Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20170530 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 30, 2017 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Downtowner Discussion II. AHP Main St. Direction P1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John Krueger and Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation Department THRU: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: May 25, 2017 DATE OF MEETING: May 30, 2017 RE: Downtowner Contract Extension SUMMARY Staff requests Council direction on options for the Downtowner service beyond the current contract period, set to expire mid-September 2017. Options for the service include an extension of the contract as it stands, an extension of the contract with changes to the service or the elimination of the service. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION · In April 2016, Aspen City Council approved a pilot on-demand transit program with the Downtowner as the selected vendor. · In August 2016, Council approved an extension of the Downtowner contract through September, 2017. · On May 22, 2017, City Council approved a Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to review transit service and mobility options, including the Downtowner service. BACKGROUND The Downtowner service is the result of Council’s desire to pilot an electric-powered, app-based on- demand service as a means of reducing traffic and parking congestion in downtown Aspen. A Request for Proposals was issued with the Downtowner, the only respondent, selected to operate the service for three summer months at a cost of $89,250.00. The contract with the Downtowner was then extended through mid-September 2017 to allow for a review usage throughout a full complement of seasons. The cost of this service extension was $286,080.00. Since service initiation, the Downtowner has carried 44,106 passengers (through April 2017) via 22,020 trips. The clear majority of this ridership is app driven, with a small percentage of riders accessing service via walk-up. Ridership has experienced seasonal peaks as expected during the summer and winter’s busiest periods. A summary of 2016 and 2017 ridership appears below, with additional data included in Attachment A. P2 I. 2 DOWNTOWNER RIDERSIP rides passengers average wait June- December 2016 10738 22875 5:21 January-April 2017 11282 21231 6:45 TOTAL 22020 44106 User feedback regarding the service has been quite positive and staff secret shopping expeditions have resulted in pleasant interactions and prompt service. However, strong concerns about the service have been expressed by the taxi community. Examples of industry comments include: · A free on-demand service is unfair competition with taxi/shuttle businesses that must charge fares. · Short trips around Aspen’s downtown core are a large part of the taxi business and are eroded by the Downtowner service. · During spring and fall off-seasons, in-town service is an even larger component of the taxi business due to reduced airport traffic. · Expansion of the Downtowner service area and/or hours further competes with taxi and shuttle services (e.g. extension to the Music Tent). · Competition of this nature may result in the loss of driver jobs, reduction of fleet and/or closure of business. DISCUSSION Staff has found that the Downtowner service is well-received by the public, with very few customer complaints received. On-site staff have proven responsive to any issues that have arisen and vehicles operated successfully in winter conditions. The service is also in keeping with Council’s goals of reducing traffic and embracing new mobility. Staff has included the Downtowner as part of the transit service and mobility options to be fully reviewed as part of the Short-Range Transit Plan process that is now underway. Specifically, the transit plan will review options for the Downtowner, or another similar provider, to expand on- demand services to under-served neighborhoods, replace low performing transit routes and/or back up overcrowded routes. Additionally, the study will review other creative options for using on- demand services to further the City’s mobility goals. Finally, the