HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.201911181
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
November 18, 2019
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I.WORK SESSION
I.A.City Grant Program Review
I.B.Affordable Housing Projects Update
1
MEMORANDUM
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Karen Harrington, Quality Director
THROUGH:Alissa Farrell, Interim Asst. City Mgr./HR Director
Sara Ott, City Manager
CC: Gena Buhler, Wheeler Executive Director
MEMO DATE:November 13, 2019
MEETING DATE:November 18, 2019
RE:Proposal to Develop Options for Grants Management
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
This memo is to request Council guidance on exploring key questions related to the City’s grant
processes. Direction from Council will allow for options to be developed and brought back for
further consideration.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen administers a variety of grants programs that enhance the offerings of local
non-profits. The non-profits add to vibrancy of the community in a wide variety of ways, including
but not limited to enhancing the arts, recreation, and health. For the 2020 funding year, reviewers
recommended the distributions outlined in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1. 2020 Recommended Monetary Awards through Grant Programs
Grant Program 2019 Recommended Award Amount
Health and Human Services - IGAs $288,891
Health and Human Services - Grants $199,364
Wheeler Opera House Arts Grants $370,000*
Community Non-profit Grants $477,460
Parks and Open Space Grants $33,000
Economic Grants (X-games placeholder)$145,920
TOTAL $1,544,635
Table 2. 2020 Recommended In-Kind Awards through Grant Programs
Grant Program 2019 Recommended Award Amount
Wheeler Opera House Arts $17,500
Community Non-profit/Recreation $103,000
TOTAL $120,500
*$30,000 is directed from Wheeler non-WRETT funds to support Red Brick programming for a total of $400,000.
DISCUSSION:
Council members have expressed interest in exploring options for the future administration of the
City’s grant programs. 2
2
Staff is asking for additional direction as to Council’s interests, along with feedback on the
proposed objectives of such a study.
Based on Council discussion to date, staff would like to suggest the following as potential
objectives for the study:
1. Bring additional consistency across the City’s grant programs
2.Streamline the grant programs
3.Update the grant review approach and process
An example of an option that could be explored as part of Objective 1 is the development and use
of a common, shared grant evaluation matrix. Such a shared matrix could incorporate community
values into the evaluation of all grants consistently, regardless of the specific grant program. It
could allow the addition of program-specific criteria as well. Similarly, a foundational set of shared
grant application questions might also be considered.
An example of an option to streamline the grant programs under Objective 2 might be to have all
the programs coordinated and administered centrally. This contrasts with the current approach,
where different programs are administered separately. Other opportunities to simplify the
application, review, award and monitoring processes could also be explored.
With respect to Objective 3, an option that might be explored is whether it would be of value to
have a Grants steering committee. Such a steering committee could be paired with evaluation
subcommittees for different types of grants. In all cases, clear charters for the groups, which would
include the appointment process and roles and responsibilities, could be proposed as well. In
addition, options associated with citizen appointments for the steering committee and
subcommittees could also be evaluated.
Staff welcomes Council’s direction on the objectives proposed above and any specific options to
explore in meeting the objectives.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
No new funds are requested for this study. The intent is to repurpose the current remaining grant
administration contract funds.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
These are administrative changes that do not have an associated environmental impact.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City could decline to undertake the study and continue as-is with its grant programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Provide staff with direction on whether to undertake a study of the City’s grants programs. If
approved, provide guidance to staff on the objectives and key questions to consider as part of the
study.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
None.
3
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM:Michelle Bonfils-Thibeault, Project Manager Capital Asset
THROUGH:Sara Ott, City Manager and Scott Miller, Assistant City Manager
MEMO DATE:November 13, 2019
MEETING DATE:November 18, 2019
RE:Water Place II – Community Outreach Update and Next Steps
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is an update to Council on the community outreach efforts for
the proposed Water Place II affordable housing development. Staff is seeking confirmation
for proposed next steps.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: On June 11, 2019, Council directed staff to move forward
with community outreach for three affordable housing developments: Burlingame Ranch
Phase III, the Lumberyard and Water Place II.
On June 24, 2019, Council approved contracts for community outreach and design with 359
Design for the Burlingame Ranch Phase III and Water Place II projects and with DHM Design
for the Lumberyard project.
