HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20220926AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
September 26, 2022
3:00 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen
I.Work Session
I.A Building Code Adoption
I.B Review of Lumberyard Development Application
Zoom Meeting Instructions
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:
Please click this URL to join: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81970245569?
pwd=S01tNkwxVnBKZlYraW1TTElVMzhrQT09
Passcode: 81611
Or join by phone:
Dial:
US: +1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 819 7024 5569
Passcode: 81611
International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kbQhnvBhgH
9-26-22_Code_Adoption_Work_Session_Memo_Final.pdf
Exhibit A_Utility Data Analysis Report PitCo 2018-4-24.pdf
Memo Council WS Lumberyard Application 9-26-2022 r1.pdf
Exhibit_A_-_Lumberyard_Application_Slides_9-26-2022.pdf
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Bonnie Muhigirwa, Interim Chief Building Official
Denis Murray, Plans Examination Manager
Nick Thompson, Plans Examiner III THROUGH: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
MEMO DATE: September 19, 2022
MEETING DATE: September 26, 2022
RE: Work Session Discussion – 2021 Building Code Adoption
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
This work session’s purpose is to seek input and direction on important topic areas
relating to the adoption of the next building code.
This memo will provide an overview of the building code adoption process and the work
that has been done to date. It will also highlight proposed Aspen-specific amendments in
the areas of resiliency and carbon emissions in the built environment. We will then seek
council input on the path to building electrification and net zero.
OVERVIEW AND TIMELINE OF BUILDING CODE ADOPTION:
The International Codes (I-Codes), are a body of coordinated codes adopted widely
throughout the United States to ensure that the built environment is safe, accessible,
sustainable, and resilient. New building codes are released every three years, and Aspen
traditionally adopts new codes every six years. Currently Aspen is on the 2015
International Codes as adopted by Council in 2016, and staff is preparing for the adoption
of the 2021 codes.
During a Council work session in May 2021, staff asked for direction on what amendments
to pursue as part of this code update. The direction received was to develop a robust
energy code that would go above and beyond the national standard and other nearby
jurisdictions to align with Council’s climate action goals and to focus on reducing carbon
emissions. Our target is to have the ordinance ready for first reading by the end of 2022.
As staff has worked to identify the areas that would be most appropriate and impactful to
the reduction of carbon as local amendments to the baseline 2021 Energy Code, we have
focused on electrification, energy conservation, and renewable off-sets.
2
Page 2 of 6
Work Session – 2021 Building Code Adoption
WORK TO DATE:
The 2021 International Codes will update Aspen’s current 2015 codes to improve
resiliency, energy efficiency, equity, and safety. Some examples are allowances for
gender neutral toilet rooms, new uses for carbon storing cross laminated timber, fire
safety requirements for battery energy storage, and modernized handicap accessibility
provisions.
Over the past 18 months the building department has worked with consultants and other
City staff in Planning, Utilities, and Environmental Health to draft Aspen specific
amendments to make further improvements with a focus on wildfire resiliency and energy
code policies which align with the science-based targets for reducing emissions and that
are also realistic and achievable in Aspen’s climate and complex built environment. This
process is being informed by our participation in the creation of the upcoming 2024
International Codes in an effort to bring a package of Aspen amendments that are forward
thinking.
The first roll out of this effort came with the Residential Demolition and Redevelopment
Standards adopted in Ordinance 13, 2022 (Residential Building response to the
moratorium). Many of the energy performance requirements that were placed on the
single-family residential projects receiving demolition allotments will now be required for
all new construction. Ordinance 13 also did significant work to regulate construction waste
and took the first steps in addressing embodied carbon. Because of the complexity of the
interrelationship between the I-codes, climate policy, management, and the quickly
evolving field of building science and available resources, staff anticipates the work
around these topics will be ongoing after the adoption of the new codes.
Another area where staff is ready to propose Aspen amendments to the 2021 baseline
codes is to increase the resiliency of buildings to the impacts of wildfires and power
outages. Wildfire danger continues to rise exponentially with direct threats to buildings
and their occupants as well as threats to the reliability of the energy grid. Recommended
measures to address these issues include requiring all new construction to be fire
sprinklered (previously there was an exception for buildings under 5,000 square feet), to
use fire-resistive construction techniques from the International Wild Land-Urban
Interface Code (the national standard for mitigating the threat of wildfire to buildings), and
to be pre-wired for on-site power generation and energy storage. The draft ordinance
being developed by staff includes these recommended amendments.
