HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformation Only 022724AGENDA
INFORMATION UPDATE
February 27, 2024
5:00 PM,
I.Information Update
I.A Investment Services Update
I.B Information on APCHA's Role in Collecting or Advising in the Collection of Housing
Data
I.C Wildfire Related Code Updates
I.D Development Review
Info Only Memo - Investment Services Update.docx
2023Feb27_Info Memo_APCHA Data.pdf
Attachment A_2022 January - EPS Lumber Yard Market Study.pdf
Attachment B_WS 9-14-2020 Lumberyard Outreach with Exhibits.pdf
Attachment C_Memo Council WS JAN 10 2022 with all exhibits.pdf
Wildfire Related Code Updates Ignition Resistant Design and Construction Guide
Memo.docx
INFO ONLY - Development Review.pdf
1
1
INFO ONLY MEMORANDUM
TO:City Council
FROM:Pete Strecker, Finance Director
DATE:February 27, 2024
RE:Investment Advisory Services
To ensure that the City’s funds are continually being leveraged both responsibly but also
effectively, the Finance Director must weigh returns, liquidity and risk and find the correct balance
of these often competing factors to produce a positive investment strategy. To guide these
decisions, the City Council adopts financial and investment policies (most recently via Resolution
126 (Series 2022)) to establish guidelines around what is acceptable in terms of the type of
investment holdings, maximum durations for committing funds, the credit quality of investments,
and more. To date, the City Council has supported investment policies that mirror the requirements
on local governments as set forth in State Statute, under Section 24-75-601 (C.R.S.), though the
Council does have allowances to deviate from this statutory language pursuant to the home rule
authority held by the City of Aspen. Currently, the only variance from State statutory language
that is present in the City’s policies is that steers new investments consistent with the City’s
environmental stewardship stance.
Because the City has significant resources and desires to leverage these resources for the benefit
of the Community while operating within the parameters of the financial policies in place, the
City has enlisted the use of an investment advisory firm (Insight Investment), to provide constant
eyes on the financial markets, identify new investment opportunities and evaluate new offerings
relative to the City’s current portfolio, assist with making trades, and routinely monitor our
policies and that of the State to ensure consistency. This arrangement has given an additional
level of scrutiny to the City’s investments and has contributed to the furthering of the strong
financial position that Aspen enjoys. It does also come with a cost, as the current arrangement
for investment advisory services is stipulated at a monthly fee equal to 8 basis points for the first
$20M managed, plus 6 basis points for any amount over $20M managed. This equates to
roughly $8K per month for the portion of the portfolio that includes Insight Investment’s
support.
PILOT PROGRAM
While the current arrangement provides positive outcomes, ensuring strong investment selections
and appropriate controls are maintained in relation to the City’s policies, staff has been exploring
alternative avenues for these same services, as part of its due diligence. With that, Staff has been
piloting a new arrangement with Wells Fargo’s Fixed Income Solutions group for the last two
quarters of 2023, to sample another advisory provider. This pilot was initiated in part due to the
City’s full banking services being provided by Wells Fargo and the synergy possible in
establishing investment management under this same partnership.
2
For this pilot, the City began taking cash it had “sidelined” during the low-yield interest rate
environment following COVID and began investing these funds with the assistance with Wells
Fargo. For this pilot, staff shared the City’s investment policies and discussed the current market
conditions and where the City saw opportunity in pushing new investments into the market as
interest rates reached perceived near-term highs; discussed the diversification of investments to
what was already held under the City’s portfolio; affirmed requirements for highly rated
investments; and set expectations to start lengthening portfolio duration to lock in high rates
longer. With this, Well Fargo established a proposed ladder of investments that accounted for all
of these parameters and provided options for specific investments that could be swapped in or
out to achieve the aggregate strategy. Since the initial investment settlements, the City has had
some short-term investments mature and staff has used Wells Fargo to reinvest additional funds
further out on the curve as part of the overall initial strategy, and each time the overall trade
recommendations and discussions around market expectations has been insightful and robust.
