Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.202204041 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION April 4, 2022 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS TO JOIN ONLINE: Go to www.webex.com and click on "Join a Meeting" Enter Meeting Number: 2558 006 3307 Enter Password: 81611 Click "Join Meeting" -- OR -- JOIN BY PHONE Call: 1-408-418-9388 Enter Meeting Number: 2558 006 3307 Enter Password: 81611 I.WORK SESSION I.A.Housing - Council Goal: Lumberyard Affordable Housing Design Process Update 1 Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager THROUGH: Rob Schober, Capital Asset Director MEMO DATE: April 1, 2022 MEETING DATE: April 4, 2022 RE: Continued from March 21, Work Session - Lumberyard Schematic Design Update #4: 75% Schematic Design SUMMARY: Update since March 21: At the March 21, 2022 Aspen City Council work session, an Internet outage caused the discussion to be cut short. This work session is a continuation of the March 21 work session discussion. This memo has been updated since March 21, with updates noted with formatting as shown in this paragraph. The Lumberyard affordable housing schematic design has been further developed based on City Council direction from the work session on February 14, 2022. The project team will present the 75% schematic design for the Lumberyard affordable housing project with 310 affordable housing units. The team will also present a recommended alternate 75% schematic design plan with a reduced unit count. BACKGROUND: Below is a summary of design updates to City Council. Aspen City Council design updates - Conceptual Design Process 2019-2020 November 18, 2019: Team presented community outreach #1 results and “density heat maps”. Council directed team to present design alternatives at community gatherings in early 2020. March 2, 2020: Team presented community outreach #2 results. Council directed team to advance conceptual studies with unit counts from 140 to 500+ units, traffic impact analysis, municipal code for parking maximums, advance childcare, discontinue lumberyard option, perform air and noise testing. July 6, 2020: Team introduced five massing studies, Concept 1 High 450 units, Concept 1 Low 216 units, Concept 2 High 450 units, Concept 2 Low 217 units, Concept 2 co-living 501 units. Council directed team toward an overall unit count of 300+ units. October 26, 2020: Team presented preliminary results of outreach #3 and a narrowed set of conceptual plans, Concept A 250 Units, Concept B 300 Units, Concept C 330 Units. Council directed team to pursue 300+ units with underground parking, some four-story massing, childcare, sustainability. November 23, 2020: Team presented results of outreach #3 and preliminary technical studies, civil, traffic, air, noise, geotech and final 2020 conceptual master plan with 310 units, 15+ 2 Page 2 of 6 buildings, 68% rental, 32% ownership, 100% underground parking, 1/3 4-story, 2/3 3-story, childcare. Council direction included concerns over 100% underground parking, tight spacing between buildings, building heights/orientation, noise, target user mix. Aspen City Council design updates - Schematic Design Process 2021-2022 November 1, 2021: Team presented alternatives to address 100% underground parking concerns. Project team presented four 310-unit schemes with varying above ground parking, Pivot, Latch, Hinge, Flange. Council direction included: push buildings back toward Deer Hill, explore above grade parking structure, Hinge and Flange generally aligned with Council, seek community feedback on all four schemes. January 10, 2022: Team presented initial results of outreach #4 and updated Pivot, Latch, Hinge, Flange 310-unit schemes. Council directed team to go with a modified Hinge scheme with 3 large buildings, design toward Enterprise Green Communities Plus certification with 75% renewable offset, address concerns of livability of large buildings and 4-story height. February 14, 2022: Team presented updated site plan with 310 units in 3 large buildings, 100% 4-story and fire road access around the site. Council direction included reduce so that it does not show as 5-story mass, avoid using vertical blocks to break up facades, celebrate the solar don't hide it, more modern, more durable/natural materials, make building fade into Deer Hill, request the design team present a recommendation. Update since March 21: The slide presentation exhibit has been updated to include a visual presentation of the design milestones shown above. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council is asked to carefully review and choose one scheme, from the two being presented today, to further develop into 100% Schematic Design for delivery on May 2, 2022. Update since March 21: Due to the continuation of the 75% Schematic Update from March 21 to April 4, the May 2, 2022 scheduled date for the 100% Schematic Design update has been rescheduled for May 16, 2022. DISCUSSION: At the Aspen City Council work session on February 14, 2022, the project team presented the Lumberyard affordable housing 50% schematic design with 310 units in 3 large buildings, 100% 4-story and fire road access around the site. Council direction included the following: • Avoid the trite practice of blocks of vertical mass and color to break up facades. • Express the sustainable goals, celebrate the solar, don't hide it. • Continue to push the design toward more modern. • Push the materiality, mountain modern, durability, natural materials, blend with Deer Hill. • Study height and reduce so that it does not show as 5-story mass. • Design toward Enterprise Green Communities Plus sustainability certification with 75% energy offset with on-site renewables, and research stretch goals for zero carbon and Living Building Petal Certification. • What is the design team’s recommendation for the best path forward? Please present a design that you recommend. 3 Page 3 of 6 In today’s work session, and based on the direction shown above, the project team will present the 75% schematic design for the Lumberyard affordable housing project with 310 affordable housing units. The team will also present a recommended alternate 75% schematic design plan with a reduced unit count. Council is asked to carefully review and choose one scheme, from the two being presented today, to further develop into 100% Schematic Design for delivery at the Council work session scheduled for May 2, 2022. Update since March 21: The slide presentation exhibit has been updated to include several additional visual aids for the design presentation. This includes the addition of two renderings of Building 3 shown from Highway 82, one which represents the 310 unit plan, and one which represents the 266 unit “Elbow Room” plan, where units have been removed from one side of the fourth level facing the highway, thus creating a stepped back condition on the upper level. This occurs at Buildings 1 and 3 in the “Elbow Room” plan. Each rendering shows the relationship of Building 3 with Deer Hill in the background and have also been included below: 4 Page 4 of 6 In addition, the design team have created a visual animation of a drive-by scene for both the 310 unit plan and the 266 unit “Elbow Room” plan. The animation does not contain the high level of detail which the renderings show but does provide a view of the entire Lumberyard facility as seen from Highway 82. A small screenshot has been pasted below, and the animation can be viewed via the following link: https://vimeo.com/694198688/8c3a26cd94 Staff note: Because Buildings 1 and 3 are located closest to Highway 82, the fourth level massing of Buildings 1 and 3, even in the 266 unit “Elbow Room” plan with the stepped back condition, will have a greater impact on the visibility of Deer Hill in the background when viewed from Highway 82. It should be acknowledged that this is a known condition in the current schematic design and that a significant amount of time, effort and funding have been invested to reach the current level of design. Staff should note that there is currently no simple means to relocate the remaining fourth level masses from Buildings 1 and 3 back into the balance of the project site without significant redesign of the open site areas, roadways and surface parking which was relocated from underground as directed by Council during the parking alternatives analysis, at which time the 100% 4-story condition was known. If desired by Council, discussion of any further massing reductions to the fourth level of Buildings 1 and 3 to address this condition could occur either during the current Schematic Design effort or instead during later stages of design, such as during the land use public hearing process. Schematic Design Estimate: The schematic design estimate is currently underway. The estimate will include a phasing plan beginning with site