HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.202009211
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
September 21, 2020
3:00 PM, City Council Chambers
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
WEBEX
Go to: www.webex.com Click "Join" at the top right-hand corner
Enter Meeting Number 126 938 0669
Password provided 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
OR
Join by phone
Call: 1-720-650-7664
Meeting number (access code): 126 938 0669
Meeting password: 81611
I.WORK SESSION
IA.EOTC IMS Phase 1 Report
IB.Finance Update
IC.Transportation and Parking Update and Budget Forecast
4:00
PM.
Joint P&Z and City Council Meeting - North Mill Street Sketch Plan Review
1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: September 21, 2020 (COA Council Meeting)
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Integrated Mobility Study (IMS), Phase 1 – Report Out
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Pesnichak, EOTC Regional Transportation Administrator
EOTC Guiding Principles: Environmental Sustainability, Social Sustainability
EOTC Key Strategies: Multi-Modal Network that Encourages Mode Shift
EOTC Regional Priorities: First and Last Mile Solutions; Transit Speed, Accessibility,
Reliability, and Efficiency Enhancements; Congestion Mitigation
Measures; Technologies and Innovation to Encourage Mode
Shift
EOTC Upper Valley Priorities: Multi-Modal Solution to Entrance to Aspen
The purpose of this memo and presentation are to report out the results from Phase 1 of the Integrated
Mobility System (IMS) study, which was jointly funded in 2020 by the EOTC and RFTA. No action is
requested at this time.
This Phase 1 Study is the next step in the development of the IMS, which was created by the 31-member
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility that met between June 2016 and August
2017. This Task Force concluded with a report in 2017 called the Upper Valley Mobility Report that was
unanimously adopted by the Task Force members.
Fehr & Peers is currently under contract to complete the Phase 1 analysis this year. To date, final reports
for each of the tasks have been completed and those results are ready to be communicated out to RFTA
and the EOTC officials. For the EOTC, the results from this Phase 1 study and the anticipated upcoming
Phase 2 will inform future projects and expenditures.
The following components of the analysis are a part of Phase 1, as identified in the scope of work. Each
component is analyzed in a stand along memorandum from Fehr & Peers, which are attached.
1.Review and Refinement of existing Strategies - Refine the five principle strategies
outlined in the IMS. This task would also add more definition so that the parameters of each of
the systems can be roughly identified and modeled for how effective the IMS could be at
improving mobility and managing traffic congestion (see next task).
2.Perform a High-Level Effectiveness Analysis of the IMS - The consultant will evaluate the
potential effectiveness of the Integrated Mobility System using off-the shelf tools, travel
elasticities, and similar analytical techniques. The purpose of this analysis is not an exhaustive
1 2
study of traffic implications or detailed GHG analysis, but a general picture of the potential
reduction in VMT, GHG emissions, and reduced SOV vehicle travel.
3.Identify an Implementation Framework – While the IMS provides a robust approach to
managing vehicle travel in the upper valley, some elements are more complex and could take
more time to implement than others. This framework would help identify a potential “pilot
project” that brings together two-to-three of the IMS strategies that could be simpler to get off
the ground but would still have enough synergistic benefits to reduce demand for SOV travel.
This task would involve some additional analysis of how to combine different strategies along
with working with EOTC staff to understand which strategies might be the easiest to implement
(from a practical and political standpoint). This task was originally proposed as an in-person
workshop, however, due to COVID-19 this component of the original scope will not be able to be
completed as planned.
The components of the Integrated Mobility System (IMS) – Upper Valley Mobility Report
Staff from the EOTC, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Town of Snowmass Village, and RFTA along with
representatives from the Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility participated in
several reviews leading up to this point.
With the IMS Phase 1 of the study wrapping up Staff has been looking ahead to Phase 2 in 2021, which is
expected to dive deeper into modeling and socio-economic impacts. More specifically, Phase 2 (not yet
fully funded) is anticipated to: 1) complete a more detailed greenhouse gas and travel analysis
identifying which trips are most likely to be affected, 2) develop performance measures and evaluation
framework, 3) develop an equity impact analysis, and 4) look at potential impacts from autonomous
vehicles.
To this end, Staff applied for and was awarded $30,000 from the CDOT Multi-Modal Options Fund
(MMOF) toward the anticipated $60,000 cost for Phase 2. These funds were awarded at the maximum
level of 50% of the project cost. In addition, RFTA has provided a tentative commitment letter in the
2 3
amount of $10,000 towards the Phase 2 study. The EOTC will review funding allocation in the amount of
$20,000 for Phase 2 in October.
Some notable overall takeaways from the Phase 1 reports include:
-Interdependency. While individual measures can have limited impacts on reductions to congestion and
greenhouse gas emissions, their effectiveness can be multiplied when implemented as a system.
-No ‘Silver Bullet’. All of the strategies analyzed have a degree of effectiveness; however, there is no
‘silver bullet’. When moving forward with congestion mitigation and limiting greenhouse gas emissions,
small incremental steps that build on one another are expected to have the greatest overall impact.
Specific takeaways on the 5 tenants from the Phase 1 reports include:
-HOV Lane Enforcement Important, but Not as a Stand Alone Measure. It was identified that HOV lane
enforcement on Highway 82 would have “no VMT / GHG emission benefit as a stand-alone strategy”.
This said HOV lane enforcement is an important and integral component to other strategies that can
reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions.
-Ride Hailing Could Result in Short-Term Reductions, but Ride Sharing is More Impactful Long-Term. It is
anticipated that ride hailing could have limited effect short-term, with the greatest impacts among
visitors. Meanwhile ride sharing could have a positive benefit both short and long-term, particularly
among commuters, by providing more travel choices and better access to the transit system (and thus
less reliance on car travel).
-BRT Enhancements Could Have Positive Impacts Alone while Multiplying Benefits for Other Strategies.
For any congestion or greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy to be impactful, an effective and
competitive alternative to a private vehicle must be in place. As a result, enhancing BRT service could
have a strong multiplier effect. However, BRT improvements alone will have limited potential congestion
and greenhouse gas reductions.
-Congestion Reduction Measures Could Have the Strongest Impacts but are also Notably Difficult to
Implement. Congestion Reduction Measures, including congestion and parking pricing, could have
strong impacts on reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. Any reductions are dependent on a
strong and effective alternative mode, however. In addition, dynamic congestion pricing could be very
difficult to implement politically, would require significant coordination with CDOT, may require
legislative changes, and could have notable equity impacts that would need to be mitigated.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Presentation
Attachment 2 - 2017 Upper Valley Mobility Report
Attachment 3 - Final Report – Task 1, Dated April 6, 2020
Attachment 4 - Final Report – Task 2, Dated June 16, 2020
Attachment 5 - Final Report – Task 3, Dated July 28, 2020
3 4
Integrated Mobility System
(IMS)
Upper Valley Mobility Report
Phase 1 Analysis –Report Out
4
Attachment 1
5
Integrated Mobility System (IMS)
Phase 1 Analysis Report Out
Background:
-IMS Developed by 31-member Community Task Force on Transportation and Mobility
-IMS Outlined by Task Force in Upper Valley Mobility Report (2017)
-EOTC and RFTA jointly funded IMS Phase 1 Analysis in 2020
-Fehr & Peers Under Contract w/ Pitkin County for Phase 1 Analysis
Purpose of Presentation: Report out results from Phase 1 Analysis
Phase 1 Analysis Scope:
-Refine 5 Identified Strategies for Modeling
-Perform High-Level Analysis of Impacts on: 1) VMT, 2) GHG Emissions, 3) SOV Travel
-Identify Implementation Framework
5
Attachment 1
6
Integrated Mobility System (IMS)
Phase 1 Analysis Report Out
Fehr & Peers Team:
-Ann Bowers, Chris Breiland, and Marissa Milam
Local Review Team:
-EOTC: David Pesnichak
-RFTA: Dan Blankenship, David Johnson
-Pitkin County: Brian Pettet
-City of Aspen: John Kreuger, Mitch Osur
-Town of Snowmass Village: David Peckler
-CDOT: Andrew Knapp
Task Force on Transportation and Mobility / Aspen Institute:
-John Bennett, Bill Kane, Cristal Logan, Evan Zislis 6
Attachment 1
7
7
Attachment 1
8
8
Attachment 1
9
9
Attachment 1
10
10
Attachment 1
11
11
Attachment 1
12
12
Attachment 1
13
13
Attachment 1
14
Integrated Mobility System (IMS)
Phase 1 Analysis Report Out
Link to EOTC Strategic Plan and Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP):
Guiding Principles:Environmental Sustainability
Social Sustainability
Key Strategies:Multi-Modal Network that Encourages Mode Shift
CVTP Regional Priorities: First and Last Mile Solutions
Transit Speed, Accessibility, Reliability, and Efficiency Enhancements
Congestion Mitigation Measures
Technologies and Innovation to Encourage Mode Shift
CVTP Upper Valley Priorities:Multi-Modal Solution to Entrance to Aspen
14
Attachment 1
15
Integrated Mobility System (IMS)
Phase 1 Analysis Report Out
Report Out Schedule:
-RFTA Board Thursday Sept 10
-TOSV Council Monday Sept 14
-COA Council Monday Sept 21
-BOCC Tuesday Sept 22
Next Steps:
-2021 -Phase 2 Analysis
-Scope: Detailed Modeling and Socio-Economic Impacts
-GHG Emissions and Travel Analysis (which trips most impacted)
-Performance Measures and Evaluation Framework
-Equity Impact Analysis
-Impacts from Autonomous Vehicles 15
Attachment 1
16
Questions
16
Attachment 1
17
Community Forum Task Force
on Transportation and Mobility
September 2017
Upper Valley
Mobility Report
17
Attachment 2
18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Summary and Conclusions 3
2. Introduction 6
3. Core Values 8
4. Summary of Transportation & Mobility Options 9
5. Other options not studied for this report 22
6. Addendum 23
Community Forum Task Force
on Transportation and Mobility
18
Attachment 2
19
3
Summary and Conclusions
Working under the auspices of the Aspen Institute, the 31 members of the Community Forum
Task Force on Transportation and Mobility met from June 2016 through August 2017. Its goal
was to create a values-based vision for transportation and mobility in the upper Roaring Fork
Valley for the year 2035 that would address traffic congestion as well as the mobility needs of
our residents, commuters and visitors. (See “What is the Problem?” on p. 6 and “Core Values”
on p. 8.) Task force members sought solutions that would meet the established goal and be
both politically achievable and financially viable.
When the Community Forum Task Force began its work in June 2016, many members expected
that it would focus on one or more large-scale, capital-intensive transportation solutions.
Instead, what emerged was a balanced “integrated mobility system” of programmatic solutions
that could be experimented with and phased in over time. To address the challenge of induced
traffic (see p. 7), this integrated system employs a balance of both carrots and sticks. Its
complementary measures could be implemented as budgets permit over short, mid, and long-
term time frames.
Recommendation:
In its final meeting, the task force recommended unanimously that work begin immediately to
plan an integrated mobility system that includes the following five elements (see below). The
individual components of this system are interdependent. Some measures specifically reduce
traffic congestion; others increase mobility for the public. Some are capital and cost intensive,
while others would contribute revenue, making the system more affordable. (To promote
social equity, the task force recommends that 100% of any revenues raised be reinvested to
reduce the cost of transit and alternative mobility measures – or even make them free – for
those who use them.) These five elements lend themselves to experimentation, they are
flexible, and they are reversible.
19
Attachment 2
20
4
The Integrated Mobility System (from short to long-term):
1.Ride Sharing (short-term)
2.Ride Hailing (short-term)
3.Congestion Reduction Measures (short and mid-term), which include dynamic road pricing and dynamic
parking pricing
4.HOV-Lane Enforcement (short and mid-term)
5.Phased BRT Enhancement (short, mid and long-term), which may not necessarily cross the Marolt Open
Space. Could include enhanced service to Snowmass Village.
Additional measures supported by the task force’s matrix analysis:
•Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing (mid and long-term)
•Airport/Transit Connectivity, especially low-cost options (short and mid-term)
•Snowmass Connection Enhancements (short and mid-term)
(Please see the Summary of Mobility & Transportation Options that begins on p. 9 for a discussion of all the
above measures.)
20
Attachment 2
21
5
A Single Planning Entity:
The task force recommends strongly that the three upper valley governments identify a single entity to coordinate
and facilitate regional mobility planning among governments, the private sector and the community. Over time,
this coordination should expand in scope to include the full region.
Observations:
•Free-flowing traffic is not a reasonable expectation unless congestion reduction measures are sufficient to
reduce current traffic and mitigate future induced traffic.
•The U.S. is undergoing a transition away from a car-centric culture. Millennials are buying fewer cars than
previous generations, and parking demand is expected to drop.
•Regional and local land use decisions profoundly affect mobility challenges and traffic congestion.
•A grassroots advocacy organization for an integrated mobility system is essential.
•The community should seek public/private partnerships to help implement it.
•The integrated mobility system adopted should leverage existing approvals and plans (e.g., the Entrance to
Aspen Record of Decision, Aspen Area Community Plan, etc.).
•We should improve mobility incrementally and continuously.
•Specific elements of the integrated mobility system will affect different people and different geographies in
varying ways. We should consider carefully which user group is affected by each element of the system and
plan accordingly.
•We should engage innovators and entrepreneurs from all sectors to help create the mobility system we
envision.
The Community Forum Task Force recommends that the package of mobility experiments now being planned by
the City of Aspen should be used by Aspen, Pitkin County and Snowmass Village to help demonstrate and explore
elements of this integrated mobility system.
What Success Will Look Like:
If we fully implement the integrated mobility system, we will make upper valley travel substantially easier while
remaining true to our most important community values. Commuters would spend more time with their families
or on the job; visitors would gain a greatly improved vacation experience; and residents would enjoy an enhanced
quality of life.
21
Attachment 2
22
6
Introduction
What is the Problem?
Traffic congestion is a defining problem for residents, commuters and visitors in the upper Roaring Fork Valley.
Traffic jams detract from our community’s livability and waste valuable time that could otherwise be used for
productive work, recreation, or visiting with friends and families. Commuters lose countless hours per year in
stalled traffic, and Aspen residents cite downtown auto congestion as one of their biggest concerns. Businesses
find it increasingly difficult to hire the employees needed to maintain our status as a world-class resort. Auto
congestion clogs our streets and highway, creates noise and aggravation, and adds carbon and other pollution to
our air.
Traffic congestion hurts our community in three broad ways: reducing economic productivity for local workers
and businesses; damaging the visitor experience; and lowering the quality of life for everyone. Snarled traffic
does not reflect well on our community, which prides itself on responsible urban planning and sincere concern for
the environment. RFTA, while doing an excellent job at carrying over five million passengers per year, is operating
at capacity for much of the year, and its future growth faces possible limits from both budgetary challenges as
well as the reality that about 1,000 daily bus trips already enter and leave Aspen in peak season.
Our current challenges will only grow. The state demographer’s office projects that, by 2035, Pitkin County’s
resident population will grow by 25% and the Roaring Fork Valley’s population will grow by roughly 50% to a total
of 70,000 people. Visitor growth could be comparable – and all these increases will further stress an already
challenging traffic problem.
The Community Forum Task Force recognizes that we cannot build our way out of traffic congestion by simply
adding more highway or transit capacity. A more sustainable and effective long-term solution must be found.
The Work of the Transportation & Mobility Task Force
In 2016, the Aspen Institute convened a group of 31 community leaders to develop a values-based vision for
where we, as a community, want to be in 20 years (by 2035) with respect to transportation and mobility in our
upper valley (Basalt to Aspen/Snowmass). The group met for 15 months: from June 2016 through August 2017.
Through its research and meetings with local and national transportation experts, the Community Forum Task
Force reviewed the rapid changes taking place in demographics, technology, culture, mobility preferences,
autonomous and electric vehicles, ride hailing and sharing, carpooling, transportation demand management, and
the wide array of available mobility options, both new and old.
Early on, task force members identified nine core values by which to evaluate transportation and mobility options.
These ranged from community values like environmental quality and community character to operating system
values, such as financial feasibility and effectiveness at reducing traffic congestion. The task force then identified a
dozen transportation and mobility options representing diverse approaches to solving the traffic and congestion
issues facing our community, and it then developed a matrix by which to review each option in terms of its
compatibility with the core values.
22
Attachment 2
23
7
The Principle of Induced Traffic
Early on, task force members identified induced traffic as a critical principle that must be addressed by any
transportation/mobility system adopted in our valley.
In growing areas, when automobile congestion is reduced by increasing mobility alternatives and/or highway
capacity, new traffic is generated and highways normally return to their previous level of automobile congestion.
This reality has been demonstrated repeatedly in growing towns and cities around the U.S. and the world, as well
as here in our valley. The phenomenon has two primary causes, both rooted in human behavior:
(A) Latent Demand. When perceived auto congestion is reduced during peak hours, many people will use a
highway more often, shift their travel back to peak hours, or switch from transit to driving, thus increasing
congestion again. This is a specific application of the economic concept of “induced demand.” That is, when the
supply of a good increases, more of the good is consumed.
(B) Land Use Effects. A perceived shorter commute to a desired work or recreation destination spurs residential
and commercial real estate development in more distant areas. In short, a new or expanded highway can turn
land previously perceived to be distant in terms of commuting time into prime real estate development property.
Since traffic engineers estimate that each new unit of housing can typically generate 10 new one-way auto trips
per day, 100 units of new housing can result in 1,000 additional daily car trips on local roads and highways. The
effects of new residential and commercial development on traffic congestion are often dramatic.
For more information on induced traffic:
Building Bigger Roads Makes Traffic Worse
Wired 2014
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
Increasing Highway Capacity Unlikely to Relieve Traffic Congestion
University of California-Davis 2015
http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2015/10-12-2015-
NCST_Brief_InducedTravel_CS6_v3.pdf
Generated Traffic and Induced Travel
Victoria Transport Policy Institute 2017
http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf
Regional Challenges, Regional Solutions
From the start, the task force recognized that regional problems demand regional solutions and that the upper
valley neither can, nor should, solve the valley’s transportation challenges on its own. Task force members, who
themselves live in different regions of the Roaring Fork Valley, discussed this reality at length. At the same time,
the members believed that the upper valley mobility problem was a good place to start, and it hoped that its work
would spark a broader and much needed regional conversation about mobility throughout the Roaring Fork Valley
and beyond. In addition, since a significant percentage of mid-valley traffic moves to or from Aspen/Snowmass,
upper valley solutions can help with some of the issues elsewhere.
23
Attachment 2
24
8
Core Values Underlying
Our Upper Valley Transportation System
Essential Community Values
➤ Community Character
•Preserves livability
•Fewer cars/less traffic
• Decreases urbanization
•Reflects limits to growth
•Compatible with affordable housing and
transit oriented development
•Tranquility … community peace and
harmony
•Promotes thriving community
•Fun and cool
•Aesthetically pleasing
➤ Environmental Quality
•Reduces carbon emissions and other
pollution
Operating System Values
➤ Traffic & Congestion Reduction
•Reduces long term traffic and congestion
•Fewer single occupant vehicles
➤ Social Equity
•Affordable to users
•Valley-wide benefits
•Works for both residents and visitors
•Positive shared experience
•Builds community
➤ Convenience and Comfort
•Frequent
•Fast
•Reliable travel times
•Easier commute
•Seamless and integrated
•Multiple modes and cross-modal ease
•Connects mountains and tourist centers
➤ Adaptable to the Future
Minimum System Requirements
➤ Safety
•Human safety
•Cyber security
➤ Financial Viability
•Cost effective
•Data informed
•Cost and funding mechanisms acceptable
to community
➤ Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand
•Adaptable to different travel demands
•Sufficient capacity and scale to make a
difference
Our 2035 vision for upper valley transportation is an integrated system that incorporates all
of the above values and creates a spectrum of innovative mobility options for our residents,
commuters and visitors.
24
Attachment 2
25
9
Summary of Transportation & Mobility Options
As presented by invited experts and discussed by the task force
Ride Sharing Systems
Ride Hailing Systems
Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit
HOV Lane Enforcement
Dynamic Road Pricing
Parking Strategies
Snowmass Village Connection Enhancements
Airport/Transit Connectivity
Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing
Light Rail Transit
Mountain-to-Mountain Connection
Increased Highway Capacity for Vehicles
25
Attachment 2
26
10
Ride Sharing Systems
An app-based ride sharing system could allow travelers to share automobile rides in two ways:
A. First and Last Mile Service: Moving riders between homes and transit stations, as well as between final
transit stations and workplaces, recreation areas or other destinations.
B. Valley Trunk Line Service: Moving riders along RFTA’s valley trunk line route between origin communities
and destinations in the Aspen/Snowmass area.
This could be (1) a peer-to-peer app-based system matching private vehicle drivers with passengers, (2) a for-hire
app-based “microtransit” service such as Chariot, Lyft Line, UberPool, etc., or (3) a “casual carpool” system
requiring minimal third-party management. In the first two cases, the cost of a ride could be paid through the app
–no cash need be exchanged. For security, drivers might be prescreened during registration (See “issues”). Both
drivers and riders could be user-rated through the app.
The system could be optimized with a wide array of mobility resources, such as bike sharing, “kiss and ride”
stations, employer incentives and pedestrian improvements. To alleviate first-mile challenges, WE-cycle, our local
bike share provider, could be expanded to reach more riders throughout the valley.
Features & Advantages:
•Could increase valley mobility without adding new cars to the highway or requiring RFTA to buy more
buses.
•Simplicity of “one click” mobility. A ride sharing app could identify and reserve seats on private vehicles
already en route up or down the valley.
•Ridesharing along the valley’s trunk line corridor could increase.
•More efficient use of thousands of existing private vehicles in our valley.
•Could build sense of community in valley.
•Could attract riders currently unwilling to ride public buses.
•Cheaper and easier than capital intensive alternatives such as LRT or enhanced BRT.
•Ride sharing concepts are now being tried in different parts of country.
•Target audiences can be reached through social media campaigns.
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the principle of induced traffic, ride sharing is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on
Highway 82.
•Would enough riders use the system to significantly increase mobility?
•Is driver screening actually needed? If so, what level of screening would drivers undergo and how would
it be managed?
•An app-based system would need to use either an existing app (e.g., Transit App) or a new one created for
our valley. Building on an existing app would be preferable.
