Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20140520 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 20, 2014 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Lodge Incentive Program Update II. Castle Creek Hallam Connectivity Study May 20, 2014 Council Work Session – Lodging Page 1 of 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: Monday, May 20th, 5:00pm Council Chambers RE: Lodging Incentive Program REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council direction to move forward with code amendments for a lodge incentive program. Staff believes the discussion has reached a point where it should move into the public realm through public hearings. Staff will continue to refine the proposals and will continue public outreach as the code amendments work their way through public hearings. If Council gives the go-ahead, staff will present a Policy Resolution at the May 27th regular Council meeting. BACKGROUND: One of City Council’s Top Ten Goals is to “Implement an incentive program for the short-term bed base.” This goal came about partly because of the recognition that Aspen has lost a significant amount of our bed base since the 1990s. Between 1995 and 2006, the city lost 27% of the bed base – including both traditional hotels as well as condominium rentals. Staff began working on this goal by gather existing conditions information and working extensively with the lodging and condominium community. Through those efforts, the City learned that over 40% of our bed base is in condominium rentals, that more families are visiting and they demand larger units, and that the city process is unwieldy and unpredictable. We’ve also learned through the 2013 lodging economics study by EPS, that basic free-market units that are not required to be in the rental pool continue to be a critical economic engine for lodge upgrades and redevelopment. Staff has met with City Council in a number of work sessions since the fall of 2013 and received direction on key aspects of a potential lodge incentive program. Staff has also worked extensively with the lodging and condominium community to ensure the incentives proposed will have a positive impact on lodging in Aspen. In preparation for this work session, staff has continued to meet with representatives from the lodging and development communities to determine if the potential changes will, in their opinions, result in investment and improvements to the bed base. Staff has also met with the Planning and Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission to gain feedback on the potential direction. Staff will summarize these comments in the presentation at the work session. GENERAL: As part of an incentive program, staff is proposing the following three (3) distinct use categories: • Lodge –A building or parcel with individual units that allows periodic overnight short-term rental to the general public for a fee, can have multiple ownership structures, and includes guest P1 I. May 20, 2014 Council Work Session – Lodging Page 2 of 8 amenities, such as a front desk, concierge services, pool/hot tub, gym facilities, meal service, shuttle services, ski storage, etc. Occupancy by one person or entity is limited to 30 consecutive days and 90 days in one calendar year. (This is an existing type of use.) • Vacation Residences – An individual free-market residential dwelling unit within a multi-family or lodge project that allows periodic overnight short-term rental to the general public for a fee. A Vacation Rental Unit complex may include guest amenities typically found in a lodge. Occupancy by one person or entity is limited to 6 months in one calendar year, and the unit must be available for short-term rental the remainder of the year. (This is a new type of use.) • Free-Market Residential Unit - An individual free-market residential dwelling unit within a multi-family or lodge project that is not required to allow periodic overnight short-term rental to the general public. Occupancy is not limited. (This is an existing type of use.) In the past, staff has referred to the Vacation Residences as condominium units and hybrid units. The intent is to encourage wholly-owned residential units that are available for rent throughout the year, much like the units at the Viceroy Snowmass, or the Gant. Staff believes these are the types of free- market residential units Council has expressed interest in promoting as part of a lodge incentive program because they contribute to the bed base. Staff continues to believe some assurances that there units will function as short-term rentals is needed. DIMENSIONS: There are a number of dimensional changes staff proposes as part of a Lodge Incentive Program. These are outlined briefly below and in the zone district sheets attached as Exhibit A. Height: Throughout the outreach, staff has heard that some additional height is needed to justify investment in an existing lodge or to make a new lodge work. In general, feedback from Council and from the community has indicated height for a fourth floor for properties closer to the mountain may be appropriate, while lower heights in neighborhood lodges is most appropriate. Staff proposes high increases in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone and the Lodge (L) zone, and proposes height limits in all other zone districts remain the same. • For the RFM zone, staff proposes a height increase from the current 25-32 feet to 25-36 feet, depending on the density of the project (higher heights if more units are provided). • For the Lodge zone, staff proposes maintaining the current limits of 28-40 feet for two and three story buildings, and