The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.worksession.20081117~r ~...~ a. b ~ M~ ~ 4 +~ E l °" x -,"~ # ~ , ` ~~ ~ q,~~ • ~~ . .f a.:. J hh I{'~ ~ ~~, r: k i ,,. ~~ ,M ~~ ~. ~ 'S~,Ys ~ K ~ ~ ~ e~ ~a ~* ~ ~ ;. ~~ w"k~ ~ ~ ~ J * , ~~ r . f W ~ ~~ November 17, 2008 Aspen City Council WORK SESSION Presentation by Tramway Consultant Chuck Peterson on Proposed aerial inter-mountain mass transit "people mover" connection between Buttermilk & Aspen Five Thank you's 1. Thank you to Mayor Ireland and City Council members for allowing this work session on a proposed aerial inter-rountain mass transit people mover connection between Buttermilk and Aspen 2. Thank you to Assistant City manager Randy Ready for providing the outline which follows 3. Thank you to Colorado's Most Trusted Tramway Engineer, Chuck Peterson & son, Jeff Peterson for the presentation tonight on the aerial connection between Aspen & Buttermilk 4. Thank you to future Stakeholders in the Project for attending and offering comment 5. Thank you to the community for supporting this Project and offering comments Today will be focused on a plan, a conceptual plan, of an aerial inter-mountain mass transit "people mover" connection between Aspen and Buttermilk. This is not a small project. It requires a lot more detail, and, more importantly, requires a lot more teamwork to see it accomplished. Today we are going to present a brief overview and simple presentation of what we are trying to accomplish with an aerial people mover. The outline which Randy Ready provided is answered in written form for you. More detailed information will be provided as this Process moves along. Our mission today is to give Aspen City Council enough information and community support so that City Council may feel confident that it would be in the best interests of the community to allow staff to review the concept of an aerial inter-mountain mass transit people mover. Respectfully, Toni Kronberg November 17, 2009 ~ ~e I :~ fir. ~s (~ ~~ ' " 'ap •'.8 i „'y1 ~~r ,s 4+'~ ~~ ~ ~ Fe `~{,~ ,. IYi'~4 at ; ~~~~,r~ ^ v°~'f ~~~~~~,~ ,v +il~ Following Outline Provided By Randy Ready, Assistant City Manger Aspen to Buttermilk Aerial Connection Conceptual Design and Operations Analysis 1J Introduction aJ Background and Purpose BACKGROUND The dream of an inter-mountain connection is not a new one. Efforts were started early in this former mining town of Aspen, now a ski and snowboard town, to connect the four mountains with an aerial inter-mountain connection (better known as a gondola system). The purpose of the intermountain connection was to move skiers seamlessly from mountain to mountain. Juggling the desire to improve both the base areas of Buttermilk and Snowmass simultaneously while also trying to implement a four mountain connection, the Aspen Skiing Company made the decision to concentrate on redeveloping Snowmass Base Village. The dream of redeveloping Buttermilk Base area and the implementation of a four mountain inter-connect aerially was put on the back burner until the plans for Snowmass Base Village were in the development phase. Base Village in Snowmass is now in the development phase. The Aspen Skiing Company has just recently started plans on the Master Plan for the redevelopment of the Buttermilk Base area. The Ski Company along with a neighboring property, The Inn at Aspen, is attempting to submit an application for review by the Forest Service and the necessary local governmental review agencies in May f 2009. The goal of an aerial inter-mountain connect now being taken up by many members of the community has morphed from "for skiers only" to a bona fide aerial mass transit people mover which skiers can access. A lot of ground work has already accomplished by previous attempts. We know what we can't do physically, politically and ENVIRONMENTALLY. We know what we can do physically, politically and ENVIRONMENTALLY. We know there are still some things we need to do to make this Project work physically, politically and ENVIRONMENTALLY. While Connecting the Four Mountains aerially is not the focus of this work session, the focus is to connect Aspen and Buttermilk aerially. Why connect Buttermilk and Aspen? All people coming into Aspen from the down valley side of Aspen HAVE to pass by Buttermilk. Buttermilk is where the traffic congestion starts. It makes sense to start with the Buttermilk to Aspen section because even if that is the only inter-mountain which is accomplished, Aspen's Entrance problem can be solved in such a way that the aerial connection would take millions and millions of cars and buses off the roads. The congestion, grid lock, honking and pollution in the Entrance to Aspen's S-curves and roundabout, is on everyone's radar screen due to its poor portrayal of Aspen as "green". Former Councils have not seen a conceptual plan on a proposed inter-connect between Aspen and Buttermilk. Former councils have talked about the possibility ofinter-mountain connects but not at this level of detail. As Aspen's Mayor, Mick Ireland, and, Council members, lack Johnson, Duane Romero, Steve Skadron and Jackie Kasabach have the opportunity to move this very GREEN form of transportation forward to keep Aspen competitive with other ski areas who already inter- connect oruse mass transit "people movers". This Project would help resolve the Entrance to Aspen problems of congestion, pollution and poor "green" image. The Mayor and Council are being asked by the Community to allow this Project to be moved forward to the appropriate City staff for their review and recommendations as to what process steps should be taken next. Ultimate goal: Public Hearing to determine if the mass transit "people mover" aerial connection would be eligible to go through the City of Aspen's COWOP land use review process. PURPOSE The goal is to Get cars and buses off the road which we know we CAN get off the road with an alternative transportation system. Those people we know we can get off the roads are the millions of skiers and snowboarders who drive or take the bus to ski or snowboard the POWER OF our