU t:L. .... d N "" N "" U 0;;... "0 0 ...lCl:: - - 0 ~< Q) 0 0 15 Cl::~ > j > 0 .3 OJ .0 ~ !i:~ ...l -Eb "0 ::J::J - I:: "8 o~ '" 0 en en .... N M Z " U d 1""'\ t1 , 1'""", 5/14/93 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS & CITY OBJECTIVES 1. Citv Market - Expand market to 22,000 sq.ft. on one level - Provide existing and expansion parking underground as cost effectively as possible. - Do not lose existing underground commercial space FAR development rights. 2. Bell Mountain Lodge - Proceed to redevelop property with 40 lodge rooms, as approved. - Provide existing and expansion parking underground as cost effectively as possible. 3. Buckhorn Lodge - City waives CL zoning restriction that 2nd floor space must be lodge rooms. - Convert 2nd floor lodge rooms to commercial or office use or continue to operate as lodge rooms at owner's discretion. - Do not lose existing underground commercial space FAR development rights. - Investigate up-zoning of the property, but only at an acceptable cost. f"""'. 4. Citv Of Aspen - Provide underground municipal parking as cost effectively as possible. - Redevelopment of properties to produce a Town Square or public space. - Redevelopment of properties to be coordinated under a SPA plan. - Any up-zonings will be to generate funds to help pay for the municipal parking. t"""', ~ ~ r-. 5/14/93 SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS BUlLDOUT OF EXISTING ZONING Existing & Existing & Expansion Expansion Expansion Employees & FAR Parking Housing 1. City Market - Existing Market 12,700 sq.ft. 32 - existing 0 - Market Expansion 9,300 37 - 4 sp/1,000 sq. ft. - Emp. Housing Exp. 5.000 11 - 1 sp/bdrm 13 emp @ 11 units :t FAR@ 1:1 27,000 sq.ft. 80 13 emp. 2. Bell Mountain Lodge - Existing Lodge 9,000:t sq.ft.-18 nus 10 - existing 0 - Lodge Expansion 9,000:t sq.ft.-22 nus 15 - .7 sp/rm - Emp. Housing Exp. 2.066 ..Q..- as approved 7 emp @ 5 units :t FAR @ 1:1 20,066 sq.ft. -40 nus 25 7 emp ~. Buckhom Lodge - Existing Comm. 3,467:t sq.ft.-1st L. 4 - existing 0 - Converted Comm. 3,467 -2nd L. 6 - estimated 0 - Emp. Housing Exp. 0 -1-- 1 sp/bdnn 2 emp @ 1 units:t FAR @ 1:1 6,934 sq.ft. 11 2 4. Vacated Cooper Street o sq.ft. 30 - on-street 0 TOTALS 54,000 sq.ft. 146 cars 22 emp @ 17 units:t ",....... r-, ~ 5/14/93 r""'"" SUPERBLOCK ANALYSIS CITY TRADE-OFFS CITY GIVES: 1. Vacated Cooper Street to facilitate shared and cost effective underground parking and access for all parties. 2. SPA planning flexibility to facilitate coordinated planning and development of properties. 3. Allows Buckhorn Lodge rooms to be converted to commercial and office space at owner's discretion. 4. Allows redevelopment of City Market and Buckhorn Lodge to only mitigate for their new expansion for parking and employees vs. compliance with current City Code standards for their total redevelopment. ("""'"\, 5. Allows City Market and Buckhorn Lodge to redevelop their existing underground commercial space in the garage with no additional parking or employee mitigation requirements. CITY RECEIVES: 1. Redevelopment of properties will be coordinated under a SPA plan. 2. Redevelopment of properties will produce a Town Square or public space. 3. Vacated Cooper Street- the 30 on-street parking spaces - will be replaced underground by the private owners at no cost to the City. 4. City receives the underground rights to develop as much additional underground parking as it can pay for. 5. Funds from any up-zonings will be used by the City to help pay for the municipal parking. ~ ~ I ---j .lU'rnlJ.5t-NNAII .nl ~, ! I L. .~ I ~ I I .._uj J3Enl.1.s.LNVllna , , , ~..- .. ----u--r-r. , '--'- .'. . ~ ~ . 9 - , S . ~ . . ~ '5 .!2 . '" . u ~ " . ~ . E .. E C!" Ul 8 {l :::0 . ~w.9 ..~ . . .. o::rrrxJ e 9 '" g s. " " M " .3 . '. . . --=:::::.. -cID"T-':~F?T .. I ~, ~::a .g.m..: 1/"/ "J I n , ',t' . ..-:l '! ~:: l> ~H rr='. ~ [ b.. ~ .w3H.lSllEldOOO ~ o j F" I ~ o <3 ~ " ~ ti . " "' o ~ ~ I 6 .LUiHI.ISNVI'lAll r iP~"I. n h nil r I ..Iu",y> r.~ o " . EB ~ co p:; <ll ... ,~ CIl I]) b1) Cd l-< Cd t) b1) ~ ,- ~ l-< Cd p.. "ON ~=jj: !:I4<ll ..... S C/) <ll Cd..c: !:I4c55 t""" ~ ~,\ ~ f"'""' - /' ~ ==-= ("""" ,-.. , ~ - t""" C;'~ ~, t\7 </) ... 0: C) '" tn .... " '"0 0: ... OJ:) ~ ~ " .0 ~ " > ~ .... </) .... <l) gp l-< CIl o ~ ~ .- ~ l-< CIl ~ '"dN &J'll: " ..... 8 CIl " CIl.o Il-lcJS r" -~ I ~ ..c: (\ "r=: ~--- -=--" ~ , ,- , ", , , ant ~~ --',---" ~ ::=.c= ~ C<. -I ~ ~ '" .... '" u V) N N Q) '0 '" .... bIl ~ ~ Q) ..0 ~ Q) ;> Q) ~ '0 ~ N Q) OJ) CI:l l-< CI:l o OJ) ~ ..... ~ l-< CI:l Po< "UN ~=Ij: f.I.1Q) ...... S (/) Q) CI:l-5 f.I.1(1) (\ ~ ,~ .C ~~ ._~L ,~~_, - .=-:: ~ -=-:: """.=: 0.:=-.....: r =---...=:::::-:::;~ ~ :000=; --.., - = ~-- - : - - I _ ~ I"""" ("~ ~ ~ ~. ~. - ---' ~, @ '" '" .... .... '" '" u u '" "d" 0, .... '" 00 0 () <"l\D ..... <"l '" '" N ~ 03 Q) ~ ;> ;> Q) Q) Q) ;> ~~ Q) N <"l ~ S ...... ...... .~ .~ 0 ~ ... '" '" ... ... ... 0 o 0 jJ:l E-<E-< Q) OJ) CI:l l-< CI:l d OJ) ~ .- ~ l-< CI:l t:l-< "UN ~=Ij: f.I.1 Q) ...... S (/) Q) CI:l..c: f.I.1. cJ5 -- , I .____J _______'11 DI 01 ------~ -- " "'\'^\'Il .1.:J:,H1.1X mMoro ,tmUUSNVWAII . --14l r" .r" ':." i L___.____....:.____ __ I; w ~ ~ .-, G " o ~ ~I hli o e o 0; e;- ~ '" I; w . " ! ~ '- G ~ _~ __ H'; ,,;w..z. .t:EHIJ.SJ.NV}I(l(l "-,.-~" -1 I l ~ .~ ] ~ '" . '2 w s 8 85 ~ . . .28 ft Hd ~~2 , . , d.. HJ n?---T/:O~-h-n i I ~, I I I , I : Jj r-'---- I r------- I I ~ [ 1-__- .I~T,IlI.l.SlF],[()(X) I L '-----" If- - I! I I ~--------- ]" I w o ~ ~ ~ ~ .!.'FI}I.I.S!\!\'IV,\l1 IF 1/-- n=_ ~ ~ '" p:; Q) ... .- (I) Q) OJ) CI:l l-< CI:l o OJ) ~ :12 l-< CI:l t:l-< "U _' ~=Ij: f.I.1Q) ...... S CI.l OJ CI:l..c: f.I.1cJ5 -- .,.-.... -- ,- . ] ] : ., u_ -~ J r r" ~, . ,; .... .'n__ .'.__.._._.._... r-- ~ -!: i ~-I-HH-HttHttHffi +- ~ -. u-JDlill[IJ~~- "'.' :~ ;( +-- ,t'?'Z "'1.1 HoI~ ~::- F: rW 13 i?~ J id7 '" .... '" u V) - N Q) '0 '" .... bIl ~ 0 03 ': ..0 ~ , Q) ~ ~ ... '" - Q) OJ) CI:l l-< CI:l d OJ) ~ .- ~ l-< CI:l t:l-< "U_ ~=Ij: f.I.1 Q) ...... s (/) Q) CI:l-5 f.I.1(1) r-- (\ r (\ I"""', ~ ~ '1 \ HtHtHI-f1_~ ~_J_J:ll_-l-.l:~l_j_~ ~i fHt1f~ rrmtrrrm1 -..- .. -. Httmttt . " _1_ r- '" .... '" u N ..... N Q) '0 '" .... bIl ~ o ~ Q) ,0 ;1=- ~ Q) ;> Q) ~ '0 <= N 1-:;', Q) OJ) CI:l l-< CI:l o OJ) ~ .- ~ l-< CI:l t:l-< "U..... ~=Ij: f.I.1 Q) ...... S (/) Q) CI:l..c: f.I.1cJ5 r ~ (\ J EB '" '" .... .... '" '" u u '" ON .... '" m "d" u "d" \D V) , , ..... , , N '" '" ~~ Q) OJ ~ ;> ;> Q) Q) OJ ;> ~~ Q) Nm ~ S :-:=~ 0 ~~ ... oj '" ... ... ... 0 o 0 jJ:l E-<E-< Q) OJ) CI:l l-< CI:l 0 OJ) ~ :12 l-< CI:l Po< "U..... ~=Ij: f.I.1 Q) ...... S (/) Q) CI:l..c: f.I.1cJ5 (\ Htttttttttttffim nrl rrrrm -- .. tl+H-ml1 0= ,.-... C:. . , . r-- I ____J 01 01 -,-~..~ ,.-... ;;S'A'h\"11 .wm/J.sH;JdOQ.:) -'--'1 I ]- -cq D~ .1.'I;ml.SNVl'OAJI 'n, l ,.-... r--. i L-, .t:l;IlJJk~.l.NV}ln<.l '.---,.. ~-''<'' , 1 ~ ~ " 5 " o --==- e ,0 0; e;- ~ '" Ii! 'i!s"ID'" ~~ ;~~. . : . ~: ~~ 11 ~o . g,at ~::"_g. "u - ____J 88 " ill " " " < " G " o ".-11 ;f';~~i~-~ I ,. f ;.~ '", :/ :::~ J : ',", '; .. J j /--"0"-- .~ . : 0: ' - , J-. ' [) , ;;;...."''i':<i ~ f ~:: ~, !ij rrp--" ul (--~ n (~S-]I "J"":'. ~ I. I ,_,J IF--- ~ [ b::u ~ .l.Wlll.l.Sllil,IOO.) rr--n-.