HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20140324
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
March 24, 2014
5:00 PM
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Deletions and Additions
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #24, 2014 - Contract NREL Renewable Energy Analysis
b) Resolution #28, 2014 - Durant Street Electrical Installation
c) Resolution #30, 2014 - Community Enhancement Fund
d) Resolution #27, 2014 - Water Restraint Design - Cooper Avenue Bridge
e) Resolution #29, 2014 - Electric Substation Improvements - Equpment Purchase
f) Resolution #36, 2014 - Professional Services Agreement for Wagner Park Field
Renovation
Resolution #37, 2014 - Agreement for Special Event Flooring
g) Resolutions #33, #34, #35, 2014 - Burlingame Phase 2 Construction Oversight
Contract
h) Resolution #39, 2014 - Golf Course School Lease
i) Minutes - March 10, 2014
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #8, 2014 - Code Amendment Transportation Impact Analysis
Guidelines
VIII. Public Hearings
IX. Action Items
a) Call up notice- HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development and Variances
for 549 Race Alley, HPC Resolution #35, Series of 2013
X. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting April 07, 2014
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
• Invite the Community to Participate with Us in Solution-Making
• Tone and Tenor Matter
• Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: William Dolan, Utilities Project Coordinator
THRU: David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities and Environmental Initiatives
DATE OF MEMO: March 4, 2014
DATE OF MEETING: March 24, 2014
RE: Resolution # 24 Contract for NREL Renewable Energy Analysis
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Request approval of Resolution # 24, a contract with the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for the 3rd and final step in the process of evaluating renewable
energy alternatives for the City of Aspen’s electric utility.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In January of 2013, Council gave staff direction to begin
researching additional renewable energy options. Subsequently, the City contracted with NREL to
analyze the City’s renewable energy alternatives, and devise a work plan that encourages informed
decision-making on the part of Council to meet the 100% by 2015 goal (or as close to it as practicable).
NREL delivered their first presentation to Council on November 19th, 2013 during which Council
approved of staff’s recommended renewable energy and REC policies, and each Council member had an
opportunity to choose their highest priority renewable energy project criteria. NREL will be delivering
their second presentation on April 21th, 2014. If authorized, the third and final presentation will be
delivered in June (exact date TBD).
BACKGROUND:
• Step 1: November 19th, 2013. During that work session, Staff and NREL representatives
covered foundational concepts and background information (contract history, conceptual
definitions, etc.)—effectively laying the groundwork for steps 2 and 3. The cost of this step was
$20,000.
• Step 2: April 21th, 2014. This step will involve a surface-level presentation of all alternatives
explored by NREL, and assessed according to the project criteria chosen during Step 1. Staff
will request that Council select up to 3 alternatives from this list for final research/investigation
by NREL. The results of this research will be the subject of Step 3. The cost of this step is
estimated at $19,000.
• Step 3: June, 2014 (exact date TBD). This final step will involve a more in-depth presentation
of the alternatives chosen by Council during Step 2. Again, the final alternative(s) will be
assessed according to the chosen criteria from Step 1. The end goal of this step is to receive clear
direction from Council regarding which alternative(s) staff should actively pursue—setting a
clear course forward towards Aspen’s renewable energy goals. The cost of this step is estimated
at $30,000.
P1
VI.a
Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION: In leveraging NREL’s resources and expertise, staff is trying to create an unbiased,
thorough, and structured forum in which members of Council are presented with all feasible project
options, and all their most relevant characteristics. This 3-step process is designed to have Council
progressively hone-in on the best alternative(s), and ultimately give staff explicit direction to actively
pursue those favorites (up to 3) to meet our renewable energy goal.
Staff is now seeking authorization to fund the 3rd and final step of the NREL expert review process. This
final step is intended to be the final decision point for Council to choose how the City of Aspen
continues to progress towards 100% renewable energy for its municipal electric utility.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The work necessary to complete Step 3 of the NREL process is estimated to
cost $30,000. Any unspent funds will be returned upon the project’s completion.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The end goal of this analysis is to find the best possible way(s) to
meet Aspen’s 100% renewable energy goal, reducing Aspen’s GHG emissions and setting an example
for other municipal electric utilities to follow. Reaching 100% renewable energy means reducing
consumption of coal/gas-based electricity by approximately 15 million kWh/yr. (this equates to
approximately 30 million lbs of avoided CO2 emissions per year).
ALTERNATIVES: The NREL project is limited to 2 steps, and Council makes their final renewable
energy decisions based on the information provided in steps 1 and 2.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
1) NREL Technical Service Agreement Modification No. 2
2) Resolution # 24-2014
P2
VI.a
RESOLUTION # 24
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORTORY AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
NREL Renewable Analysis Step III of III, between the City of Aspen and
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a true and accurate copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for NREL Renewable Analysis Step III of III, between the City of Aspen and
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 24th day of March 2014.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, March 24, 2014.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P3
VI.a
P4
VI.a
P5
VI.a
P6
VI.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Andy Rossello, Utilities Engineer
THRU: Dave Hornbacher, Director of Utilities and Environmental
Initiatives
DATE OF MEMO: March 17th, 2014
MEETING DATE: March 24th, 2014
RE: Durant Street Electrical Installation
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests a contract award to PAR Electrical Contractors in
the amount of $121,428.50 for the installation of cable and switchgear to connect circuits at
Koch Park to City Market. This connection will provide for improved service to Aspen’s west
end which is currently fed through aging, directly buried wire.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has approved this capital project with the approval
of the 2012 Budget. Council approved the conduit install by project 2012-98.
BACKGROUND: This electrical connection increases the reliability of the City of Aspen
electric system that serves businesses and residences in the vicinity of this improvement. All
conduit is currently installed, this completes the project by installing wire and upgrading existing
switchgear at Koch Park. Installation of a conduit based system allows for future cable
replacement without additional street cuts which would be otherwise required if the cable were
directly buried. Further, the conduit provides additional mechanical protection of the electric
cable in the event that the Right of Way is disturbed in the vicinity of this system.
DISCUSSION: This install will provide for more flexibility operation of the City Electrical
system. It will allow for maintenance and installation of new wire without future digging costs.
Two competitive bids were received with the project being awarded to the low bidder.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The costs associated with the installation of this
infrastructure are within the $450,000.00 initial scope for this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The environmental impacts of this project are minimal. The
contractor will be tasked with proper Storm-water Control including the use of Best Management
Practices where digging is to occur. Ultimately the conduit will allow for future improvements
without excavation, which will minimize the need for heavy equipment operation in downtown.
P7
VI.b
Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION: We request the council approve the expenditure of $121,428.50
for the installation of Cable from Koch Park to City Market.
ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives include, direct burying wire in the future, creating higher
additional maintenance expense. The other alternative would be to leave the system operating in
present condition until the system fails and replace at that time.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution #28, Series 2014.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Proposal/Bid
P8
VI.b
RESOLUTION #28
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND PAR ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
Durant Street Electrical Installation, between the City of Aspen and PAR
Electrical Contractors, Inc., a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for Durant Street Electrical Installation, between the City of Aspen and PAR
Electrical Contractors, Inc., a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated
herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on
behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 24th day of March, 2014.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, March 24, 2014.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P9
VI.b
P10
VI.b
P11
VI.b
P12
VI.b
P13
VI.b
P14
VI.b
P15
VI.b
P16
VI.b
P17
VI.b
P18
VI.b
P19
VI.b
P20
VI.b
P21
VI.b
P22
VI.b
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pete Strecker, Asst. Finance Director
DATE OF MEMO: April 17, 2014
MEETING DATE: April 24, 2014
RE: Requesting release of Community Enhancement funding from the
reserved fund balance in the General Fund.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Requesting Council release the Community Enhancement funding
received from Holy Cross from the reserved fund balance in the General Fund. The City has
completed projects in recent years that meet the qualification for use of these funds.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved ordinance #11 in 1998 granting a
franchise to Holy Cross Energy. Council approved ordinance #44 in 2003, which was a revised
version of ordinance #11. Finally, resolution #30 in 2011 approved the use and release of
$752,118 from the General Fund reserve account for specific community special events and
energy efficiency projects performed through 2010.
BACKGROUND: The approved ordinance states in addition to a 3% franchise fee, Holy Cross
will pay a voluntary 1% of gross revenues to fund a Community Enhancement Fund. These
funds are designated for specific programs that are designed to make a difference in people’s
lives and the community in which they reside. These programs are limited to: (1) beautification
projects; (2) energy conservation projects; (3) equipment and technology upgrades for schools;
(4) scholarship funds; (5) acquisition of open space and/or park land and development thereof;
(6) sponsorship of special community events; and (7) undergrounding of overhead electric and
other utility lines. This revenue is received in the General Fund. The City has maintained a
reserved fund balance in the General Fund since the creation of the Community Enhancement
Fund. The reserve balance has accumulated from receipts and interest earned. Payments from the
Community Enhancement reserve require a resolution or ordinance by Council.
DISCUSSION: Adoption of resolution #30 (2011) released $752,118 from the General Fund
reserve account to reflect consumption of the available balance within the Community
Enhancement Fund through 2010. Since 2010, a new restricted reserve balance has accumulated,
equal to $330,409 through 2013.
Two special community events, the New Year’s Eve celebration and Pro. Cycling Challenge,
have generated expenses since 2010 that have totaled $575,939. Staff is requesting that Council
recognizes use of Community Enhancement Funds as partial funding ($330,409) for these past
events in accordance with the limitations in ordinance #44, release this funding from the reserve
account in the General Fund in 2014.
P23
VI.c
Page 2 of 2
$575,939 Previously Approved in Res. #30 (2011) $330,409 Newly Requested
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
Energy Conservation
Energy Efficiency - ARC $994,902 $144,977 $41,213 $38,775 $0 $0 $0 $1,219,865
Special Community Events
New Year's Eve $22,721 $58,071 $55,956 $55,406 $69,022 $59,425 $54,245 $374,846
Pro. Cycling Challenge $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $116,000 $177,247 $393,247
Possible Projects to Fund $1,017,622 $203,048 $97,168 $94,181 $169,022 $175,425 $231,492 $1,987,958
Community Enhancement Funds
Available Balance $529,469 $76.530 $71,713 $74,405 $174,059 $86,126 $75,261 $1,082,526
Uses / Requested for Use $529,469 $76,530 $71,713 $74,405 $169,022 $86,126 $75,261 $1,082,526
Ending Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,035 $0 $0 $0
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: By Council recognizing the ordinance requirements have
been met and the Community Enhancement Funds have been expensed in full, the reserved fund
balance will be reclassified. This action will not change the fund balance of the General Fund
but increase the unreserved balance in the General Fund. The unreserved fund balance is
available to fund general government operations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council release the Community
Enhancement funding received from Holy Cross from the reserved fund balance in the General
Fund. The City has completed projects that meet the qualification for use of these funds.
ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not approve staff recommendation the available unreserved
fund balance will not increase by $330,409 plus interest.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve resolution #30.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P24
VI.c
RESOLUTION #30
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE RELEASE THE
COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT FUNDING RECEIVED FROM HOLY CROSS FROM THE
RESERVED FUND BALANCE IN THE GENERAL FUND.
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance #11, 1998, granting a franchise to
Holy Cross Energy, and approved Ordinance #44, 2003, a revision to the franchise, and
WHEREAS, said ordinances state that in addition to a 3% franchise fee, Holy Cross will pay a
voluntary 1% of gross revenues to fund a Community Enhancement Fund, and
WHEREAS, these funds are designated for specific programs that are designed to make a
difference in people’s lives and the community in which they reside including (1) beautification
projects; (2) energy conservation projects; (3) equipment and technology upgrades for schools;
(4) scholarship funds; (5) acquisition of open space and/or park land and development thereof;
(6) sponsorship of special community events; and (7) undergrounding of overhead electric utility
lines, and
WHEREAS, past uses of Community Enhancement funding (2007 through 2010) has included
energy conservation projects at the Aspen Recreation Center (ARC) and one special community
project, New Year’s Eve Celebration, and
WHEREAS, continuation of the New Year’s Eve celebration and addition of City support for a
new community special event, the Pro. Cycling Challenge, have aggregate expenditures of
$575,938.82 (2011 through 2013),
NOW, THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1
The Finance Director of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to release the restrictive designation
of the funds held in the reserve account entitled “Community Enhancement Funds” and make all
other accounting steps necessary to release such funds as described in the following table in the
General Fund for 2014.
$575,939 Previously Approved in Res. #30 (2011) $330,409 Newly Requested
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
Energy Conservation
Energy Efficiency - ARC $994,902 $144,977 $41,213 $38,775 $0 $0 $0 $1,219,865
Special Community Events
New Year's Eve $22,721 $58,071 $55,956 $55,406 $69,022 $59,425 $54,245 $374,846
Pro. Cycling Challenge $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $116,000 $177,247 $393,247
Possible Projects to Fund $1,017,622 $203,048 $97,168 $94,181 $169,022 $175,425 $231,492 $1,987,958
Community Enhancement Funds
Available Balance $529,469 $76.530 $71,713 $74,405 $174,059 $86,126 $75,261 $1,082,526
Uses / Requested for Use $529,469 $76,530 $71,713 $74,405 $169,022 $86,126 $75,261 $1,082,526
Ending Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,035 $0 $0 $0
P25
VI.c
Adopted this __, day of _____ 2014
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, KATHRYN KOCH, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the City Council at its
meeting held on the __ day of _____, 2014.
_______________________________
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
P26
VI.c
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Andy Rossello, Utilities Engineer
THRU: Dave Hornbacher, Director of Utilities and Environmental
Initiatives
DATE OF MEMO: March 17th, 2014
MEETING DATE: March 24th, 2014
RE: Waterline Restraint Design at Cooper Street Bridge
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests of Council a contract award to the engineering firm
SGM (Schmueser, Gordon and Meyer, Inc) in the amount of $32,200 to investigate and design
improvements necessary to secure the existing waterline in the vicinity of the Cooper Street
Bridge.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has approved this capital project with the approval
of the 2014 Budget.
BACKGROUND: In 2012, the City of Aspen completed several improvements in the vicinity of
East Cooper Avenue at the Roaring Fork River including a pedestrian bridge and storm-water
facilities. Also located in this area is a water distribution line which subsequent to the completion
of these improvements, City Utilities staff has observed soil erosion occurring over the pipe.
This loss of ground cover and material reduces both thermal protection and necessary physical
restraint securing the water line in place. These conditions place this water line at an elevated
risk of structural failure which must be thoroughly evaluated and corrected using engineering
best practices.
DISCUSSION: As noted in the background information, the condition of the ground
surrounding the existing water line that physical secures it in place is changing and degrading
resulting in increasing risk of the failure. To address this risk in a pragmatic and effective
manner, City staff requested engineering proposals to evaluate the current condition of the water
line physical restraint, and then recommend line improvements necessary to ensure its longevity,
reliability and safety.
To that end, this project was bid as a Request for proposals with two proposals from engineering
firms received. The proposals were reviewed by a panel of four staff members and selected the
firm of SGM (Schmueser Gordon and Meyer, Inc) for this project.
P27
VI.d
Page 2 of 2
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The estimated cost for the engineering design and
subsequent recommended construction measures to fully secure this section of waterline are
included in the 2014 budget for project East Cooper Street Stream Crossing, which has an initial
$100,000 budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: This project manages and reduces the potential
environmental risks that include soil erosion, loss of stream bank stabilization, and chlorinated
water discharge to stream in the event that the water line should fail.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: We request the council approve the expenditure of $32,200 for
the Design of Restraint for the City waterline at East Cooper Street Bridge.
ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives include, allowing the pipe to continue function as it is or,
abandoning this infrastructure and looking for a new route to serve East of Aspen.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution #27, Series 2014
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Proposal/Bid
P28
VI.d
RESOLUTION #27
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND SGM AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID
CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
Restraint Design for Waterline River Crossing at Cooper Street Bridge, between
the City of Aspen and SGM, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for Restraint Design for Waterline River Crossing at Cooper Street Bridge,
between the City of Aspen and SGM, a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 24th day of March, 2014.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, March 24, 2014.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P29
VI.d
P3
0
VI
.
d
P3
1
VI
.
d
P3
2
VI
.
d
P3
3
VI
.
d
P3
4
VI
.
d
P3
5
VI
.
d
P3
6
VI
.
d
P3
7
VI
.
d
P3
8
VI
.
d
P3
9
VI
.
d
P4
0
VI
.
d
P4
1
VI
.
d
P4
2
VI
.
d
P4
3
VI
.
d
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Andy Rossello, Utilities Engineer
THRU: Mike McDill, Deputy Director of Utilities and Environmental
Initiatives
DATE OF MEMO: March 3, 2014
MEETING DATE: March 24, 2014
RE: Electric Substation improvements – equipment purchase
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Request approval to disburse a portion of approved 2014 budget
funds in the amount of $158,578.00 for the purchase of electric switchgear from Western United
Electric Supply for improvements to the City’s electric substation connection.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council previously approved the installation and
completion of the City’s Express Feeder Project in year 2009. Sections of the Express Feeder
completed to date include:
• Golf Course East : Completed
• Aspen Recreation Center electric connection: Completed
• Deer Hill Connection (AABC to Burlingame): Under Construction
• Water plant Feeder : In progress, partial construction completed
• Power Plant Road : In progress, partial construction completed
BACKGROUND: The Express Feeder is a multi-year project that improves the reliability and
capacity of the electric distribution system, and reduces reliance on facilities owned by Holy
Cross Energy (HCE). The Express Feeder when complete begins at the electric substation
connected by 2 pad-mounted switchgear, and extends power and communication conduit/vault
system over Deer Hill, through the Burlingame Subdivision and Maroon Creek Golf Course,
across Maroon Creek on the Highway 82 Bridge, through the Aspen Municipal Golf Course to
the vicinity of the Power Plant Road below the State Highway 82. It will then continue along
Power Plant road to its terminus completing a connection to existing City facilities located at 8th
and Francis Street.
Additionally this system enables the City of Aspen to extend electric service directly to City
facilities served by HCE to include the: Aspen Recreation Center, Municipal Golf Course, Street
Maintenance Facility, and Water Treatment Plant.
P44
VI.e
Page 2 of 2
A substantial benefit to completing the Express Feeder is establishing flexibility in serving the
City of Aspen’s electric grid through two relatively independent routes essential for additional
levels of energy independence, redundancy, reduction of wheeling costs, and increased reliability.
DISCUSSION: The purchase of the S&C switchgear equipment is for installation in the electric
substation in the fall 2014. This equipment is specified by Exponential Engineering (engineering
consultant to the City of Aspen for this project) as an engineered solution for application in the
substation providing the designed connection point and electric load switch capacity.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The cost of these switch gears and associated components
for this project is $158,578.00. There is only one manufacturer of this style of Switchgear. The
city went through a competitive Bid Process (Items to Bid) to price this equipment through local
suppliers, the bid received were:
• Western United Electric Supply : $158,578.00
• Medium Voltage Accessory Supply: $170,272.00
The overall budget for the Aspen Express Feeder projects is $2.02 million. With engineering
design completed, and the project largely installed, the overall project remains on budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is estimated
at 1125 tons/year for the combined elements of the Express Feeder circuit due to the increase in
renewable energy available to customers on the City municipal system. A direct comparison of
CO2 levels is: 0.6 lbs co2/kwh for the City vs. 1.78 lbs co2/kwh for HCE.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Request City Council approves the expenditure of $158,578.00
for the purchase of electric switchgear as stated herein.