On August 20, 2019, one week into our outreach efforts, staff provided an update to Council
including a schedule of outreach activities planned for August and September as well as
sample collateral materials being used for the outreach effort.
During the August 20, 2019 work session, Council expressed a desire to see some additional
public-facing outreach opportunities. In response, staff added the September 12 Luncheon at
the Aspen Fire Station, additional days at the Aspen Saturday Market, and one additional day
at the Basalt Sunday Market.
The Water Place II site is located near the Twin Ridge neighborhood, Castle Ridge
apartments, Meadowood subdivision, Water Place I and the Five Trees subdivision. Meetings
have been conducted with individual HOA groups to learn more about existing conditions in
the area and to gather neighbor input on the proposed development.
DISCUSSION: Of the existing subdivisions in proximity of the proposed development site,
the Twin Ridge and Meadowood groups have shared the most feedback regarding existing
conditions and input regarding the proposed development. Please find letters from both the
Twin Ridge and Meadowood HOAs attached to this memo.
4
2
The Water Place II project team has been studying the input from the neighbors and
community received to date -- and has been considering how to use this information in the
development of site plan options for the proposed affordable housing development.
Three main topics from Twin Ridge and Meadowood HOAs are:
1.Water Issues: water table levels/flooding/run off at Twin Ridge
2.Transportation: general traffic levels on Castle Creek Road; congestion at the
roundabout; full RFTA buses
3.Density: building heights; number of units; easements; wildlife impacts
NEXT STEPS: Considering the valuable input from both the neighbors, the community, and
the City’s strategic employment needs for the project – next steps to develop site plans that
study the issues and interests identified by the variety of stakeholders are:
1. Conduct a Geotech Study to understand the suitability of the soils for development,
water tables and drainage. (This study is current in process.)
2. Use the slope analysis combined with the Geotech study to create site plan options
that work with the topography to maintain a rural and organic character to the
development.
3. Conduct a wildlife study to understand the opportunities to maintain wildlife migration
paths that connect to surrounding open space and Meadowood.
4. Conduct a traffic study after a preferred site plan option is developed to understand
how traffic impacts to the neighborhood, mitigation and improvement opportunities.
5. Develop site plan options that include formalized connectivity to the Castle Creek
bus stop for both the proposed development and Twin Ridge.
6. Develop site plan options that maximize setbacks from the shared property lines with
Twin Ridge and Meadowood.
7. Develop site plan options that consider existing neighborhood character and
building heights.
8. Develop site plan options that meet the City’s employee housing demands (up to
48 units) and consider the existing neighborhood character and density patterns.
With the City Council’s confirmation of the proposed next steps, the project team anticipates
producing several site plan options and returning to the community and City Council for input
on selecting a preferred option in early 2020.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
5
3
Attachment A
Letter from Twin Ridge HOA dated October 31, 2019
Letter from Meadowood HOA dated November 1, 2019
6
4
7
5
8
6
9
7
10
8
11
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
THROUGH: Scott Miller, Public Works Director
MEMO DATE: November 15, 2019
MEETING DATE: November 18, 2019
RE: Update on Burlingame Ranch Phase III and Lumberyard Housing
Development Projects
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is an update to Council on the Burlingame Ranch Phase III and
Lumberyard affordable housing development projects currently in planning. Staff welcomes
additional input and guidance from Council.
BACKGROUND: On June 11, 2019, Council directed staff to move forward with community
outreach for Burlingame Ranch Phase III and the Lumberyard projects.
On June 24, 2019, Council approved contracts for community outreach and design with 359
Design for the Burlingame Ranch Phase III and with DHM Design for the Lumberyard project.
On August 20, 2019, staff provided an update to Council including a schedule of outreach
activities, and at Council’s request added additional public-facing activities.
On September 24, 2019, staff provided an update to Council on the findings of the community
outreach effort including information about events and activities completed, community
participation, stakeholder meetings, survey results as well as findings to date for each project.