-.'--- --.--,,-- I J.I I~II \ '\1 'l~ ~II r~ (5; < o 'ii Q + U Q) OJ) CI:l l-< CI:l o OJ) ~ .- ~ l-< CI:l (:l.; "U<' ~'ll f.I.1. ...... E (/) . CI:l..c f.I.1r5: . ~ ~., ~ r 1"." .. 1 ~ (\ r.. r ,-, = }ftttffij-~H~ ',' . j' =< " . , , , I : I (11 ~I "1:!:} I , , : , ~ I , r- , ,9T-: ~ oj u m 0 ..... Q) '0 oj .... bIl ~ ~ Q) :.==::= ..0 03 ;> ~ ~, ... '" ..... I .~ EB '" Q) .... OJ) oj CI:l u l-< :A==-- t- CI:l ;--r 0 d m- M ..... Q) OJ) '0 ~ oj :12 :'- .... bIl l-< ~ CI:l 0 Po< ~ j Q) "Um ..0 ~ ~=Ij: Q) f.I.1 Q) ;> Q) ...... S ~ '0 (/) OJ CI:l..c: <=i rilcJ5 N ~~~C1d I .. I " R_ [ I ~, ",. ~!. '" r ~. "oJ I. f"'"\ I""" H-tti#HttM I""'- ~ ~, w Q) OJ) CI:l l-< CI:l o OJ) ~ :12 l-< CI:l t:l-< "Um ~=Ij: f.I.1<:> ...... s (/) Q) CI:l..c: f.I.1cJ5 '" .... oj () t- o - '" III .... .... oj oj u () o t- -..... Nm , , , , ~ Q) ~ ~, '" '" VQ) ~ ~ ~~ Nm ...... ...... .- .- s o ... ... o jJ:l ~~ oj oj ... ... ~~ . ,.,~. r-"\ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Amy Margerum, City Manager Diane Moore, City Planning Director~ Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner THRU: THRU: FROM: DATE: February 8, 1993 Contract Award - Consulting Work on Super Block RE: ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- SUMMARY: council directed.~taff to pursue a short planning study for the '. Super Block to include .aconceptual st;Udypf a . potential below grade parking structure. ... The super Blockplal1l1:lng.area if; between Hyman Avenue and the alley behind city Market, and Original and spring Streets. Jim Curtis and Associates were asked to prepare a proposal for the planning study. Staff requests council to approve ReSOlution? (Attachment A) authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract. with Curtis and Associates for planning services related to the Super Block planning study. A scope of work is attached as Exhibit "A" to the contract. BACKGROUND: Council hired Curtis and Associates, which included Jonathan Rose and Harry Teague, to analyze development scenarios for the Kraut Property. When considering the Kraut Property, questions were raised about the development potential for public parking underneath the entire area (consideration with the 1987 Transportation Plan and AACP) and on-grade development regarding vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Given the interest of time and a desire to utilize prior knowledge, Curtis and Associates were asked to prepare a proposal for a three month study that would appraise the broader issues facing this parcel of land. STAFF COMMENTS: The property owners of the Bell Mt. Lodge, Buckhorn Lodge, City Market and the A-frame on Hyman Avenue were all asked to participate in the three month study both financially and creatively. All property owners have agreed to participate in the planning study. 1"""'\. -, r > The planning study fee is $12,500 and was divided among all five property owners based upon the proportion of land they owned. The City's land area included the cooper street right-of-way and the alley adjacent to the Kraut property. Property owners will contribute in the following manner: City Market Bell Mt. Buckhorn Vicenzi A-frame city = $3335.00 = $773.00 = $760.00 = $773.00 = $6860.00 The City will contract with the planning team and will arrange for reimbursement from the individual property owners through a letter of agreement. FINANCIAL IMPLICATION: The first Kraut planning study. to the Super Block planning City has $5,000.00 left over from the This money should be reappropriated study. An additional $1860.00 is necessary for the city's share of this work. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the contract for the three month planning study to be performed for the Super Block concept. RECOMMENDED MOTION: execute the contract planning study." "I move to authorize the city Manager to with curtis and Associates for the Super Block CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution B. Contract for-Services '. 2 r'\ ~ AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement made and entered on the date hereinafter stated, between the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and Curtis & Associates, ("Professional"). For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth in its Consulting Proposal dated January 11, 1993, and aattached hereto as Exhibit" A" and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. Completion. Professional shall commence work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all work pursuant to this agreement shall be completed in the time allocated in Professional's Proposal, Exhibit "A", attached hereto. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project coordinator for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authoritites having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. 3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional a total of twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($12,500). This fee shall be paid as follows: $6,500.00 within 14 days of the issuance of a Notice to Proceed following approval of this agreement by the City Council of the City of Aspen, and the balance of $6,000.00 within 14 days upon the delivery of Professional's final report to the City Council. 4. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this contract is one for personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the responsibilities or obligations under this agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors officers, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to payor be liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub-contractor. 5. Termination. The Professional or the City may terminate this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any r--. r-">, breach of this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set"off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional may be determined. 6. Covenant Al1'ainst Contingent Fees. The Professional warrants that s/he has not been employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Professional, to solicit or secure this contract, that s/he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For a breach or violation of this contract without liability, or in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee. 7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole. control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. 8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability , claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the Ci ty in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. The Professional also agrees to bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, including court costs and attorney fees, whether or not any such liability, claims, or demands alleged are groundless, false, or fraudulent. If it is 2 r. ,r., , determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. 9. Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. (b) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees. 10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member ofthe Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Finance Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes nO representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. 11. Comoleteness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. All terms and provisions contained in the Professional's Proposal in conflict with this Agreement are expressly hereby deleted from the Proposal and shall not be binding upon the parties. 12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered to the respective persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested, to: City: Amy Margerum, City Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Professional: Jim Curtis Curtis & Associates 117 South Monarch Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 3 ,,,,,,",, ~ 13. Non-Discrimination: penalty. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment. 14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forebearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 15. Execution of Agreement by City. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwith- standing anything to the contrary contained herein, this agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same. 16. General Terms. (a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superceded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. (d) This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. 4 ~ 1"", IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the date hereinafter written. Dated: ArrESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: By: PROFESSIONAL: WITNESSED BY: By: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: curtis.agr 5 . ~ r--I . , . , EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK FOR SUPER BLOCK CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS The consulting team will consist of Jonathan Rose, Harry Teague, Jim curtis and Greg Luth, Parking Engineer. Leslie Lamont of the Planning Office will also provide assistance. The consulting team will examine the following a~pecFs O.f the s~eF B~lOC ~ oU! c"". -~U..;::,.-;{) ..I(JL 1. UndergrOUn~ing and Access Point. Prepare s oetch plan showing 1 and 2 levels of underground parking and alternative entry and exit points. Examine vehicular circulation into and out of the garage and the surrounding properties. Provide preliminary estimate of the construction cost and the potential cost savings of the underground parking it is constructed on a joint cooperative basis vs. the cost of the individual property owners providing their separate independent parking. 2. utilities relocation. Determine the existing utilities in the alleyway between the Kraut property and Bell Mountain/Buckhorn lodges, and Cooper Avenue, and the feasibility/estimated cost to relo. cate the utilities or into egrate th.em into ~Iparking str.uc~_ GCv'~ fb..~'Y\Ue- ;;fA"')"!- 3. Cost allocation options for the Underground ~arking. Investigate possible cost allocatioN/oPtions and methods to fund construction of the underground parking. The investigation will be very conceptual and rely heavily on the input and objectives of the individual property owners. 'Options might be various PUblic/Private Partnerships, Spectal Improvement/Parking District, Municipal Bonding, etc. The objective is to outline a range of options for discussion among the involved parties. 4. Development Character Study. Provide a quick development character study of the Super Block. Examine pedestrian traffic, vehicular traffic, surface parking, service deliveries, architectural bulk and mass, viewplane, etc. Emphasis shall be place on the treatment of the alleyway and Cooper Avenue. The objective is to provide a conceptual planning framework so that the individual properties can be developed separately and at different times, but yet fit together and compliment one another. All work and meetings will be accomplished within three months from authorization to proceed. The consulting team will meet at least two times with the surrounding property owners to solicit their ideas and objectives, and thereafter one meeting with the City P&Z commission and one meeting with the City Council to present our findings. The second meeting with the surrounding property owners will be scheduled during the wee.k of March 15-19 and the presentation to City council will be tentatively scheduled April 12 to coincide with Mr. Rose's travel schedule and to reduce the cost of the fees. If Mr. Rose is requested to make a third trip to Aspen other than the above, an additional billing will be required. The Planning Office will be responsible for scheduling these meetings. f""o- /~ r\ ,-...fu:. '" / -t ' . I,. "-"I" ('.AI- . .. ...\,"",,,:"- . . ..r,:-J:)~... (') I ~J-"Y~.~. Jete'?' 4=tJ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. Bell Mountain A. Design 1. The garage should be built totally below ground with conforming commercial/residential uses at grade and above. 2. The Mazza proposal can be. physically adapted to act as Parking Garage Phase I. 3. Through a 2-3 phase development involving both the Bell Mountain and City Market blocks, the City can achieve the 300 car garage by 1992. .... This development would call for a below grade garage connection under Cooper. As a long range town planning goal, Cooper street could be closed between Original and Spring, creating atrarfic intercept at u.S. 82 and a pedestrian axis along Cooper back to Galena and the existing malls. B. Finance 4. F t..; 1. Public/private financing makes sense if the City assembles (or has assembled) the block and creates an increment of value to offset costs by increasing the zoning. A less aggressive alternative would be to negotiate with Mr. Mazza for a slightly higher zoning. Phasing the garage then becomes the central issue. Land costs would be covered, financing the garage construction would still have to be done by other means such as a tax increment. 2. C. Conclusions 1. Given the inherent conflicts between the City's Growth Management Plan and bargaining with the private sector .to create an increment of value at Bell Mountain; focus should be placed on public financing options to defere garage costs. 2. The Mazza proposal can work as a Phase I development for the future 300 car garage. - " ~, ~", Executive Summary (continued) However, to capitalize on its investment in possible zoning concessions and the cost of the garage, the City of Aspen must commit to putting in place a long range acquisition/development plan for the Bell Mountain/City Market block. RNL does not recommend proceeding with the phased development of the Bell Mountain garage without this long range plan. II. Rio Grande A. Design 1. The garage should be built into the north facing slope to mask it from Main Street. 2. A 450 car, 3 level garage can be developed on the Rio Grande site that would not require the Cap's Auto property and that could allow for the separate "zero lot line" development of a new county library. 3. A pedestrian corridor should be created along Galena to separate pedestrians coming from the garage from vehicular traffic at Mill and Main Streets. 