Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.202011231 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION November 23, 2020 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers 130 S Galena Street, Aspen WEBEX Go to: www.webex.com Click "Join" at the top right-hand corner Enter Meeting Number 126 391 4434 Password provided 81611 Click "Join Meeting" OR Join by phone Call: 1-408-418-9388 Meeting number (access code): 126 391 4434# I.WORK SESSION I.A.Lumberyard Update 1 Page 1 of 15 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager THROUGH: Scott Miller, Public Works Director MEMO DATE: November 20, 2020 MEETING DATE: November 23, 2020 RE: Lumberyard Affordable Housing - Conceptual Design Process SUMMARY AND REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is delivering the final report for the third round of community outreach along with a summary of the technical studies to date as well as the modified conceptual master plan, conceptual architecture, and character studies for the Lumberyard affordable housing development. Staff’s requests of Council for this work session are to verify the following: 1) The validity of the community feedback received through the outreach process 2) The modifications to the conceptual designs based on the community feedback 3) The modifications to the housing program based on the community feedback Staff will also introduce the topic of project delivery methodology and potential next steps. 4) Staff additionally requests that Council engage in discussion about project delivery methodology and provide staff with direction about next steps for the project. BACKGROUND: Beginning June 2019, the goal of the Lumberyard conceptual design process has been to create community-vetted conceptual design alternatives for the development of affordable housing at the Lumberyard prope rty, and for Council to select a preferred conceptual design by December 2020. On June 24, 2019, Council approved a contract with DHM Design for initial community outreach and conceptual design for the lumber yard affordable housing development for 2019. The first round of community outreach occurred in fall 2019, and a second round occurred in early 2020. On April 14, 2020, Council approved a contract extension for DHM Design which included a scope of work to allow for the continued conceptual design while the COVID -19 Stay- at-home Order was in place. At a work session on July 6, 2020, DHM Design presented the updated conceptual designs, and Council provided the design team with direction for further plan refinements aiming toward 300+ units. 2 Page 2 of 15 On August 11, 2020, Council approved a contract amendment with DHM Design through the end of 2020. The work plan aimed to reach a preferred conceptual design by the end of 2020 and included a third round of community outreach. At a work session on September 14, 2020, Council reviewed proposed outreach survey questions and provided direction for the survey in the third round of outreach. On October 26, 2020, staff presented preliminary results of the third round of outreach, and Council agreed directionally to pursue underground parking, some four -story massing in key areas, increasing the number of 1- and 2-bedroom units, an increase to the amount of ownership units, including childcare on site, allowing the ABC to provide commercial services, and paring back the co-living option – all while maintaining 300+ units on the site. These modifications will increase the overall building floor area which will be discussed below. DISCUSSION: The project team is wrapping up the third round of outreach and the preliminary technical studies, and advancing the site and architectural studies. The goal of this work session is to get direct feedback from Council on advancing the plan, and – if Council is ready – to move toward the next phase of work which will be development of the land use application throughout the first half of 2021. The Lumberyard team has prepared a presentation that summarizes the results of the outreach and technical studies, and responds to the direction received from Council at the October 26 work session. This presentation has five parts: 1) Takeaways from the October 26 Work Session 2) Outreach #3 Results 3) Technical Studies Review 4) Modifications to the Conceptual Design 5) Project Delivery Methodology and Next Steps Takeaways from the October 26 Work Session Parking: We heard a consensus for parking cars underground. Although we understand that carrying the cost and impacts of underground parking is less desirable, utilizing underground parking, instead of surface or podium parking , allows for unit count targets to be met while controlling the total building massing and contributing to a higher level of livability on the site. While the approach to parking is a threshold decision, the total amount of parking implemented is flexible without substantially impacting the site plan and unit counts – we simply adjust the footprint of the underground parking. The updated conceptual plan illustrates utilizing underground parking for all of the residential needs of the project. Massing: We heard a consensus for including some amount of four-story buildings in the plan, with the understanding that the four-story components should be carefully located 3 Page 3 of 15 and take advantage of the context (specifically Deer Hill, Mountain Rescue, and adjacent grades) to mitigate the massing. The updated conceptual plan includes several four-story masses. Unit mix: The unit mix relates directly to the massing and density. The prior concepts included a significant number of studio units to achieve the target unit counts while controlling building height. We heard a consensus for increasing the number of 1- and 2- bedroom units, and reducing the number of studio units. The updated conceptual plan includes an increase in 1- and 2-bedroom units. It is important to remember that ‘density’ is not only a measure of unit count, but is also affected by overall number of bedrooms and FTE’s housed. As we increase the bedroom count, the number of people housed increases significantly even if the increase in the units is only modest. Also based on feedback, we modified the rental/sale mix target from 80/20 to 70/30. Childcare: We heard a consensus for including a childcare facility on-site, and we have updated the conceptual plans to include land area for a childcare facility as a base element of the project program. As we studied integrating childcare into the ground level of a residential building, this introduced access and security challenges that were difficult to overcome. In going away from this, we were still able to achieve an increase to the overall unit count with a stand-alone childcare facility. This significantly simplifies circulation and access and facilitates the separation of uses that is required for a childcare facility. The childcare facility continues to be located at the northern panhandle of the site. Should the childcare facility later be eliminated from the program, one additional multi- family building could be located in its place which could further increase the rental unit count. Site Design: We heard a consensus that we need to develop the site design to illustrate the character of the site amenities and relationships between buildings, open areas, circulation, and amenities. We have developed a refined c onceptual master plan that includes circulation, outdoor spaces, and amenities to advance that conversation. Building Design: We understood that additional development of building character, function, and relationship to the site would be necessary to advance to an overall preferred program and site layout. We have further studied the conceptual building layouts, unit-to-unit relationships, site relationships, massing, and materials and will share this information as illustrative sections, perspectives, an d precedent imagery along with the refined site plan and massing models. Energy efficiency: Recognizing that early in the process is the time to set energy targets and evaluate cost/benefit of individual approaches, City staff has kicked off an internal process to carry this evaluation into the land use approval process. In this presentation, this will be discussed with the technical studies. Commercial Use: We understand that the provision of commercial space at the Lumberyard has not been a priority, but that an understanding of the market conditions at the ABC is important in making a final decision regarding commercial. This will be addressed as part of the technical studies segment as well. 4 Page 4 of 15 Co-living: Based on Council and community feedback, co-living is now being considered as an optional overlay, and in a reduced capacity, and is not a base component of the updated conceptual master plan. Outreach #3 Results The final results of outreach #3 run largely parallel with the direction given by Council and received by the Lumberyard project team at the October 26 work session. The final results are described in detail in the full Outreach 3 Summary Report, which is attached to this memo and which will be uploaded to the project web site at www.aspenlumberyard.com. Survey Results: Since the October 26 work session, we received some 200+ additional survey responses with a final total of 773 responses. Most of the final survey results changed by only a percentage point, and none of the outcomes reversed or otherwise changed in any material way. In summary, the final survey results indicated that: • The unit mix, both by bedroom type and by rental/ownership, is generally supported, with a bias for increasing 1- and 2-bedroom units and reducing studios. Similarly, the highest-ranking unit type by desirability, in both rental and ownership, were 1- and 2- bedroom units. • 75% of the public are supportive of underground parking, particularly when it results in higher total density and higher quality of outdoor spaces around the buildings. • Although supportive of multi-modal transportation options to reduce day-to-day trip generation, the desire for on-site parking was almost unanimous from those who indicated they may want to live at the Lumberyard. • Over 75% of respondents believe that allowing the ABC to serve the commercial needs of the neighborhood is appropriate. • A slight majority of the overall survey respondents were supportive of the concept of co-living, with smaller studio units and common area amenity space, but nearly 75% of those who see themselves as potential residents of the Lumberyard were not supportive of co-living and would prefer to simply have full-size units in a more traditional housing arrangement. • The public is strongly supportive of raising the bar in energy efficiency and sustainability, and a majority are also supportive of pursuing a sustainability certification, such as LEED or similar programs. • A majority of survey respondents are supportive of providing childcare on the site, although the individual comments and other feedback mechanisms used suggest this to an even stronger degree. • A majority of respondents are supportive of evaluating a shuttle service, or similar mechanism, to improve transit access to the Lumberyard, and a majority support providing some additional ‘ancillary’ parking on the site for guests or other uses. 5 Page 5 of 15 • Related to architectural design character, a blend of traditional and contemporary ‘mountain’ forms and materials were preferred. • For site amenities, generous storage and quality outdoor space, both public and private, were the most requested as compared to alternatives such as such as sport courts, fitness center, community room, bike/ski workshop or vending facilities. Other Means of Outreach: In addition to the public outreach via the web site, the project team held a number of individual meetings, local organization presentations, two socially- distanced, in-person pop-ups, and a two-session webinar during the outreach period. These points of contact include Mountain Rescue, Burlingame/Annie Mitchell property management, ABC developer/management, a local private development team, Aspen Skiing Company, Aspen Chamber Resort Association, and the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission. A number of other large employers and community groups (including Aspen Valley Hospital, North 40 HOA, NextGen, and others) provided valuable input by sharing the website and survey invitation with their employees/members. Some takeaways from those meetings include: • Conversations at pop-up events were nearly all working locals. Most people stressed the incredible need for housing from ‘entry-level’ rental units to permanent, family- oriented housing. Most of those same individuals were supportive of pursuing density at the Lumberyard. • At the ACRA and CCLC meetings, and in correspondence with Aspen Skiing Company, the need for rental units to support the service industry and general workforce was stressed, and underground parking was supported in pursuit of additional density. • A variety of the meeting attendees stressed attentiveness to noise mitigation and quality of living spaces. • Attendees of the virtual open house webinars were invited to answer live poll questions. The results of those live polls were consistent with the outcomes of the website survey. The Lumberyard team has incorporated the takeaways from the October 26 Council work session, public outreach, and stakeholder meetings into the revised conceptual design and master plan materials that are included with this memo. This brings us to the first request of Council for this work session: Please verify, if you feel you are able, (1) the validity of the community feedback received through the outreach process and the results as described in the attached Outreach 3 Summary Report as well as the appropriateness of utilizing the community feedback received through this process as important inputs to the conceptual design of the Lumberyard affordable housing project. 6 Page 6 of 15 Technical Studies Review We have continued to develop the preliminary technical studies for the project and have initial findings based on those efforts. Several of the topics include specific technical memos, others as in-process and based on ongoing conversations (or both). We have provided the preliminary findings and a summary document, Preliminary Technical Studies 1, as an attachment to this memo. The purpose of each study was two-fold, first, to identify any ‘fatal flaws’ of each topic, and second, to understand what, if any, thresholds may be identified that can inform decision making. • Civil / infrastructure: The team’s civil engineer, Roaring Fork Engineering, developed planning-level utility demands related to the conceptual project unit/FTE count. These services include water, sewer, electricity, communications, and gas (although we have assumed that the project will target a no-gas systems approach). The preliminary results indicate that there are no fatal flaws and that capacity will be available to adequately serve the project at the density level being pursued, albeit with some improvements to on-site or immediately adjacent facilities possibly being needed. There has been some discussion among staff about reviewing the opportunity for City of Aspen electric to potentially serve the Lumberyard site in place of Holy Cross Energy which is the current electric provider at the site. • Traffic: Our traffic consultant, Fehr & Peers, conducted a preliminary traffic study using data provided by Pitkin County’s current ABC traffic study team and projections of traffic generated by the Lumberyard project. The preliminary results indicate : o Little to no material impact on existing ABC roads, o An increase of 100 vehicle trips during peak morning and evening hours , o An average peak time increase in travel time through the ABC segment of HWY 82 of less than 10 seconds, o Alternate transportation methodologies may reduce automobile trip generation, and o The triggering of the CDOT requirement for a signalized intersection at the entrance to the Lumberyard at the time of full project build-out. This suggests that a first phase of construction may not trigger the CDOT threshold requirement for the traffic signal at the entrance to the Lumberyard, but additional study is necessary to understand if the signal would be recommended for a first construction phase for safety purposes. • Noise: Engineering Dynamics monitored noise on the site from five different locations: A 30-minute duration at the top of the Mtn Rescue tower (1), peak-hour monitoring at the front (2) and back (3) of the Mtn Rescue building, and two week-long stations, one at the west edge (4) of the Builder’s First Source parking lot and one in the sage field of the triangle parcel (5) near the south/upvalley end of the site. The results indicated that while noise levels are elevated, they are within acceptable levels, based on HUD guidelines, along the west edge of the property near Hwy 82, and improving toward the east property line closer to Deer Hill. The engineer provided recommendations for 7 Page 7 of 15 noise mitigation targets and general approaches to reducing noise impacts via building construction techniques and site arrangement. The revised site plans are responsive to the building siting recommendations, and the building construction techniques will be carried forward as the designs advance. • Geotechnical: The project team obtained the geotechnical soils report from the newly- constructed storage facility located northeast of the Lumberyard. This report indicates favorable building soils for foundations and does not raise red flags. However, the developer of the new mini storage facility informed us that they did excavate a number of very large boulders that required blasting to remove. The City has also experienced this at the nearby Burlingame Ranch site as this is not uncommon in the area. • Existing Conditions Survey: A full existing conditions survey was completed in September by True North Survey, and include utility locates, easements, existing buildings, and site topography. No specific red flags were identified , although there are some unusual drainage patterns to the northeast, and the CDOT ROW drainage will need to be accounted for in the stormwater management program for the project. • Air Quality: The project team met with Pitkin County staff to discuss the ongoing air quality monitoring and evaluation that is underway at the ABC. Those findings are not yet complete, but preliminary information indicates that air quality levels in the ABC are within acceptable thresholds. • Energy efficiency: Formal study of the energy efficiency of the buildings and overall project will carry forward through the land use approval process and the detailed technical design of the facilities. The outreach and Council process has to this point established a general baseline that (1) energy efficiency will be a driving priority for this development, (2) the project should exceed the energy efficiency thresholds set by recent City projects, and (3) achievement of these goals should be verified through a recognized process of certification. These targets/programs need to be evaluated based on numerous criteria going forward. A broad number of approaches to energy efficiency, energy sourcing, and on-site and/or off-site energy generation are possible. City staff will be developing an internal program to identify and evaluate energy efficiency alternatives as well as potential costs and trade-offs associated with such alternatives. This continued work will be presented to Council throughout the development of the land use application and through the land use approval process. • Commercial uses: Although not a technical study related to engineering of the project, the team conducted an informal survey of free-market commercial rents in the ABC and compared those to estimates of building commercial space at the Lumberyard development. The result of that informal evaluation is that commercial space is typically available for lease at the ABC at rates that are substantively less than what it would cost to build, manage, and maintain commercial space at the Lumberyard site. This would result in a necessary subsidy of the square footage at the Lumberyard to match the free-market rates in the ABC. While survey results suggest that people in the community feel that it is appropriate for businesses at the ABC to fulfill the need for services in the area, including new demand generated by the creation of new housing at the Lumberyard site, this additional information also suggests that it also makes economic sense for this as well. 8 Page 8 of 15 Modifications to the Conceptual Design Summary: Throughout outreach #3 and at the October 26 work session, the Lumberyard team had developed and shared three conceptual design options, A, B and C, ranging from 250 to 330 units and studying different approaches to parking and unit types. Based on the direction provided by Council as informed by the community outreach, our team has updated and refined the conceptual plans. Those adjustments include: • All parking for housing is now underground • The unit mix increased 1- and 2-bedroom units • The total number of FTEs housed increased by 42, and bedrooms increased by 35, as compared to the highest count in the previous iterations • The total unit count increased by 10 units as compared to previous like iterations • The rental / ownership ratio has been modified to 68% rental and 32% ownership • Childcare facility is now shown in the base program with dedicated space at the north entrance to the site adjacent to the ABC • The increase in building floor area due to the modifications to the program mix, including childcare, results in building heights of three and four stories as opposed to two and three stories in the previous iterations • Co-living is now shown as an optional overlay to the primary conceptual alternative with substantially reduced total co-living unit count. There is no longer a stand-alone co-living conceptual site plan alternative • The site plan has been further developed to illustrate amenity spaces, circulation, and building access • These changes to the program essentially eliminate the October 26 ‘Concept A’ plan, and the modifications the co-living ‘Concept C’ plan from October 26 have made the co-living option into an overlay option rather than a stand-alone conceptual plan. This means that the final results of the adoption of the Council direction from the October 26 work session have evolved into a single, refined conceptual master plan that is most similar to the previous ‘Concept B’, but with its program and overall site and building layout more reflective of the input received through the community outreach effort. Conceptual floor plans: While we don’t want to dwell on the conceptual floor plans as they are only conceptual in nature, they have been developed to a level that provides the design team with confidence in the unit counts in terms of size and distribution of overall building floor area on the site. The unit concepts are envisioned as a set of interlocking building blocks that can be creatively arranged in a number of ways, allowing for variety in the building form and height while taking advantage of the efficiencies of modular construction. 9 Page 9 of 15 Conceptual Section / Perspectives 1: This section illustrates a “three-story, double loaded” building format and depicts the relationship of the units and buildings to one another, the outdoor spaces between the buildings and in the public spaces, and the frontage on Sage way. This section was taken through the site just across from the ma in entry to the project, looking south toward Mountain Rescue and Deer Hill, with Sage Way to the right-hand side of the image. The three-story masses are fronting Sage Way, with four-story masses on the east side of the property against the base of Deer H ill, and a protected courtyard/lawn space between the buildings as recommended in the noise study. This section also illustrates an evolution of the approach to the buildings themselves. Instead of an interior hallway connecting the sets of units on either side, the masses are pulled apart allowing for light and a sense of separation between the units. This also creates spaces for small, private patios and planters near the front entries to the buildings. The accompanying character images begin to illustrat e the inspiration for the conceptual look and feel of materials, massing, and overall character of the spaces. Conceptual Section / Perspectives 2: This section illustrates a “four-story, single loaded” building on the east property line, at the base of Deer Hill. This building faces the porches and patios toward Deer Hill, creating outdoor space on the quieter, east side of the building, and ‘borrowing’ the Deer Hill Open Space to create access to views, daylight, and a sense of privacy. Conceptual Site Master Plan: This plan rendering represents the next evolution in the conceptual site plan. While it looks familiar as it is based on the prior planning concepts, it begins to describe in more detail the various program elements of the site, and further define the site spaces and circulation. The layout of Sage Way remains, with the connection to 200 Road and Hwy 82; the ABC and Annie Mitchell trail remain, with a grade-separated crossing for the ABC trail. Added to the plan is a transit/shuttle stop, with a covered bike share kiosk, along the west side of Sage Way. Given the area requirements for these components, ancillary parking would need to be accommodated in the underground structure. We also have perspective sketches and character imagery to help describe how these spaces might begin to feel and live, in addition to the descriptions below: • The site is organized to create a variety of open areas, protected from the highway and airport noise where possible. The buildings are organized around a large central lawn space. This is similar in scale to the flat portion of the main lawn sp ace at Burlingame Ranch and comparable to the lawn area at Herron Park. • To the south of the central lawn is a community shade structure, creating a space for gathering and a social hub of the project. It’s flanked by a plaza space that could be occupied by built-in and/or moveable furniture and is organized to provide small group gathering spaces. • South of the plaza is a playground zone. This playground could be an artful, playful space of traditional equipment, non-traditional play, or a combination designed to create an interesting focal point and a place to recreate. • To the north and south of this central space, smaller lawn spaces connect through the rest of the site, creating a variety of places to be outdoors as well as visual softening 10 Page 10 of 15 between the buildings. These spaces also include smaller gathering plazas near the buildings, a space for a community garden, and landscape buffering zones. • Flanking the for-sale units are small ‘door yards’ that create some private/garden space for the ground-level residents. • The program also contemplates strategically-located, enclosed bike storage, along routes from buildings to the trail connections off -site, and accommodations are made for emergency access through the courtyard spaces and the middle of the site. • The childcare is located at the north end of the site, in a location that provides through - access for drop-off, and a dedicated play yard, and with indoor and outdoor space allocations based on typical requirements for such facilities. • Building rooftops will play a critical role in meeting project goals and may provide opportunities for roof decks, building articulation, stormwater management, energy generation, and snow management - most of which will play a role going forward in the development process. Underground Parking Plan: This diagram illustrates a revised approach to the underground parking, providing the residential parking while distributing the parking through the site for access to each of the housing zones. This approach also supports the potential phased development of the project, and is flexible to be expanded or contracted based on the final unit count and any adjustments to the parking ratios, or the addition of a car share component to the program. Massing Model 1: Another familiar view of the project, with the massing updated to reflect the current concept plan. This bird’s-eye view is looking southwest, with Mountain Rescue and the airport in the background. The connected, central open spaces are visible in the middle of the image, and the location of the four-story buildings are shown at the left, against the bottom of Deer Hill. Massing Model 2: Looking from southwest, over the airport, with Mountain Rescue in the center and Deer Hill to the right. You can see the three -story masses to the HWY 82 side of the site, with the four-story buildings at the center-north of the east edge of the site. In this view you can also see how the balconies are used to step the buildings back at the third level along Sage Way. More articulation of the building massing may be possible by creating variants on the kit of parts, which would allow for some level of pushing and pulling of the façade to articulate the buildings. Ground-level Perspective 1: This perspective illustrates the spaces within the central courtyard of the project. This image is created from the massi ng model, standing at the northeast edge of the large, central open space and looking to the southwest. Three - and four-story buildings are visible, as are the buffer zones between the buildings and the common areas. The low fence in the foreground identif ies the boundary between the presumed owner-HOA area and the common spaces, providing an additional level of privacy for the ownership units without creating an obtrusive visual or physical boundary across the site. 11 Page 11 of 15 Co-Living Overlay Option: We recognize from the outreach and Council feedback that including a high percentage of co-living units has not been deemed desirable for the Lumberyard. This option depicts replacing one ‘standard’ building with one co -living building, resulting in ten additional units. The building is located near the north end of the property and across the street from the transit/bike share station. It has a smaller footprint, increasing the size of the central area. We now see this building as relatively plug-and- play, and this option could be carried forward in the process unless the Council chooses to decide about either including or excluding the co-living option sooner. Scale Comparison to other facilities: One way to get a sense of the scale of the buildings and site layout is by comparison to existing and well-known facilities such as Burlingame Ranch and Centennial. While the open site area and building footprints at the Lumberyard are generally comparable to those facilities, the buildings at the Lumberyard are slightly larger in both footprint and height as compared to those at Burlingame and Centennial , particularly the width of the ‘double-loaded’ buildings at the Lumberyard. The central open site area at the Lumberyard is larger than most of the open site spaces at the other facilities, but it is more concentrated and centralized, whereas the other facilities have more space distributed throughout their sites around buildings. Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Conceptual Cost Estimate: A typical rough order of magnitude conceptual estimate would not attempt to perform quantity take offs from a conceptual design and would instead attempt to utilize square foot pricing for a comparable project and then apply that to the square footage of the subject development and adjust as needed. The nearest, most -recent comparable project that we can use as a basis for a full development affordable housing project cost would be the City’s currently-contracted pricing for the upcoming Burlingame Phase 3 project . That budget is currently $50 million for 85,000 square feet of livable housing area or $588 per sq ft of net livable area. This means that for each square foot of livable housing area in the project, the per foot rate includes dollars for a myriad of development cost elements ranging from design, engineering, project management, permitting and approval fees and soft costs to excavation, foundations, infrastructure, roadways, stormwater system, parking, landscape and other site-related hard costs plus building and appurtenance hard costs, mechanical/electrical/plumbing, interior finishes and much more. Staff has assembled the rough order of magnitude conceptual estimate included as an exhibit to this memo using the Burlingame 3 project as a basis and making adjustments as applicable to the Lumberyard conceptual design as presented herein. Staff is presenting the attached rough order of magnitude conceptual project cost estimate exhibit with numerous caveats: • The conceptual estimate provided here is expected to be used as a rough planning tool only and is not expected to be an accurate indication of actual project cost at the time of implementation. • Changes to the plans moving forward in any way as well as changes in economic or other crucial assumed conditions may invalidate the conceptual estimates as provided herein. 12 Page 12 of 15 • While we have done our best to adjust the estimate based on the differences between the comp project and the subject conceptual project, there is little chance that the methodology will be entirely apples-to-apples. • While in this case the comparable property estimate includes some contingency in its budgeting, the application of the comp to the subject conceptual project includes additional contingency to avoid the hazard of not capturing all such diff erences between projects. • While there can be some certainty when working with present-day dollars, there is little certainty when translating present-day dollar information to future dollars, especially when near or above 10 years into the future. • Changes to the project phasing or changes to financing arrangements or potential public private partnership structures may cause the phased estimated cost as presented here to become less indicative of the City’s actual up -front costs to complete the development of the project. Conceptual Phasing: Given the large physical scale and cost of the project, it is important to consider how the construction may potentially be broken into phases. This could be done in many ways, and we have begun with an initial review of the updated site layout and the overall density across the site, identifying potential sequencing of construction by area to test breaking the project into three phases. Additional notes are as follows: • The diagram provided illustrates a three-phase approach, with the assumption that construction would proceed generally from north to south. • With this approach, nearly half of the units are built in the first phase, with a significant amount of the infrastructure (such as the connection of Sage Way to 200 Road) begin implemented in the first phase. • The middle and southern zones could then be built in two sequential phases or combined into a second phase to complete the construction. Supporting facilities, such as the re-location of the ABC trail, installation of the transit station, childcare, and Hwy 82 intersection improvements may be allocated to later phases and will need to be further studied. • The underground parking, while currently envisioned as an interconnected, single structure, could also be broken down along the phasing lines as the parking is distributed through each of the potential phasing zones. • It will also be important to consider demarcation of future property lines and maintenance scope demarcations related to ownership versus rental portions of the site including both above- and below-grade elements. • In this approach, and assuming the reconfiguration of Sage Way in the first phase, approximately 50%-60% of the cost will be borne by the first phase, with 40%-50% of the cost spread between the second two phases. The rough order of magnitude cost estimates for 10 -year phasing are shown in the attached ROM Conceptual Cost estimate. The ROM cost of the first phase is greater than prior early budget discussions due to the increase in overall floor area of the project based on the program changes which have been updated since October as well as the disproportionate amount of work included in the first phase. The phasing plan should 13 Page 13 of 15 continue to be studied throughout the remainder of the development process, and should be considered here as a starting point to continue that effort moving forward. This brings us to the second and third requests of Council for this work session: Please verify, if you feel you are able, the validity of (2) the modifications to the conceptual designs based on the community feedback and (3) the modifications to the housing program based on the community feedback and the appropriateness of utilizing the community feedback received through this process as important inputs to the conceptual design of the Lumberyard affordable housing project. Project Delivery Methodology and Next Steps An important next step in the process will be to evaluate a range of potential project delivery methodologies which could be used to implement the project. In the past, we have used a spectrum or continuum such as the diagram shown below to illustrate a broad range of such potential project delivery methodologies related to public-private partnerships (PPPs). The means of implementing the project could range from an entirely public project methodology where the City might act as developer, shown at the left end of the scale below, to a host of different potential PPPs, toward the right end of the scale below, where the City might enter into agreements with a private developer (or developers) to implement the project. 14 Page 14 of 15 One recent example is the City’s Aspen Housing Partners PPP which was used to deliver 45 new affordable rental units, and which would land on the middle -right in the diagram and could be described as Design, Build, Finance, Own, Operate, Maintain, Transfer. Such arrangements often come at a cost one way or ano ther, but can also ease the burden of public resources for project implementation and therefore should be evaluated carefully. Unfortunately the process of crafting an RFP which could be used to solicit private development interest for the implementation of the project along with leaving the solicitation on the market for a sufficient period of time and then the evaluation of such proposals can take up to six months or even longer. That time constraint combined with Council’s desire to begin construction in 2024 is already creating a critical path for the development timeline. This is illustrated in the summary timeline below, working backwards from 2024: 2024 Construction Begins 2023 Building Permit Application Review and Approval Building Permit Application Development and Submittal Contracting and Procurement Construction Documents Production 2022 Development Agreement Completion and Recording Planned Development Completion and Recording Detailed Design Process Land Use Approval Process 2021 Land Use Application Review Land Use Application Submittal Land Use Application Development Community Outreach Schematic Design 2020 Conceptual Design Community Outreach 2019 Community Outreach In order to be prepared to submit the land use application in mid-to-late 2021, there is no time to spare if we are to get to construction in 2024. Thus staff is suggesting that in early 2021, we should establish a work session with City Council to discuss potential goals of a PPP RFP which could be issued in early 2021 and which could be on the market while we are simultaneously working on Schematic Design and any further community outreach 15 Page 15 of 15 that may be needed and the development of the land use application . Two potential outcomes of this approach are below: 1) In the event that an RFP process for PPPs does not create any desirable opportunities for private development involvement, we will not have lost time in the process , and the City can continue as developer. 2) In the event that an RFP process for PPPs does create a desirable opportunity, we could evaluate such opportunity and potentially enter into agreements which could describe how the work to that point could be picked up by private developers and how the cost for the work to date could be reconciled among the parties involved. Staff recommends the following next steps: December 2020 • Pre-application meeting with Community Development staff January 2021 • Work session with City Council to discuss potential goals of PPP RFP and establish timeline of PPP RFP process • Work plan and scope for Land Use application development, including continued design and technical studies, continued outreach February 2021 • Commence Land Use application scope Mid-to-late Late 2021 • Submit Land Use application This brings us to the fourth request of Council for this work session: (4) Staff requests that Council engage in discussion about project delivery methodology and provide staff with direction about next steps for the project. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Included above and require further evaluation moving forward. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has included recommendations above. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: EXHIBITS: A – Presentation Slides B – Outreach 3 Summary Report C – Technical Studies Report D – Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Conceptual Project Cost Estimate 16 November 23rd, 2020 EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 17 REQUESTS OF COUNCIL TODAY 1.VERIFY RESULTS OF OUTREACH 2.VERIFY DESIGN 3.VERIFY PROGRAM 4.DIRECTION ON PROCESS MOVING FORWARD •UNIT MIX •Approximate Total •Unit Type Mix •Rental vs Ownership •ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER •SITE CHARACTER •LIVABILITY EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 18 TODAY’S PRESENTATION PART 1.10/26 TAKEAWAYS PART 2.OUTREACH RESULTS PART 3.TECHNICAL STUDIES REVIEW PART 4.PLAN REFINEMENTS PART 5.PROJECT DELIVERY/NEXT STEPS EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 19 ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER •Mountain modern is appropriate •Incorporate green elements on architecture •4 stories may be appropriate in some locations PARKING •Accept underground parking •Provide adequate parking 10/26 TAKEAWAYS UNIT MIX COMMERCIAL SPACE INNOVATION SITE AMENITIES •Increase 1br and 2br •Increase ownership •Support for childcare •Less support for other types of commercial •Energy efficiency and sustainability is important •Significantly reduce co-living, may or may not be acceptable •Create unique spaces both public and private •Protect park space from noise with architecture EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 20 WEBSITE •SURVEY:773 RESULTS •RICH CONTENT •OVER 1,900 UNIQUE VISITORS •AVERAGE SESSION: 5 MIN VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE(S) OUTREACH 3:TO DATE POP UPS OUTREACH REPORT •ACRA •ASPEN SKI COMPANY •ROTARY •CCLC •AABC •ANNIE MITCHELL PROPERTY MANAGER MEETINGS & PRESENTATIONS EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 21 OUTREACH RESULTS •APPROXIMATELY 200 MORE SURVEY RESULTS •PERCENTAGES CHANGED MINIMALLY. EXAMPLES: •WHEN ASKED IF THE UNIT MIX SHOULD BE MAINTAINED, THE 10/26 RESULTS SHOW 35%OF PEOPLE SAYING “NO, THERE SHOULD BE A HIGHER NUMBER OF MULTI-BEDROOM UNITS”. THE FINAL PERCENTAGE WENT UP TO 38% •THE PERECENTAGE OF PEOPLE THAT RESPONDED THAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD BENEFIT FROM UNDERGROUND PARKING WENT FROM 74% TO 75% •THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE THAT AGREED THAT THE ABC SHOULD PROVIDE COMMERCIAL TO THE SITE WENT FROM 75% TO 77% •COMMUNITY MEETINGS, OPEN HOUSES, POP-UPS, AND SURVERY RESULTS GENERALLY ALIGNED IN TERMS OF OUTCOMES •BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND THOSE SEEKING HOUSING TRENDED TOWARD HIGHER DENSITY; GENERAL PUBLIC TRENDED TOWARD MODERATING DENSITY EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 22 COUNCIL VERIFICATION OF OUTREACH RESULTS EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 23 •Systems have capacity to serve at the proposed unit counts •On-site and near-site improvements expected; no distribution-level improvements expected UTILITIES NOISE TRAFFIC TECHNICAL STUDIES REVIEW EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY•Actual measured site data is within acceptable noise levels per HUD standards •Noise mitigation will be important for livability •Construction and siting recommendations provided for noise mitigation •Preliminary study coordinated with County/ABC traffic study team and data •Minimal impact on ABC roads; minimal impact on travel times through ABC segment of SH 82 •Impact at existing access drive will trigger traffic signal •An initial project phase may not require intersection improvements per engineering standards; may still be recommended for safety •TDM plan may lessen trip generation •Survey is complete •Largely a flat site •Draining to east side of site EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 24 ENERGY EFFICIENCY GEOTECH TECHNICAL STUDIES REVIEW AIR QUALITY •Known community and Council priority •Assume building performance baseline improvement over Burlingame (raise the bar) •Assume all electric/no gas •Renewable electric available from COA, and soon from HCE •Many ways to establish and achieve goals •Staff advancing conversation to identify options and trade-offs to share during Land Use Application •The owner of the adjacent mini storage site shared their recent geotech report •No free groundwater found •Soils are appropriate for bearing •4-5’ of fill material was found, requiring removal •Very large boulders required blasting and should be expected •Current, ongoing study at ABC, by Pitkin County •Preliminary results are within acceptable thresholds •Interviewed local commercial brokers •Space available in ABC •Cost to construct new commercial at LY requires subsidy COMMERCIAL EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 25 PROGRAM AND DESIGN MODIFICATIONS EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 26 REFINED CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLANS EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 27 BUILDING CHARACTER: PRECEDENT IMAGERY: OPEN CORRIDORS EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 28 BUILDING CHARACTER: 3 STORY DOUBLE LOADED •Durable materials with natural tones •Glass canopy and solar photovoltaic •Green roof and solar photovoltaic •Planted balconies •Warm materials at unit entries EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 29 BUILDING CHARACTER: 4 STORY SINGLE LOADED •Durable materials with natural tones •Variety of roof forms •Screened, private balconies EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 30 SITE PLAN OVERVIEW Studios: 48 (R) 1 Bedrooms: 100 (R) + 40 (O) 2 Bedrooms: 64 (R) + 42 (O) 3 Bedrooms: 16 (O) Total: 310 units DEER HILL ANNIE MITCHELL MINI STORAGE MOUNTAIN RESCUE CHILDCARE SHUTTLE STATION OWNERSHIP UNITS (PURPLE EQUALS SEMI-PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE) COMMUNITY GARDEN PLAYGROUND PAVILION (20’X30’) COMMUNITY LAWN (12,000 SF) UNDERGROUND PARKING ENTRANCE EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 31 PARKING PLAN Parking Spaces 276 (R) + 156 (O) Total: 432 Underground Single Level DEER HILL ANNIE MITCHELL COMCAST MINI STORAGE MOUNTAIN RESCUE OWNERSHIP UNIT PARKING (EACH WITH 3’X10’ STORAGE SPACE) RENTAL UNIT PARKING (EACH WITH 3’X10’ STORAGE SPACE) EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 32 MASSING MODEL: LOOKING SOUTHWEST EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 33 MASSING MODEL: LOOKING NORTHEAST EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 34 SCALE COMPARISON TO OTHER LOCAL PROJECTS EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 35 SITE CHARACTER AND AMENITIES: PRECEDENT IMAGERY Program Elements Retained Lawn Private Spaces and ScreeningProgram Elements (continued) EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 36 VIEW OF COMMUNITY LAWN: LOOKING SOUTHWEST EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 37 MODIFIED CONCEPTS / OVERLAYS EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 38 OVERLAY: CO-LIVING PLAN Co-Living Studios: 55 (R) Studios: 43 (R) 1 Bedrooms: 80 (R) + 40 (O) 2 Bedrooms: 44 (R) + 42 (O) 3 Bedrooms: 16 (O) Total: 320 units DEER HILL ANNIE MITCHELL MINI STORAGE MOUNTAIN RESCUE CHILDCARE SHUTTLE STATION OWNERSHIP UNITS (PURPLE=PRIVATE YARDS) COMMUNITY GARDEN PLAYGROUND PAVILION (20’X30’) COMMUNITY LAWN (16,000 SF) UNDERGROUND PARKING ENTRANCE CO-LIVING EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 39 CO-LIVING MASSING MODEL: LOOKING SOUTHWEST EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 40 ROUGH ORDER ESTIMATES AND PHASING EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 41 ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE CONCEPT ESTIMATE EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 42 PROJECT DELIVERY METHODOLOGY-PPPs Public-Private Partnerships -Project Delivery Methodologies More Government Involvement Less Government Involvement Public Design/ Bid/ Build Private Development Const. Mgr. At Risk Design/ Build Design/ Build w/ ECI Design/ Build/ Maintain Design/ Build/ Operate D/B/Own/ Operate/ Transfer Design/ Build/ Operate/ Maintain D/B/Own/ Operate D/B/ Finance/ Own/ Operate/ MaintainB’game 2 & 3 B’game 1 AHP EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 43 PROPOSED NEXT STEPS December 2020 Pre-application meeting with Community Development staff January 2021 Work session with City Council to discuss potential goals of PPP RFP and establish timeline of PPP RFP process Work plan and scope for Land Use application development, including continued design and technical studies, continued outreach February 2021 Commence Land Use application scope Mid-to-late Late 2021 Submit Land Use application EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 44 REQUESTS OF COUNCIL •Are you able to verify the validity of the community feedback received through the outreach process? •Are you able to verify that the modifications to the conceptual designs—as based on the community feedback—are acceptable? •Are you able to verify that the modifications to the program and unit mix—as based on the community feedback—are acceptable? •Are you able to provide direction on next steps? EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 45 COUNCIL DISCUSSION EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 46 EXHIBIT A - PRESENTATION SLIDES 47 Outreach - Phase 3 Summary Report Addressing the Need for Housing through the Public Process Lumberyard Provided By: DHM Design + Robert Schultz Consulting Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 48 32 Contents Introduction - Outreach 3 ....................................5 Using this Document ...................................................5 The Process .................................................................5 Calendar and Timeline ..........................................7 Introduction .................................................................7 Stakeholder Meetings ..........................................9 Introduction .................................................................9 Public Outreach ...................................................13 Introduction ...............................................................13 Project Website .........................................................14 Survey ........................................................................16 Conceptual Plans .......................................................25 Virtual Open Houses.................................................. 33 Pop-Up Events ...........................................................37 Advertising Material ..................................................38 Spanish Outreach ......................................................39 Next Steps .............................................................41 Introduction ...............................................................41 Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 49 54 Introduction - Outreach 3 Using this Document This document is a companion to Outreach Phase 1 and 2 Summary Reports. For project background, overall schedule, property history, outreach framework, and outreach themes, please review the introduction section of the Phase 1 Summary Report. The Process The third round of outreach began following a City Council presentation, where the team was given direction to study +/- 300 unit site plans; as well as gain public feedback on specific topics. The team tested ideas of unit types, alternative living solutions, open space composition and parking configurations. Through a survey and various event outreach participants weighed in on the project and the specific feedback topics- -providing valuable input for the continued conceptual development of the project. • Developing conceptual plans - September • Website/Survey development – September • Website/Survey launched - October • Virtual Open Houses - Mid October • Pop-up events in the ABC and the City of Aspen Downtown – Mid October • Council Work Session - Late October • Outreach and survey closes - Early October • City Council Work Session – Late November Pop-up event at the ABC DEJE SU HUELLA EN EL ASPEN’S LUMBERYARD Visite AspenLumberyard.com para participar o aprender sobre el proyecto. Influencie el proyecto Lumberyard de vivienda asequible participando en un proceso de planeación esencial. ¡ De su aporte respecto a las unidades en alquiler versus aquellas en venta, tipo de unidad, apartaestudios comunitarios, estacionamiento y más! La divulgación termina el 6 de noviembre TOME UNA ENCUESTA DE 10 MINUTOS PARTICIPE EN UNA JORNADA DE PUERTAS ABIERTAS VIRTUAL Jueves, 15 de octubre 12pm y 6pm INSCRIBIRSE EN UNA RIFA SEMANAL PARA GANAR UN CERTIFICADO DE REGALO DE $50 Virtual open house presentationSpanish advertising flyerHome page of the Lumberyard project website Pop-up event on the Aspen Mall Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 50 76 Calendar and Timeline Introduction The feedback received from the first and second round of outreach was organized into project themes, helping to establish a framework for design. This framework guided the design team towards more highly refined site plans, appraising ideas of site capacity, circulation and rough unit counts, which were then further tested with the public in a third round of outreach. Below is a graphic illustrating the timeline for Outreach 3. Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report NOVEMBER 2020PRIOROCTOBER 2020 AUGUST 2020 SEPTEMBER 2020 OUTREACH PART 1 + 2 (COMPLETE) WEBSITE LAUNCHES (Oct 1) SURVEY CLOSED OUTREACH 3 ENDS (NOV 6)VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSES (Oct 15) ONGOING TECHNICAL STUDIES MEETINGS WITH INDIVIDUAL TAC MEMBERS STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH POP-UP EVENTS (Oct 19 + 20) PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVECOUNCIL UPDATE (OCT 26)OUTREACH 3 RUNSOCT 1 - NOV 6Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 51 98 Overarching Themes Mountain Rescue Aspen Board Member July 16, 2020 T Transportation and Transit Alternative transportation Thinks we need rail or similar to solve transportation problem Noise and Air Quality Building Layout He thinks buildings need to shield people from those impacts to create livable outdoor space between buildings and Deer Hill. He would front building along street behind Mtn Rescue, “wall” to create a sane place behind it for people to live and gather out of noise. He cannot overstate the importance for livability. BFS employee who lives on-site stating the issues with living there. De-icing noise is constant in winter, fumes, takeoffs and landing noisy Design Advice Architectural Character Fights for founding ideals of ABC- Paepcke, Benedict, McBride—Pueblo style, place where people can live and work, small scale small business Density Thought the 400+ unit scenarios were crazy Thinks our proposals are out of scale Stakeholder Meetings Introduction Various meetings, interviews and emails were coordinated with Stakeholders to determine the priorities and interests in the development of the Aspen Lumberyard. Overarching Themes Mountain Rescue Aspen Board Member October 28, 2020 T Transportation and Transit Unauthorized Parking Should unauthorized parking on MRA’s property become an issue, I have learned that it will not be possible to add a gate meeting CDOT’s requirements without losing at least 2-3 parking spaces on MRA’s property. Circulation MRA feels that the most important consideration moving forward for the planning team is to allow the ability to potentially change how traffic flows through the connection between HWY 82 and the feeder roads, as well as preserving an ability to relocate the main MRA entrance to the upvalley side of the property so that the development does not preclude other options for potentially necessary improvements. Design Advice Scenic View Impacts Because this property is within Pitkin County, the scenic impacts of more robust fencing than what is currently installed may be an issue Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 52 1110 Overarching Themes Member of Aspen Ski Co. Housing Office October 28, 2020 T Transportation and Transit Parking arrangements I would move the cars to at-grade as buffer from SH 82 Dislike UG parking, they will be an albatross in the long run, surface can be re-purposed I would do move civil work now to determine UG cost/benefits before locking in Transit Does not think the transit connection is that great Noise and Air Quality Site constraints Noise is an issue but solvable Tough site, I am not fond of the opportunity. Trying to make it work because the City paid $$ for it Design Advice Density Our metric is $$ per bedroom, lower is better, sometimes more units does not make sense Overarching Themes ACRA Meeting October 29, 2020 Population Served 56% need both Business also needs seasonal housing Is there a buy-in opportunity for co-living? Would like to pursue this more: central management of project makes ownership units possible Mixed-Use Can we separate business owners? Business also needs seasonal housing Design Advice Doesn’t like the triangle parcel Overarching Themes CCLC Meeting November 4, 2020 Population Served Ownership vs Rental More rental than ownership units Prefers 2-3 bedrooms for ownership units; important for longevity Advantages to rentals is control of the asset “Highly utilizing assets” is a high priority Are we able to provide affordable housing in the interim? Is this timeline typical? (Re: it’s about money and process) Mixed-Use Childcare Childcare is a good idea T Transportation and Transit Parking Yes to underground parking; no to podium. Cost of storing cars at the Lumberyard site is so expensive ... what about storage at the intercept lot? Underground parking is a priority for community character Noise and Air Quality Air quality Believes that air quality testing has never been done - look more into this Make sure that air isn’t compromised Design Advice Project aesthetic Underground parking is a priority for community character Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 53 1312 Public Outreach Introduction Since the start of the project, public outreach has been the foundation of the design process. The plans continue to be refined through public input. The Lumberyard team created various opportunities for the public to weigh in on the design progress through this last round of outreach. PART 2:THE SURVEY AND THE 6 FEEDBACK TOPICS CONCEPT A CONCEPT B CONCEPT C UNIT MIX COMMERCIAL SPACE PARKING INNOVATION SITE AMENITIES ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER 6 Feedback Topics The content of the outreach were based on the direction received from Council in July. Council requested gaining further public input on various topics that were driving the main differences in the plan alternatives: unit mix, parking, commercial space, innovation, architectural character and site amenities. These six topics were then researched further and tested with the public. Outreach Tools and Engaging the Public In order to gain feedback on the project, the 6 topics and the current conceptual plans, the Lumberyard team engaged the public through the following tools: • Project Website (which included a survey and the current conceptual plans) • Virtual Open Houses • Pop up Events • Advertising • Spanish Outreach Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 54 1514 Google Analytics With the development of a project website, the team used Google Analytics to help identify important trends and metrics of website traffic. As shown below, the project website had 1,919 recorded unique visitors, who had an average session time of ±4:30 minutes. Due to technical difficulties, there were some complications with the website host software-- which resulted in Google Analytics being down for a period of time. Analytics Aspen Lumberyard All Web Site Data Go to report  Language Users % Users 1.en-us 1,419 73.68% 2.en 463 24.04% 3.en-gb 8 0.42% 4.zh-cn 7 0.36% 5.es-419 6 0.31% 6.en-au 4 0.21% 7.es-mx 4 0.21% 8.es-us 3 0.16% 9.pt-br 3 0.16% 10.fr 2 0.10% Audience Overview Sep 30, 2020 - Nov 4, 2020 Overview  Users October 2020 November 2020 100100100 200200200 300300300 Users 1,925 New Users 1,919 Sessions 2,678 Number of Sessions per User 1.39 Pageviews 5,973 Pages / Session 2.23 Avg. Session Duration 00:04:38 Bounce Rate 54.11% New Visitor Returning Visitor 14.5% 85.5% © 2020 Google All Users 100.00% Users Project Website With the spread of COVID-19 limiting face-to-face public outreach events, the development of a project website was deemed critical to facilitate valuable public feedback. An important component of the website was the project survey. In addition to the survey, the website served as an archive for project documentation as well as an announcement board for project events. Events: a schedule outlining outreach events and recordings of the virtual open house Project Intro: a 3-minute project introductory video with supplemental project timeline and calendar Document Library: an archive of important project documents Conceptual Plans: an overview of the most up- to-date conceptual plans Home + Survey: a brief introduction to the project, providing contextual information and graphic representation. An embedded survey seeks to encourage public participation in the shaping of this project 773 Survey Results 35 Days of Active Outreach 4:38 Minute Average Session 88 New Users / Day (Average) 88 New Users / Day (Average) Google Analytics Down Due to the Google Analytics being down for a portion of the outreach, the Lumberyard team calculated the average new users per a day--not including the time that Google Analytics was down. This metric gives a better understanding of traffic on the website for the entire duration of the outreach: Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 55 1716 Survey As mentioned in the previous section, a global pandemic restricted all in-person events. In order to engage the public, the team embedded a survey in the website homepage. The survey was designed to be both informative and interactive. The survey consisted of an introduction, context to each question, the question itself, a more information tab and a comment box. This format ensured that the survey served as a learning tool, as well as an instrument for community feedback. The questions mainly pertained to the 6 topics for feedback--such as unit types, parking, transportation, architectural character and site amenities. As part of the survey, participants were asked if they could see themselves being potential future residents of the Lumberyard. If the participant answered yes-a series of additional questions was “unlocked”. This was meant to highlight feedback from the potential residents of the project. These questions are shown in green font in the survey results on the following pages. The website survey was launched in October and received 773 survey results. The survey was available in English and Spanish in an attempt to provide access to entire public. As an incentive, participants that completed the survey were entered into a weekly raffle to win a $50 gift certificate to a local restuarant. The raffles ran the duration of the outreach. {questioncontextsurvey questionmore info tabsurvey intro{ { { What percentage rental vs ownership do you think the community needs at the Lumberyard? SURVEY RESULTS |Unit Mix (Rental vs Ownership) The City can borrow against rental units that it owns (to create more affordable housing), but cannot borrow against ownership units. Does this affect your prior answer related to rental vs ownership units at the Lumberyard? 16% 65% 19% Yes, I would increase the % of rental units. No, I would not change my previous answer No I think there should be more ownership opportunities 42% 58% Ownership Average Rental Average 39% 23% 38% Yes, this is the right mix No, there should be a higher number of smaller units (studios and 1-bedrooms) No, there should be a higher number of multi-bedroom units SURVEY RESULTS |Unit Type In the current plan studies, the unit mix maintains this percentage for two of the three options. Do you agree? 79 140 125 53 59 124 169 126 Over the next 5 years, would you be interested in living in (check all that apply) Survey Results Notes: These results should not be considered statistically valid, but rather a sampling of community members’ feedback. All comments submitted can be found in the appendix. During the outreach process, one city council member encouraged users via email to push for high density. When the team explored how this campaign affected the results, they found it to be negligible. *The current plan studies include a mix of 80% rentals and 20% ownership *The original unit mix for the Lumberyard was based on the findings of the regional housing needs study, with 67% studio and 1-bedrooms and 33% 2- and 3-bedrooms Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 56 1918 25% 75% Podium Underground SURVEY RESULTS |Parking Does the community benefit more from podium parking or underground parking at the Lumberyard site? 1% 99% No Yes If you were to live at the Lumberyard, would you need a parking space with your housing? 85% 15% No Yes Would you be willing to live at the Lumberyard if you could not have a car parked on site (or anywhere in the ABC)? 119 82 45 51 225 85 ABC shuttle route downtown with Lumberyard stop Bike/e-bike share Car share Dial-a-ride shuttle I still need a personal car RFTA pass Which of these would you need to comfortably live at the Lumberyard without a car? (check all that apply) SURVEY RESULTS |Transportation T T 58%31% 11% Yes, a mix of 2-3 stories is appropriate No, I think the project should include 4+ stories No, I think the project should be 1-2 story buildings SURVEY RESULTS |Building Height City Council has recently indicated support for a mix of 2-and 3-story buildings at the Lumberyard, and clearly signaled discomfort with 4+ stories. Nearby buildings are a mix of 2 and 3 stories. Do you agree? The following images begin to hint at potential design character for the project. Use the sliders to rate each set of images as inspiration for design at the Lumberyard. Rate from 0 (not right for the Lumberyard) to 5 (perfect for the Lumberyard) SURVEY RESULTS |Design Character 0%20%40%60%80% 100% D C B A Building Types% of Answers 0 1 2 3 4 5 Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 57 2120 23% 77% Disagree Agree SURVEY RESULTS |Commercial Uses The council is inclined to allow the ABC to provide commercial services to the Lumberyard and focus on providing housing on the site. Do you agree or disagree? Do you think the Lumberyard is a good potential site for co-living? 45% 55% No Yes SURVEY RESULTS |Co-Living Think about the co-living information from earlier in the survey. Would you consider living in a smaller unit (340-400 square feet) if you had access to professionally managed, on-site amenities like a fitness center, co-working space, social gathering areas, private gathering areas, media room, gear storage, etc? 27% 73%Yes, I would prefer a smallerunit with common amenities No, I would rather have alarger unit SURVEY RESULTS |Sustainability A sustainability certification, such as LEED can provide valuable accountability and visibility to a project. Certification comes at a higher cost to the project, funds that could be used for amenities and more housing. Do you feel that it’s a community priority to pursue a sustainability certification for the development? 41% 59% No Yes 32% 68% No, the existing codes createthe right balance Yes, Aspen should continueto raise the bar The current building codes promote energy efficiency. The City has considered pursuing a cutting-edge target for energy use (e.g. Net Zero) for this project. Net Zero comes at a higher cost than only meeting the existing codes. Should the Lumberyard go above and beyond the existing energy efficiency codes? 104 96 53 257 106 161 0 1 2 3 4 5 Childcare: A childcare facility could be provided on the site. Rate on a scale of 0 to 5 (not appropriate for Lumberyard to highly support): SURVEY RESULTS |Childcare / Shuttle / Parking 73 62 44 264 130 204 0 1 2 3 4 5 Shuttle Station: A shuttle from the ABC to downtown could add a measure of convenience and encourage transit use. Rate on a scale of 0 to 5 (not appropriate for Lumberyard to highly support): 54 43 56 318 130 176 0 1 2 3 4 5 Ancillary Parking: Approximately 24 surface parking spaces could be provided between the ABC Trail and Highway 82 near the Lumberyard entry. Rate on a scale of 0 to 5 (not appropriate for Lumberyard to highly support): T Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 58 2322 SURVEY RESULTS |Housing Status 83 130 57 37 2 I’m not in an Aspen affordable housing unitbut am trying to get into the system (or will) I’m in an Aspen affordable housing unit, but would consider moving to the Lumberyard I live in free market housing (upvalley to Brush Creek to Aspen) and would like to get into an Aspen affordable housing unit I live in free market housing (I-70 corridor and downvalley of Brush Creek) and would like to get into an Aspen affordable housing unit I currently do not live full time in the area# of EntriesWhich statement most closely applies to you? Are you looking for affordable housing right now or do you see yourself as a potential resident of the future Lumberyard? 57% 43% No Yes 26 119 26 86 118 114 214 49 141 29 34 152 28 1 187 104 Regardless of the unit mix or format, what types of on-site amenities are most important to you to create a livable and vibrant neighborhood? Select your Top 5: SURVEY RESULTS |Amenities 79 140 125 53 58 124 169 126 Studio Rental 1BR Rental 2BR Rental 3BR Rental Studio Ownership 1BR Ownership 2BR Ownership 3BR Ownership SURVEY RESULTS |Housing Demand Over the next 5 years, would you be interested in living in (check all that apply) SURVEY RESULTS |Co-Living Think about the co-living information from earlier in the survey. Would you consider living in a smaller unit (340-400 square feet) if you had access to professionally managed, on-site amenities like a fitness center, co-working space, social gathering areas, private gathering areas, media room, gear storage, etc? 27% 73% Yes, I would prefer a smallerunit with common amenities No, I would rather have alarger unit Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 59 2524 95 120 49 42 2 2 1 person 2 people 3 people 4 people 5 people 6 people What is your current household size? SURVEY RESULTS |Household Size Conceptual Plans The team presented three conceptual plan alternatives to test various priorities within the community. Below is the Overview of Plans, a document that compares and contrasts the three conceptual plans, using the various project characteristics and metrics as a framework. Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 60 2726 (continued)Concept A Concept A tested the different relationships of parking, building massing, and unit count - specifically podium parking. Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 61 2928 Concept B Concept B illustrates underground parking and a higher unit count. Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 62 3130 Concept C Concept C illustrates co-living, underground parking, and the highest unit count. Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 63 3332 Virtual Open Houses On October 15, 2020, the design team led a virtual open house, a presentation that covered an introduction to the project, the six feedback topics, the three plan concepts and what’s next for the process. The event was held at 12pm and 6pm, and was attended by 35 participants. These participants were invited by way of various outreach tools: project website, email blasts, ads in newspaper, radio and social media. During the presentation, the Lumberyard team members asked questions related to layout concepts, density options, site capacity and the preference for a variety of site amenities. In the table below, you can find the results of those poll questions. Poll Results Question Yes No Did you know about this project prior to October of this year?16 1 Question Yes No Did you receive the email inviting you to participate?15 3 Question Yes No Have you been to the project web site yet?9 7 Question Yes No, more small units No, more larger units Is 67% studio and 1-bedroom, and 33% 2- and 3-bedroom the right mix for the Lumberyard?15 3 6 Question Underground Podium T Does the community benefit more from podium parking or underground parking at the lumberyard site? 18 3 Question Yes, let the ABC provide commercial space No, let the ABC provide commercial space Should the Lumberyard development focus on housing and let the ABC serve the commercial needs of the area? 17 2 Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 64 3534 Question A B C D Which of these choices do you feel is most appropriate for this site?4 13 1 5 Question Green roofs Outdoor living Community gardens Extra parking spaces What kind of outdoor spaces are most important to you?7 14 7 2 Lawn or park space Generous gear storage Private outdoor space 9 12 15 PART 2:ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER A B C D OPENING TRANSLATOROMAR CABRERA PARTICIPATION TOOLS CHOOSE LANGUAGE HERE CAMBIE EL IDIOMA AQUÍ HOST & MODERATORDELIA BOLSTER |DHM Design Senior Designer PART 3:DISTINGUISHING FEATURES TODAY’S PRESENTERS Bob Schultz |Robert Schultz Consulting Land Use + Strategic Planner Chris Everson |City of Aspen Affordable Housing Development Senior Project Manager Jim Kehoe |CCA Architects Senior Project Architect Jason Jaynes |DHM Design Managing Principal Question Yes No Is co-living an appropriate solution for some of the units at the Lumberyard?8 14 Questions & Answers Question Answer You have failed to mention that the regional housing study also has a huge deficit of family appropriate housing. This site is inappropriate for family friendly units but please note it. Good point I have long wished that the GRFRHS had gone into more detail about the household size needs. And if fell short on including study about households of over 140% AMI. T That parking question makes no sense. The experts should know this. Why are we asking the community this? Whatever supports more density. The issue that comes up is the additional cost of underground parking vs. the additional open space and/ or units gained by such. The Council wanted community feedback on that trade off. T Not a question, but a comment. Related to UG parking - I see a relationship between parking and storage. I support underground parking, and in doing so, would like more space dedicated to storage. My experience that private and publicly developed AH does not offere enough on-site storage - when units are small. Good observation. We are hearing that through the survey at aspenlumberyard.com as well. Please feel free to offer that comment if you take the survey as well. There are spaces for comments. Gear storage comes up often. T “No parking” wasn’t listed as an option. Correct, if you take the survey at aspenlumberyard.com there is a question about whether you would live there without a parking space. A reduction in parking would be a City Council decision. They have told us that they need information from us to help them support any decision about potentially reducing the amount of parking. So instead of asking whether or not parking should be reduced, our survey is instead asking whether or not people could live at the Lumberyard without a car, and also what it might take to get them to ditch their car. Was the co-living successful in Aspen?live answered I wonder about people’s reasons for not wanting co-living. Could COVID be part of this?live answered There is/was such a project near the ols AAM Yes, that project has been in existence for decades. It is a little different than co-housing which has a higher level of expected interaction around meals and do forth where co-living is more about shared amenities. Slides and Screen Shots from Virtual Open Houses Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 65 3736 Pop-Up Events In October, the team set up a tent and boards on the Aspen Mall (10/19) and outside Roxy’s Market (10/20). To comply with health and safety, the events were minimally advertised and socially distanced. The Lumberyard team interacted with around 45 members of the public. Overarching Themes Pop-Up Event Attendees General Comments Population Served Unit Type: Need 2-bedroom, housing is so expensive. Need 1- and 2-bedroom, no interest in a studio. Would need a 1- or 2-bedroom place. I have 2 kids and would need 3 bedroom, but ideally a 4 bedroom. Would need 1 to 2 bedroom. Would be excited to live here/appreciate the outreach Needs housing; needs 2 bedrooms. Housing is so expensive, $7,000 for a small place in Basalt. She is constantly looking for places and is excited about this development. Need 1 to 2 bedroom. No interest in studio (not good for couple, not even good for individuals) “We need housing. These feel like very nice, big units” Lives down valley. Works in ABC. Would love to live here Most interested in 2 bedroom Works IT for Ski Co. Wants dog friendly rentals (so no carpet) Lives and works in Aspen, but housing is too hard, and sees himself moving by the time Lumberyard breaks ground. Mixed-Use Commercial Space: Commercial, yes. Local serving .. neighborhood commercial. T Transportation and Transit Parking: Prefer underground parking. Don’t under provide parking. Parking on the roof? Decentivize parking, maybe “no parking” option? I would need a parking space Traffic: What would effect on traffic be for this project? Access to transit: e-bikes/e-car share is a no brainer. Access to transit and markets is awesome. More greenery. Design Advice Co-Living: Fewer kitchens, living, etc. For each adult. Interested in co-living but would need to have own kitchen and bathroom. Density: Yes, 2-story near Sage Way, 3-story in back. Okay with 4-stories, look at San Moritz. Building “up” in this location is appropriate. Go up, save money to achieve. Likes building higher for sure. Likes Concept A, but taller .. could go more than 3-story. 2-story, maybe 3-story. Thank you - i hope there is going to be a demographic question at the end.... you need to collect this info. We do not have a specific question concerning demographics. Please feel free to ask a specific question on demographics. There are 19 attendees. To put the demographics in perspective, our survey currently has nearly 400 responses, and we do have demographics on those responses. So to answer your question, less so for the webinar, but in general for the overall survey, we do have such info. Hope that helps I moved to Aspen from a Cohousing community in Littleton, CO. I can speak for benefits and drawbacks to it- but certainly it supports community. Thanks, Co-living is similar but a little different but the shared common amenities is similar. I would like to know who the community is that is on this call. i.e. do they live in aspen right now? We have some demographic questions in the survey on the website but not for this webinar Do they live in affordable housing? What is their age range? etc, etc. The survey at aspenlumberyard.com is the instrument that we are using for that type of input. What is the difference in the per/unit, per/ bedroom, and per/sf cost between these three concepts? We are far from finalizing pricing. There is an assumption that underground parking will increase overall cost by 5-10% of overall project costs. You can review the chart showing the breakdown of unit mix T Can surface parking be used as a buffer between the units and Hwy82? This is an option to have some surface parking on a portion downvalley of Mountain Rescue. Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 66 3938 Advertising Material A concerted effort went into promoting the survey, events and inviting public participation. Below are the various methods the Lumberyard Team used to advertise the events. The team also used media briefs and radio ads to get the word out. Learn more at AspenLumberyard.com ENTER A WEEKLY RAFFLE FOR A $50 GIFT CERTIFICATE! ASPEN’S LUMBERYARD: BUILD THE FOUNDATION This a ordable housing project is at a pivotal planning stage where your input is critical. TAKE A SURVEY Give Input on: • Rental vs Sales • Unit Type • Co-Living Studios • Parking Options • Building Height GO TO THE WEBSITE AspenLumberyard.com • Take the survey • Read about/attend events • Learn about the project • Comment on conceptual plans 1 ENTER A WEEKLY RAFFLE FOR A $50 GIFT CERTIFICATE! Email Blast: a formatted email invitation to the project website and the virtual open houses was sent to all previous participants, stakeholders, technical advisors, various organizations and influencers. Flyers: flyers call to participate in the project survey as well as the date and times of the virtual open houses were posted at various businesses in downtown Aspen and the ABC. Newspaper Ads (Print and Digital): space in the Aspen Times and Aspen Daily News was purchased to highlight the open houses. Banner over Main Street: the lumberyard website and survey was advertised on the banner over main street during the outreach Social Media Posts: the events were advertised with Spanish and English on both Instagram and Facebook through the city’s and DHM accounts. OPENING TRANSLATOROMAR CABRERA PARTICIPATION TOOLS CHOOSE LANGUAGE HERE CAMBIE EL IDIOMA AQUÍ HOST & MODERATORDELIA BOLSTER |DHM Design Senior Designer EL LUMBERYARD DE ASPEN:CONSTRUYA LA FUNDACIÓN Conozca más enAspenLumberyard.com LLENE UNA ENCUESTA Dé su opinión sobre: • Renta vs. Venta • Tipo de unidad • Estudios de cohabitación • Opciones de estacionamiento • Altura de edifi cios VAYA AL SITIO AspenLumberyard.com • Llene la encuesta • Lea sobre/asista a los eventos • Aprenda sobre el proyecto • Comente sobre los planes conceptuales ENTRE EN UNA RIFA SEMANAL DE UN CERTIFICADO DE REGALO DE $50 Este proyecto de vivienda asequible está en una fase fundamental de planifi cación donde su aporte es crítico ENMARCANDO EL FUTUROVivienda Asequible Aspen Virtual Open House: the virtual open house was simultaneously translated in Spanish by a professional translator, which was recorded and uploaded to the website Website: the main content of the website can easily be translated into Spanish by selecting the language in the menu bar Advertising Material: all advertising material previously mentioned was sent out in Spanish as well as English, including Spanish radio ads on La Tricolor Survey Question Context: survey question context text was embedded in the survey format, therefore it was translated when the user changes the website language. Survey More Info Tabs: these tabs had graphics that were translated prior to being uploaded to the website. Spanish Website Graphics: additional website graphics were translated into Spanish versions Spanish Outreach In order to reach the Spanish speaking community of the Roaring Fork Valley, the Lumberyard team placed a high importance in making the website and events available in Spanish. The team reached out to Valley Settlement and Manaus Project--who forwarded the Spanish version of the email blast to their contact list. Spanish radio ads ran on La Tricolor and Spanish print ads in El Montanes. Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 67 4140 Next Steps Introduction As Outreach 3 concluded, the design team looks ahead to the November 23rd, 2020 City Council work session, where the council selects a plan to take into detailed design and land use permitting. Prior to that work session, specific project decisions need to be resolved such as: site density balance, general site layout, open space ratio, unit mix, architectural character, building heights and commercial uses. The table below summarizes and categorizes the valuable outreach feedback received and how that will be utilized moving forward with the development of the project. Overarching Themes Outreach Responses Unit Mix What we are hearing: Answers averaged to 42% own, 58% rent. The most common answer was 50/50; Ratio of 2/3 studio & 1bdrms and 1/3 multi-bedroom units supported; Highest demand for 1 and 2 bdrms; Do not mix rental and ownership Our interpretation: Increase 2 bdrms, decrease studios. Increase ownership percentage. What it means: Increasing size of units affects density. Increased ownership has design implications if adopted. T Parking What we are hearing: 75% of respondents supported underground parking; 99% of potential residents say they need a parking space with their housing; 15% of potential residents would live there without a car; Mobility alternatives are desirable but do not reduce parking demand; Shuttle received highest support; Majority supported providing ancillary parking Our interpretation: Mobility alternatives likely reduce vehicle trips; personal vehicle parking is necessary. What it means: Supports current parking quantity. Include mobility alternatives in design Innovation What we are hearing: Co-Living: Majority of respondents support co-living, but 73% of potential residents would rather have a larger unit Sustainability: 68% support higher energy efficiency (such as net zero) 59% support for sustainable development certification Our interpretation: Co-Living: Likely users are less interested in co-living than the general public Sustainability: This development should raise the bar in terms of energy efficiency and sustainability. What it means: Co-Living: Some component of co-living may be appropriate but less than shown on Concept C. Sustainability: Early of adoption of sustainability goals is important in design process Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 68 4342 Architectural Character What we are hearing: Highest support for mountain contemporary and mountain traditional architecture; 58% support for 2-3 story buildings; 31% support for 4+ stories Our interpretation: More modern forms and materials should be rooted in traditional mountain character; 2 to 3 story buildings are appropriate for this site. Limited 4 story building may be appropriate What it means: Integrate mountain contemporary character to next round of design studies; A well-placed, stepped 4th story may support achieving density goals if needed. Study opportunity to ‘sink’ the building a half level in key locations Site Amenities Most favored amenities: Generous gear storage; private outdoor space (decks, porches, patios); lawn/park space; extra parking spaces Our interpretation: Potential residents value traditional/practical amenities over specialty services and facilities. “Gear” is a necessary design consideration What it means: Focus on providing storage and a variety of high quality outdoor spaces (private and shared), as well as access from buildings to these spaces Commercial Space What we are hearing: 77% of respondents agree that ABC should provide commercial services to development; Majority in favor of incorporating childcare Our interpretation: Focus on housing for the Lumberyard site; Result is an illustration of the general need for daycare, and the specific need in the ABC area What it means: Consider elimination of any commercial on site or maintain flexibility for very small commercial component; Continue to carry this as a plug and play option at the north end of the site. Continue to evaluate community need and opportunities CONCEPT A Concept A tested relationship of parking, building massing, and unit count - specifically podium parking KEEP •DO WE CARRY THIS CONCEPT FORWARD? MODIFY •MODIFYING THIS CONCEPT IN RESPONSE TO OUTREACH RESULTS CREATES A SOLUTION SIMILAR TO CONCEPT B CONCEPT B Concept B illustrates underground parking and a higher unit count KEEP • Underground parking • Higher unit count • 2-3 story building mix • Flexibility for childcare or other commercial MODIFY • Rental/sale mix • Unit type • Increase 2 bdrms, decrease studios • Potential for 4 th story to maintain unit count • Add ancillary parking • Create protected park spaces • Propose childcare? Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 69 4544 CONCEPT C Concept C illustrates co-living, underground parking, and the highest unit count KEEP • Underground parking • Higher unit count • 2-3 story building mix • Protected park space MODIFY • Rental/sale mix • Unit type • Significantly reduce total co- living • Increase 2 bdrms, decrease studios • Potential for 4 th story to maintain unit count • Add ancillary parking Aspen Lumberyard | Outreach 3 Summary Report Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 70 46 Appendix Appendix A - Website 45 Home Page 45 Project Intro Page 55 Conceptual Plans Page 60 Events Page 63 Document Library Page 65 Appendix B - Survey 69 Survey Results 69 Survey Comments 77 Appendix C - Conceptual Plans 119 Overview of Plans 119 Concept A 120 Concept B 122 Concept C 124 Appendix D - Advertising Material 127 Social Media Post 127 Newspaper Advertisements 127 Radio Advertisement Copy 128 Example of Email Blast 129 Lumberyard Communication Spreadsheet 130 Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 71 Appendix A - Website Home Page Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 72 Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 73 Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 74 Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 75 Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 76 Project Intro Page Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 77 Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 78 Conceptual Plans Page Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 79 Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 80 Events Page Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 81 Document Library Page Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 82 Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 83 What percentage rental vs ownership do you think the community needs at the Lumberyard? SURVEY RESULTS |Unit Mix (Rental vs Ownership) The City can borrow against rental units that it owns (to create more affordable housing), but cannot borrow against ownership units. Does this affect your prior answer related to rental vs ownership units at the Lumberyard? 16% 65% 19% Yes, I would increase the % of rental units. No, I would not change my previous answer No I think there should be more ownership opportunities 42% 58% Ownership Average Rental Average 39% 23% 38% Yes, this is the right mix No, there should be a higher number of smaller units (studios and 1-bedrooms) No, there should be a higher number of multi-bedroom units SURVEY RESULTS |Unit Type In the current plan studies, the unit mix maintains this percentage for two of the three options. Do you agree? 79 140 125 53 59 124 169 126 Over the next 5 years, would you be interested in living in (check all that apply) 25% 75% Podium Underground SURVEY RESULTS |Parking Does the community benefit more from podium parking or underground parking at the Lumberyard site? 1% 99% No Yes If you were to live at the Lumberyard, would you need a parking space with your housing? 85% 15% No Yes Would you be willing to live at the Lumberyard if you could not have a car parked on site (or anywhere in the ABC)? 119 82 45 51 225 85 ABC shuttle route downtown with Lumberyard stop Bike/e-bike share Car share Dial-a-ride shuttle I still need a personal car RFTA pass Which of these would you need to comfortably live at the Lumberyard without a car? (check all that apply) SURVEY RESULTS |Transportation Appendix B - Survey Survey Results Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 84 58%31% 11% Yes, a mix of 2-3 stories is appropriate No, I think the project should include 4+ stories No, I think the project should be 1-2 story buildings SURVEY RESULTS |Building Height City Council has recently indicated support for a mix of 2-and 3-story buildings at the Lumberyard, and clearly signaled discomfort with 4+ stories. Nearby buildings are a mix of 2 and 3 stories. Do you agree? The following images begin to hint at potential design character for the project. Use the sliders to rate each set of images as inspiration for design at the Lumberyard. Rate from 0 (not right for the Lumberyard) to 5 (perfect for the Lumberyard) SURVEY RESULTS |Design Character 0%20%40%60%80% 100% D C B A Building Types% of Answers 0 1 2 3 4 5 23% 77% Disagree Agree SURVEY RESULTS |Commercial Uses The council is inclined to allow the ABC to provide commercial services to the Lumberyard and focus on providing housing on the site. Do you agree or disagree? Do you think the Lumberyard is a good potential site for co-living? 45% 55% No Yes SURVEY RESULTS |Co-Living Think about the co-living information from earlier in the survey. Would you consider living in a smaller unit (340-400 square feet) if you had access to professionally managed, on-site amenities like a fitness center, co-working space, social gathering areas, private gathering areas, media room, gear storage, etc? 27% 73%Yes, I would prefer a smallerunit with common amenities No, I would rather have alarger unit Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 85 SURVEY RESULTS |Sustainability A sustainability certification, such as LEED can provide valuable accountability and visibility to a project. Certification comes at a higher cost to the project, funds that could be used for amenities and more housing. Do you feel that it’s a community priority to pursue a sustainability certification for the development? 41% 59% No Yes 32% 68% No, the existing codes createthe right balance Yes, Aspen should continueto raise the bar The current building codes promote energy efficiency. The City has considered pursuing a cutting-edge target for energy use (e.g. Net Zero) for this project. Net Zero comes at a higher cost than only meeting the existing codes. Should the Lumberyard go above and beyond the existing energy efficiency codes? 104 96 53 257 106 161 0 1 2 3 4 5 Childcare: A childcare facility could be provided on the site. Rate on a scale of 0 to 5 (not appropriate for Lumberyard to highly support): SURVEY RESULTS |Childcare / Shuttle / Parking 73 62 44 264 130 204 0 1 2 3 4 5 Shuttle Station: A shuttle from the ABC to downtown could add a measure of convenience and encourage transit use. Rate on a scale of 0 to 5 (not appropriate for Lumberyard to highly support): 54 43 56 318 130 176 0 1 2 3 4 5 Ancillary Parking: Approximately 24 surface parking spaces could be provided between the ABC Trail and Highway 82 near the Lumberyard entry. Rate on a scale of 0 to 5 (not appropriate for Lumberyard to highly support): SURVEY RESULTS |Housing Status 83 130 57 37 2 I’m not in an Aspen affordable housing unitbut am trying to get into the system (or will) I’m in an Aspen affordable housing unit, but would consider moving to the Lumberyard I live in free market housing (upvalley to Brush Creek to Aspen) and would like to get into an Aspen affordable housing unit I live in free market housing (I-70 corridor and downvalley of Brush Creek) and would like to get into an Aspen affordable housing unit I currently do not live full time in the area# of EntriesWhich statement most closely applies to you? Are you looking for affordable housing right now or do you see yourself as a potential resident of the future Lumberyard? 57% 43% No Yes 26 119 26 86 118 114 214 49 141 29 34 152 28 1 187 104 Regardless of the unit mix or format, what types of on-site amenities are most important to you to create a livable and vibrant neighborhood? Select your Top 5: SURVEY RESULTS |Amenities Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 86 79 140 125 53 58 124 169 126 Studio Rental 1BR Rental 2BR Rental 3BR Rental Studio Ownership 1BR Ownership 2BR Ownership 3BR Ownership SURVEY RESULTS |Housing Demand Over the next 5 years, would you be interested in living in (check all that apply) SURVEY RESULTS |Co-Living Think about the co-living information from earlier in the survey. Would you consider living in a smaller unit (340-400 square feet) if you had access to professionally managed, on-site amenities like a fitness center, co-working space, social gathering areas, private gathering areas, media room, gear storage, etc? 27% 73% Yes, I would prefer a smallerunit with common amenities No, I would rather have alarger unit 95 120 49 42 2 2 1 person 2 people 3 people 4 people 5 people 6 people What is your current household size? SURVEY RESULTS |Household Size Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 87 Overarching Themes Unit Mix (Rental vs For-Sale) Comments: Population Served • We need housing for seasonal workers young people who come to town. Unfortunately the trend has been that people to not move out of their owned employee housing who come to town. • The City needs housing. Don’t be foolish. This is the perfect site for more units. • Rental is the only way to go. It is employee housing and not housing for retiring. Keep it active. If you retire you need to move on. Otherwise we will run out of options. • Families are struggling to find bigger houses to buy!!! • ALL RENTAL • Ownership units create community. We need a sense of community at the ABC. • How leveraged is the city now against their rental units? • The problem with owner employee housing is retirement. It removes the unit from the much needed inventory. A retiree is not an employee. • I think the two areas should be separated and have different HOAs/management. Having all rental will make the density really high which makes for a less enjoyable living experience so be careful about packing people in. Employees deserve housing that is better than a shoe box! • Why would you need to borrow against anything? • Would like to see high density rental, beyond current land-use density allowed, in this location; • We have lost so many rental units in recent years to Airbnb and VRBO and we need to start making up for it. This neighborhood and density is appropriate for rentals vs. ownership. • As pricing houses rise, providing housing 2-3 bedrooms for families to own is important. • I agree that the Lumberyard should have more rental units than ownership units. There is such a need for young professionals to have affordable rental units, otherwise, the young working class will not survive here. Most of the ownership units in “affordable housing” are too expensive for me anyway. Hence, the generation of renters. • I think more rentals would be fantastic. But rentals don’t create the environment of ownership of people staying in a community nearly as much. I think looking a little further into the future, a little more ownership units would help the community grow • For this reason, the constantly changing nature of affordable housing residents, and the HOA reserve funding issue, plus the lack of opportunity for owners’ equity to appreciate, the City should focus on rentals. • There is a very high need for both equally. Many people are stuck renting due to the high cost of affordable housing. This gravely effects people in long term as there is no way to get ahead and set a foundation of success and destroys any chance of ever being able to retire • With 3 new rental properties coming on line, 8th St, Park Cr and Marolt, I think the greater need is for more sale units • Owner traditionally display pride of ownership and maintain their homes. • From a utilitarian perspective, rental units make the most sense. Housing is a baseline pressure that prevents employers from being able to hire transient staff, which Aspen relies upon. I say this as someone desperately searching for a larger ownership unit to accommodate my new family. However, housing is not the only pressure that families face in Aspen--child care and lack of viable careers also drive families out of the valley. • Once you own a unit, it is very difficult to move to a larger unit if your family expands. • While I think it is good to offer some ownership units, if the need is greater for rentals and it is fiscally better for the City, we should emphasize rentals. • You want people to come here to work and stay in the community. Having rentals only does not help this cause. • Owners take care of their property & units. A high turn over rate for rentals increases poor property management. • I currently live in a 1 bedroom condo at BG II and am very appreciative of the fact that I live and work in the same place + I have a beautiful home and view. This should be available to more people. Survey Comments Overarching Themes Unit Mix (Rental vs For-Sale) Comments: Population Served • This city has ample revenue opportunities, and should explore them. We can all come up with the in your face easy answer to our issues when pushed • There is a very high need for both equally. Many people are stuck renting due to the high cost of affordable housing. This gravely effects people in long term as there is no way to get ahead and set a foundation of success and destroys any chance of ever being able to retire • I believe that there needs to be more 3 bedroom houses than 2 bedroom houses. I understand the need for a few studios but working people in Aspen need units that can support growth and families vs asking families to cram 4 member households into 2 bedroom places. • The City should have a much better quantitative understanding of the housing needs to the community. Based on my observation, rental housing in greater demand than ownership units. An advantage of rental units is they tend to be for shorter term facilitating occupancy by qualified individuals and provide greater opportunity for appropriate long term maintenance of units versus ownership. Deed restricted ownership units have a long history of being inadequately maintained. • Ownership units create a more stable lived in responsible community member. Rental units create a haphazard fly by night neighborhood with no incentive to maintain units • Why don’t you work with CMC and rent to their students as well • For sale units return some of the construction cost upon completion and sale. Rental unit’s revenues will be needed to pay off construction debt. After Burlingame 3 gets built - there are no other ‘ownership’ projects planned. • People who buy don’t want to live in a neighborhood that is constantly in influx with new tenants that may not respect the property as much as the owners because they’re not as invested as the owners. • All rentals units to preserve our inventory. Said rental units should be a partnership with essential services such as schools, RFTA, police/sheriff, AVH, fire protection, airport personal. The community already has inventory of deed restricted housing that would equal the population Aspen had when the Employee Housing Project was created in 1974. The 60% workforce goal can never be obtained for employees create job needs.. Resident owned Employee housing has evolved into retirement housing which has further evolved into a quasi second home housing inventory stock that the owners can rent out for 3 months at a time for any reason. The idea that ownership housing would create a housing stock that would be better maintained has proven false and has led to shortfalls in deferred maintenance costs that the residents want a bailout for since they didn’t charge themselves a suffic • The 3 new units from housing partners are all rentals. • With the launch of the three new rental complexes, we need more ownership units. • I think as more people start families and settle in the upper valley there should be more ownership to great a community who is proud of there homes and where they live. Rental units tend to be more transient and less likely to improve their housing. • I feel that ownership units create longer term residents with more of a stake in the community than rentals. Rentals are very important for people to get established but i think this community needs more opportunity for people to be longer term residents. • I think its prudent to build subsidized private owned homes building a normal neighborhood owned and managed by the homeowners there not the government. I think the government should behave as a developer would. Build then leave. • Only workforce allowed. No retirees in ANY of Aspen subsidized housing! • Rental units are a good way to vet possible owner applicants. • When employees no longer is here, can that person stay in his or her home forever • Ownership generally allows people to take more care of their units, whereas renters tend to have less at stake, and are not as prideful in the upkeep... Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 88 Overarching Themes Unit Mix (Rental vs For-Sale) Comments: Population Served • Rental units would allow the City to own the property, thus doing away with employees who eventually no longer work in Aspen but keep their homes. This requires more demand for AH and thus increasing Aspens population. • We need more ownership units, not rentals • We need rentals. Ownership units eventually end-up being owned & occupied by non-workers and then we need more housing for the workers! • I don’t know, but I support maximizing density. • Too few options especially for seasonal workers to get into while still be able to afford to live/play in the valley. • Price of ownership units are out of reach for hourly valley residents. • I think it’s important to provide ownership opportunities for locals committed to staying in the area. • As harsh as this sounds. There should be a proposition of relocation of residents that own deed restricted of three bedrooms that no longer have dependents living with them or no longer have a spouse. The reality is that there is a younger population purchasing employee housing and have no plans of leaving. • Owner are committed to our community on a level renters are not. People who commit to living here need ownership opportunities. • Affordable options to buy • Lower density, more units for families which is healthier for the community, instead of singles or cramming large groups of people into units • There is the need of ownership units. As well as there is large population retiring in the valley, there is also a large number of young couples and families that want to establish residency here. Colorado has one of the lowest property tax rate in the nation. Maybe raise property taxes? FYI - I have no understanding of how the financial side of borrowing against rentals or collecting taxes works. • The newest employee housing builds (Park Ave, Castle Creek, N 7th, etc) from my understanding, are all rentals. I and many other people I know are fighting for the opportunity in lotteries for ownership units that few and far between. Waiting years and bidding continuously on the limited supply is disgruntling, thus my response. • I don’t know, but I support maximizing density. • Most of the workforce that is needed in Aspen and Snowmass is seasonal in low paying ski area and hospitality roles. The likely employees for these positions are single, young adults who want to spend a season skiing or enjoying the mountains. Therefore, rentals are the greater need because they are short term and the employees are usually in Aspen for 1 year or less. • There are almost no detached single family homes for sale. That is the biggest need for a family wanting to be close to work! • I may not have the best understanding of the current mix of ownership V rental. I need to understand the pros and cons better • Rental units should be on a priority lottery system from the get-go. • I may not have the best understanding of the current mix of ownership V rental. I need to understand the pros and cons better • The volume of building it entirely too large. The taxpayers should not be responsible for paying for outlandish county growth of huge homes, for insurance that so many contractors make $$$$ dollars. It is time to STOP GROWTH and remember we live in the MOUNTAINS. • Preference should always be given to those living year-round in Aspen. • To insure long term residents we need more ownership units, just look at the number of people applying for each lottery • Rental alleviates the ability to retire in your unit provided the contracts are clear on this front. • Having a high amount of tiny studio units that are rentals will just turn the neighborhood into party central • Owner units will maintain a stable atmosphere at the project. Maybe separate the two into different areas. I bet the ownership area will be kept up better. Overarching Themes Unit Mix (Rental vs For-Sale) Comments: Population Served • Ownership encourages stability and is the best option to create a community • Ownership units create maintenance/HOA issues the city and APCHA have failed to deal with • Need more 2 bedroom units • Rental units keep people in poverty, ownership creates better credit and opens up rentals that are occupied by those people currently wanting to be owners • Should subsidize workforce only. • Rental units keep people in poverty, ownership creates better credit and opens up rentals that are occupied by those people currently wanting to be owners • Once in a purchased unit no one leaves, even if the kids are gone for years, so a rental would make them leave when the lease is up and the kids have moved out. • There could be an uncomfortable and thus desirable relationship between the majority unit owner ie the city and individual unit owners who would always be in the minority. Separate HOAs? • I think many people want the opportunity to own so that they feel they aren’t throwing their money into a black pit with a rental. Especially since free market ownership is mostly off the table. • Truscott is not housing the rental workforce. We need a project 3 or 4 times that size of just rentals. Burlingame needs to be infilled and leveraged for more rentals as well. • Rental communities should not take priority, people who commit to this town should/ • Let’s learn to build adequate, livable housing and fix previous housing needs before creating more housing problems; high HOAs, unaffordable unit costs, building defects, community living v’s community bullying. People who don’t follow the rules need to be removed from housing and then there will be plenty... DO NOT BUILD MORE UNITS AT BURLINGAME. THERE IS ALREADY TOO MANY PEOPLE THERE!!! • We need people to stay in aspen which means ownership. • A path towards ownership is important. • While some rental housing is good we are trying to build a community not just housing for temporary workers. • Unless you cannot retire in your unit need more rentals or we lose housing stock • More ownership lends its self to more responsible people on the property, better kept area and safer. • I am not so sure, but I support whatever will maximize density on site • I don’t know. Please maximize density as the priority. I am happy to let the designers and planners do what is best for the community in terms of mix. • At least 50/50, if not 60/40 or more • The site is more appropriate for rental units than for-sale units due to density and proximity; mixing rental and ownership units is a detriment to owners • I think density is a question we have to consider seriously. If we can put 500 units there and we need 500 units, how can we justify not bridging the gap as quickly, efficiently and cost-effectively as possible? • The city should be issuing municipal bonds supported by taxes, not leveraging the housing inventory. • I suggest increasing the number of 1 bedroom and studio ownership opportunities for the single person who makes more than the rental cap • Rentals should be predicated on working---this solves the retirement problem • Rental units only for workers who work in Aspen/Buttermilk. • High density would be best for the rentals, like Hunter Creek or Centennial • The city needs to acknowledge growth is going to happen regardless. We need to have better management of existing units but also adding units for the real workers that keep our town afloat. • There is a need for more 1 bedroom units in the deed restricted sales units. Creating more rental units restricts younger residents of aspen trying to grow their assets. This lack of opportunity for home ownership in aspen is a huge factor in younger professionals relocating from aspen and thus making it harder for local businesses to retain talented employees. • There should only be more ownership if they are AFFORDABLE for working residents make less than $80,000yr Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 89 Overarching Themes Unit Mix (Rental vs For-Sale) Comments: Population Served • Creating ownership opportunities that are affordable is important. So is creating housing density. • I am a homeowner in this valley but I moved here 26 years ago. I have no idea how new people in the valley find affordable rentals forgetting an affordable home to purchase. At this time I think more affordable rentals are needed. • As a person trying to move back to the valley with a family, my issues comes with limited availability of two + bedroom units that allow a dog. The structure of affordable housing makes it very difficult for young families to move to the valley. If you are in your 20’s and single, a studio or one bedroom makes sense. Then you can work and love for four years, maybe meet a partner, then play the lottery to purchase a home. If you come in with a partner and two kids, it becomes VERY difficult to find an affordable housing option. Trying to find a place to live while also paying for childcare becomes an insurmountable obstacle. If there is a way to increase the number of Category 4 two bedroom units, I think it would bring more working families to town, and while it would cut down on the number of units, it would increase the density because a family of four could live in a two bedroom. • I am torn; I think that the majority should really be rentals because they are closer to town where the employees can provide services. Ownership units can likely be farther outside of town, and owners can commute. • Rental alleviates the ability to retire in your unit provided the contracts are clear on this front. • More ownerships could open up the occupied rentals. • I feel rental units are more for transient populations. As someone who has lived here over 15 years I am more interested in seeing ownership units as a way of building community • Families are struggling to stay in Aspen because they can’t find employee housing to buy!!! • We have excess employee housing for those with the Peter Pan syndrome • No ownership units. • The city has money and should have no issues borrowing the money needed to build these units. We will be 3,000 units short by 2027 so the plan that will help put the biggest dent into our housing issues is the right plan. • Build more home owner deed restricted homes. The City needs to get out of the Landlord business and let the home owners run their own neighborhoods through a strong HOA community involved system. • A 20/80 ownership.??? Who would want to be an owner with that high % of renters??? Awful. renters don’t care about anyone. Might as well be considered a college dorm. What about families? • Density to house workforce, please. • Rentals needed in Aspen. Easier to verify qualifications. • I believe people want to invest in the community by purchasing units, something to have as their own. I think they’d stay in the valley longer if given that opportunity instead of throwing money away on rent. • More 3 bedroom homes for purchase makes for a better community. 9 studio= 9 people, 6 three bedrooms = 18 people. • Important to have owners as well to help with neighborhood character and upkeep mindset • There should be a few for sale so some people can feel a sense of ownership. There are many people that want to own but can’t. • As great as ownership opportunities are, rentals are what are needed, provide more entry points for new community members, and prevent the divisive issues that arise when owners are aging in place and younger people eye their units jealously. Also, rental units mean that the city is using its own capital to build an asset, whereas ownership means individuals are contributing their capital, and that makes it less streamlined and efficient overall • Too many owners is bad for the renters. Too many renters is bad for the property. • Ownership makes better neighbors but we knew we had to buy a place if we wanted a 3 bedroom unit as there were none in Truscott. I am glad there are rental units for 2-3 bedrooms. • We need the maximum number of rentals for workers to take cars off of the road. • This is for a work force. They are renters. Owners can save up and buy. Overarching Themes Unit Mix (Rental vs For-Sale) Comments: Population Served • A transient workforce cannot provide the best guest experience for our visitors. • How would an ordinary person have an informed opinion on this? • We have seen issues in older projects with poor maintenance of ownership units. Given ownership units at burlingame and the other recent projects (park circle, castle creek, main st) we need more affordable rental units • Going into debt is not the answer. So leveraging rental units shouldn’t be a variable. Aspen needs ownership for families. • APCHA just built two rental buildings. We aren’t encouraging people to investing our community if they can’t own a place here. • Home ownership allows people to build capital and become a more active and permanent member of Aspen society • We need more workforce housing • The project needs diversity put quotas in for minorities • It is imperative, for the health of the valley, that Aspen take decisive and deliberate steps to address the chronic shortage of housing needed for its labor force. • People need a way to stay here in Aspen and make this their home......including single people who what to remain here!! There are sooooooo few one bedroom ownership opportunities in this valley! • Why is the focus on larger ownership units (2-3 beds) and not a more even mix? • I’ve lived here ten years. I’ve spent close to $80,000 in rent. It’s time for people to own homes and build equity. • If you cannot get people to commit to being in this valley for the long haul, the workforce suffer greatly sooner than later. Anyone who purchases free market in Aspen and Snowmass is not performing the essential jobs that keep our valley functioning • If you want hourly employees you need the housing to match. • I have lived here for 10 years and have not been able to get into ownership. It is astounding that there aren’t more affordable ownership options. • With retirees staying in housing they own, having more rental units for those that are working may be a way to keep units available for new workforce • Community is made up of long term residents. Ownership encourages stability in job and residency. • There is already TOO much government housing, we need to start selling them to developers to build free market housing we already have too much hosing for underachievers with a Peter Pan syndrome who never want to grow up • Affordable housing should = rentals only. Ownership ensures that publicly funded units will be controlled by private citizens. Government should support affordable housing (rentals) but not compete with the private sector for ownership. • I believe the city should focus on individuals that want to stay here for the long run and provide ownership housing. Also, people tend to take better care of their property if its not a rental • As stated, the most needed housing is for rental units. And since APCHA already controls many sale unuts, it makes more sense to utilize the extra financial help and make them all rentals. • I think a 1 to 2 ratio is best - buyable housing is needed to ensure long term building of the community • Affordable Housing should by definition be 100% rental. • Ownership builds wealth for the occupants where rentals make saving money harder. • Ownership creates wealth while rentals only supply the wealthy • Renters and owners don’t mix well. Make it all rental. • I would favor some smaller ownership units also • Seasonal rentals needed, and should be made available to employers for their employees. • The last 3 projects have all been only been rental Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 90 Overarching Themes Unit Mix (Rental vs For-Sale) Comments: Population Served • I think all the units should be 2 bedroom or smaller, because history has shown that people who buy 3 bedroom units eventually have kids grow up and move out, and then we are stuck with just 1 or 2 people occupying a 3 bedroom home. • How can the council justify eliminating two essential businesses to build housing? People need storage and they need to have a local place to find building materials. Keep the parcels as is! • The density is too high • Placement of owned units in relation to rental units is important. Since residents of owned units have a longer term residency and rentals tend to be more transient the two types should not be integrated in the same portion of the project. • Ownership units are more beneficial for the employee - they can easily include a better balance of both small and larger units for families • Max amount of density possible Building Materials Supply Operation • I want the lumber Yard On small remodels do you want to pay me to drive down valley for material or work! • KEEP A FUNCTIONING LUMBER YARD AS WELL !!! T Transportation and Transit • Too much housing at this point and still no answer to traffic problems. Aspen needs to stay a small town. • Will there be a circulatory shuttle to serve residents of this project? Will there be ample parking, or will this project be underparked? • Quality of life for workers stuck in traffic is worse than quality of life in more dense developments • The City has conflicting policies regarding automobiles in town. Make the “Lumberyard at ABC” a model car-free community. Use available off site spaces ( intercept lot ?) for tenet parking of vehicles. Any parking square footage can be better utilized for more housing • DO UNDERGROUND PARKING TO REDUCE THE FOOT PRINT OF THIS PROJECT Noise and Air Quality • The city should reconsider this location. Its proximity to the airport create noise, and pollution problems for the residents. • Ownership within a building that is primarily rentals doesn’t seem that appealing: transient tenants, potential high noise levels during peak seasons, lower commitment of renters toward maintenance and upkeep. Seems like shorter-term, immediately available housing is of greatest need to both employers and employees. Design Advice • Please do not mix rental and owned. Go 100% one way or the other. • No studios • Rent needs to be less expensive and there needs to be more pet friendly accommodations! • 75% should be 2-3 bedroom. Give town more local families. • I think this is a great location for high-density, smaller unit, rental housing. I’m not concerned about heights at this location and parking ratios can be much lower given access to transit. • I think it creates a better neighborhood mix to have a fairly even split between owned and rented units. • I much prefer a less dense project. • Make it 75-80% rental. Also, some homeowners take care of their homes; some do not. Maybe rentals are a better idea. • Seek revenue streams from sources other than debt. Perhaps from a complimentary community partner. • Tax second homeowners on 100% of assessed value. Other ski towns do. Skip the vacancy tax idea Overarching Themes Unit Mix (Rental vs For-Sale) Comments: Design Advice • Please do not mix rental and owned. Go 100% one way or the other. • No studios • Rent needs to be less expensive and there needs to be more pet friendly accommodations! • 75% should be 2-3 bedroom. Give town more local families. • I think this is a great location for high-density, smaller unit, rental housing. I’m not concerned about heights at this location and parking ratios can be much lower given access to transit. • I think it creates a better neighborhood mix to have a fairly even split between owned and rented units. • I much prefer a less dense project. • Make it 75-80% rental. Also, some homeowners take care of their homes; some do not. Maybe rentals are a better idea. • Seek revenue streams from sources other than debt. Perhaps from a complimentary community partner. Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 91 Overarching Themes Unit Mix (Unit Type) Comments: Population Served • Very few one bedrooms needed. Families work here and stay and need space. • Studios should be minimal. 1 and 2 bedroom apartments are best for rental purposes. 