Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20230828AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 28, 2023 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen I.Work Session I.A Lumberyard Affordable Housing: Design Element Review Zoom Meeting Instructions Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device: Please click this URL to join: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85217657590? pwd=OTNza0dDVXhuOUVna25EalA3M0JsZz09 Passcode: 81611 Or join by phone: Dial: US: +1 346 248 7799 Webinar ID: 852 1765 7590 Passcode: 81611 International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kcQWt71OLQ 0. Cover Memo 08.24.2023.docx Memo Council WS - 28AUG2023 - Lumberyard Design Alternatives.pdf 2. Design Questions.pdf 1 1 Page 1 of 2 Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project WS TO:Aspen City Council FROM:Sara Ott, City Manager DATE:August 24, 2023 MEETING:August 28, 2023 RE:Work session regarding the Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project Summary Time is set aside on August 28, 2023, work session for City Councilors to discuss with each other questions about the Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project design elements. The work session will be in person. Process Consistent with the other work sessions recently on the Lumberyard, staff and consultants will present information in response to the requests made at the July 24, 2023 work session. The work session allows the Council more flexibility to discuss topics including topics outside of the planned development review criteria. While no direction can be given in work session, the Council s general sentiments will be utilized to structure the debate on Ordinance 10 amendments during the September 12 public hearing. It may also allow staff to draft potential amendments for consideration. Councilors should plan for a long evening, as there is a significant amount of information to relay and the need for the Council to reach a majority position, i.e., narrowing of the topics, for greater in-depth discussion. Agenda This work session topics is broken in to two segments. Presentations on the design changes could take up to 1 hour, and then clarifying Q&A. Attached is a memo about the design alternatives Council requested be investigated, along with the initial . It is recommended Council listen to and ask clarifying questions on design questions before turning to discussion between Councilors. 1. Design Alternatives Cushing Terrell and Chris Everson will present the requested design alternatives for consideration. Please note that the financing scenarios presented last week do not include the costs of any changes the Council may select take. 2. Summary of All Next Steps/ Review of Areas of Debate for Sept 12 2 Page 2 of 2 Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project WS Staff will support the mayor in reviewing the areas agreed by a majority of Councilors for debate. Staff will provide options for next steps and start identifying any support staff can provide to the Council in preparation for the Ordinance 10 public hearing. Conclusion: Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me ahead of time with any additional questions or to request adjustments to the format of the work session. Attachments: 1. Memo re: Design Alternatives Follow Up, dated 8/23/23 2. Memo re: Design Detail Follow Up, dated 7/17/23 3 Page 1 of 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Sara Ott, City Manager FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Development Project Manager THRU: Rob Schober, Capital Asset Director DATE OF MEMO: August 23, 2023 MEETING DATE: August 28, 2023 RE: Lumberyard Affordable Housing Development - Design Alternatives REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is providing information about project alternatives for Council consideration. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: During a work session on July 24, 2023, Council requested the information provided herein. BACKGROUND: Council has continued the public hearing review for the Lumberyard affordable housing development project entitlements process until September 12, 2023 at 5:00PM. At a work session on July 24, 2023, Council requested design related information about the following: • As it relates to maximum heights, provide alternatives to potentially reduce visual impacts to individuals on the AABC trail and on Highway 82. Provide potential alternatives to solar panel quantity and location with potential relocation for aesthetics and include costs for the proposed design and for alternatives. • Provide alternate automobile circulation possibilities which would allow for access to underground parking garages at the front-facing façade of the buildings. • Explore noise and visual mitigation enhancement alternatives including greening elements on buildings. Provide alternatives for berming and carport treatments for enhancement of noise and visual mitigation as compared to the current proposal. • Provide options to increase flexibility in the planned development in the areas of unit mix flexibility - potentially by including a minimum of each unit type required, and by not locking in the income mix. Ensure that project phasing flexibility is explicit and include a requirement for car-to-go. Allow paid parking as an option and allow building 3 as an option to become ownership after 10 years. Include commercial use as an option, dependent upon location. DISCUSSION: Solar Panel Height and Options As submitted, the on-site renewable solar photovoltaic (p/v) system at the Lumberyard is designed to achieve the sustainability goals of the community - which were significantly heard during the community outreach process. The on-site solar p/v system is part of a larger design strategy which will help the facilities achieve 75% net zero energy offset, while doing so at the project site, essentially at the point of energy use. 4 Page 2 of 12 Among other important design considerations, the use of battery storage is crucial to balance peak time production versus peak time usage, and the solar panels also provide valuable shelter to the hundreds of heat pump systems which will provide highly energy efficient space heating for the buildings. It is an understatement to say that all of these, and more, elements of the design work together to achieve the overall sustainability goals of the project, but if one were to try to put a price on the entirety of the solar p/v system as currently designed to the schematic level, it is estimated to be approximately $6 million in today’s dollars. To provide potential alternatives to the proposed system which could reduce visual impacts to individuals on the AABC trail and on Highway 82, the design team has included the following possibilities: On-Site Options: 1. Set back the solar panels from the front façade of all buildings to reduce visibility from the AABC trail and Highway 82 2. Instead of mounting panels above heat pump mechanical units, utilize a ‘ballast system’, where panels are placed on the surface of the roof, and set on an angle Off-Site Options: 1. Partner with a specialist to physically build offsite infrastructure 2. Buy a purchased power agreement (PPA) which would include renewable offset On-site Option 1 is to set back the solar panels from the front façade of all buildings which would reduce visual impacts from the front of the project, facing highway 82. Of the options provided, this option would be least impactful to City of Aspen climate action goals and to the currently- designed mechanical system strategy, but the solar panels would still be visible from other angles of view. This option would reduce the energy offset from 75% down to 47% offset, but with the ability to add some additional back (see carport option). This option would provide a cost savings to the project of about $1.8 million. On-site Option 2 is to utilize a ‘ballast system’, where panels are placed on the surface of the roof, and the panels are set on an angle. The image below illustrates a ballast system, and this is similar to what might be done on a large commercial facility roof. A ballast system approach would take up space on the surface of the roof and would require a different approach to the mechanical system