4. Future public building(s) could be built on the roof of the garage structure. Additionally, the garage should be designed to include public and private tenants along its exposed outside edges at ground level. B. Finance 1. By designing the garage to avoid Cap's Auto, there is no major role for private development. 2. Minor opportunities for non-parking revenues involving "transit" and, perhaps, commercial tenants exist. A minimum of 6,000 - 10,000 s.f. of this use should be created to have a meaningful effect on debt reduction. The more the better I""'- "-", Executive summary (Continued) 3. Tax revenues pledged to municipal bonds would finance the largest part of the capital improvements for this site. C. Conclusions 1. A clear separation of the par~ing garage from Cap's Auto and the new Library is possible. This is advantageous since it simplifies both the financial and design sides of the development equation. 2. The most attractive tax revenue source appears to be a central core development district utilizing a sales tax revenue increment. This would capitalize on the development of the Ritz Carlton and the proposed Aspen S~i Company hotel. ... [1 I l" ~" g~ ~::, {.." ~ , w I I:,.... p@#l~ ~~~ ~iB~ ""~~ . . '~ ...!-tJ C"~ 't i~ 8 t~ ~ r~ ~ ",-~ ~ 1!Q !s ~, ~ 'i'h. . ~ ~G ~ m~ '-J ..rr- 01 "~~. ~ -< ~ ,,~. ~ ~ " ::::: s- ( ~ ~ ~ ~ w . N :z ~Ib. ~~ ~ ~ ~C\ (:t' ......~ -., ~ v~ Hl_ON e 7Y/Y/~/J/c .PH/lidS ~ ~ I ~ ?1 "'f U~lit 1 ~ \) -J ~ ~ ~l~ ~. ~~ Vltl ~~1:)~ ~ ~H ~~~~ 1:: ~~~ ~~~~ ~ \)'" Q m:::;!1tJ ~ ~ ~iiI ~~~o~~ ~ / ~k ......iiJ~"' ~ ~~~~ 1) ~C<lJ)idlli~N ~~.~~~::s ~2~d~~ ~ ~ ~ II ~ ~!i~ Il!~"-~ !6 S ~ llJ ~IIJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~" :::!u~ .~Il, j~~~~ d1K~IO~~ji ~ . . . ~ U) ~':= ~ ~ ~ l) bl~JltI/.!dtl "---' ~ ~ . . . to .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~m ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ K~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ...... "I{ ;i ~~ ~ au ,,~ \Ci ~\) ~ .---. i ~ '-. '::'\ i!~;l i ~ 10"- i 11\ ~ al ~ ~~ ~~~:}~ ~~~~~ ~\11(:~ .~ -........,,- -.-:'L '0 <::::J '--1 ~ \ll '2-5 ~(S :" <:::) ;. --.I t. C) 2 ~ :z ~ " - l.U ~,'4 ~ ~\/ ~ ,,~=:1 ~ il"~ ~ lW). '-J ~ nL~ 1>i ~ 1.-1 ~ -1~ o/Ul :t:' ~tO ~ .-. r-, ~~s ! I I .. .. V {J TI c:1 : \ EJ ~ts b C:r [l 0 !! = l:i ct ell ;: 0 ql ___==:0 c LJ ~ ~.._.,_..,....,- ..-;.;.:..:: :::"" _ ' . ._,' ' ,'tNI"/1 P 80n 0 0 ~ D IT, LJ u o --- .0 L ES 06 ~ 'O\[J" ~ [5 ~ ~ ~......'.... ~ J!;;J "<..~~ Th l;>,...iiJs 0[3 '" O[pU c:l o DSIO BD 1::1 V ~ ;!..L .N 17f1 .~ D~U o o I [JJ \U D ~ ~ \\l~ ~ D~~ ~ '0 '- ~ \ll "36 ~ ...1-<( ~ . ~ ~.. ~ H ~ ~~ \i W ~ ~ ~ Ul ~ r:S ~ <:N ~. C) ~~. "'I. Q... ~ L~ ~ . . I f ) "". z\ '~\ ~:-(;! t, f' "\' ~ % '"='0 ,,,,1'1). ~~W w \,j .~ W~ O~ ~. ~ -J. Z 'l" u} 1."';.Z~' ~ {:i k;~ r~~ l~Z f () J~ ()~ i'i.j~ 0. l:'i~ ,'.J.... ~ \U ~ ~~ C ,;~r~;\i ~; 4: <.-'-'-- :.'-1] ~ .L.:..J C-'J ~., r -~, L.__.J ~.___.~ _.~__ ti i ~._),--, r- \~ ~ 'i ] i L,LJ\---l>\Ill-l~ i ~"-I 'k-~ ~ \I~LJ ! ~i; !i"'~~ ~ yy ~5 ,-\1\ ~ J ~ > \1\ - ~ 7~\l,- '\\ III ~ 1: '2~t\ ~22ti 1: ::J ::I. \i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~.~ ~ III t\ \!r '5 ~ -.:J::!'S~ \\\\II.~" Z Z :z ~ ~ ","ON e 1. "'_ 1 I ~ c , ::":' !"~1 '-LJ ~~ c..::, \'J' 11:.) b il : G D L_ J r (, .' ~:'-\ . (" t' ';7 I! "F"'C:=-l-~\ I . J I , , --..--.-' C:-":'::-I \P , r, ::J ! i ~ ,_r --""LI- ,_":".._-~----- .' "1VNI 1:;)\ ~O -...-----,.---. L_s-h '----"1 (.:? 0 J 1: tJ I ',~ -C::i. ':r --~-_.:::::-~-) r....., r-----,\ , ) I) i : I '-,-' On i ! : o n'u i -,: ,....-., .1 \ j i ...., i I\.. I L-_J ~~ t_ "\. . , . i--: L .J L...l L....., )- _J I , ' "'--r"..,J ------\ I , ... -.,,,.-..--.,j' Des . (I , ! I , I : r ' I 1 ' , I '----, I ' I i l~ ~ . l_...J \ ;- i r--i il-"lf?J '\1 ' ~ I r it'" I .< I: --, l__-:':::::"" _ '----.S-.--' ~iJ.J.. f'/IN-I I ----..- I I ! i , ! I I i I I ("'__~.______..J L__, \ \ L tf N3'1f'-9 _______________.s----c.- ~ ;--~. , J ~ , i. ~. . i \1 J) "'---1 l l LJ - ,,-.. I=I~ uJl d)\f\ i 4~ I it~ l. ( 1 . . . . ~ ~ - Hl.ON ~ ~\ fJ -; L_ 1 ", c;,l >2 r-' ' ')~, r S [] -:. ~"..r..J :...._..1 ~r-j c! 0 D ~j ." Ii" 0 ""::.- 'l..: r--~ .' ;', ~~ ~ ['l.-~ )~\ b I L-_~ i Y -=1 tJ" -;:;19 I i:TS---<;'::../ ~---_._-_..._--,--~-,.,---_.. ) [5-, __.J n r--~ , f ( I '--.J n 'L-_.J U '--, , o L__.,J D _....._..~-,_._.__... ~--. -28'S-'fT ( --- -."- it] Do ItS l:__ r'r"So-- [0} CJ pl'i __..J i ~ _r--l II' . ~ L..-si> ...... I 2 i I " cJ i I z. I ! -=-.::'._:--Jj '~{;G> j,~ \J U -1j i ~ll w ~~ 00 ...l .( % ~ It o oS z ~ o i c t:;j. ~ ,i~ .... ~ II! d) '{\ ~I 4 ~ ~ll ::I. v %1~ n _ ._. i '-L "-._~_..._-- f"l :.: ...,~ I':,,': , :""~I -~----_._-- " {-------------, i _ ___ I_________._._____J /;IN'iif/-") _._._J~--.,-:-_.'l.._...._..:........._.___...__.~_._)/ r-- - - _._.1 L ____ -- \ I ----- a ~ " I ~ .( ~\ ~;;;:u ';\ ~~~~, U~ nO \":e.;, ~. ~ BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE BLOCK Design The parking facility located on this block should be constructed totally below ground. Input the design team has received at public meetings and from city staff all points in the direction of a below ground garage with mixed retail/commercial and residential uses at street level and above. This design approach has two major benefits: 1. The architectural scale of Aspen's victorian town fabric is maintained by burying what is obviously a large, unsi~htly twentieth century building type. 2. The block's private property owner's are given the incentive to work with the city on developing a below ground garage since it increases the development potential of their property without consuming any of the sites allowable development square footage. A development proposal has recently been submitted to the City that incorporates what could be Phase I of the construction of the 300 car garage. Taking this proposal as a point of departure, RNL has designed a phased development scenario that could take place through cooperative public/private negotiations and financing. :i The fOllowing drawings terms of ownership and development scenario. following: diagram the Bell Mountain block show one possible phased Each phase incorporates the in Phase I This is essentially the proposal on the table now for the 6 2/3 lots composing the Bell Mountain Lodge site. RNL recommends that the above ground building be reconfigured to create the first part of a traffic intercept on Cooper Street. This will invite public parking into the garage and form a traffic intercept point for visitors coming off U.S. 82. See Appendix A, Town Planning Issues for more detail on why this design feature is critical. - ,.