•Could riders be picked up at RFTA stations without impacting bus operations?
Cost Implications:
•Relatively low up-front capital cost compared to some other options. Would not require substantial
construction and equipment.
•A for-hire provider (Lyft Line, UberPool, etc.) might require a public subsidy for riders.
26
Attachment 2
27
11
Ride Hailing Systems
Ride hailing systems include app-based services like Uber, Lyft, the Aspen Downtowner, and taxis that offer on-
demand rides. They tend to be organized public or private services, rather than peer-to-peer citizen-based
systems. Like ride sharing, ride hailing could function in either of two ways:
A. First and Last Mile Service: Moving riders between homes and transit stations, as well as between final
transit stations and workplaces, recreation areas or other destinations.
B. Valley Trunk Line Service: Moving riders along RFTA’s valley trunk line route between origin communities
and destinations in the Aspen/Snowmass area.
A ride could be summoned through an app, and its cost could be bundled with that of a RFTA bus ticket so that
only a single transit purchase (or click) would be needed.
Features & Advantages:
•Simplicity of “one-click” mobility.
•Relatively low cost as an option to develop.
•First and last mile service could make it easier to use RFTA’s trunk line buses moving up and down valley.
•Concept now being tried by for-hire services in different parts of country.
•Target audiences could be reached through social media campaigns.
•Some existing transportation funding by governments, nonprofits and schools might be redirected to
more efficient uses.
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the principle of induced traffic, ride sharing is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on
Highway 82.
•A for-hire system (UberPool, etc.) might require a public subsidy for riders.
•Some locations have limited cell service and GPS mapping for apps is not always reliable.
•Ride hailing companies (Uber, Lyft, etc.) would need to increase service levels in the valley.
Cost Implications:
•Relatively low up-front capital cost compared to some other options. Would not require substantial
construction and equipment.
•By potentially boosting ridership on RFTA’s trunk line buses, first and last mile service might increase
RFTA’s need to buy more buses and incur additional operating expenses.
27
Attachment 2
28
12
Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Enhanced BRT could consolidate existing BRT, express, local, and skier-shuttle riders at 10, 20, and 30-minute
frequencies, depending on time of day. Electric or Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses could be part of
enhanced BRT service operating between the Brush Creek BRT Station and Rubey Park. In the future, autonomous
electric buses might provide benefits similar to LRT at lower cost.
Features & Advantages:
•Could feel more like LRT: quiet and comfortable.
•Could reduce overall bus congestion in Aspen by as many as 100 bus trips per day.
•Electric buses are much quieter than CNG or diesel buses, although if the system started off with CNG
buses, this noise reduction benefit would be lost.
•Could be phased more easily than LRT: electric buses and other enhancements could be introduced as
funding becomes available. Initially, up-valley passengers might not have to transfer to electric buses at
the Brush Creek Intercept Lot.
•If the Modified Direct Alignment across the Marolt Open Space were used, this would save an average of
two minutes per trip and improve emergency access in and out of Aspen.
•City buses would remain as in-town shuttles, but in the future they might become small autonomous
transit vehicles.
•New transit stop at 7th Street. New end-of-line station might be created at Main and Galena.
•Could include Snowmass Village Connection Enhancements
•Future autonomous electric buses might safely travel within a few inches of one another, although digital
security would become extremely important.
•Over time, BRT could build ridership and eventually lead to light rail.
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the principle of induced traffic, enhanced BRT is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion
on Highway 82.
•While Aspen residents voted to allow light rail across the Marolt Open Space, a new vote would be
required for bus lanes there. A new highway across Marolt would be politically difficult.
•By requiring passengers to transfer to/from buses at the Brush Creek BRT Station, the BRT option may not
be as convenient as existing one-seat ride services for commuters and skiers, and it might incur a “transfer
penalty” in ridership. (A future all-electric valley bus system would resolve this issue.)
•If the Modified Direct Alignment across Marolt was not constructed with its two-minute time savings,
nothing might offset an electric bus “transfer penalty” at Brush Creek, which could result in a loss of
ridership.
•Electric buses likely require in-route charging stations and auxiliary heat in the winter.
•Electric buses have higher capital costs, and RFTA is currently challenged just to replace its diesel and CNG
buses. Initially, some buses might have to remain diesel or CNG.
Cost Implications:
•Significant capital cost ($159 million – $200 million, 2016 dollars), but lower than LRT.
•Possibly reduced operating costs compared with today’s BRT, Local, Express, and Skier Shuttle bus
services.
•Deployment of charging infrastructure could be expensive.
28
Attachment 2
29
13
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Enforcement
The Highway 82 Basalt to Buttermilk Record of Decision (ROD) included HOV lanes as a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measure introduced with the Basalt/Buttermilk four-lane highway project (1996-2004). HOV
restrictions were designed to increase carpooling and allow more efficient transit operations. Also, the right lane’s
reduced congestion should decrease travel time for car pools and transit users. Vehicles carrying two or more
passengers may use the HOV lanes during rush hours.
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) initially conducted a robust public relations campaign to
inform the traveling public about the SH 82 HOV program. Early on, the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) enforced the
HOV lanes, and motorist compliance was high. Pitkin County courts, however, were reluctant to fine motorists
who challenged tickets in court. Subsequently, enforcement dropped off, and tickets are no longer issued.
The lack of enforcement of existing HOV restrictions is negating the benefits of the HOV lanes. Efforts are needed
to secure judicial support, provide outreach, and fully enforce HOV laws.
Features & Advantages:
•Previous analyses estimate that full HOV compliance could reduce weekday traffic by over 2,500 vehicles
per day.
•Provides for safer, more efficient transit operations.
•Reduces parking demand due to decreased vehicle trips.
•Could reduce auto emissions and pollution.
•Existing technology can count the number of riders in a car and reduce enforcement costs.
•Enforcement might also be subcontracted out to reduce the load on local resources.
•Enforcement would reward and encourage carpooling/ride sharing.
•Visible enforcement of HOV restrictions would also reduce speeding on Highway 82. This could address
the perceived “advantage” of single-passenger private vehicles speeding illegally.
•Enforcement might “calm” Highway 82, shift attitudes and reduce stress and accidents.
•Could create a “rules of the road” education and communication opportunity.
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the principle of induced traffic, existing HOV restrictions might not, by themselves, reduce
traffic congestion on Highway 82, but they might potentially, if tightened (e.g., three passengers).
•May be difficult to secure judicial support for enforcement of HOV laws.
•Additional enforcement efforts by the CSP and Pitkin County Sheriff would require additional law
enforcement resources. These might be provided by new enforcement revenues.
•Would require partnerships with CDOT, Colorado State Patrol and local governments.
•Might require a change of local law enforcement philosophy.
•Would work best if the HOV lanes came all the way into Aspen.
Cost Implications:
•Costs of additional law enforcement resources and whether new revenues would offset them.
•Costs for a robust public outreach campaign to explain the HOV restriction, and why it is in place.
29
Attachment 2
30
14
Dynamic Road Pricing
For Aspen, dynamic pricing might include an electronic toll on traffic entering Aspen that could vary depending on
levels of congestion and purpose of trip. To avoid the toll, motorists could park at the Brush Creek lot and take a
free bus into Aspen or qualify for an exemption to the toll (car pool, etc.).
Road pricing is one of the few options that has demonstrated its ability to actually reduce traffic congestion. Trip
pricing could depend on different factors, such as time of day, number of passengers, level of congestion, and
environmental impact. For example, travel might be free for car pools, working parents with children in Aspen
preschools, or those working in essential services. While pricing sounds like a “stick,” it could seed many “carrots”
by funding transportation options that reduce the need for a private vehicle. Dynamic pricing could make travel to
Aspen significantly quicker and easier than today, and by reducing travel time would allow for higher productivity
for those who are paid by the hour.
For Aspen, dynamic pricing might include an electronic toll on traffic entering Aspen that could vary depending on
levels of congestion and purpose of trip. To avoid the toll, motorists could park at the Brush Creek lot and take a
free bus into Aspen or qualify for an exemption to the toll (car pool, etc.).
Features & Advantages:
•May be the most reliable tool available to reduce or eliminate traffic jams both on Highway 82 and in
downtown Aspen. Roadway capacity freed up by road pricing is less likely to be filled by induced-traffic
than other mobility options.
•Aspen and Snowmass bound commuters and visitors could reduce or eliminate time lost sitting in traffic
jams.
•Professionals who charge by the hour, such as electricians and plumbers, could benefit from a significant
increase in billable hours that would greatly exceed the cost of any toll.
•Could significantly improve the visitor experience and stimulate the local economy.
•If properly designed, could enhance social equity. (Versus the current traffic jams, in which everyone
loses.)
•Toll revenues could be used to fund RFTA buses and other mobility options. Ideally, RFTA buses would
become less expensive (possibly even free), along with future driverless shuttle services, etc.
•Would reduce carbon emissions and other forms of air pollution. Would support the City of Aspen’s
Canary Initiative.
•Both automobile drivers and transit users could benefit in a potential “win/win.”
Issues & Challenges:
•Federal and state rules would control the development of this program.
•A substantial public outreach effort would be necessary to build community support.
•Without social equity measures (e.g., enhanced and/or free alternative mobility options), this might be
considered a regressive tax.
•Safeguards would be needed to mitigate traffic diversion to McLain Flats Road.
•Tolling facility should be close to Aspen to avoid charging for airport travel.
•This plan must offer travelers an excellent value proposition in exchange for road pricing.
•Implementation would require strong political will at all levels of government.
Cost Implications:
•Would generate substantial new revenue to reinvest in existing and new mobility alternatives.
•An initial investment would be required to fund the capital cost of tolling facilities (overhead detection)
and the program startup costs.
30
Attachment 2
31
15
Parking Strategies
Integrate parking into a larger, innovative mobility system through a combination of measures that might include
the following:
•Dynamic pricing, which varies parking prices to respond to traffic congestion, parking availability and
location, and special events.
•Centralized valet services, which could increase utilization of public and private parking spaces and
garages. (For some, this might reduce the need for circling around the block.)
•Zoning code changes to discourage car use in residential/commercial developments.
•Employer Carrot-Sticks: Employers would limit parking and offer alternative transit options to employees
instead of parking spaces. If parking were made more of a responsibility, neighborhoods might stop being
“storage lots.”
•Other City of Aspen ideas for parking innovations are currently under study.
Because individual actions taken by Aspen, Snowmass and Pitkin County often affect the other jurisdictions,
parking strategies should be considered and coordinated on a regional basis.
Features & Advantages:
•Each strategy or combination of strategies could be tested, modified, and refined over time.
•Parking strategies could be designed to park more cars outside town to reduce the number of cars
downtown.
•Roadway capacity freed up by dynamic parking pricing is less likely to be filled by induced-traffic than
other mobility options. This could complement dynamic road pricing.
•New revenues could be directed toward subsidizing transit passes and other alternative mobility modes.
Issues & Challenges:
•Unless parking strategies include significant new dynamic pricing, the principle of induced traffic would
likely prevent this option from reducing traffic congestion on Highway 82.
•User acceptability.
•To be fair, a dynamic pricing plan would need to include social equity measures for commuting workers
(e.g., enhanced and/or free alternative mobility options).
•Would not affect those with free parking spaces in downtown Aspen.
•Simply reducing parking places could adversely affect stores and restaurants.
•May prompt arguments about whether parking is a right or a privilege.
Cost Implications:
•Little capital cost.
•Modest operating costs.
•Dynamic pricing might generate new revenue to reinvest in other mobility alternatives.
31
Attachment 2
32
16
Snowmass Village Connection Enhancements
More direct transit links to Snowmass Village on Brush Creek of Owl Creek roads (e.g., LRT or BRT) could be part of
the larger mobility enhancement program.
The successes of the free skier shuttle and the evening direct service between Snowmass Village and Aspen
demonstrate the potential to move travelers from private automobiles to transit “trunk line” service, which could
be aligned with the existing BRT service as a first step. Future steps could include dedicated direct bus service in
the peak periods. These services, combined with the possibilities of direct, aerial Mountain-to-Mountain
connections, could integrate the ski areas of Snowmass, Buttermilk, Highlands, and Aspen within one operating
system.
Features & Advantages:
• Connects the two upper valley communities and tourist bed bases.
• Expands on highly successful winter operations.
• Uses existing infrastructure.
• Focuses on tourism and employee mobility.
• Has significant carrying capacity.
• A scenic Owl Creek transit route might enhance the visitor experience.
Issues & Challenges:
• Because of the principle of induced traffic, this option is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on
Highway 82.
• Labor intensive.
• Owl Creek would require costly improvements to accommodate transit.
• If transit ran on Owl Creek, the existing system using Brush Creek as a transfer station would lose some
efficiencies.
• Owl Creek is challenging, particularly in winter.
Cost Implications:
• Relatively low capital costs, depending on system chosen.
• High operating cost, which could strain existing resources.
32
Attachment 2
33
17
Airport/Transit Connectivity
Although the current airport bus station and Highway 82 pedestrian underpass serve the airport terminal, transit
ride-share to/from the airport is only about 3%, although a good portion of the remaining 97% doesn’t necessarily
drive a car the rest of the way. Based on current airport planning, this is not expected to change, even though
enplanements are projected to increase significantly over the next 20 years. Options for stronger transit access to
the airport:
•Using the existing BRT station on Highway 82, stopping buses at the terminal doors, or creating a
designated airport transit shuttle. Options that use the BRT station would require some type of weather-
protected connection to the terminal doors (e.g., covered and/or moving walkway).
•For a fee, hotel shuttles might be given the right to use bus lanes to and from the airport.
•More passengers might be intercepted outside the airport and transported via special transit.
•Empty hotel shuttles might “scoop up” passengers at bus stops.
•Visitors’ luggage might be transported directly to and from hotels for them (as in Switzerland).
Features & Advantages:
•Studies show that visitors would rather use transit than rent a vehicle.
•Additional transit ride-share from the airport would:
o Reduce traffic growth facilitated by an expansion of rental cars.
o Provide an opportunity for visitors to begin their Aspen experience on transit.
o Decrease rental vehicles in Aspen and Snowmass Village.
o Potentially increase visitors’ use of transit in town.
o Provide savings on lodge and hotel shuttle costs.
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the principle of induced traffic, this option is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on
Highway 82.
•It’s unclear who is responsible for costs and planning for airport transit amenities.
•Bringing BRT to the terminal door would add significant travel time to the BRT system. This problem
would be eliminated if airline passengers boarded a bus at the existing BRT station.
•Some lodges and hotels prefer to capture their guests at the terminal and provide transportation to
control and enhance their Aspen experience.
•Some transit vehicles are not set up to take luggage.
•Loading luggage adds time to transit trips.
•Data on the mix of transportation modes is unavailable.
Cost Implications:
•Costs associated with developing transit access to terminal door.
•Loss of airport revenues from fewer vehicle rentals.
33
Attachment 2
34
18
Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH)
The concept of transit-oriented affordable housing (TOAH) has been pursued for many years in the upper Roaring
Fork Valley. Over the decades, over 2,800 affordable housing units have been created in the upper valley to retain
our sense of community, house our local workforce, and reduce the need for commuting on Highway 82.
Fortunately, over half of Aspen’s population lives today in deed restricted affordable housing. Unfortunately, over
60% of the town’s workforce must still commute to town each day, significantly exacerbating traffic congestion.
Job generation inside Aspen’s roundabout has outpaced the creation of affordable housing, locking in the need for
many to commute.
One option for reducing travel demand is to redouble local efforts to locate affordable housing close to work or
transit — and to do so in all local jurisdictions. For example, RFTA has located park and ride lots and transit stops
close to Basalt, El Jebel and Carbondale neighborhoods. Each might offer affordable housing opportunities to help
reduce travel demand on our highway.
Features & Advantages:
•TOAH works best when people can walk directly to work, eliminating the need to drive.
•TOAH can build community while reducing peak-hour travel needs.
•City and county governments are continually evaluating potential sites. Park and ride lots themselves
could be used for affordable housing built over the parking lot, thus becoming a “live and ride.” Likewise,
organizations located on campuses could be encouraged to build housing over parking lots and other land
near their facilities.
•Many Aspen and Snowmass businesses are unable to hire sufficient employees during winter and summer
seasons.
•Non-commuting employees enjoy more family time and arrive at jobs less stressed out.
•Affordable housing near work or transit increases social equity.
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the proven principle of induced traffic, this option is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic
congestion on Highway 82. Local experience bears this out.
•Even when it’s located near workplaces, new housing can still increase the number of cars on local roads,
although at a lower rate than non-transit-oriented housing.
•Finding new upper valley housing sites has been a notorious problem for many years.
•New housing projects often provoke resistance from neighbors.
•New housing inevitably increases other community costs for things like schools, early education and
daycare, hospitals, social services, police and other emergency responders, etc.
•While affordable housing and growth control have historically enjoyed support from many of the same
upper valley voters, the goals of creating new housing and retaining our small-town quality of life are now
beginning to conflict. Housing often generates significant opposition.
•Transit Oriented Affordable Housing is most effective in destination communities, but the easy sites for
housing are often outside urban growth boundaries.
Cost Implications:
•Affordable housing is expensive. Projects require significant local-government subsidy, private sector
investment, and/or compromising of local zoning requirements.
•Funding strategies include affordable housing taxes, tax incentives, land use requirements and fees,
private initiatives, public/private partnerships, and federal/state programs.
34
Attachment 2
35
19
Light Rail Transit (LRT)
Light Rail Transit (LRT) is contemplated as the final phase for transit in the Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision
(ROD). The Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) of Pitkin County, Aspen and Snowmass recently
commissioned a study to update the LRT alternative from Aspen to the Brush Creek parking lot/transit station. As
currently designed, LRT would run from the Brush Creek lot to either Rubey Park or a new proposed station at
Galena Street and Main Street. In the Galena and Main option, local buses would run from Rubey Park, and small
autonomous transit vehicles would connect Rubey Park to the Galena & Main station.
Features & Advantages:
•Studies show LRT to be a more enjoyable transit experience than buses. LRT might enhance the
visitor/commuter experience.
•Voters have approved LRT across the Marolt Open Space, and LRT is the preferred alternative in the
Record of Decision for the Entrance to Aspen Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
•Provides an opportunity for a future down-valley commuter rail connection.
•Has substantial passenger carrying capacity.
•Reduces more buses in downtown Aspen and across Castle Creek Bridge than BRT.
•By requiring fewer drivers than BRT, LRT would reduce RFTA’s hiring challenge.
•Onboard Charging Systems (OBS) represent a major breakthrough in LRT power technology, allowing a rail
vehicle to operate without overhead wires. Instead, rail vehicles would run off of batteries and charge at
stations using inductive charging.
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the principle of induced traffic, LRT is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on
Highway 82.
•Requires construction of the Modified Direct alignment across Marolt Open Space via the existing
transportation easement with a direct connection to 7th and Main Street.
•By requiring passengers to transfer to/from buses at Brush Creek BRT Station, the BRT option may not be
as convenient as existing one-seat ride services for commuters and skiers, and it might incur a “transfer
penalty” in ridership.
•Very high capital and operating cost for which federal funding is unlikely.
•Although quiet, some might consider LRT out of scale with Aspen.
•Projected to have about the same ridership as the BRT option.
•Potential impacts to vehicle movements at at-grade intersections.
•LRT is an inflexible investment – but one with great longevity.
Cost Implications:
•Based on the recent EOTC study, LRT costs would range from $428 million to $528 million.
•High capital cost exceeds currently available budgets and revenue streams.
•LRT construction is more disruptive than BRT and complicated to phase. This could negatively impact
financing options.
•Operating and maintenance costs are double those of the BRT option.
35
Attachment 2
36
20
Mountain-to-Mountain Connection
Aerial intermountain gondola connections between Aspen and Snowmass have been discussed for half a century.
They offer the potential both to significantly improve the skier experience and to alleviate some winter peak-hour
roadway travel demand. Potential connections include:
A. A Highlands-Buttermilk gondola connecting the bases of Buttermilk and Highlands with a stop at the top
of Buttermilk.
B. A gondola connection from Highlands to Aspen Mountain.
C. A gondola from Buttermilk to the summit of Elk Camp at Snowmass, designed to address stringent
environmental criteria.
A system of intermountain gondolas connecting Aspen, Snowmass, Buttermilk and Highlands as a single skiable
mountain complex could improve the Aspen-Snowmass winter experience and represent a major resort
enhancement. Snowmass/Aspen visitors and valley skiers could all benefit.
Features & Advantages:
•During winter months, a mountain-to-mountain system could reduce peak-hour travel by taking skiers off
the road and potentially reducing pressure on Highway 82, Brush Creek Road, Maroon Creek Road, Owl
Creek Road and the entrance to Aspen roundabout.
•A mountain to mountain connection would likely reduce demand for upper-valley RFTA buses, possibly
freeing up resources.
•It could help parents avoid many Ski Club and other mountain drop-off trips for children.
•Enhancing the winter resort experience would help protect Aspen’s appeal and competitive position as a
world class winter resort destination. A gondola connection might also be a major attraction for non-
skiers (like Chamonix’s Aiguille du Midi cable car ride).
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the principle of induced traffic, this option by itself is unlikely to reduce traffic congestion on
Highway 82, unless it were combined with a substantial auto-disincentive.
•Would require U.S. Forest Service approval and likely require support from all upper valley governments.
•Some neighbors might object to gondolas in their view plane.
•Environmental objections might be raised to a Buttermilk-Snowmass gondola, even if no access road were
constructed.
•A gondola interconnection is not in the County’s master plan.
•It would not directly connect areas with large bed bases.
Cost Implications:
•A mountain to mountain interconnect system might be paid for with private investment.
•Opposition could exist to a public investment that might serve only skiers, although connections and
integration with public transit might merit a public/private partnership or coordinated investment in
some form.
36
Attachment 2
37
21
Increased Highway Capacity for Vehicles
(unrestricted four-lane into Aspen)
[Note: Unlike the previous options, this one was not suggested by any outside experts consulted by the Community
Forum Task Force or by any task force member. It is included here simply because it has been debated for so many
decades in the upper valley.]
