HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20080421MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
FROM: Jessica Gan•ow, Long Range Planner ~ \V~~
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Council Work Session -- GMQS and Reconstruction Research
Discussion
DATE OF MEMO: April 17, 2008
MEETING DATE: April 21, 2008, S:OOpm
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff would like to discuss the potential of expanding the scope of
work for Gabe Preston of RPI Consulting, who is currently working on a GMQS database and
compilation of Scrape and Replace development over the last ten (10) years. Council has
expressed interest in expanding this section of the AACP Existing Conditions report, which will
require an expanded contract with Gabe Preston and a supplemental allocation for the additional
work. Additionally, because the contract extension would be for more than $25,000 Council will
be required to approve the contract at an upcoming Council Meeting. At this work session,
Staff would like to get direction from Council regarding the expansion of scope and
additional monies required.
DISCUSSION: The Existing Conditions Report that is currently being prepared for the AACP
Update includes a section on the Growth Management System as well as residential Scrape and
Replace development over the last ten (10) years. Staff has contracted with Gabe Preston of RPI
Consulting to produce a detailed Scrape and Replace database and a Growth Management
database. The Scrape and Replace database will track this type of residential development over
the last ten (10) or so years. The GMQS database will track Aspen's residential and commercial
development over time, and will provide a useful tool to the Community Development
Department to continue tracking these in the future. The GMQS database will focus on projects
that have received Growth Management allotments, for instance new mixed-use projects, as well
as projects that have received exemptions from the GMQS system, for instance residential or
commercial remodels. Gabe's current contract requires his work be completed by May 16`h in
order for it to be incorporated into the existing conditions report that is scheduled to be released
on June lst. Gabe's current contract is for $10,000.
As Gabe has pulled building permit data to complete his current scope of work, it has become
appazent that the data can be further analyzed to explain a number of different trends that would
be helpful to include in the existing conditions report. Specifically, the data can be tracked for
all types of development, not just development that has gone through a GMQS process or that
City Council sees in a review. This wi21 give us a picture of the amount and value of all
construction and development occurring in each main sector (residential, commercial, and
lodge). Further, the data can be analyzed geographically to illustrate the level and types of
development that have occurred in different geographical areas of town.
Gabe's analysis of the data has revealed some gaps in the building permit system, especially
before the building permit database was re-organized in 2004. This includes some missing
valuation information, as well as the number of new bedrooms, etc. A manual examination of
building permit files could help fill these gaps and create a more detailed database.
Attached as Exhibit A is a draft scope of work which outlines the process and cost of analyzirig
the data in more depth. The total costs for the "additional core services" would be $13,900,
with a cost of $10,630 more for "additional o tional services," bringing the total cost for
the new services to $24,530. The "additional optional services" include a final presentation to
Council, preparation of maps for use in the AACP update's public meetings, and manual
collection of some data to fill in any gaps that exist in the current data.
Gabe has proposed a six (6) week time frame, which can be shortened to coincide with his
current data delivery date of May 161h. This will increase the overall cost by 15%, but Staff
believes this cost increase is worthwhile to ensure that the existing conditions report is completed
and released on its current June 151 timeline.
FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The additional work proposed in Exhibit A will require a
supplemental allocation, as this work has not been budgeted for in the AACP budget. The First
Reading of the supplemental budget is scheduled on April 28`", one week afrer the work session.
If Council is interested in extending Gabe's scope of work the additional funds could be added to
the supplemental budget at First Reading. The proposed cost of completing this work by May
161h is $28,209.50.
Core Services: $13,900
Optional Services: $10,630
Total: $ 24,530
"Rush delivery" by May 16`n: I S%, or $3,679.50
Total with Rush Delivery: $28,209.50
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends increasing Gabe Preston's existing
contract by $28,209.50 to enable more detailed information on construction history to be
included in the AACP Existing Conditions Report. Staff also requests that this additional money
be added as an item in the Supplemental Budget at First Reading of the Supplemental on Aprii
28`n
ATTACHMENTS:
ExiltstT A -Draft Scope from Gabe Preston
Scope of Work, Timeframe, and Cost Estimate:
Geography and Typology of Aspen's Construction Activity
Prepared by:
RPI Consulting LLC
-`'~ .