deconstruction and recycling, access and infrastructure construction, followed by three phases of housing facilities construction. The current aim is to present the estimate and phasing plan along with the 100% Schematic Design at the Council work session scheduled for May 2, 2022. Air Quality Testing: We are awaiting a final report from our recent volatile organic compound (VOC) air sample testing at the Lumberyard site. Preliminary results appear to be similar to those reported January 19, 2021 by Pitkin County. A detailed report with updated findings will be published along with the 100% Schematic Design at the Council work session scheduled for May 2, 2022. 5 Page 5 of 6 City Environmental Health staff have facilitated the installation of two particulate matter (PM2.5) PurpleAir sensors at the Mountain Rescue facility. The sensors are up and running. Real time and historical data from those sensors is currently available at www.purpleair.com by clicking on Map, Real-time Map and then pan and zoom the map to the Mountain Rescue location and click on those sensors to see data. Findings will be published along with the 100% Schematic Design at the Council work session scheduled for May 2, 2022. Transportation Impact Analysis: The team has further engaged with City engineering and transportation staff, and a detailed transportation impact analysis will be published along with the 100% Schematic Design at the Council work session scheduled for May 2, 2022. In the meantime, a preliminary update is as follows: • Fehr & Peers has completed all field observations for AM and PM peak periods • Initial findings from fieldwork confirm roundabout is bottleneck • All existing conditions analysis has been completed • Trip generation and distribution calculations for the Aspen Lumberyard Project Site completed • Initial transit alternatives analysis will be transmitted to COA within days • Final report will be complete mid-April Update since March 21: Although the transportation impact analysis is still in process, an exhibit has been added to this memo which includes some preliminary findings by Fehr & Peers. Please see the attached exhibit published 3/31/2022 by Fehr & Peers. A brief summary by staff is included below: • At full build out, the Aspen Lumberyard project will add approximately 60 vehicle trips per day from the AABC to downtown Aspen, resulting in travel times on Highway 82 increasing by about one minute during rush hour. Through new or improved transit services, the city can further reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the Aspen Lumberyard project. • At full build out, the Aspen Lumberyard project will eliminate approximately 93 automobile commuter trips from down valley per day, each averaging 32 miles round trip. This equates to eliminating 750,000 vehicle miles per year on Highway 82, or an equivalent CO2 emissions reduction of 600,000-700,000 pounds each year. • Providing housing close to Aspen will always reduce CO2 emissions compared to people living further down valley. People living close to Aspen are also more likely to travel to Aspen by bus or biking. Investing in transportation infrastructure and services, including transit service, bikeways, and Transportation Demand Management programs, is critical to mitigate the effects of growth on traffic congestion and travel times on Highway 82. The full transportation impact analysis report by Fehr & Peers is scheduled to be included with the 100% Schematic Design package on May 16, 2022 and will include full detailed narrative and calculations. 6 Page 6 of 6 Land Use Actions in Process: Annexation of the Aspen Mini Storage site is in process. Public notice has been completed. Aspen City Council public hearings are scheduled for March 22 (1st reading) and April 12 (2nd reading). An application for subdividing the undeveloped triangle property at the south end of the site is still being developed. That application is expected to be submitted after second reading for the Min Storage annexation. Update since March 21: On March 22, 2022, Aspen City Council approved first reading of Ordinance #02, Series of 2022 - Aspen Mini-Storage Annexation and Ordinance #03, Series of 2022 - Aspen Mini-Storage Zoning and Planned Development. Second reading is scheduled for April 12, 2022. Next Steps: The project team is planning to deliver the 100% Schematic Design, along with the additional materials noted herein, at the Aspen City Council work session on May 2, 2022. Update since March 21: The project team is planning to deliver the 100% Schematic Design, along with the additional materials noted herein, at the Aspen City Council work session on May 16, 2022. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Modifications to the schematic design process schedule and scope of work have caused financial impacts described in the “Extended SD” portion of Resolution #045 of 2022 – Contract Amendment for Extended SD Services & Sustainability Implementation, Lumberyard Design Team. This item has been included on Aspen City Council’s consent agenda at the March 22, 2022 regular meeting. Update since March 21: On March 22, 2022, Aspen City Council approved Resolution #045 of 2022. From 2019 to 2022, the design process described above has cost approximately $1.5 million. Staff estimates that this is approximately 15%-20% of what may turn out to be the total design costs for this project and is within expectation for a project of this scale. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that Council carefully review and choose one scheme, from the two being presented today, to further develop into 100% Schematic Design for delivery on May 2, 2022. Update since March 21: 100% Schematic Design has been rescheduled for May 16, 2022. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Presentation slides including appendix Update since March 21: The slide presentation exhibit has been updated to include several additional visual aids for the design presentation. Exhibit B has been added and includes preliminary transportation impact analysis findings published by Fehr & Peers. The final report will include detailed narrative and calculations. 7 March 31, 2022 Aspen Lumberyard – Draft Transportation Key Findings Fehr & Peers 1. In the near term and with regional growth by 2025, increased vehicle trips resulting from the Aspen Lumberyard will not significantly increase traffic congestion or travel times on CO-82 from the Airport to downtown Aspen. 2. We are assuming that about half of Aspen Lumberyard residents will relocate from down valley housing. The other half will relocate from housing in Aspen.1 3. In the near term, right after people move from down valley housing to the Aspen Lumberyard, the Aspen Lumberyard project will add approximately 60 vehicle trips to the transportation system.2 This will result in travel times on CO-82 increasing by about a minute during rush hour. 4. On average, each commute trip from down valley to Aspen is 16-miles. Eliminating a two-way vehicle commute trip from down valley saves 32 vehicle miles of travel per day, 3,000 commuter miles per day, or 750,000 commuter miles per year3. 5. Over a year, the project’s reduction in commuter miles will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 600,000-700,000 pounds per year 4. 6. Either the city or RFTA will provide improved bus service to the Aspen Lumberyard, either by buying additional RFTA service, by operating dedicated service to/from the Aspen Lumberyard, or by providing services to better connect the Airport RFTA stops to the Aspen Lumberyard. 7. Through new or improved transit services, the city hopes to aggressively reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the Aspen Lumberyard project. 8. Providing housing close to Aspen will always reduce CO2 emissions compared to people living further down valley. People living close to Aspen are also more likely to travel to Aspen by bus or biking. 9. Investing in transportation infrastructure and services, including transit service, bikeways, and Transportation Demand Management programs, is critical to mitigate the effects of growth on traffic congestion and travel times on CO-82. 10. Employment opportunities in Aspen will grow in the future, with or without the Aspen Lumberyard project. Regional growth by 2045 will cause traffic congestion and travel times on CO-82 will increase. 1 From Cushing Terrell’s survey of potential Aspen Lumberyard Residents. 2 Peak hour trip generation of 117 trips divided by two. 3 Travel distance from RFTA AirSage data provided to the City of Aspen. 310 residents x 0.5 (half moving from down valley) = 155, x 60% approximate existing drive alone mode share in Pitkin County = 93 residents. 93 residents x 32 mi/res = ~3,000 commute miles per day x 250 work days/year = 750,000 commute miles per year. 4 Assumes 0.89 lb CO2 per mile traveled. 