Traffic congestion exists on the two-lane portion on Highway 82 between Aspen’s four-lane Main Street and the
four-lane highway from down valley to Buttermilk. To increase highway capacity, this option would add lanes
without enforced restrictions (e.g., HOV or Bus). The option was rejected in the past, in part because it would
increase traffic congestion, noise, and air pollution in downtown Aspen. (Note that Aspen’s PM-10 pollution has
subsided since the 1990’s, and Aspen now meets federal air quality standards.)
Features & Advantages:
•Would reduce highway congestion in the short term.
•Would allow safer operations and reduce accidents by eliminating the S-curves.
•Could utilize the “preferred alignment” transportation easement across the Marolt Open Space.
•Would be adaptable to tolling to generate revenues and manage travel demand.
•Might improve emergency access in and out of Aspen in the short term.
•May accommodate rubber–tired transit solutions.
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the principle of induced traffic, increased highway capacity (without dynamic road pricing)
would not reduce long term traffic congestion on Highway 82. This has been demonstrated in other
cities.
•Would immediately increase traffic congestion and noise in downtown Aspen.
•Would increase carbon emissions and other forms of air pollution in Aspen.
•Would place rubber-tired transit in mixed traffic, which would slow transit.
•Would require a City of Aspen public vote to cross the Marolt Open Space.
•Would violate the Aspen Area Community Plan and the Canary Initiative.
•Would require the Environmental Impact Statement process to be reopened because it is not currently
approved in the Aspen Record of Decision*.
Cost Implications:
•Estimated cost is over $100 million.
•In the short term, reduced travel times might provide savings to motorists and to businesses dependent
on the movement of goods and services. In the long term, traffic congestion would resume.
•Increased traffic congestion, noise and air pollution in downtown Aspen might reduce Aspen’s quality of
life and resort appeal, harming the economy.
•Environmental Impact Statement required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
37
Attachment 2
38
22
Other Options Not Studied for This Report
Over past decades, many mobility options have been considered for the Entrance to Aspen. Examples include a
large intercept parking facility located close to Aspen (under the Marolt open space) and the so-called “split shot”
in which traffic entering Aspen would cross the Marolt open space, while departing traffic would follow the
existing S-curves. While the Marolt intercept lot idea was advocated by one of its members, the task force did not
study either of these options, noting that both had been rejected in the environment impact review that was part
of the Aspen Record of Decision.
38
Attachment 2
39
ADDENDUM
1 Community Forum Task Force members
2 Expert speakers and links to their presentations
3 Options matrix and scoring system
4 Options scoring results
Community Forum Task Force
on Transportation and Mobility
39
Attachment 2
40
Community Task
Force Members
1
Community Forum Task Force
on Transportation and Mobility
40
Attachment 2
41
Rose Abello
Director, Snowmass Tourism
Rose Abello was named Tourism Director for Snowmass
Tourism in September 2014. She first moved to the Roaring
Fork Valley in 1997 and served as director of communications
for Aspen Skiing Company. She has spent more than 25 years
marketing travel and tourism.
Pam Alexander
Aspen citizen
Formerly based in San Francisco, Alexander founded a technology-
focused public relations firm which was acquired by WPP. Clients
included Hewlett Packard, WebMD, EarthLink and the TED con-
ference. She serves on the board of the Aspen Valley Ski Club, the
Aspen Valley Hospital Foundation and the Aspen Art Museum, and
is a former board member of the Aspen Community Foundation.
Markey Butler
Mayor, Town of Snowmass Village
Markey Butler is the first woman to be elected Mayor of
Snowmass Village in its 37-year history. Butler is also the exec-
utive director of Hospice of the Valley.
Ward Hauenstein
Aspen citizen, City Councilman
Ward moved to Aspen in the fall of 1976. He is an enthusias-
tic bicyclist both mountain and road. In the winter he enjoys
XC skate and classic, AT, and Alpine skiing. He is active in the
Aspen Chapel and has been politically involved in local Aspen
issues. He was elected to the Aspen City Council in May 2017.
Nina Eisenstat
Aspen Marketing and Communications
Nina Eisenstat provides marketing and strategic communica-
tions consulting services to businesses, professional services
firms, public institutions, and non-profit organizations. She
is serving her third term as an elected member of the Aspen
Chamber Resort Association’s board of directors and sits on
its marketing advisory and public affairs committees. She
was a six-year member of the board of directors of the Buddy
Program, president of its first national council, and a member
of its community relations and development committees.
Brent Gardner Smith
Executive Director, Aspen Journalism
Brent Gardner-Smith is founder, editor and executive director
of Aspen Journalism, a local nonprofit investigative journalism
organization. Brent has over 30 years of experience in jour-
nalism, broadcasting and public affairs and has worked at the
Aspen Daily News, The Aspen Times, Aspen Public Radio and
Aspen Skiing Company. He has a master’s degree in journal-
ism from the University Of Missouri School Of Journalism.
Tom Heald
Asst. Superintendent, Aspen School District
With long family ties to western Colorado (family homesteads on
American Flats near Silverton and Dallas Divide near Telluride),
Tom and his family have lived in the Roaring Fork Valley for 25
years, with equal stays in Carbondale, Silt, Glenwood and now
Aspen. As assistant superintendent for the Aspen School District,
Tom has a sphere of influence in constructing meaningful activi-
ties for students and staff to thrive as learners, while his greatest
joy is being outside with his wife, sons, and dogs to climb, raft,
ski, ride and wrestle with gravity.
Task Force Members
John Bennett, Co-Chair
Former Mayor of Aspen
As former Cradle to Career Director for the Aspen Comm-
unity Foundation, John Bennett oversaw the Aspen to
Parachute Cradle to Career Initiative, which is aimed at
increasing youth success across western Colorado. After
more than two decades as a business CEO, Bennett moved
to the public sector, serving four terms as Aspen’s mayor
and overseeing a $40 million budget that produced a sur-
plus each year he was in office. He later served as VP of the
Aspen Institute, co-founder of the Cordoba Initiative, and
president of For The Forest, an environmental stewardship
organization. He’s a graduate of Yale University.
Bill Kane, Co-Chair
Advisory Principal, Design Workshop
Bill is a 42 year resident of the Valley. He served as Plan-
ning Director for Aspen and Pitkin County from 1974-78.
He authored the Aspen/Pitkin County growth management
plan and oversaw the rezoning of Aspen and much of Pitkin
County. He also was a Principal at Design Workshop. Aspen
and served as VP in charge of Planning and Development for
Aspen Skiing Co. from 1995-2005. He currently resides in Ba-
salt and is a commissioner on the Colorado Parks and wildlife
Commission. He is also on the Board of Great Outdoors Colo-
rado and Aspen Valley Land Trust. Bill is an advisory principal
at Design Workshop.
41
Attachment 2
42
David Houggy
President, Aspen Science Center Board of Directors
David joined the Buddy Program team as new Executive
Director in 2012, bringing a wealth of experience in business
development and strategic planning. He is a founding member
of the Advisory Board of Mentor Colorado, an organization
founded to promote and advocate for mentoring throughout
Colorado. He is also President and a member of the Board of
Directors of the Aspen Science Center, dedicated to bringing
STEM programming to the youth of the Roaring Fork Valley.
David Hyman
Former Owner, High Mountain Taxi
David worked for many years in the transportation industry as
the owner of High Mountain Transportation, a taxi, shuttle and
delivery company. He has served on several transportation
committees and study groups over the years, and has a keen
interest in transportation issues.
Michael Kinsley
Facilitator and Strategic Planner
Michael was a county commissioner from 1975-85, the period
in which Pitkin County transitioned to progressive policies. So
he can talk about Aspen’s good ol’ days ad nauseum. Since ‘83,
he has worked for Rocky Mountain Institute on sustainable
communities and campuses, plus designing and facilitating
many RMI corporate workshops and charrettes. Now that he’s
part-time with RMI, he provides mediation, facilitation and
strategic planning services valley wide. And he’s a painter.
John Krueger
Director of Transportation, City of Aspen
John has worked for the City of Aspen for over 20 years. He
started in the Parks department as the Trails Supervisor man-
aging and building trails in the Aspen area. He worked closely
with CDOT to build the trail along Highway 82, the underpass-
es at the golf course, Truscott and Buttermilk. As Director of
Transportation, John coordinates with CDOT, RFTA, the EOTC,
Pitkin County, Snowmass, and Glenwood Springs on planning
and valley wide transportation projects and issues. He is also
responsible for the management of the local transit system,
car share program, the Downtowner, employer outreach and
various Transportation Demand Management programs.
Melony Lewis
Aspen citizen
Melony has worked with various organizations nationally and
locally, primarily focusing on the environment and education.
She currently serves on the board of Vanguard Chapter of the
Aspen Institute, Aspen Country Day School and Aspen Center
for Environmental Studies. Her employment experience has
included public relations and marketing, medical employment
recruiting and placement, guiding cycling tours throughout
Europe, and executive language coaching.
Cristal Logan
Vice President, Aspen Institute
Cristal Logan is Vice President, Aspen and Director of Commu-
nity Programs at the Aspen Institute. During her 18 year tenure
at the Institute, Cristal has expanded the number of commu-
nity events to over 70 days of programming per year including
lectures, seminars for teens, and discussion series year round.
A fourth generation resident of the Roaring Fork Valley, Cristal
served as one of the inaugural members of the Aspen Com-
munity Foundation Spring Board, and is Vice Chairman of the
Board of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association.
Mirte Mallory
Founder & Executive Director, WE-Cycle
An Aspen native, Mirte is the Co-Founder and Executive Direc-
tor of WE-cycle, the Roaring Fork Valley’s bike transit service.
WE-cycle features 190 bikes at 43 stations between Aspen,
Basalt, Willits, and El Jebel and is designed to serve as the
first/last mile connection to RFTA and for short, quick, point-
to-point trips. Mirte is the former Chair of the Pitkin County
Planning & Zoning Commission and the Curator of the BERKO
Photo Collection.
Tom Melberg
Real Estate Broker, Sotheby’s
Tom moved to Aspen, Colorado on June 1, 1975 and never looked
back. He got his real estate license in 1978 and has found the work
to be the best job one could have. Tom is envied by his fellow
colleagues by how he is consistently one of the top producing
real estate brokers in the Aspen area while balancing his joy and
commitment to skiing, golf, yoga, fly fishing, hiking, hockey, bird
hunting and meditation. Tom is forever grateful for making his move
to Aspen and living the dream with his wife, Lindy, for the past 28
years and their now three grown children, Ella, Wylie and Maggie.
Task Force Members
42
Attachment 2
43
Michael Miracle
Director, Community Engagement, Aspen Skiing Company
Michael Miracle is the director of community engagement
at Aspen Skiing Company. In that role, Michael is tasked with
deepening ASC’s connection to communities throughout the
Roaring Fork Valley. That work could involve digging in on spe-
cific issues such as housing and transportation, or simply listen-
ing to and responding to community members concerns. Prior
to joining ASC, Michael edited Aspen Sojourner magazine for a
decade. His previous job in publishing was at Skiing magazine,
where he worked for seven years, first as an assistant editor,
then associate editor, and finally senior editor.
Maria Morrow
Attorney and Principal, Oates, Knezevich, & Gardenschwartz,
P.C.
Maria Morrow is an 18-year Aspen resident, and has practiced
law locally with OKGKM since her move from Chicago, where
she began her legal career. After an impressive beginning as a
federal court law clerk followed by practice as a litigator at the
100-year-old firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Maria moved to Aspen
and joined Oates, Knezevich, & Gardenswartz, P.C. She became
a shareholder of this 34 year-old firm in 2007. Maria specializ-
es in real estate transactions, business transactions, contracts,
litigation, homeowners’ associations, and employment mat-
ters.
George Newman
Member, Board of County Commissioners, Pitkin County
George is on the Board of County Commissioners for District 5,
and has been a Pitkin County resident since 1974. He holds a
BS in Economics and an MA in Public Administration. He has a
desire to protect the natural environment while maintaining a
commitment to citizen involvement. He was a founding mem-
ber and director of both Leadership Aspen (now Roaring Fork
Leadership) and the Emma Caucus.
Steve Skadron
Mayor of Aspen
Steve Skadron is in his second term as Mayor of Aspen. Prior
to becoming mayor, Skadron served as an Aspen City Council
member for six years. Before that, he spent four years on the
city Planning and Zoning Commission.
Greg Rucks
Transportation Principal, Rocky Mountain Institute
Greg Rucks is a principal in RMI’s Transportation Practice
and is currently managing a multi-year partnership with the
Austin community to develop and implement technology and
world-class solutions for transforming mobility. With an eye on
replicability, Greg is also helping scale solutions from Austin to
other global cities, starting with Denver. Since joining RMI in
December 2010, Greg led a commercialization effort focused
on lightweight-vehicle design and development that has since
been funded by the Department of Energy.
Sheri Sanzone
Owner and Founder of Bluegreen
Landscape Architect and Urban Planner
Sheri is a landscape architect, planner and urban designer and
founder of Bluegreen, a leading edge and environmentally
responsible design studio based in Aspen. A former board
chairperson of the Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority and
Roaring Fork Leadership, Sheri also served on the US Green
Building Council Colorado Chapter board. Before founding and
nurturing Bluegreen, Sheri was Principal-in-Charge of Design
Workshop’s Aspen office.
Zoë Brown
Senior Associate
The Aspen Institute
Zoë served as an excellent manager of logistics for the Commu-
nity Forum. While she was not an official task force member,
she served as a key member of the team who worked tirelessly
on this project.
John Sarpa
President, Sarpa Development
John has been a major real estate figure in Aspen and the Roar-
ing Fork Valley since 1985. He co-chaired the citizens group
that master planned and re-developed the Aspen Meadows,
home of the Aspen Institute, Aspen Music Festival and School
and the Aspen Center for Physics. He is currently the Vice
Chairman of the Aspen Valley Hospital Foundation, a board
member of the Valley Health Alliance and Chairman of the
Aspen Institute Community Forum.
Task Force Members
43
Attachment 2
44
Ralph Trapani
Program Director, Parsons Transportation Group
Mr. Ralph J. Trapani, P.E. is an award-winning engineer with
over 40 years of transportation engineering experience. He is a
Program Director with Parsons Transportation Group. He serves
on the board of directors for CLEER (Clean Energy Economy for
The Region). He spent 28 years with the Colorado DOT, serving as
the I-70 Glenwood Canyon project manager for 12 years, and the
State Highway 82 corridor manager for 10 years. He lives in Glen-
wood Springs, Colorado with his 16 year old son Lucca. He enjoys
telemark skiing at Highlands, motorsports and cycling.
Barry Crook
Assistant City Manager
City of Aspen
Barry Crook, is one of two Assistant City Managers for Aspen.
He oversees affordable housing planning/development, the
Transportation Department, the Parking and Downtown Services
Department, the City Council’s Top Ten Goals effort and the city’s
customer service/continuous improvement efforts. Mr. Crook has
over 30 years of experience working in state and local govern-
ment in both the budget/finance and quality/customer service
areas.
Katie Viola
Partner, Kissane Viola Design
Katie Viola is partner at Kissane Viola Design in Aspen, Colorado.
She and her husband Paul have been living in Aspen for 16 years.
Katie and Paul relocated from NYC where they were design direc-
tors for a wide variety of print publications and websites. Cur-
rently Kissane Viola Design specializes in brand development, art
direction and graphic design, with many national and local clients.
Kissane Viola Design is located in downtown Aspen. Katie is on the
board of the Aspen Education Foundation and her son John is a
proud student of Aspen Middle School.
Task Force Members
44
Attachment 2
45
Expert Speakers
with links to presentations
2
Community Forum Task Force
on Transportation and Mobility
45
Attachment 2
46
EXPERT SPEAKERS
Session 1, December 13 and 14, 2016
Jim Charlier, President, Charlier Associates
Wheeler Opera House and taskforce meeting
Charlier is a well-known transportation and land-use planner based in Boulder. He’s
worked extensively in Aspen, in the Western US and in resort communities. Charlier
discussed the influence of economics, demographics, settlement patterns, and tech-
nology on transportation systems and mobility, as well as the changing behavior and
expectations in both public and private transportation.
LINK: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/community-forum-reimagin-
ing-mobility-roaring-fork-valley/
Session 2, March 9 and 10, 2017
Ann Bowers and Chris Breiland, Fehr & Peers
Doerr-Hosier Center and taskforce meeting
Bowers and Breiland, who have worked on transportation in the Roaring Fork Valley
for years, discussed practical new ways to reduce demand for transportation
systems, while increasing convenience; emerging technologies that affect design,
safety, and efficiency of all travel modes; how lifestyle and behavioral trends
influence transportation systems; and how big data helps us better understand
travel patterns. Bowers’ expertise includes the most advanced, state-of-the-practice
transportation analysis techniques, and Breiland is an expert in complex multimodal
corridor analysis.
LINK: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/community-forum-transpor-
tation-mobility-reimagining-transportation-mobility-upper-roaring-fork-val-
ley-session-2/
46
Attachment 2
47
EXPERT SPEAKERS
Session 3, May 24 and 25, 2017
Tony Dutzik, senior policy analyst, Frontier Group
Doerr-Hosier Center and taskforce meeting
Frontier Group is a public policy think tank focusing on the intersection of transportation,
energy, and the climate. Dutzik discussed innovative mobility technologies and services—
what they are and what they do; case studies in US cities where these technologies and
services have been applied; and the opportunities and challenges that innovative mobility
solutions present.
LINK: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/community-forum-transpor-
tation-mobility-reimagining-transportation-mobility-upper-roaring-fork-val-
ley-session-3/
Session 4, June 6, 2017
Greg Rucks, Rocky Mountain Institute’s transportation practice
Wheeler Opera House and taskforce meeting
Rucks addressed the technological innovations that are providing cost-effective, low-
carbon solutions to traffic and congestion issues in other cities. He also discussed the
pilot program he’s managing in Austin, Texas, and how the Roaring Fork Valley is
well-suited to implementing such a program.