consultant will assist with advice on best practices for limiting impact to existing taxi and shuttle providers. Upon completion of the SRTP, staff plans to issue a Request for Proposals for any new services approved by City Council. To complete the SRTP without compromising service continuity, staff requests that Council approve a contract extension between the City of Aspen and the Downtowner through April of 2018 at a cost of $275,782.00. This cost covers operating the service with the existing vehicles within the current span of 11:00am-11:00pm. For this cost, an extension to the Music Tent is also possible as a means of potentially mitigating the loss of parking spaces that will occur on 4th Street due to the planned pedestrian walkway being implemented this summer. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The cost of extending the Downtowner service through mid-April 2018 is $275,782.00. This funding is not included in the 2017 Transportation Fund and would require a supplemental budget request. P3 I. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS Planning for and implementing improved transit and mobility options aligns with the City’s goal of keeping traffic at 1993 levels while reducing air pollution as well as the current Top Ten goals. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council extend the Downtowner contract through mid-April of 2018, with a full review of the service included in the Short-Range Transit Plan. ALTERNATIVES Council could choose to end the Downtowner contract in September 2017. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Downtowner ridership data P4 I. 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 1743 5370 4696 2329 4 ATTACHMENT A Downtowner Ridership 2329 1080 1366 6291 6208 5970 6491 2562 Downtowner Ridership 2016 - 2017 2562 44106 P5 I. Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager THRU: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: April 26, 2017 MEETING DATE: May 30, 2017 RE: Aspen Housing Partners (AHP) Direction for 802 West Main Street REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Requesting direction from Council on the preferred program which should be included in the development application at 802 West Main Street. BACKGROUND: On April 25, 2017 City Council provided direction for the AHP team to submit development applications for 517 Park Circle (11 units, 3-level) and 488 Castle Creek Road (28 units, 2- and 3-level). At the time, Council requested that staff and the AHP team should return for a work session on May 30 with both 2- and 3-level alternatives for 802 West Main Street. DISCUSSION: Below is a summary of the history of what the AHP team has proposed for 802 West Main Street and the public input received: January 2017 Open Houses  Program: 3-level, 13 units, 15 bedrooms, 10 on-site parking spaces  January 5 & 11 open house events at the Limelight Hotel, approximately 225 people attended  Overall community feedback: General support for the development as designed  Neighborhood feedback: Traffic & parking concerns; Density, height, scale concerns March 2017 Open Houses  Program: 3-level, 11-13 Units TBD depending upon site layout, 4 alternate site layouts provided  March 2 & 8 open house events at the Limelight Hotel, approximately 175 people attended  Site plan with 13 ROW parking spaces was favored  Some comments suggested third story massing is too tall  Some suggested to keep the third story mass at the corner and step down away from the corner April 25 City Council Work Session  AHP team recommended 3-level, 11 Units, 12 bedrooms  Reduction of 2 units / 3 bedrooms as compared to original proposal  Council requested the team return on May 30 with 2- and 3-level alternatives with varying densities May 30 City Council Work Session (Current Work Session)  Four alternatives provided herein: o Alternative 1A, 11 Units/11 Bedrooms, 2-level, gable roofs, 2-story structure in yard o Alternative 1B, 10 Units/10 Bedrooms, 2-level, gable roofs, basement storage, open yard o Alternative 2A, 11 Units/12 Bedrooms, partial 3-level, with 3rd level set back o Alternative 2B, 10 Units/12 Bedrooms, partial 3-level, with 3rd level set back P6 II. Page 2 of 2 In terms of bedrooms per acre, the density of the southern portion of the Bavarian facility which runs along West Main Street to 8th Street compares to the alternatives provided as shown in the table below: Alternative 2A is most like the proposal which was discussed at the April 25 work session, only in this case, the third level has been set back from the second level façade. The attached PowerPoint slide deck provides more information about each of the proposed alternatives including architectural sketches, massing studies and details. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: When Council approves a program for the development applications, AHP proposes to have the construction of the facilities re-estimated and to re-run the financial models for the project as revised to this point. This will provide the City with an update on the effects of the process thus far on the level of contribution which will be needed from the City’s Housing Development Fund in the various tax credit scenarios which are available. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council choose one of the alternatives wh ich best suits the community’s need for affordable housing as well as the needs of the neighborhood and the occupants o f the new facility. Council may otherwise provide staff with direction on what other alternatives Council may prefer. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: PowerPoint slides including architectural sketches, massing studies and details. P7 II. 1Entitlement Application Discussion802 West Main St.Aspen City Council Work SessionMay 30, 2017EXHIBIT A - Page 1 of 22P8II. 2April 3, 2017 Work Session Recap•At the work session on April 25, 2017 Council approved AHP and CoA staff to proceed with developing and submitting land use applications for the 517 Park Circle and 488 Castle Creek Rd. sites•Council requested that AHP and CoA staff provide additional options to the design for 802 West Main St. presented throughout the public outreach process based primarily on feedback from immediate neighborsEXHIBIT A - Page 2 of 22P9II. 33Work Session Goal•At today’s meeting AHP and CoA staff will present four alternatives to the original plan which includes two versions of a new 2 story building and two versions of a revised 3 story building•The goal of the meeting will be to agree on the framework for a zoning application for the 802 West Main St. siteEXHIBIT A - Page 3 of 22P10II. 4Alternatives Matrix – 802 W. Main St.January Public OutreachMarch Public OutreachApril 25 Work Session PlanALTERNATE 1AALTERNATE 1BALTERNATE 2AALTERNATE 2BFLOORS33 3 2 2 3 3UNITS13 11‐13 11 11 10 11 10UNIT MIX11 One Bedrooms / 2 Two Bedrooms11 One Bedrooms / 1 Two Bedroom10 One Bedrooms / 1 Two Bedroom11 One Bedrooms10 One Bedrooms 10 One Bedrooms / 1 Two Bedroom8 One Bedrooms / 2 Two BedroomsBEDS15 13 12 11 10 12 12EXHIBIT A - Page 4 of 22P11II. 5April 25 Recommended PlanView from Corner of 7thand Main StreetsEXHIBIT A - Page 5 of 22P12II. 6April 25 Recommended Plan View from West Main StreetEXHIBIT A - Page 6 of 22P13II. 7April 25 Recommended Plan View from 7thStreetEXHIBIT A - Page 7 of 22P14II. 8April 25 Recommended Parking PlanEXHIBIT A - Page 8 of 22P15II. 9April 25 Recommended Plan Floor PlansEXHIBIT A - Page 9 of 22P16II. 10Southeast perspective from corner of Main & 7thStreetsAlternative 1 – RenderingArchitecture for 2‐story buildingEXHIBIT A - Page 10 of 22P17II. 11Alternative 1 – RenderingArchitecture for 2‐story buildingNortheast perspective from approach on 7thStreetEXHIBIT A - Page 11 of 22P18II. 12Alternative 1A – Plans & Massing11 units | 11 bedrooms w/ storage on grade1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SFSTORAGE1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1A Details:Main Level:•5 – 1‐bedroom units•Storage on gradeSecond Level:•6 – 1‐bedroom unitsTotal:•11 – 1‐bedroom units•Storage on gradeEXHIBIT A - Page 12 of 22P19II. 13Alternative 1A ‐ Summary#ItemOutcome1 Building Massing2‐story primary building form with a 2‐story structure in place of open space2Unit Mix11 ‐ 1 bedroom units3Above Grade Floor Area8,400 sq. ft. 4StorageOn grade within the footprint of the separate 