3 bedrooms don’t work as well for rental. • Families = more sense of community • Families are struggling to find bigger houses to buy!!! • ALL SMALL RENTALS FOR THE WORKFORCE • Studios and one bedrooms are still very affordable for a lot of aspen people, even the affordable housing options. I would not be able to afford a 1 bedroom centennial but could share a 3 bedroom. • The bullet point from above that says “more studios and 1-bedrooms do not necessarily mean more people are housed...” is misleading in terms of density because it does not address car density. More family units means children are occupying the rooms which I feel is a better situation than dense housing for only adults. • Is the need for more seasonal workers in Aspen? Meaning a need for more Studio 1 bedroom? • Employee housing is a crisis, and will impact service levels in Aspen. Right now, lets try to solve the rental problem in this location • For those that are single, they can always live together in 2-3 bedrooms but for families, you do need more space so 2-3 bedrooms are needed. • Yes! We need more one-beds for the younger working class. We are young but old enough to want our own space. Thank you!! • Roommates, make some friends • I lean more towards 1-bedrooms than studios. • Stick with the learnings from the well considered, data driven study • Look at previous APCHA lottery results, there are often many more people trying for the smaller units, more units for single people should be a priority • If we want to continue to have a community of families (look at ASD enrollment) you need the ability to house those families. • Two bedrooms rarely become available. • I believe the APCHA regulations need to change with regards to the difference between income allowed for one person vs. two. This impacts my opinion. It is totally off. • Again, this is a technical question of what the community needs, more so than my hunch. • but more 2 bedroom units • There is a lot of turnover in studios. Almost everyone would like a separate sleeping area even if it is tiny. • Folks can always live with roommates in a larger unit. A family of four cannot live in a one bedroom. • I suggest grouping the studios and 1 BRs in the same area to reduce noise and outside clutter. • Like many other City housing projects you are not supporting family if you have mostly studio and 1 bedroom units. • I think its a mistake to make each project an exact reflection of our statistical needs. I think it should be viewed as a system instead with each project optimized to what its orientation can and should be. I think this project is the best opportunity for smaller unit, rental housing. I think other sites can serve larger unit, ownership housing better than this site. • We need to pay attention to what the data and the experts tell us about what is actually needed. Also - more studios = more cars • It is close to the right mix, I think a few more larger units still allow more people to be housed. • I don’t care about the seasonal people. The valley is getting crowded with all this seasonal housing. • Look at previous APCHA lottery results, there are often many more people trying for the smaller units, more units for single people should be a priority • Assuming this is a good study, the results of the study should be the basis of size mix. Without reviewing a study, my leaning would be to smaller units. Overarching Themes Unit Mix (Unit Type) Comments: Population Served • Multi-bedroom units can allow people to live and stay within our community when they want to expand their family. The current unit mix needs to be a 180 switch • Smaller units are a great place to start but most people and up getting married and having families€¦ It seems that a stock of only studio/1 bedrooms leads to a big shortage of family relevant units down the road with no place for those folks to go • 60-40 Rental to Owner • There is need in all areas, a resident moves through different housing needs at different points of their lives. People buy the studios in other complexes just to have “in-house’ priority to move into a 1 bedroom (or larger) once they come up • Studios are hard to live in. We are members of the community not workers bees. People need a living room and a sleeping space that are separate. • Studios are no good. People need a separation between sleeping space and living space. We are not worker bees, we are people. • Just slightly, however I think there are way too many families smooshed into a small two bedroom with lots of kids. • I think higher number of multi-bedroom units would allow people who qualify for affordable housing to live together - if they aren’t in the same families (i.e. roommates). • I think it’s important to clarify this mix - is it for rentals or ownership? I think ok to have higher percentage of studio rentals, but people don’t want to by a studio if they intend to make this valley their home more permanently. • What does the demand say? Certainly you could figure that out by polling waitlists. • There is a lack of housing for people with families. • Its very hard to retain qualified employees. A lot of times these people are older with families. More housing that supports families is needed. • I think it in many ways depends on what the study shows as a need, and what the overall community requires (individual housing vs. family housing) • Rental units allows ownership by the City. How long can an ex-employee of Aspen remain in his or her home after retirement? • Larger units never become available we need more multi bedroom units plus the school is better here than Basalt • More large units for families and couples • Larger units never become available we need more multi bedroom units plus the school is better here than Basalt • Prioritize housing the workforce, not building affordable housing. Small units do that. • Especially for rental units • Family housing is a dire need in our community. • Multi bedrooms leads to “community” and studios and one bedroom leads to “non-community” • There are already too many small units in the area. If you want to create a community you should be encouraging FAMILIES to move into the area. Also I believe a families should be given priority on two and three bedroom apartments. • More 1 bedrooms than studios. Studios make it hard for couples. We want to promote families, not just single people. • Single parents need the 2 bedroom configuration • Multi bedroom housing allows for a community that is more than just a lot of workers. Without multi- bedroom housing people must choose between a family or staying in Aspen • Add more co-living units, also. • Multi bedroom housing allows for a community that is more than just a lot of workers. Without multi- bedroom housing people must choose between a family or staying in Aspen Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 92 Overarching Themes Unit Mix (Unit Type) Comments: Population Served • This area needs to house young worker bees. Not families. The closeness to town and the bus make this ideal. • Offering more 2-bedrooms could have some really amazing quality-of-life impacts for couples stuck renting longer than intended. • Multi bedroom units will likely be prone to overcrowding- is a 3 BR unit for 3 people or 6? Not a good management configuration • Larger units for families should be physically separate from structures that have smaller units. Families are not always compatible with singles • Just use the trends from APCHA on what unit mixes are needed. • Families should be the priority not studio. • Families who want to live here need to be the priority, not single people who come for a season • DO NOT BUILD ANYTHING ELSE UNTIL YOU CAN FIX EXISTING HOUSING PROBLEMS • More 2 bedroom than anything • Most working adults don’t want a roommate. • I only have one child because I don’t think my housing would accommodate two children. More units that have 3 bedrooms is what everyone wants. • If you want people here long term, they need to be able to grow into a place. • Build homes for families. • 50 50 ratio • More ownership units at AABC, have more rental units in Aspen. • I am not sure. For me, what matters is whatever will maximize density on site. • I don’t know. I trust our consultants and planners, but I am definitely in favor of maximizing density • We need to accommodate more families • Studios are a waste of money. Build 1 and 2 bedroom units • We should be trying house as many people as possible. Most of the commuters from downvalley are couples and people with families and this is a huge opportunity to bring those people closer to Aspen. • Still high density, but there are many young families in need of 2 or 3 bedrooms, as evidenced by the number of applicants to APCHA lotteries • I don’t know, but I support maximizing density. • Depends on price per unit for rental. Many people will opt for greater number of bedrooms to split costs and make it more affordable. • Most of the affordable housing doesn’t have more than a 2 bedroom unit. THERE ARE FAMILIES NOT JUST SKI BUMS THAT NEED THIS HOUSING. • As the young Millennial generation (anyone ages about 27-37) enters the point in their lives where they get married, start families, while housing costs increase and the generation entered the economy in a recession, more 2 and 3 bedroom affordable rental units will be in high demand over the next 10-20 years. There are already quite a lot of housing options for single people. • I believe more 1 and 2 bedroom places rather than studio or 2 bedroom would be ideal. 1 bedroom provides a better quality of living. 2 bedroom apartments become affordable when people share rental properties and can be more appropriate for couples or families as well. • Need more affordable options for people who live alone and don’t want roommates • The multi-bedroom units should be used for ownership to give new families an opportunity to own and build equity. • Families need more support in this area so that we can build a long term community and not just young people who come to play for a few years before leaving • Two and three bedroom units are priced too high for the average valley employee • I’m less concerned about the unit mix than the size of the units shown. I have seen excellent Studio floor plans that are between 300-400 sf that are equally functional to what is drawn. Overarching Themes Unit Mix (Unit Type) Comments: Population Served • Unit Type and Mix: This statement is misleading, “increasing the number of studios and 1-bedrooms allows us to control the massing while increasing the unit count”. The City is in control of the massing and unit count regardless of the unit mix. Additionally, please reference the particular study by name and who completed the study. The statement, “ The original unit mix of the Lumberyard was based on the findings of the regional housing needs study, with 67% studio and 1-bedrooms and 33% 2-and 3- bedrooms” has not credibility. • Two bedrooms offer so much more versatility. A roommate or a child or a guest room / office if you can work from home. • I am an employer and I have some dorm style housing for my single employees but my biggest problem is housing for managers and particularly those with families. Right now, if I hire a manager from out of town with a spouse and just one child they may have to look as far Glenwood. That impacts quality of life and is a deterrent when hiring. • Lower density, more units for families which is healthier for the community, instead of singles or cramming large groups of people into units • My husband and I have lived in the valley for 9 years. I only agreed to start a family when we had the opportunity to live in a 2-bedroom and not have to move every 6 months. If the studios are for seasonal employment only that would be different. But there are a lot of younger couples and families looking for a permanent place to live. The caveat lies in where do you draw the line and who do you prioritize when there is a clear need for studios and multi-bedrooms? Maybe start considering less studio units and smaller 1-bedroom units as that would be more beneficial for long term residents. • Although I believe it would be beneficial to consider a few more larger units. I know a lot of people who start families here in Aspen cannot find larger units to fit them and end up getting pushed down valley. Although I also know of a lot of single workers and understand the need for single bedrooms and studios. :) • I think more 1 and 2 bedrooms would be ideal for those with roommates or those that want to live alone but not live in a studio • Need the type of housing that people will grow out of eventually (bc of marriage, career etc) instead of they types of units where people camp out in for years • I think more 1 and 2 bedrooms would be ideal for those with roommates or those that want to live alone but not live in a studio • Needed for renters to be able to share units and keep price down. Also better for families. • Affordable Studio and 1BR are the biggest single missing rental opportunities in this valley. • Your job is to honor the needs of people, not the numbers. • Max amount of density possible • 1,2 and studio only. • With a project this large there should be room for all types of units. Please don’t cram people into shoebox housing. • 1,2 and studio only. • One bedrooms • ALL LARGER UNITS SHOULD BE FOR SALE AND ALL STUDIO AND 1 BEDROOM SHOULD BE FOR RENT • Families are struggling to stay in Aspen because they can’t find employee housing to buy!!! • There is too much employee housing for those people with a Peter Pan syndrome who never want to grow up. We need to HALF existing subsidized housing and sell them on the free market. • I think studios are less desirable than 1 bedrooms. So if there’s an option I think more one bedrooms over studios. I do think the 67% to 33% seems like the right balance. • Housing should be downvalley • We need to stop building a retirement community and making people commute from Rifle. • Pull the data from APCHA. How many applicants on average for each unit? That should tell you what is needed. My guess is that more families want to live up valley. Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 93 Overarching Themes Unit Mix (Unit Type) Comments: Population Served • As long as studios/ 1 bedroom apartments are affordable by working class individuals, please keep them affordable • More one and two bedroom units. Fewer studios and fewer three bedrooms. • It is easier for singles and couples to “make it work” in smaller units. Family situations should have more availability to get into something more suitable for children and all that comes along with having kids. • The small space implies this is good starter housing; however, we all know that isn’t the reality in a valley with grossly inflated housing costs. There should be enough room that if a couple decides to have a family, for instance, they can remain in their unit that is 2 bedrooms. • There are few 3 bedroom rental units at affordable prices. There are 2 bedroom rentals at Truscott. I would want more 3 bedroom. Whatever you do will be great! • We want work force. Not families with children • Why punish singles? A lot of people are single, and happy about it. • How would an ordinary person have an informed opinion on this? • I would like to see more smaller units - there are already other projects with larger units suitable for families, including ownership projects. We need housing for people looking to get a foothold in our community not be a permanent forever place. • Studios are lonely • We are in desperate need of family units in Aspen it is extremely difficult to have a family in Aspen and many people move away due to the lack of housing as their careers advance. • Studios/1-bedrooms would be more beneficial for the younger working class that are constantly looking for new housing each year. • The more small units, the more workers can be housed • Promote minority families • The mix is right but it should be for ownership not rental.....one bedroom ownership needs to be increased in our employee housing! • I think that for housing of seasonal workers it is better to have units where there are 2-4 ppl per unit but for ownership I think there should be zero studios • The 1 bedroom are the entry level housing that we really need in combination with the 2/3 bedroom units. The 1 bedroom units are very easy to rent out because there is such a high demand throughout the valley. I’ve had half dozen people reach out to me alone asking if i know anyone with housing. • Family Housing is needed • Studios are fine for rentals, but more large units need to built for growing families. It’s the “City of Aspen.” Cut it out with the 3 story buildings and go higher, especially in this area. Go 8 or 10 stories. If you’re going to build something, then BUILD something! Seriously, a couple of 20 story buildings and the housing crisis would be over! • Families are more connected to the community. • It is harder to find affordable rentals for families. 4 single people can rent a house split four ways. A family cannot make that same rent work. If a family is renting a home at $5K plus a month, they are not the demographic in need. • The goal is to be affordable right? • Unless daycare will be on -site and available to keep people off hwy 82. But single people are more likely to commute alternatively by bus or bike and work as instructors at buttermilk or airport etc. Close commute housing! Pre approval should be working in or near ABC • Depends on what our community needs, not individual survey-takers. • You should not assume that people with children can play the lottery game. The current housing mix does not support families with multiple children. • I know some families crammed into smaller units or smaller housing • There is already too much government housing need to sell about 50% of existing APCHA housing to developers to rebuild as free market Overarching Themes Unit Mix (Unit Type) Comments: Population Served • Did the housing needs study take into account the financial motives of the respondents? Would renters prefer their own space, or do they like having room mates. Is having room mates purely a financial imperative? • You should not assume that people with children can play the lottery game. The current housing mix does not support families with multiple children. • Its going to be a worker bee hive no matter what. But even worker bees need some dignity. • Do you want to attract families or itinerant single workers? • Studios are appropriate in lieu of 1-bedrooms. But, family-sized units are extremely scarce in the valley. Those would help attract and retain professional employees. • There is a lack of 3 bedroom units in Aspen. Growing families are being forced to move down valley • I would say 75-80% studio and one bedroom units. • The service workers in Aspen are primarily single or have a small family. Many currently live sharing an apartment with 3 or 4 other people. Therefore, I believe smaller units would service the majority of service workers. • Trust your study rather than squeaky wheels • I think the APCHA should have more strict rules regarding people/unit. For example, I see a lot of couples with a children bidding on studios and 1 bedrooms, • More 2 BR • Suggest about 50:50 • No studio. People want one and two bedroom • Studios, one bedroom and some two & three bedroom. More of the smaller units with some option to purchase. Limiting the total units to a reasonable amount, allowing more open space,, proper storage, nice size units with some parking • Perhaps more 2 bedroom units, and definitely fewer 3 bedroom units, if any. • The density is WAY too high • A few options of larger units (3-4 bed) for rentals as well as ownership units (4 bed) would be desirable. • I think Aspen would benefit by taking care of more families. People who clean your toilets have families and some of the toughest housing situations. Aspen should really step up. It seems like Aspen likes to house the young professions but not necessarily minorities. • You say 67% studio and one bedroom units, but don’t indicate how many studios versus one bedrooms. Be assured that almost no one would choose to live in a studio given the option. I am in support of 67% if the large majority of that 67% are 1 bedrooms as opposed to studios. T Transportation and Transit • I would rather use this project to house as many workers as feasible. This will reduce commuter traffic on Hwy 82. • Quality of life for workers stuck in traffic is worse than quality of life in more dense developments Design Advice • Theoretically tiny homes are good, not if there are multiple people living in them, however. If there are roommates in multiple bedroom units, less fewer kitchens, bathrooms etc are needed. • Not sure why we want single units at all? We should be encouraging longer term living not transients looking for a place to crash for a season • 1 and 2 bedroom units only • The higher number of multi-bedroom units should accommodate couples and singles Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 94 Overarching Themes Building Height Comments: Population Served • 4 is too high and locals will not like that • With the height of Deer Hill as a back drop a higher, more dense project will not be noticeable. Besides there is already a four story Annie Michell Housing next door. • In this location you should max out the footprint and the height. One last chance at getting as much housing as possible. • Maximize density here. This is a golden opportunity to build more affordable housing units, so that consideration outweighs density concerns. • Need to maximize the number of units in this area, to provide for affordable housing needs. • This site needs to be maxed out with high density. • The buildings should be in character with those at the ABC. However the units will be subject to air pollution and noise from the airport across the highway. • MAXIMIZE THIS PLACE. IT’S JUNK LAND. BUILD AS MUCH RENTAL HOUSING AS POSSIBLE • The location of the buildings would be a perfect place to have higher buildings as the views would not be obstructed. Especially if you could maximize the unit space and save on podium parking as opposed to underground. • I think based on the location, 4 stories might be acceptable, but without a visual representation I couldn’t say for sure. • If you need the housing you need to go up • This is the correct location for taller buildings. • DO NOT GO HIGHER!!!!! THIS IS NOT THE CORE OF ASPEN!!!! • Shortage of employee housing is a crisis for business owners-with a higher building, we could find a private public partnership to fund this. • Smart design could give four stories without being offensive to the community. • No higher than 3 stories. It provides maximum space but doesn’t obscure too much of other views. • I’d say a mix up to 4 stories, but not bigger than that • It is the AABC, I do not find a 4 story building to be unacceptable in that area, especially if it is built to complement the surround locale, look how Burlingame Seasonal is built in the hill. If the majority of complaints of the height come from people on Red Mountain – we need to sort out our priorities, locales who drive the economy or people who support the local economy on a limited basis. • Despite the unjustified stigma, higher density is clearly more environmentally friendly. This is across from the airport where G5 destroy our foot print all day long. Give a flake. • Go up and down and maximize the site Vail style • I think 4 stories is acceptable. • Depending on how it is executed, a minimal amount of 4 stories could be integrated toward the hill where the density would be felt less. • No. We have extremely limited land left to develop affordable housing. The discomfort with slightly taller buildings must end. Our lack of affordable housing is directly related to previous council’s taking the same tact. If we continue to make inefficient use of our remaining developable land, then we’ll have no one to blame for housing shortages but ourselves. What is the greater threat facing our community, a few larger buildings or a wholesale loss of reasonable places for employees to live? People with secure housing may select the former, but that is not who this project is trying to serve. • I think you should just make them all 3 stories for continuity and more space • While it is good to limit the number of stories, this is a constraint that affects most other aspects of the project. I think considering 4 stories is reasonable. • I am bias because I live at Annie Mitchell’s 700 building and don’t want to loose my view. Selfishly simple. • We need to get the biggest bang for the buck. Free market build huge buildings. Downtown looks nothing like it did 30 years ago. Four stories is not out of line. It can be built tastefully. Overarching Themes Building Height Comments: Population Served • Push the density! I’m not concerned about height at this location. Building half of what we could would be a huge disservice to the housing program and the residents and businesses that rely on rental housing. Please don’t be meek. I don’t really care if Council is queasy! Since when are they not queasy? • Need to move beyond height limitations. Housing more important than the luxury/privilege of improved views/sight planes for the fortunate residents of aspen. • More than 2-3 stories would cut off view for Annie Mitchell housing. • The view plane issue is moot, if you are hell bent on building housing • 4 stories would require a flat roof construction which can lead to many problems. Some of the numerous issues would be; snow removal, heat tape, roof drains and excessive foot traffic on the roof which leads to more leaks. • No problem with 3 stories including underground parking. • There is already so much clutter on that side of town, let’s make it look less cluttered with clean lines. • It may be necessary to have 1 or 2 4-story buildings in order to squeeze everything in. • As long as other units aren’t losing their view lines • I agree that architectural aesthetics and community character is important, but if there is any research to show that taller buildings would be more environmentally friendly because they take up less square footage and require less natural land clearance, then I support taller buildings. I don’t think that’s true in this case, but generally the environment should be a priority over aesthetics. • I have no concern with 4 story structures on this site. The community needs to cost effectively utilize its land and financial resources. This requires taller buildings. Note, Aspen Square and other buildings in Aspen are 4 stories or more. Other mountain towns routinely build buildings far taller than 4 stories. The buildings are dwarfed by the surrounding mountains. • Maintaining aesthetic with surrounding neighborhood is important. Density is not always best. • If we are going to build it, let’s just add the fourth story now since we know we need those units anyway. • Getting too high will truly create an “overdevelopment” feel. I think 2-3 stories is responsible and tasteful. • Some 4 story buildings could be worked into the design, but overall livability is important. ADA access and ‘visitabilty’ must be included in design work- • There is no need to go above 3 stories. Think of the view plain. • The buildings should not exceed the height of the current lumber yard buildings. • This project will be one of the first things people see when they arrive to Aspen. It should reflect the mountain character of our town. It shouldn’t be too big and massive yet balance housing enough people. I think the project should try to abide by the WOMP for the most part. The majority of the project should max out at only two stories with pitched roofs. I think the only exception for a third story would be to “break up” the roofline and possible mimic the ridgeline of Deer Hill behind the buildings. But not block it from sight while driving on Hwy 82. Even if its housing a lot of people, the buildings should blend in and fade away as much as possible. Also as you get higher up with these buildings it will be harder to block out the jets taxiing and waiting on the runway. I’m guessing people are going to want a massive berm as a barrier between them and the runway. The higher the building gets the higher the berm needs to be creating a tunnel effect on the way into town. • Think of future use, and more demands for housing. Up not out!! • 3 stories above podium parking • Maybe some 4 story bldg • Nothing wrong with 4 stories at the rear • Maybe some 4 story bldg • Built environment should be consistent with community values. • 2-story would be best but some 3-story might be OK • Build a fifty story ghetto style high rise and actually make a dent in the 5k affordable units needed. Tear down the Burlingame seasonal buildings. That development should be the example of how to not house humans trying to make it here. Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 95 Overarching Themes Building Height Comments: Population Served • Keep the height down so we can enjoy the view of our area! • Make the most of the space you have • Whatever allows more 3-bedroom units! • This is consistent with Aspen as a whole • The increased number of people in bigger building will create more problems with traffic and be too dense. • Double the number of units!!! • The increased number of people in bigger building will create more problems with traffic and be too dense. • The Lumberyard location seems like a prime site to explore and develop 4-story housing. • 3 story buildings are much more subject to highway and airport runway noise and av gas fumes. Not desirable. The ABC residential area has some 3 story equivalent units but they are set back from the highway and runway. • Annie Mitchell,? • Four stories feels like a mistake… • High density is more efficient and environmentally friendly. • The back part of the project should include 4 stories since it can house more people and will not effect view. Start with 4 then 3 then 2 mix. • Infill what are we missing here? Maximize the space. It’s already next to an airport and sewer system at least make it so people can live there. • Whatever it takes to make more housing. • Priority should be on housing the maximum number of people even if that means higher buildings. • Annie Mitchell? • Please keep the view plane in mind and stay below 22 feet. • I am in favor of MAXIMIZING density! • I picked 4+ because it will maximize density. • Parking could be on the roof and the living could be below grade. • Honor those that have been in the valley. Less is more. • With this seeming to be one of the last opportunities for • Again, I think density is important. We are never going to solve the deficiency if we don’t take the opportunity to build a significant number of units where we can. • I think if podium parking is chosen, 3-4 story buildings but if underground parking is chosen, 2-3 story buildings are better • We have a clear need of more employee housing, this fits the bill as it is within walking distance of the bus stop and a grocery store. In addition it is close to the highway and will not be negatively impacting the view plane for other houses. • This is the appropriate location for higher buildings. 4 Perhaps but not higher. • I don’t know, but I support maximizing density. • Again, we need to maximize space for true year round workers. • I don’t know, but I support maximizing density. • Let’s maximize the limited spaces that are available within the valley for new builds. • Building height restrictions at the AABC area is dumb, it only makes sense in the towns of Aspen and Snowmass. • Although view shed is obviously an issue, housing is also an issue and the people who comfortably live large places should not have a say in how readily available housing is compared to their view. • Limiting the potential units available to appease a neighbor or two in the hopes that they have a better view is a missed opportunity. • These units are not right down town and wouldn’t really conflict with any other housing’s views. Four is tall but in this case I think it is appropriate. • I don’t know, but I support maximizing density. • Quit squabbling and build higher! Overarching Themes Building Height Comments: Population Served • Consistency with the character of the surrounding neighborhood is important. Consider reading and applying the City’s Residential Design Standards for Multi-Family structures (Sec. 26.410.040. – Multi-family standards). Make the project a neighborhood not just a place to house employees. For goodness sake the AABC does not even have sidewalks. • I realize we are trying to keep the look and site line the same but we are in a serious housing crisis and we need to maximize beds. We may sacrifice a little on the height but having more people living closer to town should reduce traffic on 82 as fewer people have to live and drive from downvalley • Lower density, more units for families which is healthier for the community, instead of singles or cramming large groups of people into units • I don’t know, but I support maximizing density. • The area needs more housing and building vertically is cheaper than building horizontally. The trade off is between an eye sore and continuing the housing shortage. I think the eye sore is the lesser evil. • I support maximizing density. • Max amount of density possible • Please no four story buildings! • Proper location for taller buildings. • Have some consideration for cutting off view/ sunlight For current Annie Mitchell residence • I don’t think 4+ stories would bother me in that location, since it abuts Deer Hill. You must have elevators, to service those floors. • Proper location for taller buildings. • AGAIN MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE PROJECT. • Save the forest ANY building under 20 stories should be baned! • Our community NEEDS housing. This building will not impede anyone’s views as it’s up against a hillside. There is NO reason a 4th story shouldn’t be added. It will help create more funding for the project and more housing everyone who needs it. I am not understanding the disadvantages to a 4th floor?!? • No I think there should be no buildings or housing • Keep in line with bldgs in area. • If we need density, this is where it should go. Not in downtown Aspen. • Aspen needs housing. Having a few 4 story apartment buildings will not lessen the natural beauty of the valley • Not all 4 stories, but why rule it out? The view from 82? • Density, density, density, we need housing. • Excellent place to build higher. Stack the plumbing. Forget the multiple sloped roofs. If you really want housing, stop with the cuteness and build some buildings. • No more “Art Museums” • Whatever the maximum height allowed is • No to exceeding 4 stories and no to a monolithic block, however i believe a properly designed site plan tiered against the hillside behind could easily accommodate 3 and 4 story components while visually being acceptable. Related to above question – if podium parking then need taller buildings to achieve density • 4 stories should be enough. • We are at a severe lack of housing in Aspen and building something that will not address the problem is not helpful • We need to maximize density • Building up is the answer to fit more units in limited space • 1 and 2 with ample underground parking. • Increase density • There are plenty of structures throughout the town that are either tall or cramping their surroundings. A complex for people that live and work here, located our near the airport shouldn’t be a concern given the necessity of more affordable housing. Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 96 Overarching Themes Building Height Comments: Population Served • Aspen is not a 4+ story community. Building heights should be in scale with the surroundings. • Build high. It’s not the 1960s any more. The hippies and ranchers had their quiet years, people deserve homes. Income inequality in Aspen is ridiculous. Eventually in Aspen, as Basalt is already trying to do with its ranches, eminent domain will be invoked and the 50 acre mansion across the river with its horse statues and BS ranch tax status for Jalanda’s Red Butte Ranch aka Massive mansion should be condemned to allow housing for real people. You don’t want a Soylant Green scenario with people living in staircases, people need homes! BUILD Aspen’s first deed restricted highrise • This area of Aspen could grow up, as it has already been business oriented. • It should be within the guidelines of the WOMP which is 28ft. • If I understand it’s location, 4 plus stories would seem more beneficial. You can have more units on less of a footprint making the open space areas greater in size. I think the height wouldn’t be as much of an issue because it isn’t blocking views. • We want to still see the mountains. • Depends on what volume of individuals max vs. 2-3 stories. Is it another 300 units??? Offered without car? How many people can you stash in a 4+ building!? • No building under 20 stories should be allowed • Use the underground parking square footage for bedrooms/studios. • If you’re going to build a worker hive, don’t do it half way. Jam ‘em in there. It’s still a token project. Most of your work force will still be coming up the 82. but at least be real about it. • Alejandro Aravena half/half design for vested active ownership. • Again, this may be one of the last, best opportunities to build density. There are no residences with sightlines that would be affected by a 4-story building. • Agreed, it should blend in with its surroundings. • Build as many as possible! View lines are a non issue here • 3 stories would be about right • I think if anywhere should be allowed to have more than a 2-3 story building it is a site like this that is tucked away and mostly surrounded by commercial properties where it really isn’t going to obstruct another subdivisions view. • NO Four Stories! This is a substantially contracted site, their is a great amount of traffic and air quality issues being so close to Highway 82 as well as the jet fuels from the airport • We need housing. • Maybe 4 stories including under ground parking and stepping back the top story • More stories more units. • Depending on location of buildings, view plane w/ surrounding buildings, and existing landscape • Four stories max not higher • 1&2 stories buildings, possibly one 3 story with a mix of both podium and underground parking. Primarily underground parking • This is NOT within city limits, why would you do this to this community by putting 3-4 story buildings out here?! Keep the max height reasonable! PLEASE!!! • Please, we need the density, and the ABC makes more sense for this than anywhere in near the core. Literally, there is nothing to lose putting a taller building near the airport. • Paying $3M an acre drives the density. The taller buildings can also potentially block highway impacts. • Keep it low key so that maybe Mountain Rescue can see above them as designed. AND KEEP AN OPERATIONAL LUMBER YARD AS WELL AS HOUSING 1111 • The above does not include enough answers choices. I believe ALL buildings should be 3 stories in order to take most advantage of the rare opportunity we have here to create a wealth of much-needed housing,. If we continue to shave floors off of every project created, the only answer to solving our housing situation is to build more complexes (on land the city doesn’t own), to fight between open space and housing, etc. Man up and put more housing on this land! Overarching Themes Building Height Comments: T Transportation and Transit • With underground parking • Quality of life for workers stuck in traffic is worse than quality of life in more dense developments • I am concerned about maxing out the density of this project, outside of Aspen and the impacts it will have on transportation into Aspen. Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 97 Overarching Themes Commercial Uses (Excluding Child Care) Population Served • We already have “city-like” amenities at the AABC. We don’t need a second urban spot. • More housing less commercial space • Not sure on this one. Primary services are there now, grocery, gas, workout, etc. • The Lumberyard is zoned S/C/I, so it should have some S/C/I businesses there. • Maximize housing, don’t promote commercial • Housing is what the community desperately needs! • Housing is the biggest need! • Leave that to private industry. • Every inch should be used to increase units • Honestly, that above statement isn’t clear. I think there should be a focus on housing and the Lumberyard should not compete with existing ABC commercial spaces. • Is this for housing? Simple… this space should only be used for housing. There is no need to even involve commercial property here, there is no room for it with the current housing crisis • The lumberyard should only be used for housing (and day care), not for commercial space. • We have enough commercial space, it should be housing only • Need all the housing we can get. I can’t imaging what commercial services would be needed that are not at the AABC • Nobody wants to hang out at the ABC • The area needs affordable housing. There is currently plenty of empty and available commercial space. Building more commercial/retail space will also increase the need for even more affordable housing. • We need housing not an extension of the ABC. • Great idea! • Is this for housing? Simple… this space should only be used for housing. There is no need to even involve commercial property here, there is no room for it with the current housing crisis. • The businesses around the AABC stand to thrive. No need to compete. Keep this development strictly as housing. • This many new residents should create enough of a marketplace for businesses in the ABC to offer needed services • Doesn’t seem like a good idea if it is going to cost the county money. Otherwise may be ok • But there needs to be more community focused business in ABC (restaurants/retail/grocery). • Other than perhaps childcare, which the free market never provides without subsidy. You can’t have 300+ more units without bringing other service levels up. You will have children and babies in the new units • This is worded just a little funny so to be clear, I feel Lunberyard should be JUST housing. • The ABC businesses should reap the benefits of the new close by neighbors rather than competing • Could there be an opportunity to offer more affordable rent to attract commercial services that are currently lacking at the ABC like dining? If rent was lower, prices could also be lowered or capped. Could be a lottery situation like the Wheeler restaurant space. • Just housing, no need for more commercial. • Housing only • Just housing • ABC commercial space is more than adequate to support Lumberyard units. This fund is for affordable housing NOT commercial development. • The ABC does not need to become a town of its own like WILLITS. • Businesses would be pushed out of the ABC. Where will they go? • Focus on housing and don’t compete with privately owned business. • What? I’m saying no to commercial at the lumberyard. Is that what you’re asking? • Question wording is confusing. Well designed connectivity from the lumberyard area to the ABC commercial services should be a goal Overarching Themes Commercial Uses (Excluding Child Care) Population Served • Corner should be commercial • Keep Lumberyard housing only. • Again rebuild and infill the aabc for commercial services. What is there now? What could be there? • Please, just don’t build. You are not qualified to and have proven you can not manage existing housing issues. • We have a problem with affordable housing in this area, not business spaces. • Not sure I fully understand this one • Please do not impact the residents that already live at the AABC. • There are already great amenities next door. I am in favor of allowing the ABC to provide services so that we can maximize density on site. • If it increases maximizing of density. • This is a housing development not a commercial development • Are we trying to build a ghetto? There’s gas, a bank, a store already at ABC. • More Housing is needed desperately so I think we should not have commercial space here. • High density housing please • I don’t know, but I support maximizing density. • Look at Willits. A successful neighborhood has both housing and commercial. • Yes, let’s make this development housing dense to further support existing area businesses. • Any new businesses added effectively reduce the housing impact of adding all the rentals. If you add 3 businesses that require 5 staff each, you end up with 15 more employees that need housing and you lose apartment space to the businesses. • There is plenty of commercial use space at the ABC and in town. This space should be focused on maximizing housing density. • Housing has to be priority number 1 • No need for commercial. There are enough empty commercial spaces through out the valley. • More housing, less commercial is good, we do not need a Starbucks (small business) on every corner • The few restaurants in ABC are very small and have almost no parking. Trying to find a lunch table in the winter is hard. Attempting to pick up a takeout lunch order is a mess. • We don’t need more shops, we need more housing. • Options past the round about are convenient for residents. ABC is outdated and needs a face lift/re- planning. If the right thought goes into planning businesses will do well! • Max amount of density possible • Enough services already provided • Housing is what we need! • Need more commercial we have EXCESS employee housing as it is. Ski area jobs were meant to be for a few years for people taking a couple years after college SERVICE JOBS were never meant to be a career. • It’s a housing project! • Strongly agree! We have plenty of commercial space with the ABC, Aspen, Snowmass, Basalt and further down. We need housing! The more the better! • Please keep the project’s focus on housing. Goods and services are already available nearby. • Need density to house workforce. • Housing is only about housing. Other ideas sound good but fail in practicality’s. • Currently, there is plenty of open commercial space for rent in the ABC. • Mostly agree, although a small convenience type store would be welcome at that location. • A better mix makes this living situation more attractive • We need the maximum number of rentals for workers to take cars off of the road. • All housing, no commercial • What the heck does that question mean? Provide more housing Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 98 Overarching Themes Commercial Uses (Excluding Child Care) Population Served • Housing, housing, housing on this site….thats what it was purchased for and thats what our community needs • We should maximize housing as much as possible in this location there are plenty of commercial resources in the area that will grow as the population increases for the ABC area. • Focus on housing for locals. We can’t work here if we can’t find a place to live. • This site should only be for housing. • However I do think it would be very nice to have outdoor common space • This project should be housing – not commercial development. • Only rental housing • Goal is more housing • More commercial development • Mixing commercial with residential, and even ownership units with rental units creates difficulty with individual financing. I would recommend sticking with one type, rental, and constructing it in the most maintenance free way possible. • It’s a housing project. Should be 100% • I don’t think that commercial entities should take up space needed for housing. Also, support should be provided for businesses already existing at the ABC. • Maximizing housing seems like the way to go, though this project will likely increase demand on the abc commercial services • Totally! It’s close and would help make AABC businesses more viable • Would prefer to see more decks/ outdoor space and less traffic/ retail space • Much needed housing • There is a lot of commercial space in the area that you can bike and walk to. Let’s not have more commercial that would bring folks into the area. Building Materials Supply Operation • I am conflicted on this. I think having a lumber yard in town is important. I wonder if the City could work with the County to find a suitable site in the ABC for a lumberyard, or even out at the intercept lot area • I agree. I don’t think we continue to need a lumberyard. Its commercial anyway and not available to local residents – Closed on Saturday!! • If the commercial space is used for the lumberyard think that is valuable for our construction workers. I am not sure we need more commercial space in AABC. Currently the entire AABC could use a face lift to make the spaces more effective. • APCHA is having a hard enough time dealing with public housing effectively. I don’t think adding a commercial space into the mix helps them focus on their core mission of housing. As much as losing the lumber yard will negatively impact local contracts i don’t think its fair for the city to rent out locally funded properties to corporate entities. That being said i think that if a child care facility was run by the city then that would be fair and would be valuable to the community. • While I am personally disappointed to lose the lumberyard and it’s associated business, I don’t think the City should be involved with providing commercial business space. • You are taking away a vital commercial space with the lumber yard. Every small business that needs things from the lumber yard will be tripling there time for small jobs by having to drive down valley to buy even a few boards. • By developing the lumber yard one would be rendering the cost of any future affordable housing even more expensive, for decades to come. Logic: removing the lumber yard will make it more difficult to source lumber and other materials and supplies for construction. This makes Valley Lumber our closest option. Have you ever seen how many people stop by the lumber yard especially in the morning? Think about the carbon impact of construction vehicles now doing 1.5 hours round trip to pick up….anything that you could otherwise currently buy at pro build. More traffic for years to come! The cost of private construction also impacts affordable builders like Shaw Construction who also need to use the lumber yard. This will just make these affordable developments more expensive and removing the yard will disrupt their supply chain significantly. It’s already a complete mess with the building departments but we just have to roll with it because we are at their whim for new permits. There’s Land all around in the valley. Why take away a strategic input for building new housing density and stock? Building Materials Supply Operation • Why are you removing the only lumber yard in Aspen? This means way more cars/trucks on the road, and heavy trucks, going down valley to pick up lumber supplies. You need to provide space for BFS lumber yard either on this site, or provide new zoning to allow them to relocate nearby with the same size facilities • I believe that it will be a disservice to community to not have a lumberyard close to town. With all the talk of a housing crisis and a 5000 unit shortage, I wonder how we are going to build all these units and maintain them when there isn’t a lumberyard for 30 miles. • KEEP A LUMBER YARD !!!! WHY SEND PEOPLE TO BASALT AND FURTHER CROWD HIGHWAY 82 ??? SUBSIDIZE THE LUMBER YARD IF NECESSARY – CONSTRUCTION AND HOME MAINTENANCE IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY Overarching Themes Commercial Uses (Excluding Child Care) Mixed-Use • There should be at least a few options for small businesses • I strongly believe we need professional office space development at the AABC (healthcare, finance, architecture, etc) rather than housing. To solve traffic problems and provide a shorter commute for employees living downvalley. • Some limited mixed use is warranted and needed. At least the space to offer to local serving businesses. • The mixed use ABC is tacky. Do it right like Willits • Work with AABC to develop new businesses there • NEED A COFFEE SHOP AND CONVENIENCE STORE SO RESIDENTS DON’T HAVE TO COME INTO TOWN FOR EVERYTHING. A RESTAURANT WOULD BE NICE. • Mixed use is never a good idea with the affordable housing concept. Two different business models. One income restricted, and one free market capitalistic. • Mixed use becomes complicated, especially when deed restricted is involved. Keep the housing separate. • Though I do think more commercial space is needed for small businesses, I don’t think this is the right location. • I would love to have a new building for my business and be able to attract quality employees with housing • As a business owner at the ABC, feel that more services are needed in the area for both the business AND residential tenants to avoid trips into Aspen. • Provide commercial services? Do you mean actual commercial services and offices on site at Lumberyard Development? Then yes. I firmly believe in commercial and housing in co-existence here. • It would be nice to see the AABC businesses expand services in response to more housing. • Some commercial space is appropriate. • I think limited uses for commercial spaces could be on the table. The idea that the ABC provides services that suit the residential population is a bit off… are they supposed to go to roxies for groceries? Mawa’s Kitchen for lunch?…. This goes back to the transportation issue. The grocery shopping in Aspen is not ideal. • It does not seem like commercial would be viable at the Lumberyard. The ABC is a great option. • We must provide commercial alternatives to the downtown core for affordable options. Rent in the core eliminates the possibility of truly affordable retail or food service. That wouldn’t be the case in the lumberyard. • Some commercial use would benefit the community. The threat of losing North Mill Street station commercial space should be a factor in considering this. Also, a small bodega would be helpful to eliminate car trips to town or the ABC • The community at large and public officials are always interested in commercial at various sites. As a real estate professional, it is clear these remote commercial sites rarely if ever work. Please recall the City included retail space at both 7th & Main and at the ARC. I believe commercial and/or day care was allowed for at Burlingame. It does not exist and/or failed. Even Aspen Highlands year round retail is a failure. Commercial at sites such as Lumber Yard housing with 300 units sounds good but rarely works. The ABC spaces can evolve to meet additional demand for retail. Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 99 Overarching Themes Commercial Uses (Excluding Child Care) Mixed-Use • I agree but also think a live work scenario could be advantageous. Although the mixed use at the ABC makes it seems very industrial right now and people drive extremely fast through the ABC • Especially If you consider the co-living option, it would be appropriate to include a bodega-style commercial space stocked with staple food and household items. • If increasing the population by so much in the ABC you’ll need to create more amenities for people living there, so commercial space will be necessary (restaurants, cafes etc) • I don’t think that much business would detract from the ABC establishments. I think it’s good for community health to have some mixed use in this area. It encourages less driving as one positive reason. • Agree, but need to incentive businesses to open in ABC. • Urban spaces should be mixed-use. Ideally, both the ABC and Lumberyard would be mixed-use. Why not allow ABC to have housing units as well? And Lumberyard to have commercial spaces that support the residences? A place to grab a drink on site would be fantastic! • This statement is misleading – inclined to allow commercial AND focus on housing? wtf? YES – Allow commercial – workshops, office space, a cafe, studio space, etc… Community space. T Transportation and Transit • Someone needs to think about traffic. Aspen has a huge issue with AM & PM traffic. Traffic is already bumper to bumper from the roundabout to the airport. What will this look like with added commercial and residential units? • But, if this causes a parking problem at ABC, then how is the addressed? Bringing commercial to the Lumberyard will increase use by nonresidents (if tenants can be found, and customers want to come, but if no parking …) No one is going to come out to Lumberyard just to shop … not when town is so close, and ABC can probably fill those needs. • Council/County MUST improve traffic safety and navigation from LY to ABC • I agree if there is a clear and safe way to walk or bike to the ABC so that people do not have to drive or otherwise commute. • This space will essentially be its own community and a limited number of commercial use spaces will reduce the need for car travel from this “island” location. • Any area of living should benefit from also having amenities nearby. This would also help to limit traffic into the town core for food/drink. • This is interesting bc if you require residents to travel into town to work, as opposed to offering a work and live setting which may impact traffic into and out of town. • You don’t want people commuting up and down the valley for resources… especially building supplies. • Although, what if Mark tears down Roxys, the bank, the liquor store? Suddenly you’ve got all these people driving into town. • Without a lumberyard in Aspen, the environmental impacts on Aspen will be great. Traffic is already an huge headache. When trucks are coming and going from down valley, the traffic will only get worse. The air quality will deteriorate. Not to mention losing the sales tax revenue that the lumberyard generates. One of top businesses to contribute after real estate sales. • Make all necessities in walking distance- even in winter. Design Advice • AABC should be encouraged to develop a full-service grocery store, such as City Market or Trader Joe’s. • Project should be a small futurist city of 600 units and 1000 people. All rooftops should be organic greenhouses with cooperative food store on ground floor. • Yoga! • The right commercial services can add vibrancy to a neighborhood. “The right kind” being a restaurant or bike shop and not another car mechanic or laundromat. • I would like to see it develop into its own community, obviously not the size of Willits but almost a mini Willits (live, work, play) • I don’t think that there should be co-located on-site comm’l services. However, if council would “carve out” a comm’l parcel that would be developed into a branch bank with a co-located Starbucks, then I think that would be dandy. Overarching Themes Commercial Uses (Excluding Child Care) Design Advice • We need the mini-storage. Provide some of the units that you’re taking • If you build an 8 to 10 story building, sure, put a Subway on the ground floor. • Meaning? Daycare, yes! What kind of commercial services? Where will the customers park? Why? I think I disagree. • I don’t completely agree, because it would be nice to have a very simple, low cost walk in restaurant available right there for tenants. But since it would have to be at the same costs as the ABC, it would be a waste of space. Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 100 Overarching Themes Innovations: Energy Efficiency Targets Comments: Population Served • Just get it built; don’t worry about adding costs. • PRIORITIZE UNITS IN THIS LOCATION • Maybe? HOW much more expensive is the key to giving a clear answer. Will it put the units out of reach for the population it was intended for? • Costs balloon and the project will take years longer • I think that the ability to build MORE housing CLOSER to aspen (where the jobs are) will ultimately eliminate more greenhouse gases. • Issue is every time this comes up there are serious issues for the owners later ie: Burlingame. I think cutting edge isn’t always tried an true. • Go Green – stop talking about it and do it • Again, employee housing is a crisis. • Our community badly needs co-working space like other resort communities have had for years. It clearly benefits the community, economy, tourism and rural economic vitality. Though should be downtown. • Continue to raise the bar while also balancing quality of life. I firmly believe in being able to open windows. • A thoughtfully designed, well built community, adjacent to transit is what we need. Labels such as Net Zero are not necessary. • Aspen should lead the way in making buildings more energy efficient. • This is supposed to be affordable housing. • It can be green but not at a huge cost. • Just focus on housing. Our codes are good enough. Stop trying to solve all the worlds problems in every project. • But not at the expense of quality construction. As a resident of poorly constructed affordable housing (two different locations), the city needs to be more stringent in what they sign of on. • Set an example in our wealthy little haven • Again how much of this $$ will be passed onto the people buying and renting these units? What’s the monetary difference between minimum codes v raising the bar. If it’s minimal, Aspen has generally been a place where innovation comes first and foremost, and be sure that the operating costs are lower for residents. It is not OK to make an 100% electric building if the community’s lowest income residents have to pay more in utility costs to meet the community’s environmental goals. • Lead by example. • Amend the existing codes if they are inadequate. • We have always been at the forefront, why stop now? • I whole heartedly support aiming for higher energy efficiency. • We are nearly out of buildable sites. do this right. • Absolutely! This project absolutely must be exemplary. Aspen is really falling behind on this and investing early on is much less expensive and much more impactful than the retrofitting later. This project should be a visual hallmark of Aspen’s climate commitment • This would be a fantastic element to this project. • Does not have to be Net zero- but we should raise the bar- • Save money in the long run • Yes. We need to lead and be an example for energy efficiency. • FYI coliving is an idiotic Idea • No! • Just do it. • As long as the quality is good. It doesn’t make sense to pay more for efficiency up front and to have large maintenance due to poor quality construction. • Project should be more than Net Zero. Please involve Rocky Mountain Institute. Overarching Themes Innovations: Energy Efficiency Targets Comments: Population Served • Not sue what raising the bar means given that the City will be buying electricity from JHoly Cross. If the City puts on solar panels will it plan to sell extra energy to HC? This would be change in City policy because currently extra solar veneaged poswe i he City is notableto be sold. • Above the bar is good but net zero may be too high a price to afford • YES – why not?! Cost should not be the factor. • Net zero or better. We need to set the bar! • Be a beacon! • If you only build to code, you are building a crappy and cheap product • Energy efficiency and climate change are important values for our community. I see no need to compromise either with this project. • Focus on cost efficiency • I don’t know, but I support maximizing density. • Focus on number of units and amenities first and foremost. • Thank you for all the hard work related to employee housing. Unfortunately you can’t please all the people all the time. • Green energy ?? net zero ?? how real is this stuff • Get it established first. Fine tune and improve later where applicable. • Electric heat is too costly for rental units! Please consider cost of use for the consumer • Net zero is not truly net zero. You never factor in all of the ancillary costs associated with building “green”. The current codes are already so strict • Who are we if don’t!!? • We live in a place where there are incredible rebates available for net zero development and the only way we are going to have a chance in reaching our climate goals is to build net zero. • Max amount of density possible • IF YOUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO HAVE NET O IN THE COUNTY IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR ALL PROJECTS! • The cheaper the better. Not all Aspen residents have family money! • Aspen prides itself on being progressive. So let’s keep being progressive and raising the bar. • Our codes are already fairly stringent. Going to net-zero will raise project costs considerably. • No bragging lets get them build now. • Is the city of aspen acting as the developer? If so, better check codes. Burlingame Phase 2 is a mess. The “energy efficient” solar panels are a bust. All had to be taken down, at owners expense! • Density is more important. • Enough with the subsidies. • But not at any price • How can anyone answer that without knowing the tradeoffs? • If Aspen doesn’t raise the bar, what ski town would? Are we second rate? • Only if those savings end up passing down to the homeowner in the form of cheaper electricity bills or other ways • Don’t talk about it be about it • The city should use money for energy efficiency that would benefit all not just this one neighborhood. • Our planet needs responsible and sustainable humans. • Too costly • Aspen’s not going to save the planet, and nobody’s looking to aspen for leadership on this issue. net zero at aspen’s level is a vanity project. • Definitely – energy efficiency should bee a top priority. Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 101 Overarching Themes Innovations: Energy Efficiency Targets Comments: Population Served • More investment in the beginning should pat off in the long term • Come on — cutting out plastic bags is not going to save the world. Aspen should do it!!! T Transportation and Transit • The most energy efficient choice of all is to provide affordable housing within biking distance of employers. We can sometimes get distracted by shiny things like NetZero that seem nice but distract from the true goal–housing our workforce. • Need to consider some of the other cutting edge ideas being implemented in this project – may help offset underground parking expenses. • Same reason at underground parking. Hard to go back and do it. Just do it on the front end. • Car free environment…. or doesn’t that count towards energy efficiency? Design Advice • This project should be net-zero and be a model what private developers can do I. The city, county and throughout the country. It should also have solar. • This should be an exemplary project when it comes to energy efficiency. Net zero as a baseline and as much on site solar as possible – Geothermal should be explored as well. • When issuing RFP for the project, request it based on building performance not “cutting • Real maintenance costs of “cutting edge” technology defeats the purpose of affordable living by passing on untenable, free market maintenance fees to low income residents. • Its a small development, great way for the City to try it out, get it right, and use it again on future projects if successful. Perhaps the City could even get paid back in the first few years for some of the construction on the cost savings. • Going net zero for a specific building is a waste of money, take those funds and go net zero at scale. That said, it should be super efficient, perhaps beyond code and have should be electrified • Net zero with on site solar is a must • We have so much money to spend on housing that is needed, spending extra money just so you can say you are net zero is ridiculous. You want to go to all electric versus natural gas but that is incredibly expensive for the renters/owners in an already ridiculously expensive market and guess where electricity comes from? Fossil fuels • I think that this is creating too many codes resulting in more expenses buildings and resulting in a more families that cannot afford to live in aspen • Who cares the cost. Energy saving and conversing natural resources are ideal • Yes, but there does have to be a cost benefit … if my electricity bill is going to skyrocket because we do electric everything, not sure. But if some of the power can be offset with on-site renewables … maybe. As much as possible costs should be embedded up front. • Who cares the cost. Energy saving and conversing natural resources are ideal • Net zero buildings are the only way to eventually reach carbon neutrality! We should be moving in that direction. • Cost is always a consideration. Resources are not infinite. Net Zero is an admirable goal but Buildings should be energy efficient within reason. Marginal gains tend to be very, very expensive. • It’s new construction we should be developing it with the future in mind. We don’t want to spend time and money on something that will be outdated by the time it’s finished. • More efficient standards are needed and we need to set this example. We can continue to collect funds and build more, but retrofitting won’t be possible. I don’t know if the certification is needed, it’s a bit like “organic” – you can buy sustainably grown produce that just doesn’t have the designation. Cheaper, but the same thing. Overarching Themes Innovations: Energy Efficiency Targets Comments: Design Advice • If you do co-living but are progressive in the energy efficiency then this could be a really cool development at a reasonable cost. You can follow LEED guidelines but not obtain the certification is fine w/ me. LEED has gotten so expensive but we can still follow their guidelines. • This is already going to be expensive enough. The current local codes are already very progressive. The one thing that I’d suggest would be adding solar panels to roofs which would add a bit to height but would both help recoup some costs and also be a visual cue to visitors that energy conservation is important to us, again reflecting the character of Aspen – the consideration for that would be who would maintain moving forward? • Existing codes in this county are the most stringent in the country, net zero is almost unattainable from a cost perspective. • I think we need to think long term here. Lets build something that in 20 years down the line we can still be proud of it and not want to or need to rip it down. Provide energy security right here in the valley through energy conservation. • Net Zero or near it would be great, but the higher cost for a more energy efficient building should impact the amount of units built • The Basalt Vista affordable housing project, in partnership with Habitat for Humanity, CORE and Holy Cross seems to be a good example to mirror on. • It comes at higher cost. Looking at the Basalt Vista housing project, maybe the addition of “sweat equity” would be an option as well as partnering with CORE, Habitat for Humanity and Holy Cross. • Soundproofing should be a number one concern. Then net zero. And let’s try and build something that doesn’t start failing right away. I mean spend MORE so our neighbors have a HOME , not a dorm room. • 80/20 rules apply. Its always the last little bit of efficiency that costs the most. We can go a long way and even substantially exceed code requirements on energy efficiency without incurring the substantial costs of meeting a completely arbitrary ‘netzero’ target wherein that last little bit of efficiency is prohibitively expensive and a waste of the communities funds. • Net Zero is a better long-term plan than meeting standards up front. Invest in efficiency now rather than playing catch-up ten years down the road. • All Aspen projects should be Net Zero, especially if they are seeking to increase the population of the area rather than update existing buildings. • Solar! Micro windmills on the roof! geothermal heat! wastewater recycling! Go for it! • Pick local architects/designers who understand how to best design and build in this valley • If these are built to last into the future it should be built with future standards • The city already requires an exceeding amount of energy efficiency to most communities. Focus on building quality, not exceeding energy codes. • Change the existing codes. Taxpayer funds are not for experimentation. • I think any projects should include wind, and solar power • Net Zero is wonderful but not if it then causes the units to become unaffordable. Aspen’s expensive, can we make some part of it less painful. Three jobs is really taking it’s toll on me. • Make it zero! Imagine how big of heroes and trailblazers you would be – it gets amazing sunlight! YOU HAVE TO HAVE GREEN INITIATIVES • Make luxury single family housing go above the code first. Pushing the envelope on green building beyond our excellent code only will increase costs and thus reduces the number of bedrooms delivered. • ASPEN SHOULD USE SOME OF THEIR NEWLY ACQUIRED REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAXES TO DO THIS RIGHT AND KEEP A LUMBER YARD AS WELL. IT’S LUDICROUS TO NOT DO SO. THINK IT THROUGH AND SUBMIT ANOTHER OPTION INCLUDING A LUMBER YARD AND SEE WHAT THE FEEDBACK IS. • Ensure that all systems selected don’t increase the burden on the resident with the inability to maintain repair and replace cost effectively Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 102 Overarching Themes Parking Comments: Population Served • I think there are other sites within the ABC that would satisfy this issue so that maxing out the housing component would be best. • If there isn’t an operator for the day care don’t include it. Parking seems like a waste to include – just focus on providing more housing units. • I am in favor of maximizing density. Whatever does that is good by me. • Maximize density first. Maybe use Burlingame for child care? • Max amount of density possible • Don’t build this please • Childcare and a shuttle are really important • Your questions need to be more specific. The daycare should be for the families I’m the building. Why do you need so much additional parking? Why would you displace residence with potential other families? T Transportation and Transit • Adequate ,parking is necessary but even if it is available it will be abused because the City has no will to enforce the rules. • On additional parking, it doesn’t look beautiful but the project should be a good neighbor. • ABC is a great place for additional parking. Child Care – who runs it, who can use it? Although good in theory, it brings lots of questions that need to be thought out. Can all ABC people ride the shuttle? If so, add it. Who pays for it? • Focus on public transit and what encourages its use • No surface parking – build a parking garage and some daycare • All of these are needed. Without a shuttle service how are folks supposed to go grocery shopping? A quarter mile can be a long way when weighed down with groceries. • Smaller grouping of parking may be preferable to one larger lot. • A shuttle sounds stupid – the existing 8 million buses per day IS the shuttle system. I don’t care about McBride’s concerns about parking (or anything else). Yes, daycare seems super important. • Please do not underpark this project. Telling someone they have to go to Walmart on the bus is just not fair. Also – underparking doesn’t work. • If the project is primarily small units, day care demand will be low and utilized by non-residents. Other sites are better for day car. 1/4 mile is a very reasonable distance to walk to a bus stop for Aspen’s active & healthy community. In no case, should the Lumber yard be utilized to meet parking needs to the ABC. The ABC is not even in the City! • Appeasing neighbors at AABC and Mountain Rescue with parking seems ludicrous. They can use their footprint, plan accordingly, or use car-to-go. The parking issue is tireless, and neighbors continue to bark about the dangers of traffic and children. ugh. They likely just want to store their cars. Too bad. • Connection to transit is important, but come on… The location is literally right on the transit line! Rather than a shuttle station, there should be a micro mobility transit hub to connect the project to the main corridor with things like scooters and other personal mobility options • I agree that we need ancillary parking available but I worry that especially during peak times it becomes a place for people to park and commute. It should be paid parking by day (less than parking in Aspen but at some cost) and perhaps free at night. Also you don’t want tenants using that parking lot for parking vs. commuting. I would need to understand more how what this extra parking is used for. “Free parking” can get abused pretty quickly. Tenants in units in the ABC constantly deal with places to park. • Note I’m assuming 5 is agree the most / 0 is agree the least and rated that way. 1) Childcare: I’m mixed on this one but know there is a need and this is probably one of the few spots the city can do it but i do worry about young kids that close the airport runway and caustic fumes from taxiing and idling planes. 2) Bus Terminal: we live at N40 and would really like a bus line that specifically services our area. I think one that serviced Lumber Yard, AABC, N40/CMC, and Airport would make a lot of sense. The airport and their connectivity goals being a critical part of it. 3) Parking: yes please add as many parking spaces as possible. If you add child care will need even more! T Transportation and Transit • Mountain Rescue can solve it’s own event induced parking challenges but the problem of street parking in the ABC is real and can’t be mitigated other than not adding to the problem • I work at the ABC and feel the need for additional parking for existing businesses is important moving forward. Childcare is an important need to keep our local workforce available to work and having something onsite is a big benefit. Shuttle is probably my lowest priority given the RFTA bus stop nearby. • Parking is an issue everywhere. Don’t make special accommodations • Burlingame bus service is consistently underutilized. Why would we expect a lumberyard shuttle to be different • Be realistic about the parking needs. • Provide underground parking for residents. Childcare maybe but only for residents. Station no; the walk to RFTA will do them good. • Prefer that the first thing you see, and closer to the highway, not be a parking lot! • Underground parking would eliminate these issues like at highlands housing • Shuttle is get to in concept but super expensive. Overarching Themes Parking Comments: Design Advice • Love the idea of daycare at the site • If the mix at the project is tipped towards studios and one bedrooms the day care center doesn’t seem like a good idea • Childcare – maybe. Shuttle station – yes. Extra parking – no • All three serve as amenities to this development. Again, if housing remain the priority I must say the City stick with housing! 1/4 mile not too far to pick up a bus. Less fuel emissions- Limit parking!!!! I am certainly more inclined to lean in on chidcare, as its just so important everywhere. Would certainly be a great amenity to the project! • Childcare reduces project by 60 tenants. Childcare should be cooperative by parents in 2 bedroom units on ground floor. Project should free offsite parking somewhere(airport?) • I think I answered the above correctly. I think it is extremely important and absolutely necessary to ad childcare for 0-6 year old children. Our valley has a huge lack, especially for infant spaces, and it makes it impossible to live and work in Aspen. It is one of the reasons we have had to look at leaving the valley all together. Housing should be subsidized or provided/reserved for early childhood education teachers as well. They cannot afford to live here. • Child care on site makes sense if it’s NOT co-living and there are more 1-2 bedroom options. No matter what- child care is desperately needed in the valley. If you can staff it! • A building for childcare in the time of covid. No. A shuttle bus, yes yes yes. A parking lot there would need management. • Go bigger on the building and put in a childcare facility. It’s time for this valley to have one. RFTA is a great way to reduce congestion. Mountain Rescue does great work and deserves to park. • The local daycare centers cannot stay staffed. While there is a huge demand, there isn’t enough available people to fill those (often low paying) jobs. If people don’t want to use the intercept lot to commute when it is FREE, why would they be inclined to use a rapid transit center 2 miles up the road. You will need extra parking. It is already an issue at the ABC. • A low cost, small child care unit would be helpful, but not absolutely necessary. Some extra parking for guests and mountain rescue is very important. • All of these are important. Electric charging stations? • You’ll see, very quickly, how many cars, trailers, vans, boats, snowmobiles, vans, campers, 4×4’s, motorcycles, trash, bikes, strollers, and general sh*t people have. You will fill EVERY parking space you build. Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 103 Overarching Themes Design Character Comments: Design Advice • Hmmmmm……needs to have mountain appeal due to entrance to Aspen and how many people see this every day. • Drop the cutie architecture and associated cost. Simple • The mountain contemporary is a safe choice but doing something very innovative at this site like in the last set of imagery could be an engaging statement for Aspen – does everything have to be mountain contemporary in housing. • The ultra modern would seem out of place in our valley. • Stick with more traditional styles • I think keeping it mountain contemporary in style fits best with the ABC area, the aspen ideal, and the appeal to a broader range of inhabitants. • Residents need some outdoor space and appropriate storage, etc for living in this climate – skis, boots, camping equipment, kayaks, etc. • We live in a mountain town. This project is right off the highway and will be seen by everyone entering town. Design is super important to keep the Aspen feel. • Current designs show no character – think of this as an entrance to aspen and should represent the community, green innitive, and a few more options. Current design plans all look like they came from same desk and there is zero imagination. I know Aspen can do better! This is to last 100 years! We need to be proud and take out time and design a masterpiece and something to be proud of. • Provide private porches/outdoor spaces attached to each unit! and YES to greenery/plants on buildings. • Modern and efficient • Green space should be maximized. • While I like all of the examples, the first three seem more appropriate. That said, integrating examples of a well done contemporary architecture may be a welcome mix. • Please keep project separated by fence at back of property. Annie Mitchell does not need overflow parkers from lumberyard housing. • Make it look cool. I really like the modern look examples – inspiring. I like the modern look better than the faux ranchy stuff. • 1. Make it good looking, a place residents will be proud to live 2. Use materials that have a lower total carbon impact (including transportation) 3. Build it well 4. Create an initial capital replacement fund for the project to minimize future special assessments. • One of the biggest downsides to most of the housing in Aspen is the cost burden associated with HOA fees. I.E category 1 paying $400-$500/ month in Burlingame 2 for poorly managed HOA fees. Please do not let this project burden future residents! • I would rate the second row of pictures a 4, the 3rd a 2, the bottom one a 0. The top one a 5. • Use a mix • Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency. The design should be efficient! Aspen has a long history of building very inefficient affordable housing units with excess emphasis on “custom” design, “no 2 units alike”. Housing resources are limited and outstrip demand. • Look at the VELOS condos development in Boulder • I love this stuff with the green elements/green roofs! Let’s do this and add in gardening and carbon sequestration. • The last modern option is a mix of concrete and then green covered buildings. Don’t mind the green but not the cement look. I think something like the bright oranges and colors is too bright. You want to blend in to the open space and not be an eye sore for visitors flying in across the street. Wood look is nice. • The last design character grouping suggests biophilia – I liek this idea but unclear on how this would be maintained in this climate zone • Affordable housing should be downvalley • Alpine mountain town. • Decks are so important Overarching Themes Design Character Comments: Design Advice • Please do not do MODERN! The employee housing at the base of Shadow Mountain is terrible! This project will be visible from Hwy 82, the entrance to Aspen and the first experience many people will have to our community. Please refer to the WOMP first and foremost. I suggest pitched roofs and wood / brick / stone construction. Keep the mountain contemporary but not too modern. Use green materials where possible but not cheap or industrial / urban. More Phase 1 Burlingame, not Phase 2. • Do modular stackable units. Huge savings! • There are quite a few different design ideas within the photo slides… I like green walls, but don’t appreciate the tall blank walls in the lowest photos… Some type of porch and outdoor living space per unit seems a desirable design direction. • I like decks on the units • Mountain traditional. Neutral colors. Lets not let some architect’s self expression win out here. Snowmass latest developments read well. That lane is appropriate here. • Build the bedrooms larger!!!! • No decks. Modular construction similar to Marolt Housing. Pitched roof is greenhouse roof which is psychologically more residential and quieting. • I encourage something that feels family friendly but is modern. Not something that will be out of style in a few years. • Let’s try to be more interesting than Annie Mitchell and Burlingame in the design • Availability of outdoor living areas whether a balcony or small yard area in front of a ground level unit is important for people and their mental health • For the smaller units – Annie Mitchell is a good layout and for larger units Burlingame did it right. • With previous employee housing units. Build them right or don’t build at all. You just add more problems to families trying to make it here. • Expensive exterior details! • Let the designers do their magic! • I don’t know, just focus on maximizing density and let the architects And planners /. Professionals do the rest. • Goal should be timeless and lasting, not trendy and dated in 10 years • I think the live plants on outside walls makes sense in warmer climates but its feasible and won’t look horrendous in the winter then yes. I worry a little that it is taking away from the old charm of aspen. • It should look more like fake single family homes, but include the green elements in the final images. (The final image buildings are too ‘high-rise’, thats why they got a lower score) • Please be more creative than replicating burlingame phases 2 & 3 here. Those buildings do not adhere to the original intention of Burlingame having the feel or an organically built community. Make this neighborhood authentic in design without being cheap and replicating a completely repetitive design. You will get more public buy in if the design is articulated and breaks up mass. • A European walking community would have the best feel in this neighborhood. I like the outside walkways, lots of balconies and connection to the outdoors. • Keep the mountain aesthetic. • ‘Mountain Modern’ would be great • Lots of natural light and windows or garage doors that open so workers can have fresh air. • We are a mountain town. Don’t go modern • Max amount of density possible • Unable adjust / slide to rate design choices. But 3 and 4 are horrific and too modern looking for the surrounding area and landscape. • Less color, less busy than past projects. Keep a sophisticated simple color palate that will age well. • I prefer the first two options. They seem to fit into our landscape and mountain character better. • Please no cutting-edge designs for this project. They tend to age poorly. Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 104 Overarching Themes Design Character Comments: Design Advice • Look like home, not an institution • Straightlines and right angles are less expensive to build and maintain and do not need to look like a big lego block. Acute angles and cute design features like on some prior projects make no sense and are not efficient use of space • I do not want a whole bunch of cookie cutter buildings. Do you like suburbia? This is an opportunity for great architecture, not more of the same. • Select a design that fits the style of Aspen. Rustic / modern blend. Appealing to a younger rental-living generation. • With the exception of the last picture in this last row which doesn’t look like it belongs (grass on the roof?) , This row is great! I love the first picture. Trees, especially fruit baring ones would be great. • Make the design more complimentary to the mountains. Don’t go with a sleek city design that will look out of place. • I think you should accept photos for other design ideas. • The 1st is boring and the last looks like a big city • I worry about density there or anywhere these projects are proposed. It doesn’t help anyone to crowd and have it so dense that is not quality anything. More is not always better. • The 1st is boring and the last looks like a big city • Stay away from boxy ubermodern; basalt’s already ruining willits with those. Simple slant or peaked roofs are best. Stay away from complex roofs that will leak. • How can it be someone’s home if they have no input in the design for their personal needs? Alejandro Aravena half/half design for vested active ownership • I personally like having a small private balcony for plants, some storage and bikes. The buildings need to fit with Aspen ‘s small town persona. • Oh boy. This is pretty bad. Why don’t we look at Aspen core and see what works? There are larger buildings that could house many units without the need for false variation. I think Eigelberger would do a much better job than this… • Higher quality lower maintenance is preferred. Repair and maintenance at free market pricing is expensive . keep it simple • 1-traditional is old, 2 is better for now, 3 maybe be too contemporary for here, 4-is definitely too cutting edge trending for our mountain town, sticks out too much, too urban • Stay in character with the town. Aspen is not a big city. • This is an opportunity to make a difference to the entrance of Aspen for the next 100 years. Take your time, make it classic, and MAKE IT WITH QUALITY!!! I can’t stress this enough, be careful of the density, I frankly don’t care what the builders say, what the finance folks say, what the designers say…. It is important to build with intention and care for quality, infrastructure impact, and longevity. • Too modern doesn’t match the mountains • Design should be driven by price and building performance. Population Served • MAXIMIZE DENSITY • Whatever is most cost efficient but not ugly • We’re in rural Colorado. Not in Miami. • I don’t know, but I support maximizing density. • Please stop using that photo of Melanie Love. She terrorized all her neighbors here at Burlingame ranch and is the number one reason I automatically say no to shared amenities. My Number two son Overarching Themes General Comments: Population Served • Don’t waste this opportunity. We need housing now. • I already own affordable housing. Its a savior for long term employment in this town. • We are fortunate to own Employee housing…. • With the proposed density, I’m fearful that this project will end up looking and feeling like a slum. Skippy’s thoughts about trying to cram as many units in as possible are scary and I will not be voting for him again. Please make these livable units!! • Really hope we can solve one problem here: small unit employee housing with extra density and exclusion to the current code–Aspen should not be afraid of a modern well built modern set of buildings. • Density needs to be increased at this site. I know council is hovering around 300 units, but this is one of our last places to develop housing in the city and it should be done with maximizing density in mind. • Some communal spaces would be awesome if able to still creating some private spaces and being dog friendly • I think this project should focus on providing quality seasonal housing for younger people at a high density with strict limits on on-site or neighborhood parking. Create a long-term lot at the intercept lot and require public transit use. • I have employee housing • Please keep these affordable. I literally have no hope in this valley and I am a very hard working person with three jobs who grew up in this valley. It’s hard to even take this survey and see where priorities are, clearly every one on this community has money and shouldn’t even be considered. Also as far as common areas go…. has anyone in the last two years used any of the common areas at the inn at aspen APCHA housing. NO. While this very appealing it can also create noise issues when you live in a shoe box and a bunch of people are drinking etc and then you can’t escape the noise because your apartment is so tiny you can not just go to your bedroom and close the door. I’m not trying to live in college dorm room. Our valley absolutely needs affordable housing, without this I fear the delicate balance will be lost. We live in area with one of the lowest average incomes and highest costs of living. This gap makes everyone’s life’s harder, if business owners were able to retain employees because they could afford to live here, they would have a higher potential for success. This is the only way to ensure a steady and healthy growth in our community. If business can’t have employees the can’t operate. I truly don’t think anyone understands our actual need for truly affordable housing and not talking a half million dollar home… that’s not affordable and if you afford that then you can afford free market down valley. Many amazing smart people who have a lot to offer our community leave due to housing but I guess they are smart enough to leave. I appreciate your survey and time and hope to be heard. • Co-living debate depends on how prices would be impacted. I don’t understand why the number of children isn’t differentiated from number of adults. We have four working adults in our household. • I am generally a big fan of co-housing space but given the ongoing nature of COVID, we should probably attempt to make outdoor common spaces the norm. • Already own APCHA housing • ….but yes, I could see myself in newer housing within the ABC. • I’m set for housing. We desperately need housing as a community. Our businesses really need mid-Category rentals. Its hardest to hear the voices that aren’t here. This is not about the people that are already here. It about the need to house people that are not here. Our problem is employees that are NOT here. Its tough to ask people that aren’t here and even more important to speak on their behalf. • As someone who will be an empty nester in the not so distant future, this project hold zero interest for me to downsize. • NOT currently looking, but it is always changing around here • I think this is a great idea, thank you for reaching out to the public about what we need. Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 105 Overarching Themes General Comments: Population Served • Great survey design! Thanks for taking feedback • Concern is for community housing needs, livability, community character, and seeing a quality project all of Aspen can be proud of. • I applied for several units in the past, just have an employer provided situation currently. • I already have a townhome at the North 40. • I’m concerned with density. The proposed plans seem too dense • We own at North 40 and consider ourselves extremely lucky to have the opportunity to do so. If it were not for employee housing we would not live in Pitkin County. We love our immediate neighborhood but also the greater West Aspen community. • Build it and get out of the way. Allow it to be owned and managed by the owners. • This development seems targeted at single folks, versus those with a family • Until I can take car to go to Utah I need my car / make pets allowed • No, but I rely on the local economy. Which requires a workforce. Which requires housing. • We need rental housing • Appreciate the survey. Density is appropriate for this site. Reduced parking for units should prevail. • I played the lottery for 7+ years and finally won a place. I understand the need for workforce housing! • I’m already in Burlingame Phase one and love it. In a one bedroom unit – not many of them in Phase one as we are a couple with no kids and the unit we are in is spacious with nice outdoor space. • I live in phase 2 and we were not told that a rental community would be in our backyard, rather the opposite. Renters do not maintain nor care for the space in the ways that owners do. I feel like the community needs to value the input of the current residents. We also pay ridiculous HOA fees and only have one parking spot, and no community resources. A fitness center or pool would be an asset for the entire neighborhood. • There wasn’t a comment box for the question regarding co-living space, so I would to place that comment here. Co-living space should be designated for full-time professionals only and not be used for seasonal ski instructors and other short term workers. Based on history this co-living space will be inappropriately used by seasonal ski instructors who come here simply to ski and party. Priorities should be placed on families, public employees, and professionals. This city needs to stop catering to the rich and wealthy and start focusing much more on families, full-time residents, public employees, etc. These groups are the life blood of Aspen. Start making Aspen a livable city for all and not just the few. • Evict people who break and don’t follow the rules and there will be plenty of employee housing for all. • As a teacher, I am living in “affordable housing” through Basalt that the school leases and subleases to me. I’d rather be in this housing where I know it will be longer term • We need to build homes that people want to live in and become part of the community. While the idea of housing everyone in Aspen is appealing we should focus on the quality and not the quantity. • This is exciting for the community! Can’t wait to see how it unfolds. • Housing anywhere from 400+ to 500+ employees in this complex and assuming most will be headed to Aspen, how have you planned for access to Hwy 82 at any time and particularly during rush hour? I did not see any of this in your planning process. • I don’t think so, I own at the AABC. I don’t think I would qualify for the program because of my age. • Much of my staff is. Please maximize density! This may be our last best chance to get closer to the housing we need! • I do not, but my kids will. And my friends do! • This is a once in a century opportunity to add more housing to our affordable inventory. GO BIG! • We need all the beds we can get. This is unsustainable if our workforce can’t afford to live in aspen! • High density Overarching Themes General Comments: Population Served • Aspen is being destroyed because the city is being managed as a big business rather than a community of human beings. Aspen is a great brand name but increasing capacity without resolving traffic problems is creating bigger problems as we kick the can down the road. If we want to improve the experience of being here we need to stop growing. Skico is a business and only cares about the bottom line. The city needs to stop pandering to it! Killing the goose that lays the golden egg. What should I do if I needed to buy something at the lumberyard? Drive 40 miles? Philistines! • COMMUNITY ROOMS ARE NOT USABLE TO COVID AND WILL THEY BE IN THE FUTURE • This is a huge issue and needs to be considered from the young worker’s position – not from one of living on the east side of town and never dealing with traffic or housing. • Currently reside in purchased affordable housing. • We are planning on building down valley. As a manager of a large number of seasonal staff I believe this is important. Providing quality living situations can help the valley and welcome a more diverse workforce to our valley. • My wife is disabled and has a small fixed income, this makes it impossible for us to qualify for housing with the current income structure. • Shared amenities means more shared expenses. It seems nice until you realize your neighbors are jerks and don’t take care of things, for example, or that you don’t actually use the shared amenities and that is a waste. • I currently live in an ownership APCHA unit and I am thankful for it. Other working locals should feel the same housing security. • If covid and other pandemic issues plague society in coming years • I work for ASC, full time year round. My office and work location is not in pitkin county- riverside. I work to bring in a lot of revenue for pitkin county but I am not eligible for any affordable housing due to my work location- it’s incredibly disappointing. Are there any solutions? • Increase density to max • Max amount of density possible • Great place for housing. • CREATE A HOUSING SITUATION THAT BOTH SINGLES AND FAMILIES CAN FEEL AT HOME. BUILD SOME SENIOR UNITS THAT CAN BE USED FOR RETIREES. • I’d rather APCHA get a better handle on its current portfolio before it plunges into this project. • The city has sat on this for 13 years???? • Any consideration of housing for retirees mixed in with other demographics? Freeing up space in current ownership units? • I’ve got my piece of the pie. Others deserve it, too. • Stop building the same old shit. It looks terrible. It performs terrible. Try something new please. • Quality of life for workers stuck in traffic is worse than quality of life in more dense developments • I was in the system and lost out on units in the lottery for a long time. My employer has privately provided housing or I’d be in the system now. • I filled this survey out because of Rachel Richard’s comments during council yesterday that I felt were very inappropriate. The more people that fill out this survey and are aware of it the better. • I live in APCHA deed restricted housing but I am looking to own or lower my rent • Grew up here. Lived here most of my life. Currently own multiple rental units in the valley. I am current pursuing to build housing down valley. We need as many as possible and this is a great location • A great project! • It’s great that the city is getting feedback but this survey could be improved. Not very mobile friendly either. Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 106 Overarching Themes General Comments: Population Served • I have rented and owned employee housing. I think it is an extremely valuable part of our community. I also see lots of problems with the existing inventory, and with a rapid increase in our area population. The size of this project, the location outside of the roundabout, and the loss of the lumberyard all look like mistakes to me. I worry about the impact of this project on our schools and public services. I also don’t see how there can be a predicted unit shortage of 5000 units that we keep hearing about. In a town of roughly 6,600 people, how can we expect to house half of them in employee housing. I would like to see a more holistic approach of how are community is going to grow sustainably rather than continue to site a massive shortfall of affordable housing inventory. As a resort community we are always going to have challenges with affordable housing, but we also need to keep an eye on population growth and the quality of life of our current residents. • I currently live in employee housing at Aspen Highlands. I would recommend against the look and appearance of luxury homes, and instead focus on more units with maintenance free materials and lower operating costs. I would also recommend rental units over ownership to minimize the barrier of entry for new employees to our community. • Talk to the residences at the Brush Creek homeless compound to see what a real minimalist needs to survive, and upgrade slightly from there. In my opinion the City does not have the courage to propose a car free community. They can’t have it realistically both ways. • I live in free market single family free market down valley detached. Glad I’m not going to have to help pay for this. • I have lived in Aspen for 48 years and have worked hard and done all that I can to support my community. Unfortunately, I am now 72 and unable to work, even though my son , who was born here, and his family own and live here too. Therefore,I am considered to be unwanted in APCHA housing. So, you have my input, but I wouldn’t be allowed to live here. • Co-op market • I am fortunate enough to have just purchased a 1br APCHA unit. • I’m married 2 kids . 2 bedroom hunter creek. May need one more bedroom eventually . • I would love the city to consider a senior-only community, with smaller, affordable units, so that current ACPHA homeowners could downsize and open up their units for resale • I am fortunate enough to have just purchased a 1br APCHA unit. • It’s a good location for affordable housing! • If you build mostly small units need for childcare lessens. • Smaller with more is modern… Thank you • I already live in affordable housing at the ABC. Parking is horrible at the ABC so more parking being added would be a benefit • Frankly – so far, I’ve seen this as a solution to housing – In no way have I ever seen this approached from a “great place to live” angle. You do know the airport and highway noise is UNBEARABLE right? Also, you will be building in an Elk migration pathway. • I’d like to see an analysis of what different scenarios cost per bedroom. • I live in Aspen Village (own) • Thank you. This is a great website. The above pictures though needed more work/clarity. • Already live at Annie Mitchell • Too many people. And too dense. This is the Roaring Fork River Valley, not the front range. All these folks will still need to use the round a bout, schools, water, power EMS, Police and Fire services and our hospital. They will also want to drive cars into town as will be their right. Enough is enough. No more subsidized housing. Aspen is meant to be a small mountain town, not overcrowded and polluted. Question? Where will the hundreds of construction workers be housed? I would bet money, that they will all be driving from way down valley in their large vehicles helping increase the rate of climate change. The same goes for all the workers required for the new school improvements and massive private construction projects. Why is that impact over looked by our city and county planners! Overarching Themes General Comments: Building Materials Supply Operation • Where are Aspenites going to buy lumber? • There is no town without a lumberyard, ever. T Transportation and Transit • I would be willing to live here without a car, if I could get my mountain bike to a trail with relative ease and if I could take my dog on buses. Right now, RFTA does not allow pets on buses and they do not allow bikes on buses during night hours. For these reasons, I would need a parking space if I lived here. • Building this project with no clear answer (or even a proposed solution) to how an extra 200+ cars will not worsen an already terrible morning commute/backup problem is irresponsible. No, another stop light will not fix this problem. • Let’s address the traffic problem and banning cars at employee housing is not the way to go! We all deserve the same conveniences as the well to do.. • Underground or covered parked • A new bus stop near lumberyard for the Burlingame transit route better than shuttle. Burlingame route more efficient for RFTA than shuttle • Really worried about the traffic impact- please make intersection and highway changes and upgrades part of this conversation!! • Downvalley is better and it’s not a far commute. Every other city has commutes Noise and Air Quality • Anything to not add more cars/traffic/community noise • Please address a robust sound mitigation from the airport property across the road and the highway traffic. Thanks and keep up the good work. • Too many people. And too dense. This is the Roaring Fork River Valley, not the front range. All these folks will still need to use the round a bout, schools, water, power EMS, Police and Fire services and our hospital. They will also want to drive cars into town as will be their right. Enough is enough. No more subsidized housing. Aspen is meant to be a small mountain town, not overcrowded and polluted. Question? Where will the hundreds of construction workers be housed? I would bet money, that they will all be driving from way down valley in their large vehicles helping increase the rate of climate change. The same goes for all the workers required for the new school improvements and massive private construction projects. Why is that impact over looked by our city and county planners! I have another theory regarding that which I will • I would not like to live so close to the highway and airport … noise, traffic, etc.. Design Advice • I like the idea of outdoor gear DIY shop but not sure if it would be well taken care of. • Need pet friendly housing – not enough pet friendly affordable housing • The space planning is very important. I once lived in affordable housing (west ranch) and found wasted space as well as a not functional kitchen and no storage for equipment (was added later). • Rental units should be good for 3-5 years and then the tenant needs to reapply to MJ she sure they still qualify. • Must be dog friendly for rental AND ownership. Locals with dogs are being forced into free market units! • Why no comment section for Co-living section? I don’t want to live in college dorm setting, I want/need my own personal private space after being in crazy town working all day. A private deck/small outdoor area is needed for sanity. Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 107 Design Advice • IF we want to recruit families to come to Aspen we need to have 2 and 3 bedroom units, there are barely any 3 bedroom units available in Aspen and most families have more than 1 child. It is a necessity of we want t people to come and stay. • There is no mention of a possible homeless shelter at the site • Proximity to the airport and its effects needs to be considered and addressed. Tired of hearing negative comments from the North 40. • This is terrible to offer fitness as the City already offers Recreation fitness, sport court spaces. As a City why would you ever consider this. I think that Chris should not be in charge of this project. • There is no mention of a possible homeless shelter at the site • I live in the North 40, traffic and impact matter. I believe housing/rooms should built for CMC students on the Lumber Yard site as well. • For co-living, is there an option to explore smaller 2-bedroom units? Having lived with my partner and dog in 1-bd and 2-bd, the quality of life experience we share is greatly improved with the extra “private space” afforded by the 2nd bedroom. • Please allow dogs and cats • Pet friendly is a MUST. It is absolutely ridiculous that the majority of low income housing isn’t pet friendly. We live in an area with higher than normal depression and suicide rates, and it is statistically shown that having a pet can be a huge boost to mental wellbeing. STOP BUILDING NON-PET FRIENDLY HOUSING!!!!!! • Laundry • More pet friendly units – hard to find affordable pet friendly options. • I like balconies and patios, but not if the design of the neighborhood leaves them too impacted by the entrance highway to use. We value these employees; build them a nice project so they will keep it up. • You are doing a great dis service to our community by taking away our mini storage. You should replace some of the storage units • What makes living in Colorado better than everywhere else is the outdoors/weather. Yards, gardens, outdoor patios or decks make small spaces feel larger. To me, storage of gear and outdoor space is HUGE! • I strongly believe we need to be creative and explore community partnerships with this project. For instance while skico has a employee housing issue they have substantial resources ($$, desire and personnel) to pursue solutions independently. There are numerous other organizations and non profits in our community that are struggling with housing for full time and seasonal employees – two that I am familiar with are AVSC and Theatre Aspen. These organizations are integral to our community but in many circumstances these people do not meet time based residency requirements. There are many creative possibilities that could be explored and I know AVSC would like to talk if there is willingness to do so from the city. Perhaps the club could sign masterleases for a few units and sublease/allocate to employees. Unneeded units returned to pool seasonally. Or since a winter need, split with a summer focused organization like TA. • Some of these are really wonderful ideas for Manhattan, but here in Aspen, people just need a place to live with a little spare space and gear storage. • I like a lot of those ideas. Outdoor park space/community vegetable garden would be great • Have lived in co-living situations before and enjoyed it, but prefer private space at the moment. Not sure it makes sense to have a daycare if a majority of the units are studios/ one bedrooms. Will there be enough preschoolers living there for it to be worth it? • Use of the greenfield area adjacent to Deer Hill is inappropriate. Development should be confined to the brownfield area behind Mountain Rescue and to the west. • Please don’t build housing here. These are two essential businesses for the upper valley. At what point do we stop eliminating tax paying businesses for the sake of housing? What do we do when all businesses are gone and no jobs for its citizens? Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 108 Appendix C - Conceptual Plans Overview of Plans Concept A Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 109 Concept B Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 110 Concept C Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 111 Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 112 Appendix D - Advertising Material Social Media Post Help us as we develop concepts for a dynamic affordable housing neighborhood at the Lumberyard! Attend the open houses to give feedback and get free food and beverages: ABC OPEN HOUSE @ ROXY’S CAFE Wednesday January 15 @ 4:00-7:00 pm DOWNTOWN OPEN HOUSE @ CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Thursday, January 16 Luncheon @ 11:00 am-1:00 pm Afternoon Session @ 3:00-6:00 pm Newspaper Advertisements Learn more at AspenLumberyard.com ENTER A WEEKLY RAFFLE FOR A $50 GIFT CERTIFICATE! ASPEN’S LUMBERYARD: B UIL D THE FOUNDATION This a ordable housing project is at a pivotal planning stage where your input is critical. TAKE A SURVEY Give Input on: • Rental vs Sales • Unit Type • Co-Living Studios • Parking Options • Building Height GO TO THE WEBSITE AspenLumberyard.com • Take the survey • Read about/attend events • Learn about the project • Comment on conceptual plans 1 ENTER A WEEKLY RAFFLE FOR A $50 GIFT CERTIFICATE! EL LUMBERYARD DE ASPEN:CONSTRUYA LA FUNDACIÓN Conozca más enAspenLumberyard.com LLENE UNA ENCUESTA Dé su opinión sobre: • Renta vs. Venta • Tipo de unidad • Estudios de cohabitación • Opciones de estacionamiento • Altura de edifi cios VAYA AL SITIO AspenLumberyard.com • Llene la encuesta • Lea sobre/asista a los eventos • Aprenda sobre el proyecto • Comente sobre los planes conceptuales ENTRE EN UNA RIFA SEMANAL DE UN CERTIFICADO DE REGALO DE $50 Este proyecto de vivienda asequible está en una fase fundamental de planifi cación donde su aporte es crítico ENMARCANDO EL FUTURO Vivienda Asequible Aspen ASPEN’S LUMBERYARD: BUILD THE FOUNDATION PARTICIPATE Learn more at AspenLumberyard.com TAKEASURVEY Give Input on: • Rental vs Sales • Unit Type • Co-Living Studios • Parking Options • Building Height GOTOTHEWEBSITE AspenLumberyard.com • Take the survey • Read about/attend events • Learn about the project • Comment on conceptual plans 1 ENTER A WEEKLY RAFFLE FOR A $50 GIFT CERTIFICATE! This a ordable housing project is at a pivotal planning stage where your input is critical. Commercial Radio Spots for Aspen Lumberyard – 2020 Fall Campaign NEW COPY TOO RUN STARTING OCT 16. #1 The Aspen LumberYard Affordable Housing Project is at a pivotal point in the planning process. YOUR input is critical. Help shape the design of this future neighborhood by taking a ten-minute survey before November 6th. Do we need rental or sales? What kind of units? Co-living studios? How about parking and building height? Go to our all new website to learn about the project and take the survey to enter a weekly raffle. Also learn about other ways to participate. It’s all at Aspen Lumberyard-dot-com. #2 Do you need housing in Aspen that’s affordable? The Aspen LumberYard Affordable Housing Project can meet your needs. But first, give us your opinions. Fill out a ten- minute survey before November 6th with questions about rental versus sales, unit type, parking and building height. You’ll be entered into a weekly raffle. Participate in pop up events or the City Council meeting. You can help shape the future of this neighborhood! Learn more it at the all-new website! Aspen Lumber Yard-dot-com. Radio Advertisement Copy Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 113 Digital Advertising Report Created 2020-11-16 11:21:12CST City of Aspen - DISPLAY - 85252 Oct 5, 2020 - Nov 6, 2020 TTD - Display Performance 10/5/20 10/7/20 10/9/20 10/11/20 10/13/20 10/15/20 10/17/20 10/19/20 10/21/20 10/23/20 10/25/20 10/27/20 10/29/20 10/31/2011/1/20 11/3/20 11/5/20 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Impressions0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ClicksImpressions Clicks Performance Ad Format Impressions Clicks CTR 320x50 44,371 43 0.10% 300x250 22,824 35 0.15% 728x90 9,806 24 0.24% Totals N/A 77001 102 0.13% Total Impressions 77,001 Total Clicks 102 Overall CTR 0.13% 300x250 320x50 728x90 Impressions by Format 300x250 320x50 728x90 Clicks by Format 300x250 320x50 728x90 CTR by Format PC/PI by Format PC/PI 1 0 0% PC 0% PI PC/PI 2 0 0% PC 0% PI PC/PI 3 0 0% PC 0% PI PC/PI 4 0 0% PC 0% PI PC/PI 5 0 0% PC 0% PI PC/PI 6 0 0% PC 0% PI 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 25 26 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 Impressions by Frequency 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 25 26 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Clicks by Frequency 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 25 26 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 CTR by Frequency PC/PI by Frequency PC/PI 1 0 0% PC 0% PI PC/PI 2 0 0% PC 0% PI PC/PI 3 0 0% PC 0% PI PC/PI 4 0 0% PC 0% PI PC/PI 5 0 0% PC 0% PI PC/PI 6 0 0% PC 0% PI Created 2020-11-16 11:21:12CST City of Aspen - DISPLAY - 85252 Oct 5, 2020 - Nov 6, 2020 Geography City State Impressions Clicks Carbondale Colorado 35662 49 Aspen Colorado 33733 40 Basalt Colorado 4949 11 Snowmass Village Colorado 1577 0 Snowmass Colorado 1080 2 Created 2020-11-16 11:21:17CST City of Aspen - DISPLAY - 85252 Oct 5, 2020 - Nov 6, 2020 Data Elements Name Impressions Clicks CTR demographic > age > 25 to 34 > confident 41,669 44 0.11% advanced demographics > HHI > Less Than 25k 6,332 13 0.21% Branded > Data > Real Estate > Intent > Buyers 3,421 3 0.09% OTT > HHI 25k - 60k 3,090 7 0.23% OTT > HHI 60k - 75k 2,424 4 0.17% Branded > Data > Real Estate > Intent 2,330 2 0.09% Branded > Data > Demo > Marital Status > Single 1,841 1 0.05% demographic > age > 35 to 44 > confident 1,596 1 0.06% Wealth > Income Producing Assets $75K to $100K 1,544 2 0.13% Demographics > Relationship Status > Married 1,454 2 0.14% Totals N/A 67166 81 0.12% Impressions by data element Clicks by data element CTR by data element PC/PI by data element PC/PI 1 0 0% PC 0% PI PC/PI 2 0 0% PC 0% PI PC/PI 3 0 0% PC 0% PI PC/PI 4 0 0% PC 0% PI PC/PI 5 0 0% PC 0% PI PC/PI 6 0 0% PC 0% PI Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 114 Created 2020-11-16 11:44:22CST City of Aspen - Housing 4283853 Oct 5, 2020 - Nov 6, 2020 O&O Performance 10/5/20 10/7/20 10/9/20 10/11/20 10/13/20 10/15/20 10/17/20 10/19/20 10/21/20 10/23/20 10/25/20 10/27/20 10/29/20 10/31/2011/1/20 11/3/20 11/5/20 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 Impressions0 2 4 6 8 10 12 ClicksImpressions Clicks Performance Line Item Name Impressions Clicks CTR 0000625335-01 - 68278 - All Slots 75,302 117 0.16% Totals N/A 75302 117 0.16% Total Impressions 75,302 Total Clicks 117 Overall CTR 0.16% 0000625335-01 - 68278 - All Slots Impressions by Line Item 0000625335-01 - 68278 - All Slots Clicks by Line Item 0000625335-01 - 68278 - All Slots CTR by Line Item Created 2020-11-16 11:44:22CST City of Aspen - Housing 4283853 Oct 5, 2020 - Nov 6, 2020 Geography Country City State Impressions Clicks United States Denver Colorado 15492 33 United States Glenwood Springs Colorado 11736 20 United States Carbondale Colorado 9111 14 United States Aspen Colorado 7279 11 United States Basalt Colorado 6654 12 United States N/A Colorado 2549 3 United States Colorado Springs Colorado 1615 1 United States Grand Junction Colorado 1514 1 United States Boulder Colorado 982 3 United States Rifle Colorado 877 2 Created 2020-11-16 11:44:27CST City of Aspen - Housing 4283853 Oct 5, 2020 - Nov 6, 2020 Device Device Category Name Impressions Clicks CTR Smartphone 38,744 70 0.18% Desktop 28,566 42 0.15% Tablet 7,983 5 0.06% Feature phone 8 0 0.00% Connected TV 1 0 0.00% Totals N/A 75302 117 0.16% Desktop Smartphone Tablet Impressions by Device Category Desktop Smartphone Clicks by Device Category Desktop Smartphone Tablet CTR by Device Category Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 115 Facebook Advertising Report Oct 1, 2020 - Nov 7, 2020▼Template provided by: ** All data is compared to last year. **SessionsOct 1 Oct 3 Oct 5 Oct 7 Oct 9 Oct 11 Oct 13 Oct 15 Oct 17 Oct 19 Oct 21 Oct 23 Oct 25 Oct 27 Oct 29 Oct 31 Nov 2 Nov 4 Nov 60200400SessionsDirect(Other)ReferralDisplaySocialOrganic SearchEmail7.9%14.5%61.8%New Users1,978Pages Per Visit5,973Users1,990Channel BreakdownSessions2,740Default Channel GroupingNew UsersAvg Visit LengthNew VisitsDirect1,22220:3468%(Other)28704:5193%Referral15602:5655%Display14002:2097%Social10201:4589%Grand total1,97833:1072%▼Engagement OverviewOverview — Site TrafcTemplate provided by: Facebook LikesAd set nameClicksEngagementsImpressionsReachCostFrequencyLumberyard - Local Area -Facebook35338223,3945,988$221.053.91Lumberyard - Local Area -Instagram85995,5282,784$44.941.99Lumberyard - Local Area -Facebook and Instagram -Spanish44463,4471,476$28.212.34Grand total48252732,3698,752$294.23.7▼$294.20No dataTotal Spend$0.36No dataClicksTotal likes2,472Total likesNov 2019Dec 2019Jan 2020Feb 2020Mar 2020Apr 2020May 2020Jun 2020Jul 2020Aug 2020Sep 2020Oct 2020Nov 20…2K2.2K2.4K2.6K2,0062,0172,0372,0462,1582,2182,2792,3062,3862,4232,4402,4622,472Facebook CampaignsSep 15, 2020 - Nov 7, 2020▼Paid Social — Facebook Ads482No dataCost per ClickExhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 116 Template provided by: Sep 15, 2020 - Nov 7, 2020▼Paid Social — Facebook Ads — Site EngagementSourceCampaignNew UsersAvg. Session Duration% New SessionsUsersfacebookFB_Lumberyard_Survey16000:02:5090.4%164m.facebook.com(not set)4800:01:5694.12%49facebookFB_Lumbaryard4500:02:4495.74%47facebookIG_Lumberyard_Survey3100:02:5991.18%31l.facebook.com(not set)2200:02:0773.33%23facebookFB_Lumberyard_Survey_Spanish2000:01:0695.24%21facebook.com(not set)1000:00:1490.91%11lm.facebook.com(not set)100:00:08100%1Grand total33700:02:2890.59%341▼Template provided by: Ad titleAd Creative Ad nameClicks EngagementsClick Through RateReachCost FrequencySurvey Open Until Nov 6th!Lumberyard -21231295.44%3,304$52.381.8Survey Open Until Nov 6th!Lumberyard -387955.42%3,103$56.751.71Complete la encuesta de 10minutos hoy!Lumberyard -3 - Spanish21224.36%910$14.511.69Complete la encuesta de 10minutos hoy!Lumberyard -2 - Spanish20214.36%1,008$11.191.62Help Shape the Design of ThisProjectLumberyard -11011113.73%2,380$65.352.49City of Aspen GovernmentLumberyard -Carousel 217202.06%1,147$30.52.29Grand total4825273.6%8,752$294.23.7▼Facebook Campaign - Ad PerformanceOct 1, 2020 - Nov 7, 2020▼Paid Social — Facebook AdsExhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 117 From:Delia BolsterTo:Rem Kielman Subject:(FOR INCLUSION IN THE APPENDIX) Your Chance to Support Affordable Housing in Aspen: Deadline Oct. 25 Date:Tuesday, November 10, 2020 3:06:12 PM From: Lizzie Cohen <lizzie.cohen2@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 12:21 PM Subject: Your Chance to Support Affordable Housing in Aspen: Deadline Oct. 25 Dear Friends and Neighbors, We need a few minutes of your time and your input. Aspen City Council has released its final survey to gauge public opinion on the Lumberyard affordable housing development. As the design options for the site are deliberated, we need to make sure Council understands the needs of Aspen businesses and workers. Historically, it tends to be Aspen businesses and their employees – those who actually need housing – who are underrepresented in favor of the louder voices. The Lumberyard may represent the last best opportunity in a generation to put a meaningful dent in Aspen’s employee housing shortage. We believe maximizing density at the Lumberyard is the most responsible use for this unique parcel of land. A plan that is dense – but still very livable for residents – will provide more affordable housing inventory in a perfect location, is financially prudent, and a net positive for the environment. If you agree with our position of maximizing density on the Lumberyard site, we have created a simple two-step way for you to show your support. We ask you to please share this with your employees, colleagues, friends, and neighbors. If we band together to take five minutes to complete this survey, we can take a major step in realizing a strong addition to our affordable housing inventory over the next few years. First, sign our petition asking for Council to support more density at the Lumberyard 1. Go to http://chng.it/QYgHChTPdT 2. Click “Yes” and enter your name Second, use this simple guide to help you navigate the City of Aspen’s survey. How-To Survey for Density: 1. Go to www.AspenLumberyard.com 2. For every question with a “comments” box leave the answer blank and… 3. Copy/Paste in “I don’t know, but I support maximizing density.” 