design approach. Any redesign of the mechanical strategy could affect mechanical system costs and could further negate on-site renewable savings, but the design team has not had the opportunity to fully explore these complications at this stage. This option would reduce the energy offset from 75% down to 33% offset, but with the ability to add some additional back (see carport option). This option would provide a cost savings to the project of about $3 million. Ballast system example image below: 5 Page 3 of 12 In addition, because the solar structures as currently designed are integral to the design of the buildings, simply removing the solar panels as designed and replacing with a ballast system would be reason to reconsider the design of the mass and form of the buildings. Any such redesign may re-introduce height as similar to the original schematic renderings from the February 2022 designs. (See attached presentation slides for February 2022 design image.) Off-Site Option 1 would be to partner with a specialist to physically build offsite infrastructure. This option might be similar to the Pitkin County/ACSD/Holy Cross solar farm project, which is located between the Brush Creek Park & Ride and McLain Flats Road as seen in the in the aerial image below. The project weas implemented by Primergy Solar. 6 Page 4 of 12 For the scale of system needed to provide 100% energy offset for the Lumberyard project, off- site option #1 would require approximately 10-15 acres of land. Staff is unaware of any such available land, which if available, could cost as much as $30 to $70 million. In addition, such systems can cost some $1.5 to $3 million per megawatt to implement. For 100% offset, we would need about a 2 megawatt facility which could cost anywhere from $3-$6 million in addition to the land. This option would also remove a significant portion of the sustainability for Lumberyard housing project when looked at solely as a housing development in and of itself. Off-Site Option 2 was initially though by the design team to be a viable option wherein the City of Aspen might enter into a purchased power agreement (PPA) which would include renewable offset. City of Aspen Utilities staff have since advised the Lumberyard project team that this is not a viable option for many reasons, some of which are that PPA’s are typically for utility-scale operations and are not done in that industry at the retail scale. This option would create many undesirable conditions of the Utility, such as no operational controls over the power generated, and that the City Utility would have to absorb transmission and administrative costs to manage power on the grid, which creates significant costs which would need to be passed along to Utility customers in perpetuity. For these reasons, the City of Aspen Utility steers away from solar PPAs in general, and in this case, this option is not seen as a viable alternative that should be considered by Council. Adding Solar Panels to Carport Roofs would be possible in any of the above on-site options. This would provide the ability to make up about 8% to 10% of energy offset. Due to the orientation and shading, this would have a limited window of production and reduced production when compared to the rooftop p/v as designed. The project would be paying a higher premium for some lost efficiency, but it could be useful if necessary to make up energy offset in the above on-site options. This option would require additional wiring and conduit costs to bring wiring back to the buildings and could cost about $800,000 to gain back the 8% to 10% of energy offset lost in any of the above on-site options. Solar Roof Tiles were brought up at the July 24 work session as a question. Solar roof tiles are typically used in a pitched roof and are not intended for a flat roof or vertical wall. These are not known to have been used in a project of this scale and would not provide as much solar efficiency as can be achieved with today’s larger solar panels. There have been extremely long lead times associated with these types of solar roof tiles and there would be a higher cost per watt by about 15%. In discussion of how the project team could possibly utilize any such tiles, the only way it would seem possible would be to assemble them on a backer panel which would amount to attempting to assemble our own solar panels. Any such approach would be less efficient and more expensive and to-date seemingly unexplored territory. This approach would seem counter-productive and risky and would not be recommended. Staff Recommendation - Solar Panel Height and Options Staff has had internal discussions among Capital Asset, Environmental Health and Utilities Department staff members. Although there are other means of approaching this, staff tends to concur that the proposed goal of 75% offset should be maintained and that the proposed means as designed is the most efficient solution given the existing constraints. 7 Page 5 of 12 Automobile Circulation - Front-Facing Garage Entry Options In the current design, the underground garage entries at building 1 and building 2 are at the east side of the facilities, facing away from Highway 82. The trash dumpster enclosures are also located in that area to facilitate appropriate proximity for managed hauling of trash to the dumpsters, where they will get picked up by the contracts waste hauling companies. The locations of the underground garage entrances have been designed to work with the grading of the site to minimize the slope down into the garage, eliminating the need for snow melt of other means of mitigating winter conditions. The current design creates the ability to keep the less appealing waste facilities and daily waste operations to the “back of the house” and has the added benefit of serving as a disincentive to drive a car by making it slightly less convenient to pull in and out of the underground garage entrances. Driving around the facilities from the driveway entrance to the back of buildings 1 and 2 adds about ¼ mile of driving. In the current design, the garage entrances facilitate maximum efficiency for the parking counts needed due to more optimal ramp slopes by utilizing the natural grades to reduce ramp grade and length. This also frees up the front of the buildings to be very pedestrian friendly, which is a more contemporary approach to residential projects of this scale, as compared to the more auto-centric designs of the past. Throughout the schematic design process, the project vision statement has included “pedestrian friendly” as a fundamental element of the project philosophy, and this has been discussed with Council on many occasions. Building 1- Alternate Garage Entry #1 This alternate creates a new underground garage entry facing Highway 82 which would cause the loss of 12 to 24 affordable housing units. Public site amenity space would be reduced by 27%. This option would interrupt pedestrian circulation as planned around the building which would result in less safe conditions. This option would also conflict with the City of Aspen residential design guidelines included in the municipal code. 8 Page 6 of 12 It is unknown where the trash operation would be in this location which would require additional design effort to figure out. The cost difference between this alternate and the rear entry as currently designed is unknown, although it is expected to add cost to the project as it would likely require mitigation of winter conditions due to steep grades. Building 1- Alternate Garage Entry #1 Building 1- Alternate Garage Entry #2 This alternate creates a new underground garage entry facing Highway 82 which would cause the loss of 16 to 20 affordable housing units. Public site amenity space would be reduced by 15%. This option would interrupt pedestrian circulation and would additionally disconnect the community common area space in building 1 from the rest of the building. This option would also conflict with the City of Aspen residential design guidelines included in the municipal code. It is unknown where the trash operation would be in this location which would require additional design effort to figure out. The cost difference between this alternate and the rear entry as currently designed is unknown, although it is expected to add cost to the project as it would likely require mitigation of winter conditions due to steep grades. 