HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20170613
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
June 13, 2017
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Board of Adjustment Interviews
II. Prep for EOTC Meeting
III. Sign Code Check-In
P1
P2
I.
P3
I.
P4
I.
P5
I.
P6
I.
Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC)
Thursday, June 15, 2017- 4:00pm
Location-Snowmass City Hall-Council Chambers
Snowmass to Host and Chair Meeting
__________________________________________________________________________________________
I. 4:00 - 4:05 REVIEW OF DECISIONS REACHED AT THE
MARCH 23, 2017 MEETING
John D. Krueger-City of Aspen
II. 4:05 - 4:15 PUBLIC COMMENT
(Comments limited to three minutes per person)
III. 4:15 - 4:20 CONFIRMATION OF 2017 MEETING DATES
John D. Krueger-City of Aspen
Decision Needed: Confirmation of 2017 Meeting Dates
IV. 4:20 – 4:40 BUDGET UPDATE
Tom Oken-Pitkin County
Decision Needed: None Needed-Information Only
V. 4:40 –5:00 BATTERY ELECTRIC BUS PROGRAM
Dan Blankenship-RFTA & John D. Krueger-Aspen
Decision Needed: Approval of Funding Request
VI. 5:00 – 5:20 UPPER VALLEY TRAVEL PATTERNS ANALYSIS
Brian Pettet-Pitkin County
Decision Needed: Approval of Funding Request
VII. 5:20 – 6:20 UPPER VALLEY MOBILITY STUDY
Ralph Trapani - Parsons
Decision Needed: Next Steps
VIII. 6:20 – 6:40 GRAND AVENUE BRIDGE CLOSURE & RFTA SERVICE PLAN
Debra Figueroa-Glenwood Springs & Dan Blankenship-RFTA
Decision Needed: None Information Only
IX. 6:40 – 7:00 ESTIMATED COST OF INCREASED SERVICE
IN THE BRUSH CREEK CORRIDOR
Dan Blankenship-RFTA & David Peckler-Snowmass
Decision Needed: None-Discussion Only
X. 7:00– UPDATES & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
• Basalt Underpass Verbal Update-Brian Pettet-Pitkin County
P7
II.
ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (EOTC)
March 23, 2017
Aspen-Council Chambers
Pitkin County - Host & Chair
AGREEMENTS & DECISIONS REACHED
Elected Officials in Attendance:
Aspen - 5 Pitkin County - 5 TOSV - 3
Adam Frisch Steve Child Markey Butler
Bert Myrin Greg Poschman Alyssa Shenk
Ann Mullins George Newman Bob Sirkus
Steve Skadron Patti Clapper
Art Daly Rachel Richards
Absent: Snowmass: Tom Goode Bill Madsen
______________________________________________________________________________
Agreements & Decisions Reached:
I. PUBLIC COMMENT
Adriana Lissman provided public comment on bus service to Aspen Highlands. She
complained of bus noise, idling and fumes. She would prefer cleaner quieter buses.
RFTA will address her concerns at its board meeting.
II. CONFIRMATION OF 2017 MEETING DATES
John D. Krueger-City of Aspen
Decision Reached: Confirmation of the proposed 2017 meeting dates.
The meeting dates for 2017 were confirmed as:
• June 15, 2017 Snowmass
• October 19, 2017 Aspen
*An extra meeting was proposed for September 14, 2017 and needs to be confirmed.
The purpose of the meeting would be to follow up on the findings of the UVMS study.
P8
II.
2
III. UPPER VALLEY MOBILITY STUDY (UVMS)
Ralph Trapani, Joe Kracum and Phil Hoffman-Parsons
No decision Needed: Information only
The meeting objective was to provide a review of the UVMS schedule, ridership
forecasts for both LRT and BRT alternatives and capital, operations and maintenance
costs of both LRT and BRT alternatives.
Ridership forecast for 2016 and 2036 are listed below.
A cost comparison of the two alternatives is shown below.
P9
II.
3
IV. DISCUSSION OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE CONNECTIONS TO BUS RAPID
TRANSIT SERVICE
Clint Kinney-Snowmass
No decision Needed: Information only
Snowmass began discussion with the EOTC on the potential for making improvements to
the regional service connections between Snowmass Village and the Intercept lot to
provide enhanced service to the VelociRFTA (BRT) service. During the spring, summer
and fall the regional connections along the trunk line between Snowmass Village and the
Intercept lot are every 30 minutes (this drops to once an hour during portions of the
weekend daytime service in spring and fall.) Snowmass Village would like to receive
EOTC support to explore the potential of increasing regional service from Snowmass
Village to the Intercept lot to approximately every 15 minutes during periods when the
BRT service is operating. This headway would provide a commensurate level of service
that other municipalities within the EOTC receive and would make travelling on the BRT
service more viable going to/from Snowmass Village.
No formal action was taken as this is a discussion waiting on more analysis. It will come
back to the EOTC in the future for more consideration.
P10
II.
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC)
FR: John D. Krueger, City of Aspen
Meeting Date: June 15, 2017
RE: 2017 EOTC Meeting Dates
The following meeting dates are scheduled for the rest of 2017.
• September 14, 2017 Aspen to Host & Chair
• October 19, 2017 Pitkin County to Host & Chair
Decision Needed: Approval of these dates for the rest of 2017
P11
II.
2017 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN PAGE 1
EOTC Transit Project Funding
Actual Actual Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
FUNDING SOURCES:
a)Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax 4,929,637 5,106,873 5,159,000 5,288,000 5,460,000 5,637,000 5,820,000
b)Pitkin County 1/2% use tax 1,462,424 1,438,921 1,225,000 1,262,000 1,300,000 1,339,000 1,379,000
c)Investment income & misc.56,747 75,190 68,000 87,000 79,000 105,000 145,000
d)Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant 1,900,000
Total Funding Sources 6,448,808 6,620,983 6,452,000 8,537,000 6,839,000 7,081,000 7,344,000
FUNDING USES:
1)Use tax collection costs 63,538 41,137 56,257 57,945 59,683 61,474 63,318
2)Administrative cost allocation & meeting costs 21,383 20,334 24,394 25,126 25,880 26,656 27,456
3)Cab ride in-lieu of bus stop safety imprvs 3,561 2,389 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
4)X-Games transit subsidy 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000
5)Brush Creek Intercept Lot operating costs 15,046 32,213 30,000 30,900 31,800 32,800 33,800
6)RFTA contribution (81.04% of 1/2% sales tax)3,994,977 4,138,610 4,180,854 4,285,395 4,424,784 4,568,225 4,716,528
7)No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service - year-round 621,658 621,658 615,726 640,400 666,000 692,600 720,300
8)Grand Ave Bridge construction - transit mitigation funding 335,000
9)Buttermilk lot paving 233,007
10)Valley parking study - RFP scoping 7,957
11)Basalt pedestrian underpass 750,000
12)WE-cycle operational support 100,000
Projects funded from Savings for greater Aspen Area
13)Rubey Park final design, land use & permitting 142,292 3,814 16,094
14)Rubey Park construction 4,168,777 373,181 358,891
15)Upper Valley Mobility Study 137,947 276,057
16)Cell phone transportation data collection 70,000
Future projects
17)Brush Creek Park and Ride improvements (FLAP grant) 3,900,000
18)Buttermilk pedestrian crossing design & preliminary engineering 800,000
Total Uses 9,387,196 6,236,282 6,184,273 9,860,766 5,329,147 5,502,755 5,682,401
EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)(2,938,388) 384,701 267,727 (1,323,766) 1,509,853 1,578,245 1,661,599
EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUS FUND BALANCE 7,225,318 7,610,019 7,877,746 6,553,980 8,063,834 9,642,079 11,303,678
a)sales tax 7.9%3.6%1.0%2.5%3.25%3.25%3.25%
b)use tax 44.9%-1.6%-14.9%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%
c)investment earnings rate 0.49%0.85%0.9%1.1%1.2%1.3%1.5%
Revenue projections:
5/31/2017 17 EOTC.xlsx P12II.