GOING FORWARD
Staff has determined that the services provided by Wells Fargo Fixed Income Solutions group
has been at least equal to the services received by Insight Investments, but arguably better. The
extent of options being brought forward for each new investment appears to reflect the depth of
Wells Fargo in the investments world, with higher level analysis and increased engagement /
accessibility. There are also advantages in having these investment services reside under the
City’s existing banking arrangement in place with Wells Fargo – this creates for a seamless
method for the movement of funds into and out of the markets, without the need for a separate
safekeeping bank or wire transfers (which are currently needed with Insight Investments). And,
as Wells Fargo is a registered broker-dealer under the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Wells Fargo is able to provide the City trades at the same rate as what an investment advisor
provides, but without the additional monthly oversight fees that an investment advisor charges.
To that end, the City would be able to eliminate roughly $90,000 in annual fees, without losing
any of the advisory functions otherwise offered.
Finally, it is important to note that the City has direct access and workings with the Director of
the Wells Fargo Fixed Income Solutions group, Katiana Siatras (bio attached). Katiana is fully
engaged in our monthly market update calls, is our direct point-of-contact for trade discussions,
and is constantly assessing our investment strategy with us to ensure compliance with our
policies. And while our experience has been extremely positive to date, staff did initiate calls
with three other groups that utilize Katiana’s services to inquire deeper from actual clients.
Commerce City ($330M), City of Thornton ($560M) and Greeley School District ($150M to
$400M) were all highly positive with the experiences they have had with Wells Fargo and with
Katiana, many having long tenure in their arrangements with her.
NEXT STEPS
Because of the multitude of benefits noted above, Staff has initiated a transitioning of investment
advisory services and anticipates this to complete within Q1 of 2024. While there are no new
financial commitments tied to this transition, in fact there is a reduction in direct cost to the City,
staff did want to keep Council informed of this action and of the overall benefits to be realized.
3
INFORMATION ONLY MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and City Council
FROM: Liz Axberg, Housing Policy Analyst
Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager
THROUGH: Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager
MEMO DATE: February 20th, 2024
MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024
RE: Information on APCHA’s Role in Collecting or Advising in the
Collection of Housing Data
PURPOSE: Inform Council of APCHA’s current and previous roles in collecting or
advising on the collection of data.
BACKGROUND: At the January 22nd, 2024, Council Work Session, Council inquired
about the APCHA Executive Director responsibilities outlined in the IGA, the
Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County Establishing
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The specific responsibility inquired on was
part ‘g’ shown below:
g. Investigate and maintain data indicating housing needs within the jurisdiction of the
City or the County for the population segments designated herein or identified by the
Authority and the means and methods for improving those conditions;
This information memo covers when and how APCHA is involved in the development of
and advisement on data collection and recent examples of this involvement. While this
memo covers the main categories of APCHA’s past and ongoing involvement, the list is
not comprehensive. Three of the more recent data collection efforts/studies which APCHA
was involved in include:
- 2016 Policy Study with Navigate, LLC, WSW Consulting, and Rees Consulting,
Inc.,
- 2019 Greater Roaring Fork Housing Study with Economic Planning Systems (EPS)
- 2022 EPS Lumberyard Demographic and Market Assessment
Outside of studies and contracted analysis, APCHA provides data-driven
recommendations. Two examples of City procedures in which APCHA has a role include:
4
- Category and Unit Type Distribution Recommendations for Development Projects
(e.g., Lumberyard); and
- Affordable Housing Land Use Code Approval Processes.
In addition to the previous and ongoing examples of APCHA’s role in data advisement
and collection efforts, in 2024, APCHA staff will be directly involved in the upcoming rental
rate study which will analyze rates and affordability for City-owned rental units.
DISCUSSION:
Included are additional details on the mentioned examples of APCHA’s involvement in
data collection and advisement.
1. 2016 APCHA Guidelines Consultant Policy Study
In 2016, APCHA contracted with Navigate, LLC, WSW Consulting, and Rees
Consulting, Inc., to conduct a comprehensive review of its affordable housing program.
APCHA staff, APCHA Board, Aspen City Council, Pitkin County BOCC, and many
community stakeholders were involved in the data collection and work completed
through this study.