-... ~. BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE BLOCK (Continued) phase II It has become obvious that City Market is interested in parking facility development across Cooper on the Bell Mountain property. This phase assumes the pUblic/private development of a garage under Cooper street, the City Market surface lot, as well as the Kelly and Kraut properties. RNL recommends that Cooper Street be closed at mid-block by a traffic circle that would take cars directly into the underground garage. This eliminates the existing problem of summer visitors driving straight down Cooper and into the central core. Phase III ;to"" The Bell Mountain and city Market blocks are in a transitional zone between the central core and the residential area east of Original street. This phase invisions the construction of a new City Market over the garage while the old market stays in operation. After construction the .old market is demolished and a new surfa~e parking lot replaces it facing on Original. This flip-flop of land Uses allows for a better "stepping down" of commercial density towards the residential area and provides a solid physical definition of the public parking entry on Cooper. TRAFFIC o Traffic to and from the Bell Mountain facility should not pass through the commercial core, but rather should pass around the core on Mill and Original. Access should therefore be provided along original street. If access is provided of off Cooper, street closures or other modifications should be provided to minimize traffic to the west and south of the site. o The major pedestrian corner of the site. the site and the ski access will be at the southwest Pedestrian facilities between area should be maximized. -' o The Bell Mountain Lodge Block site has a high potential for, a program of phased construction. The parking facility can be designed so that it can be built in increments as individual private parcels are redeveloped. ,j,; ,~ ~, BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE BLOCK (Continued) o If a first phase underground structure is constructed on the actual Bell Mountain Lodge parcel, this structure should also extend southward under Cooper adjacent to the site. The inclusion of this area allows for a more efficient parking space layout than is otherwise possible. o The provision of a transit shuttle to the Bell Mountain site is not of high importance, as it is within easy walking distance of the mall area and the ski gondola. See Appendix A, Parking Revenue Plan for a discussion of how parking rates and operating costs could be structured for the Bell Mountain garage. FINANCE The appropriate political climate is an obvious prerequisite for any type of pUblic/private venture. In the case of the Bell Mountain sit~, a pUblic/private strategy would require the Town to cooperate with a developer on the redevelopment of all of part of the Bell Mountain block. From an economic standpoint, the strategy would require the Town to acquire and assemble existing properties, np.rm;r a h;C1no,... MO't"'lc!;+-U +-n:>T'\ .;C n,....~~pnrly allowed, and resell or lease the above-grade development r1ghts~ ,The increment of value created by the assemblage and increased LA.R. (floor area ratio) could then be used to offset garage construction Costs and/or enhance the financability of the parking garage. Given the inherent conflicts between the above strategy and the Town's growth management pOlicy as well as the heavy up-front financial commitment of an acquisition program, a strong publici private redevelopment program of this type appears unlikely. A less aggressive version of the above strategy which might be feasible is for the Town to allow slightly higher F.A.R.s in return for development rights for the parking garage. This approach would ~liminate up-front acquisition costs and the assemblage process. As the Town would be reacting to proposals from individual developers and/or landowners, this approach might result in a parking garage under only a portion of the block. This approach would also have to address the physical issue of "phasing" an underground parking garage. The financing of the ~) ,,-., ,,.-..., BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE BLOCK (Continued) garage construction would still have to be pursued through other means. For the Bell Mountain site, the annual public investment for each of the three alternatives was estimated. It was assumed that the land would be acquired through negotiations with developers with no developer subsidies for parking garage construction. Each alternative assumed that the land acquisition costs would be zero and that an average daily fee of $5.00 could be achieved. The estimated Bell Mountain fee was slightly higher than the Rio Grande fee because of its higher utilization from tourists. As shown, average annual public investments range from $80,000 per year for the more limited Alternative 1, to over $400,000 per year for the more aggressive Alternative 3. .;,.; r: [:: ,r: I ~". ~":" :\":' ::;~ 1 ,"" 8 ,~ Q '\S b 0 ~ 'J \ ~' l5 l0' ". ~ "fA-.. . , ~ 8 ~ ~~ ~q \ ~ :cl~~~?~ ".i ~~~' '\1 ~g :~ ~a~ \ ~ '~rl ~,~ ~ ' ~,~ ~ .... ~ b' " ......' '-~ ~ ~'" 11- ~.",- ~,~ s~~ ~~ ~ ~ i::: K ~,~ \) f~~ ~ ~ ki tfJ I- ~,.~.S ~~ N "'( \J U ... I., ~~. \:t i~ (') ~lC ~ r.. ~~ ) t::; n ~~ t( .:::: ~ ~ ~ "",~ ..... "", ~<,:K VJ ~') 9" ~....(J ~ ~ t/)~, \j ~~ ~\ t * \D.;:J ~ .~ g~' ~ 8 & g ~ ~' r[@ ~'~' ~ ~ '; i3- ~ i'l--- "VJ-- -v}- "f1h ~ :C-:~.> ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~;'m ~ ~~ ~\ ~ ':4) ~ @~ ~I ~ B8 ~ l-~ ~~ ()O fu~ ~ " ~ t--,.-lt) I:()" Let td ~I ~(Q \9.~ ~ Cf- '} - " ~N~ [ij ~ ~ 19- ill-- ~ ~~ ~ ~ & ~ ag ~g ~ I~ ~I ~ ~ "- ~.... ... '0() f'j) ~ ~,..: ~ it:! w ~Q " ..... ......' ill- ~ ~.. 1>>-~ ~ '-. ,.-.., ~ i ~ ~R" ~ 'f) Q')~~~ ~~ N ,,~ it f ~ ~ 'V ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ?j ~ 8l'~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ti.. 0 "t -..J , GJ >.. ~>- ~&: ~~ ~& ~~ !~ '" ~ ,~ f m oc T ~~.~K .~ ~~! ~ ~~~' ~ ~l~~ ~ ''<), ~~ ~ _I " .- ~~~~~ ~ ~~.~.~. m ~ ~.g}l.~~. ...~ ~h) ~ {i;. '" :<:- ~ \k ~ >- ~ ~~ ~i~~~~ ''or Z:~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ""',., ' , (' .:::s, ~~" l'I'. i;t''--' t'\ .~ ,'~ '-i ~ ~ ';j 11\ ~,.,,(, ~~~IU f) ~ (. "'-: \JLl)~ _~ '..t 41.. ;'0 0 N '>4 ~ l!J ~~' cQ ~,..... ~ S-6' ~ .~ ~ ~ .. ".;~ ~ ~'~ ... g ~ ~~ ! ~; ~;~ "- lil <: ~ f' "t~ 'G, ,~ ~ ~ ~ $~ ~" l:~ Il2'Il(Q ~l:l . &'" '" o~ ~Ii:'~ itc ~Q ~~~ -.:"-K Ii!. l>~ "~~ ~ ~~. "H ~ ~~ ",~q, ~ ~"; ~~o <l:. J!l ill · III u' "!! · '!I ~ "" ;:>. ,,,, ~ 0 5 "'- l-- II. .. ~ III ~ ~ ~ ' S'~ g'" ~l:;~ \l ,,~;' :;,;lUlt ~lt IS"'\!>; op ~~ U) ~ f!. \J..;IE'; ~l: ~ 'h ~ !. ~ 1 ~ ~ '!1 \I " ~~ ~~~ ~~~.H~~~ ~~'O ~~@~i~~~QIE~~ p~ ~ ~r)(~.~Q ~~, !Ii Ie J "a ~ a ::" -9 fo Uj <' ~ III : t:~~ $ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~ f\" - . :;:, '" '-' , "3l ~ ~ ~,~ Ul -I( ro :~ ~~ 9 (\ :;;:t S:J K. t{"X" -.l Cf) ~ ~ !IJ <1 ~ ~.f.- ili C ~ '" \!i "'. ,U ~~ 3 · K~\5~ ~hiiiJVl~8h t!l ~ ~ ~ ~ "l jf ~ ~ F~~~~;t. b.......... (\ IQIlI .,. J::: "" '" s: s: " ;>. ." "~,, > '" ., ",,, "I.: . ." '<r,,~"'''' ~ 0'" r./ ~ $ '--l lU ~ 1't-~H~ ~ ~ ~.. 1.8 \J ~ . . V ~ ~ . f.. ~ ,~ ~~ ~ .~ ~ fl{ l'!.. ~ (j ~ lit ~QIlj ~ ~ h- ~~~ ~ ~!g !~~ "" J ~il< ~itYl _!O :l~f!.l~,Q f~if ~ ~ I}f ~., . · ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~(/) ~. I ~ ~~~~....~ ~!D~'~~ ~ ~d ~JS ~ ~ @ ~,', tf) ~.~ Vi C'l {/} e ~ " ~t)~tu !4l ~ r' cu f/\ N III ~ ." ~..; ~ "J "- ~ ::s Sv '< ,<i\!l~ ~ ~ ~ ~m~~ fl ~ '-'. Ii ... () n ~ ~ ~' (~ 0 ~ ~ ~ '" ~ . ..;;- ~~'-~ ~ -...i c( -t \l' ~ ~ (.) ~ \i\ . . . \J ~ \1) ~! .. f':;v~ '~. /--~ <~ ! ~ ~ ~ illl G ~~ ~. ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ l!! ~ 3; ^- K~~ ~$" "-- a~lhG ()tt~ \1) \::: .... "'- ~ ~ G 16~~ ~~ l---~k ~~ !li ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ !l1 ~l<l~lllKiii~ (jR~ ~~~t~-~n (t~ ti ~ ~ ~ If ~ \\ ~l a ~ ~:i h ~ ~ ~ !Ii ~ !( IlCS ~ &l. ~ 0 \5 ~ &j ~ ~ ~ ~JIl ~ h: ~ ~.. .. ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~\jn,,~~<:I ~~~0l'I ~ n \2 ~ ~ ~ In::j:) ~Il. " 0:- Il' f! ~ ~ l!l A iI'i !O i':~ "- . . . . ~ Il: ... C, ~"''', r-;: . ~...... U)f::- \J ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ti:. 'l ~ ~ ill "- t$ '-l ~ ..... -) 2 ~ ".'~ .. - ...1~ ) 'i;j~ ",".-~.", '\ . .. , '. , ~ ,~ " . .. -l "'" .. ~ :"1 ,,~ :J > .() .() ~ ..,~:-.;, ...() :z () ~ '5 lR :2 ~ t> r; < ill -1 8 9l ~ 3 > m-:1 ~I ~ \,} '-- ~ ~ r B~ I I \- z ~ ~ b~l ~L_ ;c-.I Do ~~~ :Z-1 ~~-<C :Z:~:7 3ot.znl \\<:'3'2 ~&~ I I )- \- ~ '- , 2 Ul ~ <( ~ ~ ::I ~,~ I.U ~ ~ u.I ~ :z IU at ~ ~ III \...~ ~~ ~~~ \3~~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ?: \..l ~;< ~< ) ,~ -G -, .-'- }: ~ :1 ~ 2 () -I ~ ~ ~ ~ Cl> <) 2:' :I: ..:J :r: . /'- ..r to? -- ~ tL ? /' -10 --.. ill tL:::... Co '0L 's.- t.... :1 () -4 ~ tll ~ ~ I ~ :I: :r: -J :r: :L .() ;:-; ..L ,t"""\, ". o !:::! I :>::1 ~51 ,l OoC;. ~G'"<) , I L ~~, C-:S::c :E::c~ :s:: <> t- ::I <) .-I :r: -:s ::t . ....,. ."-.... 2: <; ~.z ~ :L , :() ill > :z III '-oJ Z 4- :z u.. ... ;z C) 'F '" ~ ~ ~ <( '0 ~ =z ---"~ '... --~ -tl' ::Z\U\1\ ~~~~ ,--< :z O~~-<{ ,g~-:z Ul-1::]\i: 2~~ ~ In ill ~~~ ~N"l \>,!' ::r~:l '~ S 2- -< ;:L ,~ ~. , '~, ;L ~ :s:: ~ \Il\>.\ ':> ~ ~ Z ,...\\l. -:. \U ~ ~ -'~"'^ ~ ~u ~.: ~:;; 111, ,', ,i~ ::.~, ..0. 's~otoo~a~B~ ~a~ ~OJ uos~aX~ aqao~d o~ S~UB~~ tB~oads B pua~xa pUB 'a~Oill ~Onill O~ P~B~OJ ~oot aM 'a~Bp o~ paA~aoa~ sBap~ u5~sap pUB ~ndu~ uaz~~~o JO satdillBxa aillos a~B 5u~~ottOJ a~ili 'uo~~ntOs ~saq a~~ saillOO SpU~ill XUBill illO~J ~nq 's12ap~ u5~sap stBnp~A~pul ~o12a ~~T~ aa~512 SX12~tB ~OUU120 aM 'suaz,~,o S~T - ~saq uads~ ~ou~ o~~ atdoad a~~ o~ ua~s~t o~ X~~un~~oddo'X~aAa a~B~ aM 'ssaoo~d 5U~UU12td a~~ 5u~~np suaz~~~o pau~aouoo Xq P~12~OJ ~nd sBap~ PU12 ~sa~a~u~ a~~ a5pat~OU~o12 o~ sa~s~~ ~~ (panu1+uoOl ~ XIaNSdd~ ,.-..., I"""', APPENDIX A (Continued) TOWN PLANNING RNL has taken a town planning approach to the design of the parking facilities. Rather than looking at the Bell Mountain and Rio Grande sit,es from their property lines inward, this town planning approach considers the big picture: 1. How the central core area is structured today and what effect the two new parking facilities might have on vehicular and pedestrian movement within the core in the future. 2. What.new opportunities exist to use the parking facilities as generators of pedestrian and transit shuttle movement into the central core. 3. How can the parking facilities help define the extreme "edges" of the core area and limit its expansion. .'.~~ 4. How can the Bell Mountain and Rio Grande sites be developed as good neighbors to adjacent properties and maintain Aspen's small scall Victorian town character. ~., : The following drawings illustrate the major town planning opportunities that exist in parallel with the construction of new parking facilities. RNL incourages the City to consider these opportunities for improvements to the central core. However, we recommend that a clear separation be maintained between the parking facilities and other complimentary improvements which might be purSUed after further study at a later date. The parking garages should be designed as stand-alone facilities with as few "strings" attached as possible. If! ~~h l.~~~; ;-- . ~ I <u.'" t .. ------ ..---.-,.. APPENDIX A (continued) Abstract Land Use Patterns This diagram illustrates how the central core can be bound by the parking facilities proposed in the Transit/Transportation Development Program. Several benefits are derived from this planning concept: 1. The parking facilities intercept vehicles at the edge of the central core before they enter downtown. 2. The parking facilities become generators of pedestrian movement into the central core. 3. The parking facilities (certainly the Rio Grande site) can become transit shuttle hubs for people preferring to ride into the central core. The existing Ruby Park transit station is one end of this shuttle route and will provide interface with down- valley RFTA buses. The shuttle system could be either the City's trolleys that are currently in storage, or conventional mini-buses. site Relationships This diagram shows more site specific opportunities: 1. Two of the town's major open spaces, the ski mountain and the Rio Grande site along the river are pulled "closer" together by a Galena street corridor. 2. The central core is clearly bounded to the east by the Bell Mountain parking facility and serves as the transition zone to the residential area east of Original street. 3. Summer visitor traffic over Independence Pass is presented with a well defined pedestrian gateway to the central core that is also the automobile intercept point for public parking. 4. One possible shuttle loop is shown which incorporates Galena/Cooper/Spring and the Spring Street extension. Another alternative might be a "down and back" run on Galena from Ruby Park to Rio Grande. .t, ". :ttXi r'\ r'\ APPENDIX A (Continued) Connections This scale drawing shows how the existing Hyman, Mill and Cooper street pedestrian malls can be connected to the pedestrian flow generated by. the parking facilities. j" The Transit/Transportation Development program and citizen input points to the necessity.of separating pedestrians from the heavy vehicular traffic at the Mill and Main streets intersection, By bringing pedestrians out of the Rio Grande garage at the base of Galena street and by similarly introducing pedestrians at street level along the cooper side of the Bell Mountain ~arage, two per pendicular pedestrian pathways intersect at the existing malls. ~ These new pedestrian paths into the central core do not necessarily need to be full scale pede'strian malls that are closed to traffic. constru.ction 01; the parking facilities will enable the City,to remove curbside parking along one side of both streets. ':I.'his would enable the widening of the sidewalks to a 20-25 foot width. The wider sidewalks with continuousupgr.aded (b:rick) paving would clearly define th~ pedestrian path without completely closing the streets. [ 1 ~" I ~,'," 'iP:.' ... ~J) u\ ''':j ""'" ii&~ l{,iI c! .. i..Jj , ~f,\ , N,' -',/ ",J" ' /'~~ i h " i"i" 'u' K'" '\ :' ~] :z -. r~ (".~ -"% .~ , I~'"' ,~;:' .... ~ " , , l l ~, . t::1t::lpOOo I Q ~ ~j a I, -tR 0 P ',).' ~n -<fa ~ , 2U -I z " ~ ~ CJI:::rc "Ztd 's'n :!! -I i 11 I J ~' ~ ~, ~ Q:1 )~,~ l' ~l""'l p -& t=l t=1'b . Zq ''3.n . 11 l 'I! :', ~ I f~ I 1 \~ " " _ _ 'n :J: >- "' o z ~ \II '- t1J1 ".,. \l\ ,::v If! P!t~ r}~1 '"--c-y:, ~'1 ..~~ t:b <<:!:~l" ~ f"4 ~.,: ~S) '.>.;.,) ,; &~. ,.4 . l\ -ac,,,;l':i"" K~\ :;;~,~= 8i~ tl3 ~ ~" ~< 'C".;Cr;pJJ ?!1i"') 7"~ 't,\ ,\ ""j .~~ \\,', . r..; . w.. -.., ,-., w f i l/l 'J f ~ ,i,{i tJ~1 :>.lL ~~ lL_ u.~ a.J " :I: ... ~ z ~ ~ {~ ::r:7, ~~ ~~ .