8 Review of Lumberyard Design History April 4, 2022 1 9 Lumberyard Design History 2 November 18, 2019 –Conceptual Design –“Heat Map” Approaches to Density 15-30 UNITS PER ACRE 10 Lumberyard Design History 3 March 2, 2020 –Conceptual Design –Conceptual Site Diagrams with 140-215 Units 140 Units / 110,000 sq ft / 200 BR 175 Units / 135,000 sq ft / 250 BR 215 Units / 165,000 sq ft / 310 BR 11 Lumberyard Design History 4 July 6, 2020 –Conceptual Design –Conceptual Site Plans with 216-501 Units The 200-unit plans were a mix of 2- and 3-story. The high-density options were all almost entirely 4-story. These plans had more building footprint and less roadway area. Concept 1C Included Co-Living with 501 Units. Concept 1A Units / Unit Area sq ft / # of BRs 450 Units / 325,000 sq ft / 625 BR Concept 1B Units / Unit Area sq ft / # of BRs 216 Units / 158,000 sq ft / 293 BR Concept 2A Units / Unit Area sq ft / # of BRs 450 Units / 321,000 sq ft / 590 BR Concept 2B Units / Unit Area sq ft / # of BRs 217 Units / 160,000 sq ft / 300 BR Concept 1C Units / Unit Area sq ft / # of BRs 501 Units / 275,000 sq ft / 597 BR 12 Lumberyard Design History 5 October 26, 2020 –Conceptual Design –Conceptual Site Plans with 250-330 Units Yes 250 Units / 191,000 sq ft / 350 BR 300 Units / 230,000 sq ft / 425 BR 330 Units / 185,000 sq ft / 410 BR Units / Unit Area sq ft / # of BRs 191,000 sq ft units 350 Bedrooms No Co-Living 230,000 sq ft units 425 Bedrooms No Co-Living 185,000 sq ft units 410 Bedrooms Yes Co-Living 13 Lumberyard Design History 6 November 23, 2020 –100% Conceptual Design –310 Units with 100% Underground Parking 240,000 sq ft units 448 Bedrooms 3.5 Acres Useable Open Space No Co-Living Childcare: Yes 14 Lumberyard Design History 7 November 1, 2021 -Schematic Design –Alternatives to 100% Underground Parking with 310 Units 4-Story 81% Underground Parking 1.1 Acres Usable Open Area 37.9 Net Zero Rating 4-Story 72% Underground Parking 0.6 Acres Usable Open Area 42.6 Net Zero Rating 4-Story 0% Underground Parking 0.3 Acres Usable Open Area 37.1 Net Zero Rating 4-Story 60% Underground Parking 1.8 Acres Usable Open Area 49.6 Net Zero Rating 15 Lumberyard Design History 8 January 10, 2022 -Schematic Design –Alternatives to 100% Underground Parking with 310 Units 4-Story 73% Underground Parking 0.6 Acres Usable Open Area 42.3 Net Zero Rating 4-Story 56% Underground Parking 1.25 Acres Usable Open Area 43.2 Net Zero Rating 4-Story 40% Underground Parking 1.77 Acres Usable Open Area 48.9 Net Zero Rating 4-Story 0% Underground Parking 0.5 Acres Usable Open Area 42.4 Net Zero Rating 16 Lumberyard Design History January 10, 2022 -Schematic Design –Alternatives to 100% Underground Parking with 310 Units Site comparison matrix tool was used to evaluate the four parking alternatives based on guiding principles. This led to the direction to use a modified Hinge as the pathway forward to 50% schematic design. By this time, we were at about 280,000 sq ft of floor area, 60% surface parking and fire roads around the site. All buildings 100% 4-story.17 Lumberyard Design History 10 February 14, 2022 –50% Schematic Design –Modified Hinge with 310 Units This plan included 100% 4-story massing with 310 units, 522 bedrooms and with the most unit area of any of our plans to date with 286,068 sq ft of unit area. 18 Lumberyard Design History March 21, 2022 –75% Schematic Design –Modified Hinge with 310 Unit Plan and “Elbow Room” 266 Plan •310 Units / 492 Bedrooms •1-Bedroom Units: 158 •2-Bedroom Units: 122 •3-Bedroom Units: 30 •Total Unit Area: 267,000 sq ft •Multiple pinch points •4-story massing facing highway •266 Units / 436 Bedrooms •1-Bedroom Units: 125 •2-Bedroom Units: 112 •3-Bedroom Units: 29 •Total Unit Area: 233,000 sq ft •Fewer pinch points •4-story massing facing highway 19 Lumberyard Design History March 21, 2022 –75% Schematic Design –Modified Hinge with 310 Unit Plan and “Elbow Room” 266 Plan •310 Units / 492 Bedrooms •1-Bedroom Units: 158 •2-Bedroom Units: 122 •3-Bedroom Units: 30 •Total Unit Area: 267,000 sq ft •Multiple pinch points •4-story massing facing highway •266 Units / 436 Bedrooms •1-Bedroom Units: 125 •2-Bedroom Units: 112 •3-Bedroom Units: 29 •Total Unit Area: 233,000 sq ft •Fewer pinch points •4-story massing facing highway The rendering shown here is Building 2 and is set behind Mountain Rescue, which is off -screen to the right. This has long been considered a good location for height and density. The 4-story facades along the frontage on Building 1 and Building 3 which face Highway 82 are much closer to the highway and may feel more impactful, as illustrated in the animation provided. 