ALTERNATIVES: Continued reliance on Holy Cross Energy for select facilities use and
reliability limiting single electric feeder serving the City Municipal Electric System. This
alternative would not result in the reduction of greenhouse gases as noted in the above
‘Environmental Impacts’ paragraph.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution #29, Series 2014.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Contract with Western United Electric Supply
B. Resolution #29-2014
P45
VI.e
RESOLUTION #29
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND WESTERN UNITED ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORTATION
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
Electric Substation Improvements, between the City of Aspen and Western United
Electric Supply Corporation, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for Electric Substation Improvements, between the City of Aspen and Western
United Electric Supply Corporation, a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 24th day of March, 2014.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, March 24, 2014.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P46
VI.e
P47
VI.e
P48
VI.e
P49
VI.e
P50
VI.e
P51
VI.e
P52
VI.e
P53
VI.e
P54
VI.e
P55
VI.e
P56
VI.e
P57
VI.e
P5
8
VI
.
f
P5
9
VI
.
f
P6
0
VI
.
f
RESOLUTION #36
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND ACADEMY SPORTS TURF AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
Wagner Park Field Renovation, between the City of Aspen and Academy Sports
Turf, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for Wagner Park Field Renovation, between the City of Aspen and Academy
Sports Turf, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does
hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City
of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 24th day of March 2014.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, March 24, 2014.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P61
VI.f
P6
2
VI
.
f
P6
3
VI
.
f
P6
4
VI
.
f
P6
5
VI
.
f
P6
6
VI
.
f
P6
7
VI
.
f
P6
8
VI
.
f
P6
9
VI
.
f
P7
0
VI
.
f
P7
1
VI
.
f
P7
2
VI
.
f
P7
3
VI
.
f
P7
4
VI
.
f
P7
5
VI
.
f
P7
6
VI
.
f
P7
7
VI
.
f
P7
8
VI
.
f
P7
9
VI
.
f
P8
0
VI
.
f
P8
1
VI
.
f
RESOLUTION #37
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND TERRAPLAS USA, INC. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
outdoor flooring for special events, between the City of Aspen and Terraplas USA,
Inc., a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for outdoor flooring for special events, between the City of Aspen and Terraplas
USA, Inc., a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does
hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City
of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 24th day of March 2014.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, March 24, 2014.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P82
VI.f
P8
3
VI
.
f
P8
4
VI
.
f
P8
5
VI
.
f
P8
6
VI
.
f
P8
7
VI
.
f
P8
8
VI
.
f
P8
9
VI
.
f
P9
0
VI
.
f
P9
1
VI
.
f
P9
2
VI
.
f
P9
3
VI
.
f
P9
4
VI
.
f
P9
5
VI
.
f
P9
6
VI
.
f
P9
7
VI
.
f
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager and
Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Project Manager
THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director
DATE OF MEMO: March 17, 2014
MEETING DATE: March 24, 2014
RE: 2014 Burlingame Phase IIAii Construction Oversight Contracts
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff seeks approval of the following three contracts related to
2014 Burlingame Phase IIAii vertical construction of buildings 5 through 7 (34 affordable units):
1)Contract amendment, Ascent Building Consulting (Quality Assurance)$74,050.00
2)Contract amendment, Engineering Economics (Commissioning)$88,260.00
3)Contract amendment, HP Geotech (Geotechnical)$66,000.00
Total $228,310.00
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At a budget work session on October 29, 2013, Council
approved funding for the construction of buildings 5 through 7 (34 affordable housing units) at
Burlingame Phase II. On January 10, 2014, Council approved a contract with RA Nelson LLC
for the physical construction of same.
BACKGROUND: The services requested herein are necessary to provide the appropriate level
of project oversight. This arrangement is consistent with the approach taken in 2013 for the
construction of buildings 1 through 4, which has thus far proven successful. These services are
all planned elements which were included in the budget request for 2014.
DISCUSSION: Staff is assembling the construction management and oversight team for the
construction of buildings 5 through 7. These consultants will report directly to the City of Aspen
(not to RA Nelson) and thus will serve the City’s best interests in ensuring construction quality
and schedule.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Total amount budgeted in 2014 for the items herein requested: $182,730.00
Total amount herein requested for approval: $228,310.00
Amount under (over) budget: ($45,580.00)
The services are over budget by the amount shown and the overage will be funded from project
contingency. The contracts for these services run through project completion in mid-2015 so
these contracts will not need to be further amended at the turn of the 2014-215 calendar year so
little or no additional overages are anticipated for these items.
P98
VI.g
Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could prescribe a different level of project oversight. The
arrangement described herein is consistent with the approach taken in 2013 for the construction
of buildings 1 through 4, which has thus far proven successful. Staff does not recommend
making changes to the project delivery methodology at this time.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
“Exhibit I”: Contract amendment, Ascent Building Consulting
“Exhibit II”: Contract amendment, Engineering Economics
“Exhibit III”: Contract amendment, HP Geotech
P99
VI.g
RESOLUTION 33
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ASPEN AND ASCENT BUILDING CONSULTING AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT AMENDMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract
amendment for quality assurance services during the construction of Burlingame
Phase II buildings 5-7 between the City of Aspen and Ascent Building Consulting ,
a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as “Exhibit I”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the contract
amendment for quality assurance between the City of Aspen and Ascent Building
Consulting, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does
hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City
of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 24th day of March 2014.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held March 24, 2014.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P100
VI.g
March 24, 2014
Amendment No. 1
To the City of Aspen, Standard form of Agreement v. 2009
Between the City of Aspen and Ascent Building Consulting, Inc
Original contract executed 4/22/13.
The Agreement is amended effective March 24, 2014 as follows:
ADD 2014 Burlingame Phase II Building 5 through 7 Enclosure
Inspection Services per attached Exhibit A dated February 14, 2014. $62,050.00
ADD Increase for Enclosure Inspection Services Buildings 1-4
per attached Exhibit B letter dated January 6, 2014. $12,000.00
AMENDMENT #1 TOTAL: $74,050.00
Original contract and all amended amounts:
Original Contract (2013) Executed 4/22/13 Council $ 74,925.00
Amendment 1 (2014) This amendment $ 74,050.00
AMENDED CONTRACT VALUE $148,975.00
OWNER Building Enclosure Inspector
City of Aspen Ascent Building Consulting, Inc
________________________________ _______________________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor Steve Bunn, Ascent Building Consulting
Date_____________________________ Date___________________________
P101
VI.g
scent Building Consulting, Inc.
9061 Sanderling Way
Littleton, Colorado 80126
Tel: 303-877-1119
February 14, 2014
The City of Aspen
c/o Mr. Rob Taylor
Rider Levett Bucknall
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 470
Denver, Colorado 80202
Re: 2014 Proposal for Burlingame Ranch Phase IIaii – Building 5 through 7 – Building Enclosure
Inspection Services
Ascent No.: 14003
Dear Mr. Taylor and City Officials:
Ascent Building Consulting, Inc. is pleased to provide this proposal to perform enclosure inspection services for
the Burlingame Ranch Phase IIaii Project located in Aspen, Colorado. We understand that The City of Aspen
(The City) wishes to retain a third party consultant to provide construction observation services for the building
enclosure systems for this project, to visit the site at appropriate intervals (to be coordinated with the City and
Contractor) and to develop opinions as to whether the observed conditions of the building enclosure systems
appear to be in general compliance with the “Construction Documents.”
This proposal has been developed based upon our experience providing building envelope consulting services
during Phase II construction that is approaching substantial completion.
Purpose and Scope of Building Envelope Consulting Services
We propose the purpose of our enclosure inspection services will be to provide construction observation services
for the building enclosure systems for this project, to visit the site at appropriate intervals (to be coordinated with
the City and Contractor) to develop opinions as to whether the observed conditions of the building enclosure
systems appear to be in general compliance with the “Construction Documents.” The “Construction Documents”
will include the “For Construction” set of drawings and specifications, and approved submittals. The
“Construction Documents” will be provided by the City to Ascent in electronic .pdf format.
We propose the following services be performed:
1. We will review the Construction Documents to become familiar with the requirements of the documents
for observations during construction; however, the consultant will not provide any form of plan or code
review of the Construction Documents. All responsibility for proper design of the buildings remains with
the Architect of Record and other members of the design team. We may request additional information,
specifications, and/or detailing from the Architect in order to obtain clarification on the requirements of
the Construction Documents that appear to be unclear or in conflict. For the purposes of this proposal, it
is presumed that the Construction Documents are complete and accurate. If it appears that significant
clarifications and correspondence associated with incomplete or conflicting Construction Documents is
required for Ascent to perform its enclosure inspection services, we will request that these additional
services be paid for on any hourly rate basis.
P102
VI.g
Name
Mr. Rob Taylor
Rider Levett Bucknall
February 14, 2014
Page 2 of 3
2. We will perform a site visit to review the completed construction of the envelope systems of the mock-up
for general compliance with the Construction Documents. Upon completion of the mock-up review, we
will issue a brief report noting items that appear to be non-compliant with the Construction Documents.
3. We will perform intermittent construction observations during construction, at a rate of two partial days
per week throughout the duration of the project while installation of envelope systems (as noted
specifically within the RFP issued by The City) is taking place. The overall intent of the rate of site
visitation is intended to observe approximately 25% of each of the envelope systems being installed.
Our construction observation services will include the following:
For each site visit, we propose to visit the site and observe the work being performed by the
contractor. Our site observations will be of the readily visible portions of the work, and no intrusive
examination or testing of the work is included at this time. At the end of our site visit, we will review
our findings with the project superintendent if available on site. Following each site visit, we will
prepare a report summarizing our findings and will include observations of items that we observed
that did not appear to comply with the general requirements of the Construction Documents. The
report will utilize a Green/Yellow/Red traffic light system for documenting non-compliant items
observed. A copy of this report will be sent to The City, the architect, the contractor, and other
parties as requested by The City. It will be the sole responsibility for the contractor to address and
rectify any deficiencies noted within our site visit reports. Weekly site visit reports will be issued
shortly after the site visits are completed.
Based upon our prior experience performing similar services during Phase II construction, we have
developed the following methodology for site visitation in preparing our proposal and fees.
The installation of the foundation waterproofing systems will likely occur from April to June of
2014. No other envelope work will likely occur during this time. As it is intended to observe
25% of the waterproofing installation, we have anticipated spending a portion of two separate
days on site each week; however, there are no other envelope systems to install during this same
timeframe. As a result, the anticipated fee to observe the installation of the foundation
waterproofing systems is a bit higher than installation of other envelope systems.
The installation of all other envelope systems will likely occur from July to November of 2014.
For most weeks, various envelope systems will likely be installed. With the intent to observe
25% of the envelope system installation, we have still anticipated spending a portion of two
separate days on site each week. As many of the observations for the different building systems
can be performed concurrently, we have consequently reduced the fee for each item accordingly,
which is to the benefit of The City.
4. At the completion of the project, we will issue a final report summarizing the known status of the
Green/Yellow/Red traffic light reports for items noted as deficient during our site visits.
5. We will attend one OAC meeting each month during the construction of the envelope systems (from April
to November).
6. We will perform 2 days of inspection of the roofs on Buildings 1-4 from Phase II to observe the condition
of the roofs and potential impact of outstanding Variance Items, as well as 1 day of follow up inspection
after completion of additional work by Douglass Colony Group on the roofs. These inspections will be
performed on days adjacent to our observations being completed on Phase IIaii buildings to eliminate the
need for additional mileage for travel.
P103
VI.g
Name
Mr. Rob Taylor
Rider Levett Bucknall
February 14, 2014
Page 3 of 3
Proposed Fees
We propose to perform our services on a fixed fee basis as performed during Phase II construction. For the scope
of services listed below, we believe our fee, including reimbursable expenses, will not likely exceed $62,050. A
further breakdown of our fees and reimbursable expenses is provided below:
1. Exterior Mockup Review: .................................................................................................................... $1,000
2. 25% Observation of Foundation Wall Waterproofing on 5 Building Pods ........................................ $10,000
3. 25% Observation of Exterior Walls on Buildings 5 Building Pods ................................................... $15,000
4. 25% Observation of Exterior Balconies on Buildings 5 Building Pods ............................................... $2,500
5. 25% Observation of Roofing on Buildings 5 Building Pods .............................................................. $10,000
6. 25% Observation of Internal Unit Envelope on 5 Building Pods ......................................................... $2,500
7. 25% Observation of Interior Insulation on 5 Building Pods ................................................................ $2,500
8. Attendance of 8 OAC Meetings (April – November) .......................................................................... $2,800
9. Perform 3 Days of Inspection of Phase II Roofs .................................................................................. $3,000
10. Reimbursable Expenses Throughout Project (Mileage, Lodging, Per Diem) .................................... $12,750
Grand Total .................................................................................................................................................... $62,050
“Attachment - Burlingame Envelope Inspection Fee Worksheet” is included as an attachment to this proposal.
For all other additional services requested by The City, we propose to perform our services on an hourly rate basis
of $125/hour.
Please contact us if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Ascent Building Consulting, Inc.
Steve R. Bunn, RRC, RRO
President
Attachments:
Burlingame Envelope Inspection Fee Worksheet
P104
VI.g
Burlingame Phase III Building Enclosure Inspection Services
Fee Worksheet
Ascent Building Consulting, Inc.
ItemService
Fee Each (for 25%
sample)Multiply bySubtotal
1Exterior Mockup1,000.00$ 1 mockup 1,000.00$
2Foundation Walls2,000.00$ 5 Pods10,000.00$
3Exterior Walls3,000.00$ 5 Pods15,000.00$
4Exterior Balconies500.00$ 5 Pods2,500.00$
5Roofing2,000.00$ 5 Pods10,000.00$
6Internal Unit Envelope500.00$ 5 Pods2,500.00$
7Interior Insulation500.00$ 5 Pods2,500.00$
8OAC meetings350.00$
8 months (April to
Nov)2,800.00$
9Inspection of Phase II Roofs1,000.00$ 3 Days 3,000.00$
10
Reimbursable Expenses
(estimate, to be paid for actual
costs only)12,750.00$
Grand Total62,050.00$
Hourly rate for principal125.00$ $/hour
P105
VI.g
scent Building Consulting, Inc.
9061 Sanderling Way
Littleton, Colorado 80126
Tel: 303-877-1119
January 6, 2014
Mr. Craig Roth
Rider Levett Bucknall
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 470
Denver, Colorado 80202
Re: Burlingame Ranch Phase II – Buildings 1 to 4
Request for Fee Increase for Enclosure Inspection Services Perform by Ascent Building Consulting, Inc.
Ascent No.: 13007
Dear Mr. Roth:
Based upon our meeting with you on site on January 2, 2014, as well as a number of other meetings and discussions
by telephone last year, we are formally requesting a fee increase for enclosure inspections services as specified in
our Agreement with the City of Aspen dated April 22, 2013. As you are aware, there were a number of issues that
came about during construction that required additional efforts on our part to address design and construction related
issues that were outside our original scope of service. These issues generally fell within the three categories noted
below:
1. Some of the Construction Documents prepared by the Architect were ambiguous and/or had conflicting
requirements. This required us to identify and communicate these items to the Architect. This additional
work comprised some of the additional time and associated fees required; however, construction related
issues have been the greatest cause for us to perform additional services.
2. Haselden and/or their subcontractors had numerous variances related to construction that appeared to be
non-compliant with the requirements of the Contract Documents. On some occasions, Haselden initially
disputed these requirements (such as the manufacturer’s installation requirements for Thermax sheathing),
which required additional research, correspondence, and meeting time on site. On other occasions,
Haselden and/or their subcontractors did not appear to provide adequate supervision of the work or
correction of previously noted variance items, which resulted in additional efforts, correspondence, and
meetings on our part to help reduce the potential for uncorrected work being covered up by other work.
As of the invoice we sent on December 9, 2013, these additional services totaled $4,262.50. We understand that
you and representatives from the City of Aspen reviewed and provided initial approval of these additional services,
for which we have been paid in full.
At your request, we are formalizing our request for our fee increase for additional services that have been provided
and billed as of December 9, 2013, as well as additional services recently performed and required to close out the
project.
These additional services are related to the following:
1. Due to the roofing contractor’s (Douglass Colony Group) severe delay in installing the roofs at the project,
roofing activities were being performed during a season of the year where installation quality is
questionable, and the City of Aspen requested additional observation be performed by our firm. This
required two additional site visits not included within our original agreement. These site visits were
performed within the original fee; however, we are requesting to perform two additional site visits to
observe the construction through completion of the project.
P106
VI.g
Name
Mr. Craig Roth
Rider Levett Bucknall
January 6, 2014
Page 2 of 2
2. Additional services will be required at the end of the project to assist Haselden with closeout of variance
items, as well as additional correspondence and documentation for the City of Aspen relating to variance
items, particularly those variance items that will not be fully closed out.
As we discussed with you during our last meeting, we estimate that an additional $7,750 would be required to
perform these additional services listed immediately above. In addition to the $4,262.20 previously requested and
initially approved, we are therefore requesting that our original fee be increased by $12,000 from the original
$75,470 limit. We propose to perform all additional services on an hourly rate basis of $125/hr.
Please contact me if you have any questions. If you approve of our proposed services and fees as described above
and wish to authorize us to proceed, please sign below and return a complete copy to our office.
Sincerely,
Ascent Building Consulting, Inc.
Steve R. Bunn, RRC, RRO
President
Proposal Accepted by:
Client (Name of Party Accepting This Proposal):
Signature of Person Representing Client:
Title of Person Representing Client:
P107
VI.g
RESOLUTION 34
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ASPEN AND ENGINEERING ECONOMICS INC AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT AMENDMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract
amendment for commissioning services between the City of Aspen and
Engineering Economics Inc, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto
as “Exhibit II”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the contract
amendment for commissioning services between the City of Aspen and
Engineering Economics Inc, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated
herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on
behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 24th day of March 2014.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held March 24, 2014.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P108
VI.g
P1
0
9
VI
.
g
F:\01-CO\01-09576 Burlingame\Proposal\Construction Phase\Revised 2013\BGR 2 Construction Phase Cx Proposal 3-14-14.docx
Engineering Economics, Inc.
780 Simms Street, Suite 210
Golden, Colorado 80401
telephone: 303.239.8700
facsimile: 303.239.9982
March 14, 2014
Chris Everson
Affordable Housing Project Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Burlingame Ranch – Phase II
Construction Phase - Commissioning and Building Leakage Testing Services
Proposal No.: 01-09576
Dear Chris:
Engineering Economics, Inc. (EEI) is pleased to present this proposal for commissioning and
building leakage testing services for the Construction Phase of the Burlingame Ranch Phase II.
This proposal is based on the Implementation Documents dated 8/31/12 and the currently permitted
construction phasing for the A1 and A2 phases of the projects.
SCOPE OF WORK - Commissioning
Building Commissioning services will be provided per the Scope of Work described below to
achieve building performance for functionality, energy efficiency, reliability and maintainability.
1. Conduct up to 7 on site commissioning meetings for each phase.
2. Review key submittals for systems to be commissioned in parallel with design team and
provide relevant comments.
3. Utilize information from submittals to finalize functional test procedures.
4. Coordinate with the construction manager to incorporate commissioning activities into the
overall project schedule.
5. Perform strategic site visits to verify construction progress and quality, documenting activities
and issues to be addressed by others.
6. Execute functional test procedures to verify acceptability of systems to be commissioned in all
modes of operation.
7. Document commissioning issues, recommending specific corrective action as necessary,
confirming acceptability when completed, and logging and tracking issues to closure.
8. Conduct meetings to review and resolve issues.
9. Review as-built documentation and operations and maintenance documentation for
completeness and accuracy.
10. Verify contractor-provided training
11. Execute appropriate seasonal testing of systems.
12. Review post-occupancy operation and performance through the warranty period, documenting
issues for warranty claims as appropriate.
13. Provide a commissioning project record of all commissioning documentation, from review
comments, to issues log, to completed functional test procedures and training documentation.
P110
VI.g
Chris Everson
March 14, 2014
Page 2
F:\01-CO\01-09576 Burlingame\Proposal\Construction Phase\Revised 2013\BGR 2 Construction Phase Cx Proposal 3-14-14.docx
An allowance up to 15% of the functional testing effort for repeat testing of failed functional tests is
included in this scope. Additional repeat testing and extensive troubleshooting will be billed as
additional services; our specifications allow you to back-charge such services to the responsible
contractors.