LINK: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/community-forum-transporta-
tion-mobility-positioning-roaring-fork-valley-mobility-future-session-4/
47
Attachment 2
48
Options Matrix
& Scoring System
3
Community Forum Task Force
on Transportation and Mobility
48
Attachment 2
49
Options Matrix & Scoring System
ESSENTIAL COMMUNITY VALUES OPERATING SYSTEM VALUES MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
OPTIONS
Community
Character
Environmental
Quality
Traffic &
Congestion
Reduction Social Equity
Convenience &
Comfort
Adaptable to
the Future Safety
Financial
Viability
Capacity to Move
People and/or
Reduce Travel
Demand
Ride Sharing Systems 67 51 43 45 39 62 29 61 47
Ride Hailing Systems 62 43 37 34 52 65 45 52 40
Light Rail Transit (LRT)37 51 58 50 50 13 63 -29 55
Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)53 52 51 52 42 56 61 32 56
Snowmass Connection Enhancements 49 43 31 37 44 45 53 22 35
Mountain to Mountain Connection 54 38 14 18 33 13 46 4 16
Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing 55 50 44 45 51 34 49 21 37
HOV Lane Enforcement 48 42 42 38 29 48 52 59 38
Dynamic Road Pricing (VMT fees, etc.)17 50 57 -6 20 59 46 60 53
Parking Strategies 45 47 44 6 3 47 33 49 34
Airport/Transit Connectivity 65 53 38 39 56 50 53 38 42
Increased Highway Capacity -35 -37 -25 18 5 -13 -7 -23 -23
OPTION/VALUE RATING SYSTEM
3 = Fully consistent with this value. Substantial progress
2 = Adequately consistent with this value
1 = Minimally consistent with this value
0 = Neutral or Not Applicable
-1 = Inconsistent with this value
-2 = Extremely inconsistent with this value. Detrimental impacts
49
Attachment 2
50
Options
Scoring Results
4
Community Forum Task Force
on Transportation and Mobility
50
Attachment 2
51
Community Forum Task Force
on Transportation and Mobility
CONTENTS
A Survey Results Option Scoring
B Value Areas Scoring
C Highest Selection Summary of Options
D Additional Evaluation, Q&A
51
Attachment 2
52
A. SURVEY RESULTS OPTIONS SCORING
1 - Ride Sharing Systems Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Total
Score
1 Community Character 0 0 1 0 8 17 67
2 Environmental Quality 0 0 1 7 10 8 51
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 0 3 8 10 5 43
4 Social Equity 0 2 3 5 6 10 45
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 3 2 6 9 6 39
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 1 3 7 15 62
7 Safety 0 3 6 5 9 3 29
8 Financial Viability 0 0 1 1 12 12 61
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 0 1 2 5 11 7 47
Total Responses 0 9 20 40 82 83 444
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
52
Attachment 2
53
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
2 - Ride Hailing Systems Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Total
Score
1 Community Character 0 0 0 2 12 12 62
2 Environmental Quality 0 2 1 8 8 7 43
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 2 2 9 9 4 37
4 Social Equity 0 2 6 7 4 7 34
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 1 1 4 11 9 52
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 0 2 9 15 65
7 Safety 0 1 4 2 13 6 45
8 Financial Viability 0 1 1 5 9 10 52
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 0 1 1 12 7 5 40
Total 0 10 16 51 82 75 430
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
53
Attachment 2
54
3 - Light Rail Transit (LRT)Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Total
Score
1 Community Character 0 6 2 3 5 10 37
2 Environmental Quality 1 1 1 4 7 12 51
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 0 1 4 9 12 58
4 Social Equity 0 0 4 3 10 9 50
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 2 2 3 8 11 50
6 Adaptable to the Future 3 4 5 7 5 2 13
7 Safety 0 0 1 3 6 16 63
8 Financial Viability 13 7 2 4 0 0 -29
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 0 2 1 3 6 14 55
Total Responses 17 22 19 34 56 86 348
4 - Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Total
Score
1 Community Character 0 0 0 7 11 8 53
2 Environmental Quality 0 0 0 6 14 6 52
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 0 1 7 10 8 51
4 Social Equity 0 2 1 2 11 10 52
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
54
Attachment 2
55
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 0 3 8 11 4 42
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 1 4 11 10 56
7 Safety 0 0 0 4 9 13 61
8 Financial Viability 1 2 4 5 11 3 32
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 0 0 0 4 14 8 56
Total Responses 1 4 10 47 102 70 455
-2 -1 0 1 2
3
5 - Snowmass Connection Enhancements Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total
1 Community Character 0 1 2 4 11 8 49
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
55
Attachment 2
56
2 Environmental Quality 0 2 3 4 10 7 43
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 2 4 9 9 2 31
4 Social Equity 0 1 5 7 8 5 37
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 0 1 10 11 4 44
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 4 7 7 8 45
7 Safety 0 0 1 6 10 9 53
8 Financial Viability 2 2 4 10 6 2 22
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 1 0 3 9 11 2 35
Total 3 8 27 66 83 47 359
6 - Mountain to Mountain Connection Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total
1 Community Character 1 0 2 5 3 15 54
2 Environmental Quality 2 3 3 2 5 11 38
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 1 4 6 10 5 0 14
4 Social Equity 2 3 6 8 4 3 18
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 3 3 6 12 2 33
6 Adaptable to the Future 5 2 4 7 6 2 13
7 Safety 0 2 3 3 9 9 46
8 Financial Viability 4 5 7 5 3 2 4
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
56
Attachment 2
57
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 1 4 3 15 2 1 16
Total 16 26 37 61 49 45 236
7 - Transit Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH)Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total
1 Community Character 0 0 2 4 9 11 55
2 Environmental Quality 1 0 2 4 9 10 50
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 1 1 2 4 11 7 44
4 Social Equity 0 2 1 7 8 8 45
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 0 2 7 7 10 51
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 2 6 5 8 5 34
7 Safety 0 0 5 1 12 8 49
8 Financial Viability 2 2 5 10 4 3 21
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 1 1 3 7 9 5 37
Total 5 8 28 49 77 67 386
8 - High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane
Enforcement Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
57
Attachment 2
58
1 Community Character 0 3 3 1 7 12 48
2 Environmental Quality 0 1 4 7 6 8 42
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 2 0 9 10 5 42
4 Social Equity 0 3 3 6 7 7 38
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 3 5 8 6 4 29
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 1 2 5 10 8 48
7 Safety 0 1 3 2 9 11 52
8 Financial Viability 0 1 0 2 11 12 59
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 0 2 3 7 9 5 38
Total 0 17 23 47 75 72 396
9 - Dynamic Road Pricing Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total
1 Community Character 3 6 1 8 3 5 17
2 Environmental Quality 0 1 3 3 9 10 50
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 1 1 3 8 13 57
4 Social Equity 5 8 6 3 3 1 -6
5 Convenience & Comfort 2 2 9 4 5 4 20
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 0 5 9 12 59
7 Safety 0 0 5 5 7 9 46
8 Financial Viability 1 0 0 4 5 16 60
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
58
Attachment 2
59
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 1 0 2 3 8 12 53
Total 12 18 27 38 57 82 356
10 - Parking Strategies Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total
1 Community Character 0 1 4 4 9 8 45
2 Environmental Quality 0 0 2 8 9 7 47
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 1 1 9 9 6 44
4 Social Equity 4 4 7 7 1 3 6
5 Convenience & Comfort 1 8 7 7 3 0 3
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 2 9 7 8 47
7 Safety 0 0 10 6 3 7 33
8 Financial Viability 0 0 3 5 10 8 49
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 1 0 4 10 7 4 34
Total 6 14 40 65 58 51 308
11 - Airport/Transit Connectivity 0
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total
1 Community Character 0 0 0 1 11 14 65
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
59
Attachment 2
60
2 Environmental Quality 0 0 1 6 10 9 53
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 1 2 13 4 6 38
4 Social Equity 0 1 5 7 6 7 39
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 0 0 6 10 10 56
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 1 2 4 10 9 50
7 Safety 0 0 3 3 10 10 53
8 Financial Viability 0 2 4 6 8 6 38
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 0 0 2 11 8 5 42
Total 0 5 19 57 77 76 434
12 - Increased Highway Capacity
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total
1 Community Character 17 4 2 3 0 0 -35
2 Environmental Quality 18 5 0 2 1 0 -37
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 13 7 1 3 1 1 -25
4 Social Equity 3 4 5 4 6 4 18
5 Convenience & Comfort 6 5 1 7 6 1 5
6 Adaptable to the Future 8 7 4 4 3 0 -13
7 Safety 6 5 8 4 3 0 -7
8 Financial Viability 9 12 1 1 3 0 -23
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
60
Attachment 2
61
B. VALUE AREAS SCORING
Essential Community Values
(Community Character and Environmental Quality)
#1 Ride Sharing and Airport Connectivity (TIE)
#3 Ride Hailing, Enhanced BRT and Affordable Housing (TIE)
Operating System Values
(Congestion Reduction, Social Equity, Convenience/Comfort, Adaptable to Future)
#1 Enhanced BRT
#2 Ride Sharing
#3 Ride Hailing
Minimum System Requirements
(Safety, Financial Viability, Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand)
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 13 6 2 1 4 0 -23
Total 93 55 24 29 27 6 -140
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
61
Attachment 2
62
#1 Dynamic Road Pricing
#2 Enhanced BRT and HOV Lane Enforcement (TIE)
C. HIGHEST SELECTION SUMMARY OF OPTIONS
Overall “Favorite” Options of Forum Members
#1 Enhanced BRT
#2 Ride Sharing System
Overall, what are your three
favorite options?
Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Ride Sharing System
Transit Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH)
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Enhancement
Dynamic Road Pricing
Ride Hailing Systems
Parking Strategies
Snowmass Connection Enhancement
Airport/Transit Connectivity
Light Rail Transit (LRT)
Mountain to Mountain Connection
Increased Highway Capacity 0
2
2
4
4
5
6
7
9
9
12
18
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
62
Attachment 2
63
Overall Top Scoring Options by Values Assessment
#1 Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
#2 Ride Sharing System
#3 Airport/Transit Connectivity
#4 Ride Hailing Systems
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
63
Attachment 2
64
D. ADDITIONAL EVALUATION
Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Ride Sharing System
Airport/Transit Connectivity
Ride Hailing Systems
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Enhancement
Transit Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH)
Snowmass Connection Enhancement
Dynamic Road Pricing
Light Rail Transit (LRT)
Parking Strategies
Mountain to Mountain Connection
Increased Highway Capacity -140
236
308
348
356
359
386
396
430
434
444
455
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
64
Attachment 2
65
Participant Point Selections
Ride Sharing System
Ride Hailing Systems
Light Rail Transit (LRT)
Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Snowmass Connection Enhancement
Mountain to Mountain Connection
Transit Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH)
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Enhancement
Dynamic Road Pricing
Parking Strategies
Airport/Transit Connectivity
Increased Highway Capacity
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
14 - Please weigh the relative importance of each value.
(1= least valuable, 3 = most valuable)
Question 1 2 3 Mean
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 0 4 22 2.85
Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 5 21 2.81
Environmental Quality 0 8 18 2.69
Safety 4 5 17 2.5
Community Character 2 10 14 2.46
Adaptable to the Future 2 13 11 2.35
Convenience & Comfort 1 17 8 2.27
Financial Viability 5 12 9 2.15
Social Equity 6 10 10 2.15
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
65
Attachment 2
66
Total 20 84 130
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
66
Attachment 2
67
518 17th Street | Suite 1100 | Denver, CO 80202 | (303) 296-4300 | Fax (303) 296-4302 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: April 6, 2020
To: David Pesnichak, AICP, Regional Transportation Administrator, Pitkin County
From: Ann Bowers, PE, PTP; Chris Breiland, PE; and Marissa Milam
Subject: Integrated Mobility Study
DN20-0650
Background
Fehr & Peers is working with the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) and the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) to evaluate the Integrated Mobility Study (IMS) proposal outlined in the Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility's 2017 Upper Valley Mobility Report to identify both near- and long-term solutions that would improve
mobility and reduce air pollution emissions in the upper Roaring Fork Valley. The evaluation considers the effectiveness of each strategy at managing traffic, reducing congestion, and
reducing air pollution through both literature review and analytical techniques. Upon conclusion
of the analysis, a pilot program will be identified that brings together two or three of the IMS
strategies to be implemented in the short-term that would improve the region’s mobility, traffic
congestion, and air quality issues. A strategy to implement a more comprehensive long-term
solution will also be identified.
This memorandum outlines Task 1: Review and refine the five principle strategies outlined in the
IMS:
•Ride Sharing
•Ride Hailing
•Congestion Reduction Measures
•HOV Lane Enforcement
•Phased BRT Enhancement
Task 1 adds more definition so that the parameters of each of the systems can be roughly
identified and modeled for how effective the IMS could be at improving mobility and managing
traffic congestion.
67
Attachment 3
68
April 6, 2020
Page 2 of 7
The table below reflects our work on Task 1 of this project and provides a more extensive
description of the IMS’s initial strategies and outlines the parameters, assumptions, and additional
information needed for modeling each strategies effectiveness in reducing traffic congestion,
improving mobility, and reducing air pollution emissions.
68
Attachment 3
69
April 6, 2020
Page 3 of 7
IMS Strategy Review
Strategy Refined Definition
Modeling Parameters, Assumptions, and
Additional Information Needed
for Analysis
Ride Sharing Ride sharing in the Upper Valley would be most successful using an app-based peer-to-peer system to move riders from
down valley communities and park-and-ride lots to the job
centers/resorts in Aspen and Snowmass. The primary markets
for ride sharing are commuters and skiers/snowboarders. The
most common and widely-adopted ride sharing apps are
created and operated by private organizations and include
WazeCarpool, Scoop, Duet, Sameride, Carma and others. We
could not find any examples of successful ridesharing apps
developed by a public entity. Research suggests that the critical mass of riders to make these types of programs work is about 200 active riders per day. This level of ridership is
feasible to the resort areas in Aspen and Snowmass.
To help facilitate adoption, RFTA, employers, and local jurisdictions could designate existing park-and-rides or other
underutilized community owned/retail parking lots as the
organizing place for riders and drivers. This would allow for
trips to be on-demand or scheduled, depending on the
number of commuters in the program. As is typical for these
apps, we assume that drivers would be compensated for
driving by the rider, using the standard IRS mileage
reimbursement rate, currently set at 57.5 cents/mile. The app
would also add on a fee to maintain the platform – this fee is
also charged to the rider. The benefit to the driver is usage of the HOV lanes. This strategy would be enhanced if there were higher parking costs or a toll entering Aspen and with
improved HOV lane enforcement (see descriptions of these strategies below).
One other area to be mindful with on ride sharing is that the additional ridesharing participants do not come at a large
expense to bus ridership. Shifting people from bus to
ridesharing does not achieve the goals of congestion reduction or reduced greenhouse gas emissions. If this is
occurring, then further changes to parking pricing or HOV
lane enforcement/occupancy requirements may be warranted.
For analysis purposes, it is assumed that there
will be one fewer car
trip entering Aspen for
every new ride sharing
participant. We also
assume that VMT will
decrease by 80% for
each new ride sharing
participant, since some people will drive to
meet their driver.
Based on carpooling
commuting data from
the US Census Bureau
and examples from
other communities, we
expect that
approximately 1 percent of commute trips and
0.5 percent of resort
trips could shift to
ridesharing.
69
Attachment 3
70
April 6, 2020
Page 4 of 7
Ride Hailing It should be noted, that in many dense, urban communities,
ride hailing generates more VMT and GHG emissions than a non-ride hailing scenario. This is because, in these
communities, ride hailing tends to replace lower-carbon trips like transit, walking, or biking. However, in Pitkin County and Aspen in particular, ride hailing could reduce vehicle trips and
GHGs if ride hailing replaces private vehicle trips (both tourist
and local resident trips). Shared ride hailing (like the Aspen
Downtowner) is even more effective at reducing VMT and GHGs. Ride hailing works particularly well in conjunction with higher parking fees and/or tolls, because they provide
residents and visitors with a lower cost alternative to driving private vehicles.
To ensure effectiveness of ride hailing as a solution to reduce
congestion and GHG emissions, periodic monitoring of traffic volumes and ride hailing VMT should be performed. As an
example, New York City performs biennial checks on ride hailing vehicle odometers to develop a baseline of whether
this mode is beneficial or detrimental to congestion relief and GHG emissions goals.
Based on a literature
review, ride hailing resulted in an 8 percent
decrease in car rental market share between 2016 and 2017,
although that decline
was mostly from
business trips, not tourism. Given that Aspen is a tourist
destination, we conservatively estimate
that ride hailing could reduce tourism-related
VMT by about 2 percent. This is less than was observed in areas
with a strong business travel market and also
accounts for the deadhead trips made by
ride-hailing vehicles.
If this strategy is combined with parking pricing, elasticities could
be used to figure out mode shift from single
occupancy vehicles. This
is particularly true for
local resident (or down valley resident) travel. In the absence of pricing,
we don’t expect to see a notable decrease in
traffic from local residents as a result of ride hailing.
70
Attachment 3
71
April 6, 2020
Page 5 of 7
Congestion
Reduction
Measures
For Pitkin County, congestion reduction measures could
include dynamic road pricing and dynamic parking pricing.
Dynamic road pricing would be most effective at pinch-points
like the Castle Creek Bridge or on Highway 82, just east of the
Brush Creek Park and Ride. Dynamic parking pricing could be
effective in both central Aspen and Snowmass Village.
Increasing public pricing costs in these more central areas is
likely a less controversial and easier-to-implement short-term
solution to reduce the number of vehicles in downtown Aspen and Snowmass.
Because Colorado policy does not currently permit parking
taxes, the jurisdictions could only influence the costs of
publicly-owned parking. To be more effective, Pitkin County and area cities should lobby the state legislature to allow for
parking taxes enacted at the local level. This would enable the
County and cities to enact parking taxes on private parking
lots and create higher parking fees at key areas that generate
traffic congestion.
Dynamic road pricing would work well in Aspen because
Highway 82 is the only access road to downtown. Cordon
pricing, where vehicles are charged to enter a specified area, could be implemented using electronic tolls on Highway 82,
and could vary by time of day depending on levels of
congestion and mode choice. This would be a more long-
term solution, given the time needed for implementation,
construction, and potential toll exemptions for key
constituencies like residents, service vehicles, or certain
employees. Under Colorado law, two or more local
governments must create a public highway authority in order to establish, collect, and increase tolls on the highway that it
finances, operates, and maintains. Therefore, any tolling
would require input and cooperation from CDOT.
For parking prices: use
NCHRP elasticities to
find reduction in vehicle
trips with respect to
higher downtown
parking fees.
For road pricing: can
use road pricing
elasticities from
NCHRP– add toll by
time of day and mode
to the inbound Highway 82 links outside of the City of Aspen and
calculate reduction in
single occupancy
vehicle trips.
In general, price elasticities are often in
the range of 0.4. In
other words, doubling the price of travel
results in a 40 percent
decrease in travel.
Typical traffic decreases
in response to parking
and tolling range between 5 and 20
percent.
71
Attachment 3
72
April 6, 2020
Page 6 of 7
HOV- Lane
Enforcement
HOV lane enforcement on Highway 82 could improve mobility
during peak periods when congestion is the worst; if HOV violation went down, the more efficient HOV lane could cause
mode shift from single occupancy vehicles to carpools and transit. However, it is likely that the existing HOV lane is underutilized even with violations and increasing enforcement
would do little to improve mobility.
HOV enforcement has always been a challenge because of the burden it places on law enforcement. However, HOV lane
verification has evolved in recent years due to new technologies. One potential enforcement tool is app-based,
where a prospective user must take pictures of all the people in the car to self-verify they are a carpool. If they choose not to self-verify, they can’t use the lane. UDOT is testing this type
of technology on the I-15 HOT lanes in Salt Lake City to allow verified carpools to opt out of paying the tolls. There are
other technologies in testing that use high-definition cameras or infrared sensors to detect occupants. Better HOV lane
enforcement could complement many of the other strategies in this document, but is likely an enabling tool, rather than a stand-alone solution to reducing traffic congestion and GHG
emissions.
Overall, we do not
expect that this strategy
would substantially
change people’s travel
modes without other
programs in place.
72
Attachment 3
73
April 6, 2020
Page 7 of 7
Phased BRT
Enhancement
BRT Enhancement has both short- and long-term benefits to
improving mobility in the Upper Valley. A near-term strategy
could involve improving the existing line with increased
frequencies to downtown Aspen. Other short-term strategies
could examine the current BRT travel times and identify speed
improvements such as additional bus/HOV lanes, better HOV
lane enforcement, transit que jumps, or transit signal priority.
Long-term goals could include constructing additional park &
rides, adding service to connect to Snowmass, additional
down valley service and improved first mile/last mile connections. The improved first mile/last mile connections could be in conjunction with the improvements to the ride-
hailing Aspen Downtowner service. The proposal to consolidate the express, local, and skier-shuttle bus routes
would require further analysis, as the consolidated BRT line may not be as convenient as existing services and would add
travel time for riders through transfers or longer routes.
Assuming 20 percent
improvement in transit speeds, we would
expect about an 8 percent increase in BRT
ridership and a
corresponding decrease in vehicle
trips. Based on expanded coverage, we
would expect a transit
commute mode share of 9 percent for new
areas served by BRT connections to Aspen/
Snowmass (for trips to Aspen/ Snowmass, specifically).
Source: Fehr & Peers.
73
Attachment 3
74
518 17th Street | Suite 1100 | Denver, CO 80202 | (303) 296-4300 | Fax (303) 296-4302
www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: June 16, 2020
To: Pitkin County
From: Ann Bowers, PE, PTOE; Chris Breiland, PE; and Marissa Milam
Subject: Aspen Institute’s Integrated Mobility Study – Task 2 Results
DN20-0650
Background
The table below reflects our work on Task 2 of the Integrated Mobility Study and provides a
refined description of the IMS’s initial list of mobility strategies. Based on this refined description,
we have prepared a high level effectiveness analysis for each strategy in reducing traffic
congestion, improving mobility, and reducing air pollution emissions. Table 1 summarizes the
expected VMT and GHG emission reductions for each strategy.
74
Attachment 4
75
June 16, 2020
Page 2 of 8
Table 1: High Level Effectiveness Summary
Strategy
Short Term Effectiveness1 Long Term Effectiveness
VMT reduction GHG emission
reduction VMT reduction GHG emission
reduction
Ride Sharing
Commute VMT:
3,575 vehicle-miles-
traveled/day
Visitor VMT: 600
vehicle-miles-
traveled/day
478 metric
tons/year
Commute VMT:
35,600 vehicle-
miles-traveled/day
Visitor VMT: 1,300
vehicle-miles-
traveled/day
3,800 metric
tons/year
Ride Hailing
Visitor VMT: 2,400
vehicle-miles-
traveled/day
532 metric
tons/year
Additional benefits of long-term ride
hailing captured in conjunction with
the congestion reduction measures,
but without implementation of other
measures, ride hailing is not expected
to reduce GHG emissions alone.
Congestion Reduction
Measures
Commute VMT:
47,500 vehicle-
miles-traveled/day
4,674 metric
tons/year
Commute & Visitor
VMT: 150,000
vehicle-miles-
traveled/day
17,600 metric
tons/year
HOV Lane Enforcement No VMT/GHG emission benefit as a stand-alone strategy. Integral part of
implementing the other strategies in the IMS
75
Attachment 4
76
June 16, 2020
Page 3 of 8
Phased BRT Enhancements
Commute/Resident
VMT: 6,885 vehicle-
miles-traveled/day
772 metric
tons/year
Additional benefits of long-term BRT
enhancements captured in conjunction
with the congestion reduction
measures; additional BRT and local bus
service likely necessary to achieve the
full congestion and GHG emissions
benefits outlined in the Congestion
Reduction Measures. If BRT
enhancements are the only strategy
implemented, long-term effectiveness
would be the same as the short-term
effectiveness.
1. Short term effectiveness is estimated within a 0 – 10 year time frame, but could vary based on funding and political
challenges of implementing change (either faster or slower). Long-term time frame is estimated at being 10+ years
from today.
76
Attachment 4
77
June 16, 2020
Page 4 of 8
IMS Strategy Review
For each IMS strategy, we have provided a refined definition, as well as modeling parameters and
high-level effectiveness analysis. For more detailed definitions of each strategy, refer to the Task 1
memo.
Ride Sharing
Ride sharing in the Upper Valley would be most successful using an app-based peer-to-peer
system to move riders from down valley communities and park-and-ride lots to the job
centers/resorts in Aspen and Snowmass. To help facilitate adoption, RFTA, employers, and local
jurisdictions could designate existing park-and-rides or other underutilized community
owned/retail parking lots as the organizing place for riders and drivers. This would allow for trips
to be on-demand or scheduled, depending on the number of commuters in the program. This
strategy would be enhanced if there were higher parking costs or a toll entering Aspen and with
improved HOV lane enforcement (see descriptions of these strategies below).
If additional ridesharing participants are coming at a large expense of bus ridership, then further
changes to parking pricing or HOV lane enforcement/occupancy requirements may be warranted.
The City of Aspen should monitor both program usage and carpool parking, in both the
residential and downtown areas, to determine if parking fees should apply to participants. For
ridesharing to act as a complement to BRT, the program should serve communities that cannot
easily reach BRT, such as south Carbondale, Glenwood Springs, and other towns along I-70, such
as New Castle.
Effectiveness
For analysis purposes, it is assumed that there will be one fewer car trip entering Aspen for every
new ride sharing participant. We also assume that VMT will decrease by 80% for each new ride
sharing participant, since some people will drive to meet their driver.
Based on carpooling commuting data from the US Census Bureau and examples from other
communities, in the short term we expect that approximately 2%of commute trips to both Aspen
and Snowmass and 0.5% of resort trips could shift to ridesharing. Aspen’s current ridesharing
program has about 300 active riders, with these new improvements, we expect about 150 new
riders per day, with approximately 110 commuters to Aspen, and 40 to Snowmass. This reduction
will lower commute VMT to 171,700 vehicle-miles-traveled/day, from 175,275. Likewise, visitor
VMT will decrease by 0.5%, to 119,400 vehicle-miles-traveled/day, from 120,000. With these near
term VMT reduction measures, we would expect a GHG emission reduction 1 of 478 metric
tons/year along Highway 82. To put these reductions in perspective, an average household’s
transportation GHG emissions are 7.7 metric tons per year.
1 GHG emissions calculated using EMFAC emission factors for the Lake Tahoe Air Basin, assuming that VMT
falls into the 35-40 mph speed bin.