allowing a fourth floor only through a Planned Development review. Staff is suggesting no set height limit for the fourth story to allow applicants and City Council flexibility in addressing unique site and project characteristics through the Planned Development review. Unit Size: When staff met with City Council in March, Council expressed a desire to include unit size limitations for lodge units, vacation residencies, and free-market units. The proposed unit size limitations, which would be the same across all zone districts, are based on outreach with the lodging and condominium communities, as well as the city-commissioned studies related to unit demand. P2 I. May 20, 2014 Council Work Session – Lodging Page 3 of 8 • Lodge Units – 1,000 square feet, which can be expanded to 2,000 square feet through the landing of a TDR. This represents a new code limitation. Staff believes it is important to include a size limit on lodge units that relates to the market demand analysis conducted in the city studies. • Vacation Residences – 1,500 square feet, which can be expanded to 2,500 square feet through the landing of a TDR and Special Review approval. This represents a new code limitation because it is a new use and is consistent with the existing free-market residential unit size limits. • Free-market Residential units – 1,500 square feet, which can be expanded to 2,500 square feet through the landing of a TDR. This is the same base limitation that is currently in the Lodge and RMF zones, and the same maximum limitation in the commercial zones. There has been discussion that allowing some increases to unit sizes and allowing the combination of units might help some units be more rentable or enter the short-term rental pool. Staff has some concerns that significantly increasing allowable unit sizes could have the opposite effect, and could result in a unit functioning more like a single-family home than a short-term rental unit. This concern has been echoed by some condo experts and by the Planning and Zoning Commission. As such, staff proposes that lock-offs, which would allow flexible unit configurations, be permitted, but that the largest combination of lock-offs associated with any one unit be limited by the unit size caps listed above. In the proposal above, staff has included the landing of TDRs as a way to increase unit sizes. The use of TDRs continues to be a high priority for staff. The program, which preserves historic resources by removing development pressures from historic properties, relies on demand for TDRs. Staff recommends incorporating TDRs to the extent possible in order to continue the success of this historic preservation program. Floor Area: Staff proposes to maintain the existing overall floor area caps in all the zone districts, with some minor changes in use categories. For instance, increasing the allowed lodge floor area in all zone districts to the same as the overall cap to make it easier for a property owner to build an entire lodge project. Free-Market Residential Uses: As mentioned above, staff’s outreach has indicated free-market residential uses help fund lodge redevelopment. There have also been discussions on how much residential space should be permitted within lodge projects. If the city’s goal is to encourage short-term rentals in vacation rental units and lodge units, those uses should be prioritized in zoning. Currently the amount of free-market residential space allowed is based on the size of the lodge units – the smaller the average lodge unit the more free-market residential floor area is allowed. The following table summarizes the current allowances in the Lodge Zone District: Average net livable area of individual lodge units on the parcel Free-market residential FAR as a percentage of total lodge unit and affordable housing net livable area Greater than 600 square feet 5% 600 square feet 15% P3 I. May 20, 2014 Council Work Session – Lodging Page 4 of 8 500 square feet 40% 400 square feet 50% 300 square feet or less 60% Rather than tying free-market residential floor area to lodge unit size, staff proposes comparing lodge net livable to free-market residential net livable so it’s more of an apples-to-apples comparison. Staff proposes the following ratios: Density of Hotel, Lodge, and Vacation Units on the Parcel Maximum free-market residential net livable area as a percentage of the total Hotel/Lodge/Vacation unit net livable area Total Hotel/Lodge/Vacation units is less than one unit per seven- hundred-and-fifty (750) square feet of Net Lot Area. 25% (can be increased by up to 15% through Planned Development Review) Total Hotel/Lodge/Vacation units is one or more units per seven- hundred-and-fifty (750) square feet of Net Lot Area. 35% (can be increased by up to 15% through Planned Development Review) It is important to note that staff continues to work on these percentage and they will likely be increased. Staff is using a basic development proforma to test various levels. In addition, staff proposes allowing free-market residential uses only be allowed in the Lodge Zone District if they are associated with a lodge or vacation rental unit project. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: Staff proposes a number of changes to the Growth Management Quota System to help facilitate lodge and Vacation Residence development. Multi-Family Replacement Program: As was indicated in the Barriers to Condominium Development study, one of the main hurdles to condominium upgrades is the multi-family replacement program. Currently, if a residential unit has ever housed a local working resident it cannot be demolished or combined with another unit without providing mitigation in the form of built units on the project site. This location requirement has prevented many multi-family complexes from redeveloping because the density required by the location requirement exceeds what is allowed under zoning, or is deemed as unworkable by the complex. Staff proposes the following changes: 1. Place time limits on the effectiveness of the program such that mitigation under this program is not required if the Multi-Family Housing Units have been used exclusively as tourist accommodations or by non-working residents for the past ten (10) years for properties in the Lodge (L) zone district, and twenty (20) years for properties in all other zone districts. 2. Allow the use of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit and off-site units to be used to meet the requirements, rather than requiring all replacement units all be built on-site. Lodge Mitigation: One barrier existing lodge operators and potential lodge developers indicate as a significant hurdle for a successful upgrade, remodel, or new development, is the amount of affordable P4 I. May 20, 2014 Council Work Session – Lodging Page 5 of 8 housing mitigation required. They feel the code requirements do not match with their operational needs. The current lodge mitigation requirements are on a sliding scale based on lodge unit sizes. The smaller the average unit size, the less mitigation is required. Staff recommends simplifying the system by no longer basing it on unit size, and suggests establishing a minimum number of affordable housing units required on-site based on lodge size. Priority could be given to a lodge manager or other staff that need to be nearby or on-call to respond to emergencies and guest needs. Staff proposes the following changes: 1. If the project contains a minimum of one (1) lodge unit per seven hundred and fifty (750) square feet of net lot area and participates in the City’s Lodge Incentive Program, the following affordable housing mitigation standards are recommended: Number of Lodge Units Affordable Housing Unit Requirement current 60% mitigation rate would be 1 – 10 Units No Requirement 1.08 FTEs – 3.6 FTEs 11 – 25 Units 1.75 FTEs 3.96 FTEs – 9 FTEs 26 – 50 Units 3.5 FTEs 9.36 FTEs – 18 FTEs 51+ Units 5.25 FTEs 18.36+ FTEs 2. If the project contains a minimum of one (1) lodge unit per seven hundred and fifty (750) square feet of net lot area and does not participate in the City’s Lodge Incentive Program, the following affordable housing mitigation standards are recommended: Number of Lodge Units Affordable Housing Unit Requirement current 60% mitigation rate would be Up to 2 Units No Requirement No Requirement 3 – 10 Units 1.08 FTEs 1.08 FTEs – 3.6 FTEs 11 – 25 Units 3.96 FTEs 3.96 FTEs – 9 FTEs 26 - 50 Units 9.36 FTEs 9.36 FTEs – 18 FTEs 51+ Units 18.36 FTEs 18.36+ FTEs Lodge Allotments: One barrier for potential lodge development is the number of allotments available in any one year. There are currently 112 lodge pillows available in any one calendar year. Each lodge bedroom is considered to have 2 lodge pillows, resulting in the ability to add 56 total lodge bedrooms in any one year. This represents a 1.5% annual growth rate. City Council decided to rollover 2013 lodge allotments into 2014, so this year there are 224 lodge pillow allotments available. Staff proposes there be no limit on lodge allotments in 2014 and 2015 as an incentive to get lodge projects to apply under the incentive program and that every subsequent year be limited to 202 pillows. The latest pillow count shows 10,085 pillows in Aspen, for a 2% growth rate of 202 pillows per year. Even with this increased number, there remain concerns about this being a barrier. Free-Market Residential Allotments: Staff proposes continuing with the 0.5% growth rate established for free-market residential, which would be 19 units. P5 I. May 20, 2014 Council Work Session – Lodging Page 6 of 8 Vacation Residences Allotments: Staff proposes allowing a 1% growth rate for new vacation residences, which would be 38 units. DEVELOPMENT FEE CHANGES: The main incentives for major reinvestment will continue to be height, affordable housing, and free-market residential use. A predictable process and lower fees are still important and can make a big difference for projects. In previous discussions Council asked staff to aim for a 50% reduction in “city fees.” In order to get to 50%, larger reductions for general fund services are being proposed. This will allow enterprise programs such as the water department to remain unaffected. Staff is recommending fee reductions based on the level of program a lodge or vacation residence is pursuing (basic, standard, standard plus) and whether the project contains free-market residences. Below are the suggested reductions. Program level w/o Residential w/Residential Basic 50% waiver 25% waiver Standard 75% rebate 50% rebate Standard Plus 100% rebate 75% rebate Staff recommends the basic projects receive fee waivers. This allows a project to simply pay less for the permit. Standard and Standard Plus projects would be eligible for fee rebates. This would require full payment upon permit with a payment back to the applicant over 5 years. These advanced projects would involve a development agreement with some ongoing performance and reporting requirements. The City would need to budget for these annual rebates. Staff suggests a significant reduction for right-of-way encroachment and construction parking fees. This current fee offsets service needs but is also established to encourage minimal impacts to public property, both in physical footprint and