HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20100817ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2010
4:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
4:00 P.M. Executive Session
5:00 P.M. Work Session — Council goals Review; Burlingame Design
Update.
.1
THE CrrY of ASPEN
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
FROM: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
DATE: August 12, 2010
DATE OF COUNCIL
MEETING: August 17, 2010
RE: Top Ten Goals FINAL DRAFTING
SUMMARY:
Council has recently conducted their annual planning retreat to discuss and determine their Top Ten
Goals for the coming year. This year's plan will cover the time period from August 2010 to the end
of May 2011. The attached is the current draft of the goals — with suggested changes (made by goal
champions) for Council to consider.
DISCUSSION:
At the Worksession of August 17th, we will present the draft goals for the coming period and work
to finalize the language of those goals. We want to complete goal drafting to that goal champions
can proceed to establish quarterly milestones that lead to successful completion of the Council's
goals and can begin to construct Monthly action plans.
RECOMIIIENDATION:
Approve final goal language.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Various goals will have budget implications and those items will be brought to you for your
consideration — either during the Fall budget development process for FY 2011 or as demands
require.
City Council Top Ten Goals
2010-2011 6
DRAFT THE CITY OF ASPEN
Annual Plan
August 2010 - July 2011
Leadership Team 2010/2011 BEST YEAR YETI®
LEADERSHIP TEAM GUIDELINES
Identify and deliver broader community will
Make the process fit the problem
Demonstrate devotion to results
CITY COUNCIL TEAM GUIDELINES
Stick to top priorities
Foster a safe, supportive, innovative environment that encourages creativity
and acceptable risk -taking
Demonstrate and invite active listening.
NEW PARADIGM or VISION
We are confident and trusted because we are known to consistently deliver great
results.
MAJOR FOCUS
Environmental Stewardship
Or Community Decision -Making
Or Sustainability
TOP TEN GOALS
1. 100 residents, businesses, or city departments will make significant reductions
(define) in their environmental footprint; at least 50 will be reductions (define)
in energy use.
Champion: Phil & Lee
2. Ensure 2010 Aspen Area Community Plan is thorough, timely and reflects
community vision and priorities through delivery of draft to City Council by Sept
Oct. 15`h, input from community by 8etebeF November 31s` and initiating
CC/BOCC hearings by Nev. Jan 151h
pregfafrsiH 2911 2012. Budget for potential code amendments in 2011.
Champion: Chris Bendon
3' seerpapeFBy end of
September, Council will conduct worksessions to provide direction on policy
changes/amendments to Ord 48. Staff will draft code amendments by end of
2010 and draft an adoption schedule for Council to review.
Champion: Chris Bendon
4. Use City stimulus funding to leverage local investment in events that will
produce proven "heads in beds" and/or will help to "enhance" the Aspen guest
experience.
Champion: Don Taylor, Barry Crook & Jeff Woods
5. In order to better promote regional thinking and cooperation, organize and host
at least two elected officials (TOSV, COA, BOCC) social events (Ski days, picnics,
etc) geared towards building social capital and stimulating better dialogue
among members of the EOTC.
Champion: Steve Barwick
6. By February 2011 prepare development plans (Detail Design Documents, GMP
contract, partnership agreements, construction phasing, financing plan, and
community outreach/education) that will be necessary for a Burlingame bond
issue vote.
Champion: Barry Crook & Scott Miller & Don Taylor
7 define the future
of Rubey Park by April 2011.
Champion: Randy Ready
8. Have a binding ballot question seeking approval for a 3rd reversible lane solution
to the Entrance to Aspen for the November 2011 election.
Champion: Randy Ready
9. Assess the potential, need and cost to provide additional services electronically
to our customers/citizens/employees to the same extent as we do "in person."
Champion: Sally Spaulding, Barry Crook, Don Taylor & Karen Harrington
10. Develop a Total Compensation Plan by May 31, 2011 that outlines the City's
approach to compensation — including wages, benefits, medical/dental coverage,
and housing benefits. Determine which elements are seen by employees as
conveying the most benefit and are best effective in attracting and retaining the
highly skilled workforce we need as an organization.
Champion: Alissa, Don, Kathryn, Barry & Scott
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
DATE OF MEMO:
MEETING DATE:
RE:
THE CITY of ASPEN
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director
August 13, 2010
August 17, 2010
Burlingame Phase II Design: 50% Detail Design Update
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Update only. Feedback and direction welcome.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On July 12, 2010, City Council formalized conceptual
approval of major elements of the design including density and unit mix, building configurations,
land utilization, parking and storage, relationships and connections to phase 1, architectural
massing, height, scale and general character.