DISCUSSION:
Burlingame Phase III
At the September 24 City Council work session, staff and the design team provided a review of
the outreach to that point. This included over 50 outreach events and activities with over 800
participants and 30 stakeholder groups engaged. This also included 96 surveys received from
Burlingame residents. The top 3 design items concerning residents were reported to be unit
interiors, building noise and storage areas while the top 3 construction priorities were quality,
duration and noise/dust mitigation.
The team also reported that the outreach to date suggested that improvements should focus on
the following areas for improvement:
• Improved sound and vibration insulation
• Factory-built modular construction
• Simplify mechanical systems
• Move water entry closets out of livable building area
12
Page 2 of 6
• Unit improvements such as minor unit layout modifications, linen closets
• Provide durable/reliable finishes and appliances
• Improvements to balcony and deck structures
• Expanded patio areas with increased privacy
• Create more flat lawn areas with native landscape in hard-to-maintain areas
Since the September 24 Council update, the design team led by 359 Design has been working
through the Schematic Design (SD) stage of the design process by utilizing the outreach
information and input from City Council and from other City departments such as Community
Development, Engineering and Parks.
During SD, the architect models the buildings to define the scale, area and size of each building
and the relationships of the buildings on the site. Community Development staff were consulted
to verify that the buildings as designed are within the approved floor areas and that the designs
are in sufficient conformance with the previously-approved and -recorded PD plans. Site
engineering is similarly advanced, and City Engineering staff were consulted for similar
verification with approved plans and acceptable standards. 359 Design released their 50% SD
plan set on October 18, and the 100% SD package is scheduled for release on November 15.
The incremental improvements which are being included in the designs will be recorded in an
insubstantial PD amendment which is subject to approval by the Community Development
Director. Community Development review to this point has informed us that this appears feasible.
In order to be ready to begin construction in 2021 on the 79 affordable for -sale condominiums
previously approved for Burlingame Ranch Phase III, the design team aims to submit building
permit applications in early June 2020. For that to occur, the team needs to move into the Design
Development (DD) stage of the design process following this update to Council. The team plans
advance the project design to the 100% DD level of detail by early March 2020.
In moving toward DD, the team is recommending an approach to the following areas of focus for
the project design:
Structure of access decks and balconies: The existing condition at Burlingame II uses engineered
glue-laminated timbers as vertical columns and horizontal beams along with cedar wood
members to make up the structures, stair stringers and handrails of the access decks and
balconies. It has been suggested that this system requires a level of maintenance which places
a difficult financial burden on the future homeowners. The design team has provided two options
to address this, and Option A is recommended.
Option A would consist of metal columns supporting metal-framed decks and balconies with wood
decking, and railings would consist of a mix of wood and metal. This design would significantly
reduce the amount of wood which would need to be maintained. A few wood timbers at the gable
and shed roof elements atop the structures would help maintain the intended character. Initial
cost of this system is expected to be a reasonable incremental increase compared to the existing
condition and will reduce future homeowner maintenance significantly.
Option B would consist of heavy timber columns with dark stain supporting timber-framed decks
and balconies with wood decking, and railings would consist of a mix of wood and metal. This
design would utilize dark solid-body stain to somewhat reduce the amount of maintenance
needed, but a maintenance program for the wood timbers would still be necessary. Initial cost of
this system is expected to be similar to Option A.
13
Page 3 of 6
Mechanical systems: The existing condition at Burlingame II uses a single natural gas fueled hot
water heater in each unit to provide hot water to faucets, showers and other appliances and to
circulate hot water through a fan coil to create forced-air space heating. This dual-purposed,
single-appliance mechanical system was designed as an attempt to eliminate the need for
homeowners to maintain both a hot water heater and a separate furnace for space heating, which
is common in more traditionally-designed residential facilities.
It has been suggested that the existing systems require a level of maintenance which places a
difficult financial burden on the future homeowners. The design team has provided two options to
address this, and Option A is recommended.