9 Page 7 of 12 Building 1- Alternate Garage Entry #2 Building 1 & 2 – Alternate with Central Garage Entry This alternate adds a fourth leg to the front-facing driveway intersection and would require the addition of signage thus increasing queuing. The complications at the intersection may not be something that we could get approved. There would be reduce the public site area by 19% and would be a significant reduction of pedestrian friendly amenities at the front of the project by reducing the quite enjoyment at the central green space. This would also cause the loss of ground floor patios on building 2. This option would also conflict with the City of Aspen residential design guidelines included in the municipal code. It is unknown where the trash operation would be in this location which would require additional design effort to figure out. The cost difference between this alternate and the rear entry as currently designed is unknown, although it is expected to add cost to the project because it would require significantly more earthwork and retaining and may need mitigation for winter conditions due to the sheer length of the automobile ramp. 10 Page 8 of 12 Building 1 & 2 – Alternate with Central Garage Entry Building 2- Alternate Garage Entry #1 This alternate creates a new underground garage entry facing Highway 82 which would cause the loss of 16 to 24 affordable housing units. This option would interrupt pedestrian circulation and would conflict with the City of Aspen residential design guidelines included in the municipal code. It is unknown where the trash operation would be in this location which would require additional design effort to figure out. The cost difference between this alternate and the rear entry as currently designed is unknown, although it is expected to add cost to the project as it would likely require snowmelt or other means of mitigation of winter conditions due the steep grade. 11 Page 9 of 12 Building 2- Alternate Garage Entry #1 A Potential Alternate Road Alignment for the frontage road which connects to the AABC was brought up at the July 24 work session as a question. The design team has provided a rough sketch of this alternate. It should be noted that this is not a viable option because CDOT will not approve this because it will not provide adequate automobile queuing for the Highway 82 intersection. This alignment has been avoided for this reason since the conceptual design back in 2019-2020. 12 Page 10 of 12 Staff Recommendation - Automobile Circulation Pedestrian friendly design has been a part of the design process from the outset, as this is consistent with modern design principles and provides a higher level of community safety. Also, the locations of the underground garage entrances have been designed to work with the grading of the site to minimize the slope down into the garage, eliminating the need for snow melt of other means of mitigating winter conditions. For these reasons and due to the disincentive from driving provided by the rear garage entries, as well as consistency with the City’s residential design standards, staff recommends keeping the garage entries as proposed in the application and current design. Noise and Visual Mitigation Staff have presented the 2020 noise study, which was an exhibit to the Lumberyard housing development application, in past Council work sessions and have cited the airport 65 DNL contour as being outside the Lumberyard project boundary. That study emphasizes the 65db HUD threshold as a noise criteria which the Lumberyard development satisfies. As currently designed, the tree barriers in the current design would also further reduce the sound impacts beyond that discussed in the 2020 noise study by some 3-5dB at each stretch of trees in front of building 1. The project team feels the use of such tall evergreen trees is a sufficient precedent which exists along highway 82, similar to the condition in front of the Inn at Aspen near Buttermilk. Highway frontage in front of the Inn at Aspen: 13 Page 11 of 12 The project team has provided some alternates in the attached presentation slides, which would attempt to further mitigate sound and visual impacts form Highway 82. These alternates would require the removal of 8-10 parking spaces near building 1 to facilitate the flexibility needed to implement one of these options. See the slides attached for the alternate designs considered. Staff Recommendation – Noise and Visual Mitigation Staff believes that the trees as proposed would provide sufficient noise and visual mitigation but also agree that more may be better. In the event that Council wishes to allow the flexibility in the planned development to potentially remove the 8-10 parking spaces near building 1 to facilitate the flexibility needed to implement one of the alternates included in the attached presentation slides, this would allow the project team the ability to further explore costs and benefits of alternate options for enhanced noise and visual mitigation during the detail design (DD – or design development) phase of the design process. Consensus Items from the July 24 Work Session At the Council work session on July 24, there were a number of items for which Council appears to have a consensus around, most of which were to provide a higher level of flexibility in the proposed Ordinance #10. Staff has included recommendations below for Council to consider instructing Community Development staff to include as modifications to the proposed ordinance. Provide flexibility in unit mix by including a minimum number of each unit type Proposed for consideration: • Keep the unit and income mix as proposed, but instead of stating “the unit and income mix shall be as follows”, instead state, “the recommended unit and income mix is as follows”. • Also add the following condition: Upon Council approval of contract(s) with development partner(s) for implementation of any or all phases of the project, the Community Development Director may approve modifications to the unit and income mix based on Council-approved contracts as an insubstantial PD amendment. • Modify any unit and income mix exhibits to include the following note, “The recommended unit and income mix is as follows and remains flexible. Final unit and income mix shall be based on Council approved agreements for implementation as resources allow.” Provide project phasing flexibility Proposed for consideration: • As currently written, 10-year vested rights are included to accommodate development of the project as contemplated in 4 phases, but the four phases are not defined in a timeline in the ordinance nor in any submitted phasing plan exhibits. • Add notes to the phasing plan exhibits prior to PD recording to state, “The phasing plan remains flexible and shall be based on Council approved agreements for implementation as resources allow”. 14 Page 12 of 12 Building 3 “may be” condominiumized/ownership after 10 years, not “shall be” Proposed for consideration: • Change, “The dwelling units in Building 3 shall be condominiumized and sold to APCHA qualified tenants within the first ten years of receiving a certificate of occupancy.” to instead state, “The dwelling units in Building 3 may be condominiumized and sold to APCHA qualified tenants after the first ten years of receiving a certificate of occupancy.” Allow a Commercial Use as conditional use Proposed for consideration: Add the following condition: Commercial use is allowed within the planned development and may be enacted only by Council approval of contract(s) with development partner(s) for implementation of any or all phases of the project, including any such commercial uses as specifically described in any Council-approved developer contracts. Note: There are no commercial uses listed as Permitted Uses under the RMF zoning. Conditional uses listed in RMF include: (1)Arts, cultural and civic uses. (2)Academic uses.(3)Recreational uses.(4)Group home.(5)Child care center. Based on this it may be helpful to narrow the scope for Commercial use and define which commercial uses may be appropriate. Additional recommendations Include modification to the proposed ordinance to include a car-to-go in the project and to allowed paid parking. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: tbd RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests Council discussion and direction. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Presentation Slides 15 ASPEN LUMBERYARD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION I August 28, 2023 16 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 2CUSHING TERRELL • Solar Panel Height and Options • Garage Entries • Noise and Visual Mitigation • Additional Consensus Items, July 24th TODAYS TOPICS 17 PARKING = 7772.5 1ST FLOOR = 7783 2ND FLOOR 3RD FLOOR 4TH FLOOR HEIGHT TO FINISHED FLOOR = 12’ - 6” APPROXIMATE EDGE OF DRIVE AISLE / START OF RAMPAPPROX. 7776 HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR = 11’ HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR = 11’ HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR = 11’ HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR = 11’ PARAPET HEIGHT = 5’ TOP OF ROOF PROJECTIONS FROM TOP OF PARAPET = 7’ TOP OF SOLAR PANELS ABOVE TOP OF PARAPET = 15’ MAX HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR TO TOP OF PARAPET = 49’ ROOF PROJECTIONS ASPEN LUMBERYARD 3CUSHING TERRELL Solar Panels - Current Design • Achieves sustainability promises made to the community • Helps achieve 75% Net Zero Goal through onsite generation and storage • Protects roof top mechanical units • Provides shade and snow shed for 4th floor balconies • Reduces tenant energy costs • Fulfills the Schematic Design direction to “Celebrate the Sustainability” • Balcony support structure 18 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 4CUSHING TERRELL Solar Panels - Visual Impact February 2022 Design Current Design Current Design Without Solar Panels • Solar Structures are integral to design of the building and simply removing or reducing them would be cause to reconsider the design. • To provide interest, the redesign would likely add height, similar to design presented in February 2022 where council requested a design that is: more modern, unique, celebrates and accentuates sustainable components, and reduces perceived height. 19 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 5CUSHING TERRELL Solar Panels - Current Design What is currently proposed? • On-site solar PV system to offset approx. 75% of energy consumed at Lumberyard • 1.4MW onsite solar PV system + battery storage and Aspen electric grid interconnect • Project would pull only ~25% of energy consumed from the CoA electric grid • Battery storage is crucial to balance peak time production versus peak time usage Benefits of the current proposal? • Consistent with CoA GHG reduction goals, local and international climate goals • Offsets 75% of the consumption with production at the point of use • Partial independence from the grid, physical resilience, and cost resilience for tenants • Reduces burden on current grid, provides peak shaving, and offsets tenant utility bills How much will it cost? • Currently only schematic design level estimate, roughly $1.5-2.0 million per MW • Plus the cost of battery storage and connections, approximately $1.5 million • Plus the cost of grid interconnection of approximately $0.75 million • Plus the cost of superstructure to mount on buildings approximately $0.75 million • Total cost approximately $6.0 million ($2023, not a phased estimate) 20 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 6CUSHING TERRELL Solar Panels - Alternatives On-Site System-Reducing visual impacts on-site Project team sees two options: • Option 1- Set back the solar panels from only the front façade of all buildings • Option 2- Ballast System- Places all solar panels on the roof at foot level, below level of the parapet Offsite Alternatives Project team sees two options: • Partner with a specialist to physically build offsite infrastructure • Buy a purchased power agreement (PPA) which includes RECs 21 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 7CUSHING TERRELL Solar Panel - Reducing Visual Impact Option 1 - Set back the solar panels from only the front façade • Reduces visual impacts only from Hwy 82 • Least impactful to CoA goals and keeps current HVAC System • Can still be seen from certain angles on the road • Cost savings of about 33% of panel + battery cost or ~ $1,800,000 • Results in 75% offset reduced to 47% Offset • Make up the difference to the extent possible on carports 22 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 8CUSHING TERRELL Solar Panel - Reducing Visual Impact Option 2 - Ballast System- Place all PV below parapet • Reduces visual impacts on all sides • Re-design of HVAC system needed which will likely increase mechanical system costs and may negate PV savings • Cost savings of about 50% of panel cost or ~ $3,000,000 ($2023) • Results in 75% offset reduced to 33% Offset • Make up the difference to the extent possible on carports 23 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 9CUSHING TERRELL Solar Panels - Offsite Alternatives Partner with a specialist to physically build offsite infrastructure • Similar to Pitkin County/ACSD/Holy Cross project • 100% Offsite Offset would require 10-15 Acres of Land • About 10-15 acres of land leased to partner for $0/year • ~$45-60 million, based on Lumberyard land cost $3 million per acre • 25-Year PPA total cost approximately $5.25-$6.75M ($2023) 24 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 10CUSHING TERRELL Solar Panels - Offsite Alternatives Buy a purchased power agreement (PPA) which includes RECs NOT A VIABLE OPTION *The City of Aspen Utility staff does not recommend a PPA for this site based on the following: • No operational controls over power generated • PPAs are for utility scale operations and not retail/customer level • CoA would have to absorb transmission and administrative cost to manage power on grid. Can be significant and these are passed onto customers in perpetuity • Utility steers away from Solar PPA and seen as not viable for project offset 25 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 11CUSHING TERRELL Solar Roof TilesSolar Roof Tiles 9 of 8 Tesla Roof Tiles or Similar •Not right fit for project: •Higher cost per watt ~15%+ •Slight decrease in efficiency since can’t be bifacial •Not intended for flat roof or vertical wall •Very long lead times •Has not been used for a project of this scale •Tesla’s own factories use traditional ballast system (Option 2) Tesla Roof Tiles or Similar Not right fit for project: 1. Not intended for flat roof or vertical wall 2. Has not been used for a project of this scale 3. Slight decrease in efficiency since can’t be bifacial 4. Very long lead times 5. Higher cost per watt ~15%+ 26 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 12CUSHING TERRELL Carport PV Add PV to Carports • Would allow increase PV production on-site by 8%-10% • Will help make up for reduced PV on roof from proposed options above. • Due to orientation and shading from building would have a limited window of production and reduced production when compared to the roof top PV. • Will be paying a higher $/Watt premium for PV on carports when compared to Rooftop PV • Cost Approx. $800k for carport PV + addt’l. battery storage 27 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 13CUSHING TERRELL Solar Panels - Summary Assume all comparisons are for 25-years Current Proposal • Approximately $6 million, 75% offset On-Site Options • Option 1-Set back panels from front façade, $4.2 million, 47% offset • Option 2- Ballasted - Set back panels from all façades, $3.0* million, 33% offset Off-Site Options • Physically build offsite, $5.25-$6.75M + land cost, 100% offset • Buy from remote energy provider, ~$11 million , 100% offset +Carport Solar Panels • Cost Approx. $800k, increase PV production on-site by 8%-10% 28 1, 197ft (.23 mi) 595ft (.11 mi) 1,116ft (.21 mi) Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 3 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 14CUSHING TERRELL Garage Entries - Current Design • Little more than 30 seconds Drive Time from site entry to garage entry (i.e. 1/4 mile at 25 mph = 36 seconds) • Minimal distance to trash enclosures • Allows for maximum unit and parking counts • Utilizes natural slope of site to reduce ramp grade & length • Aligns with Pedestrian First Design • Car