FOUR mountains...Aspen, Buttermilk, Highlands and Snowmass. The purpose of getting the cars and buses off the road we know we CAN is to eliminate the carbon footprint and pollution of those thousands and thousands and thousands of cars and buses. Climate change can be slowed down if emissions from cars and buses were reduced. Aspen has the opportunity to be the FIRST, not the first in aerial inter-mountain systems or people movers, but the first City to integrate the public mass transit RFTA bus system with a mountain gondola connection. As a community, we would like to back up the City of Aspen's Canary Initiative, Core's environmental efforts, the Aspen Skiing Company's and the Skiing Company's Environmental Foundation missions and, the SAVE THE SNOW campaign which educates people about the dangerous effects of climate change due to greenhouse gases and pollution. We know pollution and greenhouse gases are dangerous to our health, and, melt the snow which we are so dependent on in our resort town of Aspen. b) Work Completed to date / City of Aspen...studies to determine highway capacity for three potential options of improving the congestion and pollution in the Entrance to Aspen. Those three options are: the split shot, improvements to S-Curves and widening of Castle Creek Bridge, and the straight shot across Marolt Open Space. / This Project would not require re-opening of the Entrance to Aspen record of decision because it is a stand-alone project which does not affect the surface capacity of the highway. / The alignment proposed does not affect the easement given to Colorado Department of Transportation as it relates to the Preferred Alignment. / Tramway Consultant Chuck Peterson has mapped out a potential aerial "straight shot" alignment from Aspen to Buttermilk. There are three potential origination points in Aspen and one potential origination point at Buttermilk. / The stakeholders in this Project have all been notified that a community effort is underway to support the concept of an aerial inter-mountain connection which serves as a "people mover" in its purpose. The people mover purpose is to transport everyone in an easy, convenient, reliable, safe, welcoming and environmentally green mode. / This Aspen City Council public meeting work session. c) Report Organization Whv drive vour car or take a bus when you can ride in an Eco-friendly ~ree_pondola~ Stakeholders invited to today' s work session CDOT RFTA Aspen Skiing Company Related Westpac/Base Village Inn at Aspen Pitkin County Commissioner's Snowmass Town Council Friends of Marolt Open Space Private property homeowners Many other's invited to today's work session including Realtors ACRA StayAspen/Snowmass Hotels Lodges Community Members The remainder of the information is being reviewed and will be available at Monday's work session and power point presentation. 2J Description of Alternative(s) a) Relationship with Entrance to Aspen-Establish need for aeripl connection bJ Key Assumptions cJ 8ase Case Scenario: Preliminary design issues and criteria dJ Preliminary segments and terminal area concepts iJ Alignment iiJ Property Acquisition iii) Description of system (segment x segment) 3J Operations Analysis aJ Length bJ Headways cJ One way run times and Round trip cycle times dJ Average speed eJ System capacity fJ Operating and maintenance costs g) Ridership estimates based on capacity, estimated demand by market segment, and quality of traveler's experience h) Seasonal variations iJ Revenue estimates 4) Capital analysis a) Technology and Equipment description(s) b) Representative system and gondola cpr alternatives (description and photos) cJ Capital Cost estimates (including associated infrastructure, for example parking, station platforms, etc.) d) Lifecycle and replacement cost estimates e) Prospective funding sources f) Comparison of system options (chart showing physical, performanc%apacity, conceptual cost and other relevant comparisons) 5) Environmental and Safety Considerations aJ E.g., identified issues with and potential impacts on passenger safety, air quality, noise, wetlands, wildlife, open space/trails, historical resources, visual/aesthetic issues, community character, land use, energy consumption, etc. 6J Design Considerations for further review a) Technical issues that merit further study b) Potential cost-saving measures c) Potential alignment modifications dJ Potential terminal alternatives e) Potential system extensions 7) Conclusions a) Comparison of aerial system to buses in bus lanes b) Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages 8) Next Steps a) Implementation and Land Use considerations Outline provided by Randy L. Ready Asst. City Manager City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-5083 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council S j FROM: Steve Barwick, City Manager .~Sf DATE OF MEMO: November 14, 2008 MEETING DATE: November 17, 2008 RE: Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Phases 2/3 Density Direction REQUEST OF COUNCIL: 1) Staff is requesting direction from Council on seeking to develop increased density at the Burlingame Ranch affordable housing site for up to 300 units. 2) Staff would like to request that City Council consider presenting a possible Burlingame bonding ballot measure to Aspen voters in November 2009 rather than in May 2009. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: During the May 20, 2008 City Council work session, staff was directed to seek recommendations from the Construction Experts Group on potential cost savings measures for future phases of affordable housing development at Burlingame Ranch. BACKGROUND: On October 6, 2008 Council was provided an update on the work of the Construction Experts Group (CEG). Preliminary CEG recommendations included a maximum achievable density of 293 units using modular construction and standardized unit sizes to achieve cost efficiencies. The CEG preliminary recommendations also stated that if only 236 units are to be built that they should be built utilizing the modular, standardized unit design recommended by the CEG with open space between buildings for potential future development. These CEG recommendations are preliminary, pending a reliable estimate for the conceptua1293 unit plan. There is a parallel effort in process to obtain a reliable estimate for the conceptua1293 unit plan. The City has hired Rider Levitt Bucknall (RLB), an international consulting firm specializing in cost consultancy, to create a conceptual estimate for the 293 unit plan. That effort is near completion, and we intend to bring the conceptual estimate to the CEG for their review within a week or two. On November 4, 2008, the public advisory vote on density confirmed building "up to 300 units" at Burlingame Ranch. Although the CEG developed a conceptual plan that consisted of 293 units at Burlingame Ranch, a vote of the Burlingame Homeowners' Association is necessary to approve a density increase.. DISCUSSION: 1) While the CEG is recommending 293 units, the HOA Board has expressed concerns about parking, transportation fees; the proposed number of units, the proposed modular building design, and the replacement of single family lots/homes with multifamily units. Staff is prepared to work in more detail with the HOA Board and the HOA as a whole to clarify these issues and propose reasonable compromises to address all of these concerns. This work could begin immediately, and staff expects that it will be necessary to work closely with the HOA in an effort to get the City's best offer on the table as soon as possible so that the HOA can make an educated decision in a timely fashion. 2) The following are suggested reasons for presenting a Burlingame ballot measure on funding to Aspen voters in November, 2009 in the perceived order of importance. Page 1 of 3 2.1 The national, state, and regional economic outlooks have changed dramatically within the last month. It is unlikely that the economic situation will have reached sufficient stability by early March to allow the Ciry Council to confidently approach Aspen voters and the bond market with plans for a bond issue. 2.2 Aspen voters have recently expressed a preference for an increase in Burlingame density. Since the current Burlingame homeowners have direct control over this matter, we will need time to engage them in discussions and negotiations. 2.3 The economic challenges facing the local community will undoubtedly have an effect upon the short- term demand for affordable housing. Questions that need to be addressed include: 2.3a How much demand for "for-sale" affordable housing remains during the economic downturn? 2.3b What changes have taken place in the mortgage market that will affect the ability of potential affordable housing purchasers to obtain and afford mortgages? 2.4 An update of the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan should be completed by late spring 2009. 2.5 It should be possible to receive actual bids based on specific construction drawings for the construction of the next phase of Burlingame before a November 2009 bonding vote. A vote in May 2009 would need to be based on construction cost estimates and a design that may not be fully vetted with the HOA. 2.6 The notable decrease in new regional construction projects will likely lead to a very positive environment in which to bid the construction of Burlingame. A few .months delay in construction bidding is not likely to substantially increase construction costs and could lead to cost savings. 2.7 Any possible Burlingame partnerships would be further refined before the matter is presented to the voters. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: 1) Poss Architecture and DHM Design provided design support to the CEG effort in creating the conceptual 293 unit plan. The scope of work for each firm was based on deliverables for 30%, 60% and 90% of a 293 unit conceptual design. The DHM contract for that effort was approved by Council on September 27, 2008 in the amount of $205,252. The Poss Architecture contract in the amount of $206,000 will be brought to Council on November 24 for approval. There is approximately a third left in those scopes of work that can be used as design support for the HOA effort. No further direct financial impacts are expected, however the work with the HOA will affect whether or not 236 units or increased density will be achievable, and major changes in project scope will have major budgetary implications for the project. 2) The financial impacts of presenting a Burlingame ballot measure to voters in November 2009 instead of May 2009 are unknown. However, the City Council has conducted extensive discussions regarding the current economic uncertainty and has concluded that it is prudent to both delay certain capital projects and to conduct monthly budget reviews. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: There are no known environmental impacts associated with these issues. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Page 2 of 3 1) Staff recommends that Council direct staff to work with the HOA to achieve a density plan that the HOA Board can get behind and recommend to the HOA. Staff requests the opportunity to propose reasonable compromises to address all of the HOA concerns so that a mutually beneficial increased density plan might become possible. 2) Staff also recommends that the City define a timeframe of no more than approximately 2 %2 months (February 1) for conclusion of discussions with the Burlingame homeowners regarding density increases. 3) Staff recommends that City Council present a proposed Burlingame bonding ballot measure to voters in November 2009. In light of the current economic uncertainty, it would seem prudent to adopt a "wait and on which to make decisions related to construction and financing of Burlingame's future phases. ALTERNATIVES: City Council could direct staff to proceed with current plans to present a Burlingame bonding ballot measure to voters in May 2009. City Council could also direct staff to suspend efforts on Burlingame and redirect their efforts toward other affordable housing opportur}ities. ATTACHMENTS: Page 3 of 3