2017 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN PAGE 2
- -
Actual Actual Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL SURPLUS
(excludes projects funded from savings funds)1,372,681 899,643 642,712 (1,323,766) 1,509,853 1,578,245 1,661,599
25% to Snowmass Village Savings until restored to $6,278,787 343,170 224,911 160,678 (330,941) 377,463 249,702 -
remainder to Aspen Savings 1,029,511 674,732 482,034 (992,824) 1,132,390 1,328,543 1,661,599
Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area
plus reimbursement of advance to capital pool 343,170 224,911 160,678 (330,941) 377,463 249,702 -
Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area ($6,278,787 max)5,596,974 5,821,885 5,982,563 5,651,621 6,029,085 6,278,787 6,278,787
Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area
Annual surplus remaining after reimbursement of advances - 564,477 482,034 (992,824) 1,132,390 1,328,543 1,661,599
plus reimbursement for $250,000 pedestrian crossing funding 114,783 -
plus reimbursement of advance to capital pool 914,728 110,255
less Rubey Park funded from Aspen Savings (4,311,069) (376,995) (374,985)
less Upper Valley Mobility Study and cell phone data funded from Aspen Savings (137,947) (346,057)
Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area 1,628,344 1,788,134 1,549,126 556,302 1,688,692 3,017,235 4,678,834
Advances from Aspen and Snowmass Village Savings Funds
remaining balance to reimburse Snowmass Savings for advance to capital pool 681,813 456,902 296,224 627,166 249,702 - -
remaining balance to reimburse Aspen Savings for advance to capital pool 110,255 - - - - - -
5/31/2017 17 EOTC.xlsx P13II.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee
FROM: Dan Blankenship, Chief Executive Officer, Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
DATE: June 7, 2017
SUBJECT: Federal Transit Administration LoNo Grant Application for Battery Electric Buses
Overview and Background:
Over the past 18 months, RFTA and the City of Aspen have been researching the feasibility of a
Battery Electric Bus (BEB) Program. On May 3, the City of Aspen, RFTA, and a group of local
stakeholders participated in a Battery Electric Bus Workshop held at the Aspen Institute.
Representatives from five BEB manufacturers participated in the workshop and much useful
information was exchanged during the daylong event. At the conclusion of the workshop, those
attending agreed that transitioning to BEB’s for a portion of the City of Aspen and RFTA bus
fleets is feasible.
On April 27, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a Notice of Funding Availability
(NOFA) for the Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Section 5339 Low or No Emission Grant Program
(LoNo). This program incentivizes the purchase of BEB’s and other alternative fuel vehicles.
The current administration may reduce funding for or eliminate many FTA-related programs in
the future. As such, FY2017 could be the last year for LoNo grants, and this could be RFTA’s
best opportunity to apply for and capitalize upon this funding for its transition to BEB’s.
RFTA’s Integrated Transportation System Plan (ITSP) and the UVMS planning processes have
accelerated the region’s research on and interest in the feasibility BEB’s. Parsons
Transportation Group (PTG), which is leading the consultant team on both studies, is
recommending that RFTA and the City of Aspen pursue a BEB Program, in order to transition to
a cleaner and quieter bus technology.
RFTA staff believes that an initial fleet of eight BEB’s would provide an adequate number of
vehicles with which to conduct a viable BEB pilot program. Four of the buses would be used on
City of Aspen routes and four would be used initially on RFTA transit routes in the upper
P14
II.
2
Roaring Fork Valley, until issues related to battery range and on-route charging can be
addressed.
PTG’s recommendation is based on a number of factors, including, but not limited to:
• The City of Aspen is concerned that the increasing number of diesel and CNG buses
circulating within Aspen’s core (approximately 500/day during peak seasons) will
eventually degrade the City’s social, environmental and economic vitality.
• An eight-bus fleet can create a viable BEB pilot program and should be competitive for
FY17 LoNo Grant funds, due to the high level of proposed local match.
• The high cost and operational issues associated with LRT and other fixed-guideway
solutions make the interim transition to electric buses appear to be financially feasible,
particularly if LoNo funding is awarded to RFTA.
• The relatively short loops available for buses to operate within the City of Aspen and in
the upper valley, should work well in terms of battery range and access to a central
charging station.
A BEB pilot program is implementable in the short term and can be expanded to regional routes
in the future as part of routine bus replacements, as battery ranges improve.
At its May 11, meeting, the RFTA Board gave conceptual authorization for staff to continue
performing due diligence related to an application for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) LoNo
grant funding for the purchase of eight Battery Electric Buses (BEB’s) and associated charging
infrastructure. The estimated total project cost is $7.6 million.
Subsequently, RFTA Procurement staff solicited proposals in order to obtain a BEB
manufacturer partner for the LoNo grant. Subject to RFTA Board authorization, staff intends to
submit an application to Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) by June 19 which, in
turn, will submit a consolidated LoNo grant, before FTA’s June 26 deadline, on behalf of
Colorado’s rural transit agencies.
Following is a status report regarding several issues that need to be finalized prior to grant
submission, as follows:
1. Obtain authorization to submit the LoNo grant from the RFTA Board of Directors. (To be
requested at RFTA Board meeting on June 8)
2. Confirm potential local match funding contributions from the City of Aspen and the
Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC). (City staff has indicated that a $1
million matching contribution appears workable. The EOTC request will be made at the
June 15 meeting)
3. Select a BEB manufacturer to partner on the LoNo grant with RFTA. (On June 1,
following a competitive proposal process, New Flyer was selected to be RFTA’s LoNo
partner)
P15
II.
3
EOTC Participation Requested:
In 2005, the EOTC provided seed money that enabled RFTA to acquire 4 diesel-electric hybrid
buses. Currently, RFTA believes its LoNo application would be stronger if included the EOTC
as a funding partner. The four RFTA BEB’s funded in part by the LoNo grant would primarily be
used in the upper Roaring Fork Valley and, ideally, to/from Snowmass Village, assuming the
range is sufficient. So, it is anticipated that the upper valley governments will be the primary
beneficiaries of the benefits derived from the BEB’s. The suggested EOTC amount being
requested is $500,000; however, a lesser amount would still be helpful.
Absent an EOTC contribution to the LoNo BEB project, RFTA would decrease the local grant
share by $500,000 and increase the requested LoNo grant share by $500,000, in order to keep
the $7.6 million in project revenue and capital expenditures in balance. This would result in a
$3.9 million local grant share and a $3.7 million LoNo grant share, a matching ratio of 51% local
to 49% LoNo. In staff’s view, this would still be a competitive grant application from a cost-
sharing perspective, but not quite as competitive as it would be with EOTC support. If the
EOTC approves the funding and the LoNo grant is not received, the EOTC would be under no
obligation to provide funding for the project.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this request.
4. Finalize the BEB cost estimate, which could be higher or lower than the estimate
attached below. (It will take additional time to obtain better pricing information now that
RFTA’s LoNo grant partner has been selected. However, it is not anticipated that the
overall project cost estimate of $7.6 million will be exceeded. Also, depending upon the
funding commitment from the EOTC, the estimated LoNo grant share request can be
increased to keep the project revenue in balance, if the EOTC ).
5. Finalize the LoNo grant application. (In progress)
6. Application will be submitted to CDOT June 19
P16
II.