STAFF DISCUSSION:
Carbon Reduction
Electrification, Energy Conservation, and Renewable Offsets are the three keystones staff
is focusing on to reduce the operational emissions of our built environment. The draft
ordinance includes meaningful amendments in these areas to address Council’s carbon
reduction goals as stated in the Climate Action Plan.
3
Page 3 of 6
Work Session – 2021 Building Code Adoption
Electrification
Aspen is in a unique situation with regards to electrification. We have an in-house utility
with a 100% renewable grid that serves roughly half the town; the other half is served by
Holy Cross with a 44% renewable grid that is planned to be 100% by 2030. This means
that by 2030, an all-electric building would have net zero operational emissions,
regardless of energy use, making electrification by far the single biggest impact tool we
have for reducing the emissions of buildings and the only viable one to reach our goal of
eventual zero emissions. We will need to fully electrify our buildings eventually, but there
will be disruption and unintended consequences if electrification is not done thoughtfully
and collaboratively.
The benefit of electrification largely revolves around the use of highly efficient heat
pumps, which are essentially air conditioners that are able to run in reverse to move heat
from one place to another. This technology is improving to the point where it is possible
to pull heat from below freezing temperatures to provide heat for a building. Heat pumps
are far more efficient than gas or old-fashioned electric resistance heaters but they are
not able to create high temperature heat to the same degree. Some of the unique comfort
and amenity desires of Aspen homeowners in our cold climate are not easily met with
current heat pump technology. While these amenity loads could be achieved with heat
pumps supplemented by electric resistance, the electric demand and system complexity
would increase. This increased electric demand may necessitate additional on-site
transformers for existing construction with tight site constraints. Heat pumps also have
spatial, acoustic, and visual impacts because they require an increase in the size and
number of condensing units on lots and roof tops. Staff is collaborating with our utility
providers, and both have said that their grids can meet the increased electric load demand
but there may be challenges in keeping the grid efficient, in finding renewable energy to
purchase to meet the increased load, and in maintaining affordability and equity for
customers.
All of these challenges to electrification are solvable, but there needs to be a thoughtful
and phased approach for it to be successful. The Building Code is not the only tool the
City will need to deploy to support and achieve electrification policies. Staff has been
considering the feasibility of an all-electric mandate for new residential construction but
feel there are too many questions to recommend that approach at this time. Staff
recommends that a multi-departmental electrification task force with subject experts be
formed to advise on a comprehensive building electrification roll-out plan.
While the larger electrification issue will be a long-term conversation and process with the
community, there are steps that can begin our response with this 2021 code adoption.
We propose that all new construction be “electric ready,” meaning new buildings would
be pre-wired and have panel and transformer capacity so they can convert to fully electric
in the future. Existing buildings undergoing remodels would also be pushed to be made
electric ready where feasible. We have also proposed incentives that will reward early
adapters who design all-electric buildings before it’s required.
4
Page 4 of 6
Work Session – 2021 Building Code Adoption
Energy Conservation
The energy code has incrementally reduced the energy use of buildings over time by
regulating the efficiency of the building thermal envelope (insulation, windows, and air
tightness), heating and cooling equipment, and lighting. The new 2021 International
Energy Conservation Code (IECC) is estimated to be roughly 9% more efficient than our
currently adopted and amended 2015 IECC. In order to meet climate action goals, staff
recommends requiring a significantly more robust envelope for new construction, which
models show to be 20-30% more efficient than the baseline 2021 energy code. This is
achieved through increasing the insulation values, limiting the percentage of allowable
glazing (glass), and minimizing air leakage. Requiring a high performing building
envelope is particularly valuable, because while lighting and heating/cooling systems are
more readily altered, the envelope is the hardest part of the building to change and can
remain in place for decades. These proposed requirements are achievable and will allow
newly constructed buildings to remain high performing well into the future.
Given the adoption of demolition allotments limiting scrape and replace projects, staff
anticipates an increase in the number of alteration permits to existing single family
residences. Previous code editions have had very few requirements for remodeled
existing buildings. The proposed new building code will establish new thresholds for levels
of alteration below the demolition threshold that will trigger various energy efficiency
upgrades. We are pursuing flexible options for projects in meeting these new
requirements. These energy efficiency amendments will be a crucial component of
reaching Aspen’s emission reduction goals for the building sector.