storage over parking - Encourages multi-modal transit 29 Legend Revised Building Footprint Ramp Removed Areas ASPEN LUMBERYARD 15CUSHING TERRELL Building 1- Garage Entry Alt. 1 • Lose 12 - 24 units (accommodate ramp & rework circulation) • Public Space reduced by 27% • Min. distance from Sage Way and Loop Road intersection • Steep incline on ramp will require snow melt • Interrupts pedestrian circulation, resulting in less safe conditions • Does not align with Design Guidelines in City of Aspen Municipal code for secondary facade and garage entry setback 30 Legend Revised Building Footprint Ramp Removed Areas ASPEN LUMBERYARD 16CUSHING TERRELL Building 1- Garage Entry Alt. 2 • Lose 16-20 units (accommodate ramp & rework circulation) • 15% Less Public Space • Minimum distance from loop road intersection • Disconnected Community Space (accommodate ramp & rework circulation) • Lose basement storage • Steep incline on ramp will require snow melt • Interrupts pedestrian circulation, resulting in less safe conditions • Does not align with Design Guidelines in City of Aspen Municipal code for secondary facade and garage entry setback 31 Legend Revised Building Footprint Ramp Removed Areas ASPEN LUMBERYARD 17CUSHING TERRELL Building 1 & 2 - Central Garage Entry • Adds 4th leg to intersection: Requires additional stop sign, resulting in increased queuing - CDOT & Engineering will not approve • 19% Less Public Space • Eliminates ground floor patios on north wing of Building 2 • Severs Bldg 2 access to Bldg 1 amenity spaces • Does not align with Design Guidelines in City of Aspen Municipal code for secondary facade and garage entry setback • Extensive earth work and retaining required at an additional cost • Affects entry presence and quiet enjoyment of central green space • Prioritizes cars over people 32 Legend Revised Building Footprint Ramp Removed Areas ASPEN LUMBERYARD 18CUSHING TERRELL Building 2- Alt. Garage Entry • Lose 16-24 units (accommodate ramp, resite building & rework circulation) • Minimum distance from loop road intersection • Interrupts pedestrian circulation, resulting in less safe conditions • Steep incline on ramp will require snow melt • Does not align with Design Guidelines in City of Aspen Municipal code for secondary facade and garage entry setback 33 MRA New Intersection Non-viable ConditionProposed Condition ASPEN LUMBERYARD 19CUSHING TERRELL Road Alignment • CDOT will not approve • Not a viable option for roadway alignment • Stacking requirement and intersection configuration not met Woodward Way MRA New Intersection 34 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 20CUSHING TERRELL Noise and Visual MitigationAspen 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 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 Airport Adjacency - Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 65 noise corridor Hwy 82 Adjacency - 60db and 65db line Formal Sound Study Noise ContoursDNL 65DNL 70DNL 75 35 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 21CUSHING TERRELL Building 1 36 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 22CUSHING TERRELL Building 2 37 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 23CUSHING TERRELL Building 3 38 65dbHUD Threshold(Acceptable Exterior Level) ASPEN LUMBERYARD 24CUSHING TERRELL Sound Levels & Mitigating Strategies How to affect sound transmission • Distance, altitude, temperature, wind and humidity all impact sound transmission • Walls, earth and trees may reduce transmission • Soft surfaces absorb sound (plantings, soil, grasses) • Hard surfaces reflect and deflect (concrete, asphalt) 39 Trail RealignmentProposed Condition at Building 1PROPERTY LINECDOT RIGHT-OF- WAY STREET PARKING TRAIL ASPEN LUMBERYARD 25CUSHING TERRELL • Trail realignment allows for berming and noise mitigation • Lose 10 parking spots (max removal to meet code requirements) • Losing 1,000 sf of snow storage • Cannot utilize CDOT right-of-way • Trail moved into site, along Sage Way Berming & Sound Reduction - Bldg. 1 40 10’ 12’ Varies PROPERTY LINECDOT RIGHT-OF- WAY ASPEN LUMBERYARD 26CUSHING TERRELL Berming Option 1 • Realign trail • Lose 8-10 parking spaces • 12 ft wide trail • 3:1 max slope • Max 4 ft stacked boulder retaining wall • 5 ft gap for planting • Approximately 10 ft high 41 6’ Varies 12’PROPERTY LINECDOT RIGHT-OF- WAY ASPEN LUMBERYARD 27CUSHING TERRELL Berming Option 2 • Realign trail • Lose 8-10 parking spaces • Allows for more rooting area • Lose 8-10 parking spaces • 12 ft wide trail • 3:1 max slope • Max 4 ft stacked boulder retaining wall • Approximately 6 ft high 42 10’ 10’ Varies PROPERTY LINECDOT RIGHT-OF- WAY 12’ ASPEN LUMBERYARD 28CUSHING TERRELL Berm with Sound Wall • Realign trail • Lose 8-10 parking spaces • Precedent • Approximately 20 ft high • Max 4 ft stacked boulder retaining wall 43 PROPERTY LINECDOT RIGHT-OF- WAY ASPEN LUMBERYARD 29CUSHING TERRELL Building 3 Carport Options • High cost (materials & irrigation) • 20-22 ft high • Special use permit needed for trail & plantings • CDOT will not give us an easement • No irrigation in right-of-way 44 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 30CUSHING TERRELL Building 3 Soundwall Option • 20-22 ft high • Option to add storage • Special use permit needed for trail & plantings/berm 45 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 31CUSHING TERRELL Green Facades • Not a viable option in Aspen climate • Irrigation and drainage, difficult and costly • Extremely High Maintenance • Fire fuel if not maintained • Requires removal of balconies on 50% of units • Only 6ft of balcony space, would need to reduce unit size to accommodate • Reduces high value occupiable outdoor space for residents • Increased cost to support additional weight - concrete and steel structure - both high carbon materials 6’-0” 22’-0” Bosco Verticale (cm to ft)Building 1 23’-0” 10’-10” 46 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 32CUSHING TERRELL Consensus Items Follow up from July 24th Session: Provide Flexibility in Unit Mix Provide Flexibility in Project Phasing Provide Flexibility in Building 3 Ownership Provide Flexibility in Allowing Commercial Use 47 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 33CUSHING TERRELL Consensus Items Proposed recommendation: • Keep the unit and income mix as proposed, but instead of stating “the unit and income mix shall be as follows”, instead state, “the recommended unit and income mix is as follows”. • Also add the following condition: Upon Council approval of contract(s) with development partner(s) for implementation of any or all phases of the project, the Community Development Director may approve modifications to the unit and income mix based on Council-approved contracts as an insubstantial PD amendment. • Modify any unit and income mix exhibits to include the following note, “The recommended unit and income mix is as follows and remains flexible. Final unit and income mix shall be based on Council approved agreements for implementation as resources allow.” Provide flexibility in unit mix by including a minimum number of each unit type 48 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 34CUSHING TERRELL Consensus Items Proposed recommendation: • As currently written, 10-year vested rights are included to accommodate development of the project as contemplated in 4 phases, but the four phases are not defined in a timeline in the ordinance nor in any submitted phasing plan exhibits. • Add notes to the phasing plan exhibits prior to PD recording to state, “The phasing plan remains flexible and shall be based on Council approved agreements for implementation as resources allow”. Provide project phasing flexibility 49 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 35CUSHING TERRELL Consensus Items Proposed recommendation: • Change, “The dwelling units in Building 3 shall be condominiumized and sold to APCHA qualified tenants within the first ten years of receiving a certificate of occupancy.” to instead state, “The dwelling units in Building 3 may be condominiumized and sold to APCHA qualified tenants after the first ten years of receiving a certificate of occupancy.” Building 3 “may be” condominiumized/ownership after 10 years, not “shall be” 50 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 36CUSHING TERRELL Consensus Items Proposed recommendation: • Add the following condition: Commercial use is allowed within the planned development and may be enacted only by Council approval of contract(s) with development partner(s) for implementation of any or all phases of the project, including any such commercial uses as specifically described in any Council-approved developer contracts. There are no commercial uses listed as Permitted Uses under the RMF zoning. Conditional uses listed in RMF include: (1)Arts, cultural and civic uses. (2)Academic uses.