4
Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
1 40-foot Battery Electric Buses (BEB)8 900,000$ 7,200,000$ *
2 Charging Stations (two each)4 80,000$ 320,000$
3 Infratructure Installation 1 80,000$ 80,000$
4 Total N/A N/A 7,600,000$
Sources of Funding Total
5 FY18 Statewide FASTER Grant 1,686,000$
6 RFTA FASTER Grant Local Match 425,000$ **
7 City of Aspen 1,000,000$
8 EOTC 500,000$ ***
9 Additional RFTA Funding 789,000$ **
10 Subtotal Local BEB Funding 4,400,000$ 58%Local
11 Estimated LoNo Grant Funding 3,200,000$ 42%LoNo
Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
12 BEB Cost 8 900,000$ 7,200,000$
13 Diesel Bus Cost 8 500,000$ 4,000,000$
14 Estimated Incremental Cost of BEB Powertrain 8 400,000$ 3,200,000$
*Four buses for the City of Aspen and four buses for RFTA
**Total Estimated RFTA Funding Required 1,214,000$
***Not yet committed 500,000$
LoNo Battery Electric Bus Grant
Preliminary Financing Plan with EOTC Funding
P17
II.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
EOTC MEETING DATE: June 15, 2017
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Upper Valley Travel Patterns Analysis
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Brian Pettet, Pitkin County Public Works Director
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The purchased cellular data (Air Sage) allows for a more thorough mobility analysis of traffic
movements in and out of previously designated cellular zones in the upper Valley (origin and
destination study) and this broader scope of work was not included in the transit oriented (and
recently completed) Upper Valley Mobility Study.
BACKGROUND:
The travel analysis will detail how residents, workers and visitors are traveling into, out from, and
within the Upper Valley, for various times throughout the calendar year, and at the 2036 planning
horizon. Analysis of these basic questions of travel behavior will help public agency staff,
community leaders, decision-makers and others to develop an understanding of the travel patterns
(origins and destinations) present in the community, and how these patterns change throughout the
year. Data can also be used for long-range planning of future transportation investments, and assist
with the prioritization of these investments.
It is assumed that the EOTC, Aspen Institute and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
will pay for the study, contracted through Pitkin County. The project will be carried out by Parsons,
with guidance from the EOTC Staff, and others as designated by EOTC Staff, which could include
CDOT, Aspen Institute, Pitkin County, Snowmass Village, and the City of Aspen.
The EOTC Staff will be responsible for final approval of deliverables and the County will be
responsible for payment to the consultant. This scope of work and associated cost estimate assumes
the following:
• Use of the data delivered by Air Sage for the RFTA Integrated Transportation System Plan
project, per licensing agreement the County has signed with Air Sage.
• Use of the future population and employment analysis applied to the existing ridership, and
subsequent future ridership results completed as part of the ITSP.
• Scope is executed as a separate contract through Pitkin County.
A project kick-off meeting will be held with the EOTC Staff and any EOTC-designated
stakeholders, to review project scope of work, schedule, deliverables, and budget. Potential project
issues will be discussed. Regular (weekly or bi-weekly) communication between the EOTC Staff
and Parsons is expected to discuss progress and findings, and a project meeting to discuss final
deliverables will be held. One presentation to the EOTC will be made.
P18
II.
Analysis
Parsons will review the data provided by Air Sage and develop summary origin-destination tables
that capture the number, type (resident, worker, and visitor), and time (month of year) of trip per the
following general zones:
Into and Out Of Aspen per the following three corridors:
• Cemetery Lane
• Highway 82 North
• Highway 82 South (Independence Pass)
Into, Out Of and Within Primary Regions of the area:
• Snowmass Village
• Snowmass Village Town Core
• Aspen Airport
• Aspen Business Center
• Castle Creek
• Maroon Creek
• Aspen Red Mountain
• Aspen Core
• Brush Creek Intercept lot
Previously acquired Air Sage data from RFTA’s ITSP will be utilized for this analysis. This scope
of work also assumes Pitkin County, City of Aspen, and Snowmass Village have permission from
RFTA to use the future population and employment analysis applied to the existing ridership, and
subsequent future ridership results completed as part of the ITSP.
Parsons will review transportation and land use related plans Pitkin County, City of Aspen, and
Snowmass Village have completed, to help with the understanding of existing information, planned
development and capital projects, and any changes that might influence travel patterns in into, out of,
and within the County.
The following six questions will attempted to be answered as part of this study:
Question 1 – What is coming into the Upper Valley from four screen-lines on State Highway 82
(current and in 2036):
• Castle/Maroon Creek
• Above Brush Creek
• Old Snowmass
• AABC & Airport
Question 2 – How far down valley is it efficient/effective to focus Upper Valley agencies’ interest?
Question 3 – What is the induced (latent) demand of people making a mode shift?
P19
II.
Question 4 – What is the number of people coming in based on expanded capacity at the Airport,
and how does this impact travel in the community beyond the limits of Airport?
Question 5 – What are the level of service trends and number of hours operating at level of service
“F” at the Entrance to Aspen, under a variety of conditions including:
• traffic increases above 1993 ROD levels and at the 2036 planning horizon
• decreased number of buses into Aspen
• increase employee housing
• no new lanes
• at existing entrance
• at preferred alignment entrance
Question 6 – For Snowmass Village, are the travel pattern assumptions being used by the Town for
current studies correct?
Deliverables
Parsons will submit to the EOTC Staff populated origin-destination tables capturing the data
analyzed. Parsons will also submit a summary report describing process and findings. The report
will contain our thoughts on what the travel patterns in the Upper Valley are currently, what these
patterns mean to the Entrance to Aspen, discussion of traffic impacts due to airport redevelopment,
and the existing level of service at the four screen-lines. Additionally, the report will seek to answer
the six questions posed above. One round of comment and review is included in this scope of work
and associated cost estimate.
Schedule
Assuming project kick off around August 1, 2017, the project is expected to be completed by
November 15, 2017.
BUDGETARY IMPACT:
With financial participation from the Colorado Department of Transportation ($50,000 verbally
committed) and the Aspen Institute ($67,000), the EOTC budgetary impact would be $67,000.
RECOMMENDED BOCC ACTION:
Direct staff to confirm CDOT $50,000 contribution, request a $67,000 financial match to
complete this study from the Aspen Institute and approve $67,000 contingent on both.
P20
II.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC)
FR: John D. Krueger-City of Aspen
METTING DATE: June 15, 2017
RE: Upper Valley Mobility Study (UVMS)
______________________________________________________________________
Decision Needed: Next Steps
Parsons will be providing a presentation on the Upper Valley Mobility Study (UVMS).
The presentation will provide a look at the phased BRT alternative including a review of
the components, costs and financing/funding potential sources and scenarios. A recap
of the May 31 public workshop will be provided to the EOTC. The next steps for the
study include the distribution of the final UVMS report and a stage 2 proposal for
continued involvement and implementation of any of the recommended alternative
components.
BACKGROUND:
At the October 2016 EOTC Meeting, the UVMS presentation included the “Project
Purpose and Need” which is to:
• Improve mobility between Brush Creek and Rubey Park
• Reduce the number of buses and congestion in Aspen
• Enhance transit service to make it faster, more reliable and attractive for users
• Support City of Aspen and Pitkin County transportation plans and policies
The technology section of the presentation included a discussion of BRT and LRT
options for vehicles/manufacturers and propulsion and technology comparison of BRT
and LRT.
The January 2017 EOTC meeting included a UVMS presentation on:
• Ridership Forecasting Approach
• Current Bus Operations
• Alternatives Discussion
o BRT Alternative
P21
II.
o LRT Alternative
o LRT Traffic Impacts
At the March 23 2017 meeting, the following information was presented:
• Update on the UVMS schedule
• Ridership forecasts for both LRT and BRT Alternatives
• Capital, operations and maintenance costs of both LRT and BRT alternatives
P22
II.