Systems and equipment to be commissioned are to include the following:
Mechanical
1. Fan coil units
2. Heat recovery ventilators
3. Hot water circulation pumps
4. Baseboard heaters
5. Unit Heaters
6. Dryer booster fans
7. Domestic water heaters
8. Domestic water pressure reducing valves
Electrical
1. Service, distribution and metering; verify correct installation, review contractor’s testing and /or
documentation.
2. Lighting control system
SCOPE OF WORK – Building Leakage Testing
Building Leakage Testing services will be provided per the Scope of Work described below to verify
the integrity of the building envelope.
Preliminary Testing - Blower Door Testing - Perform Blower door testing to analyze a unit’s
air‐leakage in order to discover problem areas prior to completion of the unit. This will include unit
depressurization and an investigation of the envelope assemblies using infrared thermography to
identify proper insulation/air‐barrier alignment prior to final finish installation. The testing will be
done to check for compliance against the City of Aspen’s standard of .25 cfm/sf (surface area) @
60 pascal (test pressure). A report of the findings will be provided for correction by the installing
contractors.
Completed Unit Testing - Blower Door Testing – Perform blower door testing to measure the unit’s
air‐leakage. This will include pressure diagnostics to measure the amount of air‐leakage to outside.
The testing will be done to meet the City of Aspen’s standard of 0.25 cfm/sf (surface area) @ 60
pascal (test pressure). This service will include a report of the results for each building broken‐out
by individual unit.
Insulation Inspection - Verification of appropriate insulation installation based on design
specifications. Measurement of depth of installed insulation along with visual verification of quality
of insulation coverage. A review of any on-site assembly changes to verify the level of performance
is equal to or greater than the original assembly design in order to maintain IECC compliance and
verification that the assembly as installed does not appear to creation conditions that could degrade
the building structure.
P111
VI.g
Chris Everson
March 14, 2014
Page 3
F:\01-CO\01-09576 Burlingame\Proposal\Construction Phase\Revised 2013\BGR 2 Construction Phase Cx Proposal 3-14-14.docx
SCHEDULE
We are prepared to commence planning and review activities immediately upon Approval to
Proceed.
FEE
We propose to complete the above Scope of Work on a lump sum basis, inclusive of expenses, per
the following fee breakdown:
2014 - Construction Phase A2, Buildings 5 through 7, 34 units
Commissioning $46,400
Building Leakage Testing - minimum testing of two units per visit $28,200
Total
Note: Minimum testing of one building per visit is assumed.
$74,600
Any additional services requested beyond the agreed scope will be performed at our standard
hourly rates. Our standard rate schedule is attached.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Terms and conditions will be per the City of Aspen’s standard Agreement of Professional Services.
We very much look forward to working with you again.
Sincerely,
Engineering Economics, Inc.
James E. Bagrowski, PE, LEED® AP
P112
VI.g
P1
1
3
VI
.
g
P1
1
4
VI
.
g
P1
1
5
VI
.
g
RESOLUTION 35
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ASPEN AND HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL INC
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT
AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract
amendment for geotechnical services between the City of Aspen and Hepworth-
Pawlak Geotechnical Inc, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as
“Exhibit III”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the contract
amendment for geotechnical services between the City of Aspen and Hepworth-
Pawlak Geotechnical Inc, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated
herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on
behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 24th day of March 2014.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held March 24, 2014.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P116
VI.g
P1
1
7
VI
.
g
P1
1
8
VI
.
g
P1
1
9
VI
.
g
P1
2
0
VI
.
g
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Steve Aitken, Director of Golf
Thru: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
Thru: Jim True, City Attorney
Thru: Jeff Woods, Parks and Recreation Manager
Date: March 24, 2014
RE: Golf Academy Lease Agreement
Summary: Staff is recommending approval of a new lease agreement with the Dede Cusimano
Golf Academy ( The Aspen Golf Academy at Aspen Golf Club featuring Dede Cusimano) for
operation of the Golf Academy at the City of Aspen Golf Course.
Previous Council Action: In 2011 Council approved a 3 year Lease Agreement with Rabito
Golf Academy.
Discussion: In 2011, the City of Aspen Golf Department with approval of its Golf Advisory
Board decided to contract out lessons and clinics at the City of Aspen golf course. Factors that
led to this decision were:
• The need for a professional golf academy to complement its award winning golf
facility.
• The Golf Academy would be able to provide opportunities for pass holders and
guests that are unique and beneficial to the overall golf operation.
• With the Golf Academy in place, staff at the golf course would focus their efforts
at customer service, retail sales and conditioning of the golf course.
• A professionally run golf academy would complement and enhance all other parts
of the golf operation including: green fee revenue, pass sales revenue, driving range
revenue, golf cart revenue, retail sales revenue and restaurant revenue.
• The Golf Academy would provide for additional marketing opportunities that
would improve the overall profitability of the golf operation.
The City entered into a 3 year agreement with the Rabito Golf Academy in 2011. The agreement
was a success. More lessons were taught than in prior years and the Golf Department produced a
net positive golf lesson/clinic revenue.
P121
VI.h
Due to the inability of Rabito Golf Academy to retain the same staff from year to year, golf
lesson/clinic revenue declined in 2013. In the fall of 2013, Staff terminated the lease agreement
with Rabito Golf Academy.
Request for Proposals (RFPs) for Golf Academies were sent out in December 2013. Response to
the RFP was good with the City receiving six proposals. The committee of David DiMartino
Head Golf Professional, Jeff Woods Parks and Recreation Manager , Charlie Weaver Jr. Golf
Board Member, Don Wrigley Aspen Golf Advisory Board Member, and myself reviewed the
proposals and conducted interviews. The committee unanimously approved to contract with
Dede Cusimano for the Golf Academy operation at Aspen Golf Club. This decision has also
been approved by the Golf Advisory Board.
Dede Cusimano Golf Academy was unanimously selected for the following:
• Qualifications of staff
• Previous Experience
• Teaching philosophy
• Ability to bring in “Golf Magazine Top 100” Guest instructors
• Local following of golfers/students in the valley
• Ability to retain the same teaching staff each year
• Financial Proposal to the City
The selection committee and Golf Advisory Board are excited to have The Dede Cusimano Golf
Academy. Dede Cusimano is an award winning golf teaching professional. For the past two
years Dede was nominated for the LPGA National Teacher of the Year. In 2013 Dede was
awarded National Teaching & Club Professional Player of the Year. In addition to Dede
Cusimano the teaching staff also includes Jack Smalls. Jack has been a PGA pro in the State of
Colorado and the Roaring Fork Valley since 1990. For the past several years, the team of Jack
Smalls and Dede Cusimano were the teaching professionals at the Roaring Fork Club, in Basalt
Colorado.
Financial Implications: Staff and Dede Cusimano Golf Academy have agreed upon a 3 year
agreement for Golf Academy Operations at the Aspen Golf Club. The City and Dede Cusimano
Golf Academy will split the gross revenues from all clinics and lessons. Ninety percent of gross
revenue will go to Dede Cusimano Golf Academy and 10% to the City. Based on an average
year of Clinic/Lesson Gross revenue of $75,000.00, income to Dede Cusimano Golf Academy
would be 67,50O and income to the City would be $7,500.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the approval of the contract for Golf Academy
Operations at the golf course with Dede Cusimano Golf Academy, Resolution #39, Series 2014.
P122
VI.h
City Manager Comments:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
P123
VI.h
RESOLUTION #39
(Series of 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND DEDE CUSIMANO GOLF ACADEMY LLC AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
Golf School Operator, between the City of Aspen and Dede Cusimano Golf
Academy LLC, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
“A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for Golf School Operator, between the City of Aspen and Dede Cusimano Golf
Academy LLC, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and
does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the
City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 24th day of March, 2014.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, March 24, 2014.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P124
VI.h
P125
VI.h
P126
VI.h
P127
VI.h
P128
VI.h
P129
VI.h
P130
VI.h
P131
VI.h
P132
VI.h
P133
VI.h
P134
VI.h
P135
VI.h
P136
VI.h
P137
VI.h
P138
VI.h
P139
VI.h
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 10, 2014
OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE BONUS AWARDS ..................................................................... 2
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................... 2
Resolution #16, 2014 - Toro Groundsmaster 4500D Purchase ........................................... 3
Request for Noise Variance/Street Closure - Aspen Skiing Company Spring Jam ............. 3
Appointment to Housing Board – Rick Head reappointed .................................................. 3
Resolution #23, 2014 - Case 9050 Excavator Repair Contract Approval ........................... 3
Resolution #19, 2014 - Burlingame Phase II - OZ Architecture Contract Amendment ...... 3
Resolution #20, 2014 - Burlingame Phase II - RLB Owners Rep Contract Amendment ... 3
Resolution#24, 2014 - Phase II City Hall Data Center ........................................................ 3
Minutes - February 24, 2014 ................................................................................................ 3
ORDINANCE #7, SERIES OF 2014 – Code Amendment – Miscellaneous Calculations and
Measurements ................................................................................................................................. 3
ORDINANCE No. 7 ....................................................................................................................... 4
RESOLUTION #17, SERIES OF 2014 - Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines .................. 4
ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 2014 – Erdman Partnership Lot Split – Subdivision Amendment4
NOTICE OF HPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL 549 RACE ALLEY CALL UP ....................... 5
ORDINANCE #51, SERIES OF 2013 – Hotel Aspen PUD, Subdivision Rezoning ..................... 5
P140
VI.i
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 10, 2014
Mayor Skadron called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Frisch, Mullins,
and Romero present.
OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE BONUS AWARDS
Mayor and Council presented an outstanding team employee bonus award to Miguel Gonzales,
Oscar Contreras, Leonard Thacker, Pat Derby and Brad Fite in the recreation department for
demolishing and rebuilding the stream room to high standards and saving the city money.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
There were no comments.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Mayor Skadron reported on Burlingame sales and reservations for buildings 5 through 7
have gone from 13 to 18 reservations. On buildings 1 through 4, 25 of the 48 units have been
sold and 20 of the remaining units are spoken for; one unit is in the process and there are two
available.
2. Mayor Skadron congratulated all the participants in the Power of Four, which traverses
all four ski mountains and was made more challenging this year by the weather.
3. Councilman Frisch announced Frontiers is hosting a banking seminar, Tuesday March
18th at 11 a.m. in Council Chambers to discuss home ownership and capital reserve.
4. Mayor Skadron said ACRA is working on a partnership with the city’s recreation
department to provided added value to a Chamber membership. The TSA pre-check is available
at the Pitkin County Airport. This year’s Food & Wine is sold out. April 8th is the ACRA/City
breakfast 8 a.m. at Doerr Hosier.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilwoman Mullins requested Spring Jam, and the two Burlingame contracts be taken off the
consent calendar.
P141
VI.i
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 10, 2014
Councilman Mullins asked how city costs, like parking and police overtime, are covered. Justin
Erickson said the Ski Company pays the parking costs. The police overtime is absorbed in the
budget. Erickson said closing the streets after 4 p.m. has gained support from the merchants.
Resolution #19, 2014 – Burlingame Phase II OZ Architecture Contract
Councilwoman Mullins asked if staff was aware this contract was going to be 3 times as high as
originally presented. Chris Everson, asset department, told Council there have been change
orders mainly to do with the phasing of the project. When the contract was originally bid, both
architects bid as if the project were going to be built at once; although staff was aware there was
to be some phasing, the project had to be bid somehow and it was presented as if it were to be
built all at once. The $2.4 million of this is less than the original price of the other bidder. These
amendments have taken place over 5 years and contingency funds have covered the costs.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman
Romero. The consent calendar is:
• Resolution #16, 2014 - Toro Groundsmaster 4500D Purchase
• Request for Noise Variance/Street Closure - Aspen Skiing Company Spring Jam
• Appointment to Housing Board – Rick Head reappointed
• Resolution #23, 2014 - Case 9050 Excavator Repair Contract Approval
• Resolution #19, 2014 - Burlingame Phase II - OZ Architecture Contract Amendment
• Resolution #20, 2014 - Burlingame Phase II - RLB Owners Rep Contract Amendment
• Resolution#24, 2014 - Phase II City Hall Data Center
• Minutes - February 24, 2014
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #7, SERIES OF 2014 – Code Amendment – Miscellaneous Calculations and
Measurements
Jennifer Phelan, community development department, told Council there is a chapter in the land
use code determining how to calculate floor area, setbacks, and heights. Staff reviews and
updates for new-types of development, like rooftop amenities. Councilwoman Mullins asked
staff to address temporary rooftop amenities.
P142
VI.i
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 10, 2014
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #7, Series of 2014; seconded by Councilman
Romero. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE No. 7
(Series of 2014)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 26.575 – MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS, CHAPTER
26.104.100 – DEFINITIONS, AND CHAPTER 26.314 – NONCONFORMITIES OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #7, Series of 2014; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #17, SERIES OF 2014 - Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Jessica Garrow, community development department, noted staff would like input from Council
in order to develop a transportation mitigation system for development to create a consistent, fair
and predictable system. Currently there are no clearly defined guidelines in the land use code.
The proposal is to explain what development is required to mitigate for their transportation
impacts and how they would do that. This is based on Aspen-specific trip counts for the
different uses as well as mitigation measures tailored for the Aspen area. Staff has done outreach
and received some feedback and the development community is supportive as it is creating a
clearer process and predictability.
Ms. Garrow pointed out this is a tiered system, single family and duplex developments are totally
exempt from the system as is minor development. Any other development inside the roundabout
has to go through the system as well as outside the roundabout, which may have more specific
requirements as their traffic demand is larger.
Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Skadron closed
the public hearing.
Councilman Romero moved to approve Resolution #17, Series of 2014; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 2014 – Erdman Partnership Lot Split – Subdivision
Amendment
P143
VI.i
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 10, 2014
Justin Barker, community development department, reminded Council this is a request to amend
Ordinance #66, Series of 1990, to remove a condition regarding affordable housing mitigation.
This is two lots on Lake Avenue; one lot contains a single family dwelling with an ADU and a
vacant lot. Ordinance #66, 1990, creating the lot split has a condition stating each property
provide an ADU as affordable housing mitigation, which at the time was the only form of
housing mitigation for a lot split. Barker said the request is to allow housing mitigation available
to an applicant at the time of building permit, which would include affordable housing credits
and cash-in-lieu. Barker said Council has expressed concern over piecemealing different land
use codes; this is not that situation but replacing an old land use code with a new land use code.
Staff recommends approval removing the condition to require filing deed restrictions on ADUs
in case that is not the type of mitigation provided on this property.
Mayor Skadron said dismissing ADUs is the wrong direction and the city should push toward
populating ADUs. This would reinforce exclusivity and the city should support diminishing
barriers toward locals. Mayor Skadron said the AACP addresses community balance rather than
becoming an increasingly exclusive community and Council should take every step to remain
inclusive. Councilwoman Mullins said the current city housing requirements are good but tend
to create clusters of affordable housing. Councilwoman Mullins stated she would support
exploring ways to make owners rent their ADUs.
Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Skadron closed
the public hearing.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #5, Series of 2014, on second reading; seconded
by Councilman Romero. Roll call vote; Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron,
no. Motion carried.
NOTICE OF HPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL 549 RACE ALLEY CALL UP
Mayor Skadron recused. Jennifer Phelan, community development department, reminded
Council there is a procedure for Council to call up decisions made by HPC. This property is part
of the Fox Crossing subdivision, which contains two historic cabins and a miner’s cottage. This
property is the Victorian miner’s cottage. The proposal is to rehabilitate and add onto the
cottage, which was approved at HPC by a 5 to 1 vote. Councilwoman Mullins pointed out there
is no site plan in the packet or any graphics to illustrate how it will fit within the neighborhood.
Councilwoman Mullins suggested this be continued to the next meeting for sites plans and for
Councilman Daily to be present. Council agreed.
ORDINANCE #51, SERIES OF 2013 – Hotel Aspen PUD, Subdivision Rezoning
P144
VI.i
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 10, 2014
Councilwoman Mullins recused. Mayor Skadron suggested this be continued as the most recent
changes were submitted this afternoon. Mayor Skadron said Council has a right to evaluate
modifications to applications in a reasonable manner. Stan Clauson, representing the applicant,
noted at the last continuation the applicant said it would be a tight time frame to provide
revisions in order to be evaluated by this meeting, which was understood by staff. Clauson said
the applicants are prepared to go ahead; the issues have been discussed and revolve around size
and compatibility. Clauson said the changes are to one of the residential units.
Council recessed until Councilman Daily is present.
Council reconvened at 7 p.m. with Councilmembers Frisch, Romero, Daily and Mayor Skadron
present.
Jennifer Phelan, community development department, reminded Council there have been several
public hearings on the Hotel Aspen. The proposal is 54 hotel room redevelopment on the north
side of the lot along Bleeker street is proposed for multi-family development. The original
proposal had 4 units, which has been reduced to 3 residential units. The most recent change is to
the westerly residential unit along Bleeker street and a reduction of two parking spaces on site.
Ms. Phelan suggested Council take public comment and continue the application to a meeting
next week to allow staff’s comment on the amendments.
Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, reminded Council the application has been amended to
go from 4 residential to 3 residential units. Clauson read from staff memo, “staff is supportive of
the change in density and the general design of the free market residential component of the
project. Staff finds the proposed floor area and net livable unit sizes to not meet the review
criteria attached. Staff recommended continuation of the project to reduce the overall floor
area”. Clauson said the hotel on the Main street side is in conformance with the code. Clauson
noted staff concurs the unit size may not be applicable with 3 free standing units versus and
multi-family building and that the 3 units were a more reasonable approach. Clauson reminded
Council that the applicants have argued that this project requires the free market component as
provided by code. Clauson reiterated reductions in overall floor area have been made; there has
been a decrease in cumulative floor area of 2,162 square feet from the original application and a
small increase in the lodging component; the free market residential is reduced by 800 square
feet.
Clauson showed the plan with the reduction in the westernmost unit to make it a two story
structure, meeting the R-6 height requirements and relating to the Victorian across the alley.
Clauson noted two subgrade parking spaces have been eliminated and some floor area for the
western unit has been relocated there. Clauson said this reduction creates a better transitional
element. Bill Poss, architect, showed how the westerly unit has been reduced to match the scale
of the adjacent neighborhood. Councilman Romero asked why the same design has not been
applied to the other two residential units. Brown noted when the number of residential units was
P145
VI.i
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 10, 2014
reduced from 4 to 3, two subgrade parking spaces could be eliminated and some square footage
for the western residential unit was relocated there. Councilman Romero said he liked the re-
design and rearrangement of square feet on the western residential unit.
Councilman Daily agreed about the westerly unit and would like to see the project smaller still.
Councilman Daily said this is a residential zone with a maximum FAR of 4,000 square feet and
this application contains 10,500 square feet or 2.5 times the residential floor area allowed.
Councilman Daily said the MU zone has a net livable ceiling 2.5 times less than is being
proposed. Councilman Daily reiterated coming closer to a variance of 3,000 square feet for all 3
residential units and would bring them closer to the existing scale of the neighborhood.
Councilman Daily noted variances are a hallmark of the lodge incentive program; however, these
variances are significant for 9 additional lodge units. Councilman Daily said he likes the lodge
development proposal but is concerned over scale and context for the neighborhood on the
residential units and the PUD criteria that has to be applied with a determination of
compatibility. Councilman Daily said in order to approve this project there will have to be
further reduction in the residential units.
Clauson pointed out the LP overlay and the lodge zone in the code states applicants can present
things different than the underlying zoning and the intent of the LP overlay was to provide
development not restricted by the R-6 zone. Clauson said the incentive for lodge development,
based on room size, allows 60% free market residential and questioned how that could fit on a
site if the most restrictive zoning is applied. Councilman Daily said the 60% seems to be out of
context with the rest of the code and also is a maximum. Councilman Daily said using the MU
dimensions, there is a net livable cap per unit of 2000 square feet for a total of 6,000 square feet.
Neither of the zone districts allows as much square footage as is being proposed in this
application and at the same time, the city is trying to find ways to encourage lodge
redevelopment. Councilman Daily stated he wants a context and scale for the proposed 3
residential units that is comfortable with the neighborhood.
Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing.
Doug Allen said the most historic part of Aspen is the west end starting next to the Hotel Jerome
and going west. Allen said this project does not add to the historic neighborhood. Visitors take
tours of the historic west end. Mary Esbaugh Hayes, 209 East Bleeker, said this building is still
too large are variances were not created to allow developers to get more profit and this project
has many variances. Ms. Hayes said the city codes were adopted for good reasons and should be
maintained unless for extenuating circumstances. Ms. Hayes said change the changes Aspen’s
character should not be supported.
Junee Kirk said passing this PUD would set a bad precedent and the application asks for more
square footage than code allows and asks for higher buildings than is allowed. Ms. Kirk said the
community would be giving up too much to gain 9 lodge rooms. Ms. Kirk stated there are no
P146
VI.i
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 10, 2014
guarantees that these will remain affordable beds and Aspen needs beds for tourists. Approving
this application would set a bad precedent; this is out of scale and too large. Lex Taurmianz told
Council he supports this project; the owners run good hotels in Aspen. The new and old Aspen
need to be blended and this is a good transition into the west end with the residential component.
Taurmianz said while maintaining Aspen’s character, Aspen also has to continue to improve.
Walt Madden noted this proposal has 3 residences where the zoning would allow 2, which is a
33% increase. Madden pointed out special cases and variances become the baseline for the next
conversation. Madden said the code contains a generous incentive program; the developer is
asking for more. Dennis Young stated compromise is essential. The developers have responded
to community concerns and have made changes. Young urged Council to support the project.
Bert Myrin said the land use code contains lodging incentives including a maximum cumulative
floor area. The developer’s request is 2750 square feet above the maximum cumulative.
Councilman Daily had suggested reducing each of the 3 residential units by 800 square feet or
2400 square feet total which is closer to the maximum cumulative but still 350 square feet over.
Myrin noted staff received the revisions this afternoon, leaving little time for review and for
public to see it. Peter Grenney said he likes the form of the project and it makes a nice transition
to the west end. Grenney said there is a need for lodging in the community and encouraged
Council to support the project.
Mick Ireland said this application should not be approved as it constitutes a de facto rezoning of
the property. Ireland stated it is inappropriate for staff to have only a few hours to comment on a
change to this application. Notice and opportunity to be heard are the essence of due process.
Ireland said approving this will be an upzoning of other lodge properties. Residential
development is worth twice as much as commercial development and this could drive out some
potential lodge operators. Ireland urged Council not to approve this project in an ad hoc
negotiating process. Julianne Steel said this is not just about the immediate neighborhood; this
approval for a project like this could affect other people’s backyards. Ed Petrosious said there is
a tree on property that should be protected. Petrosious said there does not appear to be a lot of
outside space around the units.
Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing.
Clauson stated the free market are two and three-story residential structures like those currently
on the street. The hotel will remain a hotel and that character is not changing. Clauson pointed
out there are incentives for lodge development in the code with a chart that shows the size of the
room and the free market residential component that could be associated with it. Clauson said
those incentive represent what some industry expert thought was necessary to subsidize lodging
development. Clauson stated there is a 2600 square foot variance being requested over the
1.25:1 floor area ratio for the MU zone. Clauson said the 2700 square feet represents the
P147
VI.i
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 10, 2014
amenities for the lodge that plus 54 lodge units at 300 square feet times the 60% incentives gives
one a certain size of the free market allowable.
Councilman Frisch said the community is facing the issue of the value of residential versus
lodging. Councilman Frisch noted the bulk and mass issue is a larger issue in the community
than that of waiving fees. Councilman Daily stated this is not a special review project; it is a
PUD and that is the criteria to be used. Councilman Romero pointed out special review is in the
PUD section and allows for an additional .25 of the floor area ratios. Councilman Romero noted
the land use code is clear about how the size of lodge rooms relate to the amount one can apply
for a free market residential bonus.
Michael Brown, applicant, noted 26.710.109(1) was adopted to encourage lodge redevelopment.
There has been little lodge redevelopment and Council is looking at ways to further encourage
lodge applicants. Aaron Brown stated this development proposes three free market units where
there could be two in exchange for rebuilding 54 lodge rooms and associated amenities. This is a
2600 square foot variance for the amenity space.
Mayor Skadron said there is a balance that needs to be met between incentivizing lodge
development as preserving residential mass and scale. Mayor Skadron said in this case, the hotel
trade off is not worth the variances and the requested variances exceed that allowed by code.
Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #51, Series of 2013, on second reading, as
amended; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Frisch, yes;
Romero, yes; Daily, no; Mayor Skadron, no. Motion NOT carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to continue this item to March 17, 2014, at 5 p.m.; seconded by
Mayor Skadron. All in favor, motion carried.
Mayor Skadron moved to continue the public hearing to March 17, 2014; seconded by
Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried. Council left chambers at 9:30 p.m.
Kathryn Koch
City Clerk
P148
VI.i
TIA Guidelines 1st Reading, 3.14.2014
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer
Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation Manager
Jannette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Program Coordinator
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Code Amendment
Ordinance 8, Series of 2014
MEETING DATE: March 24, 2014
(Public Hearing 4/14/2014)
SUMMARY:
The attached Ordinance includes proposed language for codifying the City’s transportation
mitigation system and adopting new Transportation Demand Analysis (TIA) Guidelines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance on First Reading.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This is the first reading of proposed amendments to the Land Use Code that would implement a
system for trip reduction measures related to new development. Pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the third step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW:
This code amendment focuses on minimizing impacts from cars associated with new
development and was one of the top priorities identified by City Council as part of
implementation of the AACP. Staff presented the proposed TIA Guidelines to City Council at
the February 25th work session, and received direction to move forward with the code
amendment. A formal Policy Resolution was approved by City Council on March 10th.
City Council was interested in ensuring fairness and consistency in the development process,
particularly as it relates to transportation impacts. The current system is unpredictable because
no clear guidelines exist. Transportation impacts are currently determined on an ad hoc case-by-
case basis, rather than being based on adopted standards. This proposal creates a clear and
P149
VII.a
TIA Guidelines 1st Reading, 3.14.2014
Page 2 of 4
consistent system based on Aspen-specific trip generation data and mitigation measures
specifically tailored to the Aspen area. The system would require actual physical improvements
related to trip impacts through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Multi-Modal
Level of Service (MMLOS) improvements.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) refers to programs or services that maximize the
use of alternative transportation, including buses, carpools, biking, walking, and carshare modes.
TDM techniques include programs such as compressed workweeks, as well as outreach and
education programs. Built alternatives such as Park and Rides, bike lanes, and bike racks that
encourage alternative modes of transportation are also an important element of TDM programs.
Finally, economic incentives and disincentives are part of the TDM tool-box, including things
like parking cash-out programs where an employee trades the right to free parking at their
workplace for a cash payment from the employer.
Level of Service (LOS) is a measurement that determines the effectiveness of transportation
infrastructure. LOS A would refer to an area that has free-flow of traffic with almost no traffic.
LOS F would refer to an area where the flow of traffic is backed up and frequent slowing occurs.
Typical Level of Service figures only takes vehicle drivers into account. In recent years, Level
of Service has expanded to include multiple modes, called Multi-Modal Level of Service
(MMLOS). MMLOS takes all mode types – auto, bicycle, transit, walking - into account. Staff
is proposing to use both traditional LOS and the newer MMLOS as the basis for mitigating
project impacts.
In December 2012, City Council approved a contract with consultant team Fehr & Peers to assist
the city in the creation of a trip reduction system for development impacts. As part of that work,
Fehr & Peers conducted traffic counts at nine (9) different locations in the city to establish
baseline trip generation figures. The locations were selected to ensure all Aspen land use types
were surveyed. These included free-market residential, affordable housing, commercial, lodge,
essential public facility, and mixed use developments.
Using the Aspen-specific trip counts, as well as Aspen’s existing Growth Management System,
the following tiered system is proposed:
• Exempt Development: All development currently exempt under Growth Management
would be exempt from any new transportation mitigation system. This includes all
single-family and duplex development, adding 500 sq ft or less of commercial space,
adding a single residential unit, or adding 2 lodge units to a project.
Exempt Development
Residential Units Lodging Units Net Leasable
Inside the Roundabout 1 1 or 2 1 sq ft to 500 sq ft
Outside the Roundabout 1 1 or 2 1 sq ft to 500 sq ft
• Minor Development: All development exceeding the exempt thresholds above, and
located inside the roundabout, regardless of size, is considered minor development. In
addition, any development outside the roundabout (along Highway 82, or up Castle or
P150
VII.a
TIA Guidelines 1st Reading, 3.14.2014
Page 3 of 4
Maroon Creek Roads, is considered minor development if it meets the following
thresholds:
Minor Development
Residential Units Lodging Units Net Leasable
Inside the Roundabout All development not meeting Exempt Development thresholds
Outside the Roundabout 2 to 10 3 to 24 500 sq ft to 2,499 sq ft
Development in this category would be required to mitigate for their additional trips by
using a checklist of TDM and MMLOS measures. Minor development would not be
required to conduct any traffic studies, but would use the Aspen-specific generation
numbers to determine how many new trips are generated and need to be mitigated. Then
they would use a TDM “mitigation menu” of various infrastructure, programmatic or
operational improvements to mitigate those trips. Examples of menu items include bike
rack installation, carshare memberships, bus pass provision, etc.
• Major Development: Major development only applies to projects located outside the
roundabout (along Highway 82, or up Castle and Maroon Creek roads) that propose the
following levels of development:
Major Development
Residential Units Lodging Units Net Leasable
Inside the Roundabout N/A N/A N/A
Outside the Roundabout 11 or more 25 or more 2,500 sq ft or more
Development meeting these thresholds would be required to conduct a Traffic Impact
Study (TIS) that examines the LOS and MMLOS impacts on the surrounding area and
mitigate for those impacts using the TDM and MMLOS “mitigation menu.” The larger
and more impactful the development, the more menu items would be required.
Staff has continued to conduct public outreach on the system, and revised the major development
net leasable threshold based on this feedback and further analysis of the Aspen specific trip
generation numbers.
A copy of the TIA Guidelines, as well as the TDM and MMLOS tools are attached as Exhibits B
– C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on first reading
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2014, approving amendments related to
implementing a trip reduction system through adoption of Transportation Impact Analysis
Guidelines in the Land Use Code, on first reading.”
P151
VII.a
TIA Guidelines 1st Reading, 3.14.2014
Page 4 of 4
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines
Exhibit C – Interactive TDM and MMLOS Tool
Exhibit D – TIA Guidelines Code Language
Exhibit E – Approved Policy Resolution, Resolution 17, Series 2014
P152
VII.a
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Code Amendment
Ordinance 8, Series 2014
Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE No. 8
(Series of 2014)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
THROUGH ADOPTION OF A NEW CODE SECTION 26.630, TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to explore code amendments related to the creation of a trip reduction and
mitigation program for new development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach with City Council regarding the code amendment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on March 10, 2014, the City Council approved Resolution No. 17, Series of 2014, by a four to zero
(4 – 0) vote, requesting code amendments to implement a trip reduction program through adoption
of Transportation Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.600; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and
finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance implements the City’s longstanding
community goal of limiting, and possibly reducing, traffic across the Castle Creek Bridge to 1993
levels; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective
The objective of the proposed code amendments is to implement a trip reduction program through
adoption of Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines.
P153
VII.a
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Code Amendment
Ordinance 8, Series 2014
Page 2 of 4
Section 2: A new code section, 26.630, Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, is hereby
adopted:
Chapter 26.630
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
Sections:
26.630.010 Purpose and intent
26.630.020 Adoption of Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
26.630.030 Applicability
26.630.040 Review Procedure
26.630.050 Appeals
26.630.010. Purpose and intent.
The Aspen Area Community Plan directs the City to maintain traffic levels at or below 1993
levels in order to protect Aspen’s environment and quality of life. As new development and
growth occur, there are increased impacts to the transportation system, making it more difficult
for the City to meet its transportation and air quality goals. In order to maintain the current
community standards and meet the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, the City has
adopted Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines to ensure new development results in
minimal adverse impacts on our transportation system and air quality.
26.630.020 Adoption of Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.
Pursuant to the powers and authority conferred by the Charter of the City, there is hereby
adopted and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth those standards contained in the
City of Aspen’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, as may be amended, updated and
expanded from time to time by City Council Resolution. At least one (1) copy of the
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines shall be available for public inspection at the
Community Development, Engineering, and Transportation Departments.
26.630.030. Applicability.
This Chapter shall apply to all development, unless expressly exempted in the Transportation
Impact Analysis Guidelines. All Single-Family and Duplex development shall be exempt from
this Chapter.
26.630.040 Review Procedure
A. Review Process. Development meeting the thresholds established in the Transportation
Impact Analysis Guidelines shall be required to conduct a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
meeting the requirements of said Guidelines.
Review for compliance with this Chapter and the Guidelines shall take place in conjunction with
a project’s land use application. In all circumstances, the final land use review body shall
approve the TIA, after considering a recommendation from the Engineering and Transportation
Departments.
For development only subject to administrative level land use reviews, or development meeting a
threshold established in the Guidelines but not subject to a land use review, the City Engineering
P154
VII.a
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Code Amendment
Ordinance 8, Series 2014
Page 3 of 4
and Transportation Departments shall have the authority on behalf of the City of Aspen to
determine the project meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in this Chapter and the
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. When development meets an established threshold
but does not require a land use review, review for compliance with this Chapter and the
Guidelines shall be completed as part of the building permit application.
B. Approved Trip Reduction Measures. Trip reduction measures, also known as
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS)
measures, which are approved and implemented for a development pursuant to the
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines shall be maintained for the ongoing for the life of the
development. All requirements shall be incorporated in the project’s Development Agreement,
pursuant to Chapter 26.490, Development Documents.
C. Amendments to Trip Reduction Measures. Off-site MMLOS infrastructure measures that
have been implemented may not be amended at any time. Off-site MMLOS infrastructure
measures that have not been implemented, and any on-site TDM and MMLOS measures, may be
amended as outlined below. Changes shall be reviewed by the Engineering and Transportation
Departments to ensure the proposed change is appropriate given the site’s context.
1. Insubstantial Amendment. Any amendment to TDM or MMLOS measures
resulting in the same or more number of trips mitigated as the original approval may
be approved administratively by the Community Development Department, after
considering a recommendation from the Engineering and Transportation
Departments. A land use application is required, pursuant to Chapter 26.304,
Common Development Review Procedures. The applicant shall demonstrate how the
new measure(s) is appropriate given current site conditions.
2. Substantial Amendment. Any amendment to TDM or MMLOS measures that
reduce the number of trips mitigated shall be reviewed by City Council, after
considering a recommendation from the Community Development, Engineering, and
Transportation Departments. A land use application is required, pursuant to Chapter
26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and the review shall be conducted
in a duly noticed public hearing, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E), Public Notice.
City Council shall find the following standards are met:
a. The proposed change responds to changed site conditions or circumstances,
including but not limited to changes to land uses, site topography, or site plan.
b. The proposed changes will not adversely impact the immediate vicinity.
c. The proposed change meets the original intent of the approved measures.
26.630.050. Appeals.
An applicant may challenge a determination made by the City in their enforcement of the
requirements of this Chapter by filing with the Community Development Director a written
notice of appeal as provided in Section 26.316.030, Appeals procedures, with a full statement of
P155
VII.a
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Code Amendment
Ordinance 8, Series 2014
Page 4 of 4
the grounds for appeal. Appeals shall be reviewed by City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316,
Appeals.
Section 3: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 5: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 6:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 14th day of April, 2014, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 24th day of March, 2014.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ______, 2013.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
City Attorney
Exhibit A: Adopted Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
P156
VII.a
TIA Guidelines 1st Reading; Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review – Initiation
In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section
26.310.020(B)(3), Step Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall
consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Findings:
The proposed code amendment is consistent with the Land Use Code. It creates a new code
section that is consistent with community goals, and existing mitigation methods in the land use
code. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective
cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings:
Since the adoption of the 2012 AACP, City Council has identified priority implementation
measures. This program was previously identified as one of the top implementation priorities.
One of the City’s longstanding goals is maintaining traffic levels at the Castle Creek Bridge at
1993 levels. This informs many of the City’s transportation projects and goals, and was
reiterated in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan. The Primary Transportation Goal in the
AACP is “Continue to limit Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT) to 1993 levels at the Castle
Creek Bridge, and strive to reduce peak-hour vehicle trips to below 1993 levels.” This project
supports this goal by creating a system that ensures new trips and new impacts created by
development are mitigated. Mitigation will be achieved through Transportation Demand
Measures (TDM) and by establishing a Transportation Level of Service (LOS) and Multi Modal
Level of Service (MMLOS).
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The intent of the proposed amendment is to ensure a predictable and fair review of land use
applications. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P157
VII.a
1 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Transportation Impact
Analysis Guidelines
P158
VII.a
2 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 4
Intent of Study Guidelines .................................................................................................. 5
How to use the Guidelines ………………………………………………………………………..5
2. TRIGGERS REQUIRING A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................. 7
Level of Study .................................................................................................................... 8
3. LEVEL ONE TIA (FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENTS) ........................................................ 11
Qualifying Conditions ....................................................................................................... 11
Preparation of the Level One TIA ..................................................................................... 11
Level One TIA Outline ...................................................................................................... 12
Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................... 13
Transportation Demand Management (TDM): .................................................................. 16
Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) ............................................................................ 16
City Comments and Recommendations ........................................................................... 16
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements .......................................................................... 17
4. LEVEL TWO TIA (FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS) ....................................................... 20
Level Two TIA Outline ...................................................................................................... 21
Scope of The Study .......................................................................................................... 24
Study Area Boundary ....................................................................................................... 24
Analysis Scenarios ........................................................................................................... 24
Analysis Time Periods ...................................................................................................... 25
Traffic Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 26
Trip Generation ................................................................................................................ 27
Vehicle Level of Service ................................................................................................... 28
Site Plan Review .............................................................................................................. 31
Consultation with Other Jurisdictions ................................................................................ 31
Significant Impact Assessment ......................................................................................... 32
Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................... 35
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements .......................................................................... 36
Submittal of Level Two TIA............................................................................................... 39
City Comments and Recommendations ........................................................................... 39
P159
VII.a
3 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Study Levels.................................................................................................................. 9
Table 2: Contribution Credits ..................................................................................................... 13
Table 3: Existing Conditions Data Collection Protocol ............................................................... 26
Table 4: Analysis Parameter Recommendations ....................................................................... 29
Table 5: Transportation, Circulation and Significance Criteria ................................................... 33
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Aspen Specific Trip Generation Calculations…………………………………………40
Appendix B: Sample Site Plan Review……………………………………………………………….43
Appendix C: TDM and MMLOS Glossary…………………………………………………………….45
P160
VII.a
4 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
1. 1. INTRODUCTION
Transportation impact analysis (TIA) guidelines assist
applicants with assessing the potential transportation
impacts of proposed projects. The following guidelines have
been developed to provide a technical approach to
transportation impact analysis for development projects
within the City of Aspen that is simple, consistent and fair
while ensuring that the City continues to meet its
longstanding goal of limiting trips over the Castle Creek
Bridge to 1993 levels.
This document establishes protocol for transportation
impact analyses and mitigation based on the current state-
of-the-practice in transportation planning and engineering.
These guidelines outline different tiered levels of TIA
requirements and mitigation based on the size and location
of a project.
The requirements listed in this document are applicable for
specific land use development projects in the City of Aspen.
It is expected that a property owner and/or developer will
maintain improvements located on their property and pay
for any on-going maintenance costs unless otherwise
established through a land use approval or the municipal
code. Unless already required by municipal code, a land
use approval should address how off-site improvements will
be maintained.
Exempted projects (as outlined in the trigger section of this
document) will not be subject to the requirements of a TIA
For projects that do not meet the exempt threshold,
mitigation for any new trips is required through
implementation of TDM and MMLOS measures. Larger
projects, as outlined in the Triggers Section, are required to
complete more comprehensive analysis.