(3)Recreational uses.(4)Group home.(5)Child care center. Based on this it may be helpful to narrow the scope for Commercial use and define which commercial uses may be appropriate. Do you want to allow a Commercial Use as conditional use, need to debate possible location 51 COMMENTS & QUESTIONS 52 thank you.thank you. 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 105 Denver, CO 80203 720.359.1416 cushingterrell.com 53 Page 1 of 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Sara Ott, City Manager FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Development Project Manager THRU: Rob Schober, Capital Asset Director DATE OF MEMO: July 17, 2023 MEETING DATE: July 24, 2023 RE: Lumberyard Affordable Housing Development – Design Questions from June 6, 2023 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Information only. Staff is providing information about questions which were raised at the June 6 Lumberyard affordable housing development public hearing. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Aspen City Council is currently reviewing a planned development application for the Lumberyard affordable housing development. At the June 6 public hearing, Council decided to set up the July 24 work session, as project applicant, to review Lumberyard related questions. BACKGROUND: The extensive community outreach and Aspen City Council direction process for the Lumberyard affordable housing conceptual and schematic design processes occurred from 2019 through 2022. During that time there were five community outreach initiatives and nearly a dozen City Council work sessions which were used to evolve the project design throughout the process. During the lengthy process many details were reviewed, and as a result of the passage of time, many details may need to be discussed once again to in review. DISCUSSION: The design team heard many questions about the proposed project design at the June 6 Lumberyard affordable housing development public hearing. Many of those questions had longstanding answers which were part of the basis of design for the project as currently designed. Due to the format of the meeting on June 6, the design team did not have an opportunity to provide the responses and thus have scribed the questions as understood and provided responses below: 1. Why was that location chosen for the light? The 2012 CDoT Access Control Plan set the location for the signalized intersection. 2. Need more info on the CDoT access plan/relationship to airport plans The 2012 CDOT access control plan shows airport access via the light. The Lumberyard PD application includes implementation of the signal so that the airport has the option in the future to utilize the signal as part of their plan or to continue circulation as it is today. This provides significant flexibility for implementation. 3. Why is circulation to the garage entry at the rear of the site? The underground garage entries are designed to be at the rear of the site because City of Aspen design standards typically require garage entries be placed on secondary facades, and in this case, the building designs work with the existing site grades to minimize the ramp decline into the garages. Also, these particular parking garages are designed to facilitate underground vehicle 54 Page 2 of 5 storage, intended to be a sheltered place to store vehicles while predominantly using other modes of transit – bus or bicycle. Access at the rear of the site allows for the creation of pedestrian forward designs at the front of the neighborhood closest to multimodal transit. Trash pickup is typically considered a back of house operation, and in this case is facilitated by management staff porting trash from trash rooms on each floor of the building out to the trash shed for once daily pickup. See additional information below. 4. Need more info on trash access/removal The design team interviewed property managers in Aspen who operate facilities with similar building scale. The design team also engaged the services of a property management consulting expert to provide additional advice. Understanding existing best practices for buildings of this scale, the trash collection operation at the Lumberyard is designed to be handled as a managed service due to the scale of the facilities. Due to the scale of the buildings, the trash operations at the Lumberyard will be managed by property management. Tenants place their trash/compost/recycling in trash collection rooms located in each corridor on each wing of every building. Property management staff will collect trash/compost/recycling from the trash rooms and bring it to the appropriate waste-stream dumpsters located within appropriately sized wildlife-resistant trash enclosures. This will be done on every floor each day or two, depending upon need and staffing. The trash rooms will provide dumping bins for trash/compost/recycling, and the staff will wheel the bins to the elevator, down to the garage and outside where it will be transferred to the outdoor trash/compost/recycling enclosures for once daily pickup by trash/compost/recycling removal contractor(s). Sizing for the indoor trash rooms and outdoor trash enclosures has been coordinated with City Environmental Health Department staff as part of the Design Review process. 5. Need more info on stairs – central core circulation – will stairs feel open? Will corridors feel tight and dim? In addition to code required, life safety egress stairs, an open central stair is included in each building. The central location and visibility of the stair is designed to encourage stair use over elevator usage. The central stair is designed to be adjacent to common space to further encourage interaction and provides sources of natural light in addition to interior LED lighting. Corridors are designed to feel open and connected to exteriors, providing daylight and views. Corridors are designed with a minimum width of six feet to allow for comfortable passing, even with an armload of groceries. An inset at each entry door allows for a sense of place at each unit, similar to a hotel experience. 6. Are unit sizes allowed to be “up to”? As submitted, the Lumberyard PD application requests some flexibility around gross floor area, allowing up to a 2% increase in the maximum floor area limit. This provides developers with means and methods flexibility during implementation. The building designs, as submitted, fit the units together in a uniform, repeatable pattern that is design to maximize building efficiency, regardless of construction means and methods. If the planned development approval ordinance were to allow the units to vary in size, a designer could 55 Page 3 of 5 potentially re-engineer the units to fit together to form a building mass of very similar size and scale, although this would require a significant re-design effort. 7. Is there flexibility on the unit mix? Whether the planned development could allow for flexibility in the unit count is considered a separate matter, but as submitted, the unit mix is fixed, with a total of 277 units and 467 bedrooms, as follows: Building 1 (52) 1-bedroom units, (36) 2-bedroom units, (16) 3-bedroom units, (104) total units Building 2 (43) 1-bedroom units, (36) 2-bedroom units, (12) 3-bedroom units, (91) total units Building 3 (34) 1-bedroom units, (34) 2-bedroom units, (14) 3-bedroom units, (82) total units During the design process, the initial unit mix predominantly included studio and 1-bedroom units. However, the mix has been carefully studied and adjusted to incorporate findings from the demographic study and the community outreach process. Part of the honing process included the addition of many more 2-bedroom units and the elimination of all studio units at the request of Aspen City Council. Since the community outreach process suggested that up to a third of the units be for-sale, Council directed that the ownership portion of the project be included as the final phase of the implementation, due partly to the soon-available for-sale units at Burlingame Ranch Phase 3. During the late stage of the schematic design effort, Council prioritized the bedroom count over the total unit count and ultimately reduced the unit count from 310 to 277, but at the same time, maintained the bedroom count of 467 total bedrooms. In the end, the unit mix included in the project application provides 19 more bedrooms than the unit mix which was considered early in the schematic design process. 