DRAFT Upper Valley Mobility Study
June 2017 i
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
DRAFT
Upper Valley
Mobility Study
June 2017
Prepared by
P23
II.
DRAFT Upper Valley Mobility Study
June 2017 ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Project As a supplement to Roaring Fork Transportation Authority’s Integrated Transportation
System Plan, a premium level transit service is being considered and analyzed for potential
implementation in the 6.1-mile corridor along State Highway 82 between the Brush Creek Intercept Lot
and the Rubey Park Transit Center in Downtown Aspen, Colorado.
This Upper Valley Mobility Study analyzes the viability of a fixed guideway system (either light rail
transit [LRT] or bus rapid transit [BRT]) in terms of ridership, capital expenditures, and operations
and maintenance costs. The study was commissioned by the Upper Valley’s Elected Officials
Transportation Committee, a board that represents Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, and the Town of
Snowmass Village.
The purpose of this study is fourfold:
Improve mobility between Brush Creek and Rubey Park
Reduce number of buses and congestion in Aspen
Enhance transit service to make it faster, more reliable, and more attractive for users
Support City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County transportation plans and
policies
The Alternatives The alternatives include one LRT alternative and one BRT alternative, with several
alignment and configuration options for each mode. Each mode also includes several technology options
such as diesel-electric or onboard battery-electric propulsion with charging stations for LRT, and
compressed natural gas or onboard battery-electric propulsion with charging stations for BRT.
Both modal alternatives would generally follow the ROD modified-direct alignment improvements.
The modified-direct alignment approved in the 1998 FHWA SH 82 Entrance to Aspen ROD includes
realignment of SH 82 with a four-lane cross section plus dedicated transitway to accommodate
either LRT or BRT from just south of the Maroon Creek roundabout, across the Marolt easement
within a cut-and-cover tunnel, across a new Castle Creek bridge, and connecting with Main Street at
7th Street in Aspen. This alignment was developed to meet all 10 community consensus objectives
in the 1998 Record of Decision and to allow for a phased transit solution that separates transit and
non-transit vehicles.
The Main/Galena end-of-line station option could serve as the line haul/commuter end-of-line station
for either LRT or BRT. Rubey Park would continue its role as the major hub for the local bus services.
The Galena Street pedestrian/transit-way mall concept could provide an attractive, convenient link
between the two stations.
The Costs The estimated capital cost range of the LRT alternative is $428.0 million (base) to $527.8
million (prime). The total annual O&M cost for the minimum LRT alternative ranges from $6 million
P24
II.
DRAFT Upper Valley Mobility Study
June 2017 iii
to $9 million. The estimated capital cost range of the BRT alternative is $159.1 million (base) to
$200.5 million (prime). The total annual O&M cost for the minimum BRT alternative is approximately
$3.2 million.
The Evaluation Ridership is virtually the same for the LRT and BRT. The LRT option would reduce the
number of buses at Rubey Park and would improve air and noise quality more than the BRT option.
However, LRT’s capital cost is more than twice the BRT capital cost. Similarly, the LRT O&M cost is also
twice the BRT O&M cost. For the BRT option, bus service refinement would help reduce the number of
buses and improve efficiency (i.e., higher passenger loads). In addition, using electric buses would
improve the air and noise quality at Rubey Park.
The BRT improvements, when phased in over time, can also set the stage for, and not preclude,
future LRT if desired. All the proposed options would improve sustainability (including energy
usage/saving, and noise/air quality improvements) and the greatest benefit to sustainability would
come from the LRT and Phased BRT options. Because the Phased BRT with refined service plan
option would maintain one-seat rides for the six routes in the UVMS corridor and does not require
transfers, that option provides the best overall transit user experience.
The Recommendation It is recommended that the BRT alternative be phased in as summarized below:
OPERATIONAL PHASES
Optimize service plan for six “interceptible” corridor routes
Phase 1
Replace one Buttermilk and two Snowmass Village route buses with 40-foot electric buses,
$ 5.6 million (7 buses x $800k each)
Phase 2
As technology allows, replace BRT and Valley/SH 82 buses with 60-foot electric buses, $ 30
million (25 buses x $1M each plus $5M battery recharging equipment for all 32 total buses)
Replace remaining route buses with electric buses, $15 million
Retrofit buses to autonomous control, $ 4.9 million plus $0.33 million per bus retrofit
Phase 3
BUILD PHASES
Design($11 million) and ROW acquisition($10 million) for preferred alignment across Marolt
easement, Total-$21 million
Phase 1
P25
II.
DRAFT Upper Valley Mobility Study
June 2017 iv
Build preferred alignment across Marolt easement with New Castle Creek bridge,$81.6
million
Phase 2
Build continuous dedicated bus lanes from Brush Creek to Buttermilk, $ 3.4 million
A hypothetical funding solution is given in the table below and may involve the following elements to
pay for this recommended alternative. FTA and the local jurisdictions will need to expand on this
initial funding options analysis to identify a specific funding package and determine financing
strategies as appropriate.
Table ES-1: Hypothetical Funding Scenario
Phase Cost Funding Source
Operational Phase One – System
Improvements
N/A Use existing funding sources
Operational Phase Two - BRT Electric
Buses with On Board Storage $31.0M FTA Section 5339 Discretionary Bus & LoNo grants –
pay for 60% ($21.6M)
Property tax – new 1-mil levy pays $3M per year; five
years would cover 40% gap ($14.4M) Operational Phase Two - BRT Electric Bus
Charging System
Brush Creek to Aspen =
$5.0M
Operational Phase Three – BRT
Autonomous Control Infrastructure
$4.9 M Additional funding to be identified in future years.
Operational Phase Three – BRT
Autonomous Control Bus Retrofits
$0.3M each ($3M total)
Build Phases One and Two – Design and
construction of Marolt easement crossing
with cut-and-cover tunnel and New Castle
Creek Bridge
$102.6M Would need to issue $110-$111M construction
bond, requiring $10M annual revenue stream.
Potential local sources:
• SH82 BRT lane usage fee - $0.18M per year
• Parking revenue (Aspen Parking Fund) - $1M
per year
• Lodging tax (1.0% in Aspen) - $1.4-$1.7M
per year
• EOTC surplus - $0.5M per year
• Property tax (1-mil levy) - $3M per year
• Sales tax (0.5% in Aspen) - $3-$4M per year
• Utility fee ($3.50-$4.00 per household in
RFTA service area) - $3-$4M per year
P26
II.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee
FROM: Debra Figueroa, City Manager, City of Glenwood Springs
Dan Blankenship, Chief Executive Officer, Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
DATE: June 7, 2017
SUBJECT: Grand Avenue Bridge Closure Transit Mitigation Plan Overview and Issues
Overview:
The Grand Avenue Bridge (GAB) in Glenwood Springs will be closed to traffic from August 14th until
about Thanksgiving, while the new bridge is being constructed. During this timeframe, all traffic
entering and exiting Glenwood Springs to/from I-70 will need to use Exit 114.
CDOT traffic modeling indicates that 30% to 35% of peak-hour traffic (or approximately 700 vehicles
per hour) will need to be reduced in order to keep the delays getting into and out of Glenwood Springs
to less than one hour in each direction. Under the best of circumstances, it is anticipated that significant
traffic backups will occur in the mornings as traffic attempts to get off I-70 at Exit 114. In the
afternoons, major traffic backups on northbound Highway 82 are expected to occur as returning
commuters approach Glenwood Springs from up valley.
In an attempt to mitigate traffic congestion during the bridge closure, commuters will be encouraged to
join carpools, work from home, and flex their work hours. In addition, the City of Glenwood Springs,
CDOT, and RFTA have developed the GAB Transit Mitigation Service Plan, as follows:
Proposed Transit Mitigation Services are:
• Fare Free Shuttle from 27th St. BRT Station to Amtrak Station: 12-15 minute headways
between 5:45am and 7:30pm providing passenger access between the base of the pedestrian
bridge on the south and the 27th Street BRT station via 8th St. and Grand Ave.