The City of Aspen has established Aspen-specific trip
generation data for all land uses. Development applications
should use these standardized figures to determine trip
generation and mitigation requirements.
Definitions:
Transportation Impact
Analysis (TIA)
A Transportation Impact
Analysis (TIA) evaluates the
potential adverse effects of
proposed projects on
surrounding and supporting
transportation infrastructure
and services. A TIA
determines if the adverse
effects constitute significant
impacts, and, if so, how the
significant impacts
can be mitigated.
Multi-Modal Level of
Service (MMLOS)
Multi-Modal Level of Service
(MMLOS) evaluates the
safety and quality of access
and flow for transit,
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) is the
application of strategies and
policies to reduce travel
demand (specifically that of
single-occupancy vehicles)
P161
VII.a
5 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Intent of Study Guidelines
The purpose of these guidelines is to create a standardized system for developments to
determine and mitigate transportation impacts. This document applies to both new development
and redevelopment. These guidelines address key elements required for preparing and
reviewing transportation impact analyses in the City of Aspen. This document is a resource to
be applied in concert with professional judgment. The following major issues are addressed in
this document.
• Scope and extent of the required study.
• Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) triggers.
• Mitigation measure requirements including TDM and MMLOS.
• Criteria to determine if the transportation-related impacts of a proposed project are
significant.
• Monitoring and reporting requirements for mitigation measures.
• Guidelines for submittal.
The City of Aspen will primarily review transportation studies and reports based on the
guidelines presented in this document. However, each project is unique, and guidelines are not
intended to require measures that cannot be reasonably implemented. Not all criteria and
analyses described in this document will apply to every project. Early and consistent
communication with the Engineering and Transportation Departments is encouraged to confirm
the type and level of analysis required on a case-by-case basis.
How to use the Guidelines
The following provides a guide to the various sections in the TIA Guidelines:
Triggers Requiring a Transportation Impact Analysis: This section will help you determine whether
your project is exempt, a minor project, or a major project. The primary difference between whether a
project is minor or major is due to its location. Minor projects are located inside the roundabout whereas
major project are located outside of the roundabout. The reason for this distinction is due to the
constraints to vehicle capacity in town. Meaning, the road network in town is fixed, as a result there is not
an opportunity to add additional lanes to the roads in town. However, there is opportunity to improve the
pedestrian and bike network both in town and outside of the roundabout.
Level One TIA: This section applies to minor projects. The Level One TIA helps you to determine your
project’s transportation impact and how your project can mitigate those impacts. To determine your
project’s impact, no traffic counts are necessary rather the City has standardized how each project can
determine its impacts. This standardization was developed using Aspen specific traffic generation rates.
After a project determines its impact, the project must mitigate those impacts with a menu of options.
These options provide the project with various alternatives for mitigation by utilizing MMLOS and TDM
tool. These mitigation alternatives range from providing bus shelter amenities such as benches and trash
receptacles to providing bus passes for the project’s employees to installing landscaping to improve the
pedestrian experience.
P162
VII.a
6 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Level Two TIA: This section applies to Major Projects. Under the Level Two TIA projects must determine
their impacts by performing a transportation analysis. This includes performing traffic counts and utilizing
the Highway Capacity Manual. Projects under this section will be required to hire a Transportation
Engineer to perform the transportation analysis. Once the impacts are determined the project must
mitigate those impacts. The mitigation options are the same as the Level One TIA with the added
mitigation requirement for vehicle level of service and significant impact mitigation. Examples of vehicle
level of service and significant impact mitigation include the addition of a right turn lane and or the
contribution toward pedestrian underpass.
P163
VII.a
7 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
2. TRIGGERS REQUIRING A
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Follow the flowchart below and Table 1 to determine the path for your development.
P164
VII.a
8 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Level of Study and Mitigation
Table 1 shall be used to determine the level of transportation impact study and mitigation
required for the proposed development. These thresholds are based on the City’s Growth
Management Quota System (GMQS), and may be amended administratively over time to reflect
applicable changes to GMQS. For the purposes of this document, development is divided into
three categories: Exempt Development, Minor Development, and Major Development.
• Exempt Development: All development currently exempt under Growth Management
would be exempt from any new transportation mitigation system. This includes adding
500 sq ft or less of commercial space, adding a single residential unit, or adding 2 lodge
units to a project. If a project falls under this category it is exempt from TIA requirements
and TDM and MMLOS mitigation. The project may proceed directly to land use review or
building permit as applicable.
• Minor Development All development exceeding the exempt thresholds above, and
located inside the roundabout, regardless of size, is considered minor development. In
addition, any development outside the roundabout (along Highway 82, or up Castle or
Maroon Creek Roads), is considered minor development if it meets the following
thresholds under “Minor Development – Outside the Roundabout” in Table 1. All minor
developments are required to perform a Level One TIA which includes mitigation using
Aspen specific TDM and MMLOS mitigation tools.
• Major Development refers to any significant development located outside the
Roundabout (i.e. along the Castle Creek, Maroon Creek, and Highway 82 corridors), and
is required to perform a Level Two TIA which includes Capacity Analysis and a Site Plan
Review. Additionally the development will mitigate using Aspen specific TDM and
MMLOS mitigation tools in addition to mitigating its significant impacts.
If a project falls within multiple development categories, it will be subject to the highest
requirement. For instance, if a project located along Castle Creek Road proposed 100 lodge
rooms, 8,000 sq ft of net leasable space, and 10 residential units, the development would be
required to meet the major development requirements because the lodge and commercial
components trigger that threshold. Similarly, if a project located inside the roundabout along
Main Street proposed 200 sq ft of new net leasable space, 2 new free market residential units,
and 3 new affordable housing units, the entire project would be reviewed under the minor
development requirements because the 5 new residential units trigger that threshold.
P165
VII.a
9 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
TABLE 1: STUDY LEVELS
Study Level Criteria
Exempt Development
1) All development involving Single-Family or Duplex residential dwelling units
2) All development involving the remodel or expansion of existing free-market
or affordable residential units that does not increase the total number of
free-market or affordable residential units
3) All development outlined as "exempt" in Growth Management (26.470.040)
a) Remodeling or expansion of multi-family residential development as
long as no demolition occurs and no new units are added
b) Remodeling or replacement of existing commercial and lodging
development when no new units or net leasable is added and there is
no change in use
4) All development qualifying for an "administrative" review in Growth
Management (26.470.060)
a) Change in use of historic landmark sites and structures involving no
more than 1 free-market residential unit
b) Minor enlargement of historic landmark sites and structures involving
i) no more than 1 free-market residential unit and
ii) expanding floor area or net leasable/lodge units but not both, OR
expanding both floor area and net leasable/lodge units generating
4 or fewer FTEs
c) Minor expansion of a retail, office, lodge, or mixed-use development
involving no more than 500 square feet of commercial net leasable
space OR 2 lodge units
d) Development involving no more than 500 square feet of essential public
facility space
e) Alley commercial space that is accessed entirely off an alley and has no
internal connections to other spaces in the building
f) Temporary food vending
g) Sale of locally-made products in common areas of commercial buildings
(26.470.060.7)
Minor Development – Inside
the Roundabout
(Level One TIA)
1) Any development located east of the City of Aspen Roundabout and larger
than that outlined in Exempt Development
Minor Development –
Outside of Roundabout
(Level One TIA)
1) Located outside of the City of Aspen Roundabout , and meeting one of the
following:
a) Change in use of non-historic sites and structures involving
i) Less than 11 new free-market or affordable residential unit, or
ii) 3 - 24 lodge units, or
iii) 501- 1,799 square feet of commercial net leasable space
b) Enlargement of a historic site or structure involving no more than 1 new
free-market residential or affordable unit and generating between 4 and
8 FTEs
c) Expansion or new commercial space between 501 and 2,499 square
feet
d) Development adding 3 - 24 new lodge units
e) Development of non-historic sites and structures adding 1 free-market
or affordable housing unit f) Development adding between 501 and 2,199 square feet of new
essential public facility space
P166
VII.a
10 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Study Level Criteria
Major Development -
Outside of Roundabout with
Significant Development
(Level Two TIA)
1) Located outside of the City of Aspen Roundabout , and meeting one of the
following:
a) Development adding more than 2,500 square feet of commercial net
leasable space
b) Development adding 25 or more lodge units
c) Development adding 11 or more residential units (free-market,
affordable, or combination)
d) Development adding 2,200 or more square feet of new essential public
facility space
P167
VII.a
11 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
3. LEVEL ONE TIA (FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENTS)
Qualifying Conditions
A Level One TIA, consisting of a TDM and MMLOS analysis
and mitigation, is required for submittal if a proposed
development meets the criteria for Minor Development as
shown in Table 1. Copies of the Level One TIA are to be
submitted as part of the Land Use Application. The report
shall be complete and in accordance with these guidelines.
The Engineering and Transportation Departments will be
referrals for these documents as part of the City’s regular land
use Development Review Committee (DRC) process.
The City is committed to complete analysis for all modes of
travel. This section provides the framework for the scope and
methodology used to apply and assess MMLOS and TDM for
the City of Aspen.
Preparation of the Level One TIA
The Project Applicant shall use the Aspen-Specific trip
generation figures and calculations described in Appendix A,
Table A-1 and A-2 to determine the existing baseline number
of vehicle trips as well as the anticipated vehicle trips created by the project. These are based
on AM and PM peak hour.
The Project Applicant is required to use the TDM and MMLOS tools (located at the following
link: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-
Zoning/Current-Planning) to identify TDM and MMLOS measures that have the capacity to fully
reduce vehicle trips equal to or greater than the new peak hour trips generated by the project
and that address negative impacts to multi-modal infrastructure. It is up to the Project Applicant
to choose the measure(s) that will be compatible with the intended purpose of the project.
Selected TDM and MMLOS measures must be reviewed and approved by the City. A Project
Applicant is encouraged to contact Engineering or Transportation Department staff with
questions regarding the appropriateness of chosen mitigation measures.
What is Transportation
Demand Management?
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) is the
application of strategies and
policies to reduce travel
demand (specifically that of
single-occupancy vehicles)
What is Multi-Modal
Level of Service?
Multi-Modal Level of Service
(MMLOS) evaluates the
safety and quality of access
and flow for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
P168
VII.a
12 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Level One TIA Outline
The Level One TIA shall follow this general outline:
1) Introductory Items
• Front Cover / Title Page
• Table of Contents, List of Figures, and List of Tables
2) Introduction
• Project Description
• Project applicant/contact info
• Site plan (include proposed driveways, roadways, traffic control, parking facilities,
emergency vehicle access, and internal circulation for vehicles, bicyclists, and
pedestrians)
• Location map (include major streets, study intersections, and neighboring zoning and
land uses)
3) Project Trip Generation using the City of Aspen specific trip generation figures (Table A-1
and A-2 in Appendix A)
• AM Peak Trips by Land Use and for entire Project
• PM Peak Trips by Land Use and for entire Project
4) Proposed TDM and MMLOS Mitigation Program (Based off TDM and MMLOS Mitigation
Tools)
• Copies of completed TDM and MMLOS toolkit spreadsheets
• TDM Measure Details (including location of measures)
• MMLOS Measure Details (including location of measures)
• Enforcement & Financing
• Scheduling and implementation responsibility of mitigation measures
5) Monitoring Report
• Assessment of Compliance with Guidelines
• Results and effectiveness of implemented measures
• Identification of Additional Strategies
• Surveys and other supporting data
P169
VII.a
13 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Trip Generation
The peak hour trip generation for a level one TIA is based on Aspen specific trip generation
rates and does not require an engineer to calculate. The Aspen specific trip generation rates are
located in Appendix A in Tables A-1 and A-2. The Aspen specific trip generation rates were
validated for winter and summer season conditions for the following land uses: commercial
office, commercial retail, free-market housing, affordable housing, lodging, essential public
facility, and mixed-use (included restaurant, residential, and commercial). The Community
Development should be consulted if there are questions regarding which land use the proposed
development is classified under.
Mitigation Measures
All projects shall use the Aspen TDM and/or MMLOS Mitigation Tools (located at the following
link: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-
Zoning/Current-Planning) to determine mitigation measures that will be used for a project. The
tools assign a percent reduction in vehicle trips (TDM) and point values (MMLOS) to specific
measures used to offset the largest peak hour trip generation. For example, if a projects
adds 10 Peak Hour AM trips and 9 Peak Hour PM trips, it will start with -10 points and will need
to mitigate at least 100% of the new trips (10 trips) in the TDM and MMLOS Tools.
Copies of the completed TDM and MMLOS toolkits delineating the applicants chosen measures
to mitigate at least 100% of the new trips must be provided to the City of Aspen with the
completed TIA.
The TDM and MMLOS Mitigation Tools provide a list of mitigation measures and the percent trip
reduction/points available for each measure, as well as the maximum allowable reduction for
each category.
Proposed TDM or MMLOS mitigation measures should primarily occur on or immediately
adjacent to the project site. For instance, a project may include mitigation measures within the
right-of-way adjacent to the property, if the measures are approved by the City Engineer. Any
development requesting a TDM or MMLOS mitigation measure that will be located off-site shall
be approved by the Transportation and Engineering Departments. In such a case, the TDM and
MMLOS plan shall include the following information:
1) Off-Site MMLOS Measures (for projects that want the opportunity to perform off site
mitigation):
a) Existing roadway system within project site and within the project’s walk shed. The walk
shed shall be defined as a 250 foot radius from the project site. This includes on-street
parking configuration, sight distance limitations, location of driveways.
b) Location and routes of nearest public transit system serving the project.
P170
VII.a
14 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
c) Routes, location and width of pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the walk shed
serving the project.
2) Off-Site TDM Measures (for projects that want the opportunity to perform off site mitigation):
a) Existing transportation system within the transit shed of the project. The transit shed
shall be defined as a ¼ mile radius of the project site. This includes transit service and
facilities, carshare, and bikeshare facilities.
Changes to Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures that are approved and implemented for a development must be ongoing for
the occupied life of the development. Changes to specific on-site measures may be amended
over time, as long as they result in trip mitigation equal to or greater than the original approval.
Off-site MMLOS infrastructure measures may not be changed. Changes must be approved by
the Engineering and Transportation Departments to ensure the proposed change is appropriate
given the site’s context. Any change that results in the same number of trips mitigated may be
approved administratively. Any major change to the development that reduces the amount of
trips to be mitigated shall be approved by the body (City Council, HPC, or P&Z) that approved
the original measures.
Capital, Operations and Maintenance Contributions
The City of Aspen’s preference for new trip mitigation is through the mitigation measures
identified in the TDM and MMLOS toolkits. However, there is also the opportunity for capital
and operational/maintenance contributions. Should a project be unable to mitigate its trips to the
acceptable level, discussion may be had regarding possible one-time monetary contributions to
capital, operations and/or maintenance of appropriate measures or programs (i.e. purchase of a
car for the car share program, purchase of a bike for the bike share program, etc.).
The contribution will be assigned trip reduction credits. Below is a table showing the value of
credits:
TABLE 2: CONTRIBUTION CREDITS
Trip Reduction Credit Contribution Value
1 $6,000
A project may only use contribution credits if it is pre-approved by Engineering and
Transportation staff. Most often, these contributions will be applicable to projects or programs
identified in Transportation/Engineering long range plans and within the City’s Asset
Management Plan.
Contribution scenarios include:
• Concurrent Offsite Mitigation Projects: A project cannot effectively mitigate trips within its
own site, but a good opportunity is available at another location which can be funded by
a financial contribution.
P171
VII.a
15 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
• Mitigation Funds: A project cannot effectively mitigate trips within the menu options
available and instead provides a financial contribution for the commencement,
continuing operation, maintenance or improvement of an existing project or program.
P172
VII.a
16 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the application of strategies and policies to
reduce travel demand (specifically that of single-occupancy vehicles).
The Aspen TDM and MMLOS toolkit shall be utilized to determine a project’s mitigation for peak
hour new trips to the transportation system. This section delineates and summarizes the Aspen
TDM approaches organized by category and setting that are included in the Aspen specific TDM
toolkit. The toolkit can be used to identify appropriate TDM approaches. Minor projects must
select at least two appropriate TDM measures as part of their mitigation strategy. Major
developments must mitigate trips using a minimum of five TDM measures. The remainder of
mitigation options for minor or major projects may be selected from TDM or MMLOS options at
the discretion of the developer.
A description of all mitigation measures in the tool is located in Appendix C. The mitigation
categories include Neighborhood/Site Enhancement, Transit, and Commute Trip Reduction.
Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS)
Similar to many cities throughout the United States, the City of Aspen desires to evaluate
transportation services of roadways from a multimodal perspective. This section delineates and
summarizes the MMLOS approaches organized by mode and setting that are included in the
Aspen specific MMLOS toolkit.
The MMLOS toolkit must be completed in its entirety. If the completed toolkit results in negative
points, as a result of not meeting minimum performance measures, these points, in addition to
peak additional trip points, must be mitigated.
A description of all mitigation measures in the tool is located in Appendix C. The mitigation
categories include Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Transit.
The Aspen TDM and MMLOS toolkit can be accessed here:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-
Zoning/Current-Planning
City Comments and Recommendations
Copies of the completed TDM and MMLOS toolkit must be provided to the City as part of the
TIA that is submitted as part of the Land Use Application. The city will evaluate the TDM and
MMLOS Plan and comments will be provided to the developer/permittee as part of the
Development Review Committee (DRC) process. Subsequent analysis may be requested
regarding specific transportation issues. In some cases, minor comments raised by city staff
may be addressed in an addendum letter.
P173
VII.a
17 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Following the implementation of Mitigation Measures, the property owner will be required to
monitor whether the TDM and MMLOS Measures are having the intended effect. Minor
developments will be required to assess and report their compliance each year for three years.
If it is found that the adopted mitigation measures are not effective in mitigating trips for the
development, the mitigation measures should be modified in consultation with the
Transportation and Engineering Departments for the next year. The next year’s reporting
should outline how successful the changes have been. If the property owner/developer has
made a good faith effort to make changes to the mitigation measures but has not been
successful at fully mitigating the trips as expected, the reporting period shall end after 3 years.
If, however, the property owner/developer has not made real attempts to make changes the
reporting period shall be extended by one year and the non-compliance may be reviewed by
City Council to determine appropriate next steps to more accurately mitigate trips.
If an applicant fails to assess and report their compliance, the timeline for reporting will be
extended by one year. Monitoring and Reporting requirements are tied to the property and must
be provided regardless of change in ownership.
Property owners should make a good faith effort to survey the appropriate individuals/groups
based on the development type. Examples include homeowners, tenants, employees and
customers. The purpose of surveying is to determine level of participation and success of
various measures. The owner will not be held responsible should a survey prove infeasible
and/or response rates low as long as a good faith effort has been made. The owner should
contact staff to discuss these types of issues as soon as possible. Traffic counts and analysis
will not be required for Minor TIAs but can be used as an alternate assessment tool. Traffic
counts and analysis will be paid for by the development applicant.
The process is illustrated in the flow chart below. Each project will collect the necessary data
specific to their chosen measures and assess their compliance. The project will submit a report
to the City Transportation Department to document the monitoring process and results. Details
of each step are documented below.
P174
VII.a
18 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Assessment of Compliance with Guidelines
An annual employee, tenant, visitor, customer and/or homeowner survey is an important
element of the monitoring program. Surveys will be conducted to assess whether
measures are being maintained and if participation levels meet critical mass.
Survey results will provide insight into the success of various TDM measures and provide
the project and the City with guidance on how to change, continue and/or improve upon
those measures. If the measures are not successfully implemented and maintained, the
project will be responsible to refine its program. If an applicant intends to collect vehicle
trip data then they must follow the Vehicle Trip Data Collection guidelines located in the
Level II TIA section of this document.
Identify Additional Strategies
It is recommended that each project review the TDM tool in conjunction with the annual
survey results to identify if refinements to existing strategies and new strategies to
implement are necessary. The project will also identify a timeline for making changes to
existing strategies and implementing new strategies.