Renewable Offsets
With the energy efficiency improvements being proposed, the energy consumed and
carbon emitted will be significantly reduced but not eliminated. The Renewable Energy
Mitigation Program (REMP) currently offsets the energy use of exterior amenities
including snowmelt, pools, and spas by requiring an equivalent on-site renewable energy
system or a payment option used to fund community renewable and efficiency projects.
This payment option has a successful history of achieving a greater energy savings
impact than on-site solar by a factor of 12 to 1 under CORE’s stewardship.
Other mountain communities have built on Aspen’s REMP program to offset additional
energy using and carbon emitting amenities including outdoor heating for both
commercial dining and residential, roof and gutter heat tape, and gas fireplaces (both
indoor and outdoor). Staff recommends that these additional amenity energy uses be
included in the REMP program to offset their energy and carbon impacts and to
incentivize building owners to install them thoughtfully and only as needed. Staff also
recommends placing a cap on snowmelt square footage similar to what was done in the
residential demolition and redevelopment standards.
In addition, Council has expressed interest in making buildings net-zero to address
climate action goals. The energy use of a building, separate from exterior energy uses
and gas fireplaces, can be offset wholly or in part by using REMP as other mountain
communities have done. On-site solar is typically preferred for directly offsetting a
5
Page 5 of 6
Work Session – 2021 Building Code Adoption
building’s remaining energy use to achieve ‘net zero.’ However, it is not always a realistic
solution to completely offset the energy use of many of our buildings with on-site solar
due to either poor solar siting or because of large amenity loads which are more than
what can physically be offset on-site. Additionally, on-site solar is of limited utility to the
overall grid since it produces energy during periods of low power demand. Providing an
option to offset some or all a building’s energy use off-site through a payment option
provides predictability and flexibility to the building owner and to the Utility.
Staff has a metric for quantifying building energy using the standard of energy use per
square foot modelled off a representative typical Aspen home. However, we know that
actual building energy use per square foot can vary significantly in practice between large
and small homes based on a 2018 Pitkin County study. Staff recommends tracking the
actual energy use of buildings by enrolling new and remodeled buildings in the BIQ
benchmarking program. This data can then be used to inform future policy for more
accurate energy usage offsets. In the meantime, council could consider having affordable
housing projects offset a lower percentage of their modeled energy usage than market-
rate buildings to both account for the discrepancy in energy use density and to incentivize
affordable housing.
Electrification Incentive Using Renewable Offsets
Offsetting building emissions with the REMP program presents an opportunity to take the
phased electrification approach a step further. If electric buildings are required to offset
their energy use at a lower level than fossil fuel powered buildings it would provide a
significant financial incentive to go all electric. Additional incentives could include
expedited permit review, which will require coordination with other review agencies.
In addition to the immediate impact on building emissions, having some buildings electrify
now would have the additional benefit of providing much-needed data to inform future
electrification policies. If a handful of buildings were to electrify voluntarily, much could be
learned, particularly if those properties were to report their energy use. This could be
tracked as part of the proposed enrollment of all new buildings and remodels in the
Building IQ benchmarking program.
NEXT STEPS
Over the next two months staff will continue engagement and outreach activities with key
stakeholders in the development community. Focus groups with designers, engineers,
contractors, and building owners will provide opportunities for engagement with those
impacted by the proposed changes and gather feedback on the feasibility of the proposed
changes. The draft ordinance will then be shared with the Building Code Board of Appeals
and then brought to Council for first reading on November 29 and second reading on
December 13 of this year.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
1. Does Council support staff’s proposed phased approach for building electrification
utilizing a multi-departmental task force?
6
Page 6 of 6
Work Session – 2021 Building Code Adoption
2. Does Council support staff’s recommendation that all new construction and
alterations be added to the BIQ benchmarking program to provide better data for
electrification and REMP offsets?
3. Does Council support staff’s recommendation that the REMP program be
expanded to include additional amenity energy uses including heat tape, exterior
heating, and interior and exterior gas fireplaces?
4. Does Council support staff’s recommendation that new buildings offset their
energy use through the expanded REMP program?
5. Does Council support a reduced offset for affordable housing projects and for all-
electric buildings to incentivize them?
6. Does Council support staff’s recommendation to move forward with adoption of the
2021 I-codes with the highlighted amendments?
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: At this time, N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: At this time, N/A
ALTERNATIVES: Adopt the 2021 building codes as written with no local amendments.