8. Why isn’t there a car share? The Transportation Impact Analysis which was submitted as part of the application suggested both bike- and car-share as potential trip mitigation alternatives. City of Aspen transportation staff did not recommend car share for the Lumberyard because the car share at the AABC is currently under-utilized. The project includes 436 parking spaces, and a car-share could very easily be included in the project if considered a significant source of trip mitigation. This could be done either immediately or later in the process if deemed necessary. This provides significant flexibility. 9. Why is there a pedestrian underpass if we have a stoplight? The trail crossing as it currently exists is very dangerous. Confusion and conflict between fast- moving e-bikes and cars entering and exiting the existing commercial operation at the site are common. Cars turning right off highway 82 into the Lumberyard driveway do not slow down enough prior to making the turn and crossing the trail. A traffic signal will not change this condition. Due to a community desire to implement best practices in terms of trail commuter safety, t he underpass has been recommended by City of Aspen Parks & Trails. There are two other similar underpasses nearby on the same trail, one at Harmony Road, which was implemented early in the process of developing housing at Burlingame Ranch, and once as Truscott, which was similarly implemented to facilitate safety related to golf course and Truscott housing automobile trips. 56 Page 4 of 5 Trail Connectivity and improvement of the AABC trail experience has been a programmatic requirement since the conceptual design process and was an input to the schematic design process, although alternatives were considered during schematic design. One schematic design trail routing alternative showed the trail running through the site rather than adjacent to highway 82. During Council discussions, this was deemed insufficient, and the Cushing Terrell design team was specifically directed to include the pedestrian underpass at the Aspen City Council work session for 75% schematic design on April 4, 2022. 10. Exterior lighting – haven’t seen a lighting plan in a while The lighting plan and proposed fixtures are included in the PD application and are re-iterated in today’s slide presentation. The street lighting plan, in terms of both electric infrastructure and fixture light poles, was discussed at length with City of Aspen electric utility staff and will utilize the standard City of Aspen classic style of street light posts. 11. Looking for the green berming between the highway and the building There are three strategies employed to block sound and visual impacts between the project and highway 82. On the up-valley end of the highway frontage, carports with built-in storage will provide a 10- to 12foot talk acoustic and visual buffer from the highway. Roughly in the center of the site, the Mountain Rescue building provides similar mitigation. Toward the down-valley end of the highway frontage, there is some space for berming, which will be used, but the amount of space available between the project frontage and the CDoT Right of Way (ROW) becomes very limited in this area. For high speed vehicular safety, CDoT has strict guidelines for their Right of Way (ROW) and does not allow berming in their ROW. And where no space is available for berming, the design incorporates many, very dense tree plantings which will not only provide the desired noise and visual mitigation, but which will also facilitate significant levels of natural shading and air filtration. 12. Looking for a second level on the carports This was ruled out during Council work sessions as a realistic possibility during the schematic design process. Although perhaps possible many years ago, with today’s building codes which require fire separation of varying uses, and accessibility limitations were also cited as an additional non-starter. 13. Overall height/massing/density Although the current design is agnostic to construction means and methods, the current design accommodates modular construction as a possibility. Because of the floor and ceiling assembly details used in modular, the floor to floor height clearance has been designed at a maximum and could be reduce if modular construction were to be ruled out. A stick built approach and reduction in ceiling height could lower the overall project height by 10-12%. Further reduction in height results in a reduction of unit count. After reviewing an alternate scheme on April 4th called “elbow room” where the 4th floor units of buildings 1 and 3 fronting 82 were removed to effectively reduce the overall height. Council directed the design team to add the 4th floor units back into the plan, because ultimately the Elbow Room Scheme’s proposed 266 units was too great a reduction from the target 310 units. 57 Page 5 of 5 14. Are there other opportunities to reduce the height of the solar panels? The solar panels are currently designed to be a s low as possible while also providing extremely valuable shelter for the nearly 300 heat pump outdoor units which are used for high-efficiency heating. Without such shelter, the outdoor units would be exposed to snow and ice and would require an even higher maintenance regiment as compared to the already-planned significant maintenance regime. The sustainability goals were designed with the help of the City of Aspen Environmental Health climate action staff and are a result of goals outlined in the City of Aspen climate action plan. The design team has stated many time that this project is designed to be implemented in coming years, while the team also reviewed with Council the project in Breckenridge, Alta Vista II, now nearing construction completion, which is a 100% net zero facility which utilizes a significant solar panel installation. At the time, Aspen City Council discussed a goal to maintain a leadership position in this space, which would not be realistic if the sustainability goals were to be reduced. That said, lowering or eliminating the sustainability goals could allow for the elimination of the solar panels and heat pumps altogether. Removing the solar would require a redesign of the recommended HVAC system which could potentially lead to lower energy performance or higher cost to hit same targets. Not meeting the 75% NZE goal in support of Climate Action Plan which could have a notable impact on the COA’s GHG reduction targets. (47% reduction in GHG by 2030). Aspen Electric may need to purchase additional RECs to keep 100% Renewable Goal. Removing the sustainability goals would undermine one of the top “must-haves” heard in the community outreach process. When presented with trade-offs, community feedback from both prospective and non-prospective residents rated Net Zero buildings as the second highest priority out of 9 choices. Energy reduction is important to the Aspen community. 15. Why is this stick built and not prefabricated? The current design is flexible to be either stick built or modular or panelized (or other). The current design is based on modular parameters because they require the most space/are the most limiting. The PD application allows for flexibility to implement as stick built, modular or prefab panels. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Discussed separately RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information only: Staff is providing Council with information. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Presentation Slides 58 ASPEN LUMBERYARD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION I July 24, 2023 59 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 2CUSHING TERRELL RESPOND TO DESIGN QUESTIONS FROM JUNE COUNCIL HEARINGS TODAYS TOPICS 60 Figure C - Hwy 82 Access Control Plan Figure C - Hwy 82 Access Control Plan ASPEN LUMBERYARD 3CUSHING TERRELL CDOT Access Control Plan Figure C - Hwy 82 Access Control Plan Project Location 61 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 4CUSHING TERRELL CDOT Access Control Plan • Intergovernmental Agreement Adopted in 2012 • “...Purpose of the ACP is to provide greater safety for the traveling public, more effi cient highway operations and to bring the corridor into compliance...” • “Any request for amendment of the Access Control Plan must be submitted and agreed upon by the affected jurisdictions...” • An amendment request needs to include: Description of changes, Justifi cation for Amendment, & Traffi c Impact Study or analysis 62 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 5CUSHING TERRELL Parking and Circulation KEY Two-Way Road PUD ParcelSignalized Intersection Eliminated Intersection Garage Entrance Raised Pedestrian Zone Trash Enclosure RFTA Bus Stop Firetruck Turnaround Loading & Drop-Off Bldg 1Airport Business CenterHwy 82 M.R.A Bldg 2 Bldg 3 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 6CUSHING TERRELL Parking and Circulation Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 3 HEIGHT TO FINISHED FLOOR = 12’ - 6” APPROXIMATE EDGE OF DRIVE AISLE / START OF RAMP APPROX. 7776 HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR = 11’ HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR = 11’ HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR = 11’ HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR = 11’ PARAPET HEIGHT = 5’ TOP OF ROOF PROJECTIONS FROM TOP OF PARAPET = 7’ TOP OF SOLAR PANELS ABOVE TOP OF PARAPET = 15’ MAX HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR TO TOP OF PARAPET = 49’ Design Standards • All garages are accessed from public streets • All garage entries are placed on secondary facades • All garage entries have a minimum 30ft setback from the street, minimizing view from the street 64 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 7CUSHING TERRELL Trash Enclosures & Removal • Centrally located trash rooms 150ft or less from elevators • Trash will be a managed service • Trash, Compost & Recycling pick up 3x per week • Enclosures located at rear of site, away from pedestrian areas • Meet space requirements (sec 12.10.050 (a)(3)) • Building 1 required 300sf/provided 368sf • Building 2 required 300sf/provided 368sf • Building 3 required 150 sf/provided 380sf • Meets the defi nition of a wildlife-resistant dumpster enclosure (sec. 12.08.010) ASPEN LUMBERYARD 8CUSHING TERRELL Stairs & Circulation Corridors • Natural daylight and views • 6ft wide • Comfortable width to pass with an armload of groceries • Insets at entry doors to create a sense of place • Communal spaces for incidental interaction Stairs • Inviting with softer materials, natural light • Adjacent to common space • Placement and design encourage use of stairs over elevator 66 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 9CUSHING TERRELL Stairs & Circulation Each building has an open, primary stair to the second fl oor 67 1-bed Modules L1 B1 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 10CUSHING TERRELL Unit Size and Flexibility Unit Size • Effi cient not excessive • Aligns with APCHA guidelines • Can be stick built or prefab • Modular design makes for faster construction • PD includes 2% increase allowance for maximum limit Gross Floor Area 2-bed Modules L2 B2 B3 3-bed Modules L3-A L3-B B4 B2 B3 2-BED 2-BED 2-BED 2-BED 3-BED1-BED 1-BED 1-BED TRASH Example from Building 2 68 • Final mixed based on community feedback - more 2-bed, no studios • For sale units based on community feedback • Income mix based on market research and community need • Income mix and rental fees are fl exible • Unit size aligns with APCHA guidelines • Provide ‘Elbow Room’ on site • Prioritize occupant count versus unit count ! "!#$%& ’#()*$%&+ +,-.%&+ /+,--0 /+,--11 1 ,-&1 //1/ ASPEN LUMBERYARD 11CUSHING TERRELL Unit Mix & Count 69 KEY BUILDING 1 84 GARAGE PA R K I N G S P A C E S 65 GARAGE PARKING SPACES 69 GARAGE PARKING SPACES FUTURE PHASE PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 3 104 TOTAL PARKING SPACES 84 GARAGE 20 CARPORT 82 TOTAL PARKING SPACES 69 GARAGE 13 CARPORT 91 TOTAL PARKING SPACES 65 GARAGE 26 CARPORT LOADING ACES - TWO PER BUILDING)PARKING ACE = 129 ACES = 212 ACES = 84 TOTAL PARKING REQUIREMENT = 425 PARKING SPACES TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: ACE ASSIGNED PER UNIT TO BUILDING 1 = 104 SPACES TO BUILDING 2 = 91 SPACES TO BUILDING 3 = 82 SPACES LOADING = 6 SPACES ACES TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED = 435 PARKING SPACES SPACES) VISITOR AND RESIDENT PARKING TO BE MANAGED BY THE PROPERTY MANAGER ACES) KEY Multi-Use Trail RFTA Bus Stop Shared Bike Lane WeCycle Station Underpass Bike Parking 5 - 6’ Sidewalk Community PlazaRaised Pedestrian Zone Building Entrance PUD Parcel Typical Street Light Typical Landscape Path Lights All lighting to meet City of Aspen Standards. KEY Bldg 1 Airport Business CenterHwy 82 Bldg 2 Bldg 3 M.R.A ASPEN LUMBERYARD 14CUSHING TERRELL Exterior Lighting D:\Dropbox (Connect One Design)\C1D SERVER\C1D PROJECTS\453-Lumberyard AH\Source Data\Architect\ASPEN_LMBRYD_BLDG3arch21_paul_g NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - PRELIMINARY DESIGNSIONS 5/24/2022 8:25:09 AM 10/28/2022 © 2022 | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED LANDSCAPE CHARACTER PLAN SET GNED BY | Designer | Author ASPEN LUMBERYARD AFFORDABLE HOUSINGCITY OF ASPEN Project# ASPEN_LMBRYD | L:\ # | ASPEN_LMBRYDPLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONLIGHTING CUTSHEETS L.LIGHT2 STREET LIGHT PATH LIGHT Fixtures (included in PD) Street Path 72 PARKINGCONNECTION TO LOWER UNITS6’ SIDEWALK5’ TREE ISLAND6’ PARALLEL PARKING23’ STREETCARPORT WITH STORAGE10’ WIDE M.U. TRAILHWY - 82ASPEN LUMBERYARD 15CUSHING TERRELL Highway Adjacency Section Cut 73 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 16CUSHING TERRELL Building 3 From Highway 82 Highway Adjacency 74 Bldg 1 Airport Business CenterHwy 82 Bldg 2 Bldg 3 M.R.A ASPEN LUMBERYARD 17CUSHING TERRELL Site Density 75 Overall Height • Worst-case senairo based on how building height is measures (fi nished grade not fi nished fl oor) • Height in PD is max - many areas on site are lower • Flexible based on building method and fi nal ceiling height Solar Panels • Solar panels positioned for maximum collection • Panels provide protection for roof-top heat pump units • Panel projections provide shade for units and divert snow and ice away from building • Any changes in solar array will signifi cantly impact project sustainability goals and mechanical strategies PARKING = 7772.5 1ST FLOOR = 7783 2ND FLOOR 3RD FLOOR 4TH FLOOR HEIGHT TO FINISHED FLOOR = 12’ - 6” APPROXIMATE EDGE OF DRIVE AISLE / START OF RAMP APPROX. 7776 HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR = 11’ HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR = 11’ HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR = 11’ HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR = 11’ PARAPET HEIGHT = 5’ TOP OF ROOF PROJECTIONS FROM TOP OF PARAPET = 7’ TOP OF SOLAR PANELS ABOVE TOP OF PARAPET = 15’ MAX HEIGHT FROM FINISHED FLOOR TO TOP OF PARAPET = 49’ ROOF PROJECTIONS ASPEN LUMBERYARD 18CUSHING TERRELL Building Height - PD 76 53’40’49’36’ ASPEN LUMBERYARD 19CUSHING TERRELL Building Height History 77 Animation can be viewed here: https://vimeo.com/694198688/8c3a26cd94 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 20CUSHING TERRELL From Highway 82 Building Height History 78 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 21CUSHING TERRELL Building Height - PD Minimal difference (<3’) from FFE to adjacent grade 59% of perimeter Moderate difference (3’–<6’) from FFE to adjacent grade 28% of perimeter Large difference (6’–12’-6”) from FFE to adjacent grade (near below grade garage entries) 13% of perimeter 79 COMMENTS & QUESTIONS 80 thank you. 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 105 Denver, CO 80203 720.359.1416 cushingterrell.com 81