duration. The fees can be sizeable. The reductions may be a combination of outright fee reductions and/or a no charge period such as a season or two for free. Staff still recommends applicants be required to make reasonable efforts to minimize footprint and duration. NON-DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES: While development incentives are an important part of any incentive program, there are existing lodges that are not interested in adding rooms or doing a redevelopment. Instead, they are interested in maintaining and improving their existing product. Staff has worked with a number of these properties to determine different incentives that may assist them. Staff has not evaluated the financial impact these would have to the City, but will if City Council is interested in exploring any of these incentives. Grants: Some small lodges have a difficult time with basic maintenance and upgrades. Grants and loans were identified by at least four lodges as one of the main ways the city could assist them. While there is interest from small lodges in a grant program, others in the community are not in favor of outright grants. The concern is twofold – 1) an outright grant does not require any “investment” by the property owner and may not be based on wise business principals. And, 2) a grant may simply postpone a difficult business decision. P6 I. May 20, 2014 Council Work Session – Lodging Page 7 of 8 A possible better use of City funds may be to purchase a deed restriction, insuring that a lodge will remain a lodge in perpetuity. This may require more funds up front, but may have a greater long-term value to the community. If the Council is interested in a grant program, staff suggests matching grants and requesting lodges show some financial argument for the investment and possibly their financial need. The amount of grant money available would need to be budgeted each year. Loans: A low or zero interest loan program was also identified as desirable by several lodges. The City could establish a program for zero interest loans to assist these properties. There is much less resistance in the community for a loan program, likely because it still requires a business-based decision. Staff recommends this be included in the lodging incentive program. The amount of loan money available will also need to be budgeted annually. Amenity Evaluation Program: A number of lodges thought an evaluation by Stay Aspen Snowmass on what amenities or services the lodge could add that would attract increased visits would be a benefit. Others indicated they know what they need to upgrade, but funding is the primary reason they have not done so. The City likely has a minimal role in this, but lodges implementing amenities identified in an evaluation could get priority in any loan or grant program. Parking Passes: Every small lodge we talked with indicated free street parking passes for their guests would be a significant help for them. The very small lodges (15 or so units) indicated about 20 passes per unit would help them, while the larger small lodges (50 or so units) indicated 75 passes per unit would help them. The lodges also indicated that having parking passes that are good for smaller increments of days (2-day passes or 4-day passes, for instance) would be helpful. Parking in the Right-of-Way: A number of lodges felt having a few dedicated parking spaces adjacent to the lodge would help accommodate check-ins as well as longer term parking for their guests. Many of the small lodges have parking in front of the lodge that could be licensed to the lodge for a period of time through an encroachment license. Transportation: A number of lodges located in the neighborhoods as well as further down on Main Street expressed interest in increased transit service that drops visitors closer to their doors. One idea was to expand the cross-town shuttle service to go into the Shadow Mountain neighborhood, or to coordinate with RFTA to have more stops on Main Street. Pull-outs: One lodge expressed interest in adding a pull-out that would enable cars to stop at their lodge and go in to check availability and rates. This is likely infeasible along Main Street, but could be possible along some side streets. Marketing: Another area of interest from the small lodges is a coordinated marketing campaign that highlights their properties as options for travelers. Again, the City likely has little role in this, but it has been raised a number of times so staff wanted to include it here. QUESTION FOR COUNCIL: Does City Council support moving into public hearings to discuss policy changes for a Lodge Incentive Program? Staff suggests this program is ready for public vetting. Many of the policies need refinement and this is natural and desirable to happen in the context of public hearings. P7 I. May 20, 2014 Council Work Session – Lodging Page 8 of 8 NEXT STEPS: If City Council gives the go ahead to move into code amendments, staff will present a Policy Resolution on May 27th and if that is approved proceed directly into 1st and 2nd readings on code language. ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A: Zone District Dimensions P8 I. Exhibit A, Page 1 | Zone District Sheets Existing Dimensions Proposed Dimensions Lodge (L) Zone District Height: 28 - 42 feet, depending on density and Commercial Design Review Ability to go to 4th floor through PD Review Overall FAR: 2.75:1 Lodge & Vacation Residence FAR: 2.5:1 Free-Market Residential FAR: Density Lodge, and Vacation Units on the Parcel Maximum free-market residential net livable area as % of the total Lodge/Vacation unit net livable area Less than 1 Lodge/Vacation unit per 750 sf of Lot Area. 25%, can be increased by up to 15% through Planned Development Review More than 1 Lodge/ Vacation unit per 750 sf of Lot Area. 35%, can be increased by up to 15% through Planned Development Review Free- Market Unit Size:1,500 sf, may be expanded to 2,500 sf by landing a TDR Lodge Unit Size: 1,000 sf, may be expanded to 2,000 sf by landing a TDR Vacation Residence: 1,500 sf, may be expanded to 2,500 sf by landing a TDR and Special Review Height: 28 - 40 feet, depending on density and Commercial Design Review Overall FAR: 2.75:1 if lot is greater than 27,000 sf; 2.5:1 if lot is less than 27,000 sf Lodge FAR: 2:1 Vacation Residence FAR: N/A Free-Market Residential FAR: Average net livable area of individual lodge units Free-market residential FAR as a % of total lodge unit and AH net livable area Greater than 600 sf 5% 600 sf 15% 500 sf 40% 400 sf 50% 300 sf or less 60% Free- Market Unit Size: 1,500 sf, may be expanded to 2,000 by landing a TDR Lodge Unit Size: None Vacation Residence: N/A P9 I. Exhibit A, Page 2 | Zone District Sheets Existing Dimensions Proposed Dimensions Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone District Height: 28 feet for two-story elements; 36-40 feet with Commercial Design Review; 38-40 feet if lodge units average 450 sf and with Commercial Design Review Overall FAR: 2.5:1 Lodge FAR: 2.5:1 Vacation Residence FAR: 2.5:1 Free-Market Residential FAR: .25:1 Free- Market Unit Size:1,500 sf, may be expanded to 2,500 sf by landing a TDR Lodge Unit Size: 1,000 sf, may be expanded to 2,000 sf by landing a TDR Vacation Residence: 1,500 sf, may be expanded to 2,500 sf by landing a TDR and Special Review Height: 28 feet for two-story elements; 36-40 feet with Commercial Design Review; 38-40 feet if lodge units average 450 sf and with Commercial Design Review Overall FAR: 2.5:1 Lodge FAR: 2:1 Vacation Residence FAR: N/A Free-Market Residential FAR: .25:1 Free- Market Unit Size: 1,500 sf, may be expanded to 2,000 sf by landing a TDR Lodge Unit Size: N/A Vacation Residence: N/A P10 I. Exhibit A, Page 3 | Zone District Sheets Existing Dimensions Proposed Dimensions Ski Base (SKI) Zone District Those of the Lodge Zone DistrictEstablished through a Planned Development Review P11 I. Exhibit A, Page 4 | Zone District Sheets Existing Dimensions Proposed Dimensions Lodge Preservation Overlay (LPO) Height: Underlying Zone District FAR: Underlying Zone District Free- Market Unit Size:1,500 sf, may be expanded to 2,500 sf by landing a TDR Lodge Unit Size: 1,000 sf, may be expanded to 2,000 sf by landing a TDR Vacation Residence: 1,500 sf, may be expanded to 2,500 sf by landing a TDR and Special Review Height: Underlying Zone District FAR: Underlying Zone District Free- Market Unit Size: Underlying Zone District Lodge Unit Size: None Vacation Residence: N/A P12 I. Exhibit A, Page 5 | Zone District Sheets Existing Dimensions Proposed Dimensions Commercial Core (CC) Zone District Height: 28 feet for two-story elements; 38-40 feet if located on the North Side of the street and for a lodge use and with Commercial Design Review Overall FAR: 2.75:1 Lodge FAR: 2.5:1 Vacation Residence FAR: Not Permitted Free-Market Residential FAR: Not Permitted Free- Market Unit Size: Not Permitted Lodge Unit Size: 1,000 sf, may be expanded to 2,000 sf by landing a TDR Vacation Residence: Not Permitted Height: 28 feet for two-story elements; 38-40 feet if located on the North Side of the street and for a lodge use and with Commercial Design Review Overall FAR: 2.75:1 Lodge FAR: .5:1, may be increased to 2.5:1 if units average 500 net livable sf or less Vacation Residence FAR: N/A Free-Market Residential FAR: Not Permitted Free- Market Unit Size: Not Permitted Lodge Unit Size: 1,500 sf Vacation Residence: N/A P13 I. Exhibit A, Page 6 | Zone District Sheets Existing Dimensions Proposed Dimensions Commercial (C-1) Zone District Height: 28 feet for two-story elements; 36-38 feet if located on the North Side of the street and for a lodge use and with Commercial Design Review Overall FAR: 2.5:1 Lodge FAR: 2:1 Vacation Residence FAR: Not Permitted Free-Market Residential FAR: Not Permitted Free- Market Unit Size: Not Permitted Lodge Unit Size: 1,000 sf, may be expanded to 2,000 sf by landing a TDR Vacation Residence: Not Permitted Height: 28 feet for two-story elements; 36-38 feet if located on the North Side of the street and for a lodge use and with Commercial Design Review Overall FAR: 2.5:1 Lodge FAR: .5:1, may be increased to 2:1 if units average 500 net livable sf or less Vacation Residence FAR: N/A Free-Market Residential FAR: Not Permitted Free- Market Unit Size: Not Permitted Lodge Unit Size: 1,500 sf Vacation Residence: N/A P14 I. Exhibit A, Page 7 | Zone District Sheets Existing Dimensions Proposed Dimensions Mixed Use (MU) Zone District Height: 28 - 32 feet Overall FAR: 2:1; For properties in the Main Street Historic District, 1:1 which may be increased to 1.25:1 through Special Review Lodge FAR: .75:1, may be increased to 1.25:1 through Special Review Vacation Residence FAR: 75:1, may be increased to 1.25:1 through Special Review Free-Market Residential FAR: Net livable area equal to the total net livable/leasable of the other uses in on the parcel, up to .75:1 Free- Market Unit Size:1,500 sf, may be expanded to 2,500 sf by landing a TDR Lodge Unit Size: 1,000 sf, may be expanded to 2,000 sf by landing a TDR Vacation Residence: 1,500 sf, may be expanded to 2,500 sf by landing a TDR and Special Review Height: 28 - 32 feet Overall FAR: 2:1; For properties in the Main Street Historic District, 1:1 which may be increased to 1.25:1 through Special Review Lodge