This study addressed affordability, income/asset brackets, household size,
qualifications, and other APCHA best practices. In the following years, APCHA used
data and analysis from this study to assess categories, sales prices, and rental rates.
2. 2019 Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study
This regional analysis from 2019 estimated the housing need across the Roaring Fork
Valley and the Colorado River Valley, from Aspen and Snowmass Village to Glenwood
Springs, and from Parachute to Edwards.
The study both collected data through surveys and utilized data from the American
Community Survey (ACS). Dynamics, interdependencies, and the “face” (with a regional
workforce, resident, and employer survey) of regional housing needs were the main
focus of the analysis. The APCHA Executive Director at the time, Mike Kosdrosky, had
a seat on the study’s advisory group.
3. 2022 EPS Lumberyard Demographic and Market Assessment (Attachment
A)
In 2022, EPS prepared a report for the City of Aspen and APCHA to provide an
overview of macro level growth trends and demographics in Pitkin County. This
assessment also included employment and wage trends and housing characteristics of
recently constructed housing in our region. EPS used this data to make
recommendations on the mix of units by size and APCHA income categories for the
Aspen Lumberyard Affordable Housing project.
5
APCHA management staff were involved throughout the project when answering
questions or providing background information on the APCHA program to support the
analysis.
4. Category and Unit Type Distribution Recommendations
Two of the many variables that went into deciding the category mix and rental vs
ownership distribution for the Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project were determined
through extensive community outreach and the 2022 EPS Lumberyard Demographic
and Market Assessment. APCHA staff were also involved in this data-driven decision
process. The two Lumberyard Project memos below provide references of APCHA’s
involvement:
September 14, 2020, Work Session: Community Outreach for Lumberyard
Conceptual Design Process (Attachment B)
o APCHA staff advised discussions on the property’s rental vs ownership
unit mix. This advisement is based on data from qualifications and bids.
Page 5 of 8 -- “The Housing Authority reports the greatest need is
for rental housing.”
January 10, 2022, Work Session: Lumberyard Schematic Design Process
Update #2 (Attachment C)
o APCHA staff have been involved throughout the project review including
planning financial resources and project scope of work.
Page 5 of 7-- “To develop an approach to the detailed effort with key
City management staff, and with the aim of creating a plan that can be
executed to implement the project, the project team has a meeting
scheduled for January 11, 2022, with City of Aspen and APCHA
management staff to review the financial resources and
implementation planning scope of work and the associated project
opportunities and challenges.”
Outside of City-led AH development projects, in many instances, local developers will
reach out to APCHA for unit type and category distribution recommendations for
planned developments. APCHA staff make recommendations based on data from
qualification packets, bids, and lotteries.
5. Land Use Code Approval Processes for Affordable Housing Projects
Community Development involves APCHA during the land use code approval process for
affordable housing projects. Through this process, APCHA staff review the project details
and respond with project recommendations and/or a recommendation for approval if the
project meets APCHA’s requirements laid out in the APCHA Housing Development
Regulations. All affordable housing development projects in Aspen must abide by the
guidelines set forth in the APCHA housing development regulations.
6. 2024 Rental Rate Study
At the October 16th, 2023, work session, Aspen City Council approved $50,000 to conduct
a rental rate study for City-owned rental units in 2024. Properties in this group include
6
Burlingame, Marolt, Truscott I, Truscott II, and ACI. APCHA staff have been involved in
developing the RFP for the project and will continue to be involved in the project in terms
of providing data, advising on the collection of data, working with the selected consultant,
and reviewing reports and policy recommendations from the study.