2‐story structureOn‐site Amenity Area‐ Courtyard and Green Space (sq. ft.) 3,612‐ Entry Decks and Balconies (sq. ft.) 1,823Total On‐Site Amenity Area (sq. ft.) 5,4356Relative Quality of Life for Tenants I out of IV7Relative Construction Cost$$$$ out of $$$$8Land Cost per Unit$335,454.559Land Cost per Bedroom$335,454.555EXHIBIT A - Page 13 of 22P20II. 14Alternative 1B – Plans & Massing10 units | 10 bedrooms w/ storage below grade1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1B Details:Basement•Storage subgradeMain Level:•5 – 1‐bedroom unitsSecond Level:•5 – 1‐bedroom unitsTotal:•10 – 1‐bedroom units•Storage subgrade in basementEXHIBIT A - Page 14 of 22P21II. 15Alternative 1B ‐ Summary#ItemOutcome1 Building Massing2‐story primary building form2Unit Mix10 ‐ 1 bedroom units3Above Grade Floor Area7,000 sq. ft. 4 StorageSubgrade basement storage below portion of building footprintOn‐site Amenity Area‐ Courtyard and Green Space (sq. ft.) 4,285‐ Entry Decks and Balconies (sq. ft.) 1,715Total On‐Site Amenity Area (sq. ft.) 6,0006Relative Quality of Life for Tenants II out of IV7Relative Construction Cost$$$ out of $$$$8Land Cost per Unit$369,000.009Land Cost per Bedroom$369,000.005EXHIBIT A - Page 15 of 22P22II. 16Southeast perspective from corner of Main & 7thStreetsAlternative 2 – RenderingArchitecture for 3‐story buildingEXHIBIT A - Page 16 of 22P23II. 17Alternative 2 – RenderingArchitecture for 3‐story buildingNortheast perspective from approach on 7thStreetEXHIBIT A - Page 17 of 22P24II. 18Alternative 2A – Plans & Massing11 units | 12 bedrooms w/ storage on grade1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SFSTORAGE1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF2 BDRM+/‐ 900 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF2A Details:Main Level:•4 – 1‐bedroom units•Storage on gradeSecond Level:•5 – 1‐bedroom unitsUpper Level:•1 – 1‐bedroom unit•1 – 2‐bedroom unitTotal:•10 – 1‐bedroom units•1 – 2‐bedroom unit•Storage on gradeEXHIBIT A - Page 18 of 22P25II. 19Alternative 2A ‐ Summary#ItemOutcome1 Building Massing2‐story building form with a stepped back 3‐story element at the prominent corner2Unit Mix10 ‐ 1 bedroom units; 1 ‐ 2 bedroom unit3Above Grade Floor Area8,600 sq. ft. 4StorageOn grade within the building footprintOn‐site Amenity Area‐ Courtyard and Green Space (sq. ft.) 4,361‐ Entry Decks and Balconies (sq. ft.) 2,280Total On‐Site Amenity Area (sq. ft.) 6,6416Relative Quality of Life for Tenants III out of IV7Relative Construction Cost$$ out of $$$$8Land Cost per Unit$335,454.559Land Cost per Bedroom$307,500.005EXHIBIT A - Page 19 of 22P26II. 20Alternative 2B – Plans & Massing10 units | 12 bedrooms w/ storage on grade1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SFSTORAGE1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF2 BDRM+/‐ 900 SF1 BDRM+/‐ 700 SF2 BDRM+/‐ 900 SF2B Details:Main Level:•4 – 1‐bedroom units•Storage on gradeSecond Level:•3 – 1‐bedroom units•1 – 2‐bedroom unitUpper Level:•1 – 1‐bedroom unit•1 – 2‐bedroom unitTotal:•8 – 1‐bedroom units•2 – 2‐bedroom unit•Storage on gradeEXHIBIT A - Page 20 of 22P27II. 21Alternative 2B ‐ Summary#ItemOutcome1 Building Massing2‐story building form with a stepped back 3‐story element at the prominent corner2Unit Mix8 ‐ 1 bedroom units; 2 ‐ 2 bedroom unit3Above Grade Floor Area8,100 sq. ft. 4StorageOn grade within the building footprintOn‐site Amenity Area‐ Courtyard and Green Space (sq. ft.) 4,361‐ Entry Decks and Balconies (sq. ft.) 2,438Total On‐Site Amenity Area (sq. ft.) 6,7996Relative Quality of Life for Tenants IV out of IV7Relative Construction Cost$ out of $$$$8Land Cost per Unit$369,000.009Land Cost per Bedroom$307,500.005EXHIBIT A - Page 21 of 22P28II. 22Discussion•AHP and staff have provided four design options along with summaries comparing the tradeoffs between them.  •We are requesting guidance in selecting the preferable option for pursuing a land use application at 802 West Main Street.•We are seeking a recommendation that most appropriately balances: •the quality of life for future residents of the property•the need for affordable housing in the community •the interests of the immediate neighborhoodEXHIBIT A - Page 22 of 22P29II.