Option A would utilize an electric-fueled hot water heater to provide hot water to faucets, showers
and other appliances and would also use multi-zoned electric baseboard heating with 7-day
programmable electronic thermostats. This is a modern take on baseboard heating systems, and
with a modern, more aesthetically-attractive baseboard appliance, plus it more reliably regulates
temperature throughout numerous zones within the dwelling unit. These thermostats come pre-
programmed from the factory to provide a schedule of heating in each zone, and the program can
easily be modified to suit any household schedule. A strong alternative within Option A would be
to utilize electronically-controlled “cove heater” appliances which would allow us to relocate
baseboard-like heating to a higher elevation, up near the ceiling within each room. This approach
is becoming more common in new construction of multifamily residential facilities in our climate
zone because they help alleviate common complaints related to baseboard heaters and furniture
placement. Either of these approaches would convert electric energy to heat at a rate of 100%
efficiency.
Option B would utilize an electric-fueled hot water heater to provide hot water to faucets, showers
and other appliances and would also use a mini-split heat pump system in each unit for space
heating in bedrooms and in kitchen, living and dining areas. Mini split heat pump systems can be
up to 40% more efficient than baseboard heating systems, but there are some drawbacks. During
periods of sub-zero cold weather, these units use an electric heating element as a supplemental
heating source when the system cannot maintain the desired indoor temperature. This tends to
decrease the efficiency of these systems when used for heating in cold climates. Mini-split heat
pump systems also provide cooling, which can undermine the intended energy savings. These
systems require a compressor unit to be mounted outside, most likely on an exterior wall at patio
and balcony areas. This can be unsightly, and these systems may not relieve the homeowner
maintenance burden. Providing mini-split heat pump systems in each unit would also add
significant cost to the project.
Sound and vibration attenuation: Based on ASTM field testing by two separate sound engineers,
the existing condition at Burlingame II provides a unit-to-unit AIIC rating of 54. It has been
suggested that this system needs improvement. The design team has provided two options to
address this, and Option A is recommended. Option A would provide a rating of approximately 61
while Option B would attempt to achieve an even higher level of sound and vibration attenuation,
but would come at a higher cost.
Energy efficiency: Staff recently commissioned an energy study of the existing Burlingame II units.
The initial report received suggests that the existing units, which were designed to exceed the
2015 IECC, actually outperform the 2018 IECC minimum by 14%. Option A would seek to design
the next phase to exceed the upcoming 2021 IECC, and Option B would go even higher. Both
options come at a premium, although Option B is expected to have a greater cost impact. Both
options would provide a highly-insulated, air-sealed building envelope, and our local codes require
14
Page 4 of 6
whole-house ventilation systems to facilitate a constant supply of fresh air. Because there is
limited space on the roofs for p/v solar panels, both options would include solar panels to max out
available south- and west-facing roof space. As a result, Option A would provide a high level of
energy offset, and Option B would achieve an incrementally-increased level of energy offset,
although neither option would get us to net zero energy use. Due to the fact that the prior phase
appears to be performing even better than previously thought as compared to the 2018 IECC,
staff recommends targeting the 2021 IECC per Option A.
The design team has also begun working on a pricing model to estimate the cost of the project,
and one of the upcoming steps is to seek initial estimates from a number of modular building
factories which have been preselected based on matching the nature and size of our project with
the capabilities and capacity of the factories. Staff plans to present the findings of the estimating
process at a Council work session to be scheduled for March 2020.
Staff requests that Council consider these recommendations and provide direction so the design
process can proceed to the DD stage of design.
Lumberyard
As Council is well aware, the first stage of community outreach for the Lumberyard project was
completed throughout late summer and early fall of 2019. At our check in with Council on
September 24, the team presented a long list of topics and themes which were commonly invoked
by stakeholders, members of the public, and/or technical advisors.
A thorough review of the feedback suggests that 7 overarching themes have emerged. These
themes help to categorize and better understand the feedback.
1. Population Served: The suitability of the site for housing certain demographic or mix of
demographics. Examples of demographics include but are not limited to workforce,
retirees, families, young professionals, etc. Density, neighborhood feel and rental vs
owning are included in this conversation. High to medium density appears to be preferred
with potentially 150-200 units and a variety of unit types and demographics served with
potentially both rental and owned.
2. Building Materials Supply Operation: This category pertains to the function and value of
the current Lumberyard. Discussions related to the current needs is it serving and if it
could function in a different configuration. Mixed responses include both emphatic yes’s
and emphatic no’s depending upon who is being asked.