BACKGROUND: The Burlingame Phase II Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) design team was
assembled in March 2010 and has completed a rigorous and inclusive public outreach effort to
gather input from the community for the design of affordable housing at Burlingame Ranch
Phase II. The design team has provided updates to Council on the progress of the IPD design
effort at the both the Conceptualization and Criteria Design phases of the IPD design effort. The
memo and exhibits presented herein are an update at the 50% Detail Design phase of the IPD
design effort. The design effort has experienced some schedule slippage from the originally
outlined schedule in the April 5, 2010 update to City Council which aimed to deliver 100%
Detail Design and a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) to Council by August 17, 2010. The
revised/current schedule would allow the IPD design team to present those same deliverables to
Council on October 5, 2010.
DISCUSSION: The 50% Detail Design update will focus on the following 6 areas:
1. Unit floor plans: rationale/process & current designs
2. Site landscape and unit owner patio areas
3. Continued evolution of architectural character
4. Public safety related to roof design and snow drop
5. Design team recommendation on mechanical systems
6. Construction phasing scope related to GMP delivery to Council
1) Unit floor plans• rationale/process & current desians
At the May 17, 2010 City Council work session, Council reviewed the preliminary floor plans at
which time the design team committed to further vetting the preliminary floor plans at the then
Page 1 of 7
THE CITY of ASPEN
scheduled June 10, 2010 Burlingame HOA Open House and the June 17, 2010 Community Open
House. As promised, the design team presented the preliminary floor plans at those outreach
events (which were attended in total by approximately 100 members of the public), and recorded
37 comments related to the preliminary unit floor plans (between the two meetings, there were
about 105 comments recorded in total).
Based on the feedback received, the design team has incorporated improvements to the floor
plans where it appeared possible to balance the competing priorities of livability, project costs
and total cost of ownership for housing unit owners.
Some of the improvements in the current designs include:
❖ Master suites designed for privacy
❖ More usable storage and utility room
❖ Storage/utility room doubles as pantry/coat room
❖ Opportunities for customizable shelving in storage rooms
❖ No plumbing on exterior walls
❖ Full closets in secondary bedrooms
❖ Full counter at master baths
Less wasted circulation space / more efficient plans
❖ Lower level windows added for light and cross ventilation
•:• Master suite walk-thru closets
❖ More secondary bathrooms
More efficient stairs in townhome units
❖ Kitchens and storage made to be more convenient and efficient
Full kitchens instead of galley kitchens in townhome units
❖ Bedrooms separated by I floor vs. 2 floors in townhome units
Larger decks where marginal cost increase is minimal
Please see the attached exhibit for current 50% Detail Design unit plans.
2) Site landscape and unit owner patio areas
The 50% Detail Design site landscape plan can be seen in the attached exhibit. The landscape
plan has evolved as an extension of the overall master plan and is intended to maximize the
opportunity for a lush, vibrant open space experience for the community. Although the grades on
the sloping site are a challenge, they are utilized to maximize the character of the site's internal
open space and to interact in harmony with the grand open spaces surrounding the site. The
integration of public parks internal to the site additionally accomplishes this goal. The
community members currently living at Burlingame have overwhelmingly requested that more
sodded areas be incorporated near the housing units and the native landscape be held toward the
outer portions of the site. The use of boulder walls, trees and shrubs additionally enhance the
authentic ranch experience that is anticipated in the design of the phase II landscape. Special care
has been taken to provide connection and positive integration at the phase I / phase 11 boundary.
Page 2 of 7
7Lj
THE CITY OF ASPEN
The competing needs of providing a highly livable community while striving to keep future
maintenance costs as low as possible have required a great deal of attention to snow removal and
snow storage, roof designs and snow drop zones, stormwater management infrastructure, larger
sodded areas for bulk landscaping (as opposed to small, broken up areas that require more
detailed landscaping effort), trash facilities and more. The incorporation of the water re -use line
will help keep future irrigation costs down as well. All of these efforts are being made with not
only future maintenance costs in mind, but also while paying attention to initial costs as well.