Firm for a period of 90 days from April 21, 2008
Gabe Preston
LLC Member
970 382-9886
gabe@rpicons ulting. org
www.rpiconsulting.org
RPI Consullin~, LLC
1911 Main Ave. S[e 224
Durango, CO 61301
(970)362-9866
Gabe@~piconsulring.org
April 14, 2008
City of Aspen Long Range Planning and City Council
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE.• Scope of Work, Timeframe, and Cost Estimate for Geography ofAspen's
Construction Activity Analysis
Jessica, Ben, and Council,
r~
~---~
I----1
l~f~
~_,
~_,
~-~:
~~J
~J
r~
E-_.~
-?_-~
Thanks for giving RPI Consulting the opportunity to contribute to the AACP Existing
Conditions Report. This document contains a scope of work, cost estimate, and timeframe to
expand on the GMQS history and scrape and replace project currently underway to include a
thorough geographic analysis of all construction activity by sector and neighborhood.
The scope of work is flexible and within the limits of available information, we can certainly
include additional research questions and ideas that surface at the 4-21-8 council work session
which I'm looking forward to attending.
In the mean time, don't hesitate to contact me anytime.
Gabe Preston,
LLC Member
1911 Main Ave. Ste. 292
Durango, CO 81501
Gabe@rpicons ulting. org
R
Aspen Area Community Plan Exi.King Condition+ Report Afri! 2008
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
CURRENT CONDITIONS INVENTORY
Resadential Inventory- It wdl be imperative to establish a detailed set of existing conditions for
residential properties to track construction activity in Aspen by neighborhood and by type of
construction (e.g. single family residential remodel, addition, remodel lodge to timeshares, etc..). The
Pitkin County Assessor and the GIS dept. possess the data needed to compile a favly robust database
for tracking the detailed attributes of residential properties. To some degree, we can use Assessor &
GIS data to chart past development trends geographically, While some of the metrics in this
database often do not exactly correspond to those employed by the conurnrnity development dept
(e.g. floor area vs. square footage), it is still extremely usefiil For establishing current conditions for
long range planning.
Cmnrnercral and lodging inventory- RPI has already compiled a commeroia] and lodging land use
inventory for the existing conditions report commercial and lodging buildout study. However, this
analysis was conducted only in the commercial and lodging zone districts. To form the foundation
for an all inclusive construction activity analysis, RPI analysts would need to expand the inventory
to include non-residential land uses in residential zone districts (nonconforming).
GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF ASPEN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
Tracking aU types of cmutntction - Having obtained a building permit data download during the
fieldwork trip in March, RPI's initial assessment is that the building permit data base contains gaps,
but is sufficient for conducting a construction activity analysis for long range planning. Assuming
the initial assessment is accurate, RPI Analysts should be able to provide the following categories of
information about past construction activity:
Valuation is a by far the most consistently available piece of information on a given building
permit and is a good indicator of the quantity construction activity.
Souaze Feet The building permit database has some gaps regarding square footage,
especially for eazly records (pre 4004-ish). While orily some building permit records tell us
the beginning sq. ft., resultant sq. ft, most records contain information about the sq. ft. of the
structwe affected by the permit itself. RPI proposes to merge the building permit database
with the Assessor/GIS database to fill the gaps on the resultant square footage.
Tvae of construction Using a combination of sources including available square footage
information, census codes (where available), .permit description, permit coding, and the
current inventories contained in the Assessor database, RPI proposes to describe the
construction that has occurred under each permit by type. Initially, the types would include:
• New on vacant
• Scrape and replace (already underway)
• Remodel
• Additions
• Minor/repairs & maintenance
ae, tw.~~iinc ua 970-584-9886
Aspen Area Community Plan E.zisting Conditions Report Apri12008
Trackng ctmstrttction by type of land use/sector. Using Assessor/GIS data, RPI would determine the
type of use in the building or on the property where the permits have occured. Categories would
include at mutimum
• Single family residential
• Condos & attached townhomes
• Multi family
• Commercial by sector (e.g. lodging, merchandising, office, etc..)