• Fare Free Shuttle from West Glenwood Park and Ride to Roaring Fork Market Place: 15-
20 minute headways between 6:00am and 7:30pm travelling between West Glenwood Park and
Ride and the 27th Street BRT Station and the Roaring Fork Market Place along Wulfsohn Rd.
Midland Ave, and Grand Avenue.
P27
II.
• Fare Free Shuttle from West Glenwood Mall to North Side of Pedestrian Bridge (6th St.):
15-20 minute headways between 6:00am and 8:00pm connecting the West Glenwood Springs
Mall and the base of the pedestrian bridge on the north side of I-70 along Donegan.
• Fare Free Grand Hogback Commuter Bus Service: From Parachute/Rifle to North side of
the Pedestrian Bridge (6th St.) - 5 additional eastbound trips in the AM and 6 additional
westbound trips in the PM (that will be extended to Parachute) serving the north side of the new
pedestrian bridge and West Glenwood Mall. All Hogback buses will serve the Garfield County
Fairgrounds where commuter parking will be available. Extensive backup service for scheduled
bus trips is anticipated as well.
Park and Ride Locations:
• Parachute: A lease agreement with a private landowner in South Parachute has been finalized.
RFTA will supply and install fencing, poles, signs, and a bike rack to support parking for 50
vehicles.
• Rifle: Garfield County has agreed to allow bus operations at the Rifle Fairgrounds temporarily
and will supply necessary infrastructure. The Town of Rifle is working with CDOT to stripe the
existing Park and Ride on Railroad Ave. Approximately 100 – 200 parking spaces could be
used at this location.
• Silt: A lease agreement has been finalized for utilization of a parcel on Silver Spur in east Silt
near the existing Co-op bus stop on SH 6 to allow for parking of 50 additional vehicles.
• New Castle: So far, staff has unsuccessfully attempted to work with a property owner to
increase capacity in New Castle by 40-50 parking spaces. At this time, the existing Park and
Ride has capacity to support about 50 additional cars during the transit mitigation.
• West Glenwood Springs Mall: The City of Glenwood Springs will be leasing over 400 parking
spaces at the West Glenwood Mall.
Known RFTA Costs for Transit Mitigation:
The Elected Officials Transportation Committee (Aspen, Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County)
committed to providing $335,000 to RFTA to fund the transit mitigation plan for the anticipated 3-
month+ Grand Avenue Bridge closure for 5 day/week service. Garfield County contributed $25,000 to
help fund a portion of the mitigation operating costs as well. The RFTA Board approved an additional
allocation of $146,000 in the 2017 budget to provide 7 days/week service for the full 117 day fall
season for a total cost of $481,000 in budgeted costs for the GAB transit service. In addition, RFTA
estimates it will incur approximately $80,000 in lost fare revenue by making the Grand Hogback bus
service free during the closure. An estimate of some of the known extra costs that RFTA will incur due
to the GAB Transit Mitigation Service is as follows:
Item Cost
Park and Ride Leases and Improvements $11,500
Additional Employee Housing $29,600
Total $41,100
P28
II.
Unknown RFTA Costs for Transit Mitigation:
RFTA will also be incurring an unknown amount of costs for potential backup services for both the
Grand Hogback and Regional BRT and Commuter Bus services, depending upon demand.
Known City of Glenwood Springs for GAB Project:
The City of Glenwood Springs will bear the brunt of the hardship during the detour. Costs already (or in
process) absorbed by the City include:
1. $188,664 to hire two additional firefighters to assist in response times;
2. $3,813,350 to complete pedestrian improvements ahead of the bridge closures; and
3. $126,000 to create additional temporary parking downtown.
These expenses have drained city reserves and reduced funding for other priority projects. While
these expenses were initiated due to the GAB detour, they are mostly focused on the needs and safety
concerns of our residents and workforce.
There are upcoming projects that the City feels will mainly benefit commuters and help them access
their jobs in your communities.
1. $19,389 for the City’s cost sharing portion of the West Glenwood Mall to North Side of
Pedestrian Bridge;
2. $50,000 for a parking lease with the West Glenwood Mall; and
3. $25,000 for Rapid Flashing Beacons and lighted stop signs to help control traffic at Exit 114.
These costs total: $94,389
The City realizes that additional costs for the detour will arise between now and the end of the GAB
project.
Summary:
City and RFTA staff intend to reach out to the EOTC, Garfield County, and others, as more becomes
known about the additional costs resulting from the GAB project. While extremely grateful for the
support that has already been committed, staff hope that they might be willing to contribute additional
funding for this critically needed effort.
Attachment: RFTA GAB 2017 Service Plan 05-11-17.
P29
II.
5/5/2017 1 P30II.
27th ST. TO AMTRAK
12 minute Headway during Peak
5:45am-9:00am and 2:30pm-7:30pm
15 minute Headway Midday 9:00am-2:30pm
5/5/2017 2 P31II.
GWP&R TO 27th/RFMP
15 minute Headway 6am-9:30am
20 minute Headway 9:30am-2:30pm
15 minute Headway 2:30pm-7:30pm
5/5/2017 3 P32II.
15 minute Headway 6:00am-9:30am
20 minute Headway 9:30am-2:30pm
15 minute Headway 2:30pm-8:00pm
5/5/2017 4
NBRIDGE TO WGW MALL
P33II.
Parachute to North Bridge/6th St.
5/5/2017 5
First Bus departs PARACHUTE at 4:25am
Last Bus departs NBRIDGE at 7:52pm
P34II.
Hogback Route Running Times
5/5/2017 6 P35II.
Thanks!
5/5/2017 7 P36II.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee
FROM: Dan Blankenship, Chief Executive Officer, Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
DATE: June 7, 2017
SUBJECT: Estimated Cost of Providing Increased Service in the Brush Creek Road Corridor
Overview and Background:
At the March 23 EOTC meeting, RFTA was asked to estimate the cost of providing increased
bus service frequency in the Brush Creek Road corridor, particularly in the summer, spring, and
fall seasons. During the winter there is already a high level of service provided and 15-minute
connections to BRT service operating in the Highway 82 corridor are available over major
portions of the day. However, the rest of the year connections to/from Snowmass Village
to/from BRT buses can only be made two times per hour.
Spring/Fall Service Enhancements:
Assuming increases would go into effect in the spring and fall of 2018, service in the Brush
Creek Road corridor could be provided every 15 minutes from 6:15 a.m. until 9:15 a.m. and
from 2:15 p.m. until 6:45 p.m., weekdays. The increases in the Brush Creek Road corridor
would match up well with BRT, which operates every 15 minutes during the peak periods and
every thirty minutes during the midday, weekdays. RFTA would contract with the Snowmass
Village Shuttle to provide this service at an estimated cost of $109,400.
Currently, there is no weekend BRT service during the spring and fall; however, weekend BRT
service is an alternative that is being analyzed as part of the Integrated Transportation System
Plan (ITSP), currently in progress.
P37
II.
2
Summer Service Enhancements:
Assuming service increases would also go into effect during the summer of 2018, service in the
Brush Creek road corridor could be provided every 15 minutes from 6:15 a.m. until 8:45 p.m.
This schedule would match well with BRT service, which is provided every 10 minutes during
the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, and every 15 minutes during the midday and in the early evening.
This service would operate seven days per week (because BRT operates every 15 minutes on
weekends during the summer) at an estimated cost of $185,000.