Throughout the design team's rigorous public outreach effort, there has consistently been a voice
in the community requesting a connection form the housing units to the surrounding land. Phase I
incorporated small patios, but provided little opportunity for owner customization to their
connection with the land. The 50% Detail Design landscape plan provides larger patio areas
which can be seen in the attached exhibit. The design team has had extensive healthy debate
about whether or not some of the land surrounding the patios should be fenced in to provide a
more private connection to the earth and open space. In meeting with property managers at
multiple housing facilities, it was suggested, rather, that a small plot of land surrounding the
patios be incorporated as a limited common element without fencing because, while some
owners may choose to meticulously manicure their space, others may choose not to and the result
could be some unruly areas that the HOA would struggle to maintain due to the fenced
boundaries. Because of this significant maintenance issue, the design team has again decided to
remain as flexible as possible by incorporating the limited common element space as suggested,
but by demarcating the space with only a few small pavers embedded into the sod (which can be
mowed right over). In addition, the design team intends to establish a design standard for fencing
that the HOA may approve on a case by case basis for future owner upgrades. These design
measures will provide owners with a direct understanding of the land area that they have the
opportunity to customize with HOA approval, but will balance that opportunity with concerns
about landscaping challenges and costs for the HOA.
3) Continued evolution of architectural character
Since Council's conceptual approval of the massing and architectural character of the proposed
phase II buildings, there have been some modifications to unit designs (to accommodate
community feedback), roof designs (for snow drop safety) and facilities such as utility meter
locations, water feeds, shut off closets, etc. The modifications have resulted in some minor
changes to the architectural character, and the attached exhibit illustrates the current state of the
architectural character at the 50% Detail Design phase. It is anticipated that these minor
modifications will be barely noticeable as compared to the character sketches that the Council
conceptually approved, but the differences can be seen largely in the roof designs.
4) Public safety related to roof design and snow drop
The aforementioned roof design modifications were made almost entirely with detailed attention
to snow drop zones. In order to keep future maintenance costs down, it is important to avoid
adding elements such as snow fences, gutters, downspouts and heat tape as these elements tend to
get destroyed season after season and need constant maintenance, and heat tape is significantly
expensive to operate. Instead, the design team has taken direction from both lessons learned from
Page 3 of 7
0
THE GrY or ASPEN
other affordable housing developments as well as from design experts to utilize cold roof designs
that are intended to eliminate ice damning (a significant challenge at many facilities) to the
fullest extent possible. Special care has been taken to slope roofs away from pedestrian
approaches to units, and in many cases pedestrian walkways locations have been customized to
remain a safe minimum distance away from snow drop zones. Design attention to these simple
public safety concerns is surprisingly absent from many designs in alpine environments, but has
been a hammered into the design team as a major priority by City staff.
Given the competing priorities of public safety and maintenance related to snow drop as
compared to roof designs that prioritize expansive southern exposures for the incorporation large
solar panel arrays, the design team has made considerable effort to prioritize first public safety
and second availed some roof areas that can be used for the potential incorporation of solar
thermal panels for domestic hot water preheat — but although the opportunity exists for solar
panels on the roofs, the locations are specific and limited. This will be further discussed in the
next section.
5) Design team recommendation on mechanical systems
The design team has committed to Council to provide building systems that meet or better the
energy savings that was achieved in phase I. Since the Conceptualization phase of the IPD design
effort, the design team has been working diligently on a detailed analysis of energy savings
measures and mechanical systems opportunities for Burlingame Phase II. A wide range of
considerations have been incorporated into the recommendation herein, such as lessons learned
from phase I, lessons learned at other affordable housing facilities, input and feedback from other
property managers, input and feedback from HOA's and property managers. This has led the
design team to consider not only first cost to the project but also to consider total cost of
ownership and maintenance costs. Like Phase I, the City has consulted with Building Science
Corporation to make recommendations on energy savings measures consistent with the Building
America program. Building Science has advised the team that the best possible investment that
can be made for energy savings is a highly efficient building enclosure that minimizes air
infiltration and heating loads. To substantiate this with an example, LEED also prioritizes
elements such as superior wall assembly construction by awarding points for those investments
heavily over add-ons such as the inclusion of solar facilities. Heeding this advice, the design
team has designed the foundation, wall, ceiling and roof assemblies with significant
improvements over the minimum 2009 IBC building code requirements. These superior
construction assemblies have significantly reduced the necessary heating loads required by the
housing units enclosed within the buildings. The point of this is to minimize the amount of
energy needed to support the housing units, rather than focusing on generating additional energy
— although energy generation is also considered in the recommendation that follows.
The IPD team has studied the Phase II buildings to determine the best fuel source for the project.