20 Lumberyard Design History Summary of Density History # of Units / Unit area sq ft / # of BR Conceptual Design Process March 2020 140 Units / 110,000 sq ft / 200 BR 175 Units / 135,000 sq ft / 250 BR 215 Units / 165,000 sq ft / 310 BR July 2020 216 Units / 158,000 sq ft / 293 BR 217 Units / 160,000 sq ft / 300 BR 450 Units / 325,000 sq ft / 625 BR 450 Units / 321,000 sq ft / 590 BR October 2020 250 Units / 191,000 sq ft / 350 BR 300 Units / 230,000 sq ft / 425 BR 330 Units / 185,000 sq ft / 410 BR November 2020 310 Units / 240,000 sq ft / 448 BR # of Units / Unit area sq ft / # of BR Schematic Design Process November 2021 310 Units / 240,000 sq ft / 448 BR January 2022 310 Units / 240,000 sq ft / 448 BR February 2022 310 Units / 291,000 sq ft / 522 BR March 2022 310 Units / 280,000 sq ft / 492 BR 266 Units / 246,000 sq ft / 436 BR If you could become comfortable with the ‘elbow room’ plan, this means that during the schematic design process you have created a highly livable plan while moving 43% of the parking from underground to above ground and adding fire access roads at the expense of only 12 bedrooms. Note for clarity: Unit area is less than total building area due to common areas and building envelope thickness. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 0'20'40'60'80'120'160'44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 0'20'40'60'80'120'160'61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 i�i� ASPEN LUMBERYARD-�-1�4.3 PATHWAY FORWARD Creating Elbow Room: Highway 82 Animation ASPEN LUMBERYARD Project Animation from Hwy 82 cheme ompari on: " tay t/Je ourse" v . "Elbow Room ' a CushinJlTerrell. , 1 o :: ■ Animation can be viewed here: https://vimeo.com/694198688/8c3a26cd94 CUSHING TERRELL /4 71 72 73 74 75 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 55CUSHING TERRELL 4.3 PATHWAY FORWARD Inflection Points • Community feedback showed a preference for exterior access to units. • We are providing exterior access to ground floor units and elevator access to 100% of the units in lieu of exterior access throughout. • Is the combination of interior and exterior access as presented acceptable? Exterior Access KEY: Exterior Access Interior Access 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 ASPEN LUMBERYARD 63CUSHING TERRELL APPENDIX 84 28'-0"141 SF BEDROOM 3 28 SF BEDROOM 3 CLOSET 56 SF BATHROOM4'-9 1/4"12'-0"10'-6"4'-10 7/8"STACKED WASHER / DRYER NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVISIONS 3/18/2022 3:36:29 PM FLOOR PLAN A101 00.00.0000 © 2021 | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGNED BY | LAST NAME DRAWN BY | LAST NAMEASPEN LUMBERYARDCLIENT | Project# PROJECT# | L:\ PROJECT# | PROJECT# 1/2" = 1'-0"A101 3 BEDROOM 1 MODULE 85 142 SF BEDROOM 2 15 SF BEDROOM 2 CLOSET 63 SF BATHROOM 12'-0"28'-0"3'-10 1/4"2'-5"10'-11 1/2"BUILT -IN STORAGE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVISIONS 3/18/2022 3:37:10 PM FLOOR PLAN A101 00.00.0000 © 2021 | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGNED BY | LAST NAME DRAWN BY | LAST NAMEASPEN LUMBERYARDCLIENT | Project# PROJECT# | L:\ PROJECT# | PROJECT# 1/2" = 1'-0"A101 3 BEDROOM 2 MODULE 86 28'-0"165 SF BEDROOM 3 41 SF BEDROOM 3 CLOSET 69 SF BATHROOM 10'-11 7/8"12'-0" SHELVES NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVISIONS 3/18/2022 3:38:16 PM FLOOR PLAN A101 00.00.0000 © 2021 | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGNED BY | LAST NAME DRAWN BY | LAST NAMEASPEN LUMBERYARDCLIENT | Project# PROJECT# | L:\ PROJECT# | PROJECT# 1/2" = 1'-0"A101 3 BEDROOM 3 MODULE 87 142 SF BEDROOM 2 15 SF BEDROOM 2 CLOSET 66 SF MUD / UTILITY UNDER COUNTER FRONT LOAD WASHER / DRYER WITH 15" SHELVING ABOVE FULL HEIGHT CABINETS 12'-0"3'-10 1/4"28'-0"2'-5"10'-11 1/2"BUILT -IN DESK NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVISIONS 3/18/2022 3:35:38 PM FLOOR PLAN A101 00.00.0000 © 2021 | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGNED BY | LAST NAME DRAWN BY | LAST NAMEASPEN LUMBERYARDCLIENT | Project# PROJECT# | L:\ PROJECT# | PROJECT# 1/2" = 1'-0"A101 3 BEDROOM 4 MODULE 88 110 SF LIVINGROOM 31 SF UTILITY / STORAGE 177 SF KITCHEN/DINING 21 4'-10 1/8"14'-0"28'-0"GLASS SLIDING DOOR NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVISIONS 3/18/2022 3:34:33 PM FLOOR PLAN A101 00.00.0000 © 2021 | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGNED BY | LAST NAME DRAWN BY | LAST NAMEASPEN LUMBERYARDCLIENT | Project# PROJECT# | L:\ PROJECT# | PROJECT# 1/2" = 1'-0"A101 1 LIVING KITCHEN 1 MODULE 89 188 SF LIVINGROOM 56 SF UTILITY / STORAGE UNDER COUNTER FRONT LOAD WASHER/DRYER WITH 15" SHELVES ABOVE FULL HEIGHT CABINETS 145 SF KITCHEN/DINING 21 14'-0"34'-0"11"3'-10 1/4"NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVISIONS 3/18/2022 3:31:46 PM FLOOR PLAN A101 00.00.0000 © 2021 | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGNED BY | LAST NAME DRAWN BY | LAST NAMEASPEN LUMBERYARDCLIENT | Project# PROJECT# | L:\ PROJECT# | PROJECT# 1/2" = 1'-0"A101 1 LIVING KITCHEN 2 MODULE 90 14'-0"12'-0" SLIDING GLASS DOOR 26'-6 1/2"9'-6 1/8"5'-10 5/8"22 SF STORAGE 54 223 SF KITCHEN/ DINING 53 373 SF LIVINGROOM 55 MODULE 3 -A MODULE 3 -B NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVISIONS 3/18/2022 3:57:54 PM FLOOR PLAN A102 00.00.0000 © 2021 | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGNED BY | Designer DRAWN BY | Author ASPEN LUMBERYARDCLIENT | Project# PROJECT# | L:\ PROJECT# | PROJECT# 1/2" = 1'-0"A102 1 LIVING KITCHEN 3-A AND 3-B 91 667 SF 55 SF BATHROOM 31 SF UTILITY / STORAGE BEDROOM 3 CLOSET 28 SF BEDROOM 3 141 SF LIVINGROOM 110 SF KITCHEN/DINING 177 SF 26'-0"28'-0"14'-0"12'-0"6'-0"156 SF BALCONY STACKED WASHER / DRYER LINEN SPACE 4'-10 1/8"10'-6"5'-0"NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVISIONS turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing 3/11/2022 9:20:50 AM FLOOR PLAN A101 00.00.0000 © 2021 | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGNED BY | LAST NAME DRAWN BY | LAST NAMEASPEN LUMBERYARDCLIENT | Project# PROJECT# | L:\ PROJECT# | PROJECT# 1/4" = 1'-0"A101 1 1BD / 1BA FIRST FLOOR 92 1068 SF 14'-0"12'-0"12'-0"34'-0"28'-0"6'-0"142 SF BALCONY 77 LIVINGROOM 188 SF 16 KITCHEN/DINING 145 SF 21 UTILITY / STORAGE 56 SF 18 BATHROOM 63 SF 36 BEDROOM 2 CLOSET 15 SF 40 BEDROOM 2 142 SF 34 BEDROOM 3 165 SF 31 BEDROOM 3 CLOSET 41 SF 32 BATHROOM 69 SF 37 10'-11 7/8"BUILT -IN STORAGE BUILT -IN SHELVES NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVISIONS turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing 3/11/2022 9:23:41 AM FLOOR PLAN A101 00.00.0000 © 2021 | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGNED BY | LAST NAME DRAWN BY | LAST NAMEASPEN LUMBERYARDCLIENT | Project# PROJECT# | L:\ PROJECT# | PROJECT# 1/4" = 1'-0"A101 2 2BD / 2BA FIRST FLOOR OPTION 5 93 1467 SF 14'-0"12'-0"12'-0"12'-0"12'-0" FINISHED PANTRY END W/ SOFFIT ABOVE 62'-0" 223 SF KITCHEN/ DINING 48 22 SF STORAGE 50 373 SF LIVINGROOM 51 28'-0"26'-6 1/2"17'-0 3/8"6'-0"26'-0" 160 SF BALCONY 52 MUD / UTILITY 66 SF 36 BEDROOM 2 142 SF 34 BEDROOM 2 142 SF 34 BEDROOM 3 165 SF 31 BEDROOM 3 CLOSET 41 SF 32 BATHROOM 69 SF 37 BATHROOM 63 SF 36 BEDROOM 2 CLOSET 15 SF 40 BEDROOM 2 CLOSET 15 SF 40 BUILT-IN STORAGE BUILT -IN SHELVES BUILT-IN DESK 10'-11 7/8"NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVISIONS turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printingturn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing turn OFF "Preliminary Border Information" before printing 3/11/2022 9:26:20 AM FLOOR PLAN A101 00.00.0000 © 2021 | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGNED BY | LAST NAME DRAWN BY | LAST NAMEASPEN LUMBERYARDCLIENT | Project# PROJECT# | L:\ PROJECT# | PROJECT# 1/4" = 1'-0"A101 3 3BD / 2BA FIRST FLOOR OPTION 3 94 Aspen Lumberyard Shade Study: Pre-Shades March 1, 2022 The key to shading is blocking sunlight when the addition of solar heat is detrimental to space conditioning while not impeding solar gains during times when the additional heat is beneficial. The simple way to determine this threshold is to look at the building balance point, or the outdoor temperature when heat gains are equal to heat losses (i.e. minimal space conditioning is required). Sunlight that enters the space when the outdoor temperature is above this balance point leads to additional cooling load. What’s interesting is how the change in envelope from 2021 IECC code baseline to Passive House recommendations reduces this balance point substantially, from about 54°F to 38°F (see Figure 4 and Figure 5). This increases the time of the year where solar radiation is detrimental to HVAC load and means the cooling system will engage at lower outdoor temps. However, this is also an opportunity for occupants to reduce cooling load by opening windows instead of running the cooling system when outdoor temperature is below a setpoint (e.g. 70°F). Radiation sky charts (Figure 1) show when on the sun path the solar gain is beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to the building. Can also see this breakdown over hours of the year in Figure 3. Baseline 2021 IECC Envelope Passive House Envelope Figure 1. Sky charts showing the difference in beneficial solar gain for the two envelope options. 