Total Estimated Cost of Service Enhancements (2017 Dollars):
Snowmass Village Shuttle: Spring/Fall Service Increase $109,400
RFTA: Summer Service Increase $185,000
Total $294,000
Funding for Service Enhancements:
As part of the Integrated Transportation Service Plan several alternatives involving service
increases are being developed for presentation to the RFTA Board at the annual Strategic
Planning Retreat. It is anticipated that the RFTA Board will prioritize the service alternatives for
implementation subject to the availability of funding.
At this point, staff is unable to determine where on the list of priorities the RFTA Board will place
the service enhancements outlined above. Also, staff does not know how much funding RFTA
will have, absent revenue from a ballot measure or other sources, with which to pay for
additional services.
Thank you!
P38
II.
Mandated Sign Code Update Work Session - June 13, 2017
Page 1 of 8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: Work Session: Mandated Sign Code Update
WORK SESSION DATE: June 13, 2017
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council direction on updating the sign code in
accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Reed v. The Town of Gilbert (2015). Staff seeks
specific direction on those items discussed below to inform the development of the Policy
Resolution in compliance with the Land Use Code amendment process. Specific questions for
Council are in bold throughout the memo.
PROJECT BACKGROUND: : In June, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Reed v. Town
of Gilbert, Arizona (Reed) that municipal sign code regulations must be “content neutral,”
meaning that regulations on signage must be focused on the size, type, location and appearance
of signs, not the content of or entity displaying the signage. Simply stated, the Supreme Court
ruled that if you must read the sign to determine if it complies with a regulation then it is not
content neutral. Although this simple statement is accurate, the decision was relatively
complicated, with concurring opinions recognizing distinctions that can be drawn in regulations,
such as government speech and commercial speech versus political and other first amendment
protected speech. Nonetheless, the ruling required communities throughout the country to
review and consider revisions of aspects of the sign code to ensure compliance with the ruling.
On April 18th, staff and Council held a work session to introduce the purpose and process of the
mandated sign code update. This work session is intended to introduce some key discussion
points for Council to consider in anticipation of the Policy Resolution hearing, as well as provide
Council with data garnered thus far from the public outreach process.
DISCUSSION: Based on discussions with stakeholders and the preliminary results of the public
outreach process, the sign code appears to work well for the community. Generally, it achieves a
balance between the dissemination of information and the preservation of the community’s
aesthetic qualities. This code amendment process is purely to ensure that the code complies with
the requirements of the Reed decision.
As was noted at the April 18th work session, the mandate from Reed limits the ability to make
distinctions in the sign code between user groups. For example, menu boxes are presently
available only to restaurants, and political yard signs can be displayed longer than yard sale
signs. Losing the ability to make these types of distinctions means that, in general, the Reed-
mandated amendments may result, depending on Council’s direction, in a sign code that is more
P39
III.
Mandated Sign Code Update Work Session - June 13, 2017
Page 2 of 8
restrictive or less restrictive than the current regulations. This memo outlines specific areas of
the sign code that should be updated and options for those updates.
A brief explanation of the various sign categories is helpful to describe how the Reed
requirements will affect different aspects of the sign code. There are five different categories for
signage:
1. Commercial speech on private property. For example, wall mounted signs on
commercial buildings.
2. Commercial speech on public property. For example, sandwich boards located on the
sidewalk or pedestrian malls.
3. Non-commercial speech on private property. For example, the interpretive signs on the
ACES campus and directional signs on Gondola Plaza.
4. Non-commercial speech on public property. For example, the event banners on light
poles or over Main Street at Third Street.
5. Government speech. For example, the public notice box on City Hall and wayfinding
signs throughout the community.
Each of these categories will be impacted in some way by the Reed amendments. However, they
are treated differently by the Supreme Court. Government has slightly more latitude to regulate
commercial speech (categories one and two) than non-commercial speech (categories three and
four). Government is also afforded exceptions for government speech that has a public safety or
informational benefit. Put another way, government may be able to carve-out exceptions for its
speech that may not be afforded to the other categories.
It is with these categories and framework in mind that staff hopes to discuss several key sign
types and situations with Council and receive direction on how best to address them prior to
drafting the Policy Resolution.
Also of note, an impactful structural change to the regulations will be the way signs are allotted
to specific businesses. In the current code, various sign types are allocated per applicant based
on the use category of the applicant. Commercial uses have different sign allocation from Arts
and Cultural or Residential applicants. These user, and therefore content, based distinctions are
not permitted under Reed. The new regulations may allocate signage based on zone district, not
use category. This enables the code to provide different sign area allocations based on location
in the City, not the content of the sign. This approach has been taken by several communities
across the country. Given the constraints placed on local government by Reed, these types of
structural changes may be an aspect of the sign code amendments over which Council has
relatively little control.
KEY DISCUSSION POINTS: The following specific discussion topics have been distilled
from initial staff and consultant analysis of the sign code and public outreach process and
highlighted for Council’s consideration. Each of these topics will be decision points for Council
within the more restrictive or less restrictive framework when considering draft code
amendments during the ordinance adoption process. In general, staff believes the sign code is
currently working and recommends changes that would comply with Reed while remaining as
close to the status quo as possible.
P40
III.
Mandated Sign Code Update Work Session - June 13, 2017
Page 3 of 8
Staff seeks Council direction on each to begin drafting the policy resolution and sign code
ordinance. For each item, staff provided options for how to amend the code to be Reed
compliant. These options are not exhaustive, and Council may direct staff to explore alternatives
as needed.
Non-Commercial Speech on Public Property
Presently, the code allows for eligible non-profit organizations to use the banner over Main
Street at Third Street to advertise special events. The code also allows for the use of light poles
for the display of special event banners. The City makes these venues available for advertising
special events for public benefit. They are not presently allowed for the display of commercial
speech. That distinction may not be Reed compliant, and the code may have to be amended to be
compliant in a way that could open these venues to commercial and potentially undesirable
speech. The new code must address the use of public property for non-commercial versus
commercial speech.
There are several options available to amend this code section.
1. Simply eliminate opportunities for the use of public property for non-commercial speech.
This would be a more restrictive option.
2. Develop code language that provides the City with the ability to grant a license to use the
property under specified criteria. This approach would be based on ownership of the
light poles and banner by the City, providing it with the ability to make it available to
specific user groups. The ownership of the infrastructure for such signs affords the City
greater latitude, as it is considered government speech, not commercial or non-
commercial speech. This is a less restrictive option.
Staff recommends option two, enabling banners to continue to be placed on light poles and
banners over Main Street.
Yard Signs
This is one of the largest and most challenging categories of signs to reconcile with Reed. It
includes real estate signs, construction signs, political signs, yard sale signs, holiday decorations,
flags and banners. The current code makes distinctions between each type, how long it may be
displayed, at what size and by whom. To be Reed compliant, those distinctions will have to be
combined in some way which provides uniform treatment to all variety of yard sign.
Respondents to the business community survey indicated by a two-to-one margin that the
visibility of signs is the most important factor for their business signs. Within the category of
yard signs, this statistic is relevant to real estate signs, which are intended to make active
property listings know to the public.
Options to address yard signs include:
1. Allow a specified number of yard signs to be displayed per dwelling unit on a year-round
basis. Under this scenario, a property may display any of the above sign types alone or in
combination throughout the year, so long as they do not exceed the number or size
P41
III.
Mandated Sign Code Update Work Session - June 13, 2017
Page 4 of 8
requirements. This option could be less restrictive in that the existing distinctions
between the different types of yard signs is removed and treated the same.
2. A second option would be a combination addressing size and duration for all yard signs.
This may have the practical effect of eliminating specific types of yard sign. For
example, yard signs that tend to be displayed for long periods, such as real estate and
construction signs, might be eliminated due to questions of effectiveness if only allowed
to displayed one at a time not to exceed 90 days per year. This would allow a dwelling
unit to advertise a yard sale, support a political issue and display holiday signage at
various points in the year while preventing the proliferation of signs in residential areas.