FAR: .75:1, may be increased to 1:1 through Special Review Vacation Residence FAR: N/A Free-Market Residential FAR: .5:1, may be increased to .75:1 with equal amount of Affordable Housing Free- Market Unit Size: 2,000 sf, may be expanded to 2,500 sf by landing a TDR Lodge Unit Size: 1,500 sf Vacation Residence: N/A P15 I. Exhibit A, Page 8 | Zone District Sheets Existing Dimensions Proposed Dimensions Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone District Height: 28 - 32 feet Overall FAR: 1.5:1 Lodge FAR: 1.5:1 Vacation Residence FAR: 1.5:1 Free-Market Residential FAR: .25:1, may be increased to .5:1 with equal amount of Affordable Housing Free- Market Unit Size:1,500 sf, may be expanded to 2,500 sf by landing a TDR Lodge Unit Size: 1,000 sf, may be expanded to 2,000 sf by landing a TDR Vacation Residence: 1,500 sf, may be expanded to 2,500 sf by landing a TDR and Special Review Height: 28 - 32 feet Overall FAR: 1.5:1 Lodge FAR: 1:1 Vacation Residence FAR: N/A Free-Market Residential FAR: .25:1, may be increased to .5:1 with equal amount of Affordable Housing Free- Market Unit Size: 1,500 sf, may be expanded to 2,000 sf by landing a TDR Lodge Unit Size: 1,500 sf Vacation Residence: N/A P16 I. Exhibit A, Page 9 | Zone District Sheets Existing Dimensions Proposed Dimensions Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District Height: 28 - 36 feet depending on density Lodge FAR: Not Permitted Vacation Residence FAR: .75:1 - 1.75:1 depending on density Free-Market Residential FAR: .75:1 - 1.75:1 depending on density Free- Market Unit Size:1,500 sf, may be expanded to 2,500 sf by landing a TDR Lodge Unit Size: Not Permitted Vacation Residence: 1,500 sf, may be expanded to 2,500 sf by landing a TDR and Special Review Height: 25 - 32 feet depending on density Lodge FAR: Not Permitted Vacation Residence FAR: N/A Free-Market Residential FAR: .75:1 - 1.5:1 depending on density Free- Market Unit Size: 2,000 sf, may be expanded to 2,500 sf by landing a TDR Lodge Unit Size: Not Permitted Vacation Residence: N/A P17 I. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM : Tyler A. Christoff, P.E., Senior Project Manager THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer DATE OF MEMO: May 12, 2014 MEETING DATE: May 20, 2014 RE: Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Study: Project Kickoff Worksession SUMMARY: Staff seeks Council input and guidance regarding pedestrian, bicyclist, and traffic safety on the Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Study. BACKGROUND: Open Space and Trails Board members along with Engineering, Parks, and Transportation staff have identified the Castle Creek Bridge and Hallam Street corridor as deficient link in Aspen’s bicycle and pedestrian network. Due to topographic, property, and geometric constraints safe travel options are limited throughout this area. The Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Study follows the ideals of The City of Aspen Civic Master Plan (CMPAG) adopted by City Council in December 2006. The Plan states “Aspen’s future should be one in which the automobile plays a smaller role in people’s everyday lives. Other modes of travel should be made as safe and convenient as possible to facilitate that goal…the level of investment in…more and better bikeways and walkways should increase.” During the January 7th 2014 worksession, staff and Open Space and Trails Board members presented the Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity project as a priority to City Council. Council members directed staff to return to Council with a design contract addressing feasibility options for this corridor. Council approved the staff recommended professional services contract with Loris and Associates during the April 7th 2014 regular Council meeting. This project is currently in the data collection phase. Staff has utilized Loris and Associates professional engineering services to gather Right of Way, property and topographic data as well as study the constraints of the existing Castle Creek Bridge structure. Loris and Associates have outlined their initial findings in the Hallam corridor Study – Castle Creek Bridge Draft Design Memo (Attachment A). Due to the complexity of the structure and adjacent topography the Castle Creek Bridge was identified as a controlling factor in the design of the corridor. P18 II. Within the context of this project there are opportunities for the City to:  Improve pedestrian safety through better pedestrian/traffic interactions, including treatments for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.  Improve Aspen’s East-West pedestrian and bike connectivity  Update and enhance Castle Creek Bridge connections to adjacent roadway, pedestrian, bicyclist infrastructure.  Improve the existing bus stop location  Enhance pedestrian safety by examining existing crossings and pedestrian patterns  Improve the crossing infrastructure including ADA accessibility upgrades.  Engage the Trail and Open Space Board Members and other stakeholders during the design process  Engage the Colorado Department of Transportation Staff and other stakeholders during the design process  Engage the community and other stakeholders during the design process  Re-evaluate past corridor study, planning, bridge analysis and cost estimation  Provide alternatives that don’t exclude any future “Entrance to Aspen” design NEXT STEPS: After City Council and Trails and Open Space Board input, staff will work with the Loris and Associates team to refine graphics for the public outreach portion of the project. The team will extend its outreach to other primary stakeholders during this period. The group will incorporate data collected and input received during this phase into an Alternative Analysis Report. This report will be shared with City Council in a future work session. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibit A -- Hallam corridor Study – Castle Creek Bridge Draft Design Memo Exhibit B -- Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Study Scope Area   P19 II. Design Memo -- DRAFT Date: May 15, 2014 To: Tyler Christoff (City of Aspen) From: Pete Loris (Loris and Associates) Subject: Hallam Corridor Study – Castle Creek Bridge BACKGROUND Loris and Associates (Pete Loris and Max Condiotti) held a teleconference with CDOT Staff Bridge (Behrooz Far and Ali Harajli) on April 30, 2014. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss how the Castle Creek Bridge (Structure No. H-9-B) cross section could be altered to more safely accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The bridge is currently configured with two 12 foot lanes, two 2 foot shoulders and two 5 foot raised sidewalks (see the upper left cross section depicted on Attachment 1). According to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, in order to accommodate both bikes and pedestrians, there should be at least one 10 foot wide minimum (12 to 14 foot preferred) multi-use path crossing the bridge. The existing Castle Creek Bridge is 423 feet long and was constructed in approximately 1963 (Attachment 2). The structure has a recent history of abutment and pier issues. It currently has a Sufficiency Rating of 62 based on the 9/5/2012 Structure Inspection and Inventory report. Our discussions essentially resulted in the following concerns for the project: 1. The existing bridge is over 50 years old and is nearing the end of its useful life. A new structure added to the existing structure would run the risk of becoming obsolete if and when the Castle Creek Bridge is replaced, although the bridge is not currently scheduled for replacement. 2. The existing bridge has a recent history of abutment and pier rotation problems as referred to by Messrs. Far and Haraji. Any bridge modifications should not increase the forces on these elements. This would steer the project to options that do not add or at least minimize the addition of loads to abutments and piers. There was not as much concern in the teleconference over the capacity of superstructure elements. 3. The addition of new foundation elements for the widened structure could cause potential issues with differential settlement between the new and existing structures. This would steer the widening to a completely independent structure. 4. The addition of pier columns could require additional right-of-way because the existing right-of-way is only 60 feet wide at the bridge. 5. The bridge widening should not preclude future Entrance to Aspen options. This is difficult to assess because an ETA alternative has not been selected. Previously presented alternatives will be evaluated, including the Cut and Cover Preferred Alternative Alignment of the August 1998 Record of Decision State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen (CDOT Project STA 082A-008. P20 II. Hallam Corridor Study – Bridge Design Memo DRAFT May 15, 2014 – Page 2 6. Aesthetics of widened structure should be considered. 7. Although this was not specifically discussed in the meeting, the bridge is now over 50 years old and is considered historic. Modifications to the structure will need to be approved by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). OPTIONS We discussed three options for the bridge widening: 1. Add a short cantilevered section to the pier cap to accommodate the multi-use path. This would not require additional columns and is similar to the lower middle concept depicted on Attachment 1. 2. Extend the abutment and pier caps and add columns to the outside of the existing bridge. This would be similar to the upper right concept depicted on Attachment 1. This is an Entrance to Aspen (ETA) concept presented by SGM. 3. Provide a separate, independent bridge for the multi-use path. Option 1 (Cantilevered Section) LORIS previously presented an option to widen the bridge (lower center cross section of Attachment 1) that includes a portion of the pier cap to be removed and a new structural system to be installed to support the multi-use path. Steel beams and decking could be designed to accommodate the path; however, the pier cap has inadequate shear capacity to carry the new outboard beam. The cap would need to be strengthened with a new concrete cap that would likely need to be post-tensioned to attach it to the existing structure. ADVANTAGES  Does not widen the bridge footprint.  Keeps multi-use path traffic close to the road and general direction of traffic. DISADVANTAGES  May not be supported by CDOT.  Could add long-term financial responsibilities to the city depending on the terms of an IGA with CDOT.  May have a short life based on the life of the existing bridge.  Adds stress to existing pier caps, columns and foundations.  Complicated analysis and design of an old bridge with a potentially significant number of unknowns to be discovered during construction.  Would not work for the Reversible Lane options of ETA.  The bridge cross section is likely to not be symmetric so aesthetics could be a concern.  Bridge modifications could require historic clearances. Option 2 (Extend Cap & Add Column) This option provides a pier cap extension that is supported at its end by a new pier column. The new pier cap would be connected to the existing cap as a continuous or simply-supported structure which simplifies the new load path on the existing structure (as opposed to Option 1), although additional load will be added to the existing structure. P21 II. Hallam Corridor Study – Bridge Design Memo DRAFT May 15, 2014 – Page 3 ADVANTAGES  Keeps multi-use path traffic close to the road and general direction of traffic.  