Council may also direct staff to explore additional or alternative amendments and delay
the option of new codes until sometime in 2023.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Direct staff to return with an ordinance for first reading which
includes the amendments as identified by staff.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: N/A
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – 2018 Pitkin County Study: Utility Data Analysis Report PitCo 2018-4-24.pdf
7
Pitkin County Energy Use: Utility Data Analysis
Page 1
Pitkin County Energy Use
Utility Data Analysis
Report prepared by:
August Hasz, P.E.
April 23, 2018
Table of contents
Section 1: Goals and Key Findings
Section 2: Graphs
Section 3: Summary
Appendix: Methodology & Data
Section 1: Goals and Key Findings
Goal:
Review energy data provided by gas and electric utility providers to determine an average
energy use per area of residential property. If possible, determine if there is a correlation
between home size and energy use per area of home. The common expectation is that as a
home increases in size, the energy used per area (per square foot, ft2) of home will
decrease. Anecdotal evidence has previously shown the opposite.
Key Findings:
• Holy Cross Energy and Black Hills Energy provided a data from nearly 900
homes spanning 4 years (2014 through 2017), for a total of 3,577 data records. All
homes are located in Pitkin County.
• There is a strong correlation between home size and energy use per area
(expressed as kBtu/ft2/yr). In general, larger homes use more energy per square
foot.
• As home size increases from 1,000ft2 (the smallest homes studied) to 14,000ft2,
the energy used per ft2 more than triples from an average of 34 kBtu/ft2/yr to
105 kBtu/ft2/yr.
• Average energy used across all homes is 80 kBtu/ft2/yr
o Average for homes from 1,000 to 5,000 ft2 is 46 kBtu/ft2/yr
o Average for homes from 5,000 to 14,000 ft2 is 95 kBtu/ft2/yr
8
Pitkin County Energy Use: Utility Data Analysis
Page 2
Section 2: Graphs
The data from all four years is fairly consistent (all four years are shown in Graph #1 to
illustrate this). There is a trend showing that as homes increase in size, the energy used
per square foot of home increases (for clarity, only the average of the four years is shown
in Graph #2).
1. Total energy use per service location plotted against home size.
2. Total energy use per square foot of home, plotted against home size.
9
Pitkin County Energy Use: Utility Data Analysis
Page 3
Section 3: Summary
Expected results: Intuitively, most people would expect the energy use per square foot
of home to decrease as a home gets larger. Larger homes have more area per occupant
and we expect the occupants’ habits to be a significant driver of energy used, along with
heating and cooling loads through the building shell. Here again, a large home would be
assumed to have less wall and roof area per square foot of floor, and therefore lower
heating and cooling loads. The expectation and common perception is that the line in
graph #2 to be decreasing as home size increases.
Actual results: Energy use per square foot of home increases as the home size grows—
by 3 times. Put another way, a 10,000 ft2 home doesn’t use 10x more energy than a 1,000
ft2 home, but instead uses 30x times more energy.
• As home size increases from 1,000ft2 (the smallest homes studied) to 14,000ft2
(largest homes in this data set), the energy used per ft2 more than triples from an
average of 34 kBtu/ft2/yr to 105 kBtu/ft2/yr.
• Average energy used across all meters is 80 kBtu/ft2/yr
• Average for homes 1,000 to 5,000 is 46 kBtu/ft2/yr
• Average for homes 5,000 to 14,000 is 95 kBtu/ft2/yr
Speculation of causes: Some possible reasons for the discrepancy between the expected
scenario and actual data include: humidification systems, snowmelt systems, roof and
gutter melt systems, pools, spas, increased use of complex audio visual and security
systems, increased expectations of thermal comfort and therefore higher use of cooling
systems, and a liberal use of glass in the high-end residential market. The data also
suggests that newer homes are continuing the trend of increased energy use per square
foot. Note that the average age of the smaller homes is older than larger homes
(increasing from an average year of construction of 1978 to 2005). We would expect
newer homes to be more efficient, but on an energy used per square foot basis, the trend
is the opposite.