Alternatively, distinctions could be made to allow for a smaller yard sign to be displayed
year-round, while a second larger yard sign may have a time restriction placed on it.
There are numerous ways to structure alternatives for yard signs, based on Council’s
preferences related to neighborhood aesthetics, commercial and non-commercial speech
needs. This option would be more restrictive than the current code, because certain
allowances would be eliminated.
Staff requests direction from Council as to whether a more restrictive or less restrictive
approach to yard signs is preferred.
Window Wraps
These are vinyl, adhesive signs placed directly on windows, including commercial content (logos
and business information) and non-commercial content (art and graphics). Window wraps are
permitted as signage, so long as the portion of the wrap that includes commercial content does
not exceed 25% of the total wrap area and 50% of the aggregate window surface of the business.
These are used in a variety of applications.
One of the most common applications is to aid marijuana dispensaries in compliance with state
display requirements. The state requires that products displayed in dispensaries not be visible
from the public right-of-way. To meet this requirement, dispensaries with window and display
case locations that may be visible from the sidewalk wrap their windows with opaque coverings,
which can have a negative effect on the appearance of the building and appeal of the storefront to
pedestrians. However, the visibility requirements may be met through other means, such as
built-in display boxes.
There are two options available to Council to address window wrap signs:
1. Council may choose to limit the area of windows which may be covered by wraps and
window decal signage beyond the current limit of 25% of the wrap as commercial content
and 50% of the window area allowed to be covered. Council may also limit the zone
districts where window wraps are appropriate, based on the character of each zone
district. This would be the more restrictive option.
2. Maintain the status quo regarding window wraps, but require that marijuana businesses
use different methods to meet state separation requirements. This would be the less
restrictive option.
P42
III.
Mandated Sign Code Update Work Session - June 13, 2017
Page 5 of 8
Staff recommends option two, as it addresses some of council’s concern regarding the
extent of wraps on marijuana businesses while permitting others to utilize a sign type that
the public outreach report identifies as important to the business community.
Televisions and Electronic Displays
The current code distinguishes between television displays for commercial and non-commercial
purposes. Commercial television displays must be 32 inches or less, be located at least 15 feet
from a window and be positioned perpendicular to the adjacent right-of-way. Non-commercial
displays must meet the same size and distance requirements but may be positioned parallel to the
adjacent right-of-way. This distinction may have to be eliminated.
Council may address this in several ways:
1. One option would be to allow commercial television displays in the same manner as non-
commercial television displays or further loosen the regulations for both commercial and
non-commercial displays. This is a less restrictive option.
2. A second approach would be to eliminate television displays or subject non-commercial
displays to the more restrictive standard. This may capture televisions used for
entertainment in bars and restaurants and is the more restrictive option.
Staff recommends option one to avoid limiting bars and restaurants from using televisions
for entertainment while maintaining minimum separation from rights-of-way.
Sandwich Board Signs
These are a specific sign type permitted to be located on sidewalks under certain parameters.
The signs must be well-constructed wood or metal “A-frame” structures, where the content
surface may either have a permanent message or chalkboard surface upon which different
content may be written. They are limited to six square feet per side.
Sandwich board signs received mixed responses in the public outreach surveys and open house
questions. Respondents to the Community Survey felt that sandwich boards are the least
appropriate sign type for businesses. But the same respondents indicated sandwich board signs
are the most important sign type for locating businesses. Business community respondents felt
that sandwich board signs were the third most important sign type to their business, after window
signs and wall signs.
The current code permits sandwich board signs in the right-of-way in front of retail and
restaurant businesses only and regardless of zone district. The new sign code must find an
alternative means of regulating sandwich board signs to remove this content distinction. Options
include:
Less Restrictive
1. allow one (or more) sandwich board(s) per parcel in specified zone districts; or
2. allow one (or more) sandwich board(s) per building in specified zone districts; or
3. allow one sandwich board per business in specified zone districts; or
More Restrictive
P43
III.
Mandated Sign Code Update Work Session - June 13, 2017
Page 6 of 8
1. eliminate sandwich boards in all zone districts.
Staff seeks direction from Council as how best to address sandwich board signs.
Signs on Vehicles
Signs on vehicles covers many different sign types from rolling billboards called “Street
Blimps,” to lettering on the side of a construction or service vehicle. The current code makes a
distinction between Street Blimps and Signs on Parked Vehicles, in part, to ensure that rolling
billboards aren’t permitted in the city, but commercial advertising is permitted on vehicles as a
secondary use to their primary use as a vehicle. For example, the Oscar Meyer Weiner car (a
rolling hotdog covered in logos) is not permitted, but the Ace Hardware delivery truck, which
includes large logos and advertising, is permitted. The difference being that the Oscar Meyer
Weiner’s main purpose is advertising, but the Ace truck’s primary purpose is delivery with a side
of advertising.
This distinction may not permitted under Reed. To regulate Street Blimps while not catching
incidental vehicle signage in the regulations, Council may:
1. Direct staff to make amendments that treat all vehicle signage uniformly and permit
vehicle signage for specified time periods. This would be a less restrictive option.
2. Council may direct staff to limit vehicle signage by placing size or other limitations on
vehicle signage, which would prevent a Weiner-sized vehicle sign from complying with
the regulations. However, this may catch larger secondary use vehicle signs in the more
restrictive regulations.
At this time, staff recommends option one, limiting vehicle signage based on a specified
time frame for the display of vehicle signage on parked cars.
Paepcke Park
The current code provides special regulations for non-commercial speech in the park, provided
the applicant obtains a permit and meets various size, structural, timing and content
requirements. This special permit was created to allow for the use of a park for non-commercial
speech, which is not allowed in other parks except in conjunction with a special event.
Staff recommends removing the unique treatment of Paepcke Park from the code and
using standard regulations for the treatment of signs in all public spaces.
PUBLIC OUTREACH REPORT: Beginning in April, staff has conducted a public outreach
process to learn from the public their feelings and preferences regarding signage in Aspen.
Using Aspen Community Voice as the central platform for the dissemination of information and
public comment forum, staff has distributed two surveys, one geared toward community
members and one toward the business community. Staff also held three open houses in May to
provide information and opportunities for comment to the public. Direct outreach was conducted
with stakeholder groups including: ACRA, The Board of Realtors, CCLC, HPC, P&Z and
downtown core businesses. Attached to this memo as Exhibit A is a preliminary Public Outreach
Report summarizing the results from the surveys and open house discussions.
P44
III.
Mandated Sign Code Update Work Session - June 13, 2017
Page 7 of 8
Planning staff coordinated with the Downtown Services Director to do extensive door-to-door
outreach in Aspen’s commercial districts. Over several weeks, the Director visited each business
in the commercial core to distribute project information and surveys with self-addressed
envelopes. Planning staff also visited the SCI and NC zone districts to distribute information and
surveys.
The questions in the surveys cover the same general material but were tailored to their respective
audiences. The intent of the surveys was to gauge public opinion on the current sign regulations,
preferred sign types and locations, the usefulness of various sign types and preferences for the
direction (more restrictive or less restrictive) of the Reed amendments.
Comments on the appropriate number of signs per business in the community survey centered on
one to three signs as being most appropriate. The community survey also indicated that 41
percent of respondents feel the current amount of signage in the community is “too much,” and
36 percent indicated the current amount is “just right.”
Some notable data points from the Public Outreach Report include:
· Community Survey respondents cited locating specific businesses and cultural or civic
amenities as the most important purpose of signage in Aspen.
· Business community respondents indicated that window signs are the most important
sign for their business. They were relatively equally distributed in their preference for
wall signs and sandwich board signs as second and third most important.
· Visibility was by far the most important factor in the effectiveness of signage.
