HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20241216AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
December 16, 2024
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen
I.Work Session
I.A Entrance to Aspen Pre-NEPA Planning
I.B Work Session discussion - Membership-based Clubs
Zoom Meeting Instructions
Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87514912550?pwd=eZxtZFeoIcbmclJPwQ7yPFA6qa2fiB.1
Passcode:81611
Join via audio:
US +1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 875 1491 2550
Passcode: 81611
International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kuvzJzA6C
2024 12-16 Entrance to Aspen EIS Planning Memo.pdf
Memo_Membership Clubs_12_16.docx
1
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM : Jenn Ooton, Senior Project Manager
Carly McGowan, PE, Senior Project Manager
Lynn Rumbaugh, Interim Transportation Director
THROUGH: Sara Ott, City Manager
Tyler Christoff, PE, Public Works Director
DATE OF MEMO: December 9, 2024
MEETING DATE: December 16, 2024
RE: Entrance to Aspen EIS Planning
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Jacobs Engineering is soliciting input from Council to guide the development of a
“Purpose and Need” and EIS scope, which Council directed staff to pursue in Fall of 2024.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
In the 1990s, Aspen was facing heavy traffic congestion issues, and deteriorating air
quality. In response, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), and the City of Aspen worked together to develop the
Record of Decision that would drive the implementation of transportation improvements
along the Highway 82 corridor between Brush Creek and Aspen. The Record of Decision,
also known as the “ROD”, was the outcome of a multi-year Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) process driven by the National Environmental Policy Act, or “NEPA”. The
Record of Decision is a legal document between CDOT and FHWA that governs
transportation infrastructure improvements and identifies mitigation for environmental
impacts. It is still valid today.
The set of improvements outlined in the ROD and vetted through the NEPA process are
referred to as the Preferred Alternative (“P A”). Over the past 25 years, CDOT, the city
and other regional partners have increased transit connectivity, implemented
transportation management measures including paid parking, constructed the Maroon
Creek Bridge and the roundabout, and realigned Owl Creek Road. The major remaining
piece of the ROD that has not been implemented is the construction of a new Castle
Creek Bridge.
2
The existing Castle Creek Bridge was built in 1961 with a design life of 50 years. That
means that the bridge is more than 10 years past its design life. Increased maintenance
is required on the aging bridge to keep it in a safe and usable condition. During the NEPA
process, 43 alternatives for the alignment of a new Castle Creek Bridge were screened.
In Fall of 2024, Council directed staff to develop a scope for the required NEPA process
to explore alternative options for the Entrance. The scope related to this provides context
for the next phase of work that will take place through first half of 2025. Jacobs
Engineering is preparing the City to open an EIS process should Council choose to pursue
that.
DISCUSSION:
During the December 16th work session, Jacobs will review the first steps of the EIS
preparation efforts with Council. The presentation will go over specific requirements of
the federal NEPA legislation and the procedural pathway for a NEPA project, which is
included in Figure 1. Jacobs will also provide additional information about the purpose
and need, which is one of the most important elements of an EIS. The purpose and need
statement is an explanation to decision makers, the public and stakeholders about why
the proposed project should be implemented. It is the problem statement that identifies
what the project is intended to address.
Figure 1 Procedural Pathway for NEPA Project
The pre-NEPA activities that will inform the purpose and need include a stakeholder
workshop, a listening session with elected officials in the upper valley, a public comment
3
tool, and an assessment of existing conditions such as accident information and existing
planning documents. The technical stakeholders that will be asked to weigh in are shown
below in Figure 2. Council will be asked to provide feedback on the list of stakeholders.
The public comment tool will be intended to gather feedback from the regional population
through the valley.
Figure 2 Proposed Stakeholder List
The presentation will also discuss the potential structure of a project team. The graphic
included as Figure 3 shows a draft version of the project team in the case that NEPA is
initiated. This information is still in draft form and will require final approval from CDOT
and FHWA.
4
Figure 3 Draft Project Team Structure
Council will be asked to provide input on transportation needs, supplemental community
goals, and priorities to be addressed with EIS. Council will also be asked to provide input
on the list of stakeholders for Purpose and Need engagement.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
The project fund including the 2025 budget request has a lifetime budget of $8.5 million
dollars. The 2024 (and previous) allocation is $2 million. The existing appropriation for
project 51578 has a remaining budget in 2024 of $431,596.69.
51578 Project Revenues to Date:
$2,000,000.00 2023 Budget Allocation (carried forward to 2024)
51578 Project Expenses to Date:
$541,840.00 Jacobs Contract - Original
$43,390.25 Jacobs Contract – Change Order #1
$639,829.00 Jacobs Contract – Change Order #2
$298,265.00 Jacobs Contract – Change Order #4
$30,441.00 Probolsky Contract – Polling
$14,638.06 Misc Project Costs (comms, add’l traffic control, etc)
$1,568,403.31 Total Expenses
5
The cost for a new EIS will be developed by Jacobs following development of the Purpose
and Need and EIS scope. The current estimate is between $2-3 million.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
For any construction of the Entrance to Aspen project, the project must follow National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements. The environmental impacts of the
Preferred Alternative were heavily examined during the EIS process in the 1990s.