3. Mixed-Use: Exploring the viability of and need for incorporating commercial spaces such
as restaurants, retail or daycare along with affordable housing. There appears to be some
desire to see mixed-use services, but also with a recognition that competition with existing
commercial businesses may not be entirely desirable and using up valuable housing
space on the site may also be less desirable. One area of trade-off might be daycare
facilities.
4. Transportation and Transit: General connectivity, including the RFTA bus system, air
travel, cars, traffic, parking, and pedestrian and bike trails. Connectivity is important.
RFTA, Airport and trails are important assists. Do not under park was widely heard.
Proposed controlled intersection at HWY 82 as per the CDOT plan.
15
Page 5 of 6
5. Parks and Open Space: Opportunities and importance of public outdoor spaces, including
formal parks, native buffer zones and Deer Hill Open Space. Parks are needed in the
AABC. Triangle is used as a dog park, and bandit trails at Deer Hill further illustrate the
need.
6. Noise and Air Quality: Concerns and comments related to noise and air pollution from the
airport, lumberyard, and highway. Airport and highway noise are a fact of life at the AABC
and must be planned for. Additional comments were received about noise from the
building supply operation at the lumberyard site.
7. Design Advice: The majority of comments received could be considered design advice.
This category, however, is more specifically advice about the details of design. For
example, many participants discussed particulars about what worked and what didn’t with
existing affordable house. Storage, parking, communal kitchens, and recommendations
for process would all be example of design advice. Design for personal storage. Design
for climate (snow). Minimize HOA fees. Quality construction, etc.
Since September 24, the design team led by DHM Design have begun the process of creating
development scenarios for the site. To begin this process, the design team must create a way to
connect the outreach information to site planning activities.
Just as the needs and desires of the community are drivers of the site -planning process, so also
is the site itself. The 10-acre Lumberyard project site has very specific characteristics being
analyzed for suitability of satisfying project needs. Site boundaries, aspects and slopes must be
considered as well as nearby adjacencies and neighborhood character. Zoning restrictions such
as floor area, height and setbacks are significant criteria which must be considered at all times.
Annexation, re-zoning and land use code requirements along with compliance with the City’s
Urban Runoff Management Plan and additional regulatory requirements essentially add a
regulatory overlay to the site’s physical characteristics.
The width of the site setbacks, particularly at highway 82, are critical. Space needs for circulation
of cars, bikes and people are additionally critical. Space needs for stormwater management must
be considered. Differing space needs for differing housing types and densities must also be
considered. Where to site more- and less-dense components on the site must be considered in
numerous ways.
Due to these connections and as a result of Council’s input at the September 24 work session,
the team has decided to further prioritize the importance of continuing to engage with stakeholders
at and near the AABC neighborhood. Since September 24, the team has re-interviewed AABC
association management staff and those and additional conversations will continue as this
process moves forward.
Additional outreach is recommended for January and into February of 2020, with particular focus
on the AABC area stakeholders, and as we head toward more specific site planning and
development scenarios. The team feels it is most responsible to execute this heightened
neighborhood focus and communication prior to being able to bring Council further-developed
site scenarios with confidence.
16
Page 6 of 6
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the next steps as noted above and welcomes
additional input and guidance from Council.
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:
Staff and the team will be prepared to present updated project cost and budget information at the
next Council work session in March 2020.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS: The attached two sets of slides illustrate the discussion and may vary slightly
at the time of presentation.