Three fuel sources were identified as viable:
1. Electric
2. Natural Gas
I Ground Source Heat Pump
Page 4 of 7
Mu
THE Crry op ASPEN
Each fuel source has pros and cons, but each source also allows the project to meet or exceed the
modeled energy use for phase I. Given the previously mentioned design attention to the building
enclosures, the required heat loads represent less than 20% of the entire energy consumption of
the dwelling units, leaving domestic hot water as the largest remaining energy consumption area
at almost 50% of the overall projected energy consumption — thus additional focus of the energy
modeling analysis and recommendation has been on reducing the impact of domestic hot water
energy consumption where the biggest impact can be made.
The annual projected utility bills for Phase II by fuel source at current utility rates breaks down as
follows.
$800
$700
$600
$500
u
a
m
c $400
w
;
C
< $300
$200
$10C
$C
Annual Energy Cost Comparison (by Fuel)
(1) Elearic (2) Gas (3) GSMP
Mural Gas
Pleatdcity
The ground source heat pump option under performs due to the low space heating load, and high
domestic hot water load as a percentage of energy consumption in the units. On average, the
natural gas option saves $253 per unit per year when compared to the electric fuel source, and
$162 per unit per year when compared to the ground source heat pump option.
The Burlingame Phase II IPD team recommends natural gas as the fuel source for the project, for
the following reasons:
❖ Can be designed as a non -central system which will provide easy maintenance, simple
billing and individual incentive to reduce consumption
❖ A diversity of fuel sources can protect homeowners from utility cost fluctuations
❖ While it costs more to install than the electric alternative, there is a stigma to electric
systems in the market, and gas will save the average homeowner annually on energy costs
to the level of over $42,000 per year for the entire phase II project (based on computer
modeling)
Page 5 of 7
THE CITY of ASPEN
❖ The GSHP system is an elegant solution, but has a very expensive first cost, is complex to
maintain (significant HOA commitment), and billing each unit for their consumption is
difficult. Additionally, because of the DHW load, it is more costly to operate annually.
The design team has vetted this recommendation with the City of Aspen utilities department and
there is consensus among all groups involved that this is the right recommendation.
Although the current design direction does not include the cost and specific designs for solar
options to be incorporated into the upcoming 100% Detail Design, the design team additionally
recommends that the 100% Detail Design should be "solar -ready" to incorporate design elements
that will provide the opportunity for the potential inclusion of solar thermal hot water preheat and
solar PN add-ons that could further save homeowner energy costs — given the opportunity for
funding of those systems via grants from the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE)
as well as potential grants from other sources.
6) Construction phasing scone related to GMP delivery to Council
In considering phasing options for Phase II, the design team has recognized the following issues
related to phasing:
❖ Phasing of unit deliveries is not only a physical challenge
❖ Construction efficiency is desirable to keep costs down
Financial constraints must be considered
Care must be taken to avoid flooding the market (demand concerns)
It is desirable to minimize impacts to the neighborhood
Flexibility is desirable in case of external forces
If implementation must stop, a livable community must remain
Need to establish a range of possible phasing opportunities
❖ Individual phasing scenarios may be good at addressing some priorities, but not all
❖ A wide range of options should be considered, but only 1 will prevail
In an effort to establish a range of viable phasing options, the attached exhibit considers options
ranging from an expedited schedule that prioritizes construction efficiency which may achieve
the greatest cost efficiency to a slower, more careful approach that emphasizes flexibility, risk
mitigation but inherently causes higher costs due to a loss of construction efficiency.
The range of options presented herein considers, at the expedited end of the scale, a 3 year
implementation approach and at the slower, more careful end of the scale, a 5 year
implementation plan. Please review the attached exhibit for a detailed description of each option
as well as the pros and cons of each approach. This range of options is currently being studied in
detail by the design team and relates directly to how the guaranteed maximum price (GMP) will
be delivered to City Council. Additional feedback and direction is of course welcome so that the
delivery of the GMP may be customized to suit the needs of the community.