10
Pitkin County Energy Use: Utility Data Analysis
Page 4
Appendix: Methodology & Data
Methodology:
Holy Cross Energy and Black Hills Energy provided cross-referenced data for specific
service locations. The locations were kept anonymous. Only locations they could together
verify as having a single gas and/or electric meter were used. Locations using propane
were not included. Electrical data was provided in kWh, and gas in therms. All units were
converted to kBtu’s for consistency and to allow easier comparisons against national
data. Bins of 1,000 ft2 increments were used to allow for data to be provided
anonymously and not able to be correlated to specific sites at a later date. The average
home size in of each bin was used as the area for all data in that bin.
Data:
1. Service locations, average age and average size
Heated Sq Ft Avg Age Avg Size
Min Max (yr) (ft2)
1,000 2,000 1978 1,621
2,000 3,000 1982 2,508
3,000 4,000 1982 3,436
4,000 5,000 1979 4,529
5,000 6,000 1988 5,409
6,000 7,000 1989 6,503
7,000 8,000 1995 7,420
8,000 9,000 1996 8,506
9,000 10,000 1998 9,499
10,000 11,000 2002 10,534
11,000 12,000 2000 11,496
12,000 13,000 2000 12,519
13,000 14,000 2005 13,485
11
Pitkin County Energy Use: Utility Data Analysis
Page 5
2. Total number of service locations per size and year of data
Total Count
Size (ft2) 2014 2015 2016 2017
1,001 to 2,000 143 144 144 144
2,001 to 3,000 250 249 250 250
3,001 to 4,000 152 152 152 152
4,001 to 5,000 85 85 85 85
5,001 to 6,000 55 56 56 56
6,001 to 7,000 62 62 62 62
7,001 to 8,000 19 19 19 19
8,001 to 9,000 22 22 22 22
9,001 to 10,000 30 30 30 30
10,001 to 11,000 23 23 23 23
11,001 to 12,000 22 22 22 22
12,001 to 13,000 12 12 12 12
13,001 to 14,000 18 18 18 18
893 894 895 895
3. Total average energy use at each service location for each size range
Total: Avg kBtu/yr/SrvLoc
Size (ft2) 2014 2015 2016 2017
1,001 to 2,000 52,697 49,967 69,518 49,729
2,001 to 3,000 102,480 98,081 100,207 96,261
3,001 to 4,000 181,026 170,814 174,394 177,743
4,001 to 5,000 287,501 263,376 268,437 263,725
5,001 to 6,000 417,544 396,295 400,808 415,063
6,001 to 7,000 524,504 474,966 509,934 497,669
7,001 to 8,000 730,827 667,965 516,855 705,433
8,001 to 9,000 748,510 785,511 821,496 754,256
9,001 to 10,000 973,436 929,176 916,224 968,810
10,001 to 11,000 1,168,576 1,088,299 1,073,693 1,039,116
11,001 to 12,000 1,280,886 1,102,936 1,235,578 1,297,397
12,001 to 13,000 1,411,491 1,323,423 1,291,654 1,497,012
13,001 to 14,000 1,360,783 1,264,081 1,302,863 1,759,753
12
Pitkin County Energy Use: Utility Data Analysis
Page 6
4. Total average energy use per square foot of home for each size range
Total Avg kBtu/ft2/yr
Size (ft2) 2014 2015 2016 2017 AVG
1,001 to 2,000 33 31 43 31 34
2,001 to 3,000 41 39 40 38 40
3,001 to 4,000 53 50 51 52 51
4,001 to 5,000 63 58 59 58 60
5,001 to 6,000 77 73 74 77 75
6,001 to 7,000 81 73 78 77 77
7,001 to 8,000 98 90 70 95 88
8,001 to 9,000 88 92 97 89 91
9,001 to 10,000 102 98 96 102 100
10,001 to 11,000 111 103 102 99 104
11,001 to 12,000 111 96 107 113 107
12,001 to 13,000 113 106 103 120 110
13,001 to 14,000 101 94 97 130 105
average kBtu/ft2/yr of all data 80
average of homes less than 5,000 ft2 46
average of greater than 5,000 ft2 95
13
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Development Project Manager
THROUGH: Rob Schober, Capital Asset Director
MEMO DATE: September 19, 2022
MEETING DATE: September 26, 2022
RE: Lumberyard Affordable Housing Development Application Summary
SUMMARY:
The development application for the Lumberyard affordable housing project is currently being
drafted and includes 277 affordable housing units with 467 bedrooms in three large 4-story
buildings on 11.3 acres of City-owned property adjacent to the Aspen Airport Business Center.