17
BURLINGAME PHASE III
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECT UPDATE
CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION
NOVEMBER 18, 2019
18
AGENDA
Council Meeting 9.24.19
Progress Update
Schematic Design Process
Recommended Options
Next Steps
Project Timeline
2
19
Review of Outreach
•50 events, 800 participants, 30 stakeholder groups, 96 Burlingame surveys
•Top 3 design items: Interiors, building noise, storage areas
•Top 3 construction priorities: Quality, duration, noise and dust mitigation
Design topics heard –improvements proposed
•Utilize modular
•Sound/vibration insulation
•Simplify mechanical and move water entry rooms
•Unit layout improvements, finishes, appliances
•Balcony and deck structures, patio space, increased privacy
•Flat lawn areas with native landscape in hard-to-maintain areas
Council Work Session 9.24.19
11.18.19 Burlingame Phase III 3
20
Project Progress
11.18.19 Burlingame Phase III 4
Project
Kickoff
Project
Planning
Outreach
Events
Data
Analysis
Construction
Documents
Building
Permit
ConstructionSchematic
Design
Occupancy
2019 2020 2021 2022
9/24/2019 11/18/2019
8 weeks 21
•Meetings with Community Development, Engineering,
Parks Departments
•Incremental design improvements will be captured in an
insubstantial PD amendment
•Further development of designs in areas of focus based
on outreach, Council direction, and City departments
•Schematic pricing model underway
Schematic Design Process
11.18.19 Burlingame Phase III 5
22
11.18.19 Burlingame Phase III 6
23
11.18.19 Burlingame Phase III 7
24
11.18.19 Burlingame Phase III 8
Fan coil -forced air
Heating and
hot water
fuel:
Natural Gas
Mechanical
Systems
100% electric 100% electric
25
11.18.19 Burlingame Phase III 9
26
11.18.19 Burlingame Phase III 10
Net Zero
27
Next Steps
11.18.19 Burlingame Phase III 11
❑Design Development
o 100% DD by early March
o PD Insubstantial Amendment –subject to Comm Dev Approval
❑Pricing
o Set up pricing model
o Receive ROM factory estimates
o Council Update on pricing March 2020
❑Procurement
o RFP Modular / Construction
o Proposal review, selection, contracting
❑Building Permit Application Submittal -early June 2020 28
Project Timeline
11.18.19 Burlingame Phase III 12
2019 2020 2021
NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN APR
DESIGN PROCESS PROGRESS →
100% SD 50% DD 100% DD 50% CD 90 % CD
Pricing model in
process
Draft modular
pricing
Council
Update
RFP
Process
Proposal
Review
Selection/
Contracts
Bldg. Permit
Application
Construction
Start
Project Milestones →
OCT
BUDGET
29
THE ASPEN LUMBERYARD
DHM DESIGN | ROBERT SCHULTZ CONSULTING | CCA ARCHITECTS | ROARING FORK ENGINEERING
30
TODAY’S PRESENTATION
31
1 OVERALL PROJECT TIMELINE
32
2 CONNECTING OUTREACH TO SITE PLANNING: ACTIVITIES
33
Population Served: High to medium density
preferred. 150-200 units. Variety of unit types and
demographics served. Both rental and owned.
Building Materials Supply Operation:Mixed
responses: emphatic yes’s, hard no’s, and
ambivalence.
Mixed-Use:Desire to see mixed-use, but not
restaurants and commercial. Don’t compete w/
existing non-subsidized business. Desire for daycare
facility.
Transportation and Transit:Internal and
external connectivity. RFTA, Airport and trails are
important assets. Do not under park! Access
Control Plan, proposed controlled intersection at
HWY 82.
Parks and Open Space: Parks are needed in the
ABC. Triangle is used as dog park. Bandit trails at
Deer Hill are valued.
Noise and Air Quality: Airport and highway noise
is a fact of life at the ABC. Most noise complaints
were related to the building supply operation.
Design Advice:Design for personal storage.
Design for climate (snow). Minimize HOA fees.
Quality construction.
Through the initial outreach process, 7 overarching themes
emerged. These themes help to categorize and better
understand the feedback.
2 CONNECTING OUTREACH TO SITE PLANNING: OUTREACH FEEDBACK
34
3 SITE PLANNING DRIVERS: SITE | NEEDS | DESIRES
35
3 SITE PLANNING DRIVERS: PROPERTY BOUNDARY
36
•ANNEXATION AND REZONING NECESSARY
•MINIMUM NET LOT AREA PER DWELLING BY AAHPD
•SEE CHART
•FAR DEFINED BY AAHPD
•<6 ACRES = 0.3:1 FAR
•GARAGE EXCLUDED FROM FAR IF LESS THAN 250
SF. PER RESIDENCE PER CITY OF ASPEN CODE.