95 2 cushingterrell.com It’s no surprise that shading on the west façade will have the greatest impact on reducing cooling load, but east and south are close behind (Figure 2). The south façade has the greatest availability of beneficial solar. Further analysis will be needed to determine what type of exterior shading provides the best reduction in cooling load and how glazing solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) can aid that reduction. 2021 IECC Passive House Orientation Detrimental Solar Beneficial Solar Detrimental Solar Beneficial Solar W 15% 11% 20% 6% S 11% 23% 20% 15% E 10% 19% 19% 10% N 5% 5% 8% 3% Total 41% 59% 67% 33% Figure 2. Breakdown of detrimental vs beneficial solar load by orientation. Percentages are fraction of total solar load of all orientations. These values are from the 1BD unit, but would be similar results for other unit types. Figure 3. Hours of year during daytime that outdoor temperature is above balance point (red) and below balance point (green) for 2021 IECC envelope (top) and Passive House envelope (bottom). 96 3 cushingterrell.com Balance Point – 2021 IECC Envelope Figure 4. HVAC heating load (left side) and cooling load (right side). The balance point is where these two loads meet. 97 4 cushingterrell.com Balance Point – Passive House Envelope Figure 5. HVAC heating load (left side) and cooling load (right side). The balance point is where these two loads meet. 98 cushingterrell.com 75% goal for On-Site Renewables: Update March 11, 2022 The arrangements that meet our 75% NZE Goal: High Performance Building (Approaching PH Envelope+ Low Flow Fixtures+ Heat Pump Water Heater) + Full Roof PV High Performance Building (Approaching PH Envelope+ Low Flow Fixtures+ Heat Pump Water Heater) +Full Roof PV + Full Carport PV Quick Stats: Estimated PV Array Size: 1.37 MW- 2.0 MW Building EUI Needed to Hit 75% NZE with Roof Coverage: 19.3 to 22.4 Building EUI Needed to Hit 75% NZE with Roof Coverage + Carport: 25.3 to 28.3 Baseline Building EUI: 27.1 High Performance Building EUI: 19.1-20 ROM PV + Simple Racking Cost Range: $1.7M-$3.5M Additional Info on Calculations In the spreadsheet attached is more detail on the calculations and information on the ranges given. You will notice a 6’ set back and a 10’ setback. These are because per fire code we need a 6’ clear perimeter around the exterior wall. The 10’ setback is for fall protection, my understanding is that if we provide clips and a railing we can reduce the perimeter to the 6’ mark. For the carport PV production, we will need to review in-depth more as this number is ideal and does not reflect any potential shading from the buildings. Seeing that we need to cover the whole roof in PV, the HVAC equipment would need to be placed below the panels to maximize the square footage. An additional advantage of this is that it protects the equipment from the elements. Lastly, all the roof panels are assumed to be pitched South. 99 2 cushingterrell.com ASPEN SOLAR PRODUCTION Solar Production with a 6' Perimeter Setback on the Roof for Fire Code SF 108323 PRODUCTION 68.5 SF/KW TOTAL PV POSSIBLE 1581 KW OR (ROOF ONLY) 1.5 MW ROOF + CARPORT 2000 KW OR 2 MW NET ZERO EUI (ROOF ONLY) 16.8 NET ZERO EUI (ROOF+CARPORT) 21.3 75% NZE EUI (ROOF ONLY) 22.4 75% NZE EUI (ROOF+CARPORT) ` 28.3 Solar Production with a 10' Perimeter Setback Fire Code + Fall Protection SF 93527 PRODUCTION 68.5 SF/KW TOTAL PV POSSIBLE 1365 KW OR (ROOF ONLY) 1.37 MW ROOF + CARPORT 1784 KW OR 1.78 MW NET ZERO EUI (ROOF ONLY) 14.5 NET ZERO EUI (ROOF+CARPORT) 19.0 75% NZE EUI (ROOF ONLY) 19.3 75% NZE EUI (ROOF+CARPORT) ` 25.3 ROM COST 100 3 cushingterrell.com PANEL COST PER WATT $1.25-$1.75 RANGE COST LOW END (LOW END PANEL COST AND SMALLEST ARRAY) $1,706,697.08 COST HIGH END (HIGH END PANEL COST AND LARGEST ARRAY) $3,499,969.33 ENVELOPE + ENERGY 101