• Mixed use (e.g. office downstairs, residential upstairs)
Tracking geography of constntctimi activity: To the extent that the parcel numbers in the building
permit database match the Assessor/GIS parcel numbers, and to the extent that address information
is in place to fill parcel number gaps, RPI proposes to link the building permit data to the GIS data to
analyze construction activity by neighborhood. Neighborhoods would include at minimum
• West End,
• Shadow Mountain,
• Cemetery Lane,
• East of Aspen,
• Smuggler Mountain,
• the Core
Trend ana ysis : As one might expect, early building perntit records beginning in 1999 are more
sparse, and they get better and better as time wears on. RPI analysts will set out to conduct the
analysis described ua this scope of work from 1999 to the most current 2008 records and will include
as much as possible about wnstruction in the late 90s & early 2000s, but spotty records could result
in a trend analysis that favors more recent years.
Mamialpaper (nuldnigpennit data collection (optioiutl): As stated above, the building permit database has
some limitations and contains gaps. To guarantee a high degree of accuracy (95°~ & higher), and to
fill the gaps, particularly in the early permits in the database (late 90s and early 2000s) it may be
necessary to conduct a manual search of the building permit records. RPI analysts anticipate that
use of the building permit database should generate results that are of sufficient accuracy for long
range planning, especially for late years. However, if the City wants to ensure a high degree of
accuracy and chart activity in detail for early years, it would be wise to include resources for a manual
paper records search to fill gaps. One advantage of this manual search is that the City would possess
a much more complete digital record of the key elements of construction in Aspen for the past
decade.
PRODUCTS
Written report detailing the results using concise narrative, graphics, and maps submitted as 12 full
color hard copies and digital files.
Database files of all information used submitted to community development and the GIS department
Optional on site presentation to staff, council, and interested citizens and other board members.
Optional] arge format displays of graphics and mans for public meetings.
Kr: r~~.mn..R'.v 970-982-9886
v
v~
3
of
R
2
0
U
s
4
v
.`. x
v
~ ~
m
.
v
3
y
> v
y v 3~
v 3
L
A
G
Q
C
v ~
3
y 3
U
7
b
O
a
0 w
fl 3
.
v
x
O
y
A
x
L
v v
"v.
L
W
7 ~ T 0
•n ~. t '
v
>,
~
« o
n «
C S
O fi
~..
0
W
kj ~ H ~
o y ~+ L
y
~ A d ^ 'i
d G~ d ~+
°°
o ii
'~ ~ Y
y a> ~ N
a o. y n
~ d ~ ~ t .~ Y~ G
0' ~ y
y
W a
+ ~
V y
j
u C O.
d
'~
y
~, b0
a U ti
N F y w .u
y
L
L
3
ti
00
F U o H o H°+ o H o A F
F a G
4
n
0
Aspen Area Community Plan Emisting Conditions Report Apri14008
COST ESTIMATE
Ancillary Expenses
Hours (a) Subtotal (printing/travel/etc) Total
Residential inventory Y4 $145 $9,000 $0 $9,000
Commercial and lodging inventory
(non-conforming) 4 $145 $500 $0 $500
Tracking all types of construction 44 $1Y5 $9,000 $0 $9,000
Tracking construction by type of land
use/sector 8 $145 $1,000 $0 $1,000
Tracking geography of construction
activity I6 $145 $°-.000 $0 $2,000
Trend analysis 6 $125 $]50 $0
$750
Write report Y4 $145 $9,000 $150 $9,150
Prepare database for staff 4 $145 $500 $0 $500
x7. xc . §~ M ~ Yi>rC p r c~ a 2- "w a : t
X Total $Ig~gOp
n~
On site presentation (optional) IB $135 $4,250 $600 $1,8LU
Large format maps for public (optional) 4 $135 $500 $150 $G50
Manual building permit data collection
(principal) ss $IS5 $a.,ooo $soo $+,soo
Manual building permit data collection
(associate) 94 $GS '3 080 '450 2 530
Manual building permit data collection
(total) $6,080 $1,050 $7,190
daa r
F
t
~ P=4'
~ ~a
~ Total $10
630
f= ~
~".
~ ~
~"I.~u~-: ': »:*y
~ .
. c s.
-,:~ ,.
^t
en roumu~~:c nt 970-S8Y-9886