Annual Report Submittal
A monitoring report, submitted at least annually to the City of Aspen, will be developed by
the project and the independent transportation firm. The report will include the following
elements:
P175
VII.a
19 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
1) Status of all existing TDM programs – including data on participation rates
2) Status of all recommended TDM programs from prior monitoring report (if
applicable) – including data on participation rates
3) Data collection methodology
4) Survey results
5) Evaluation of performance compared to TDM/MMLOS plan
6) Conclusion of whether compliance is met
7) Next steps (if needed) – future modifications and enhancements of TDM Program,
including time frame of implemented
P176
VII.a
20 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
4. LEVEL TWO TIA (FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS)
If the proposed development meets the criteria shown next to “Major Development” in Table 1, a
Level Two TIA is required for submittal as part of the Land Use application. The contents and
extent of a Level Two TIA depends on the location and size of the proposed development, and
the prevailing conditions in the surrounding area. At a minimum, a Level Two TIA shall include a
Site Plan Review, Trip Generation, Capacity Analysis, and TDM, MMLOS, and significant
impact Mitigation Measures.
The developer/permittee is responsible for the preparation of a Level Two TIA. The study is
applicable through a project’s vesting period.
The project applicant shall retain a professional traffic engineer to conduct the transportation
impact analysis. It is recommended that the applicant’s consultant conduct the work in the
following phased manner and seek City acceptance of each task before initiating the next task.
In some cases, review by other affected jurisdictions will be required.
• Transportation Analysis Scope of Work detailing project description, site location,
analysis method, area-wide assumptions, study intersections and/or roadways, peak
hours for analysis, and traffic data collection.
• Project Trip Generation and Trip Distribution documenting all key technical
assumptions, data sources, and references.
• Administrative Draft Transportation Study Report prepared according to the Scope
of Work, Project Trip Generation, and Trip Distribution approved by the City Engineer.
• Draft Transportation Study Report addressing the City’s comments on the
Administrative Draft Report.
• Final Transportation Study Report / Response to Public Comments addressing
comments from the City (and, if applicable, other jurisdictions – i.e. Pitkin County,
CDOT, neighboring cities, etc.)
P177
VII.a
21 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Level Two TIA Outline
Details on requirements for the Level Two TIA outline items are defined later in this section.
The Level Two TIA shall follow this general outline:
1. Introductory Items
• Front Cover / Title Page – signed and sealed by a registered Colorado Professional
Engineer
• Table of Contents, List of Figures, and List of Tables
• Executive Summary
2. Introduction/Background
• Project description
• Project applicant/contact info
• Type and size of development
• Site plan (include proposed driveways, roadways, traffic control, parking facilities,
emergency vehicle access, and internal circulation for vehicles, bicyclists, and
pedestrians)
• Location map (include major streets, study intersections, and neighboring zoning and
land uses)
3. Existing Conditions
• Existing roadway system within project site and within the walk shed (within 250 feet
radius)
o On-street parking configuration
o Sight distance limitations
o Location of driveways
• Location and routes of nearest transit routes and facilities serving the project
• Routes, location and width of nearest pedestrian and bicycle facilities serving the
project
• Figure of study intersections with seasonally adjusted AM and PM peak hour turning
movement counts, lane geometries, signal timings, and traffic control
• Crash data on study roadways and intersections
• Map of study area showing ADT of study roadways
• Table of existing AM and PM peak hour average vehicle delay and LOS
P178
VII.a
22 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
4. Existing Plus Project Conditions
• Table of trip generation for Project Trip Generation using the City of Aspen specific
trip generation figures (Table A-1 and A-2 in Appendix A)
• Figure/map of trip distribution (in percent)
• Maps of study area with applicable peak hour turning movements (Project Only and
Existing Plus Project)
• Table of Existing and Existing Plus Project intersection peak hour average vehicle
delay
and LOS
• Table of Existing and Existing Plus Project MMLOS for pedestrians, bicycles, and
transit
• Traffic signal and other warrants
• Findings of project impacts
• Access and Circulation Design
o Sight distance limitations
o Dimensions from adjacent driveways and intersections
o Potential for shared access facilities
o Demonstration that the number of proposed driveways is the fewest necessary
o Support that the access points will provide safe and efficient multi-modal (traffic,
pedestrian, bicycle and transit) flow
o Internal circulation design, including adequacy of queuing (stacking) at site
access points and other features that may affect traffic operations and safety
o Pedestrian circulation system on-site and along frontage
o Impact to existing transit routes and facilities
5. Future Background Conditions
• Table of trip generation for approved project(s) – when applicable, apply reduction
for pass-by trips, transit, internal capture, and other modes.
• Figure and/or table of approved projects trip distribution (in percent)
• Map of study area with applicable AM and PM peak hour turning movements
(Approved Projects Only)
• Table of intersection peak hour average vehicle delay and LOS
P179
VII.a
23 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
• Traffic signal and other warrants
6. Future Background Plus Project Conditions
• Similar content to Existing Plus Project Conditions
7. Proposed Mitigation Program
• Copies of completed TDM and MMLOS toolkit spreadsheets
• TDM Measure Details (including location of measure)
• MMLOS Measure Details (including location of measure)
• Enforcement & Financing
• Scheduling and implementation responsibility of mitigation measures
• Proposed Significant Impact Mitigation
8. Conclusion and Recommendations
• Summary of results, findings, and recommended mitigation measures
9. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
• Vehicle Trip Data Collection
• Assessment of Compliance with Guidelines
• Identify Additional Strategies
• Annual Report Submittal
10. Appendices
• Traffic counts
• Technical calculations for all analyses
P180
VII.a
24 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Scope of Study
The contents and extent of a Level Two Transportation
Impact Analysis depend on the location and size of the
proposed development, the prevailing conditions in the
surrounding area, and the technical questions being asked
by decision makers and the public.
Study Area Boundary
Careful consideration of all modes and facilities (i.e., transit,
pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle, etc.) is required when selecting
the study area boundary.
The scope of the study area is ½ mile. The City Engineer must approve study locations before
traffic data collection and analysis commences. Additional facilities may be studied based on
circumstances unique to the site. Applicants should consult with the City Engineer early
regarding any additional study locations based on local or site-specific issues, especially those
related to pedestrians, bicycles, and transit.
Analysis Scenarios
The transportation analysis scenarios are listed below. Additional analysis scenarios may be
required in the transportation impact analysis dependent on project conditions and setting. For
example, other scenarios may be needed to test phasing or other interim conditions, at the
discretion of the City Engineer.
PRESENT CONDITIONS
o Existing Conditions represented by transportation conditions for all travel
modes in the study area based on recent field observations. Traffic volumes for
roadway analysis should be based on recent count data (see Transportation
Analysis Time Periods section below).
o Existing plus Project Conditions represented by project changes to existing
transportation conditions for all travel modes in the study area. Traffic volume
forecasts for roadway analysis should reflect existing conditions plus traffic
generated by the proposed project. For re-use or conversion projects, this will
involve accounting for any existing use of the site that remains or will be
discontinued.
FUTURE CONDITIONS (If required by City Engineer)
o Future Background Conditions represented by transportation conditions for all
travel modes in the study area reflecting all approved projects plus pending
projects or expected development of other areas of the City designated for
growth. In most cases, the project site will likely be vacant under this scenario. In
some cases though, this scenario may need to account for any existing uses on
How do I determine the
study area?
How many traffic
analysis scenarios are
required?
P181
VII.a
25 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
What time periods need
to be analyzed?
the site that could continue and potential increases in development allowed by
ministerial approvals only.
o Future Background plus Project Conditions represented by Future
Background Conditions plus changes to these conditions caused by the
proposed project. This scenario needs to account for whether the project is
changing any existing or planned land uses on the site.
Analysis Time Periods
The determination of analysis time periods will depend on
the travel modes being evaluated. For vehicular analysis,
at a minimum, weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic
volumes will be used in determining compliance with the
vehicle level of service (LOS) standard. For recreational
and other non-typical peak hour uses, weekday afternoon,
weekday late evening, or weekends shall be considered.
Based on the land use of the proposed project and upon consultation with the City, the study
shall analyze traffic operations during the peak hour of the following time periods. The weekday
time periods must occur on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday.
• Weekday morning peak (7:00 – 9:00 AM)
• Weekday evening peak (4:00 – 6:00 PM)
For some projects, the City may substitute or require additional peak hour analysis for the
following time periods.
• Weekday mid-day peak (12:00 – 2:00 PM)
• Weekday afternoon peak (2:00 – 4:00 PM)
• Friday evening peak (5:00 – 7:00 PM)
• Weekend midday peak (11:00 AM – 1:00 PM)
• Weekend evening peak (4:00 – 7:30 PM)
The determination of study time periods should be made separately for each proposed project
based upon the peaking characteristics of project-generated traffic and peaking characteristics
of the adjacent street system and land uses. The time period(s) that should be analyzed are
those that exhibit the maximum combined level of project-generated traffic and adjacent street
traffic.
P182
VII.a
26 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Traffic Data Collection
Accurate data is essential to achieve a high level of confidence in transportation analysis
results. Existing traffic conditions data shall be collected using the guidelines set forth in Table
3. The collected data will then be used to perform the respective analyses per the TIA
guidelines.
TABLE 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
Data Set Procedure
Peak period turning
movement counts
New traffic counts shall be collected if existing counts are more than two years old.
Counts shall only be collected in winter months (December 15th through March 30th) and
summer months (June 15th through Labor Day). No traffic count data should be collected
outside these dates unless agreed upon by the City of Aspen. The peak hour traffic volumes
should be seasonally adjusted to represent the typical average day of the year (the 30th
highest hour across the Castle Creek bridge).
Traffic counts shall be collected over a two-hour period between 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM and
the highest hour used for the existing counts.
Collect data for all study intersections on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday.
Care should be taken to collect data on days when schools are in session.
Bicycles and pedestrians should be included in all counts.
Some projects may require vehicle classification or occupancy counts. Consult with the
City on a case-by-case basis.
Daily traffic counts Collect data for all study roadway segments using the parameters described above for peak
period turning movement counts with the exception of collecting bicycle and pedestrian data.
Multi-Modal
Facilities
Establish existing geometrics from a combination of aerial photography, as-built plans, and
site visits.
Map existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the study area (include sidewalks,
crosswalks, signal heads, push buttons, related signing and striping). Document barriers,
deficiencies and high-pedestrian demand land uses including schools, parking, senior
housing facilities, and transit stops or centers. The City of Aspen’s GIS department can
provide this information.
Travel time and
speed
If necessary, travel time and speeds may be measured using radar, Bluetooth detectors, GPS
probe vehicles (i.e., floating car survey), or other validated methodology.
Signal timing Request timing from the City and other operating agencies such as CDOT. Verify timing in the
field.
Crash data Obtain crash data through the local law enforcement or CDOT if on Highway 82.
Mode split Summarize daily and peak hour mode split from study area or communities adjacent to study
area.
Transit routes and
use
Map existing transit routes and stops serving the study area and identify service hours and
levels of use. Document amenities (benches, shelters, bicycle parking, etc.) available at
transit stops and centers within ¼-mile of non-residential projects and a ½-mile of residential
projects. Complete MMLOS analysis per TIA guidelines.
P183
VII.a
27 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Trip Generation
Applicants required to complete a Level Two TIA are
required to submit a trip generation analysis that identifies
the number of new daily and peak hour vehicle-trips added
by the proposed project. The trip generation estimation for
all new or proposed development projects shall include the
summation of primary trips and diverted linked trips.
The estimation of new trips generated by the proposed development project may include credit
for trips associated with existing uses on the site. Existing uses are those actively present on
the project site at the time data is gathered for the Traffic Impact Analysis.
The final estimate of new daily and peak-hour trips associated with a proposed development
project should represent the net contribution of the proposed project. The City will review the trip
generation analysis and determine if additional analysis is required.
Trip generation analysis should be primarily based on Aspen specific trip generation rates. The
Aspen specific trip generation rates and the respective directional distributions for the AM and
PM peak hours are located in Appendix A in Tables A-1 and A-2. The Aspen specific trip
generation rates were validated for winter and summer season conditions for the following land
uses: commercial office, commercial retail, free-market housing, affordable housing, lodging,
essential public facility, and mixed-use (included restaurant, residential, and commercial). The
City Engineer should be consulted if the proposed development land use is not included in the
validated land use categories listed in Tables A-1 and A-2.
The following figure describes trip types relevant to trip generation and the difference between
the total trips generated by the project versus new trips added by the project.
How do I determine how
many vehicle trips my
project will generate?
P184
VII.a
28 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Vehicle Level of Service
Historically, vehicle levels of service (LOS) thresholds have been the prevailing criteria applied
to transportation projects. The City of Aspen recognizes that vehicle LOS is one performance
measure that needs to be carefully weighed against other City objectives to balance the
preservation of community values with a safe and efficient circulation system. Vehicle LOS only
assesses traffic operations from a driver’s perspective. It does not capture the perspective of
pedestrians and bicyclists nor does it recognize potential impacts of driving on air pollution or
other environmental resources. As such, potential impacts identified based on the following City
LOS thresholds will need to be weighed against other community values and objectives in
developing mitigation acceptable to the City.
• LOS C or better during peak hours is acceptable within the City of Aspen.
• For individual turning movements, LOS D, E and F may be acceptable for left-turns or for
minor street unsignalized movements; however some mitigation may be necessary.
• In instances where the existing LOS is already less than LOS C, the project should
include mitigation to maintain the LOS and not degrade it further. Mitigation preferences
should focus on reducing vehicle trips, improving the bicycle and walking network,
improving transit services or facilities, and modifying traffic control operations (i.e., signal
timings).
Traffic operations analysis methodology used to calculate LOS shall be based on the latest
version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).
If the TIA study area extends into an adjacent jurisdiction, their LOS threshold shall be used for
the impact significance criteria for analysis locations in that jurisdiction. The applicant is
responsible for analyzing project impacts against appropriate jurisdictional standards; however,
impacts will be mitigated consistent with City TDM standards.
Analysis Parameters
Analysis parameters (e.g., signal phasing, conflicting pedestrian volumes, etc.) for Existing and
Existing plus Project conditions shall be based on field measurements taken during traffic count
collection and field observations. This typically applies to Future Background and Future
Background plus Project analysis.
In the absence of field data or for some future conditions analysis, the parameters in Table 3
may be used with City consultation.
P185
VII.a
29 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
TABLE 4: ANALYSIS PARAMETER RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Recommendation
Peak hour factor (PHF)
Use measured approach PHF obtained through traffic data collection. For cumulative scenarios
and existing conditions where peak hour factors are not available, refer to the HCM and
maintain consistency through analysis scenarios and peak hours.
If a simulation model is used for analysis, the PHF should be applied over more than a
15-minute period.
Saturation flow rate
A field measurement of the saturation flow rate is recommended in accordance with procedure
in the HCM.
For cumulative conditions, use the value recommended in the most recent HCM unless physical
conditions and traffic controls warrant a change. The 2010 HCM recommends 1,900 vehicles
per hour per lane.
Yellow phase 4 seconds per phase (if traffic signal is present under existing conditions, use existing yellow
phase).
All red phase 1 second per phase (if traffic signal is present under existing conditions, use existing red phase).
Red phase may be greater on high-speed roadways.
Conflicting pedestrians for
signalized intersections
Primarily based on existing pedestrian counts or observations. Otherwise, refer to the most
current version of the HCM to determine the amount of pedestrian activations per cycle into
appropriate categories.
To determine conflicting pedestrians, assume one pedestrian per activation.
Traffic signal cycle lengths
Replicate existing cycle length and phasing (e.g., leading left turns) when possible. For new
signalized locations, segment the cycle lengths into the following three categories unless other
cycle lengths can be justified through the traffic operations analysis.
In and around downtown – limit signal cycle lengths to less than 90 seconds
In and around suburban areas – limit signal cycle lengths to less than 90 seconds
Ensure that minimum pedestrian times are satisfied.
Lane utilization factor If applicable, adjust lane utilization factors based on field observations.
Analysis Tools and Methods
Traffic operations analysis for local roadways and the state highway shall be conducted using
tools and methods approved by the City of Aspen. Recommended analysis tools for Traffic
Impact Studies include Synchro, SimTraffic, and VISSIM. Other tools or methods may be used
upon receiving approval from the City Engineer.
Congested Conditions
Analysts should note that the HCM recommends the use of simulation models to analyze
congested conditions. Since simulation tools can simultaneously evaluate vehicle interactions
across a complete network (including the interaction of multiple modes), they can provide a
more complete understanding of traffic operating conditions during peak congested periods and
what may happen when a specific bottleneck is modif ied or eliminated. Recommended analysis
tools for simulation analysis include SimTraffic and VISSIM. Other tools or methods may be
used upon receiving approval from the City Engineer.
P186
VII.a
30 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Transit Level of Service
Information relating to the hours of weekday service, frequency of service, travel time, and peak
passenger load is helpful for determining the extent and quality of service provided to a given
location. The transit system performance measures are to be documented for multi-family
housing, hotel/lodging, and commercial/retail developments that fall under the category of Major
Development per the TIA guidelines.
Level of Service Metric Standard Notes
Hours of Weekday Service (number
of hours service is provided)
20 hours peak/18 hours off- peak When transit level of service
standards are not met, the City of
Aspen, RFTA, and project applicant
should discuss potential
improvements to the transit system
by the project.
Season Frequency of Service (time
between bus arrivals at a particular
transit stop)
15-30 min peak/60 min off-peak
Travel Time Factor (transit travel
time / auto travel time to three
specific destinations that can include
popular destinations such as
shopping centers, schools, or civic
uses)
2.0 X
Peak Load factor (# of passengers /
# of seats)
<1.2
The overall transit system performance LOS is determined as follows:
Level of Service Standards Met
All 4 3 of 4 2 of 4 1 of 4 None
A B/C D E F
When overall transit system performance is operating at D or worse, the applicant and City staff
should engage the transit provider to evaluate the potential for improving transit service for a
particular development. This coordination between land use and the transit system is intended
to increase the utility and attractiveness of the transit system to all users.
P187
VII.a
31 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Site Plan Review
A detailed site review is required for every project and should, as a minimum, cover the items
below. Appendix B includes a sample illustration of site review recommendations that should
also be considered in the site plan review. Consideration should be given to the following
qualitative and quantitative reviews and summarized in the TIA.
• Existence of any current traffic problems in the local area such as a high-accident
location, non-standard intersection or roadway, or an intersection in need of a traffic
signal.
• Applicability of context-sensitive design practices compatible with adjacent
neighborhoods or other areas that may be impacted by the project traffic.
• Close proximity of proposed site driveway(s) to other driveways or intersections.
• Adequacy of the project site design to fully satisfy truck loading demand on-site.
• Adequacy of the project site design to provide at least the minimum required throat
depth at project driveways.
• Adequacy of the project site design to convey all vehicle types
• Adequacy of on-site vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation and provision of safe
pedestrian paths from residential areas to school sites, public streets to commercial and
residential areas, and the project site to nearby transit facilities.
• Project site design resulting in inadequate emergency access or response times.
Consultation with Other Jurisdictions
If the study area overlaps with other jurisdictions (i.e. CDOT, Pitkin County, etc.), the other
jurisdictions should be consulted to verify study locations and to specify the impact significance
criteria that should be used in the TIA for these locations. In most cases, overlap will occur for
roadway system analysis.
P188
VII.a
32 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Does my project result in
a significant impact?
Significant Impact Assessment
The main intent of the TIA is to determine potential
transportation impacts of proposed projects. This information
is essential for decision makers and the public when
evaluating individual projects. This section explains what
operating conditions shall be used when determining an
impact. These guidelines also establish criteria for when a
project impact is considered significant.
Scenario Evaluation
Transportation impact determination for a proposed development project shall be based upon
the comparison of the following scenarios using the significance criteria cited below.
• Existing Conditions vs. Existing Plus Project Conditions
• Future Background Conditions vs. Future Background Plus Project Conditions
Significance Criteria
A project impact is considered significant when it meets the criteria listed in Table 4.