-l\1\ ~~ ~\l\ Z ~~ - l\ \D. , l l~n ltli .. . . .. ~: J ~ ,~~ 10 :~ L~ ' :' " ., 4..i;' :(j~ ~~ '" I~~~ "- ,;5",-, ~ ~ ~() "",'''"", L-.f L . , .. .::::N 1------' ~~~~ ,,'.' ~ ~ 1\/ 'bi.) q: () ~ 'f'." " ',';.! ,lJ ."',.",,<,..,^,'- ~.,. /.."....,~. ,"~"'''.,~> '0 nc~ '\ .F:,..~'~r:ir,t~. j ,~- -~."" ~ ~- ,'~". Hi'ON e .. , . ~~l. '.-" ~ ~~ .....0 ...,,-~ ,--,: <-~; .....,i.....:? , " t>~ ~.'.~ ~-t~ \l..:':' ~ jl ~L ! J ."---. T T ]:;:l ~ 1[]]z 1-< ! ~ ! t-. ~. ~.':'- -.;: ". .:.1. /'/" ...... .\~~/.",:y -r~ ..~'~- . J-.'-?f"~' /;;~'i' "',,' ~. I . . +-f~ 01 ;~\ " I . L ...J -< ~!-ll ~ <<"'.'-' ~~~ ~\ ,~ ,,- ;.DQj \l:-"l '" ~--.:..i--._ {t\.., ~~ '. ~ -~r' ;'-. v.. I . . . . l::- 1{J -<:" "'. -,,' :, f"-- R: { .~ .:..:2 ',- .,/ "- ~ ~ ",. \i.... v ~ ~U ::,. ~ ~ -<: ~ <; I ~ ! ~. ;( CJ.: t! tij :c ',I' ',-) S":- ~ .",- . ~ "'1 ~'t:: r:'i '<. ,/ :.> iJj "---- ~ f\~"':"" ~ ....,--~-~ \ (0 ".... ~~~.s/.,' a'\.~ ,/.....'" ...~' ~.~.~ ~~,.; ~"':--- "... ;.....~+- ..... :'. ~ "', \ ,- ..;:.- ,> .:> ~.~. ~. ~l,~ ~ "- ..."- ~>, ..-- . ... ~li ;.~, ::.~- ,.....!' ~.,',-,'; ''0 -" :-q:;< <: ,.._'t:: :'~ '-, r-. ./ "'..... ..''', -.,'"- ~ "" ~~ : ~, '.,' , ".',.. , ,\J ;j L..~_. ,..... -".,'. i /) ---. ,,.-, Park:n~ Reve~ues AilDendix A (Cor,T.i nued) 7he manne~ in which parking revenues are ge~erated has an impor~an~ impac~ on the effec~:veness which a parking :acility has in reaching community goals. 7hough it is at~rac~ive to maximize parking revenues. the desire to minimize the necessary subsidy must be balanced against other objectives such as the inc~eased availability of onst~eet spaces, impact on traffic congestion. e~c. Due to concern ove~ air quality, traffic conditions. and pedestrian safe~y. a consensus has formed within the Aspen community that the use of the auto should be discouraged. partic~l~rly for short trips where o~her modes are convenient alternatives. In addition. thebusines$ community has identified the need to inc~ease the availability of spaces for shoppers and visitors in the comme~cial core. It is important that the parking fee schedule for ~ the new facilties be developed in light of these goals There are two general ways in which parking fees are commonly collected. Under an hou~ly fee schedule. parkers are charged for the length of time they are in the facility. afte~ a possible initial free pe~iod. A flat fee schedule. on the o~her hand. charges parkers a set fee upon ente~ing or exiting the facility. ;." The hourly fee schedule essentiall~. "':'"ewards"drivers who use their cars frequently. Indeed. if there isa two-hour initial free period, a dr-i ver who uses the car for er~ands ove~ the day may never pay a parking fee a~ all. (This d~iver may very well use the short-term spaces in the commercial co.;:e on tb.ese errands). Cor:-espondingly, the long te:':t parker- is ~".:-< "penalized" for not using the car in the middle of the day. The flat fee schedule. on the other hand. rewards the long-term parker for not using the auto for mid-day trips, as they are only charged onc~ ,for the entire day. Sim,plic.:.t::.. is an additional a"t-::-active feature of the flat fee schedule. In As~en. as in othe~ ~esor~ communities. there is a high proportion of visiting drive~s tha~ are unfamiliar with the local s~reetand parking system. To ":::11ese drivers. a simple "S2.00 per car" inc:-eases the at~ractiveness of a parking facility. '{ ~- ~, ~ Parkinc Revenues (Continued) Aopendix A (Continued) 70 assess the impact on revenues, an analysis of each parking fee schedule ~as pe~formed. bo~h with and ~iLhout a Bell ~oun~ain ~odge facili~i. A fee schedule app~opriate to Aspen was developed for each type: Hou~~v :.P.P. Schedule - Free First Two Hours - 51.00 per hour thereafter. to a maximum of $5.00. - Pass program at $3.00 per day (S60.00 per month). Flat ?~e Schedule - $2.00 per entrance at Rio Grande - S3.00 per entrance at Bell Mountain The higher price at the Bell Mountain facility under the flat fee schedule is necessary to avoid filling the facility with long-term parkers. These fee schedules were analyzed using the e~tensive parking demand da~a presen-ced in the Asnen/?i tkin Count'';' '!':-ansi t...'T:-ansDor:at:i on DeveloDment P~c~~am. As indica~ed in Table 1. the revenues generated by thefl~~ f~e schedule are subst:ant:ially highe~ (roughtly50% higher in lD88 i: 'the facilities were available) than are the revenues under the hourly fee schedules. The analysis summarized in this table conside~ed the following fact:ors: o The par}ung dat.a presented in the Tl7D? was based upon -CQunt:s conduc~ed on weekdays in Marcn.A March weekday is therefore the lst:ar:ing pain:' for the analysis. o ?u~u~e parking demand growth includes theeffec~s of pedest:~ian and t~ansit imp~ovement:s;:ut:ure parking supply is adjust:ed to reflec~ the exist:ing spaces lost to pedestrian improvement:s. the Sp~ing S~reet Ex~ension. and the cons~~uc~ion of the Rio Grande facilj~y. ~,';;l, :,!? ri~ o Monthly va~iationin total parking demand is based upon the monthly vatia~ion in t=afficvolumes on the.Cas~le Creek Bridge. This varia~ion is also factored to reflect the fac~ that the pay pa~king :acilities are only used af"ter t.he ons"tree"t spaces are fully u"til.:.zed; parking facility revenues are therefore highly sensi~ive to changes in ;Jar king demand. o The parking revenues generated on Saturday and Sunday are 50% of ~~at generated on a weekday. .... ~, ~ Parkinc Revenues (Continued) Appendix A (Continued) o All revenue figures assume that the maximum numbe~of vehicles in :he facility is 95% of the number of spaces. o In 1988 unde~ the flat fee schedule. 200 long~te~m (8 hour duration) parkers would use the fac:lity(ies). This :igure wi:: increase wi~h theinc~ease in overall parking demand. The ~emaini~g parkers are relatively short-term; in the Rio Grande. theshor~~term parkers are assumed to have an average dura~ionof 3 hours. while in the Bell Mountain Lodge they are assumed to have an average duration of 4 hours. o Parked car license plate counts indicate that approximately 75% of the parking movements in Aspen are for a duration of 2 hours or less. In light of this figure. it is not surprising the the hourly fee schedule generates a relatively low level of revenues. In total. the flat fee schedule maximized the pOl:ential parking facili;:y revenue while also furthe:ing the communities go~ls of reduced auto usage and increased short-term ons~~eet parking .space availabi~itr. "'" Ooe~atinq Costs Table 2 presents estimates of the current ope=ating costs of both facilil:ies. The S9.00 per hour cost for booth attendanl:s includes all fringe benefits and payrollcos1:s. ....', f~ I, t: m" : ~*,-- : .~ ~ ~ , / '"",:-,,".' o o ~ -;; , " . .' ~ ~ , ~, '" ~i;: ,IN ~ g H o ; !i :: " " = " ~ U :: " " " : II " " " " ~ :: .- )1 " ~ ~- ~ " " ,,.., " ~ II " " N " ~ " ~ " " " " ~ ~ " :: o g: !; " ~ " ~ ~\ " = " ~ ~ " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " c < ~ ~. :~ .;:~ : !\~ o , ~l~ , 0 ~jN z::tp. : ~ , ~") : ::: z[ , - , ! , ,,' , , " , ..::] . ~ l ... : , "" ~l~ : . c: l~ . , .;.c:''>:: ~ ~ .' .: ~ ~ ., ~ " ., "' ;: - ~ ;: :;;: N ,. ., ~ -:; .', :;! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;;: o :: ~ ~ :: ~ :;! '" ~ ~ C. ~ ~ . > ~ ~ ~ -. ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ " ., ~ ~ > ~ o .;; "' ro "' N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,', '" o :;: . , ," N , ro .:: ~.., , , ~::: , . ~ , :;:! ~ , o ;;: , ,.... , N :IN ~ , !::; . ~: .e:~ - , , , .;; :, g ~ , , "';;:: ... : ~ ~ : ~ , , ~ :;,~ ;;:: .... , . :=: : "'" - -;; too : _ ~ ~ N . ~ ~ ~ N ., ~ N ,', ". ~ ~ '" ~ .: ~ , ~ ~ " 4 . '0 ", ~, .. ,. ::: ~ ~ :;; ro .: = ~ ~~ "' N C' :: o .~.., ;::; 1.: ~ = ;: N ~ ~ ., ;: ~ ;: ., ~ ., ~ ~ c. -= - ,. N ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~, 4 "' ~ ~ "" ro ~ - ~~ :: -:; - ~ ~ "' :.:z ~, - ;;; ~ ~ ;;; ~ ~:; ::: N g , -= . , E = , " 4 . '0 = " . " ~ ".1; ~, o 0=0 .., o ~;; r-....... ~ ~ ~~ " N ., _ 0 ,. ~ g;~ ,,'"> .;::'> ........, -~ ;:~ ~, N ,', N N roo:; ,. N :; ...~. ~N ., ~~ .' ~3 ~ ~~ ~ r=- c..... .- ,. ~= ..... ~ .. C . 1 ~ o ;;; ~~ . ~ :; - ~ .:...... ~- ..,,~ - i, .::t ~ . ~ ,. ~ ~ ", ~ . " o -;;; " ~ ? gi ~ i;":; =- ~, o = . =4 ~ ::;;:::;; :;~ ~~~ .. ~ ,.~. 00 ~ = 0:0:"" N 1,00:. "..? f; ~ (;::: "... N ~~ ~=- - N - - 0"")""" ..., r-.. .- :;:~ - 0_ - = ~-, ":. c;.. :;: .... .' ~ ..~ c::: .. - ~;: ~ ~ = ~- ~:;~ ~~~ .a;;e~ :: c>~, ":. ~co~ ---:; - '" 0_ ~~~ . . . 0' ~~ ;;-~ -c:>~ ~; "f ~ '"' <:: c: .: ~ : ~ g::;.:..:: .:..: - -- ",.", '" ~ ~ ~ """' ..:.; ~ :.t ~ ~ ~ ~ ," = - -=-=~ . ~ =: -= -= ;: :: :; .. " .' ~ iQ - ~ N - ;;; N :: ~ N ~ ~ :: ;; = .: ~ ~ :: ~ = .' -. o ;r:: :: N ~ :: . ~ . ~ ;;- ~ ~ . . ~ ~ 1:' ~ ~ '^ . , . . > . " ~ ~ o ~ :: ~ ~ N N ~ N ~ ~ .' o ~ ,', ., "' :: :;; ~ ~. o ~ ;; o c ~ " > ;c , " 4 . "0 .~- -= r . ~ . . ~ ,', ~ :; . ~ :; '" o " ~ :i ~ ,:; ~ ::: ;; ~ ~ . , ~ ~ ~ o o " ~ ~. " . ~ 4 ~ 00 .. c:n .... ~"'l .... -..,.., ....,...0 0- -....;... ::: N _~...o ,.~ ,--, ~ N 000 W ~ -=:''';,'''''l ~:;.;: ~ N '" ~~~ ~~ ..-, N ,. "' eC'""~ N ~ - - - ro N "' ~ - 00 ~ ~:-~ - - ::: c:c ......"'l r-.. co_ ...,. <=:....:. ~ o ~ ~~;:; ~ ~, 0, ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ,- ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...Q -D ...... ~ .. '-, C N :; ..." ~ N .' = N ~ !::,.... ~ :.::- - - ~ '" ~ ~ C :; ;::: ,';; -. ~~-:; 1 . . = '" .... ... '" ~ E ! .::0:: 0.:..:.:. . = ~ x ,....- >- . . . ~:: ;..o""'=- -e ~ . N ::e.a.::.; ~ . : ~ = . ~ . ';; o ., ", . , ~ C <" o :;; ~ ,. 00 ~ ~ = N = i: ~ ., ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ ~ :;! - ~- ~ - M = ~, "' s; ~ N = ;: :;; ~ N ., .: ~ o ~ ~ ::! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::l ::::: :: ::: o ~ ~ " ~ ~ g = . , ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~. . > 4 . ~ .'i . "0 ~d ~," ~\, I " * ~ ~ :3 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ~. II r:; I! " " " " " cr. u " ::J II _ 0 ;... II " " " " v. U 11 :: ::J II <: :.t;1I " " " " " " " " " " " " '- " " " " '- " on " :: __ 11 U " " .. " " " " '-... II " <: " " " " " " " " " " " " II " , " " ~ II c; _ II " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " , " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " .... t: V. ~ ~ ,... <: ~ ~ ~ ~ = c - ~ o u '- " cr. :0 g ~ :;.... " ~ ~ " o ~ if, '" "' C "" ,... ~O C'JC:__ '<:' C\J t- -- ..'j -C\1C ~.~~ "'''' _ cr. c: -~ - .. u: ~ ... '" " " " " " " " " " " " " u c '" '0 CO '" .. '0 CO CO ~ .. ~gg t::: L:: g N C".: iN ~ vt .,.0 - ~ - ~- ~ '" c: '" cr. ~ ~ '-~ '" ~ " ~ " " ~ " Q .~ CO '" C .. o c " " " .. '0 N .. '" '0 0' " c: .. OJ c .. v. ,.-". '- 5 ~ cr. c ~ '- u '" ~ ~ '" ~ '" '" OJ Cl ~ on " '- N '" ~ - " '" '" c - ~ :: - ~ cr. '" ;; (I) g ,... ~ ~ 'U , I on I - I _ I ~ I I : S:! '0 It:: , , , I , , I C' , " , '- , I 0 '''' , ~ ,~ APPENDIX A (continued) Tax Revenue Sources The Town recently undertook a feasibility analysis of establishing a Downtown Development Authority (DDA). The purpose of the Authority would have been to finance the construction of improvements in the DDA District through the use of tax increment financing. The incremental property tax generated from the increased assessed valuation occurring within the District would be used to payoff the bonds. The tax base in the District would be frozen for the various existing tax districts and all growth revenues would be pledged to the TIF bonds. Another option would be to proceed with a Downtown Development Authority utilizing the increment from sales taxes rather than property taxes. The District would include the downtown core including the sites of the two proposed hotel projects. If the Ritz Carlton is developed, it may provide a window of opportunity for this financing technique. Preliminary estimates indicate that the Ritz Carlton alone would generate $28 million in taxable retail sales. The Town currently collects a 1% sales tax plus a share of the 2% county sales tax which currently amounts to approximately .432%. If a 1.432% tax is applied only to projected Ritz Carlton sales, an increment of $400,000 per year is created. The smaller hotel being developed by the Aspen Ski Corporation could increase this increment by another 25% to 30%. In addition, the District boundaries were drawn, some adjustment would have to be made for the fact that a portion of the new hotel market would be drawn from existing hotels and lodges. As has already been suggested by the Town staff, other taxing alternatives would include a special Improvement District, ski lift tax, citywide mill levy, or city sales tax. The projected 1% sales tax revenue from 1988 is $1.9 million. Assuming total taxable sales of $190 million, a $.25 to $.50 tax rate would generate revenues of between $475,000 and $950,000 per year. i~ ati ".>l ....,; "L j '.1: , j , "'~ <;-_.1.;' ~"'; "" '..; .<~J "0 ~~ .''','' ~ """-J ~ 'J~ ~~~ -'!Q~ 'J,). :::s: hlJ . ::::::i,~ '.t: (J~N :",',,* l=4 ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~N i ~~ I~~ ~~ !ir~ -.J '~''': S~ ~ ;"'t ,t---::: rV C"\. ~,~ 1""'\ ~ J ~~ ~CO ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~'tl. ~ ~ Ci\" i9-.. M.i ~~ "~ ~~~ &~ ~S ~~..~ ~~, .... ~ "'~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~.~ ~ ~~l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t? ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ i ~ ~! ~ ~. ~ ': : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ 1Jl- ~ ~ .~~ l'i ~ UJ Rl ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~." \!J (t) a W ...... ~ ~< m :I ~ ~. ~ I ~., t;o' "" ...... ~ ,-- ..,.. tf(\~ ,,-j ~ " '~ 4" , $,__ '""+ , -J K ~ . . ''',,; "~, '1, '~"'" "," ~ ~ ..... .'6~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,-0' ...~ ~._-t--",,~ f::: ~. " ~ . "\ ; . ~ \1' :-\' \J, \,., f liS ' i-} \f) \~~ 't \t~ t \')l ~ , ""C) .~ :;,'~ 1"- "'''''-;~,,"- ~~,: ~ ,,~,'it' '><.... :-:',..,""... '~ ~~ ~'J' "'Ij ,- \-,~ c' , . " ,(: \.'~$ :. ~\ "'-- I. H '. ". - . ~, --,,' " ~' >i \:~- ~~. 'v '--~, "\ih '*Il- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! \1 ~~~~ ~"- ~~~ ~\f\ ~ ~~ ~~~ "'~ ~~~\\\t;:; ~~~~~ ~ ~~ '11 ~~ n s.i~ ~~~ f('~~ ~~'" h~~ ~~~ Q~t-;: N -S {~ ~ ~~-' '~ K~ ~\\:~ .~. :J ~ ~ ~ >-. ~ " ::::! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ . III "- -;::-. \:.