SEE CHART
•IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAND USE CODE ON THE
BUILDING SUPPLY OPERATION
•COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF ASPEN URMP
REZONED TO ASPEN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PLAN DEVELOPMENT
3 SITE PLANNING DRIVERS: REGULATORY OVERLAYS
37
3 SITE PLANNING DRIVERS: SIZE OF PROPERTY -10 ACRES
38
ASSUMPTION:
•200’ FROM EDGE OF HWY 82 PAVEMENT TO
REASONING:
•SURROUNDING BUILDINGS (BESIDES MOUNTAIN RESCUE) ARE SETBACK
200’ FROM THE HIGHWAY PER PITKIN COUNTY CODE
3 SITE PLANNING DRIVERS: 200’ FROM HIGHWAY (EDGE OF PAVEMENT)
39
ASSUMPTIONS:
•50’ BUFFER FROM PROPERTY LINE/EDGE OF HIGHWAY FOR BUFFER
FROM HIGHWAY AND LIMIT OF DEVELOPMENT
REASONING:
•BASED OFF OF NEIGHBORING MOUNTAIN RESCUE DEVELOPMENT
•ALLOWS FOR POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN PAN HANDLE AND
TRIANGLE
3 SITE PLANNING DRIVERS:50’ BUFFER
40
ASSUMPTIONS –
HWY 82 INTERSECTION:
•60’ WIDE X 175 LF OF STACKING
ASSUMPTIONS –
FRONTAGE ROAD:
•60’ WIDE
REASONING –
FRONTAGE ROAD:
•24’ WIDE ROAD, 15’ WIDE TRAIL, 5’
SIDEWALKS, 16’ FOR LANDSCAPING
3 SITE PLANNING DRIVERS:INTERSECTION AND FRONTAGE ROAD | CDOT ACCESS CONTROL PLAN
REASONING –
HWY 82 INTERSECTION:
•3 OUT LANES AND 1 IN LANE FOR A WIDTH OF 44-48’,
AN ADDITIONAL SEPERATION ISLAND OF 8’ AND 2’ ON
EITHER SIDE FOR BUFFER AND SHOULDER
•175’ ALLOWS FOR STACKING WITHOUT EXTENDING
TOO FAR INTO AND BISECTING THE DEVELOPABLE
AREA OF THE PROPERTY
41
ASSUMPTIONS:
•60’ WIDE
•96’ DIA. FIRE TURNAROUND
REASONING:
•24’ TOTAL FOR TWO LANE STREET
•10’ TOTAL FOR SIDEWALK (5’ ON EITHER SIDE OF ROAD)
•10’ TOTAL FOR LANDSCAPING STRIP
•15’ FOR PARKING (60 DEGREES HEAD-IN)
•FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND PER CITY OF ASPEN CODE FOR CUL DE SACS OVER 500 FEET
3 SITE PLANNING DRIVERS: TRANSPORTATION –PRIMARY INTERNAL CIRCULATION
42
ASSUMPTIONS:
•30’ WIDE
•84’ RADIUS TURNAOUND
REASONING:
•24’ TOTAL FOR TWO LANE STREET
•3’ SIDEWALK (ONE SIDE OF ROAD)
•3’ LANDSCAPING STRIP
•FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND PER CITY OF ASPEN
CODE FOR CUL DE SACS UNDER 500 FEET
3 SITE PLANNING DRIVERS: TRANSPORTATION –SECONDARY INTERNAL CIRCULATION
43
ASSUMPTIONS:
•15’ CORRIDOR FOR TRAIL
•30’ WIDE X 150 LN FOR UNDERPASS CORRIDOR
REASONING:
•15’ ALLOWS FOR 8’ TRAILS WITH SHOULDER AND BUFFER ON EITHER SIDE
•UNDERPASS DIMENSIONS INFORMED BY BASALT UNDERPASS
3 SITE PLANNING DRIVERS: TRANSPORTATION –TRAILS AND CONNECTIONS
44
ASSUMPTIONS:
•6,800 CUBIC FEET WITH 1’ DEPTH
REASONING:
•AS REQUIRED BY CITY OF ASPEN URMP