4. For all other questions, answer using your conscience It’s that easy. Five minutes is all it takes to make a difference for our housing future. Please have every employee and community member you know who is currently or might be in future need of affordable housing in our unaffordable mountain town, participate. The clock is ticking: the deadline is October 25th, and decisions will be made that affect all of us on October 26th. In other words, the time is now! Thank you! Best, Lizzie Social Campaign From:"City of Aspen - Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project" <jason@aspenlumberyard.com> To:"Delia Bolster" <dbolster@dhmdesign.com> Date:10/13/2020 8:19:27 AM Subject:Virtual Open House - This Thursday Haga clic aquí para el correo electrónico en español. Learn. Participate. Impact. The City of Aspen’s latest affordable housing project is in a pivotal planning stage where your input is critical. This Virtual Open House will provide background on where we are in the process and how we got there. You’ll see the design alternatives being considered and we’ll ask your opinions on several key aspects of the plans. THURSDAY, OCT 15th @ 12 and 6 PM Participate at either time to enter the raffle for a $50 gift certificate to a local business. REGISTER NOW >> Can't make an event? Participate on your own by completing the 10-minute survey below. We appreciate you taking the time to make your voice heard! Sincerely, The Lumberyard Team TAKE a 10-Minute Survey » Page 1 11/13/2020 Example of Email Blast Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 118 Email Marketing Report TitleSubjectListSend DateSend WeekdayTotal RecipientsUnique OpensOpen RateTotal OpensUnique ClicksClick RateTotal ClicksUnsubscribesLumberyard_Launch Skippy List 10.6.20Your Input is Needed!DHM - skippy10/6/2020 11:55Tuesday59319335.54%4525510.13%744Lumberyard_Launch Master List 10.6.20 FINALYour Input is Needed!DHM - master10/6/2020 12:00Tuesday1606341.45%4003623.68%661Lumberyard_Launch Team EmailYour Input is Needed!DHM - team10/7/2020 13:09Wednesday7457.14%226114.29%480Lumberyard_Launch APCHA 10.9.20Your Input is Needed!DHM - apcha 10/9/2020 16:23Friday976769.07%2423334.02%2600Lumberyard_Launch Virtual Open House SPANISHJornada Virtual de Puertas Abiertas - Este juevesDHM10/12/2020 22:51Monday100.00%000.00%00Lumberyard_Launch Virtual Open HouseVirtual Open House - This ThursdayDHM - master10/13/2020 9:19Tuesday1655132.08%288148.81%420Lumberyard_Launch Virtual Open House _ Skippy ListVirtual Open House - This ThursdayDHM - skippy10/13/2020 9:22Tuesday55416430.54%29391.68%133Lumberyard_Launch Virtual Open House _ APCHAVirtual Open House - This ThursdayDHM - apcha 10/13/2020 9:31Tuesday935559.14%10977.53%131Lumberyard_Webinar Formal Invitation SPANISHInvitación Formal a la Jornada de Puertas Abiertas de LumberyardSpanish 10/14/2020 13:29Wednesday2150.00%200.00%00Lumberyard_Webinar Formal Invitation APCHAFormal Invitation to the Lumberyard Open HouseDHM - apcha 10/14/2020 13:46Wednesday925458.70%8344.35%100Lumberyard_Webinar Formal Invitation Master ListFormal Invitation to the Lumberyard Open HouseDHM - master10/14/2020 13:47Wednesday27111844.70%235176.44%471Lumberyard_Webinar Formal Invitation Skippy ListFormal Invitation to the Lumberyard Open HouseDHM - skippy10/14/2020 13:49Wednesday54917132.08%27461.13%92Lumberyard_Survey Reminder SPANISHEnvÃ-e sus comentarios para el Ayuntamiento antes del lunesSpanish 10/21/2020 16:46Wednesday100.00%000.00%00Lumberyard_Survey Reminder SPANISH FINALEnvÃ-e sus comentarios para el Ayuntamiento antes del lunesSpanish 10/22/2020 18:00Thursday100.00%000.00%00Lumberyard_Survey Reminder Master List 10.21.20Submit Feedback for City Council by Sunday 10 PMDHM - master10/23/2020 10:52Friday2879835.13%189279.68%331Lumberyard_Survey Reminder Skippy 10.23.20Submit Feedback for City Council by Sunday 10 PMDHM - skippy 10/23/2020 10:54Friday54617132.14%286203.76%232Lumberyard_Survey Reminder APCHA List 10.23.20Submit Feedback for City Council by Sunday 10 PMDHM - apcha 10/23/2020 10:55Friday913032.97%5244.40%40Lumberyard_Final_SpanishEl Alcance 3 Termina el ViernesSpanish 11/5/2020 16:18Thursday100.00%000.00%00Lumberyard_Final_MasterSurvey Closes Tomorrow!DHM - master11/5/2020 16:30Thursday2858028.78%129124.32%150Lumberyard_Final_Skippy Survey Closes Tomorrow!DHM - apcha 11/5/2020 16:31Thursday54413926.33%225193.60%252Lumberyard_Final_APCHASurvey Closes Tomorrow!DHM - skippy11/5/2020 16:32Thursday912830.77%4755.49%50Lumberyard Communication Spreadsheet PROJECT TITLEPROJECT MANAGERChris Everson, Jason JaynesTEAM MEMBERSDETAILSOCTOBER1 2 5 6 7 8 912 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 29 302 3 4 5 6DHMDHM- RADIO - KSNO (3x/wkday Oct 5-16; 2x/day Oct 19-23; 1x/day Oct 6-29)- RADIO - APR - (3/day Oct 8-9 & 12-15; 1x/day Oct 19-23)- Media brief #2PRINT - El Montanes - ADN- DIGITAL - AT - Premium/Targeted- DIGITAL - ADN - Leaderboard- DIGITAL - La Tricolor - TBD - RADIO - KSPN (3x/wkday Oct 5-16; 2x/day Oct 19-23; 1x/day Oct 6-29)- RADIO - La Tricolor - TBDSocial Media Media Outreach One-Pager/Flyer/PosterPaid Advertising - Flyer presented to DHM- Flyer final - DHM to distribute to key locations in Aspen- Organic social (content provided to CoA)- Paid Social (Webshine) Media brief #1 (goes to tricolor as well)Email and Employer OutreachEblast template final Email outreach - Outreach to Employeers Jeanette Darnauer, Rachel BrennemanNOVEMBERLumberyard Communication Lumberyard Affordable Housing PlanningCity of AspenOctober - November 2020- Outreach meetings PRINT - Main Street BannerPRINT - 3/8 page Aspen Times PRINT - 1/3 page in Aspen Daily News Exhibit B - Outreach 3 Summary Report 119 DENVER CARBONDALE DURANGO BOZEMANWWW.DHMDESIGN.COM 311 Main Street, Suite 102 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 P: 970.963.6520 ASPEN LUMBERYARD – Preliminary Technical Studies Summary Prepared by DHM Design on November 19, 2020 Introduction As a component of the conceptual master planning studies and outreach, the Lumberyard project team has been advancing preliminary technical studies to identify and evaluate thresholds and impacts of the existing conditions and the proposed development. The studies are broken into eight topics, including infrastructure/utilities, traffic, existing conditions survey, geotechnical soils, noise, air quality, and energy efficiency. Additionally, an anecdotal evaluation of the cost of commercial space is covered. The level of detail of study varies with each topic; each topic is summarized below and the backing report (if any) is included as an attachment to this memo. Each summary includes the component or program evaluated, potential issues that necessitate the study, preliminary outcomes, and next steps. The technical evaluation of the Lumberyard project will continue through the Land Use and detailed design. Infrastructure/Utilities The focus of this study was to evaluate the existing utility services related to the Lumberyard, estimate the demand created by the build-out of the project, and identify what improvements may need to be made both on-site and system wide. A Roaring Fork Engineering memo detailing the review of existing utilities is attached to this document, and outlines a review of sanitary sewer, potable water, and electrical services. Communications and gas (if needed) are known to be available adjacent to the site and in sufficient service levels. The total build-out of the project does not appear to trigger major infrastructure system improvements. There will be necessary improvements to the sanitary sewer system, both on site and along Highway 82 between Mountain Rescue and 200 Road. Fiber communications, if desired, will require coordination with existing providers to evaluate the most effective service for the project; this is not a barrier to providing fiber-level communications service to the project. Single-phase and three-phase electrical service is available from multiple locations in the direct vicinity of the project. Traffic The potential impacts of the Lumberyard development to traffic patterns at the ABC are threefold: (1) impacts to the local road system of the ABC; (2) impacts to the ABC segment of SH 82; (3) impacts to the access and egress to the project site itself. Fehr & Peers conducted a preliminary traffic study, using data provided by Pitkin County’s current ABC traffic study team and projections of traffic generated by the Lumberyard project. The Fehr & Peers preliminary traffic study is attached to this document. The preliminary results indicate little to no material impact on existing ABC roads, an increase of just over 100 vehicle trips during peak morning and evening hours (resulting in an increase in travel time through the ABC segment of HWY 82 of less than 10 seconds), and the triggering of the controlled (signalized) intersection at the Lumberyard entry at full-build-out of the project. The findings also suggest that a first phase of construction may not trigger the CDOT requirement of the signal, but additional study is necessary to understand if the signal is recommended for safety. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 120 Existing Conditions Survey A full existing conditions survey was completed in September by True North Survey, and includes utility locates, easements, existing buildings, and site topography. A copy of the existing conditions survey is attached to this document. No specific red flags were identified; unusual drainage patterns to the northeast, and CDOT ROW drainage will need to be accounted for in the stormwater management program for the project. Geotechnical Soils The project team obtained the geotechnical soils report from the recently built mini-storage site northeast of the Lumberyard. A copy of that report is attached to this document. The report indicates favorable building soils for foundations. The investigation’s findings of several feet of non-native fill is expected to be similar to the conditions at the Lumberyard and mini storage areas of the project. This material will likely need to be removed, a condition which is supportive of the inclusion of subgrade structures. Anecdotally, the developer of the mini storage parcel stressed that his team excavated a number of very large boulders that required blasting to remove. A full geotechnical evaluation will be necessary in the Land Use phase of the project for the Lumberyard site. Noise The proximity of the site to SH 82 and the airport raised concerns regarding the impacts of noise on the future housing development at the Lumberyard. Engineering Dynamics, and acoustical engineering firm, established monitoring stations on site in the summer of 2020. The engineers monitored noise on the site from five different locations: a 30-minute duration at the top of the MRA tower, peak-hour monitoring at the front and back of the MRA building, and two week-long stations, one at the west edge of the Builder’s First Source parking and one in the sage field of the triangle parcel (south of MRA). The report is attached to this document. The results indicated that while noise levels are elevated, they are within acceptable levels along the west edge of the housing area on the property, improving toward the east property line. The engineer provided recommendations for noise mitigation targets, and general approaches to reducing noise impacts via building construction techniques and site arrangement. The revised site plans are responsive to the building siting recommendations, and the building construction techniques will be carried forward as the designs advance. Air Quality The project team met with Pitkin County staff to discuss the ongoing air quality monitoring and evaluation that is underway at the ABC. Those findings are not yet complete, but preliminary information indicates that air quality levels in the ABC are within acceptable thresholds. As this process is completed, additional site-specific study may be needed to identify mitigation measures, if any, related to the overall air quality from a health and safety perspective. Energy Efficiency Formal study of the energy efficiency of the buildings and overall project will commence at the beginning of technical design of the buildings. The outreach and council process has established a general baseline that (1) energy efficiency will be a driving priority for this development; (2) the project should exceed the energy efficiency thresholds set by recent city projects; (3) these targets/programs need to be evaluated based on return on investment. A broad number of Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 121 approaches to energy efficiency, energy sourcing, and on-site energy generation are possible. City staff is developing the evaluation process and energy efficiency options, costs, and trade-offs will be presented to council during the development of the Land Use Application. Commercial Leasable Space Although not a technical study related to engineering of the project, in the summer of 2020 the project team conducted an informal survey of available free-market commercial in the ABC related to estimates of projected building costs for the Lumberyard development. This estimate included square foot cost of the land, vertical construction, and a favorable cap rate of 4%. Even without accounting for expenses of ownership or vacancy, the projected required lease rate would be 25-30% higher than is currently available at the ABC. The outcome of this informal evaluation is that commercial space is generally available for lease at the ABC at rates that are substantively less than what it would cost to build, manage, and maintain similar spaces at the Lumberyard. This would result in a necessary subsidy of the square footage at the Lumberyard to match the free-market rates in the ABC, notwithstanding the reduction in housing units. As the Lumberyard moves into the Land Use phase, the project team recommends carrying forward with the Technical Advisory Committee in support of a collaborative and informed process of evaluating the technical and jurisdictional requirements, and to inform future refinements to the technical studies in the Land Use process. The findings as described here are preliminary and based on conceptual development plans, and will be revised and refined along with the program and project design advances. Jason Jaynes Principal, DHM Design Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 122 592 Highway 133 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970.340.4130 • www.rfeng.biz Page 1 of 4 Lumber Yard Development – Utility Assessment To: Jason Jaynes Principal Architect 311 Main Street Suite 102 Carbondale, CO 81623 970-366-1637 From: Maggie McHugh, PE Project Engineer 592 Highway 133 Carbondale CO, 81623 Ph: 970-340-4130 cc: Danny Stewart, PE Date: November 18, 2020 Re: Lumber Yard Site Utility Assessment Background and Introduction The current Lumber Yard parcel has existing businesses, mini storage units, residential housing, and warehouse buildings. Future development of the parcel includes the construction of 330 residential units, and one 5,000 sq.ft commercial building. Residential units will range in size from studio to 3-bedroom apartments. The commercial building will be a daycare with 3-4 classrooms total. The total number of units for the development is summarized in Table 1. Roaring Fork Engineering (RFE) worked with local utility companies to determine if there were adequate utility connections for the new Lumber Yard development. The utilities coordinated were electrical (Holy Cross), water (City of Aspen), and sewer (Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, ACSD). Electrical and water supply are adequate for the new development pending confirmation from the City of Aspen on available static pressures at the lot for fire protection. The sewer system however, is limited by a shallow sloped pipe located at the end of the collection system, which means all flows collected from the Lumber Yard development must be conveyed through this portion of the pipe. This section of existing pipe does not have the capacity to support the new Lumber Yard Development. To provide adequate service for existing connections and the Lumber Yard development, Roaring Fork Engineering recommends a portion of the existing system be disconnected from the main sewer system so it can serve as a dedicated collection system for the Lumber Yard Development. This requires Utilities Study Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 123 Page 2 of 4 that a portion of the existing 10” sewer pipe (Segment #1) be cut and abandoned, and a new 12” by-pass pipe be installed between two existing manholes, as shown on Exhibit 1. To come to this conclusion, capacity calculations are described in more detail in the following sections. Sewer System Capacity Currently there is a 10-inch sewer pipe that runs through the property as shown in Exhibit 1. The 10” sewer pipe is lined making the effective internal diameter of the pipe only 8 inches. Using this information, along with pipe slopes provided by ACSD, the maximum capacity of each sewer pipe segment was calculated and is shown in Exhibit 1. Due to the extremely flat slope of Segment 1, no connections were assumed to be made to that existing line. Instead, all connections were either made at Manhole 2 where Segment 1 terminates or downstream in Segments 2, 3, or 4. Therefore, the limiting system segment is Segment 4, which is the final stretch of 10” line that connects to Manhole 5. Being the final segment, all flows from the development will flow through this pipe. Additionally, existing service connections from the mini storage properties are also connected to this pipe segment. Segment 4 pipe has an effective 8” internal diameter and is sloped at approximately 0.52%. Assuming the pipe is 75% full, to maintain gravity flow, the maximum capacity of this pipe segment is 517 gpm. To determine if the pipe has adequate capacity to serve the new development as well as continue to serve the existing service connections, RFE followed ACSD’s Equivalent Residential Units (EQR) calculation process. ACSD defines 1 EQR = 2.5 people at 90 gpd for a total of 1 EQR = 225 gpd (average daily flow). For planning purposes, ACSD uses two peaking factors for converting the defined average daily flow to a peak flow. First the 225 gpd is multiplied by a peaking factor of 4, which results in 900 gallons per day. The peaking factor of 4 is considered the primary peaking factor. This demand is then multiplied by 3 (secondary peaking factor) to determine the future peaking factor, which ensures there is capacity for any future connections to flow through this pipe. Both of these factors are required to be used for any sewer pipes under operation and maintenance by ACSD, and that could convey future flows not currently in service. Therefore, for this development, the effective peaking factor is 12. Using defined EQR = 225 gpd (for 2.5 persons), and EQR schedule provided by ACSD, average and peak demands were calculated for the Lumber Yard Development. Results are summarized in Table 1. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 124 Page 3 of 4 Table 1. Wastewater Demand Summary Table Unit Type EQR No. of Units Avg. Demand (gpd) Peak Demand1 (gpd) 1st Unit 1.0 1 225 2,700 Studio 0.5 8 900 10,800 Studio - Coliving 0.5 50 11,250 388,665 1 BDRM 0.5 144 32,389 450,765 2 BDRM 0.66 111 37,563 91,800 3 BDRM 0.75 17 7,650 135,000 Daycare 4.32 1 972 11,664 Total EQRS 192.5 Total Peak Demand (gpd) 520,000 Total Peak Demand (gpm) 360 1. Peaking factor of 12. 2. Daycare facility EQR was calculated as 1st 1000 sq.ft = 1 EQR, every additional 1000 sq. ft = 0.5 EQR. And each restroom (assumed one per classroom) = 0.33 EQR. Using ACSD’s methods, the total peak demand for the Lumber Yard Development is approximately 360 gpm. This demand would account for approximately 70% of the total limiting pipe capacity (limiting pipe is Segment 4). ACSD estimates that this pipe segment currently serves approximately 125 EQRs, which would result in a peak flow of approximately 234 gpm. The combination of the existing and future flows exceeds the limiting pipe capacity of 517 gpm. Therefore, this pipe cannot be used to serve the Lumber Yard Development unless ACSD approved modifications are made to the sewer system. In order to provide sewer service to the Lumber Yard development, RFE recommends that the 10” existing sewer line between Manhole 1 and 2 (Segment 1) should be cut, capped, and abandoned. The remaining existing sewer lines would then be a dedicated collection system for Lumber Yard Development and existing mini storage services, and the limiting Segment 4 would provide adequate capacity for the system. ACSD has indicated to RFE that a liner coupler on Segment #4 has a gap which disrupts flow and needs to be repaired prior to new service connections. In addition to abandoning Segment #1, a 12” bypass pipe needs to be installed between Manhole #1 and Manhole #6 to continue to provide service from the Buttermilk Base Area, and two housing developments to the ACSD wastewater treatment plant. The distance between manholes is approximately 665 LF. The existing Manhole #6 may need to be replaced per ACSD direction. Per regulations, due to the pipe length exceeding 400 ft, at least one additional manhole will be required between Manhole #1 and #6. These details should be discussed with ACSD at the beginning of design. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 125 Page 4 of 4 Potable Water Supply For domestic water demand, a demand of 100 gpd per person was used to estimate demand of the residential units. For the daycare facility, the Fixture Unit Method was used to determined maximum demand on all plumbing fixtures. Table 2 summarizes the results. Table 2. Potable Water Demands ADD (gpd) MDD (gpd) PHD (gpm) Residential Units 94,310 235,775 262 Daycare Facility 395 525 25 TOTAL 94,705 236,300 287 Each residential unit building will be required to have a sprinkler system plus hydrants outside of the buildings per International Fire Code, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and Aspen Fire Protection District. RFE has requested static pressures from the City of Aspen water department to determine available hydrant fire flow and pressure for sprinkler systems. At a minimum the hydrants will need to supply 1000 gpm at minimum residual pressure of 20 psi. Irrigation was not considered in this assessment and can be added to the evaluation if there are plans for irrigation of green spaces in the area. RFE recommends that a 8” DIP water main is installed throughout the development for domestic water supply to the Lumber Yard Development. This is the current water main size in the surrounding developments. If a smaller pipe is desired (minimum is 6” for water mains connected to fire hydrants) then a hydraulic analysis must be completed in conjunction with the City of Aspen to determine if there is adequate supply pressure to maintain desired flows and pressure. Electrical Service RFE spoke with Holy Cross Energy regarding available electrical service to serve the new community. There is existing overhead single-phase services to the site. Holy Cross anticipated that this service could be reconfigured and used for servicing the development as needed. If the community wishes to change from overhead to buried then they would need to feed from a different service line, not located at the property. This change would need to be discussed in more detail with Holy Cross Energy. There are two options for available three phase power, they include connecting to an existing transformer located South of the Mountain Rescue building, or connecting to an existing transformer located on Pass Go Lane. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 126 S S S S S S SSACAD-Aspen LumberYard-MiniStorage-10.29.2020-mkmEngineer: DSDrawn By: MKMSheet Number:DateCommentsInit.Rev.Computer File InformationPrint Date: 11/17/20Drawing File Name:Project No.: 2019-37Sheet RevisionsROARING FORK ENGINEERING592 HIGHWAY 133CARBONDALE COLORADO, 81623PH: (970)340-4130F:(866)876-58731Of:1ASPEN LUMBER YARDPITKIN COUNTY, CO--##.##.##---Utilities Study - sanitary sewer evaluationExhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies127 518 17th Street | Suite 1100 | Denver, CO 80202 | (303) 296-4300 | Fax (303) 296-4302 www.fehrandpeers.com Memorandum Date: November 13, 2020 To: Jason Jaynes, PLA From: Charlie Alexander, PE, AICP Nikki Silva, PE Jason Miller Subject: Aspen Lumberyard: Results Summary – November 2020 DN20-0667 Introduction The proposed Aspen Lumberyard project site is proposed on the site currently occupied by Builders FirstSource and Aspen Mini Storage. The Aspen Lumberyard project will construct housing on the site and provide a connection between Woodward Lane and the existing Builders FirstSource driveway. The City and project team are considering project scenarios with 250, 300, and 350 housing units. The impacts of the Aspen Lumberyard project on the surrounding network are a concern, specifically the potential need for a signal at State Highway (SH) 82 & Lumberyard Driveway and the travel time on SH 82 due to increased vehicular traffic created by the project. This technical memorandum provides a preliminary evaluation of traffic impacts resulting from the Aspen Lumberyard project and includes Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that are currently being considered as part of the project. Traffic Study Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 128 Jason Jaynes November 13, 2020 Page 2 of 17 Assumptions Assumptions for the study area, trip generation analysis, trip distribution, and trip assignment are outlined in this section. Study Area Traffic counts were provided from Pitkin County’s Airport Business Center traffic study completed by SGM. Figure 1 displays the baseline traffic volumes, developed by adjusting existing traffic counts to reflect pre COVID-19 conditions. The following intersections were analyzed as part of the study: • Sage Way & Baltic Avenue • SH 82 & Baltic Avenue • SH 82 & 200 Road • SH 82 & Aspen Lumberyard Driveway Figure 1. Baseline Scenario Traffic Volumes Trip Generation The City and project team are considering project scenarios with 250, 300, and 350 housing units. The vehicle trips associated with the Aspen Lumberyard project were calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation methodology. Per resident rates from low-rise multifamily housing (ITE Code 220), mid-rise multifamily housing (ITE Code 221), and high-rise multifamily (ITE Code 222) were averaged to determine the 0.19 trips per resident rate used for Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 129 Jason Jaynes November 13, 2020 Page 3 of 17 the Project trip generation (both AM and PM peak hour). Table 1 provides the trip generation for each scenario. Table 1. Trip Generation Scenario Residents AM PM Trips Entering (18%) Exiting (82%) Trips Entering (68%) Exiting (32%) 250 Unit Scenario 460 88 16 72 88 60 28 300 Unit Scenario 552 105 19 86 105 71 34 350 Unit Coliving Scenario 496 95 17 78 95 65 30 Trip Distribution and Assignment The external trip distribution values were determined using AirSage data that was purchased by the City of Aspen for data ranging from 2017 to 2018. The trip distribution is as follows: • State Highway 82 (north of Baltic Avenue) o Inbound: 60% in AM, 30% in PM o Outbound: 30% in AM, 60% in PM • State Highway 82 (south of Aspen Lumberyard) o Inbound: 30% in AM, 60% in PM o Outbound: 60% in AM, 30% in PM • Airport o Inbound: 2% in AM, 2% in PM o Outbound: 2% in AM, 2% in PM • Within the Airport Business Center o Inbound: 8% in AM, 8% in PM o Outbound: 8% in AM, 8% in PM Vehicular traffic was assigned by applying the trip distribution to the estimated trip generation. Assigned traffic was added to baseline traffic to develop scenario traffic volumes. Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4 display a summary of the vehicular volumes for the 250-unit, 300-unit, and 350- unit scenarios. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 130 Jason Jaynes November 13, 2020 Page 4 of 17 Figure 2. 250-Unit Scenario Traffic Volumes Figure 3. 300-Unit Scenario Traffic Volumes Figure 4. 350-Unit Scenario Traffic Volumes Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 131 Jason Jaynes November 13, 2020 Page 5 of 17 Analysis Methodology & Results Transportation operations for the study area were analyzed using the Synchro 10 software program. Synchro is based on procedures outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. The transportation operations analysis addressed signalized and unsignalized intersection operations using the procedures and methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (2010, Transportation Research Board) for the weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic operations. Study intersection operations were evaluated using level of service calculations as analyzed in the Synchro software. To measure and describe the operational status of the local roadway network and corresponding intersections, transportation engineers and planners commonly use a grading system called level of service (LOS) put forth by the Transportation Research Board’s HCM 2010. LOS characterizes the operational conditions of an intersection’s traffic flow; ranging from LOS A (indicating free flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (representing over- saturated conditions where traffic flows exceeds the design capacity, resulting in long queues and delays). In Aspen, traffic conditions with LOS D, E, or F are generally considered unacceptable and represent significant travel delay, increased crash potential, and inefficient motor vehicle operation. Intersection Analysis Results The analysis results for each scenario is described in this section. Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4 displays the delay and LOS results for the study intersections for the 250-unit, 300-unit, and 350- unit scenarios respectively compared to the baseline conditions. The results indicate that the Aspen Lumberyard project would have minimal impact on the intersections of Sage Way & Baltic Avenue, SH 82 & Baltic Avenue, and SH 82 & 200 Road. The Aspen Lumberyard project would have an impact on the intersection of SH 82 & Aspen Lumberyard Driveway in both the AM and PM peak hours and the intersection would operate unacceptably. Mitigation measures are outlined in a subsequent section. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 132 Jason Jaynes November 13, 2020 Page 6 of 17 Table 2. 250-Unit Scenario Results Compared to Baseline Conditions Intersections Control Approach Baseline Conditions 250 Unit Scenario AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Sage Way & Baltic Avenue SSSC NB 11.4 B 12.8 B 11.4 B 12.9 B SH 82 & Baltic Avenue Signal Overall 20.6 C 21.7 C 20.7 C 22.9 C SH 82 & 200 Road SSSC WB 10.2 B 15.1 C 10.3 B 15.4 C SH 82 & Aspen Lumberyard Driveway* SSSC WB 23.1 C 38.8 E 32.5 D 44.8 E SSSC = Side-street Stop Controlled *Aspen Lumberyard driveway assumed to have dedicated WBL and WBR turn lanes in the 250-unit scenario Table 3. 300-Unit Scenario Results Compared to Existing Conditions Intersections Control Approach Existing Conditions 300 Unit Scenario AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Sage Way & Baltic Avenue SSSC NB 11.4 B 12.8 B 11.4 B 13 B SH 82 & Baltic Avenue Signal Overall 20.6 C 21.7 C 20.7 C 23 C SH 82 & 200 Road SSSC WB 10.2 B 15.1 C 10.3 B 15.4 C SH 82 & Aspen Lumberyard Driveway SSSC WB 23.1 C 38.8 E 35.7 E 48 E SSSC = Side-street Stop Controlled *Aspen Lumberyard driveway assumed to have dedicated WBL and WBR turn lanes in the 200-unit scenario Table 4. 350-Unit Scenario Results Compared to Existing Conditions Intersections Control Approach Existing Conditions 350 Unit Scenario AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Sage Way & Baltic Avenue SSSC NB 11.4 B 12.8 B 11.4 B 13 B SH 82 & Baltic Avenue Signal Overall 20.6 C 21.7 C 20.7 C 23 C SH 82 & 200 Road SSSC WB 10.2 B 15.1 C 10.3 B 15.4 C SH 82 & Aspen Lumberyard Driveway SSSC WB 23.1 C 38.8 E 33.8 D 46.8 E SSSC = Side-street Stop Controlled *Aspen Lumberyard driveway assumed to have dedicated WBL and WBR turn lanes in the 350-unit scenario Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 133 Jason Jaynes November 13, 2020 Page 7 of 17 Travel Time Analysis Results There is a concern the Aspen Lumberyard project will significantly increase travel time along SH 82. SH 82 acts as a gateway corridor in and out of downtown Aspen. The AM and PM peak periods are critical due to valley residents and employees who work in Aspen traveling to and from work. As a result, it is important to understand the impacts of the Aspen Lumberyard project to the travel time through the corridor. SimTraffic was used to understand the travel time impacts on the corridor. Travel time was measured between Baltic Avenue and the Aspen Lumberyard Driveway. In this analysis, it is assumed that there would be a traffic signal installed at the SH 82 & Aspen Lumberyard Driveway. Based on the results, the Aspen Lumberyard project would have minimal impact to the travel time on SH 82. The decrease in PM peak hour travel time in the southbound direction is within the model’s margin of error. Table 5. SH 82 Travel Time Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour NB SB NB SB Base Scenario (sec) 46.0 55.9 52.3 51.0 300 Unit Scenario (sec)* 51.4 57.9 53.5 50.4 Increase in Travel Time (sec) 5.4 2.0 1.2 -0.6 *Assumptions: -Signal to be installed at Lumberyard Driveway Mitigation at SH 82 & Aspen Lumberyard Driveway Mitigation is required at SH 82 & Aspen Lumberyard Driveway due to unacceptable conditions created by the Aspen Lumberyard project. This section outlines potential mitigation measures. Signal The Aspen Lumberyard project has an impact to the operations at the SH 82 & Aspen Lumberyard Driveway. Specifically, westbound turning vehicles from the Aspen Lumberyard driveway onto SH Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 134 Jason Jaynes November 13, 2020 Page 8 of 17 82 will experience a high delay in each scenario in both the AM and PM peak hours. In the AM peak hour, the SH 82 & Aspen Lumberyard Driveway intersection meets the MUTCD’s peak hour signal warrant. There is potential that the Aspen Lumberyard project will be constructed in multiple phases. With that, there is potential that the first phase may not warrant a signal to be installed from an entering volume standpoint. However, there will still be a high volume of through traffic on SH 82 and the westbound turning movements will face the challenge of minimal gaps in traffic along SH 82. As a result, westbound turning drivers may become impatient and take greater risks which may create a potential for crash risks at this intersection. Due to the potential safety concern at this intersection, it is recommended to install a signal before a certificate of occupancy is issued to the Aspen Lumberyard project regardless of construction phasing. Transportation Demand Management This section details the considerations and options for possible transit solutions and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies associated with the Aspen Lumberyard project. The options presented are meant to help frame a discussion about transit and TDM by answering questions such as: • What types of transit services may be appropriate for the project? • What are the high-level characteristics of possible transit services and estimated cost implications? • How do TDM strategies fit with the project? • Could TDM strategies alone supplant the need for dedicated transit solutions? Transit Options The Aspen Lumberyard project is adjacent to SH 82 corridor where the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) operates bus rapid transit (BRT) service, known as VelociRFTA, and local valley fixed route service, providing high frequency bus service with buses every 15 minutes or less during daytime weekday hours. There are a pair of bus stops with bus shelters and bus pull-outs located off of Sage Way in the Airport Business Center with a tunnel under SH 82 for access to the bus stop for southbound buses towards Aspen. While these bus stops are walkable to most of the project site, it may be desirable to have dedicated transit service for the Aspen Lumberyard project. Two possibilities for Aspen Lumberyard transit service include a neighborhood on-demand circulator service and a shuttle route to downtown Aspen. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 135 Jason Jaynes November 13, 2020 Page 9 of 17 Neighborhood Circular Shuttle Given the long and narrow site configuration of Aspen Lumberyard, as well as the mixed land uses within the Airport Business Center, an on-demand neighborhood transit solution within the project site and incorporating the Airport Business Center area is a possibility for making connections: • Between the Aspen Lumberyard and the RFTA bus stops • Between the Airport Business Center and the RFTA bus stops • Within the Aspen Lumberyard and Airport Business Center area Concept and Characteristics A potential example service area is shown in Figure 5. Under this neighborhood circulator service concept, the operations would be similar to the Aspen Downtowner service with on-demand service requested through a smartphone app or call-in number. The service would be operated without a specified route and would make point-to-point connections between passenger origin and destination locations with minimal walking required to or from the shuttle (commonly referred to as microtransit). Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 136 Jason Jaynes November 13, 2020 Page 10 of 17 Figure 5: Neighborhood Circulator (microtransit) Example Service Area The suggested characteristics of this neighborhood service would include: • Service area size of approximately 90 acres or 0.14 square miles (for reference, this is approximately one quarter of the size of the current Aspen Downtowner service area) • One vehicle, passenger car or small van, preferably battery electric propulsion • Response time goal of five minutes or less from trip request (may require a second vehicle at peak times, likely during AM and PM commute) • 6AM to 9PM weekday operations, 7AM to 5PM weekend operations • Fare free to maximize potential ridership Estimated Performance This neighborhood on-demand service is estimated to cost approximately $350,000 to $450,000 annually to operate as a turn-key service contract with all operational and vehicle costs included. As a relatively small service area without significant trip generators, the ridership is estimated to be relatively low at between 10,000 and 25,000 one-way trips per year. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 137 Jason Jaynes November 13, 2020 Page 11 of 17 Considerations An analysis of this alternative yields the following advantages and disadvantages: Advantages Disadvantages • Convenient option for point-to-point travel that is over what may be walkable (typically ¼ of a mile) • Uses a service model that many are familiar with from the Downtowner • Provides first/final mile connection for access to the RFTA SH 82 routes • Provides new transportation option for those with impaired mobility • High operational cost for relatively low ridership • Operates in a very small service area that is within a typical walkable distance for most people • Needs consistent service to be successful • Combining trips may be difficult causing most trips to be one person at a time • Requires service contractor and oversight of operations Neighborhood Circular Shuttle Another possible transit solution for serving Lumberyard is a dedicated shuttle route between the project site (with possibly one or two other stops in Airport Business Center to expand ridership) and Rubey Park Transit Center in downtown Aspen. Concept and Characteristics The concept for the shuttle route is shown in Figure 6. Under this shuttle route concept, there would be a dedicated small bus operating between the Aspen Lumberyard and Rubey Park Transit Center in downtown Aspen. The route would operate with fixed departure times and stops with the possibility of providing deviated service with the Aspen Lumberyard and other areas of the Airport Business Center for pick-ups and drop-offs. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 138 Jason Jaynes November 13, 2020 Page 12 of 17 Figure 6: Shuttle Route between Lumberyard/ABC (Point A) and Rubey Park/downtown (Point B) Characteristics The suggested characteristics of this shuttle route would include: • Route length of approximately four miles with a one-way travel time of 10 to 15 minutes • Departures every 15 minutes • Two small shuttle buses in operation with 10 to 14 passenger capacity • 6AM to 6PM weekday operations, no weekend operations (service focused primarily on commuters) Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 139 Jason Jaynes November 13, 2020 Page 13 of 17 • Fare free to maximize potential ridership Estimated Performance This shuttle route is estimated to cost approximately $600,000 to $750,000 for annual operations cost plus approximately $250,000 to $300,000 in capital costs for three buses (two active buses plus one spare) upon startup and every five to seven years thereafter. With demand estimated to be limited to primarily commuters traveling between the Aspen Lumberyard and downtown Aspen with limited trips to/from other Airport Business Center destinations, the ridership is estimated to be relatively low at between 45,000 and 80,000 one-way trips per year. Considerations An analysis of this alternative yields the following advantages and disadvantages. Advantages Disadvantages • Convenient option for those living in the Aspen Lumberyard and traveling to downtown Aspen • Could connect other destinations within the Airport Business Center more directly with downtown Aspen • Requires less walking than accessing existing RFTA bus stops • Could be operated with a flex zone, whereby the bus deviates within a zone to pick up and drop off, for the Airport Business Center • High operational cost for relatively low ridership • Competes directly with robust RFTA bus services making the same connection • Needs consistent service to be successful • Requires service contractor and oversight of operations • May require complementary paratransit, per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transportation Demand Management Options Transportation demand management (TDM) is a general term for programs and strategies that result in more efficient use of transportation resources through maximizing traveler choices – TDM could be an effective and efficient way to reduce single occupancy vehicle use for people living in the Aspen Lumberyard. This section considers possible TDM strategies. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 140 Jason Jaynes November 13, 2020 Page 14 of 17 TDM Strategies The entire TDM toolkit is vast, so it is important to focus on those strategies that could be most effective and appropriate for Lumberyard. Incentivize Use of Existing RFTA Bus Routes The RFTA bus service along the SH 82 corridor is one of the highest levels of service, in terms of number of trips per day, in any rural or resort community. In fact, the RFTA BRT service combined with additional RFTA local buses represents a level of service that is higher than many large cities. This high level of bus service and the relatively short walking distance from the Aspen Lumberyard to the bus stops represents the most effective potential TDM strategy. It is also a great advantage that RFTA bus trips between the Aspen Lumberyard and downtown Aspen are within the fare free zone. Another potential strategy could be to provide subsidized bus passes to those people within Lumberyard who need to travel to Glenwood Springs or points between Lumberyard and Glenwood along the SH 82 corridor. This would likely cost $75,000 or less per year, depending on participation. Figure 7 shows a one-quarter of a mile radius, which is considered a comfortable maximum walking distance for most people, around the existing RFTA bus stops. Notable is that all the Airport Business Center and most of the Aspen Lumberyard site are within the one-quarter mile zone. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 141 Jason Jaynes November 13, 2020 Page 15 of 17 Figure 7: One Quarter of a Mile Walking Radius from RFTA Bus Stops Incentivize Walking and Bicycling Creating a supportive environment for walking and biking could be one of the easiest and cost- effective TDM strategies for Lumberyard. Build for Pedestrians The way the Aspen Lumberyard is designed and built will have a permanent impact on how many people choose to walk or bike. Including pedestrian elements such as wide sidewalks, easy to navigate crosswalks (the shorter crossing distance, the better), and direct connections between key destinations. The walking environment should be an interesting walking experience with inviting environs, safe and appropriately lit, and well-maintained, especially during the winter. Having the pedestrian environment free of snow and ice in snow country is one of the biggest barriers to increasing the proportion of people choosing to walk as a transportation mode. Outside of the Aspen Lumberyard, it may be necessary to evaluate the pedestrian environment of the Airport Business Center and overall connectivity, especially to key destinations such as the RFTA bus stops, Colorado Mountain College campus, or the local market. Pedestrian infrastructure improvements within Airport Business Center may need to be a part of the overall strategy for increasing walking. A priority should be a continuous walkway along the south frontage road Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 142 Jason Jaynes November 13, 2020 Page 16 of 17 connecting to Sage Way to connect to the RFTA stops and a grocery store. Additionally, the crosswalks/walkways at the SH 82 & 200 Road & 400 Road intersection should be considered for improvement to ensure a comfortable walking experience. Incorporate Bicycle Connectivity As with building for pedestrians, the Aspen Lumberyard and the surrounding area should incorporate supportive bicycle infrastructure such as pathways, bike lanes, and bikeways. Increasing comfort for people biking on Sage Way should be a priority. Options include a separated multi-use path adjacent to Sage Way or traffic calming devices on Sage Way. Bikeshare The existing WE-cycle bikeshare program in Aspen area could be expanded to provide stations at the Aspen Lumberyard and at the RFTA bus stops adjacent to the Airport Business Center. Bikeshare membership could be provided to Lumberyard residents to further incentivize bicycling for those who do not have a bike. It should be noted that the WE-cycle program is not in operation during the winter months, so bikeshare does not provide a consistent, year-round TDM approach. Bicycle Education and Promotion It has been recognized in other communities that many people do not choose bicycling as a transportation mode due to lack of confidence in their own ability or concerns about their personal safety. Bicycle education, such as teaching rules of the road or bicycle repair, can help improve confidence and reduce concerns. Group rides and bike rodeos can help complement this effort. Bicycle Parking Concerns about the security of a person’s bike can often be a barrier to people biking more. By providing covered, secure parking at the Aspen Lumberyard (or even a dedicated bike storage room with secure access) and expanded bicycle parking and long-term storage at the RFTA stops, those who already have a bike may have more peace of mind about security with better long- term storage options. Additionally, expanded bike parking at destinations throughout the Airport Business Center would ensure that people living at the Aspen Lumberyard have adequate bike parking at Airport Business Center destinations. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 143 Jason Jaynes November 13, 2020 Page 17 of 17 Marketing A robust TDM marketing and awareness campaign targeted to Aspen Lumberyard residents is an easy way to maximize usage of this existing and free bus service. The campaign would incorporate information and resources for all of the different transportation options available to Aspen Lumberyard residents. An ongoing campaign would likely cost $20,000 or less per year. Program Assessment Another important element of any TDM program is measuring the success and performance of the various strategies over time in order to gauge impact and make program adjustments. Goals and benchmarks should be established and tracked over time to assess effectiveness. Many of the strategies suggested are easily tracked through methods such as by counting the number of people taking bike education classes, the number of bikes parked in the bike storage areas, the number of boardings at the RFTA bus stops, and the number of bus passes provided to those traveling to points north on SH 82. Car Share Members of car share programs can rent vehicles for short durations of time, usually for as little as an hour. Car share gives members access to cars when they need them without requiring full- time vehicle ownership. The Aspen Lumberyard could feature car share vehicles on -site, or car share parking spaces on-site, to increase the use of car share vehicles by Aspen Lumberyard residents. Parking Management Parking management strategies can have a significant effect on vehicle trip generation. A common strategy at residential projects it to unbundle parking from rent, requiring tenants to pay separately for rent and parking spaces. Unbundled parking incentives residents to own fewer vehicles. Unbundled parking should be considered as a part of the Aspen Lumberyard Project. However, requiring residents to pay for parking on-site could cause spillover parking into the Airport Business Center that would require management. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 144 24"CP 7795.4 24"CP 7795.9 24"CP 7796.9 S IVB IVB S E 18"CMP 7791.6 18"CMP 7792.5 SOLAR & CONTROL BOX GRATE 7788.0 GRATE 7788.8 WOOD RETAINING WALLW 12"ADS 7783.9 12"ADS 7783.3 FFE 7788.0 70.2'(TIE)54.8'(TIE)G 50.5' 50.5'124.0'124.0'FFE 7788.0 OVERHANGOVERHANGTWO-STORY ONE-STORY FRAME & METAL BUILDING 38005 HIGHWAY 82 CONCRETEGENERATOR 2' WIDE CONCRETE DRAINAGE PANCONCRETE PATHCONCRETE PATHBOULDER (TYPICAL) IVB IVB S PAVED LUMBERYARD MATCHLINE SHEET 1 MATCHLINE SHEET 2 12"ADS 7784.0 12"ADS 7782.7 FOUND #5 REBAR & 2" ALUMINUM CAP LS27936 FOUND #5 REBAR & 1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTIC CAP LS9184 N86°08'06"W 197.81' PLAT=N86°46'00"W 198.0 5 'N03°14'00"E 264.00'N03°28'48"E 263.56'COLORADO STATEHIGHWAY NO. 82NORTH BOUND LANE - PAVED ROADWAYOWNERMOUNTAIN RESCUE ASPEN CHARITABLE TRUSTPARCEL NO. 273503100045FOUND #5 REBAR & 1-1/4" ORANGE PLASTIC CAP LS28643 TRACT 2 - ANNIE MITCHELL HOMESTEADLOT 3, BURLINGAME RANCHAFFORDABLE HOUSING SUB/PUDLOT 1A BURLINGAME RANCH PLAT BOOK 75 PAGE 46 LOT 1 BLOCK-1 78257820781578107805780077957 7 9 0 7785779077957784778377827781778077857785CATV PEDESTAL D POWER POLE GUY ANCHOR SIGN STORM DRAIN MANHOLE ELECTRIC MANHOLEE WATER METER IRRIGATION VALVE BOX W IVB DRAINAGE INLET WATER LINE SEWER LINE TELEPHONE LINE FIBER OPTIC LINE GAS LINE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE CATV LINE ELECTRIC LINE TELEPHONE PEDESTAL DYH S FIRE HYDRANT SANITARY MANHOLE ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER GAS METER ELECTRICAL METER G LEGEND E SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION NOTES: 5. THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE COMMITMENT, THEREFORE, ANY EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE THAT MAY AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY TRUE NORTH COLORADO, LLC. 6. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88) REFERENCED FROM NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS) STATION S 159 HAVING AN ELEVATION OF 7720.88. 7. CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 1 FOOT. 8. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON WERE LOCATED BY ROARING FORK UTILITY LOCATORS LLC. SANITARY SEWER LINES WERE PROVIDED BY ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT. UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. PLEASE CALL 811 PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING OR EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITY VERIFICATION. N CLEAN-OUT WATER VALVE BOX IMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TRUE NORTH COLORADO LLC. A LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANY P.O. BOX 614 - 386 MAIN STREET UNIT 3 NEW CASTLE, COLORADO 81647 (970) 984-0474 www.truenorthcolorado.com PROJECT NO: 2020-164 DATE:October 12, 2020 DRAWN RPK SURVEYED GBL SHEET 1 OF 2 TRUENORTH A LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANY NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. LOTS 1 & 2 - BLOCK 1 - AMENDED AND RESTATED PLAT OF ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER FILING NO. 1 & LOT 3 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER SUBDIVISION SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO CDOT COMMUNICATION VAULT BOLLARD CHAIN-LINK FENCE WOOD FENCE ZONING: 30'15'60' SCALE: 1" = 30' 0 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 145 S D D EDGE OF PAVEMENT CONCRETE ONE-STORY METAL BUILDING INLET 7778.91 DIESEL TANKS 40.2 ' ( T I E )2' WIDE CONCRETE DRAINAGE PAN2' WIDE CONCRETE DRAINAGE PAN INLET 7779.08 4"ADS 7778.1 4"ADS 7778.8 S GRATE 7786.5 24"CMP 7783.18 FFE 7781.66 E 100.4' 100.4'FFE 7780.1 74.4'74.4'45.9' 20.1' 20.3' 45.8'86.3'6.9'157.3'64.0'FFE 7781.63 OVERHANG OVERHANG OVERHANG OVERHANG TWO-STORY METAL & CONCRETE BUILDING 37925 HIGHWAY 82 FFE 7781.58 STAIRS 52.6'(TIE)W DYH IVB G METAL LEAN-TO LUMBER STORAGE BUILDING 322.3' S 320.7'24.2'24.2'EDGE OF PAVEMENT G E E E E DYH INLET 7775.23 INLET 7775.39GRAVEL PARKING - STORAGE AREAROCK WALL180.7' 180.7'20.4'20.4'INLET 7771.24INLET 7772.75 INLET 7771.14 METAL STORAGE BUILDING METAL STORAGE BUILDINGMETAL STORAGE BUILDING 25.0' 30.0' 30.0' 20.0' INLET 7771.22 25.0' 30.0' 30.0' 20.0' 15.5' (TIE) BUILDING 20.0' 5.0' 25.0'60.6'97.8'35.0'105.7'105.7'105.7'105.7'105.7'105.7'135.7'135.7'185.7' 185.7'20.0'20.0'EDGE OF PAVEMENTMETAL STORAGE BUILDINGMETAL STORAGE BUILDINGMETAL STORAGE BUILDINGMETAL STORAGE BUILDING105 WOODWARD LANES S 2.0' WITNESS CORNER SET #5 REBAR & 1-1/4" BLUE PLASTIC CAP WC TNC PLS38215 FOUND #5 REBAR & 1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTIC CAP LS16129 ROCK RETAINING SITE BENCH MARK FOUND #5 REBAR & 1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTIC CAP HCE LS19598 ELEVATION: 7775.13 FOUND #4 REBAR & 1" RED PLASTIC CAP ILLEGIBLE FOUND #5 REBAR & 1-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP LS31551 FOUND #5 REBAR & 1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTIC CAP LS23875 FOUND #5 REBAR FOUND #5 REBAR & 1-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP ILLEGIBLE FOUND #5 REBAR PAVED DRIVE & PARKINGPAVED LUMBERYARD PAVED LUMBERYARDPAVED ROADWAYPAVED DRIVEPAVED DRIVE 2'± ELEVATION DROP BETWEEN CONCRETE & PAVEMENT ALONG THIS LINE4' WIDE CONCRETE DRAINAGE PANMATCHLINE SHEET 1 MATCHLINE SHEET 2 CONCRETE PATH12"ADS 7784.0 12"ADS 7782.7 FOUND #5 REBAR & 1-1/4" YELLOW PLASTIC CAP LS31158 9.7' WITNESS CORNER FOUND #5 REBAR & 2" ALUMINUM CAP LS23875 9.7' (TIE) 7.4' (TIE) CONCRETE RETAINING W A L L CONCRETE RETAINING WALL LOT 2 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER SUBDIVISION LOT 1 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER SUBDIVISION LOT 3 QWEST/CITY OF ASPEN SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT N84°46'02"E 201.89' PLAT=N84°34'00"E 201 . 9 2 ' R=2160.0' L=182.99' CB=S10°17'41"W CH=182.73' PLAT=S10°32'21"W 182.94' PLAT=N84°34'00"E 229 . 5 0 ' N84°49'52"E 229.84'S06°29'31"E 216.35'PLAT=S06°38'00"E 216.17'PLAT=N84°34'00"E 136.36' N84°49'33"E 136.56'S21°32'23"W 615.93'BASIS OF BEARINGS PLAT=N84°46'00"W 1 6 5 . 0 0 ' N86°27'36"W 167.06' PLAT=N03°14'00"E 53.69' N03°32'40"E 53.75' R=1960.0' L=181.08' CB=N00°31'20"E CH=181.02' R=1960.0' L=399.42' CB=N07°45'32"E CH=398.73' PLAT=399.39'PAVED PATHAMERICAN ROAD WOODWARDLANECOLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82 NORTH BOUND LANE - PAVED ROADWAYPASS-GO-LANEFOUND #5 REBAR & 1-1/4" ORANGE PLASTIC CAP LS28643TRACT 1LOT 3, BURLINGAME RANCHAFFORDABLE HOUSING SUB/PUD10' SEWER EASEMENT BOOK 253 PAGE 210 10' WATER LINE EASEM E N T PLAT BOOK 7 PAGE 79ASPEN ROAD60' WIDE PRIVATE100' WIDE GREENBELT PLAT BOOK 7 PAGE 79 HOLY CROSS EASEMENTBOOK 242 PAGE 634GREENBELT AREA PLAT BOOK 7 PAGE 79 20' UTILITY EASEMENT PLAT BOOK 21 PAGE 3420' UTILITY EASEMENTPLAT BOOK 21 PAGE 3430' ROAD EASEMENT PLAT BOOK 21 PAGE 34 10' ELECTRIC EASEMENT PLAT BOOK 21 PAGE 34 15' CABLE T.V. EASEMENT PLAT BOOK 21 PAGE 34 15' EASEMENT BOOK 345 PAGE 975 10' UTILITY EASEMENT PLAT BOOK 21 PAGE 34 15' ACCESS EASEMENT PLAT BOOK 21 PAGE 34 DW LID 7781.0 LOT 3 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER SUBDIVISION LOT 2 BLOCK-1 77837782778077857780 7 7 85 778177827783778477 8 1 7 7 8 0 7779 777877857775 7772 77737775 7780 778577907 7 8 0 7785778577857783778077807780 77787777 77 8 0 7775 7777 777577757774 7780779077857785PAVED ROADWAY 7.620± ACRES LOTS 1 & 2 - BLOCK 1 - AMENDED AND RESTATED PLAT OF ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER FILING NO. 1 & LOT 3 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER SUBDIVISION SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PM COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO IMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TRUE NORTH COLORADO LLC. A LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANY P.O. BOX 614 - 386 MAIN STREET UNIT 3 NEW CASTLE, COLORADO 81647 (970) 984-0474 www.truenorthcolorado.com DRAWN RPK SURVEYED SHEET 2 OF 2 TRUENORTH A LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANY NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. PROJECT NO: 2020-164 DATE:October 12, 2020 CATV PEDESTAL D POWER POLE GUY ANCHOR SIGN STORM DRAIN MANHOLE ELECTRIC MANHOLEE WATER METER IRRIGATION VALVE BOX W IVB DRAINAGE INLET WATER LINE SEWER LINE TELEPHONE LINE FIBER OPTIC LINE GAS LINE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE CATV LINE ELECTRIC LINE TELEPHONE PEDESTAL DYH S FIRE HYDRANT SANITARY MANHOLE ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER GAS METER ELECTRICAL METER G LEGEND E 30'15'60' SCALE: 1" = 30' N 0 CLEAN-OUT WATER VALVE BOX CDOT COMMUNICATION VAULT BOLLARD CHAIN-LINK FENCE WOOD FENCE Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 146 Geotechnical StudyExhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies147 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies148 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies149 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies150 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies151 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies152 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies153 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies154 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies155 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies156 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies157 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies158 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies159 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies160 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies161 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies162 Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies163 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com 24 September 2020 Mr. Chris Everson Page 1 of 19 Affordable Housing Project Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Voice: 970.429.1834 RE: Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project Traffic and Aircraft Noise Impact Assessment EDI Job # C-4305 Dear Mr. Everson: Engineering Dynamics' has completed a traffic and aircraft noise assessment for the proposed Aspen Lumberyard residential project, located on the east side of S.H. 82 across from the Aspen Pitkin County Airport. The project is planned to be 250 to 325 residential units. As part of this report existing traffic and aircraft noise levels were measured to determine the noise exposure residences within this project will have. The results of the sound level measurements and initial schematic noise mitigation recommendations are described below. 1.0 Background The development site is located along the east side of S.H. 82 directly across from the south end of the Aspen Pitkin County Airport. Figures 1.1 and 1.2 show the general location of the development and Figure 1.3 shows one of the preliminary development site concepts. Noise impacts across the development site are from vehicle traffic on S.H. 82 and from aircraft activity at the Aspen Pitkin County Airport. For noise impact on the proposed residential buildings, aircraft noise can be considered an event, similar to a loud motorcycle on the street. While, vehicle traffic on S.H. 82 is a fairly constant background sound, which varies during the day and nighttime hours. NOTE: the sound level measurements were made during a time period in 2020 when the number of passenger flights into and out of the airport were significantly below normal, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Increase in commercial passenger flights will increase the measured DNLs will be expected to increase. However, the dominant noise source across the site will still be vehicle traffic on S.H. 82. Residences on the side of building facing S.H. 82 will have a significantly higher noise exposure, than residences on sides of buildings facing east. Additionally, during the site layout planning, locating outdoor use areas, such as barbeque areas, play areas, etc. on the east sides of buildings will reduce noise levels in these areas and make them pleasant to use. Traffic volumes – the sound level measurements were prior to the Labor Day weekend, in order to obtain sound level data with maximum traffic volumes. It is estimated that traffic volumes during the measurement period are within 10% of pre-COVID-19 traffic volumes. Aircraft volumes – the actual number of aircraft operations during the measurement period is not known. Anecdotally, since the COVID restrictions the number of commercial flights have significantly decreased and the number of private jet flights have increased. Given that the Aspen Pitkin County Airport limits not nighttime (dusk to dawn) flights into or out of the airport, the DNLs are controlled by vehicle traffic on S.H. 82. Aircraft noise will be perceived as an event, similarly to a noise event that occurs when a loud motorcycle goes by. Noise Study Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 164 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 2 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com 1.1 Existing Aspen Pitkin County Airport DNLs Figures 1.4 and 1.5 show the future time Frame (2033) DNL noise contours around the airport. Inspection of Figures 1.4 and 1.5 shows, a. The development site is outside the DNL 65 noise contour. b. It is estimated that the development site is partially within the DNL 60 noise contour and completely within the DNL 55 noise contour. 2.0 Definitions and Noise Regulation 2.1 Definitions and Typical Sound Levels Table 2.1 shows some A-weighted noise levels of typical activities. For the average human an increase of the measured noise level of 10 dB is Subjectively Perceived as being twice as loud or half as loud for a 10 dB decrease. The decibel change at which the average human will indicate that the noise is just perceptibly louder or perceptibly quieter is 3 dB. Table 2.1: Qualitative Description of Typically Occurring Noise Sound Level, dB(A) Type of Noise Relative Loudness (Human Judgement) of Different Noise Levels Subjective Impression of Noise 110 Disco Dance Floor 128 times as loud Uncomfortably Loud 90 Motorcycle at 25’ 32 times as loud Very Loud 85 D8 Cat Dozer at 50 ft. 80 Diesel Truck, 40 mph at 50’ 16 times as loud Loud 75 Average Car, 40 mph at 25’ 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 3’ 8 times as loud 65 Conversation at 3’ 60 Background Music 4 times as loud 55 Air Conditioning Unit at 15’ 50 Quiet Residential Twice as loud 45 Bird Calls Quiet 40 Lower Limit Urban Daytime Ambient Reference loudness 30 Background Quiet Suburban at Night 1/2 as loud 20 Quiet Whisper 1/4 as loud Barely Audible 0 Threshold of Hearing Measurement of community noise employs noise metric definitions that are, conceptually, ‘a’ noise level which is exceeded x percent of the time. For example the Lmax is the maximum noise level sampled during the measurement period, the L50 is the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time (similar to the class average), and the L90 is the noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time. The larger the L-sub percentage the lower the noise level in dB; i.e., the L90 is always less than the L50. The L90 and sometimes the L95 is considered to be the residual or true background noise level. It is not appropriate to use the lowest sound level measured, at a specific location, as the background noise level, since, this minimum noise levels typically does not occur often. A-weighted Noise Level (dB(A)) - the physical process of measuring sound with the same sensitivity to frequency as that of the human ear. A sound level meter will have, inside it, an electrical circuit that allows the meter to have the same sensitivity (response) to sound at different frequencies as the average human ear. Noise ordinances and law are typically written in terms of dB(A). Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 165 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 3 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com Ambient Noise - at a specified time, the all encompassing sound associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sound from many sources at many directions, near and far, including the specific sources of interest. Background or Residual Noise - at a specified time, the all encompassing sound associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sound from many sources at many directions, near and far, remaining in a given location in a given situation when all uniquely identifiable discrete sound sources are eliminated, rendered insignificant, or otherwise not included. Energy Equivalent or Average Level (Leq) - a constant sound level over the entire measurement period that contains as much sound energy as the actual time-varying sound level. During a sample period the noise level fluctuates up and down, if we were to perform an energy average of the fluctuating levels throughout the sample period (i.e.; find the area under the curve), the Leq is simply equal to the constant noise level, over the same time period, that would have the same area under the curve. Day-Night Average (DNL or Ldn) - is the logarithmic average of the daytime (7am to 10pm) and the nighttime (10pm to 7am) Leq's, with a ten dB(A) penalty added to the nighttime Leq. The DNL is a 24-hour average, not an instantaneous sound level, that one would hear when a car drives by. Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) - is the maximum sound level sampled during the measurement period. 2.2 HUD Residential Noise Guidelines In accordance with HUD Form 4128, a transportation noise impact analysis is required for proposed new residential construction located within, a. 1000 feet of major highways or busy roads, b. 3000 feet of railroads, c. 5 miles of civil airports, and d. 15 miles of military airfields. For the Lumberyard project, there are two noise sources S.H. 82 and Aspen Pitkin County Airport. For residential developments the HUD (US Department of Housing and Urban Development) noise guidelines are listed below. These noise limits or categories are exterior noise levels (sound or noise levels outside the residence), not sound or noise levels inside the residence. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Affairs (HUD) defines acceptability of land used for residential development to be, Normally Acceptable when the measured or predicted DNL < 65 dB(A), Normally Unacceptable when the Measured or predicted DNLs > 65 and < 75 dB(A), and Unacceptable when the Measured or predicted DNLs > 75 dB(A). For residential buildings with DNLS >65 and <75, the project can be brought into HUD compliance either by reducing the exterior noise levels to less than DNL 65 via noise walls, berming, etc. or through construction of the building to insure that the interior DNL is less than 45. Compliance with the HUD interior DNL 45 – with the residential energy codes requiring 2-inch by 6- inch exterior walls with R-21 insulation, the HUD interior DNL of 45 can be readily achieved with higher Sound Transmission Class (STC) rated windows. The exact STC rating needed for this project will depend on the size and number of the windows in each residential unit. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 166 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 4 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com 3.0 Measurement Results Three sets of existing traffic / aircraft sound level measurements were made, a. Sound levels at the top of the Mountain Rescue Fire Tower, which provide a measure of traffic and aircraft sound level exposure to upper floor windows or balconies, which face S.H. 82. b. Short-term approximate 5-hour duration traffic and aircraft sound levels, measured on both side of the Mountain Rescue building. These measurements provide an approximate measure of the difference in the traffic and aircraft sound level exposure, for residential units which face S.H. 82 and units which are on the opposite side (east side) of the buildings. c. Continuous 6-day sound level measurements, use to determine the existing noise exposure across the development site. 3.1 Top of Fire Tower Figure 3.1.1 shows measured sound levels from 7:29 am to 8:07am, on Wednesday 2-Sep-20, with an adjustment for increased distance from S.H. 82, for the planned building locations. The measured sound levels are 1-second A-weighted Leq and Slow time constant. The Fire Tower is located ~150 feet from the centerline of S.H. 82 and residential buildings will be in the range of 200 to 400 feet from the centerline of S.H. 82. The adjustment is for the distance increase, sound levels decrease, from 150 feet to 250 feet, 5 dBA. Inspection of Figure 3.1.1 shows, a. The average sound exposure level over the 37-minute measurement period is 63 dBA, with the distance correction. This would be typical sound exposure for windows and balconies on residential units facing S.H. 82. b. During the measurement period there was two jet take-offs and three loud vehicle transits on S.H. 82. These are the five high peaks 75 dBA plus on the plot. Note these are short time duration events. EDI personnel were on-site during the entire Fire Tower measurement period, and subjectively loud vehicles (trucks) were as loud as individual aircraft taking off. c. There were two time period with very minimal or no traffic on S.H. 82, these show as the two dips in the plot below 50 dBA. d. While, these sound levels are typical for this distance near a major roadway, such as S.H. 82, and are not prohibitive to residential development. Note, during night hours traffic related sound levels drop to below 50 dBA. 3.2 5-hour Duration Measurements The 5-hour duration sound level measurements were made to show the approximate level difference between residences which face S.H. 82 and residences on the east side of the buildings. Measurements were made from ~2:30pm to 7:30pm 1-Sep-20. The measured sound levels are 1-minute A-weighted Leq and Slow time constant. Figures 3.2.1 and 3.2 show the location of the sound level meters during the 5-hour measurement period. Figure 3.2.3 shows the results of the measurements. Inspection of Figure 3.2.3 shows, a. The average difference in sound levels from the S.H. 82 side to the east side of the Mountain Rescue building are 16 dBA. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 167 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 5 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com b. Extrapolating this attenuation level of 16 dBA, residential windows and balconies on the East side of residential buildings will have traffic and aircraft exposure levels in the range of 16 dBA, less than windows and balconies on the S.H. 82 side of the building. c. For the larger (longer) buildings and buildings along the east side of the project, the attenuation levels will be greater. In the range of 20 to 25 dBA depending on the location. d. Note for aircraft and traffic related noise a 10 dB reduction will be perceived as being half as loud and a 20 dB reduction will be perceived as being one-fourth as loud. 3.3 6-Day Continuous Sound Level Measurements The 6-day continuous sound level measurements were made at two locations, one north and one south of the Mountain Rescue building, from 7am Wednesday 2-Sep-20 through 7pm Monday 5-Sep-20.. The measured sound levels are 1-minute A-weighted Leq and Slow time constant. Figure 3.3.1 shows the north measurement location and Figure 3.3.2 shows the south measurement location of the sound level meters during the 5-hour measurement period. Figures 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 show the results of the measurements. North Location: Inspection of Figure 3.3.3 shows, a. The 6-day DNL is 66.5. When adjusted for distance of the closest residence to S.H. 82 the 6- day DNL is 64.6; just within the HUD Normally Acceptable category. This applies to residential buildings, with a side of the building at 200 feet from the centerline of S.H. 82. b. For all residential buildings further away from S.H. 82 DNLs will be less. South Location: Inspection of Figure 3.3.4 shows, a. The 6-day DNL is 61.0. This measurement point was close to 200 feet from the centerline of S.H. 82, therefore, no additional adjustment for distance has been made. These levels are within the HUD Normally Acceptable category. This applies to residential buildings, with a side of the building at 200 feet from the centerline of S.H. 82. b. For all residential buildings further away from S.H. 82 DNLs will be less. 3.4 DNL Noise Contours Figure 3.4.1 shows the measured DNL 65 noise contour and the calculated DNL 60 noise contour on the development site. Any residential buildings closer than 200 feet to the S.H. 82 roadway centerline, will require noise mitigation. 4.0 Summary The entire development site has a combined traffic and aircraft noise DNL less than the HUD Normally Acceptable DNL 65 limit. The current DNL 65 noise contour is located 200 feet from the S.H. 82 roadway centerline. Any residential buildings closer than 200 feet to the S.H. 82 roadway centerline, will require noise mitigation. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 168 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 6 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com 4.0 Preliminary Noise Mitigation Recommendations For this type of project there are two noise criteria or expectations, one, the HUD requirements and two, the livability of the residential units. The residential units facing S.H. 82 have a higher noise exposure than the units facing away from S.H. 82. Outdoor Use Area – for outdoor use areas, such as barbecue areas, play grounds, basketball courts, etc. the noise exposure can best be reduced by locating these areas on the east side of building. Additionally, these areas the buildings should curved, so that the convex side is facing S.H. 82 and the concave side is facing away from S.H. 82. Then the outdoor use area can be located within or partially within the shadow of this concave side providing even greater noise attenuation than described in Section 3.2 of this report. Indoor Spaces – as stated above the residential units on the S.H. 82 side of the buildings will have the highest noise exposure. This noise exposure can be reduced via higher STC ratings of the exterior façade elements. The latest residential energy codes call for 2-inch by 6-inch exterior walls with R-21 bat insulation. This wall assembly has an STC rating of 51 to 55, depending on the exterior finish. The remaining façade elements are windows, sliding glass doors and entry doors, and the STC rating of these elements has the greatest impact on the interior noise levels. Acoustic noise intrusion into a residence is directly analogous to thermal insulation of the residence, the greatest heat loss is through the façade element with the lowest R-value and the greatest noise intrusion is through the façade element with the lowest STC rating. Increasing the STC rating of the walls has less impact on reducing interior noise than increasing the STC rating of windows and doors. Therefore the most effective way to reduce traffic and aircraft noise levels inside the residences is to install higher STC rated windows and doors, and minimize the size of the windows or number of windows. For example: on the S.H. 82 side of buildings a higher STC rated windows, such as 32 to 34, would be appropriate, while on the east sides of the buildings STC 30 to 32 windows would be appropriate. If you have any questions, please contact me at our Englewood office. Sincerely, ENGINEERING DYNAMICS, INC. Stuart D. McGregor, P.E. President Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 169 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 7 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com Figure 1.1: Aspen Lumberyard General Development Site Location Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 170 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 8 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com Figure 1.2: Aspen Lumberyard General Development Site Location Aspen Lumberyard Development Site is shaded in Red The Blue Line is approximate closest location of any building to S.H. 82. Approximately 200 feet from the centerline of S.H. 82 right-of-way. Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 171 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 9 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com Figure 1.3: Preliminary Aspen Lumberyard Building Layout Concept Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 172 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 10 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com Figure 1.4: 2033 Time Frame Aspen Pitkin County Airport DNL Noise Contours Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 173 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 11 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com Figure 1.5: 2033 Time Frame Aspen Pitkin County Airport DNL Noise Contours Lumberyard Development Site Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 174 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 12 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 7:29:077:31:077:33:077:35:077:37:077:39:077:41:077:43:077:45:077:47:077:49:077:51:077:53:077:55:077:57:077:59:078:01:078:03:078:05:078:07:07Sound Pressure Level, dBA; re: 0.00002 PaTime, 1-second Intervals Figure 3.1.1: Sound Levels on top of Fire Tower Adjusted Sound Levels for Distance Average Sound Level, 63 dBA Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 175 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 13 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com Figure 3.2.1: S.H. 82 Side of Mountain Rescue Measurement Location Sound Level Meter Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 176 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 14 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com Figure 3.2.2: East (Back) Side of Mountain Rescue Measurement Location Sound Level Meter Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 177 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 15 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14:4414:5415:0415:1415:2415:3415:4415:5416:0416:1416:2416:3416:4416:5417:0417:1417:2417:3417:4417:5418:0418:1418:2418:3418:44Sound Pressure Level, dB; re: 0.00002 PaTime, 1-minute Increments Figure 3.2.3: Level of Traffic Noise Attenuation Provided by Building 82 Side of Mtn Rescue Building Back Side of Mtn Rescue Building Attenuation Average Attenuation, 16 dBA Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 178 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 16 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com Figure 3.3.1: North 6-Day Measurement Location North 6-Day Measurement Location ~150 feet Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 179 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 17 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com Figure 3.3.2: South 6-Day Measurement Location South 6-Day Measurement Location ~190 feet Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 180 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 18 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 7:0011:0015:0019:0023:003:007:0011:0015:0019:0023:003:007:0011:0015:0019:0023:003:007:0011:0015:0019:0023:003:007:0011:0015:0019:0023:003:007:0011:0015:00Sound Pressure Level, dBA; RE: 0.00002 PaTime, 1-minute Increments Figure 3.3.3: North Location 6-Day Continuous Sound Level Data, 1-minute Leq Levels 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 7:0011:0015:0019:0023:003:007:0011:0015:0019:0023:003:007:0011:0015:0019:0023:003:007:0011:0015:0019:0023:003:007:0011:0015:0019:0023:003:007:0011:0015:0019:0023:003:00Sound Pressure Level, dBA; RE: 0.00002 PaTime, 1-minute Increments Figure 3.3.4: South Location 6-Day Continuous Sound Level Data, 1-minute Leq Levels Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 181 Aspen Lumberyard Residential Project – Traffic and Aircraft Noise Report 24 September 2020 Page 19 of 19 3925 S. Kalamath St., Englewood, Colorado 80110 ● Voice: 303-761-4367 ● www.engdynamics.com Figure 3.4.1: Existing DNL 65 and 60 Noise Contours DNL 60 Noise Contour Line 400 ± 50 feet from the S.H. 82 Roadway Centerline DNL 65 Noise Contour Line, 200 ± 25 feet from the S.H. 82 Roadway Centerline Exhibit C - Preliminary Technical Studies 182 LUMBERYARD AFFORDABLE HOUSING 310 UNIT CONCEPTUAL PLAN (with 10-Yr Phasing) 11/23/2020 Summary ROM Development Estimate Based on Current Burlingame Phase 3 Contract Pricing Sunk Costs Land Acquisition (10.5 Acres)Per Acre $2020 (1997 'Triangle', 2008 Lumberyard, 2020 Aspen Mini Storage)$2,809,524 $29,500,000 2019-2020 Community Outreach and Conceptual Design Process LS $500,000 Future Costs Development of Site and Buildings, Base Estimate Per Sq Ft $2020 (Includes surface parking with carports and storage closets)$588 $155,294,118 Add for Underground Parking Per Space $2020 (In addition to what is in the base estimate)$65,000 $28,080,000 $2020 Add for Roadway, Intersection, Trails Above Base Estimate LS $2,500,000 $2020 Add for Utilities, Access, Infrastructure Above Base Estimate LS $1,250,000 $2020 Add for Shuttle Station Above Base Estimate LS $750,000 Add for Alternate 24 Units or Childcare Facility LS $2020 $11,025,882 Conceptual Estimate Contingency 10%$2020 (In addition to base estimate contingency)10%$19,890,000 $2020 Total Development: $2020 (Includes Sunk Costs)$248,790,000 Future Costs Only: $2020 (Does Not Include Sunk Costs)$218,790,000 Construction Phasing Escalations (5% Annually)$FUTURE Phase 1 (2024-2026) 143 Units FUTURE DOLLARS $2025)46% X 1.28 $128,449,316 Phase 2 (2028-2030) 94 Units FUTURE DOLLARS $2029)30% X 1.55 $101,824,530 Phase 3 (2032-2034) 73 Units FUTURE DOLLARS $2033)24% X 1.89 $99,014,682 Total Phased Cost FUTURE DOLLARS SHOWN ABOVE)$329,288,528 183