P189
VII.a
33 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
TABLE 5: TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Elements Evaluation Significant Impact Determination
On-site Circulation
Review and evaluate site access locations,
driveway throat depths, size of major
circulation features with respect to operations
and safety, turning movement volumes at site
access points, queuing at site access
driveways, dimensions of truck loading areas,
and emergency access. Address and provide
pedestrian and bicycle access to the proposed
development. See Appendix B for a sample.
Project designs for on-site circulation,
access, and parking areas fail to meet City
or industry standard design guidelines.
Project fails to provide direct pedestrian
and bicycle connection to the pedestrian
and bicycle facilities on-site.
A project fails to provide adequate
accessibility for service and delivery trucks
on-site, including access to truck loading
areas.
Off-Site Traffic
Operations
Conduct intersection and roadway level of
service analyses using methods and
procedures contained in the latest version of
the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
published by the Transportation Research
Board.
A roadway segment or intersection
operates unacceptably according to the
City of Aspen LOS guidelines (Overall
Intersection LOS C or better during peak
hours, LOS D, E and F may be acceptable
for left-turns or for Minor Street
unsignalized movements. In instances
where the existing LOS is already less
than LOS C, the project should include
mitigation to maintain the LOS and not
degrade it further)
The project adds 10 or more peak hour
trips that cannot be mitigated with TDM or
MMLOS.
Bicycle Facilities
Identify any existing or planned bicycle
facilities that may be affected by the project.
Focus on maintaining or enhancing
connectivity and completing network gaps.
Complete MMLOS analysis per TIA
guidelines.
A project disrupts existing or planned
bicycle facilities or conflicts with adopted
City non-auto plans, guidelines, policies,
or standards.
The project adds trips to an existing
transportation facility or service (e.g., bike
path) that cannot be mitigated with TDM or
MMLOS.
Pedestrian
Facilities and
Americans with
Disabilities Act
(ADA) compliance
Identify any existing or planned pedestrian
facilities that may be affected by the project.
Focus on maintaining or enhancing
connectivity, completing network gaps, and
removing barriers. Disclose evaluation and
documentation of project features (e.g.,
driveway access points) with likely disparate
impact on pedestrians (e.g., longer crossing
time, added conflict points, etc.). Complete
MMLOS toolkit analysis per TIA guidelines.
A project fails to provide accessible and
safe pedestrian connections between
buildings and to adjacent streets and
transit facilities.
A project disrupts existing or planned
pedestrian facilities or conflicts with
adopted City non-auto plans, guidelines,
policies, or standards.
The project adds trips to an existing
transportation facility or service (e.g.,
sidewalk) that does not meet current
design standards for minimum width and
that cannot be mitigated with TDM or
MMLOS.
P190
VII.a
34
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Elements Evaluation Significant Impact Determination
Transit
Identify any existing or planned transit
facilities that may be affected by the project.
Focus on maintaining or enhancing
connectivity and completing network gaps.
Complete MMLOS toolkit analysis per TIA
guidelines.
A project disrupts existing or planned
transit facilities and services or conflicts
with adopted City non-auto plans,
guidelines, policies, or standards or results
in significant degradation of service
quality.
Intersection Traffic
Control
Evaluate unsignalized intersections located
within the study to determine appropriate
traffic control with or without the project.
Evaluate signalized intersections located
within the study to determine appropriate
signal timing changes needed with or without
the project.
The addition of project traffic causes an
all-way stop-controlled or side street stop-
controlled intersection to meet Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
signal warrant criteria.
Other
Jurisdictional
Requirements
In situations where several agencies must
approve a development or are responsible for
affected roadways, the applicant must contact
lead and responsible agencies to determine
issues to be addressed, scope of study, etc.
In general, the applicant will be responsible for
analyzing project impacts against appropriate
jurisdictional thresholds; however, the analysis
methodology will be determined by the City in
compliance with the TIA guidelines and the
impacts will be mitigated consistent with City
standards.
The project exceeds established
significance criteria thresholds for
locations under the jurisdiction of other
agencies.
P191
VII.a
35
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Mitigation Measures
All projects shall use the Aspen TDM and/or and MMLOS Mitigation Tools to determine
mitigation measures that will be used for a project. The tools assign a percent reduction in
vehicle trips (TDM) and point values (MMLOS) to specific measures used to offset the largest
peak hour trip generation. For example, if a projects adds 50 Peak Hour AM trips and 40 Peak
Hour PM trips, it will start with -50 points and will need to mitigate 100% of the new trips (50
trips) in the TDM and MMLOS Toolkits. Major Projects may not be able to achieve enough
points to mitigate 100% of the peak trips through TDM and MMLOS. In these situations
additional mitigation measures are required and must be discussed with and approved by the
City of Aspen Engineering and Transportation Departments (see Table 4).
Copies of the completed TDM and MMLOS toolkits delineating the applicants chosen
measures to mitigate at least 100% of the new trips must be provided to the City of Aspen with
the completed TIA.
Changes to Mitigation Measures
TDM and MMLOS Mitigation measures that are approved and implemented for a development
must be on going for the occupied life of the development. Changes to specific on-site
measures may be amended over time, as long as they result in the same amount of trips
mitigated as the original approval. Off-site MMLOS infrastructure measures may not be
changed. Changes must be approved by the Engineering and Transportation departments to
ensure the proposed change is appropriate given the site’s context. Any change that results in
the same number of trips mitigated may be approved administratively. Any change that
reduces the amount of trips generated shall be approved by the body (City Council, HPC, or
P&Z) that approved the original measures.
If after TDM and MMLOS mitigation has been applied and the net new trips to the system are
not mitigated and/or the project meets the significance criteria in Table 4, additional significant
impact mitigation may be required. In consultation with the City of Aspen Engineering and
Transportation Departments, the mitigation may include modifications to the site plan to
increase pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, signal timing modifications, intersection traffic
control modifications, etc. Every effort to mitigate shall first be made by TDM and MMLOS
measures.
P192
VII.a
36
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Following the implementation of Mitigation Measures, the property owners will be required to
monitor motor vehicle traffic to ensure that the TDM and MMLOS Measures are having the
intended effect. Major developments will be required to assess and report their compliance
each year for five years. If an applicant fails to assess and report their compliance, the timeline
for reporting will be extended one year.
Property Owners will need to collect traffic count data to evaluate travel behavior near the
development. Traffic counts and analysis will be paid for by the development applicant.
The process is illustrated in the flow chart below. Each project will collect vehicle trip data for
their project and assess their compliance. The project will submit a report to the City to
document the monitoring process and results. Details of each step are documented below.
P193
VII.a
37
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Vehicle Trip Data Collection
Data collection will be conducted by an independent transportation firm at least once a year.
The data collection should include the following:
1) Selecting a week to conduct the vehicle counts that is consistent with the TIA data
collection and prior year’s data collection time frame. The selection of the week
should be agreed upon by the City’s Engineering and Transportation Departments.
2) The driveway counts will be conducted for:
a) Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of the selected week
b) Daily (24 hours), morning peak period (7:00 AM to 10:00 AM) ,
and evening peak period (4:00 to 7:00 PM)
c) For the driveways providing access to the project
3) Field observations will be conducted during the AM and PM peak periods for each
of the data collection days to confirm that the survey reflects a typical day.
The independent transportation firm will calculate the AM and PM peak hour vehicle
counts entering the specified driveways. The AM and PM peak hour vehicle counts will
be an average over the three day data collection period. If appropriate, the AM and PM
peak hour vehicle counts may be adjusted based on field observations (i.e. if employees
are parking on the street and thus not captured by the driveway counts).
Survey Collection
Collection of an annual employee, tenant, visitor, customer and/or homeowner survey is
an important element of the monitoring program. Surveys will be conducted to assess
whether measures are being maintained and if participation levels meet critical mass.
Assessment of Compliance with Guidelines
Vehicle trip data and survey results will provide insight into the success of various
measures. The daily, AM, and PM trips will be compared to the submitted TDM and
MMLOS plan within the TIA.
If the trip reduction measures are not successfully implemented and maintained, the
project will be responsible to refine its program.
Identify Additional Strategies
It is recommended that each project review the TDM/MMLOS tools in conjunction with
the annual survey results to identify if refinements to existing strategies and new
strategies to implement are necessary. The project will also identify a timeline for
making changes to existing strategies and implementing new strategies.
P194
VII.a
38
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Annual Report Submittal
A monitoring report, submitted at least annually to the City of Aspen, will be developed
by the project and the independent transportation firm. The report will include the
following elements:
1) Status of all existing TDM programs – including any data on participation rates
2) Status of all recommended TDM programs from prior monitoring report (if
applicable) – including any available data on participation rates
3) Data collection methodology
4) Documentation of trip reduction methodology and results
5) Evaluation of performance compared to TDM plan
6) Conclusion of whether compliance is met
7) Next steps (if needed) – future modifications and enhancements of TDM
Program, including time frame of implemented
8) D etail of data collection (including AM, PM, and daily counts)
9) Survey results
P195
VII.a
39
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Submittal of Level Two TIA
A copy of the Level Two TIA shall be submitted as part of the Land Use Application along with
other required development documents. The report shall be complete, in accordance with
these guidelines, and be stamped and signed by the developer/permittee’s transportation
consultant engineer.
City Comments and Recommendations
The City will evaluate the TIA and comments will be provided to the developer/permittee as
part of the City’s Development Review Committee (DRC) process. Subsequent analysis may
be requested regarding specific transportation issues. In some cases, minor comments raised
by city staff may be addressed in an addendum letter.
P196
VII.a
40
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Appendix A:
Aspen Specific Trip Generation Calculations
P197
VII.a
41
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
The following tables exemplify how trip generation information and assumptions should be
prepared and documented for submittal to the City of Aspen.
TABLE A-1: ASPEN SPECIFIC AM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION
TABLE A-2: ASPEN SPECIFIC PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION
Land Use Trip Rate 1 % Entering % Exiting
Commercial 4.14 40% 60%
Free-Market Housing 0.82 56% 44%
Affordable Housing 0.89 55% 45%
Lodging 2 0.31 52% 48%
Essential Public Facility 1.66 40% 60%
1 per thousand square feet for commercial and essential public facility;
per unit/occupied room for housing and lodging
* For mixed-use (at least 2 of the established land uses) sites, a 14% reduction can
be applied to the trip generation
2 Includes vehicle and shuttle trips
Table A-2
Aspen Trip Generation - PM Peak Average
Land Use Trip Rate 1 % Entering % Exiting
Commercial 2.27 69% 31%
Free-Market Housing 0.67 29% 71%
Affordable Housing 0.75 48% 52%
Lodging 2 0.25 57% 43%
Essential Public Facility 0.86 62% 38%
1 per thousand square feet for commercial and essential public facility;
per unit/occupied room for housing and lodging
* For mixed-use (at least 2 of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction can
be applied to the trip generation
2 Includes vehicle and shuttle trips
Table A-1
Aspen Trip Generation - AM Peak Average
P198
VII.a
42
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
SAMPLE TRIP GENERATION TABLE UTILIZING THE ASPEN SPECIFIC TRIP GENERATION RATES.
HIGHLIGHTED CELLS INDICATE DATA DIRECTLY FROM TABLE A-1 AND TABLE A-2.
Total Total
Proposed Land Use AM PEAK PM PEAK % Trips1 Trips % Trips1 Trips Trips % Trips1 Trips % Trips1 Trips Trips
New Aspen Lodge 75 RMS 0.25 0.31 57%11 43%8 19 52%12 48%11 23
Aspen Commercial Development 25 KSF 2.27 4.14 69%39 31%18 57 40%41 60%62 103
50 26 76 53 73 126
(Size) x (Trip Generation Rate) x (% Trips Entering) = Peak Hour Entering Trips: I.E: (75) rooms x (0.25) x (57%) = 11 trips for AM Peak entering.
KSF = Thousand Square Feet
RMS = Number of rooms
Total New Trips:
Size
Trips Generated
Table 1
Trip Generation Summary - Proposed Development includes a 75 Room lodge + a 25,000 square foot commercial development
Trip Generation Rates1 AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour
Entering Exiting Entering Exiting
P199
VII.a
43
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Appendix B:
Sample Site Plan Review for Major
Developments
P200
VII.a
44
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
P2
0
1
VI
I
.
a
45
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Appendix C:
TDM & MMLOS GLOSSARY
Transportation Demand Management (TDM):
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the application of strategies and policies to
reduce travel demand (specifically that of single-occupancy vehicles)
Neighborhood/Site Enhancement
• On-Site Servicing - Providing creative onsite amenities reduces the need for SOV trips
throughout the day. Services within the development that will reduce the need for auto
trips include healthy vending, grocery, restaurant, recreation rental, dry cleaning, child
care, bicycle repair stations, etc.
• Shared Shuttle Service – The use of hotel or other customer service vehicles to shuttle
employees can maximize the use of on-site resources while reducing SOV trips. The
successful project will creatively consider the use of necessary business vehicles for
shuttle purposes. For example, a health club with a guest shuttle could provide
employee transfers to a transit center or park and ride.
• Non-Motorized Zones - (Only applicable to Major developments) Larger areas of non-
motorized travel zones provide safe and comfortable space that encourages walking and
bicycling, thus reducing SOV trips. Non-motorized zones are applicable for larger
redevelopment or specific areas only. Public amenity space already required by the City
of Aspen does not qualify for this reduction.
Transit
• Network Expansion - (Only applicable to Major developments) - The successful project
will expand the local transit network by adding or modifying existing transit service to
enhance the service near the project site. This will encourage the use of transit thus
reducing SOV trips. The successful project will work with City of Aspen staff to develop
a plan that offers the best trip reduction opportunity.
• Service Frequency/Speed – (Only applicable to Major developments) - Reducing transit-
passenger travel time through reduced headways and increased speed and reliability
makes transit service more attractive, thus reducing SOV trips. The successful project
will work with City of Aspen staff to develop a plan for increased service frequency that
offers the best trip reduction opportunity.
• Transit Access Improvement – Provision of safe and comfortable access to transit
service is important for generating and maintaining transit ridership, thus reducing SOV
P202
VII.a
46
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
trips. The successful project will improve pedestrian access to a transit stop via
formalization of trails, addition and/or improvement of sidewalk, installation of lighting
and/or way finding or other measures.
• Intercept Lot - The provision of a convenient location at which to park a vehicle and
transfer onto an alternative mode can reduce SOV trips. The successful project will
provide for a safe, convenient intercept lot at an appropriate location. Alternatively, a
project can propose methods by which existing intercept lot use can be expanded.
Examples include shuttles to/from existing lots, improvements to existing lots, etc.
Commute Trip Reduction
• Participation in TOP - The Transportation Options Program (TOP) is a City of Aspen
operated employer trip reduction service. All TOP employer services are free and
include grant opportunities, bus schedule kiosks and information distribution. The
successful project will work with City of Aspen staff to determine whether TOP
membership is appropriate and, if so, to join the program. (Note: Grant funding from the
TOP program may not be used to offset mitigation measures during until the reporting
period has been successfully completed).
• Transit Fare Subsidy - The successful project will provide subsidized/discounted daily or
monthly public transit passes for the RFTA valley system. These passes can be partially
or wholly subsidized by the project, with additional credit being provided for larger
subsidies. Many entities use revenue from parking to offset the cost of such a project.
• Employee Parking Cash-out - The term cash-out is used to describe the provision of
employee choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment
equivalent to the cost of the parking space. The successful project will require employers
to offer employee/guest parking cash-outs.
• Workplace Parking Pricing - The successful project will implement workplace parking
pricing at its employment centers. This may include: explicitly charging for employee
parking, or implementing above market-rate pricing.
• Compressed Work Weeks - Compressed work week schedules allow an employee to
work the typical 40-hour workweek in an alternative manner such as 4/10s or 9/80s. This
eliminates the need for work-related travel on the days not worked, thus reducing SOV
trips. The successful project will demonstrate that it will offer compressed work week
schedules to a minimum of 25% of its employees.
• Employer Sponsored Vanpool - Employer-sponsored vanpool programs entail an
employer purchasing or leasing vans for employee use, and subsidizing the cost of
program operations and administration. The driver usually receives personal use of the
van, often for a mileage fee. Scheduling is within the employer’s purview, and rider
charges are normally set on the basis of vehicle and operating cost. The successful
project will implement an employer-sponsored vanpool, thus reducing the need for SOV
trips to and from the workplace.
P203
VII.a
47
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
• Carpool Matching - Facilitating the formation of employee carpool groups is a method of
reducing SOV trips. The successful project will include use the city of Aspen Commuter
Connect service to create an employee portal to allow for the formation of carpools as
well as the sharing of other important transportation information via a custom employer
web page.
• Carshare Program - Carshare programs have been linked to increased use of alternative
transportation modes and reduced SOV trips. The successful project will provide access
to Aspen’s CAR TO GO carshare program. Carshare memberships can be provided to
all employees or residents of new developments.
• Bikeshare Program - Bikesharing provides access to a fleet of bicycles for short trips,
thus reducing SOV travel. The successful project will provide membership to and/or
enhance the existing public bikeshare program. Options include membership for staff
and/or membership for guests/customers.
• End of Trip Facilities - The provision of convenient facilities for pedestrians and cyclists
encourages these types of alternative modes, thus reducing SOV trips. Non-residential
projects may provide facilities such as showers, secure bicycle lockers, personal lockers,
changing spaces, etc.
• Self-Funded Emergency Ride Home - Emergency Ride Home programs reduce barriers
associated with alternative commute modes, thus reducing SOV trips. The successful
project will develop and fund a program to provide commuters who carpool, vanpool,
bike, walk or take transit to work with a reliable and free ride home - usually in a taxi or
rental car when unexpected emergencies arise. The use of the TOP program’s
Emergency Ride Home feature is not applicable for mitigation purposes.
• Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking - Priority parking for carpools and vanpools
encourages and incentivizes employees to ride-share to work, thus reducing SOV trips.
The successful project will locate reserved carpool and vanpool spaces at the front
entrances of the buildings and manage/monitor the use of parking spaces to ensure
compliance.
• Private Employer Shuttle - Offering employees a customized trip to work via private
shuttle reduces the need for SOV trips. The successful project will provide an employee
shuttle from nearby transit stations or other identified pick up points to the place of
employment.
• Information sharing and marketing/incentivizing are important components to successful
commute trip reduction programs. The successful project will implement marketing
strategies to reduce SOV trips. A trip reduction marketing programs should include a
number of the following strategies:
o orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits
o orientation to specific alternative transportation modes such as bus service
information, bike/walk route maps, etc.
P204
VII.a
48
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
o publishing of web or traditional informational materials;
o events and contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to
work days, etc.
o educational opportunities such bicycle commute/repair classes
o web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free
transit day passes, etc.
P205
VII.a
49
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS):
Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) evaluates the safety and quality of access and flow for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Pedestrians
Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) is based on the criteria outlined below. If the site is not
meeting the minimum sidewalk Level of Service (LOS) B, the project will be required to mitigate
additional points to offset the project’s inability to meet LOS B. The mitigation of not meeting
minimum LOS is in addition to mitigating peak hour new trips. If the site is not meeting the
minimum sidewalk Level of Service (LOS) B, the project will be required to mitigate additional
points to offset the project’s inability to meet LOS B.
The existing sidewalk and pedestrian path Level of Service (LOS) is characterized by sidewalk
continuity, sidewalk width, presence of a landscape buffer, and ADA compliance.
LOS A is characterized by a continuous sidewalk that provides an effective width that exceeds
Aspen’s minimum sidewalk width standards and has a five foot landscape buffer. Effective width
is measured using the sidewalk width and subtracting the shy distance for pedestrians.
Pedestrians avoid the edge of the sidewalk close to the street because it often contains utility
poles, bus shelters, parking meters, sign poles, and other street furniture. Pedestrians also
avoid traveling in the 24 inches of the sidewalk close to buildings to avoid retaining walls, street
furniture, and fences. The sidewalk area that pedestrians tend to avoid is referred to as the shy
distance.