Provides an easier to analyze and design pier and abutment construction with potentially less additional force on the existing substructure elements (less than Option 1).  Would work for the Reversible Lane options of ETA. DISADVANTAGES  May not be supported by CDOT.  Could add long-term financial responsibilities to the city depending on the terms of an IGA with CDOT.  Widens the bridge footprint possibly requiring right-of-way.  May have a short life based on the life of the existing bridge.  Adds stress to existing pier caps, columns and foundations.  Analysis and design of an old bridge with a potentially significant number of unknowns to be discovered during construction.  Differential settlement between existing and proposed foundations could take place.  The bridge cross section is likely to not be symmetric so aesthetics could be a concern, although potentially less of a concern than for Option 1.  Bridge modifications could require historic clearances. Option 3 (Separate Bridge Structure) This option would construct a new multi- use path bridge adjacent to the existing structure. The new bridge could be any reasonable structure type, including steel truss, steel or concrete girder, arch or cable. ADVANTAGES  The addition will have a life independent of the existing bridge.  Does not increase load and stress to the existing structure.  Eliminates the unknowns of modifying an existing old structure.  Differential settlement is not an issue because the new and existing structures are independent.  Could work for any existing or proposed ETA option if sufficient space is provided between the existing and proposed structures.  Could have any aesthetic.  Would not require historic clearances. DISADVANTAGES  Separates the multi-use path from the road.  Depending on what side of the existing bridge the new bridge is built, right-of-way may be required. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above factors, the teleconference attendees agreed that the most desirable structural alternative to provide additional multi-use capacity along the Hallam Avenue corridor is to construct a new, independent bridge adjacent to the existing Castle Creek Bridge. This is based on the above factors and does not consider how the separated bridge affects bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. P22 II. Hallam Corridor Study – Bridge Design Memo DRAFT May 15, 2014 – Page 4 Our discussion did not include costs. Costs should be considered in future analyses; however, it is likely that modifying the existing structure would have a cost comparable to (if not greater than) constructing a new bridge. This is because of the higher inherent cost and contingencies associated with structural removals and construction on an old bridge. The cost advantage of a new, independent bridge could become more apparent when life cycle costs are considered because the new bridge would have a life expectancy of at least 50 years; whereas, the life of adding onto the existing structure is dependent on the life expectancy of the existing bridge, which can be assumed to be less than 20 years. A major cost item of the separate bridge will be construction of piers that can be up to 68 feet tall. Constructing a two or three span structure instead of copying the five span arrangement of the existing Castle Creek Bridge would save substructure costs. If a three span bridge is considered, spans would be approximately 140 feet long, which are within reason for girder or truss bridges. ADDITIONAL COMM ENTS The Hallam Connectivity Study will evaluate options that include a separate bicycle and pedestrian structure. Once bicycle and pedestrian connectivity are evaluated and if it is deemed necessary to have the additional bicycle and pedestrian capacity on the Castle Creek Bridge itself or immediately adjacent to the bridge, the bridge widening would be revisited and justified using a rigorous structural, cost and life cycle analysis. In addition, other options that include reducing existing vehicular lane width to increase sidewalk width would be evaluated more thoroughly. Cc: Joe Elsen, Behrooz Far, Ali Harajli, Max Condiotti P23 II. HALLAM STREET \ CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE CONNECTIVITY STUDY CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE - PRELIMINARY CONCEPTS May 20, 2014 P2 4 II . P25II. ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HWY 82 N 7TH ST N 8TH ST N 6TH STW SMUGGLER ST S N E A K Y L N CEMETERY LN W BLEE KER ST HARBOUR LN P O W E R P LA NTRD W HALLAM ST M E A D O W S R D W NORTH ST W FRANCIS ST B A R N A R D P A R K C T W NORTH ST W NORTH ST N 8TH ST W FRANCIS ST 10 15 521 225709721727729716718307634630733729721717701700712716726427707 90 5 93 0 94 9 41 6 90 8 92 6 93 0 93 6 93 9 93 1 92 3 91 5 91 1 58 0 51 0 59 5 60 4 91 2 9 1 0 90 0 650 50 4 525520 93 5 92 5 91 5 83 3 83 1 82 3 82 1 81 4 81 4 81 4 700 81 4 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 91 0 715630655 735708720728730620 92 8 12 1 21 7 806 83 4 817825 721 46 0 91 8 92 0 92 2 58 5 205790715725735720730734736800810820822 50 5 91 6 417 81 6 49 0 58 0 57 5 50 7 50 5 50 3 50 1 81 4 94 7 94 5 94 1 93 9 93 7 10 8 0 ¯ 0 1 6 0 3 2 0 4 8 0 80 Fe e t Ca s t l e C r e e k B r i d g e P e d e s t r i a n / B i c y c l e C o n n e c t i o n ro a d n e t St r u c t u r e s Pa r c e l co n t o u r _ 1 f t P26II.