Page 6 of 7
07
THE CITY OF ASPEN
FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: When the design team was contracted earlier in 2010,
City Council requested that the design consultants' contracts be phased in order to provide the
opportunity to measure 2010 actual revenues against the need to move forward with the balance
of the design effort. Toward this goal, the design team was contracted through 100% Detail
Design and would need to be additionally contracted for the Implementation Documents phase of
the IPD design effort. Based on actual 2010 revenues received to date, recent forecasts for the
150 Fund estimate that 2010 revenues will be in excess of $10 million while projected
expenditures outweigh projected revenues at just over $12 million, with a projected ending
balance of over $1 million. While the Burlingame Phase II IPD design effort is only a subset of
the overall 150 Fund, the table below shows costs and encumbrances to date for the Burlingame
Phase II IPD design effort as well as anticipated costs for the Implementation Documents phase
of the design effort. If, when asked, City Council were to approve going forward with the
Implementation Documents phase of the design effort, the projected ending balance shown below
could be added to the aforementioned projected ending balance of the 150 Fund for 2010.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Please review the above section on mechanical systems.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Feedback and direction welcome
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: PowerPoint Presentation
Page 7 of 7
m
ss
o.
i
0
E
m
w c
m0�L �
~U C
CD
Q
L
a)
Fal
Z)
c
0
0
0
Ln
0
.N
�
CD
0
c
N
_
C)
I**-
r
0
U
�
Q
V
W
L
u
t+
Q
:.i
c
o c
N 'a
L �
0 O
v c
c w
0
0
U
o L
�
o O.�
N m
N E
� 3
O
c —
.x
D
c
.+,
.N
M
a�
0
0
c
c�
CD
_c
Y
L
a
+S
0)
s
c
�- N M to cc
0
0
w
L
�' N M q N CO
C
:■
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4
CD
E
0
c
0
Fm
E
0
0
L
MID
ca
N
i.
0
0
iz
I
L-i
OF
i
Z
Q
w
=
Y
�
m
m
a
0
0
N
m
7
m
7
0.
L
O
O
i 40
0
^^O
CL
U
r� 1
C
�N
d
m
N Co
Ri
0. O
v
C
N
c
^, m
W Q
E
m
C
,L
M�
W
r
rn
la
a
13
O
CL
W
A
`,
� l
� n
7
Y
T •v
b
i
Ir.
0
c
� C
c° r
N _
ro �
E�
2
C.
c
3G
m -
,.^ D
+ c
ro
u
0
ro
w
v C
to
ro G
�3
ro
pSj C
2 N
ro
di —to
r d
b e3
N
EUI (ketu/sq. ft.syr)
0 o g co
�l
V•
17
W
0
c
•�
�
N
�
0
tN
0
CL
n/ J
LL 01
J
Q
0
�-Nxp
UQ
QW
v`
0
w
Annual Energy Cast
w A �
0 0 0
0 0
c
� d
n
ti
n G
G
N
N
A
0
>+
O
r
O
r p
N
"O
d
C
O
O
V
C1
>� L L
f0
N
fa
Q
cC
N .O
d
O
3
p
in
s
J
O
i
r
Q.
r
Q
O
X
C.)
�
LQ-ao
=
y-I.-c o cv
L
•-
0m
o�_aQ.-0
■
N
•:
m
O
A
W^
WL
.0
0o
o
s
Wl-
O
d
O
'O
C s
X
Q�
a)L
.0
L
�r•r
N
O
�
N
C
N
r
N
r
W
d
r
N -0
d
U
�
y0,
�_
d
()
L
L)
o
Q
.�
fC
Q
t1,
cd
Os
tM
C.
d>
O
-a
.0
.2)
d
E=
C
E
J
U=
E
CU
d
U
O
J
cC
w-
in
C.
S
y;
.0
CD
O
O
1
O O fD '► _
O O
r
cD
?
N z7
�o(D
_.
cn
1
1
m c
I �'
D
Z
o
to N n
= P■F
r+
rn O
CD
0
rMI
-h
Q
°
3
y cD
_rt
c
c
.4
'
V A�
a)
(D
n
a)
cD
0
o
Q
1
<D
7
fD
3 W N al
—■
N
c
M
cn
m
m
0 CD
to
Z
O
(D
r (D
r _-
■■ o
•J
1
ca
C
CD
cn
n
CD
z 0 0
w 0 N
Z
T
V)
VJ
a1 O N i
/V
0 npo
cn
ch
go
N N
0
CD
.
O
'
N
c�D
w
n'
�
v
cnv
N
Q
v
m m
3 Q v cn CD
m
D
3
e■t :,
�■ . {•..
Iq
=
1
cD
CD
lD
a% O O -r Q
;
ILI
y
3o
1
�0CD
m
"
0D-%DD00r
fD
3
3 cn
D
.w
i
a�
co
cn
a)
w
co w"
cn v co X, -�
Z
O
3
c
3
c
3 O O c
��
m�
.c`,
N
N
Q
7
CCE'