77
Attachment 4
78
June 16, 2020
Page 5 of 8
In the long term, we would expect commute carpool rates to double given that people are likely
to be more comfortable with technology and the ability to match up with empty seats, decreasing
commute VMT by 18.5% based on current employment numbers. 1% of annual visitor trips may
switch to carpooling, which would decrease annual visitor VMT from 70,588,000 vehicle miles
traveled, to 69,882,000. This increase in carpooling rates could reduce annual GHG emissions by
3,457 metric tons/year.
Ride Hailing
It should be noted, that in many dense, urban communities, ride hailing generates more VMT and
GHG emissions than a non-ride hailing scenario. This is because, in these communities, ride
hailing tends to replace lower-carbon trips like transit, walking, or biking. However, in Pitkin
County and Aspen in particular, ride hailing could reduce vehicle trips and GHGs if ride hailing
replaces private vehicle trips (both tourist and local resident trips). Ride hailing works particularly
well in conjunction with higher parking fees and/or tolls, because they provide residents and
visitors with a lower cost alternative to driving private vehicles.
To ensure effectiveness of ride hailing as a solution to reduce congestion and GHG emissions,
periodic monitoring of traffic volumes and ride hailing VMT should be performed. As an example,
New York City performs biennial checks on ride hailing vehicle odometers to develop a baseline
of whether this mode is beneficial or detrimental to congestion relief and GHG emissions goals.
Effectiveness
Based on a literature review, ride hailing resulted in an 8% decrease in car rental market share
between 2016 and 2017, although that decline was mostly from business trips, not tourism. Given
that Aspen is a tourist destination, we conservatively estimate that ride hailing could reduce
tourism-related VMT by about 2% to 69,176,00 annual vehicles miles traveled, from the baseline
of 70,588,000 vehicle miles traveled by visitors. This is less than was observed in areas with a
strong business travel market and also accounts for the deadhead trips made by ride-hailing
vehicles. Reducing visitor VMT by 2 percent would reduce GHG emissions by 532 metric
tons/year.
In the long term, in the absence of complementary congestion pricing measures, we don’t expect
to see a notable decrease in traffic from local residents as a result of ride hailing.
Congestion Reduction Measures
For Pitkin County, congestion reduction measures could include dynamic road pricing and
dynamic parking pricing. Dynamic road pricing would be most effective at pinch-points like the
Castle Creek Bridge or on Highway 82, just east of the Brush Creek Park and Ride. Dynamic
parking pricing could be effective in both central Aspen and Snowmass Village. Increasing public
parking costs in these more central areas is likely a less controversial and easier-to-implement
short-term solution to reduce the number of vehicles in downtown Aspen and Snowmass
compared to dynamic road pricing.
78
Attachment 4
79
June 16, 2020
Page 6 of 8
While often pitched as a straightforward solution to traffic congestion and air pollution generated
by driving, higher costs to park or drive are truly only effective in locations where there are viable
alternatives to driving. Fortunately, Aspen and Snowmass have strong transit service and roadway
treatments to facilitate carpooling, which make these solutions more viable than would be the
case in most small cities or resort town settings.
Dynamic road pricing would work well in Aspen because Highway 82 is the only access road to
downtown. Cordon pricing, where vehicles are charged to enter a specified area, could be
implemented using electronic tolls on Highway 82, and could vary by time of day depending on
levels of congestion and mode choice. This would be a more long-term solution, given the time
needed for implementation, construction, and potential toll exemptions for key constituencies like
residents, service vehicles, or certain employees. Public knowledge and acceptance of the tolls,
revenue allocation, and economic impact is key to successful congestion pricing, as public
support is necessary to overcome the political difficulties of implementation. There are also legal
challenges to implementing congestion pricing; more details on Colorado-specific tolling can be
found in the Task 1 memo.
Effectiveness
Using data from the American Community Survey (ACS) and Longitudinal Employer-Household
Dynamics (LEHD), we assume there are about 9,500 SOV commute into Aspen/Snowmass each
day. We do not anticipate major reductions in non-commute trips with higher parking prices, as
many of these trips will park at private lots. In the short term, doubling the price of parking
(particularly for long-term employee parking) and extending the hours of parking fees would
result in a 20% decrease in commute trips, reducing VMT to 190,000 vehicles-miles-traveled/day,
from 237,500. This reduction would result in a decrease in GHG emissions of 4,674 metric
tons/year. Under this scenario, traffic across the Castle Creek Bridge could decrease by about
1,000 vehicles/day. While Aspen currently has high parking prices during the peak hours of peak
season compared to other resort communities, the prices are low compared to many urban areas,
especially for all-day garages and off peak prices.
In general, price elasticities are often in the range of 0.4. In other words, doubling the price of
travel results in a 40% decrease in travel. Typical traffic decreases in response to parking and
tolling range between 5 and 20% although more substantial decreases can result from higher
charges. Long term, with both higher parking prices and tolling along Highway 82, a 40%
decrease in vehicle trips to Aspen/Snowmass would result in a GHG emission reduction of 17,600
metric tons/year.2 The Castle Creek Bridge could see a decrease around 6,000 vehicles/day with
long term congestion reduction measures in place.
2 Assumes a 10% increase in overall traffic over the long-term (10+ years in the future). For reference, Pitkin
County grew by about 10% per decade between 2000-2019.
79
Attachment 4
80
June 16, 2020
Page 7 of 8
HOV Lane Enforcement
HOV lane enforcement on Highway 82 could improve mobility during peak periods when
congestion is the worst; if HOV violation went down, the more efficient HOV lane could cause
mode shift from single occupancy vehicles to carpools and transit. However, it is likely that the
existing HOV lane is underutilized even with violations and increasing enforcement would do little
to improve mobility as a stand-alone strategy. However, increasing enforcement is necessary to
get the efficacy expected from the BRT and ridesharing strategies described in this document.
HOV enforcement has always been a challenge because of the burden it places on law
enforcement. However, HOV lane verification has evolved in recent years due to new
technologies. One potential enforcement tool is app-based, where a prospective user must take
pictures of all the people in the car to self-verify they are a carpool. If they choose not to self-
verify, they can’t use the lane. UDOT is testing this type of technology on the I-15 HOT lanes in
Salt Lake City to allow verified carpools to opt out of paying the tolls. There are other
technologies in testing that use high-definition cameras or infrared sensors to detect occupants.
Better HOV lane enforcement would complement many of the other strategies in this document,
but is likely an enabling tool, rather than a stand-alone solution to reducing traffic congestion and
GHG emissions.
Effectiveness
Overall, we do not expect that this strategy would substantially change people’s travel modes
without other programs in place.
Phased BRT Enhancement
BRT Enhancement has both short- and long-term benefits to improving mobility in the Upper
Valley. A near-term strategy could involve improving the existing line with increased frequencies
to downtown Aspen during commute hours in order to relieve crowding. Other short-term
strategies could examine the current BRT travel times and identify speed improvements such as
additional bus/HOV lanes, better HOV lane enforcement, transit queue jumps, or transit signal
priority. Long-term goals could include constructing additional park & rides, adding service to
connect to Snowmass, and improved first mile/last mile connections. A new park & ride at
Catherine Store would serve multiple communities along the BRT line. While the new park & ride
may not induce more transit trips, it would reduce VMT for commuters traveling to the bus since
they can park closer to home. However, adding this BRT stop would increase travel time for the
route, so a travel time analysis is needed in order to identify other speed improvements that
could make up for the additional delay.
A BRT connection to Snowmass is highly desired by residents and may be best served through an
express overlay route during commute periods that serves Snowmass as the final destination
(with the rest of the line continuing through Glenwood Springs). This new service would eliminate
the current transfer penalty for commuters who have to transfer routes at the Brush Creek Park
80
Attachment 4
81
June 16, 2020
Page 8 of 8
and Ride. The improved first mile/last mile connections could be in conjunction with the service
improvements to the ride-hailing Aspen Downtowner service, or the City of Aspen’s carsharing
program. The proposal to consolidate the express, local, and skier-shuttle bus routes would
require further analysis, as the consolidated BRT line may not be as convenient as existing services
and would add travel time for riders through transfers or longer routes.
Effectiveness
Assuming 10% improvement in transit speeds, we would expect about a 1.5% increase in BRT
ridership and a corresponding decrease in vehicle trips. Based on expanded coverage, we would
expect a transit commute mode share of 15% for new areas served by BRT connections to
Snowmass, which equates to a 36% increase in transit mode share for commutes to Snowmass.
These near-term BRT improvements would reduce VMT by 80% for the approximately 360 new
riders on the system (since we assume that some of the new riders would be driving to the BRT
line) and would reduce annual GHG emissions by 772 metric tons.
In the long term, BRT must be able to support higher demand in concurrence with the congestion
reduction measures. Further VMT and GHG reductions will be tied to higher parking pricing or
roadway tolls.
Other Measures
There are multiple other measures that could complement the strategies above to reduce both
VMT and GHG emissions in the Aspen/Snowmass area. To support GHG emission reductions,
future parking pricing or tolls could include electric vehicle/low emission vehicle pricing
incentives. Furthermore, the City of Aspen’s carsharing program has frequent requests to expand
their service; future improvements should include fleet electrification. Other measures could
include expanding the Aspen Downtowners’ service and fleet, as well as providing additional
transit options down valley to connect to BRT.
81
Attachment 4
82
518 17th Street | Suite 1100 | Denver, CO 80202 | (303) 296-4300 | Fax (303) 296-4302 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: Updated July 28, 2020
To: David Pesnichak, AICP, Regional Transportation Administrator, Pitkin County
From: Chris Breiland, PE; Marissa Milam; and Ann Bowers, PE, PTOE
Subject: Integrated Mobility Study – Task 3 Results
DN20-0650
Background
Figure 1 reflects a phased implementation framework for improving mobility and reducing the
environmental impacts of transportation in the Aspen/Snowmass area. This approach recognizes
that some strategies will take more time to implement than others due to political, technical, and
financial obstacles. Based on our experience in a variety of communities, the short-term strategies
identified in this framework can be implemented within a few years given a community
willingness to advance transportation mobility and sustainability. These short-term strategies,
when implemented together will help to reduce vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) and transportation
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 22%, for commute trips, and 0.5% for resort/visitor trips. See
the Task 2 memo for quantification of the VMT and GHG reduction benefits for each strategy, and
the Task 1 memo for detailed definitions of each strategy.
Over the long-run, as the region continues to grow and mobility technologies change, more
aggressive mobility management strategies may become necessary. Further mobility
management will help ensure a sustainable transportation system from the perspective of
economic vitality, quality of life, and environmental outcomes. As noted, these more aggressive
strategies will require greater levels of funding, agency/jurisdictional cooperation, and public
willingness for additional costs/restrictions on mobility. In exchange, there will be even greater
levels of GHG emissions and VMT reductions, particularly for resort/visitor trips.
82
Attachment 5
83
Updated July 28, 2020
Page 2 of 8
Figure 1: Implementation Timeline
83
Attachment 5
84
Updated July 28, 2020
Page 3 of 8
Short Term Strategies
The short-term strategies identified in the section below can be implemented in the 0-5-year
timeframe and are generally easier to implement with community support and less substantial
financial investments by local jurisdictions. All the short-term strategies identified in this section
are in-place in other similar areas across the country; these examples show there is a good return
on investment for mobility improvements after implementation.
HOV lane enforcement
HOV lane enforcement will not improve mobility as a stand-alone strategy, but it is required to
get the expected efficacy out of the other strategies, such as ridesharing and BRT improvements.
HOV lane enforcement has been inconsistent along Highway 82 in the past, and the Sheriff’s
office has indicated that more staff and funding would be required to begin enforcement. This
strategy faces a few political and legal obstacles, such as local judges dismissing HOV lane non-
compliance citations, and securing the Sheriff’s Office buy in. This strategy can be implemented
quickly with additional funding (note that some states and jurisdictions set HOV lane violation
fees to more than cover the police/sheriff and court expenses related to enforcement) and the
Sheriff’s Office support. HOV lane enforcement is also generally popular with the public
nationwide and is the first or second most requested enforcement (after speeding) emphasis
areas in many jurisdictions that have HOV lanes. As we note in our Task 2 memo, there are
emerging technologies that may reduce the costs and level of manual enforcement required for
HOV lanes that should also be considered in the future.
Parking Pricing
Increasing parking pricing through higher rates or dynamic parking pricing can also be
implemented in the short term and is an effective strategy at reducing SOV commute trips. Like
HOV lane enforcement, parking prices support the longer-term strategies discussed later in this
document. Higher parking prices discourage SOV trips, and with implementation of a ridesharing
service and BRT improvements, commuters, visitors, and residents have viable alternative
solutions to driving and parking. Extending the hours of parking prices in downtown spaces as
well as publicly owned garages will discourage commuters from taking these spaces during the
morning peak period. With dynamic parking pricing, rates increase on blocks where demand is
high using sensors that track occupancy. This system can help geographically distribute demand
for parking and can encourage employees to park outside of the downtown core where prices
may be lower. During Aspen’s peak season, higher midday parking prices can encourage residents
and visitors to park for shorter durations in the downtown core and shift some trips to greener
alternatives such as walking and biking. Since the City of Aspen already has relatively high parking
prices compared to other resort areas, it is likely that collaboration will be required between the
City of Aspen, Snowmass, and private entities that provide parking in the area, such as hotels and
84
Attachment 5
85
Updated July 28, 2020
Page 4 of 8
ski resorts.1 Cities that raise public parking costs without addressing private parking costs can see
a limited VMT and GHG benefit. While raising parking prices is not typically a popular policy, with
the proper information about why parking prices are being raised, where the revenues are going,
increasing bus/shuttle service to areas that have less frequent transit service, cooperation with
retail/recreation interests, and a phased approach over several years can go a long way to
reducing public opposition.
Ridesharing
A pilot ridesharing app for commuters can likely be implemented within the next 2-4 years in the
Upper Valley. Aspen’s existing carpooling program shows that a critical mass of users exists
already; the main obstacle to implementation is developing the app and managing the program.
This will likely require that jurisdictions/organizations like Pitkin County, Aspen, Snowmass, the
Aspen Institute, and the Aspen Skiing Company partner with a private company (e.g., Waze,
Scoop), who would develop and manage the program, with coordination and oversight from the
participating parties. This strategy would further benefit from coordination between RFTA,
employers, and down-valley jurisdictions to designate existing park-and-rides or other
underutilized community owned/retail/church parking lots as the organizing place for riders and
drivers. The City of Aspen may also need to monitor the change in carpool parking usage after
implementation, to determine if parking fees should apply to help manage the carpool parking
supply or to adjust how carpool and SOV parking is allocated downtown. This strategy would be
most successful following the implementation of both HOV lane enforcement and increased
parking prices. Higher parking prices for employees will further discourage SOV usage and more
efficient use of parking spaces (getting more people in town per parking space), while the HOV
lane enforcement should provide additional travel time benefits for those in the ridesharing
program.
A longer-term strategy could include building off of the ridesharing app to create a Mobility as a
Service (MaaS) app that integrates multimodal trip planning with payment services in order to
facilitate trip and route planning across multiple modes of transportation. Integrating transit,
bike-share, car-share, and ride-hailing and ridesharing into one platform provides the
convenience of a car and makes it easier for residents and visitors to choose alternative
transportation modes. While fairly new, MaaS platforms have been successful in Europe, created
by both public agencies and private companies. Private companies, such as Hamburg’s MaaS
Global, tend to have more resources and technological skills to develop and maintain an
integrated platform. However, one of the first US MaaS platforms was created by Louisville,
Kentucky’s Transit Authority of River City, with the help of a private developer. Combined with
policy measures such as roadway pricing, dynamic parking pricing, and investment into
1 The Aspen Skiing Company charges relatively high parking fees of $20-30 at the parking lots closest to the mountain bases. Given the high fees, these may not need to be adjusted in the short-term, but the slightly
outlying free lots would benefit from a parking fee (e.g., Town Park lot) to further encourage people to
carpool or use buses to get to the mountain.
85
Attachment 5
86
Updated July 28, 2020
Page 5 of 8
alternative transportation modes, MaaS can help lead to permanent changes in people’s travel
choices. Portland’s TriMet is also piloting a MaaS app, combining the bus, rail, streetcar,
bikeshare, scooter, and Uber/Lyft into a single platform. In the Aspen area, MaaS would
complement all strategies outlined in this document, and would benefit both residents and
tourists with more transparent and flexible multimodal transportation options. However, in the
US, the only MaaS implementations have been taken through a public agency that can compel or
cajole a mix of private transportation providers into joining a single platform. This requires public
funding or some sort of surcharge on MaaS users/service providers to pay for the setup and
ongoing maintenance of the system.
BRT Speed & Reliability Improvements
Speed and reliability improvements along the VelociRFTA BRT route, such as strategic transit
queue jumps or transit signal priority, can be implemented within 2-5 years. These travel time
improvements, along with better HOV lane enforcement, can increase ridership up to 1.5% along
the Highway 82 corridor. These improvements should be made around the same time as the
increased parking prices to provide commuters and visitors with a competitive and reliable
transportation option, which would further increase ridership. Identifying down-valley park-and-
ride options may also be necessary to accommodate the new riders who cannot walk, roll, or bike
to transit.
Complementary Strategies
Aspen, Snowmass, and Pitkin County may also want to further explore complementary strategies
that could be implemented in the short term. For example, the City of Aspen currently operates a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program; expansion of this program would provide
further VMT and GHG reduction benefits. An expansion could happen by either
encouraging/requiring more businesses to participate in the TDM program and to increase the
incentives and disincentives related to non-SOV and SOV travel, respectively. Other TDM
strategies could include provision of a trip reduction ordinance, expansion of the Emergency Ride
Home program, and working closely with employers and schools to reduce SOV trips through
existing programs and incentives. Adding/strengthening TDM programs in other Pitkin County
communities could also dovetail with the strategies outlined above. These TDM programs can be
modeled after Aspen’s successful program, with some modifications to reflect the unique
characteristics of the other communities along the Highway 82 corridor.
Medium Term Strategies
The strategies described in this section can be implemented within a 3-10-year timeframe, as they
require additional planning, coordination between jurisdictions, and financial investments.
Ridehailing
Ridehailing (using an app to hail a ride from a company like Uber or Lyft or expanding/modifying
Aspen’s Downtowner service) in the Upper Valley could be implemented within 3-6 years,
86
Attachment 5
87
Updated July 28, 2020
Page 6 of 8
depending on current operators’ current growth plans, and/or Downtowner’s service costs and
ability to scale up, although there is considerable uncertainty in timing due to COVID-19
economic disruptions.2 Due to the relatively isolated location of Aspen and Snowmass, there may
not be a critical mass of drivers or year-round travel demand to ensure success for the current
for-profit ridehailing companies. If the current private operators choose not to expand in the
Upper Valley, this strategy would likely fall under long term implementation due to the time
required to pivot towards a smaller pilot program, which could be operated by a private
company, and coordinated and managed (and possibly subsidized) by local governments. As
noted in the Task 2 memo, while Ridehailing can reduce the need to own vehicles for residents
and likely reduces VMT for visitors, ridehailing can also run the risk of increasing traffic congestion
and GHG emissions if not monitored and managed. If ridehailing substantially expands or is
subsidized by local governments, the ridehailing companies should be required to provide
monthly VMT reporting to ensure deadhead trips do not override the potential benefits of fewer
resident and visitor trips caused by less private vehicle and rental car travel.
BRT Service Improvements
More substantial BRT improvements that would improve mobility in the Upper Valley could be
implemented in the 5 to 8-year range. These improvements would include construction of a new
park-and-ride at in the Carbondale/El Jebel/Basalt area, new peak period BRT service to
Snowmass Village, consistent daily service to the West Glenwood park-and-ride and downtown
Glenwood Springs, and improved first mile/last mile connections. Some first mile/last mile
improvements could build off the other proposed strategies, such as the expansion of the Aspen
Downtowner and new/expanded ridehailing services. This strategy implementation requires more
time due to the collaboration required between RFTA, local jurisdictions, and the public, as well as
additional funding.
Carsharing and Downtowner Improvements
Other medium-term strategies would focus on GHG and VMT reductions through expansion of
the City of Aspen’s Downtowner and carsharing program and shift towards the carsharing fleet’s
electrification. While these strategies have broad public support, both strategies require
additional government investment which may take 5-8 years to implement. Downtowner may also
require larger vehicles and a more robust technical infrastructure to significantly expand its
service area. The Downtowner expansion faces significant opposition from taxi and limo
companies, and more legal review is required to determine boundaries that best balance the
improvement of public mobility while protecting private businesses from publicly supported
transportation services. Building off the short-term strategies, additional parking revenue from
higher fees could be allocated towards these programs. Electrification of Aspen’s carsharing
program may also benefit from medium-term implementation as less expensive, longer range
electric vehicles are now regularly entering the market. Also, as more electric vehicles enter the
2 Note that Lyft currently operates in Aspen, but service can be limited or unavailable due to a lack of drivers. See additional discussion on Downtowner expansion at the end of this section.
87
Attachment 5
88
Updated July 28, 2020
Page 7 of 8
market, Aspen and other communities will also benefit from private sector investment in new DC
fast charging stations, which can allow an electric vehicle to be charged in about 15 minutes.
Aspen and other communities who embrace shared electric vehicles will still likely have to install
standard electric vehicle charging infrastructure at the vehicle’s home parking place, but the
private sector infrastructure will greatly expand the range and practicality of zero GHG vehicle
travel in the area.
Other Strategies
Another medium-term strategy is improved airport/transit connectivity, which would aim to
reduce VMT and GHG impacts from the region’s high visitor volumes. This strategy could include
creating a designated airport transit shuttle from the existing BRT stop on Highway 82. Another
option would expand the options to directly transport visitors’ luggage to their hotels or ski
equipment to the mountain bases or hotels. These types of “visitor concierge” services, while not
new to Aspen or other resort areas (particularly in Canada and Europe) could help to reduce the
incentive for visitors to rent a vehicle. However, this strategy faces legal obstacles due to security
requirements by Homeland Security. Recently, there have been a few companies cleared to
operate in the Orlando metro area, such as HoldMyLuggage; more review is required to
determine the viability of this strategy in Colorado. Consideration for using locally generated
transportation revenues to encourage transit/shuttle travel to the Denver, Grand Junction, and
Vail airports may also be worth considering.