LOS B provides a continuous sidewalk that meets Aspen’s minimum sidewalk width standards
and has a five foot landscape buffer. Encroachments into the sidewalk including door swings,
will be subtracted from the sidewalk width.
LOS C occurs when there are no gaps in the pedestrian sidewalk, but the sidewalk does not
meet current design standards or has encroachments that affect the sidewalk width below the
minimum width standards.
P206
VII.a
50
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
• Sidewalk Condition on Project Frontage – The sidewalk along the project frontage
will be assigned points based on whether the sidewalk is detached, if the effective
width is greater than the standard minimum width, and if the proposed landscape
buffer is greater than the standard minimum width.
• Sidewalk Condition on Adjacent Blocks – The project will be given opportunity to
mitigate points off site. If the project proposed to improve the condition of sidewalk
on adjacent blocks to the proposed project will be assigned points based on whether
the sidewalk is detached, if the effective width is greater than the standard minimum
width, and if the proposed landscape buffer is greater than the standard minimum
width.
• Pedestrian Routes – The pedestrian routes with the proposed project will be
assigned points based on whether the slopes between the back of curb and sidewalk
are equal to or less than 5%, if the curbs are equal to 6 inches, if new pedestrian
access points allow access without crossing a street, if new landscaping is proposed
at the access point, if there is implementation of a crosswalk that improves access to
the proposed access point, if changes to pedestrian access points preserve or
enhance the pedestrian experience, and if the pedestrian access is enhanced to
address any deficiencies.
• Driveways, Parking, and Access Considerations - While modifications to driveways,
access, and parking are often necessary for new developments, the design and
placement of access points can have potentially negative impacts. Whereas access
considerations have typically focused on the automobile, the goal of this policy is to
promote and implement access schemes that are multi-modal by creating no net
negative impact on the surrounding pedestrian or cyclist.
• Traffic Calming - Providing traffic calming measures encourages people to walk or
bike instead of using a vehicle, resulting in decreased SOV trips. Traffic calming
features may include: curb extensions, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised
intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, chicanes/chokers, and others. The
presence of traffic calming results in improved pedestrian LOS and vice-versa,
therefore the City of Aspen Asset Management Plan identifies the areas with the
greatest need. Proposed projects can mitigate impacts by contributing funds for the
City of Aspen to install proposed traffic calming measures. If a project applicant
provides a compelling reason for installing traffic calming measures (i.e. traffic
speeds, high levels of activity) not included in City of Aspen’s Asset Management
Plan, the City may consider additional traffic calming measures.
• Pedestrian Network - The City of Aspen implements enhanced street crossings at
intersections and midblock locations, as appropriate. The City of Aspen has
developed a plan that identifies locations for the proposed installation of crosswalks
(see City of Aspen Asset Management Plan). The presence of enhanced crosswalks
result in improved pedestrian LOS and vice-versa, therefore the Asset Management
plan identifies the areas with the greatest need. Proposed projects can mitigate
P207
VII.a
51
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
impacts by contributing funds for the City of Aspen to install proposed crossings. If a
project applicant provides a compelling reason for installing a crosswalk (i.e. traffic
speeds, high levels of activity) that is not included in Aspen’s Asset Management
Plan, the City may consider additional enhanced crosswalks outside of the asset
management plan.
Pedestrian Route Directness (PRD) is the ratio of route distance to straight-line
distance for two selected points. The lowest possible value is 1.00, where the route
is the same distance as the "crow flies" distance. Numbers closer to 1.00 indicate a
more direct route, theoretically representing a more connected network. Providing a
pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project site encourages people to
walk instead of drive, thus reducing Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) trips.
The successful project will provide a pedestrian access network that internally links
all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian
facilities contiguous with the project site. The project will minimize barriers to
pedestrian access and interconnectivity. Physical barriers such as walls,
landscaping, and slopes that impede pedestrian circulation will be eliminated.
Bicycles
• Modifications to Existing Bicycle Paths - When modifications to a bicycle path are
requested, the overall modifications should not result in any net negative impact to
the bicycle path, as determined by the City of Aspen Parks Department and
Engineering Department.
• Bicycle Parking - Vehicular trips are facilitated at origins and destinations by the
provision of minimum vehicular parking requirements. As many drivers know, the
availability and ease of finding parking at one’s destination can greatly affect one’s
access to their destination, overall experience, and may require additional travel as
one searches for an available parking space. Providing bicycle parking is a simple
and relatively low-cost measure that can be used to provide cyclists with parking at
various land uses: commercial/retail, hotel/lodging, mixed-use developments, and
multi-family residential.
Short-term parking is intended for cyclists who will park for two hours or less. It
should be located on the street level, near pedestrian access to the building, and on
the exterior of the building. Long-term parking is intended for cyclists who will store
their bicycle for several hours or longer. This parking should, therefore, provide
greater security and protection from the elements. It is recommended that long-term
bicycle parking be covered and locked. All parking should be located in a secure
location, with adequate lighting, outside of the public right-of-way, and separate from
vehicle parking. Long-term parking should be covered, as previously discussed.
Inverted U-racks and the post-n-ring are recommended for short-term parking (each
accommodates two bicycles). If the project proposes to use bicycle parking, the size
and location must be pre-approved by the city.
Transit
P208
VII.a
52
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
A project is responsible for determining the existing number of points at each bus
stop within the study area, identifying the level of improvement required to meet
Aspen’s basic amenities standard, and implementing or funding the implementation
of the improvements. At a bus stop, the project may elect to provide an enhanced
amenity in-lieu of meeting the minimum amenity standard, per discussions with City
staff. All bus stop modifications should be compliant with City of Aspen and/or RFTA
bus stop standards (depending on location).
• Basic Amenities - Transit patron experiences are enhanced by the provision of
amenities at bus stops that provide seating, protection from the elements, way
finding, transit system information, trash cans, and design elements that facilitate
access to transit.
• Enhanced Amenities - General purpose vehicles and transit vehicles typically share
right-of-way and drive on the same roads and lanes; however, in some instances
there are modifications that could potentially improve the quality of service for
vehicles in general, and for both individual motorists and/or the transit vehicles and
associated patrons. Relocation of a bus stop to the far-side of an intersection can
benefit multiple modes. For instance, general purpose and transit vehicles benefit by
removing conflicts between through buses and right-turning vehicles, while transit
patrons enjoy improved sight distance at intersection crossings when walking to/from
bus stops. Another example of an enhanced amenity is a bus pull out.
P209
VII.a
P210
VII.a
Exhibit D, Code Language
Page 1 of 2
Chapter 26.630
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
Sections:
26.630.010 Purpose and intent
26.630.020 Adoption of Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
26.630.030 Applicability
26.630.040 Review Procedure
26.630.050 Appeals
26.630.010. Purpose and intent.
The Aspen Area Community Plan directs the City to maintain traffic levels at or below 1993
levels in order to protect Aspen’s environment and quality of life. As new development and
growth occur, there are increased impacts to the transportation system, making it more difficult
for the City to meet its transportation and air quality goals. In order to maintain the current
community standards and meet the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, the City has
adopted Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines to ensure new development results in
minimal adverse impacts on our transportation system and air quality.
26.630.020 Adoption of Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.
Pursuant to the powers and authority conferred by the Charter of the City, there is hereby
adopted and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth those standards contained in the
City of Aspen’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, as may be amended, updated and
expanded from time to time by City Council Resolution. At least one (1) copy of the
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines shall be available for public inspection at the
Community Development, Engineering, and Transportation Departments.
26.630.030. Applicability.
This Chapter shall apply to all development, unless expressly exempted in the Transportation
Impact Analysis Guidelines. All Single-Family and Duplex development shall be exempt from
this Chapter.
26.630.040 Review Procedure
A. Review Process. Development meeting the thresholds established in the Transportation
Impact Analysis Guidelines shall be required to conduct a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
meeting the requirements of said Guidelines.
Review for compliance with this Chapter and the Guidelines shall take place in conjunction with
a project’s land use application. In all circumstances, the final land use review body shall
approve the TIA, after considering a recommendation from the Engineering and Transportation
Departments.
For development only subject to administrative level land use reviews, or development meeting a
threshold established in the Guidelines but not subject to a land use review, the City Engineering
and Transportation Departments shall have the authority on behalf of the City of Aspen to
determine the project meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in this Chapter and the
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. When development meets an established threshold
P211
VII.a
Exhibit D, Code Language
Page 2 of 2
but does not require a land use review, review for compliance with this Chapter and the
Guidelines shall be completed as part of the building permit application.
B. Approved Trip Reduction Measures. Trip reduction measures, also known as
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS)
measures, which are approved and implemented for a development pursuant to the
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines shall be maintained for the ongoing for the life of the
development. All requirements shall be incorporated in the project’s Development Agreement,
pursuant to Chapter 26.490, Development Documents.
C. Amendments to Trip Reduction Measures. Off-site MMLOS infrastructure measures that
have been implemented may not be amended at any time. Off-site MMLOS infrastructure
measures that have not been implemented, and any on-site TDM and MMLOS measures, may be
amended as outlined below. Changes shall be reviewed by the Engineering and Transportation
Departments to ensure the proposed change is appropriate given the site’s context.
1. Insubstantial Amendment. Any amendment to TDM or MMLOS measures
resulting in the same or more number of trips mitigated as the original approval may
be approved administratively by the Community Development Department, after
considering a recommendation from the Engineering and Transportation
Departments. A land use application is required, pursuant to Chapter 26.304,
Common Development Review Procedures. The applicant shall demonstrate how the
new measure(s) is appropriate given current site conditions.
2. Substantial Amendment. Any amendment to TDM or MMLOS measures that
reduce the number of trips mitigated shall be reviewed by City Council, after
considering a recommendation from the Community Development, Engineering, and
Transportation Departments. A land use application is required, pursuant to Chapter
26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and the review shall be conducted
in a duly noticed public hearing, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E), Public Notice.
City Council shall find the following standards are met:
a. The proposed change responds to changed site conditions or circumstances,
including but not limited to changes to land uses, site topography, or site plan.
b. The proposed changes will not adversely impact the immediate vicinity.
c. The proposed change meets the original intent of the approved measures.
26.630.050. Appeals.
An applicant may challenge a determination made by the City in their enforcement of the
requirements of this Chapter by filing with the Community Development Director a written
notice of appeal as provided in Section 26.316.030, Appeals procedures, with a full statement of
the grounds for appeal. Appeals shall be reviewed by City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316,
Appeals.
P212
VII.a
Resolution No 17, Series 2014
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 17,
(SERIES OF 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING
CODE AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT A TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM
THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
GUIDELINES.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development
Department received direction from City Council to explore code amendments related to
the creation of a trip reduction and mitigation program for new development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach with City Council regarding the code
amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended adoption of
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy
direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public
hearing on March 10, 2014, the City Council approved Resolution No. 17, Series of 2014,
by a four to zero (4 – 0) vote, requesting code amendments to implement a trip reduction
program through adoption of Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides
direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution implements the City’s
longstanding community goal of limiting, and possibly reducing, traffic across the Castle
Creek Bridge to 1993 levels; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective
The objective of the proposed code amendments is to implement a trip reduction program
through adoption of Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines.
Section 2:
P213
VII.a
Resolution No 17, Series 2014
Page 2 of 2
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 3:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this 10th day of March 2014.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ______________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
P214
VII.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development and
Variances for 549 Race Alley, HPC Resolution #35, Series of 2013
MEETING DATE: March 10, 2014
BACKGROUND: On December 11, 2013, the Historic Preservation Commission approved
Conceptual Major Development Review and Variances for a project at 549 Race Alley, in the
Fox Crossing Subdivision. The project involves lifting the Victorian house on the subject site,
setting it on a new basement, rehabilitating the building and constructing an addition.
In January 2014, City Council passed an ordinance allowing for 750 square feet of floor area that
is not being used in the proposed redevelopment to be converted into 3 Transferable
Development Rights for construction elsewhere in Aspen. As part of the TDR review, staff
should have simultaneously provided Council with notice of their opportunity to Call-up HPC’s
Conceptual design approval, but unintentionally failed to do so until now.
Drawings representing the Conceptual approval are attached as Exhibit A. HPC Final design
review is still needed. Within the Conceptual review, HPC granted sideyard setback variances
and a floor area bonus to incentivize a successful restoration project.
The HPC Resolution and Minutes are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively.
PROCEDURE: This is not a public hearing and no staff or applicant presentation will be made at
the March 10th Council meeting. If you have any questions about the project, please contact the
staff planner, Amy Simon, 429-2758 or amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. Pursuant to Section
26.412.040(B), City Council has the option of exercising the Call Up provisions outlined in
Section 26.412.040(B) within 15 days of notification on the regular agenda.
For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their March 10th or March
26th meeting. If City Council does not exercise the Call Up provision, the HPC Resolution shall
stand.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Conceptual Design
Exhibit B: HPC Resolution #35, Series of 2013
Exhibit C: HPC minutes from December 11, 2013
P215
IX.a
P2
1
6
IX
.
a
P2
1
7
IX
.
a
P2
1
8
IX
.
a
P2
1
9
IX
.
a
P2
2
0
IX
.
a
P2
2
1
IX
.
a
This neighborhood requires 10’ minimum sideyard setbacks, and 20’
combined. HPC allowed a reduction to 5’ where indicated below,
reducing the sideyard on the north to 5’, and the combined setback to
15’. HPC also granted a 500 square foot floor area bonus due to the
significant restoration work the owner will need to complete on the
Victorian.
P2
2
2
IX
.
a
P2
2
3
IX
.
a
P2
2
4
IX
.
a
RECEPTION#: 606828, 12/27/2013 at
09:41:24 AM,
1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), RELOCATION, AND
VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 549 RACE ALLEY,
LOT 5,FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO AND RELOCATION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
LOTS 4 AND 6,FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
RESOLUTION #35, SERIES OF 2013
PARCEL ID: Lot 4: 2737-073-92-004, Lot 5: 2737-073-92-005, Lot 6: 2737-073-92-006
WHEREAS, the applicant for Lot 5 of Fox Crossing Subdivision, Race Alley, LLC, represented
by Charles Cunniffe Architects, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development,
Relocation, Floor Area Bonus, Setback Variances and Residential Design Standards Variances, and
the applicant for Lots 4 and 6, Fox Crossing Properties, LLC, represented by Neiley and Alder
Attorneys, has requested HPC approval for Relocation; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen
Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.0, Relocation of a Designated Property; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive approval for a floor area bonus, the application shall meet the
requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.F; and
WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.La,
Variances; and
WHEREAS, the HPC may approve variances to the Residential Design Standards according to
Section 26.410.020.D; and
WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on October 9th and November 13th and continued for
restudy. At their regular meeting on December 11, 2013, the Historic Preservation Commission
HPC Resolution#35, Series of 2013
Page 1 of 3
P225
IX.a
considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal
consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of 5 to 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Floor Area Bonus, Setback
Variances and Residential Design Standards Variances for Lot 5 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision,
and Relocation approval for Lots 4 and 6 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision, with the following
conditions:
1. HPC hereby approves the project design as represented at the December 11`" hearing,
shown in Exhibit 1 to the meeting record.
2. The Victorian house is approved to be relocated no more than 5' northward of the
existing location.
3. HPC hereby grants a 500 square foot floor area bonus with the requirement that the
applicant remove 3 TDRs from the site, if approved by City Council.
4. HPC hereby grants a north sideyard setback reduction of 5' and a combined sideyard
setback variance of 5'.
5. HPC hereby grants a waiver from the Residential Design Standards related to "Street-
Oriented Entrance."
6. For the temporary relocation of the Victorian house during basement excavation, the
owner of Lot 5 must provide a $30,000 letter of credit, cashier's check, or other form
acceptable to the City Attorney to insure the safe relocation of the house. A relocation
plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during
construction must be submitted with the building permit application, and the applicant
shall include documentation of the existing elevation of the home and the relationship of
the foundation to grade in the building permit application. A permit to relocate the
Victorian will not be issued until the relocation of the log cabins is completed in
accordance with Condition 6, below.
7. For the temporary relocation of the two log cabins (aka"The Line Shacks"), the owner of
Lot 6 must provide a letter of credit, cashier's check, or other form acceptable to the City
Attorney to insure the safe relocation of the houses. The amount of this financial security
will be approximately three times the standard requirement of$30,000 per building, for a
total of $180,000, due to the possible prolonged storage of the structures until
redevelopment is undertaken. The exact dollar amount, and the wording of the
performance requirements, will be reviewed by HPC staff and City Attorney staff, and
approved by HPC at Final review. The owner of Lot 6 must also provide a relocation
plan detailing how and where the cabins will be stored and protected during construction
as part of a building permit application for the relocation work, along with documentation
of the existing elevation of the home and the relationship of the foundation to grade.
Should the HPC approved redevelopment plan (HPC Resolution 45, Series of 2009) for
Lot 6 not be initiated through the issuance of a building permit within three years from
the date that the log cabin relocation permit is issued, City Council will annually review
the effect of the building storage and determine whether or not to employ the funds to
preserve the buildings as needed.
8. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
1) year of December 11, 2013, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan.
Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the
HPC Resolution#35, Series of 2013
Page 2 of 3
P226
IX.a
approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission
may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the
expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months
provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to
the expiration date.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of December,
2013.
ay MaytiVi, Chair
A. roved as to Form:
De ie Ouinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strfeldand, Chief Deputy Clerk
HPC Resolution#35, Series of 2013
Page 3 of 3
P227
IX.a
P228
IX.a
P229
IX.a
P230
IX.a
P231
IX.a
The City of Aspen
city nitorney's Office
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of Council
FROM: James R. True
DATE: March 24,2014
RE: Resolution Authorizing Payment of Ordered Attorney Fees and Cost in
Marks v. Koch, Pitkin County Court Case No. 2009 CV 294.
MEETING DATE: March 24,2014
Background and Discussion: On March 21, 2014, following a hearing conducted in January,
the Judge issued an order awarding fees to Marilyn Marks in the litigation known as Marks v.
Koch, Pitkin County Case No. 2009 CV 294. The Order requires a total payment in the amount
of$195,630.51. This includes attorney fees in the amount of$166,656 and costs in the amount
of$28,974.51. The award incurs interest in the statutory amount of 8% per annum commencing
on March 21, 2014, the date of the order.
This award followed orders of the Court of Appeals and the District Court awarding fees to Ms.
Marks pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act. When attorney fees are awarded to be paid
by one party to another, the law requires that the Court evaluate and determine the
reasonableness of the fees requested. On July 5, 2013, Marks filed a request for a total of
$300,543.96 in attorney fees and costs, which at the time consisted of a claim of$295,579 in
attorney fees and $4,964.96 in costs. The City objected to this amount as being unreasonable.
Following the hearing in January, Marks increased her request to a total of$407,646.17 in fees
and costs, with $377,691.00 in attorney fees and $29,955.17 in costs. Although the amount
awarded by the Court following the January hearing was greater than argued by the City, it
appears to be a reasonable determination and is significantly less than the requests made by Ms.
Marks.
Recommendation: The attorney for Ms. Marks has indicated that she will forgo further
litigation in this matter upon immediate payment of the amount awarded. Rather that pursue this
I
matter any further and to end all litigation with Ms. Marks, staff recommends that Council
authorize the payment of the judgment issued by the court with accrued interest upon the receipt
of an executed Satisfaction of Judgment for filing with the Court. We believe that we can
complete the matter by March 26, 2014; thus, through that date, the total payment would be
$195,844.90.
A resolution authorizing payment is submitted with this memo.
Alternatives: The Council could direct the attorney's office to appeal the Court's decision.
Although there exists legal issues that would justify an appeal, any appeal would incur interest
during the time of the appeal and would subject the City to a claim for additional attorney fees if
the appeal were unsuccessful.
Financial/Budget Impact. This has a financial impact to the general fund in the amount of the
Court's order.
Staff will be available to provide further background and answer any questions.
cc: City Manager
2