3 SITE PLANNING DRIVERS: TRANSPORTATION –STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
45
ASSUMPTIONS:
•35,000 SF PARKREASONING:
•COMPARABLE IN SIZE TO HERON PARK
3 SITE PLANNING DRIVERS: COMMUNITY PARK
46
ASSUMPTIONS:
•1.75 ACRES
•ADDITIONAL 8-11 HOUSING UNITS ABOVEREASONING:
•AS PROVIDED BY BUILDER’S FIRST SOURCE
3 SITE PLANNING DRIVERS: BUILDING SUPPLY OPERATION
47
ASSUMPTIONS:
•10,000 SF
•ADDITIONAL 2-5 HOUSING UNITS ABOVE
REASONING:
•2-3 ROOM FACILITY PLUS OUTDOOR SPACE
3 SITE PLANNING DRIVERS: MIXED-USE –DAYCARE
48
4 APPROACHES TO DENSITY: INTRODUCTION
49
PRIORITIZES:
TRANSPORTATION
-DENSITY IS CLOSE TO TRANSPORTATION/AMENITIES
OPEN SPACE
-CENTRAL PARK
VARIETY IN HOUSING TYPE
-HIGH DENSITY IN FRONT OF PROPOSED STORAGE
AREA, NOT BLOCKING VIEWS
-MEDIUM DENSITY THE LOWER DENSITY OPTION
(MEDIUM) IS LOCATED AT THE MORE VISIBLE AREA
OF THE PARCEL FROM HWY 82
DAYCARE OPPORTUNITY BEHIND MOUNTAIN RESCUE
-CENTRALLY LOCATED AND OFF FRONTAGE RD
BUILDING SUPPLY OPERATION
-LIKELY LOCATED IN TRIANGLE PARCLE, NOISE
FURTHER FROM DEVELOPMENT
COMPROMISES:
BUILDING SUPPLY OPERATION
-LIKELY LOCATED IN TRIANGLE PARCLE, SO
TRAFFIC WOULD CUT THROUGH HOUSING
4 APPROACHES TO DENSITY: DENSITY CONCEPT 1 AND ANALYSIS
50
PRIORITIZES:
VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES
-HIGH DENSITY, HEIGHT IS MINIMIZED BY HILL AND
MOUNTAIN RESCUE
-MEDIUM DENSITY
BUILDING SUPPLY OPERATION
-LIKELY LOCATED AT PREVIOUS MINI STORAGE
LOCATION, EASY ACCESS FROM FRONTAGE ROAD
AND INTERSECTION. TRAFFIC WOULD NOT
CONFLICT WITH PROPOSED HOUSING.
COMPROMISES:
DAYCARE
-POTENTIALLY ADJACAENT TO FRONTAGE RD
TRANSPORTATION
-CIRCULATION AT PINCH-POINT, CUTTING THROUGH
HOUSING
-DENSITY FURTHER FROM TRANSPORTATION AND
AMENITIES
BUILDING SUPPLY OPERATION
-LIKELY LOCATED AT PREVIOUS MINI STORAGE
LOCATION, NOISE IS CLOSE TO DEVELOPMENT
4 APPROACHES TO DENSITY: DENSITY CONCEPT 2 AND ANALYSIS
51
PRIORITIZES:
HOUSING
-HIGH UNIT COUNT
OPEN SPACE
-CENTRAL PARK
COMPROMISES:
HOUSING
-POTENTIALLY TOO DENSE FOR THE PUBLIC
-LIKELY REQUIRES VARIANCE FROM LAND-USE CODE
FOR FAR
DAYCARE
-NO DAYCARE
OPEN SPACE
-LESS BUFFER SPACE
VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES
-LIMITED HOUSING VARIETY
TRANSPORTATION
-CIRCULATION AT PINCH-POINT, CUTTING THROUGH
HOUSING
BUILDING SUPPLY OPERATION
-NO BUILDING SUPPLY OPERATION
4 APPROACHES TO DENSITY: DENSITY CONCEPT 3 AND ANALYSIS
52
4 NEXT STEPS
53
THE ASPEN LUMBERYARD
DHM DESIGN | ROBERT SCHULTZ CONSULTING | CCA ARCHITECTS | ROARING FORK ENGINEERING
54
DENSITY CONCEPTS FOR FUTURE STUDY –1
55
DENSITY CONCEPTS FOR FUTURE STUDY -2
56
DENSITY CONCEPTS FOR FUTURE STUDY -3
57