Long Term Strategy
Implementing dynamic roadway pricing on Highway 82 is a long-term strategy, given the time
needed for implementation, construction, and potential toll exemptions for key constituencies like
residents, service vehicles, or certain employees. Public knowledge and acceptance of the tolls,
revenue allocation, and economic impact is key to successful congestion pricing, as public
support is necessary to overcome the political difficulties of implementation. Furthermore,
beginning stages of roadway pricing discussion need to be focused on mitigating and managing
equity issues that may arise with implementation. Specifically, equity considerations in setting
tolling prices, expanding alternative modes of travel, and providing low-cost access to lower-
income groups, and toll revenue allocation to support mobility improvements for all modes must
be considered. There are also legal challenges to implementing congestion pricing that require
coordination with CDOT and the High-Performance Transportation Enterprise (HPTE), which
finances Express Toll Lanes in Colorado.
Other Strategies
Other potential long-term strategies identified in the Upper Valley Mobility Report could likely be
implemented in the beyond 10-year time frame, due to the extensive financial investment and
planning required. The options below are complementary to the other strategies identified in this
document, and likely have differing levels of public and political support. Additional analysis
88
Attachment 5
89
Updated July 28, 2020
Page 8 of 8
would be required to identify the level of VMT and GHG reductions associated with these
strategies.
A mountain-to-mountain aerial connection has been proposed in Aspen and Snowmass for
decades. This strategy could alleviate some winter peak-hour roadway travel demand and may
also reduce crowding on peak hour BRT buses traveling to Aspen. However, expanded BRT and
local bus service may be a more practical way to achieve the same goal of making it easier to get
between Aspen and Snowmass.
Light Rail Transit (LRT) is another transit option that has been proposed along Highway 82
between Aspen and the Brush Creek lot. LRT may provide a better visitor/commuter experience
than buses, provide greater passenger capacity, and provides an opportunity for future down-
valley rail connections. However, it is unlikely that there would be sufficient ridership density to
support the capital costs of LRT over the successful BRT in the near-to-midterm.
Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH) has been pursued for years in the Upper Valley, as
most of Aspen and Snowmass’ workforce commutes along Highway 82 from down-valley. This
strategy would focus local efforts to build affordable housing near RFTA park-and-ride lots and
transit stops along Highway 82 to reduce travel demand along the highway. Subsidizing
affordable housing near existing transit infrastructure may be a more cost-effective way to reduce
vehicle trips into Aspen and Snowmass than some of the other large-scale transportation options
that have been considered over the years. Affordable housing essentially moves people to
existing transit as opposed to bringing new transportation infrastructure to existing residential
areas.
89
Attachment 5
90
2021 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
Parking Services Department (451 Fund)
Mitch Osur, Debbi Zell, Blake Fitch SEPTEMBER 21, 202091
What We Do: Parking Management
•Downtown Core -682 Spaces
•5 Residential Zones -2,600 Spaces
•Rio Grande Parking Garage -300 Spaces
•Brush Creek Park and Ride -200 Paved Spaces
2 92
What We Do: Parking Management
•Buttermilk (May-November)
•Large Events
•Carpool Kiosk
•ARC, Music Tent, High School Football Games
•72 Hour Complaints
•Construction and Reserved Signs
3 93
Changes Due to COVID
4
•Operational Adjustments:
•Enforcement, Construction and 72 Hour Complaints
•Temporarily Reassigned Staff to Parks Department
•Street Activations
•Office Following Public Safety Regulations
•Service Delivery:
•Open via Phone and Online
•Core is Very Busy
•Mask Education
94
Changes Due to COVID
5
•Enforcement Changes:
•Residential Zones Free at This Time
•Not Promoting Carpooling
•Increased Enforcement Around Parks
95
Supplemental Requests
6
Recommended:
•Operational Reductions –One-time: ($67K)
96
On the Horizon
•Vehicle Advancements
•Contactless Payments
•Moving to 100% Virtual
Permits
•Control Loading Zones
•Pricing Strategies
7 97
Revenues & Expenditures
Trends
$4,007,830
$4,272,720
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenues Expenditures
COVID
8
City Offices
98
Fund Balance
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Fund Balance Required Reserve
$1.75M/yr to
Transportation
9 99
Revenue Sources
$39,770
$17,000
$20,000
$25,000
$75,000
$400,000
$430,000
$444,060
$2,557,000
$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000
Investment Income & Other
Transfers In (Downtown Services)
Business Parking Permits
Lodge Parking Permits
Special Parking Permits
Construction Parking Permits
Garage - Daily, Permits, Punch Passes
Parking Tickets - Non Court
Street - Meters, Pay By Phone, Day Passes
10 100
$51,510
$60,000
$124,600
$120,210
$186,380
$390,550
$396,900
$1,310,470
$1,632,100
$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000
Buttermilk
Capital Projects
Mill Street Annex
Parking Garage Facility
Parking Garage Operations
Administration & Outreach
Overhead
On-Street
Transfers
Expenditure by Program
11
14.00 FTE
$1.5M to
Transportation
101
2021 Capital Projects
$60,000
$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000
Fire Protection Upgrade in the
Parking Garage
12 102
13
Questions?
103
2021 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
Transportation (141 Fund)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2020John Krueger 104
What We Do
2Services•Transit
•Car share
•Bike share
•On-demand
•Grants Programs•Carpoolers
•Employers
•Schools
•Commuters
•Events
•Grants Facilities/Fleet•Rubey Park
•Buses
•Shuttles
•Cars
•Bus stops
•Grants
105
Strategic Alignment
Safe & Lived-in
Community of Choice
3
Aspen Area Community Plan
•Limit AADT to 1993 levels.
•Accommodate additional
person trips using TDM.
Environmental Initiatives
•Battery electric buses
•Downtowner –all electric
•Car To Go -Chevy Bolt EV
Protect our
Environment
106
Changes Due to COVID
4
•Reduced hours
•Reduced/combined routes
•Reduced occupancy
•Ski season operations
Transit
•Reduced car share vehicles
•Reduced Downtowner
service/occupancy
•Shorter WE-cycle season
Other
Programs
107
Changes Due to COVID
5
•Partial closures of Rubey Park
•Reduced Car To Go fleet
•Increased cleaning costs
Facilities
& Fleet
•One position unfilled
•Staff working remotely
•Changes to staff focus
Service
Delivery
108
Supplemental Requests
6
Recommended:
•Add’l Rubey Park Cleaning to Meet COVID Standards: $73K
•Operational Reductions –One-time & On-Going: ($202K)
109
On the Horizon
7
•Ski season operations
•Bus replacements
•TIA update-5304 Grant
110
Revenues & Expenditures
Trends
$4,938,270
$4,641,520
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenues Expenditures
8
2020 One-Time CARES
Act Funding of $2M
111
Fund Balance
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Fund Balance Reserve
9
Banking for
Future Capital
(Busses)
112
Revenue Sources
$5,000
$10,200
$32,900
$39,000
$277,320
$804,250
$1,069,600
$1,200,000
$1,500,000
$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000
TDM Impact Fee
In Lieu Of Development Fees
Car Share Fees
Investment Income
Refund Of Expenditures - RFTA
Lodging Tax
Sales Tax
Use Tax
General Transfers In
10
Dependent
on Transfer
and Taxes
113
$31,180
$99,500
$182,060
$250,090
$389,120
$730,650
$842,780
$2,116,140
$0 $750,000 $1,500,000 $2,250,000
Facilities - Office Space
Capital
Administrative
Transportation Demand Management
Facilities - Rubey Park Center
Transfers
Alternative Transit Services
Mass Transit Services
5.00 FTE
Expenditure by Program
11 114
2021 Capital Projects
$17,000
$82,500
$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000
Bus Stop Improvement Plan - 2021
Rubey Park Maintenance - 2021
12 115
13
Questions?
116
Page | 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre, Aspen City Council & The Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Kevin Rayes, Planner
THRU: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
MEMO DATE: September 18, 2020
MEETING DATE: September 21, 2020
RE: Sketch Plan: Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) Zone District
APPLICANT:
North Mill LLC
2001 N. Halsted, #304
Chicago, IL 60616
REPRESENTATIVE:
Chris Bendon, Bendon Adams, 300 S.
Spring St. #202 Aspen, CO 81611
LOCATION:
465 & 557 North Mill Street
CURRENT ZONING:
Service Commercial Industrial (SCI)
REQUEST OF COUNCIL AND P&Z:
The applicant requests a Sketch Plan
Review to discuss potential development
options for the properties located on
North Mill Street. Sketch Plan Review
enables an applicant to have a non-
binding conversation with City Council
and the Planning & Zoning Commission
to determine if there is direction for the
applicant to move forward with a
subsequent application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council &
P&Z consider the discussion in the
context of the existing Service /
Commercial / Industrial zone district in
the River Approach Character Area.
Figure 3: 557 N. Mill (as viewed from N. Mill
Street)
Figure 2: 465 N. Mill: (as viewed from N. Mill
Street)
Figure 1: 465 N. Mill (as viewed from Puppy
Smith St. & N. Mill St.)
117
Page | 2
REQUEST OF COUNCIL AND P&Z
The Applicant requests the following:
Sketch Plan Review- pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.304.060.2, Sketch Plan Review; to
review and discuss potential development options for the subject properties within the SCI zone
district. Notice is provided to the public regarding the meeting. The discussion is non-binding and
solicits feedback from both City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
I. EXISTING CONDITIONS
465 and 557 N. Mill are located along
the northwest corner of the
intersection of Puppy Smith Street
and N. Mill Street. These properties
are located within the
Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI)
zone district, which is intended to
accommodate commercial space
deemed essential or unique to serve
& support the local economy. This
zone district allows for uses not
found in other zones including, light
industrial, manufacturing,
production, repair and similar
service-related uses. (See Exhibit B
for full zone district description and
dimensional requirements).
465 & 557 N. Mill contain a total of 52,654 sq. ft. of gross lot area. 465 N. Mill Street is improved
with a two-story structure that presents as a one-story building as viewed from Puppy Smith
Street due to the steep terrain change in the area. The building includes a walk-out configuration
along the rear façade. The structure contains approximately 20,645 sq. ft. of Net Leasable Area.
(See Figures 1 & 2.) 557 N. Mill Street is also improved with a two-story structure that presents
as one story as viewed from N. Mill Street. The lower level of the building is mostly subgrade.
The structure contains approximately 7,990 sq. ft. of Net Leasable Area. (See Figure 3.)
A variety of Service/Commercial/Industrial uses between the two buildings on the two lots:
557 N. Mill Street
Business Name Description Current Use
General service foundation Human Rights Organization Office
Lux Aspen Property Management & concierge
service
Office
A2 Associates LLC Construction & property management Office
Athen Builders LLC General contracting Office
Unknown tenant Unknown use N/A
Figure 4: Site Locations
465 N. Mill
118
Page | 3
465 N. Mill Street
Business Name Description Current Use
Aspen Velo Bike/rental/repair shop Outdoor Recreation
Walter’s Carpet Carpet installation & repair Building Materials
Endless Pawsibilities Dog training Animal boarding facility
Aspen Laundry Laundromat & drycleaner Laundromat
MPS (Millennium Pack &
Ship)
Packing & Shipping Shipping, packing & receiving
services
Aspen Hatter Custom hat fabrication & sales Customization
Aspen Motorwax Motorcycle & snowmobile repair Repair
Aspen Tire & Detail Automobile service Servicing
Anna Tazebenski Artist studio Office
John Francis Furniture fabrication studio Manufacturing
Gorsuch Ski Service Ski services Servicing
Shelly Hamill, Artist Artist Studio Office
Lift Up Non-profit, humanitarian assistance Office
The FJ Company Automobile showroom & sales Vehicle Sales
We Cycle Public bicycle rental Repair & Office
Replay Sports Sports equipment consignment &
repair
Outdoor Recreation
Reeds Luggage Repair Travel bag repair Servicing & repair
1 vacant space for lease
Adjacent zone districts near the subject
properties, shown in Figure 5, include: SCI,
Neighborhood Commercial (NC),
Public/Planned Development (PUB/PD),
and Park (P). Nearby zone districts include
Mixed Use (MU), Academic (A), Affordable
Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD),
Medium-Density Residential (R-6),
Moderate-Density Residential (R-15), &
Low Density Residential (R-30).
These properties were acquired by the
current owner, North Mill LLC following to
the adoption of Ordinance No. 29, Series of
2016, which removed free-market
residential from the permitted uses in this
zone district (Exhibit B). This amendment
was the topic of recent litigation in this zone
district. Figure 5: Property Location and Vicinity
The subject properties are outlined in white
119
Page | 4
II. HISTORY OF SCI
The SCI zone district is scattered throughout the River Approach Character Area as defined in
the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. This character
area has historically functioned as an industrial zone. In the 19th century it was the location of
the Denver and Rio Grande railroad station, a hydroelectric plant, foundry, brewery and various
mining functions. In 1963, freight hauling came to an end in this area and several small
businesses began to operate, forming an industrial park providing services including vacuum
and car repair, construction materials, ski tuning and Sport Obermeyer’s manufacturing
warehouse. These uses were all housed in very modest structures throughout the area.
Over time, rising real estate costs in Aspen displaced many businesses, leading to a dearth of
locally serving businesses. In response, the SCI zone district was adopted via Ordinance No.
11, Series 1975, to help retain these essential businesses in town instead of losing them to
cheaper locations down valley.
Previous City Councils occasionally amended SCI to ensure it would adapt to changing
technologies, industries and local business needs. Flexibility within this zone district has always
been an important feature of maintaining Aspen’s messy vitality. However, due to extreme
economic pressures in Aspen, each amendment brings unforeseen consequences, often with
the potential to undermine the integrity of the zone district. As SCI has evolved to accommodate
evolving technology and new industries, more complicated and cumbersome regulations have
also been imposed to counteract these extreme pressures. (See Exhibit C for an in-depth history
of SCI code amendments.)
These economic pressures do not exist in a vacuum. The successes and challenges of SCI over
the years are best analyzed in tourist visitation and consumer trends. Even before SCI was
adopted in 1975, Aspen has evolved to tourist-based trends. There is sometimes a disconnect
between the needs and services of local and the needs of tourists. SCI was established as an
area where more commonplace goods and services by year-round residents could be
maintained as the commercial core shifted towards meeting the consumer desires of the tourist
economy.
As stated in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), the Commercial Sector, Page 20:
“There is concern that businesses providing basic necessities will be replaced with businesses
providing non-essential goods and services. The character of our community is bolstered by a
diverse commercial mix. While we have taken some steps to increase retail diversity, we must
pursue more aggressive measures to ensure the needs of the community are met and to
preserve our unique community character.”
It is worth noting that the statement above is consistent with the fundamental intent of SCI when
it was originally adopted 47 years ago. All previous Aspen Area Community Plans discussed the
important role that SCI has in the community. The applicable excerpts from these plans are
included in Exhibit D. Staff recommends Council and the Commission consider the policies in
the Aspen Area Community Plan when reviewing the applicant’s redevelopment proposal.
Exhibit C outlines the history of several code amendments in the SCI zone district. Each of these
amendments attempted to balance the need for flexibility to ensure zoning would adapt with the
times, without sacrificing the integrity of maintaining SCI as a light, industrial area to serve the
needs of residents. Staff recommends Council and the Commission consider the intent and
history of the zone district when reviewing the applicant’s redevelopment proposal.
120
Page | 5
STAFF DISCUSSION:
As early as 2006, the Civic Master Plan Advisory Group recommended that “City staff should hold
discussions with property owners in SCI to determine if there is interest in a redevelopment
project…” The applicant has expressed interest in redeveloping the properties at 557 N. Mill and
465 N. Mill- both of which are located within the SCI zone district.
Sketch Plan Review offers an opportunity to applicants, Council, and the Commission to consider
projects which are complex or of heightened community interest. Staff’s role is to provide Council
and the Commission with relevant information to consider the conceptual-level proposal. As there
are no review criteria and limited application requirements, the applicant has the opportunity to
present and discuss their plans in a format and level of detail of their choosing. (See Exhibit A for
full description of Sketch Plan Review.) Consistent with the intent of the Sketch Plan review, the
application includes conceptual plans to redevelop these properties (Exhibit E). The enclosed
renderings are more expressive than technical and depict a clear idea of the bulk and massing
proposed by the applicant.
Council and the Commission may ask questions of the applicant and staff, including information
related to all elements of more traditional land use review hearings, such as: mass, scale, use
types, architecture and materials, building placement, neighborhood context, affordable housing
open space, traffic, and parking. Exhibit B outlines the zoning requirements for development in
the SCI zone and can be used as a guide for assessing the appropriateness of the Sketch Plan
proposal.
When reviewing development in this area, the following Guidelines should be considered:
1. Commercial Design Standards & Guidelines:
Pursuant to the Commercial Design Standards & Guidelines, the SCI zone district is
located within the River Approach Character Area, which is intended to:
“promote walkability, permeability in architecture, connections to the river and
natural environment, and innovative new architectural design and technology.”
This area is separated from the original Aspen townsite by a steep grade change. The
significant change in topography draws a boundary that separates the River Approach
neighborhood from the more traditional development patterns and styles found in
downtown Aspen. Industrial styles indicative of the types of allowed uses in the
neighborhood are recommended. When designing a new project, walkability and
accessibility should be emphasized. Small-scaled buildings that do not overwhelm the
neighborhood are imperative to the pedestrian experience. Staff has highlighted a handful
of the guidelines most relevant to the proposal. The list is not inclusive of all applicable
guidelines in the Commercial Design Standards & Guidelines. The following should be
considered when reviewing the proposed design:
I. Building Placement
7.1 Place a building to respond to the natural environment.
• Consider grade changes and the river when siting a building.
• Horizontal buildings that blend into the topography may be appropriate.
121
Page | 6
7.3 Incorporate open space into building placement and site design
• Soft and informal landscape design that is curvilinear, similar to that found
on a natural riverbank is encouraged.
• Consider views through the property to the river to strengthen connection to
the natural environment, and to enhance the neighborhood and pedestrian
experience.
II. Architecture
Architecture in this area should be an eclectic mix of styles. Traditional architecture is
not recommended as it would blur the line between downtown neighborhoods and the
River Approach Character Area. Industrial styles indicative of the types of allowed uses
in the neighborhood are recommended. Small-scaled buildings that do not overwhelm
the neighborhood are imperative to the pedestrian experience.
7.4 Preserve the diverse and industrial character of the neighborhood and
encourage connection to the river and natural environment.
• Architecture should respond to the topography and natural environment
through setbacks, stepped buildings and sensitive landscape design.
7.5 Use eclectic and creative approaches to break up building mass and scale.
• Consider separate buildings on a property or linked exterior walkways
instead of internal corridors.
7.6 Unique roof forms and overall building shape are encouraged in this
neighborhood.
III. Details and Materials
7.7 Enhance the natural environment and funky character through materials and
details.
• Materials and architectural details should reflect the use of the building.
For example, thick stone columns or heavy timbers are indicative of
lodging and are inappropriate.
• Use of metal is appropriate.
7.8 Larger, more industrial sized fenestration is appropriate here.
2. Redevelopment should respond to the intent of the SCI zone district:
As depicted in Exhibit C, the permitted uses of the SCI zone district have been amended
from time to time. However, the fundamental intent of the zone district has remained
consistent. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.710.16, Service/Commercial/Industrial,
the SCI zone district is designed to provide commercial space to those uses not appropriate
in other commercial zones, but which provide an essential or unique service to support the
local economy. SCI supports the Aspen Area Community Plan policies related to a
sustainable, local serving economy and the preservation of a diversity of commercial
opportunities for locals and visitors (Exhibit D).
122
Page | 7
As previously mentioned, in 2016, Council adopted Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2016 to
remove free-market residential dwellings as an allowed use within the SCI zone district.
This was in response to several instances in which the owners of free-market residential
dwellings in mixed-use buildings purchased the commercial component of the building and
sometimes chose to leave the commercial space vacant or changed condominium
documents to prohibit certain commercial uses.
Today, no free-market residential dwellings exist or are permitted by underlying zoning at
557 or 465 N. Mill. This is a change from past iterations of the zone, where “live-work” style
residential configurations were considered appropriate. The “live-work” concept has been
pursued at other locations in the SCI zone. Affordable housing is permitted as a conditional
use where accessory to a commercial use.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL AND P&Z CONSIDERATION:
1. What aspects of the SCI zone district are important for maintaining the Aspen Community?
• Lower commercial lease rates compared to the commercial core?
• Housing locally serving, essential, and other businesses and services not found
in the commercial core?
• Serving as an incubator for new businesses?
• Providing affordable housing for locals?
• Providing opportunities for eclectic and alternative architectural styles not found
elsewhere in town?
2. Considering the Aspen Area Community Plan policies, and community concerns regarding
the sustainability and viability of locally serving businesses, what role does SCI play now
and in the future to address those concerns in the community?
3. If current businesses in SCI are displaced as a result of rising real estate costs, what other
locations in town would be available for these businesses to relocate for a similar price?
4. How does Council and P&Z envision the SCI zone district helping deliver upon policy
statements around locally owned and locally serving businesses?
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Sketch Plan Review Procedures
Exhibit B – Current SCI Zone District Land Use Code Provision
Exhibit C – History of SCI Code Amendments
Exhibit D – Aspen Area Community Plan Statements Regarding Locally Serving Businesses
Exhibit E – Application
123
Exhibit A- Sketch Plan Review Procedure
Page | 1
Section 26.304.060.b.2 – Review of development application by decision-making
bodies
Sketch plan review
If the Community Development Director, in consultation with the applicant, determines
that a proposed development application may be complex, have the potential for
significant community interest, involves a public facility or the proposed project would
benefit from additional community input, the Community Development Director may
schedule a joint meeting with the City Council and either the planning and zoning
commission, the historic preservation commission or both, for a sketch plan review. A
sketch plan review may be held either before or after an application is submitted and
determined to be sufficiently complete by the director of the Community Development
Department. If it is scheduled after an application is determined complete by the
Community Development Director, the sketch plan review meeting shall be conducted
prior to any other land use review proceeding required by this Code. A sketch plan
review meeting shall be noticed by publication, mailing and posting (See
Subsection 26.304.060(e) Paragraph (3)) and the joint meeting shall be conducted as a
public meeting. The minutes of the joint meeting shall become part of the formal record
of the proceedings before the City Council and the decision-making body which has
been invited to attend the joint meeting with the City Council. A quorum of the City
Council shall not be required to conduct a sketch plan review hearing. The Community
Development Director may invite particular members of the public (stakeholders) to
attend and participate in the sketch plan review hearing. At the conclusion of the public
meeting, the members of the City Council, decision-making body invited to attend the
joint meeting and stakeholders (if invited to attend) may offer the applicant advisory
suggestions regarding the proposed application, but shall not make any decisions
regarding the application for development. Applicants shall not be entitled to rely upon
any decisions, comments or suggestions made by the members of the joint public
meeting as no attempt shall be made to approve a development proposal even on a
conceptual level at a sketch plan review.