· A nearly equal number of business community respondents felt that allowing more
signage or less signage would be detrimental to their business.
The Outreach Report provides additional data, as well as a summary of the findings to date.
Staff will continue to make the surveys available through Aspen Community Voice until the
Policy Resolution process has completed. Following the adoption of updated sign code
regulations, staff will conduct additional public outreach to provide information and training to
the public and stakeholders on the new regulations.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The contract cost for the sign code update was included in the White
and Smith contract for over-all coordination of the AACP-LUC Coordination process and was
executed in May, 2016. There is no additional cost anticipated with the development and
implementation of the new sign code regulations.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
1. Does City Council support staff recommendations on the items listed above, or does
Council prefer other options?
2. There may be additional items requiring revision in the sign code. In general, does
Council favor a more restrictive or less restrictive approach to the language of those
amendments?
P45
III.
Mandated Sign Code Update Work Session - June 13, 2017
Page 8 of 8
3. Are there specific sign types not addressed in the discussion that Council wishes to
address in the amendments or requests further information prior to the Policy
Resolution?
NEXT STEPS: Following this work session, with Council direction, staff will return with a
policy resolution to begin the formal code amendment process.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Sign Code Public Outreach Report
P46
III.
C O M M U N I T Y O U T R E A C H
S I G N C O D E A M E N D M E N T S U M M A R Y R E P O R T
The Community Development Department is amending the Sign Code (Chapter 26.510 of the Land Use Code)
to bring the chapter into compliance with the requirements of the Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of
Gilbert (2015).
This report summarizes the results of surveys gained from various outreach efforts from April 23 - June 2, 2017.
The public outreach process will continue until the Policy Resolution is adopted in July, 2017.
Unique
website
visits
Visual
preference
votes
3 Open House
Community
Meetings
50+ 302 132 48
Surveys
completed
P A R T I C I P A T I O N S N A P S H O T
Join the conversation at www.aspencommunityvoice.com
Visited at
least one
project page
118
S U R V E Y #1 : B U S I N E S S C O M M U N I T Y S U R V E Y #2 : G E N E R A L C O M M U N I T Y
Total survey participants
P R O F I L E R E S P O N D E N T
Two discrete surveys were created to elicit specific information from the perspectives of the community as well
as Aspen's business community.
26 Total survey participants 22
81.5%
18.5%
Have owned business for over 11 years
Have owned business for 6-10 years
76.9%
15.4%
7.7%
Are located in the MU zone district
Are located in the CC zone district
Are located in the C-1 zone district
65 years + years of age
50 - 64 years of age
30 - 49 years years of age
18 - 29 years of age
City of Aspen residents 27.3%
36.4%
22.7%
13.6%
52%
D I R E C T O U T R E A C H
ACRA
Aspen Board of Realtors
CCLC
Door-to-door business
outreach (Downtown
Service Coordinator)
HPC
P&Z
P47
III.
A . F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E B U S I N E S S C O M M U N I T Y S U R V E Y
Retail
23%
Restaurant
19%
Lodge
4%
Service
15%
Office
27%
Non-Profit
8%
Other
4%
0
0.75
1.5
2.25
3
Hanging SignsSandwich BoardWall SignWindow DecalVisibility
62%
Location
15%
Materials/Appear
23%
Finding: Professional Office use
comprised the majority of survey
respondents, closely followed by retail and
restaurant businesses.
Finding: Hanging signs were the least
important sign type for the business
community.
Finding: The business community indicated
visibility was the most important factor for
signage.
B U S I N E S S T Y P E S
S I G N T Y P E S
F A C T O R S
Question: What signs are most
important to your business? Please
rank in order of importance.
Question: What is the most important factor
for your signage?
Question: What type of business are you?Responses 16%
32%
26% 25%
P48
III.
0
2
4
6
More signsFewer signsNo sand boardsMore sand boardsLimit sign/bldg8
10
0
5
10
15
More signsFewer signsNo sandwich boarMore sand boardsLimit sign/bldgA . F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E B U S I N E S S C O M M U N I T Y S U R V E Y
(C O N T I N U E D )
Finding: Business owners indicated the
strongest detriment to their business
would be limiting the amount of signage
per building.
However, large numbers of respondents
indicated that more signs would be
detrimental to business.
D E T R I M E N T
B E N E F I T
Finding: 32% of respondents indicated the
greatest benefit to their business was
largely the ability to have more signage.
However, 31% responded that limiting the
amount of signage per business in some
way would be beneficial.
Question: What change to Aspen's signage
would be the most detrimental to your
business? Please check all that apply:
Question: What changes to Aspen's
signage would be most beneficial to your
business? Please check all that apply: ResponsesResponsesMore signsFewer signsNo sandwich boardsMore sandwich boardsLimit the amount ofsigns per buildingMore signsFewer signsNo sandwich boardsMore sandwich boardsLimit the amount ofsigns per building 32%
15% 15%
12%
16%
21% 21% 21%
13%
26%
P49
III.
B . F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E C O M M U N I T Y S U R V E Y
0
5
10
15
20
Hanging SignsSandwich BoardWall SignWindow DecalFinding: Consumers of Aspen businesses
favored hanging signs and wall signs equally,
with window decals a close second.
Consumers found sandwich board signs to be
the least appropriate for the City of Aspen.
L O C A T I O N F A C T O R S
Question: As a consumer in Aspen, what types
of signs do you find most appropriate in
Aspen? Please check all that apply.
P R E F E R R E D S I G N A G E
Locate Specific
39%
Locate New
27%
Civic/Rec/Cult
31%
Other
4%
Question: Business signage is important for
(check all that apply):
1) Finding a specific business;
2) Finding new businesses;
3) Finding Civic, Recreational, and/or Cultural
facilities; and
4) Other
Finding: Respondent were most concerned with
using signage to locate specific businesses
within the City of Aspen.
Hanging Signs
15%
Sandwich Board
34%
Wall Sign
25%
Window Decal
26%Question: What signs do you feel are most
important to being able to find stores? Rank in
order of importance.
Finding: Sandwich boards were ranked as most
important for consumers to locate businesses.
Hanging signs were ranked as the least
important.
S I G N A G E F O R L O C A T I N G
Finding specific
businesses
Finding new businesses
Civic/
Recreational/
Cultural
29% 27%
15%
29%
P50
III.
B . F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E C O M M U N I T Y S U R V E Y (C O N T I N U E D )
Finding: 41% of respondents felt the
existing amount of signage too much,
leading to a cluttered appearance.
A M O U N T O F S I G N A G E
Question: The amount of signage in
Aspen's commercial areas is:
1) Not enough; it is hard to find
businesses, services and amenities I want
to visit.
2) Just right, I know where businesses are
located and how to get there.
3) Too much; buildings are sidewalks
appear cluttered.
C . S T A F F A N A L Y S I S A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
Not enough
23%
Just right
36%
Too much
41%
There are common themes between the results of the Community and Business survey, which
reflect some of the comments received in open houses and the direct outreach process. In
general, the community seems happy with the status quo when it comes to signage.
Businesses feel that the amount of signage available to them is adequate. Residents generally
feel that the amount of signage in town aids in finding what they need.
There are two noteworthy contradictions. First, community members felt that sandwich board
signs are both the least appropriate sign type for Aspen and the most important sign type for
finding businesses and amenities. This may be due, in part, to the clutter associated with
sandwich boards in the right-of-way contrasted with the proximity of those signs to building
entrances and the relevance of the information provided on a sandwich board sign.
Second, the business community is split on whether more signs would be beneficial or
detrimental to the success of their business. This may be attributed to the perceived individual
benefit of more or highly visible signs for a specific business, but the over-all detriment to
aesthetics and way-finding caused by too much signage in commercial areas.
P51
III.