Should the Council choose to deviate from the Preferred Alternative with an alternative
solution, the environmental impacts will be required to be studied during a new or
supplemental EIS process. The City of Aspen must follow this federal process that
involves the greater community’s input in a similar fashion to the 1998 Record of Decision
and cannot be fully decided by Aspen City Council alone.
ALTERNATIVES:
Council can choose not to pursue the EIS scoping work presented in this memo. Other
alternatives include moving forward with the Preferred Alternative or the “do nothing”
option. Staff does not recommend the “do nothing” alternative.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff does not have a recommendation at this time.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
6
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM:Ben Anderson, Community Development Director
MEMO DATE:December 9, 2024
MEETING DATE:December 16, 2024
RE:Work Session Discussion:
Membership-Based Clubs
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Increasingly, ComDev staff is asked to evaluate zoning limitations and definitions in the
Land Use Code in application to a growing trend – that of membership-based social,
entertainment, or hospitality clubs. While there is a legacy of intention on this topic in the
code, the specific application of imprecise regulation creates uncertainty for staff and
applicants – particularly as this type of organization becomes more prevalent.
In this discussion, staff has intentionally avoided identifying or discussing specific
organizations or businesses that are involved in this topic. The intention is to arrive at
direction and policy that is generally applicable.
Council is asked to give direction on how staff should respond to this topic within our
commercial zone districts.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
The Community, City Council and staff have long prioritized efforts to bring vitality to the
downtown commercial core. These efforts, in a variety of formats, have sought to
encourage a welcoming and vibrant commercial sector in providing services and
amenities for residents and visitors.
While many issues contribute to this larger overall outcome, one topic has become more
difficult for staff to respond to consistently – as trends that are happening elsewhere are
finding their way to Aspen. In New York City, Miami, and Los Angeles, membership-
based social and entertainment clubs have become a much more prevalent presence in
commercial spaces. The concepts that organize these clubs vary considerably, but the
basic premise is a membership (with wildly varying costs) that gives exclusive access to
the club for its members. Sometimes, the membership of these clubs is carefully curated
through an evaluated scrutiny of applicants; others are more open and less exclusive.
Aspen has long-standing, existing examples of private clubs in the downtown core – both
those that are consistent with “fraternal” organizations and those that are more similar to
the new model described above – that are more exclusive in nature both in terms of cost
7
Page 2 of 3
Membership-Based Clubs
and acceptance criteria. Staff is aware of two long-standing, existing clubs that are based
in this second model.
As current staff understands the history of this topic, in a very intentional response to
these existing organizations, the phrase “to the general public” was added to all of the
Use Categories in Land Use Code Section 26.104.110 within the description of all
commercial uses. In application of this language to existing clubs and requests for new
clubs or other membership-based services, staff has taken the following approach:
1) Existing clubs could not expand.
2) New clubs could be based in a membership model, but the general public must
be allowed to access through a “day pass”. The short-term access could be
fee-based, but the general idea is that any member of the public could walk up
and gain access to the commercial space.
Staff have become aware of one additional membership-based club that has already been
established that does not have an option for day passes, one that is proposing to soon
be established that does not have a day pass option, and another that does have a day
pass option. The two without a day pass option appear to be based in a model that applies
scrutiny to who can become a member – and the criteria do not seem to be transparent.
Additionally, staff regularly fields inquiries from others that are contemplating
membership-based concepts.
STAFF DISCUSSION:
To be clear, by bringing this topic to Council, staff is not making a qualitative evaluation
of the contribution of these membership-based clubs to Aspen’s commercial vitality. In
staff’s view though, new clubs that do not have a “day pass” option are in conflict with the
“general public” provisions within the Use Categories established by the LUC.
Staff desires direction from Council on how to proceed.
Options:
1) Enforce on new (those beyond the two, long-standing examples of this model)
membership-based clubs that do not offer a day-pass option. This would take
place within our established progressive enforcement policy. The violation
would be based in the fact that these spaces are not open “to the general
public”.
Or
2) Not enforce and create a new Use Category within the LUC that describes
membership-based clubs and provides allowances and limitations specific to
this use. This would create these types of uses as a distinct “permitted use”
with provisions different from other commercial uses. This would require a
Land Use Code Amendment.
8
Page 3 of 3
Membership-Based Clubs
CONCLUSION:
While Aspen has examples of long-standing, membership-based clubs that have become
non-conformities with our current LUC, staff and applicants have difficulty applying the
code to new concepts. Staff desires clarity in how to respond.
QUESTION FOR COUNCIL:
To restate discussion above:
Does Council agree that membership-based clubs that do not offer a “day pass”
option are in conflict with the current language and intent of the Land Use Code –
and that staff should utilize progressive enforcement in response to these uses?
Or
Should staff not enforce on these uses and instead amend the Land Use Code to
clearly acknowledge and define these uses?
9