124
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 700, SCI zone
Page 1
26.710.160 Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I).
A.Purpose. The S/C/I zone supports Aspen Area Community Plan policies related to a
sustainable, local serving economy and the preservation of a diversity of commercial
opportunities for locals and visitors. In response to the decreased intensity of commercial uses
in the zone and relative distance from the CC and C1 zones, both multi-modal and automobile
parking improvements are appropriate on site in the S/C/I. In order to enhance the City’s
commercial diversity, the zone allows for uses not found in other zones including light
industrial, manufacturing, production, repair and similar service-related uses. The S/C/I zone
is designed to provide commercial space to those uses not appropriate in other commercial
zones, but which provide an essential or unique service to support the local economy.
Flexibility and adaptability are important features of the zone to respond to changing
commercial sector dynamics and meet the space needs of the City’s service, creative and
production economies.
B.Permitted Uses.
1.The following uses may have, in combination, a limited percent of the floor area,
devoted to retail sales, showroom, or customer reception, and such uses shall be
ancillary to the primary commercial use. This floor area percentage may be
increased through Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission,
pursuant to Section 26.430.050, and according to the standards of Section
26.710.160(E)1. Where retail sales are allowed, this shall be limited to General
Retail uses and may include formula uses that fall in the General Retail category.
% retail sales,
showroom, or
customer reception
(maximum – net
leasable area)
Uses include the manufacturing, repair, customization,
servicing, alteration, detailing, rental or sale of consumer goods,
such as:
100% •Vehicle sales.
•Building materials, components, hardware, fixtures, interior
finishes and equipment.
•Fabric and sewing supply.
•Household appliances such as ranges, refrigerators,
dishwashers, etc.
•Outdoor recreational items, which may be in combination with a
service use related to guiding or touring.
25% •Animal boarding facility.
•Animal grooming establishment.
•Artist studio.
•Brewery and brewing supply.
•Coffee roasting and supply.
•Commercial dry cleaning.
•Commercial Kitchen or Bakery.
•Design Studio (limited to the Andrews-McFarlin Subdivision).
•Laundromat.
Exhibit B- SCI Zone District
125
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 700, SCI zone
Page 2
% retail sales,
showroom, or
customer reception
(maximum – net
leasable area)
Uses include the manufacturing, repair, customization,
servicing, alteration, detailing, rental or sale of consumer goods,
such as:
• Locksmith.
• Marijuana Cultivation Facility, Marijuana Product
Manufacturing Facility, or Marijuana Testing Facility.
• Consumer electronics service and repair.
• Post Office branch.
• Printing and copy center.
• Shipping, packing and receiving services.
• Veterinary clinic.
10% • Automobile washing facility.
• Building/landscape maintenance facility.
• Warehousing and storage.
2. Primary Care Physician’s Office Uses permitted:
a. On Upper Floors, pursuant to Section 26.710.160 (D)11(b).
b. Limited to a cap of 3,500 square feet at the Obermeyer Place PD, upon execution
of an Insubstantial PD Amendment.
3. Permitted Accessory Uses:
a) Service yard accessory to a permitted use.
b) Sales and rental accessory and incidental to a permitted use.
c) Accessory buildings and uses.
d) Home occupations and Vacation Rentals: Home Occupations and Vacation
Rentals are permitted only in legally established residential units.
e) Offices, accessory to a permitted or conditional use, may occupy up to 10% of
a commercial unit.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the
Service/Commercial/ Industrial (SCI) zone district, subject to the procedures established
in Chapter 26.425.050 Procedures for Review, and the standards established in Section
26.710.160(F). The following Conditional uses shall not be subject to Section
26.425.045, Standards applicable to formula uses; exemptions; determination of formula
uses.
1. Affordable Housing Units: Affordable housing is permitted as a conditional use where
accessory to a commercial use on the property or required for on-site affordable
housing mitigation requirements. See 26.710.160.D.11 for affordable housing Floor
Area Ratio requirements. Affordable housing created pursuant to this subsection is
not eligible to be used for the creation of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit,
pursuant to Chapter 26.540, unless for a fraction of a unit.
Exhibit B- SCI Zone District
126
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 700, SCI zone
Page 3
2. Free-Market Residential Units: No new Free-Market Residential Units may be
established. Free-Market Residential units are permitted on any level if they were
legally established (having received a Certificate of Occupancy, Development Order,
or applied for a Development Order) prior to Ordinance 29, Series 2016.
3. Consignment retail establishment.
4. Commercial Parking Facility, pursuant to Section 26.515.
5. Gasoline service station.
6. Grocery store.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Service/Commercial/ Industrial (SCI) zone district.
The dimensional standards and allotments provided in this section for commercial and
mixed-use developments are the maximum allowable for the zone and may not be
achieved for all developments. Site constraints, historic resources, on-site mitigation and
replacement requirements, and other factors may prevent development from achieving
some or all of the maximum allowable dimensional standards.
1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): 3,000
2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): No requirement.
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): No requirement.
6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): No requirement.
7. Minimum Utility/Trash/Recycle area: Pursuant to Chapter 12.06.
8. Maximum height: Thirty-five (35) feet.
9. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): No Requirement.
10. Pedestrian Amenity Space: Pursuant to Section 26.412.
11. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively
up to a total maximum FAR of 2.25:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is
subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements,
pedestrian amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the
maximum FAR is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
a. Commercial Uses: 2.25:1.
Exhibit B- SCI Zone District
127
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 700, SCI zone
Page 4
b. Primary Care Physician’s Office uses: .25:1 FAR, only if a minimum of .75:1
FAR of Commercial uses, listed in Section 26.710.160(B)1-3, exist on the same
parcel.
c. Affordable Multi-Family Housing: Greater of existing FAR or .5:1.
d. Free-Market Multi-Family Housing: Limited to the existing free-market multi-
family FAR. No expansion to FAR shall be permitted except at-grade patios, and
decks (other than roof-top decks), balconies, exterior stairways, trellis, and other
similar features up to 15% of the total free-market residential floor area. Any
subsequent reduction in floor area occupied by such residential use shall be deemed
a new limitation and the use shall not thereafter be enlarged to occupy a greater floor
area. Free-market residential units shall not be able to utilize any exemptions to
floor area outlined in Section 26.575.020(D), Measuring Floor Area, except as noted
above.
12. Maximum multi-family residential dwelling unit size (square feet):
a) Category 1-7 Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation.
b) Resident Occupied Affordable multi-family housing: Individual units shall be
limited to 2,000 sq. ft. of net livable area.
c) Free-Market multi-family housing: Individual units shall be limited to 2,000 sq.
ft. of net livable area. Combination of Free-Market residential units is permitted,
but subject to the net livable size limitations herein, as well as other provisions
of this title.
d) Expansions Allowed: Notwithstanding the above, individual multi-family unit
sizes may be increased by extinguishing Historic Transferable Development
Right Certificates (“certificate” or “certificates”), subject to the following:
1) The transfer ratio is 500 sq. ft. of net livable area for each certificate that is
extinguished.
2) The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple units.
However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by transferring
development rights is 2,500 sq. ft. of net livable area (i.e., no more than 500
additional square feet may be applied per unit).
3) This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring development
rights does not allow an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the lot or
the use.
E. Special Review Standards. Whenever the dimensional standards of a proposed
development within the SCI Zone District are subject to Special Review, the development
application shall be processed as a Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430.050. The
following additional criteria apply:
Exhibit B- SCI Zone District
128
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 700, SCI zone
Page 5
1. To increase the allowable percentage of interior space assigned to retail, showroom, or
customer reception area, the applicant shall demonstrate the need and appropriateness
for such additional space and shall demonstrate consistency with the purpose of the SCI
Zone District.
2. The additional approved percentage for a specific use shall be limited to that use and
not applicable to subsequent uses in the same space.
F. Conditional Use Review Standards.
1. Retail, Showroom or Customer Reception Area. In addition to meeting the standards
in Chapter 26.425, Conditional Use, the following Standards shall be met:
a. For consignment retail establishment, commercial parking facility (pursuant to
Chapter 26.575), and gasoline service station, the Commission shall establish the
appropriate amount of floor area to be devoted to retail sales, showroom, or
customer reception as a condition of conditional use review.
b. To establish the allowable percentage of interior space assigned to retail, showroom,
or customer reception area, the applicant shall demonstrate the need and
appropriateness for the space and shall demonstrate consistency with the purpose of
the SCI Zone District. The approved percentage for a specific use is limited to that
use and not applicable to subsequent uses in the same space.
2. Multi-Family Housing. In addition to meeting the standards in Chapter 26.425,
Conditional Use, the following Standards shall be met.
a. The applicant must demonstrate that the residential use and individual units are
substantially removed and physically separated from Commercial Uses on the same
parcel, to the extent practicable, so as to isolate residential uses from commercial
impacts and to adequately provide for on-loading, off-loading, circulation and
parking for commercial uses.
G. Compliance with City of Aspen Charter. Any property located east of Castle Creek
that was in the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zone district on January 1, 2015, is
subject to the provisions of Article XIII Section 13.14, Voter authorization of certain land use
approvals, of the City of Aspen Charter.
(Ord. No. 2-1999, §1; Ord. No. 22-2005, §1; Ord. No. 4-2008; Ord. No. 27-2010, §4; Ord.
No. 39-2013, §3; Ord. No. 20-2015, §4; Ord. No. 29, 2016, §3; Ord. No. 6, 2017, §4-5)
Exhibit B- SCI Zone District
129
Exhibit C – History of SCI Code Amendments
Page | 1
1. SCI was created in 1975.
The following is a brief history of the Service, Commercial, Industrial (SCI) zone district
since it was created by Council in 1975. Staff’s hopes to convey to Council and the
Commission the original intent of its creation, how the zone district has evolved over time,
and how that evolution relates to the Sketch Plan proposal. This summary was compiled
from staff memos, meeting minutes, ordinances, and resolutions.
1975: SCI was adopted by City Council via Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1975 as a
response to the loss of locally serving businesses in town. The intent of SCI was
to “allow the use of land for limited commercial purposes and limited industrial
purposes, with customary accessory and institutional uses.” Permitted uses
included vehicle sales, equipment rental, dry cleaning, warehousing and storage.
1999: In the late 90’s, Community Development staff proposed amending SCI to bring it
into greater conformance with its intent as originally envisioned. According to a
staff memorandum reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission, “The intent of
the district [SCI] suggests that restaurants, retailers, offices, and other high-traffic
types of uses belong downtown…Uses that are oriented more to the manufacturing
and servicing of consumer goods with a limited amount of customer traffic and
which may be inappropriate for a downtown location should be permitted in this
district.” Additionally, staff contemplated the ability to develop deed-restricted,
resident-occupied (RO) or free-market housing within SCI and acknowledged that
affordable housing would provide an opportunity for local business owners and
employees to live and work in town.
However, staff cautioned against allowing residential units to accompany artist
studios. According to the staff memo, “the demand for free market housing in this
town may lead to artistic interpretations of what an artist is and does. Development
of free-market housing, in turn, could raise lease rents above reasonable levels for
the permitted uses. Staff believes this would be contrary to the intent of the zone
district.” At the time, staff felt that “Art is too vague of a concept to define as a use
and has been misinterpreted to allow almost any use. The art of selling properties,
of managing a busy office, of thinking, of skiing, of balancing a checkbook should
not be rewarded with free-market homes which drive up property values and forces
a person who fixes toasters for a living to move down valley.”
Many of the proposed changes recommended by staff were adopted via Ordinance
No. 2, Series of 1999. The minutes from the Council hearing on March 22nd 1999
state:
Chris Bendon, Community Development Department, said the SCI zone
should have uses other than those allowed in the downtown core, that do not
demand high rent and that are inappropriate for residential areas. Bendon said
the Council realized this type of area would disappear if they did not try and
preserve these uses and they created the SCI zone in 1971.1 Bendon pointed
out this amendment broadens the SCI zone; there are more
130
Exhibit C – History of SCI Code Amendments
Page | 2
uses, there is a provision for retail, the areas where one can build are larger,
the parking requirements are reduced and one can double the FAR for
affordable housing. Another issue was what about uses that have not been
thought up or invented yet. Bendon said the zone district could be amended
or ‘other similar uses deemed to be appropriate by the Community
Development Director’ could be added. The interpretation section of the
ordinance allows an applicant to request an interpretation of a use already
defined. This clause would allow for interpretation of a use by the Community
Development Director that is not defined.”
2005: Many of the action items identified in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan, called
for a general promotion of infill development which included the intensification of
land uses within the traditional townsite and a focus of growth towards already
developed areas and away from undeveloped areas surrounding the City.
Consistent with these measures, Council adopted Ordinance No. 22, Series of
2000 which amended SCI to allow five feet of additional height as an incentive to
either develop a minimum of .75:1 FAR of SCI business space or to increase the
usable floor-to-ceiling height of the ground floor. The amendment also codified a
regulation to cap a “design studio” at 9,000 square feet for the entire zone district.
2008: Several new code amendments were recommended by staff to ensure SCI would
adapt to new industries and evolving economic dynamics while also continuing to
deliver on desired community outcomes. The amendment provided additional
flexibility in the SCI zone district, with very specific language surrounding FAR and
use limitations. For example, in response to new technology and changing
consumer behavior, internet auction consignment outlets were permitted within
SCI. Up to 25 percent of the floor area could be used for accessory retail sales,
showroom, or customer reception within this use type. Additionally, the
amendment continued to allow for Design Studios, however it now limited their
locations to the Andrews-McFarlin Subdivision (an area within the SCI zone district
but not part of this review). Additionally, Primary Care Physician’s offices were
permitted under the amendment but were limited to a cap of 3,500 sq. ft. and could
only be located within the Obermeyer Place PUD.
2013: In response to the legalization of Marijuana in Colorado, City Council amended
SCI via Ordinance No. 39, Series of 2013 to allow Marijuana cultivation,
manufacturing and testing facilities with up to 25 percent of floor space for sales.
2016: SCI was updated via Ordinance 29, Series of 2016. As part of the revisions,
grocery stores were added as an allowed use and outdated uses like typesetting
were removed. Additionally, free-market residential dwellings were removed as
allowed uses within SCI. This was a response to a moratorium that was recently
enacted to address the impacts that free-market residential uses had on
commercial uses in the same building. There were several instances around town
in which the owner of a free-market residential dwelling would purchase the
131
Exhibit C – History of SCI Code Amendments
Page | 3
commercial space within the same building. The owner would leave the
commercial space vacant or change condominium documents to prohibit certain
uses such as restaurants, bars or night clubs. There was concern that this outcome
could occur within the SCI zone district. Today free-market residential dwellings
are prohibited within SCI but affordable housing units are permitted as a
conditional use.
132
Exhibit D - Aspen Area Community Plan Statements on Locally Serving Business
Page | 1
Below are excerpts taken from each of the previous Aspen Area Community Plans, which
speak to the need of providing locally serving businesses in town.
For several decades the City of Aspen has adopted various master plans to help guide
the future. Each plan has served the purpose of articulating values, outlining goals and
policies, and identifying challenges facing the community. These plans are updated from
time to time in response to shifting priorities. Interestingly, from the adoption of the first
Aspen Land Use Plan in 1973 to the latest Aspen Area Community Plan of 2012, the goal
of maintaining locally serving business has remained constant. This has been a
community priority for 47 years and the SCI zone district has played a pivotal role in
delivering on this goal.
The Aspen Land Use Plan, July 1973
• “Provide neighborhood shopping establishments to serve the daily needs of the
surrounding population and to complement but not compete with central Aspen.”
Aspen Area Community Plan, January 1993
• “We are seeking to create a community of a size, density, and diversity that
encourages interaction, involvement and vitality among its people. Aspen’s unique
spirit is in danger of eroding into a bland and irrelevant society lacking its former
character. The key to reversing this trend lies in restoring the ability to attract,
nurture, and learn from these disenfranchised characters. The image of Aspen as
an organized façade needs to be injected with a ‘messy vitality’ that originally
created Aspen’s renowned cultural and sociological diversity. Aspen as a
community should avoid an environment that is too structured, too perfect, and
that eliminates the funkiness that once characterized this town.”
• “People should be able to shop in the community where they live. In order for
Aspen to provide these basic essentials, the community must find ways to strike a
balance between the local and tourist shopping opportunities. Our small-town
lifestyle would be significantly altered if we were not able to see our
businesspeople on the streets of town as we walked from place to place. Office
space costs are driving many of these local businesspeople and their local services
out of the community. Finding ways to provide affordable office space in the core
of the community is essential to the Aspen area quality of life.”
• “Aspen as a community should avoid an environment that is too structured, too
perfect and that eliminates the funkiness that once characterized this town…the
kind of vitality brought to Aspen by its full-time residents is being seriously
diluted…”
• “Developments which include locally oriented businesses should be encouraged
via a menu of options.”
Aspen Area Community Plan, February 2000
• “The success of Aspen the Resort depends on the success of Aspen the
Community. The powerful influences of exploitation must be countered by a caring
133
Exhibit D - Aspen Area Community Plan Statements on Locally Serving Business
Page | 2
and tolerant citizenry and government, or we will degrade into a Disneyland for
private jets. A better balance is needed between the priorities of the community
and the resort as well as closer ties.”
• “Revise the Neighborhood Commercial and Service/Commercial/Industrial zone
district permitted and conditional uses lists to ensure only locally serving uses are
permitted within those zone districts. Eliminate the option for single-family housing
in those zone districts.”
• “Promote a healthy and diverse economic base that supports both the local
economy and the tourist industry.”
The City of Aspen Civic Master Plan, December 2006
• “Within the civic core, there are only two non-retail small business parks remaining-
they are located in two Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone districts. One is
at Obermeyer Place…The other is described as “SCI West” [in this document]. SCI
West is located on N. Mill Street between Puppy Smith St. and the bridge over the
Roaring Fork River [the subject properties of this review are within SCI west].”
• “The SCI West parcel is located on N. Mill Street, between Puppy Smith St. and
the bridge over the Roaring Fork River. It is home to dozens of non-retail, service-
oriented businesses including a landscaping firm, a stone and tile business, an
interior lighting design studio and a consignment shop.”
Aspen Area Community Plan, February 2012
• “There is concern that businesses providing basic necessities will be replaced with
businesses providing non-essential goods and services. The character of our
community is bolstered by a diverse commercial mix. While we have taken some
steps to increase retail diversity, we must pursue more aggressive measures to
ensure the needs of the community are met and to preserve our unique community
character.”
• “This plan calls for more aggressive measures to ensure that the commercial
sector provides essential products and services, and to ensure balance between
a local-serving and visitor-oriented commercial sector.”
• “Encourage a commercial mix that is balanced, diverse and vital and meets the
needs of year-round residents and visitors.”
• “Facilitate the sustainability of essential businesses that provide basic community
needs.”
134
Representative
Local Architect
Project Location
Lot Size
Applicant
North Mill LLC2001 N. Halsted, #304Chicago, IL 60614
Zone District
BendonAdams300 S. Spring St, #202Aspen, CO 81611970.925.2855chris@bendonadams.com
Rowland + Broughton500 West Main StreetAspen, CO 81611970.544.9006sarah@rowlandbroughton.com
465 + 557 North Mill Street
Parcel IDs:2737.073.00.004 + 2737.073.00.013
465 N. Mill Street: 46,353sf
557 N. Mill Street: 6,301 sf
Service, Commercial, Industrial
NORTH MILL
Exhibit E- Application
135
INTRO
Smuggler Mine, photograph, courtesy Aspen His-torical Society
Please accept this application for a Sketch Plan for the properties located at 465 and 557 North Mill Street (the Project). The properties are currently zoned Service, Commercial, Industrial (SCI) and contain commercial businesses that lease spaces within existing buildings.
The opportunity to discuss the future of these sites with City Council and the community through Sketch Plan is now. We want to engage with the community and City Council about future uses, fit, and feel for the Project before a land use applica-tion.
These properties need a different approach to de-velopment that is not reactionary but revolutionary. We need to throw out rigid and systematic and be visionary.
Exhibit E- Application
136
Figure 1: 1896 map – Willits Map of Aspen
SKETCH PLAN
One thing is clear right now - the only constant is change. Change is unavoidable and in close-knit communities like Aspen, change can be guided to reflect and draw upon the important layers of our past. The North Mill project area is steeped in industrial history that was essential to the basic functions of our town. The proposed project is consistent with the history of this area, but in modern times.
1880sIn the early days this area housed the Denver and Rio Grande railroad station, the Hunter Creek hydroelectric plant, a foundry, mining operations, a brewery, and citizen’s hospital. As you can see from the map, the area was a mix of uses, from mining to residential, that provided vital functions for the development of Aspen as we know it today.
1960sAspen’s midcentury renaissance picked up speed in the 1960s under the influence of many visionaries including Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke. The Aspen Institute’s mind, body, and spirit campaign was embraced globally and brought inspiring, creative intellectuals to Aspen.
Railroad operations ceased and small businesses moved into the project area in the 1960s. Aspen’s appreciation of the natural environment was in its infancy with the establishment of the Aspen Center of Environmental Studies and the conversion of the Rio Grande railroad tracks to a trail, which occurred in this neighborhood.
The accumulation of this rich history, from vital operations in the 1880s to the mind, body, spirit mantra of the Institute, and everything in between, directly informs and ties into the North Mill Project.
Exhibit E- Application
137
COLLABORATION + INNOVATION
Building upon the layers of Aspen's history the future of the North Mill properties require the community to look at long term business viability and sustainability.
A new formula for this neighborhood is desperately needed that supports local businesses through collaboration and innovation. A fresh start requires collaboration within the community to think outside the box and to address this project with a new set of glasses. Our values are the same, but the approach is innovative.
We envision a space for start-up and small industrial businesses to flourish and be supported by a network of other industries within the same building that result in new collaborations and groundbreaking ideas.