The project team will present the application summary materials enclosed and will request that
Council direct the team to present similar summary information in upcoming community outreach
and submit the application to the Community Development Department to kick off the formal land
use review and approval process.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
1.Do the application contents as summarized meet Council’s expectations?
2.Can the team go ahead with community outreach related to the application and seek
community feedback which will help to inform the public hearing process?
3.Can the team go ahead and formally submit the application to the
Community Development Department?
DISCUSSION:
At a work session on May 16, 2022, the project team presented the 100% Schematic Design to
Aspen City Council. The enclosed summary materials include information about the extensive
community outreach and iterative Council work session design process which facilitated creation
of the current project designs. Project due diligence will also be reviewed, and some of that work
will be ongoing throughout the land use review and approval process.
The project team is concurrently working on advancing the project design toward the Design
Development (DD) level. This effort will allow the design team to submit more refined plans for
the planned development and will allow for input and refinement during the land use public hearing
process.
Council’s goal has been to begin construction in 2024, and completion of the land use review and
approval process in early 2023 is a crucial milestone toward that goal. The materials enclosed
also include information about what the implementation phasing plan looks like and what each
phase of work is planned to entail.
14
Page 2 of 2
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
The 100% Schematic Design phased project estimate shown below has previously been
transmitted to Council. The project team plans to update the project estimate when the design
has reached the 100% Design Development (DD) level.
Lumberyard Affordable Housing - Proposed Project Phasing and 100% SD Cost Estimate
2019-2023 Planning & Design $4,362,231
2024-2025 Phase 0, Demolition, Access, Infrastructure, Traffic Signal $14,247,758
2026-2027 Phase 1, Building 1 - 104 Rental Units $125,540,701
2028-2029 Phase 2, Building 2 - 91 Rental Units $115,862,000
2030-2031 Phase 3, Building 3 - 82 Ownership Units $135,235,509
Phased Project Implementation Cost Estimate (2019 – 2031) $395,248,199
Historic / Sunk Land Costs
Lumberyard Property (2007) $18,250,000
Aspen Mini Storage (2020) $11,000,000
Triangle Portion of Burlingame Lot 1A (Prorated Estimate) $250,000
Land Cost Subtotal $29,500,000
Total Estimated Project Cost with Phased Implementation and Historic Costs $424,748,199
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Presentation slides – Summary of Development Application
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
~lll'lj [,J•--~~ ~1.-~ I': -~~ ASPEN LUMBERYARD -~---------------------------------------------
4.0 Due Diligence
Utilities Analysis
Key Takeaways:
• Upgrades to electric, water and sewer utilities are included in plans and estimates
• Stormwater management system is being designed to improve conditions for
neighboring properties
Transportation Impact Analysis
Key Takeaways:
• By housing workers closer to Aspen, the project will reduce CO2 emissions from
commuter transportation by 500,000 to 600,000 pounds per year
• The project adds about 50 vehicle trips per day to the transportation system
• Travel times on Hwy 82 will increase by about one minute during rush hour
• Through improved transit, the City can further reduce vehicle trips and travel times
C USHING TERRELL /2 35
~lll'lj [,J•--~~ ~1.-~ I': -~~ ASPEN LUMBERYARD -~---------------------------------------------
4.0 Due Diligence
Transportation Demand Management
Recommendations:
The Project Team Suggests These Recommendations for the Application :
• Dedicated transit route from Ru bey Park to new transit station at Lumberyard with
30-minute service . Service should include stops between Rubey Park and
Lumberyard . Operating 30-minute service would require two transportation vehicles .
• A bike share station is recommended, to be located adjacent to transit station at
Lumberyard .
The Project Team Suggests Lowering the Priority of these Recommendations:
• Dedicated transportation route from Rubey Park which would loop around the
Lumberyard , AABC and airport.
• Feeder/circulator service
• Buy-up additional service routes (non-dedicated service)
• Car share by relocating an existing car, not buying a new car
C USHING TERRELL /,
36
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
22CUSHING TERRELL
Demographics and Market Research (EPS Study)
4.0 Due Diligence
Key Takeaways:
• There has been a decline in
lower income households
throughout the Roaring Fork
Valley
• Job growth in Pitkin County
has been primarily in APCHA
Category 3, followed by
Category 2
• The project program mix
should account for both of
those
• Provide some amount of
fl exibility for developers, to
help marketability of public
private partnerships
Affordability Mix
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107