Some of the many ways the Institute put Aspen on the map in the mid-century was to invite and embrace creatives from around the world in a live/work incubator campus, before the trendy “incubator space” or “live work” concepts were commonplace in society. There is only one Aspen Institute – this project does not strive to replicate, but to use this piece of Aspen’s history as inspiration for a live/work incubator space that combines different functions, uses, ideas, and people.
THESE TWO WORDS ARE THE CORNERSTONE OF THE PROJECT THAT IS FOCUSED ON THE FUTURE.
The photos below illustrate the character and history of the SCI area: walkability, permeability, connections to the river and national environment, and innovative new architecture and design and technology.
photographs courtesy Aspen Historical Society
*
*
*
*
*
*
7
Exhibit E- Application
138
Connecting with business owners, the community, and the neighborhood is key for an informed North Mill Project. We expect full and open transparency and channels of communication throughout the process. Regular communication with both tenants and stakeholders, and ample opportunities to engage with the project team will be an integral part of this process.
The locally serving businesses located in the project site are already part of our active outreach about the upcoming Sketch Plan review with City Council. We want to listen to their story, their business experiences, and their plans for the future. We want to understand opportunities for potential relocation, to discuss potential inclusion into the new Project, and how we can help.
1 – Response to Sketch Plan Criteria
2 - Land Use Application Form
3 – Agreement to Pay
4 – Authorization to Represent
5 – Proof of Ownership and Authorization of Manager
6 – HOA form
7 – Survey
8 – Pre-application Summary
9- Vicinity Map
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
EXHIBITS
Exhibit E- Application
139
Exhibit 1
Response to Review Criteria
26.304.060(b)(2). Sketch Plan Review.
If the Community Development Director, in consultation with the applicant, determines that a
proposed development application may be complex, have the potential for significant community
interest, involves a public facility or the proposed project would benefit from additional community
input, the Community Development Director may schedule a joint meeting with the City Council
and either the planning and zoning commi ssion, the historic preservation commission or both, for a
sketch plan review. A sketch plan review may be held either before or after an application is
submitted and determined to be sufficiently complete by the director of the Community
Development Department. If it is scheduled after an application is determined complete by the
Community Development Director, the sketch plan review meeting shall be conducted prior to any
other land use review proceeding required by this Code. A sketch plan review meeting shall be
noticed by publication, mailing and posting (See Subsection 26.304.060(e) Paragraph (3)) and the
jo int meeting shall be conducted as a public meeting. The minutes of the joint meeting shall
become part of the formal record of the proceedings before the City Council and the decision-
making body which has been invited to attend the joint meeting with the City Council. A quorum of
the City Council shall not be required to conduct a sketch plan review hearing. The Community
Development Director may invite particular members of the public (stakeholders) to attend and
participate in the sketch plan review hearing. At the conclusion of the public meeting, the members
of the City Council, decision-making body invited to attend the joint meeting and stakeholders (if
invited to attend) may offer the applicant advisory suggestions regarding the proposed application,
but shall not make any decisions regarding the application for development. Applicants shall not
be entitled to rely upon any decisions, comments or suggestions made by the members of the joint
public meeting as no attempt shall be made to approve a development proposal even on a
conceptual level at a sketch plan review.
Response: The applicant acknowledges and accepts these Land Use Code requirements. In
summary, the Applicant understands that the Sketch Plan process and any comments offered by
the elected or appointed officials are advisory suggestions and cannot be relied upon and that no
attempt to approve the proposed sketch plan will be made.
Background Both 465 North Mill Street and 557 North Mill Street are zoned Service
Commercial Industrial Zone District (SCI) as a result of City Council Ordinance 11 of 1975
that established a new set of zone districts including SCI. At the time, these zones were
located north of Main Street. Over the years SCI zoning has expanded to additional
properties throughout Aspen, some of which the City of Aspen owns. Today, the
properties operate as a commercial center for business and in compliance with the SCI
use requirements.
Previous Land Use Decisions In early 2019, the Applicant brought forward a land use
application to rezone the subject properties from SCI to the Mixed Use (MU) zone district.
At the conclusion of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council rezoning
hearings, the request was denied. T he Applicant anticipated that the rezoning of the
properties to MU would potentially not be well received and, at the final hearing, asked the
then seated City Council about the possibility of an open discussion about the vision for
Exhibit E- Application
140
future uses and development. This discussion could potentially create a dialogue among
the Applicant, City Council, and community so that feedback and direction could be
expressed. Since April 2019, the Applicant has been working on developing ideas to
present to City Council.
Exhibit E- Application
141
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Review: Administrative or Board Review
Required Land Use Review(s):
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:
Net Leasable square footage Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units
Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage
Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Signed Fee Agreement
HOA Compliance form
All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary
Name:
Address:
Phone#: email:
Address:
Phone #: email:
Name:
Project Name and Address:
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 2737-073-00-048 and 2737-073-00-013
North Mill Street LLC
2001 N. Halsted #304 Chicago, IL 60614
312.479.2050
465 and 557 North Mill Street
BendonAdams, LLC
sara@bendonadams.com970-925-2855
Commercial and service uses exist on both properties. Currently zoned SCI. Ideas for development will be
proposed to City Council during Sketch Plan Review.
Review by City Council
Sketch Plan submittal for review and conversation with City Council.
GMQS is not a component of this application
300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen, CO 81611
mhunt@mdevco.com
Exhibit 2
Exhibit E- Application
142
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Complete only if required by the PreApplication checklist
Project and Location
Applicant:
Zone District: Gross Lot Area: Net Lot Area:
**Please refer to section 26.575.020 for information on how to calculate Net Lot Area
Please fill out all relevant dimensions
Single Family and Duplex Residential
1) Floor Area (square feet)
2) Maximum Height
3) Front Setback
4) Rear Setback
5) Side Setbacks
6) Combined Side Setbacks
7) % Site Coverage
Existing Allowed Proposed Multi-family Residential
1)Number of Units
2)Parcel Density (see 26.710.090.C.10)
3)FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
4)Floor Area (square feet)
4)Maximum Height
5)Front Setback
6)Rear Setback
Existing Allowed Proposed
8) Minimum distance between buildings
Proposed % of demolition
7) Side Setbacks
Proposed % of demolition
Commercial
Proposed Use(s)
Existing Allowed Proposed
1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
2) Floor Area (square feet)
3) Maximum Height
4) Off-Street Parking Spaces
5) Second Tier (square feet)
6) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet)
Proposed % of demolition
Existing non-conformities or encroachments:
Variations requested:
Lodge
Additional Use(s)
1)FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
2)Floor Area (square feet)
3)Maximum Height
4)Free Market Residential(square feet)
4)Front setback
5)Rear setback
6)Side setbacks
7)Off-Street Parking Spaces
8)Pedestrian Amenity (square feet)
Proposed % of demolition
Existing Allowed Proposed
465 and 557 North Mill Street
North Mill Street LLC
SCI Lot 1: 46,353 sq.ft
Lot 2: 6,301 sq. ft.
tbd
Setbacks and floor area
Lot 1: 43,544
Lot 2: 6,301 sq. ft.
Variations to allowed uses may be discussed with City Council during Sketch Plan Review.tbdExhibit E- Application
143
Exhibit 3Exhibit E- Application
144
Exhibit 4Exhibit E- Application
145
Active/51728184.1
730 East Durant Avenue, Suite 200, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone: 970.925.6300 Fax: 970.925.1181 www.shermanhoward.com
Curtis B. Sanders
Sherman & Howard L.L.C.
Direct Dial Number: 970.300.0114
E-mail: csanders@shermanhoward.com
May 8, 2020
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: North Mill Street, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; 447 - 557 North Mill
Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611; Certificate of Ownership
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am an attorney licensed by the State of Colorado to practice law.
This letter shall confirm and certify that North Mill Street, LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company is the owner of certain unimproved real property located at 447 - 557 North
Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and legally described as follows (the "Subject Property"):
PARCEL A:
A tract of land being part of a tract previously described in Book 177 at Page 620 in the
Northwest Quarter South Quarter Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth
Principal Meridian, described as follows:
Beginning at a point being 203.00 feet North 84°19' East from monument "0-64A" set by L.S.
2568, monument "0-6A" is 1124.96 feet South 39°58'22" East from the West quarter corner,
Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian (1954 Brass Cap);
thence North 84°19' East 95.00 feet;
thence South 05°41' East 66.33 feet;
thence South 84°19' West 95.00 feet;
thence North 05°41 West 66.33 feet to the Point of Beginning.
TOGETHER with an easement for the use of Edward W. Morse III, for purposes of access,
utilities and parking as described:
Beginning at a point on Mill Street being 303 feet North 84°19' East and 63.00 feet South
10°32'30" East from previously described "0-6A";
Exhibit 5Exhibit E- Application
146
2
thence South 10°05'07" West 41.00 feet along Mill Street;
thence South 84°19' West 88.16 feet;
thence North 05°41' West 33.67 feet to the Southwest corner of above described tract;
thence North 84°19' East 95.00 feet to the Southeast corner of above described tract;
thence North 05°41' West 66.33 feet to the Northeast corner of above described tract;
thence North 84°19' East 5.00 feet;
thence South 10°32'30" East 63.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.
EXCEPTING therefrom parcels conveyed to the City of Aspen, a municipal corporation by deed
recorded December 18, 1978 in Book 360 at Page 533.
PARCEL B:
A tract of land situated in the Northwest ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 7, Township 10 South,
Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows:
Beginning at a point from whence the West ¼ corner of said Section 7 bears N 39°58'22" W
1124.96 feet, said point being the Southwesterly corner of tract of land described in Book 177 at
Page 618;
thence on a curve to the left having a radius of 668.00 feet a distance of 222.1 feet the chord of
which bears S 25°40'02" E 221.1 feet, along the Northeasterly line of a tract of land described in
Book 276 at Page 604;
thence S 66°48'31" E 151 feet along the Northeasterly line of said tract of land described in Book
276 at Page 604 to a point on the Northwesterly line of tract of land described in Book 180 at
Page 345;
thence N 19°05'07" E 240.00 feet along said Northwesterly line to the most Northerly corner of
said tract of land in Book 180 at Page 345;
thence N 10°32'30" W 63.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said tract of land described in
Book 177 at Page 618;
thence N 84°19' W 5.00 feet;
thence S 05°41' E 66.33 feet along the Easterly line of a tract of land described in Book 293 at
Page 873;
thence S 84°19' W 95.00 feet along the Southerly line of said tract of land described in Book 293
at Page 873;
thence N 05°41' W 66.33 feet along the Westerly line of said tract of land described in Book 293
at Page 873 to a point on the Southerly line of said tract of land described in Book 117 at Page
618;
thence S 84°19' W 203.00 feet along said Southerly line to the Place of Beginning.
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion described in Deed to the City of Aspen recorded December
21, 1976 in Book 321 at Page 797, and also excepting therefrom that portion described in Deed
to the City of Aspen recorded December 28, 1978 in Book 360 at Page 532, and also excepting
therefrom that portion described in Quit Claim Deed to the City of Aspen recorded November 6,
2017 as Reception No. 642877.
The Subject Property is subject to the following matters of record:
Exhibit E- Application
147
3
1. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefrom, should
the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United
States Patent recorded June 8, 1888 in Book 55 at Page 2.
2. All existing easements, licenses, rights of way for pipelines, pole and wire lines, road,
ditches or otherwise upon, along, over or across the property as excepted in Deed recorded
March 2, 1955 in Book 177 at Page 620.
3. Easement and right of way for access, utilities and parking as set forth in deed recorded
November 27, 1974 in Book 293 at Page 873 as shown on that certain survey dated June 2018,
prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. Job No. 4014CK.
4. Easement and right of way for an electric transmission or distribution line or system, as
granted to Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., in instruments recorded October 12, 1977 in
Book 336 at Page 470 and in Book 336 at Page 472.
5. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Statement of Exemption
from the Full Subdivision Process recorded January 23, 1979 in Book 362 at Page 370.
6. Any loss or damage resulting from Litigation affecting subject property by North Mill
Street Investors, a Colorado general partnership v. The City of Aspen, Aspen City Council, Steve
Skadron, Ann Mullins, Art Daily, Adam Frisch and Cuthbert L. Myrin, Jr., in their official
capacities only as Aspen City Council Members, in Case No. 2017 CV 030022 in the District
Court of Pitkin County, State of Colorado.
7. Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated as of
June 14, 2018 between Loancore Capital Credit REIT LLC and North Mill Street LLC, recorded
June 15, 2018 as Reception No. 648104.
8. Assignment of Leases and Rents dated June 14, 2018 between Loancore Capital Credit
REIT LLC and North Mill Street LLC, recorded June 15, 2018 as Reception No. 648105.
9. UCC-1 Financing Statement of Loancore Capital Credit REIT LLC recorded June 15,
2018 as Reception No. 648106, and re-recorded as Reception No. 648177.
10. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in the Assignment of Deed
of Trust, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Security Agreement dated as of July 18, 2018
between Loancore Capital Credit REIT LLC as assignor and LLC Warehouse I LLC as assignee
recorded July 30, 2018 as Reception No. 649095.
11. Assignment of Assignment of Leases and Rents dated July 18, 2018 between
Loancore Capital Credit REIT LLC as assignor and LLC Warehouse I LLC as assignee, recorded
July 30, 2018 as Reception No. 649098.
Exhibit E- Application
148
4
12. Assignment of UCC-1 Financing Statement between Loancore Capital Credit REIT
LLC as assignor and LLC Warehouse I LLC as assignee, recorded July 30, 2018 as Reception
No. 649101.
13. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in City of Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 4 (Series of 2019) recorded April 8, 2019 as Reception
No. 655081.
(Items 1 through 13 above affect both Parcels A and B)
14. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Easement Agreement
recorded December 28, 1978 in Book 360 at Page 534 as shown on that certain survey dated
June 2018, prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. Job No. 4014CK.
15. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Curb, Gutter and
Sidewalk Improvement Agreement recorded December 28, 1978 in Book 360 at Page 536.
16. Right of way granted to the City of Aspen in Deed recorded June 13, 1980 in Book
390 at Page 131.
17. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of
the Planning and Zoning Commission recorded February 12, 1998 as Reception No. 413539 as
Resolution No. 98-2.
(Items 14 through 17 above only affect Parcel B)
18. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Vacation of Easement
Rights recorded November 6, 2017 as Reception No. 642878 and City of Aspen Easement
Agreement recorded November 6, 2017 as Reception No. 642879 both as shown on that certain
survey dated June 2018, prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. Job No. 4014CK.
(Item 18 only affects Parcel A)
This letter shall further confirm that as the owner of the Subject Property, North Mill
Street, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, has the right and authority to file and pursue
land use applications, variance requests, and other requests with the City of Aspen with respect
to the Subject Property, and that Mark Hunt, as President of North Mill Street Manager, Inc., a
Colorado corporation, as Manager of North Mill Street, LLC, is authorized to execute and
deliver all documents on its behalf.
Sincerely,
Curtis B. Sanders
Exhibit E- Application
149
Exhibit 6Exhibit E- Application
150
C:\General CADD 12\Gxd\4014CF.gxd -- 06/12/2017 -- 10:37 AM -- Scale 1 : 240.000000
Exhibit 7
Exhibit E- Application
151
465 N Mill St
Sketch Pln Review
Parcel ID No. 273707300048
1
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Jessica Garrow 429-2780 DATE: July 5, 2019
PROJECT: Sketch Plan Review
LOCATION: 465 N Mill Street, PID: 273707300048
ZONING: Service / Commercial Industrial (SCI)
OWNER: Mark Hunt, mhunt@mdevco.com
REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon. 925-2855 chris@bendonadams.com
DESCRIPTION: The applicant is interested in meeting with City Council to discuss potential
development options for the properties located on North Mill St. The Land Use Code includes an
options for a “Sketch Plan Review,” which enables an applicant to have a general conversation with
City Council without preparing a complete application. Staff has recommended this process to enable
a direct conversation between the applicant and Council, as the applicant has ideas to develop the
property with a lodge (and potentially other uses) that are not typically seen in the SCI zone district.
Sketch Plan Review is a public hearing held at a regular City Council meeting, but no formal votes are
taken and no decisions are made. Instead, the applicant and Council can discuss ideas and determine
if there is direction for the applicant to move forward with a subsequent land use application. The
review also enables the Planning and Zoning Commission to attend, but given the nature of the
request, staff recommends the conversation at this point remain with City Council only. Because no
formal action is taken, no vested rights are conferred as part of the Sketch Plan Review. The Review,
pursuant to 26.304.060.B.2, states:
“If the Community Development Director, in consultation with the applicant, determines that a
proposed development application may be complex, have the potential for significant community
interest, involves a public facility or the proposed project would benefit from additional
community input, the Community Development Director may schedule a joint meeting with the
City Council and either the planning and zoning commission, the historic preservation commission
or both, for a sketch plan review. A sketch plan review may be held either before or after an
application is submitted and determined to be sufficiently complete by the director of the
Community Development Department. If it is scheduled after an application is determined
complete by the Community Development Director, the sketch plan review meeting shall be
conducted prior to any other land use review proceeding required by this Code. A sketch plan
review meeting shall be noticed by publication, mailing and posting (See Subsection 26.304.060[E]
Paragraph [3]) and the joint meeting shall be conducted as a public meeting. The minutes of the
joint meeting shall become part of the formal record of the proceedings before the City Council
Exhibit 8Exhibit E- Application
152
2
and the decision-making body which has been invited to attend the joint meeting with the City
Council. A quorum of the City Council shall not be required to conduct a sketch plan review
hearing. The Community Development Director may invite particular members of the public
(stakeholders) to attend and participate in the sketch plan review hearing. At the conclusion of
the public meeting, the members of the City Council, decision-making body invited to attend the
joint meeting and stakeholders (if invited to attend) may offer the applicant advisory suggestions
regarding the proposed application, but shall not make any decisions regarding the application for
development. Applicants shall not be entitled to rely upon any decisions, comments or
suggestions made by the members of the joint public meeting as no attempt shall be made to
approve a development proposal even on a conceptual level at a sketch plan review.”
Following the Sketch Plan Review, should the applicant be interested in completing a formal land use
request, an additional pre-application summary can be prepared, outlining the reviews and process
that will be required.
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.710.160 SCI Zone District
26.710.340 Essential Business Overlay
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Land Use Application
Land Use Code
Review by:
• Community Development Staff for Complete Application
• Public hearing before City Council
Public Hearing: City Council
Planning Fees: $1,300.00 Deposit for 4 hours of staff time for a one-step planning
review (Additional review time over 4 hours will be billed at
$325/hour)
Referral Fees: None
Total Deposit: $1,300
Please submit one copy of the following to the Community Development Office:
Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. Any dimensions can be listed
as “N/A” or “Unknown at this time”
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Exhibit E- Application
153
3
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to
occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance
company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the
State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages,
judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and
demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that
states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on
behalf of the applicant.
HOA Compliance form (Attached).
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form
of the request and the items the application would like to discuss with City Council.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:
Total deposit for review of the application.
A digital copy of all application materials provided in pdf file format.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is
based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual
representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested
right.
Exhibit E- Application
154
155
155
155155
155155
155
155
155
155
155
155
155
155
155155
155
155
155
155
155
155
155
414
235
225
218
212
435
465
300
355355355
412
355
414
412
355
412412
585
555
566 566566566
565
566
566
460 470
470
480
590
PD
PD
PD
PD
PD
DRAINAGE
PUBSCI
P
NC
P
N. Mill Vicinity Map
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
Emissions Inventory Boundary (EIB)
City of Aspen
Stream Margin
Historic Sites
Parcels
Zone Overlay
DRAINAGE
PD
Zoning
R/MFA Residential/Multi-Family
R-6 Medium Density Residential
R-15 Moderate Density Residential
5/18/2020, 9:31:15 AM
0 0.03 0.050.01 mi
0 0.04 0.090.02 km
1:2,257
Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS
City of Aspen GIS |
exhibit 9Exhibit E- Application
155
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
September 8, 2020
Phillip Supino
Community Development Director
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: North Mill Sketch Plan – Supplement
Mr. Supino:
Please accept this supplement to the North Mill Sketch
Plan Application. As you requested, the attached plan set
is intended to convey overall potential and inspire
additional conversation.
Consistent with the intent of Sketch Plan Review, the plans
are “loose” – more expressive than technical. As the
project moves forward, additional precision will be brought
forward.
The project is significantly below the allowed massing with a mix of commercial and residential uses. The
site is the lowest point of Aspen’s commercial area and can appropriately accept the proposed massing.
The design is inspired by the historical context of the River Approach area of Aspen. This area just north
of Aspen’s downtown served as the point of entry and departure for newcomers, the connection to the
rest of the world, and a point of enterprise and commerce. This history of innovation is reflected in the
imagery.
We look forward to continuing the collaborative approach with the City, sharing our ideas in a productive
session with you, City Council, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and moving the vision for this
project forward. Please reach out if we can assist in the preparation for the September 21st meeting.
Kind Regards,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams, LLC
Attachments:
10 – Project Vision Plan Set
Exhibit E- Application
156
Site SurveyExhibit 10Exhibit E- Application157
Zoning DataN. Mill Site OverviewSite Area 52,836 sfSite FAR 2.25Maximum Area 118,881 sfMaximum Height 35 - 0”Zoning: Service/Commercial/Industrial66’214’222’52,836 SF298’18’110’35’PUPPY SMITH STN. MILL STExhibit E- Application158
PUPPY SMITH STProject Axon | Project SummaryAPPROXIMATE AREAS:*SITE AREA: +/- 52,836 SFSITE FAR: 2.25MAX FAR: +/- 118,881 SFAREA COUNTABLE +/- 87,170 SFTOWARDS FARRESIDENTIAL: +/- 63,220 SF - 1 BEDROOM 18 Units - 2 BEDROOM 35 Units - 3 BEDROOM 8 UnitsAVERAGE SF: 1036 SF/ UNITCOMMERCIAL: +/- 34,100 SFSCI Commercial: +/- 21,100 SF Commercial: +/- 13,100 SF* AREAS ARE ESTIMATIONS AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE**SUBTERRANEAN PARKING COUNT TBD.Exhibit E- Application159
View From Puppy Smith St.Exhibit E- Application160