ATTACHMENTS:
A) 2022 EPS Lumberyard Demographic and Market Assessment
B) Memo from September 14, 2020, Work session: Community Outreach for
Lumberyard Conceptual Design Process
C) Memo from January 10th, 2022, Work Session: Lumberyard Schematic Design
Process Update #2
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
7
Lumber Yard Demographic and
Market Assessment
Prepared for:
City of Aspen
Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
EPS #213032
Updated January 6, 2022
8
Table of Contents
Trends and Conditions ............................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
Population, Household, and Job Trends ............................................................ 1
Age Distribution ............................................................................................ 4
Home Prices ................................................................................................. 5
Key Demographic Finding ............................................................................... 5
2018 Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study ........................................... 6
Employment Trends .................................................................................. 7
Wage and Salary Job Trends ........................................................................... 7
Supply and Demand ................................................................................ 12
Household Income ...................................................................................... 12
Household Size ........................................................................................... 13
Renters and Owners .................................................................................... 14
Housing Units by AMI .................................................................................. 15
Recent Multifamily Projects ........................................................................... 18
Recommendations .................................................................................. 23
APCHA Rental Inventory ............................................................................... 23
Analysis Findings ........................................................................................ 24
Proposed Unit Mix ....................................................................................... 25
9
List of Tables
Table 1. Household Composition, Pitkin County, 2012-2019 .................................... 3
Table 2. Wages and Incomes, Top Five Growth Sectors, Pitkin County, 2010-2019 ..... 8
Table 3. Wages and Incomes, Top Sectors, Pitkin County, 2020 ............................. 11
Table 4. Recent Apartment Developments .......................................................... 18
Table 5. Rents by AMI Levels in Recent Properties ............................................... 19
Table 6. APCHA Rental Housing Inventory........................................................... 23
Table 7. Recommended Unit Mix ....................................................................... 25
10
List of Figures
Figure 1. Pitkin County Population, 2010-2020 ....................................................... 2
Figure 2. Households vs. Housing Unit Growth, Pitkin County, 2010-2020 .................. 3
Figure 3. Age Distribution, Pitkin County, 2010-2020............................................... 4
Figure 4. Median Home Sale Price, Pitkin County, 2018-2021 ................................... 5
Figure 5. Employment, Pitkin County, 2010-2021 ................................................... 7
Figure 6. Employment Change by sector, Pitkin County, 2010-2019........................... 8
Figure 7. Change in Employment by wage quartile, Pitkin County, 2010-2019 ............. 9
Figure 8. Change in Employment AMI, Pitkin County, 2010-2019 ............................ 10
Figure 9. Change in Renter Households by AMI, 2010-2019 .................................... 12
Figure 10. Change in Owner Households by AMI, 2010-2019 .................................... 13
Figure 11. Households by Size, Market Area, 2010-2019 ......................................... 14
Figure 12. Households by Tenure, 2010-2019, Market Area ...................................... 14
Figure 13. Renter Units by AMI, 2010-2019 ........................................................... 15
Figure 14. Owner Units by AMI, 2010-2019 ........................................................... 16
Figure 15. Rental Units by Bedroom County, Pitkin County, 2010-2019 ...................... 17
11
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
213032-Lumber Yard Report 1-6-22.docx 1
Trends and Conditions
Introduction
This report was prepared for the City of Aspen and the Aspen-Pitkin County
Housing Authority, under a subcontract with DHM Design in Carbondale. The
purpose of this analysis is to provide recommendations on the unit mix in the
Lumber Yard housing development. The City is particularly interested in aligning
the development program with job growth and the associated wage and
household income levels. The study also examines demographic trends and
conditions, and the rental housing supply to address the full range of housing
demand and supply in the rental market.
The report begins with an overview of macro level growth trends and
demographics in Pitkin County. The second chapter reviews employment and
wage trends. Chapters 3 and 4 summarize housing supply characteristics
including profiles of recently constructed apartments. Chapter 5 contains
Economic & Planning Systems’ (EPS) recommendations on the mix of units by size
(bedrooms) and APCHA income categories.
Population, Household, and Job Trends
Over the past decade, the population of Pitkin County has experienced minimal
growth, increasing from 17,156 residents in 2010 to 17,363 in 2020, which is an
addition of 207 people, as shown in Figure 1. The annual growth rate over this
time period was 0.12 percent. The State Demographer estimates that the
County’s population actually declined by over 300 since 2016 when the population
was 17,691.
12
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
2
Figure 1. Pitkin County Population, 2010-2020
When looking at demographic trends in Colorado’s mountain communities, it is
also important to examine trends in the number of households, a group of people
related or unrelated living in one occupied housing unit.
Overall, growth in housing units outpaced household growth, with the overall
housing stock increasing by about 9 percent between 2010 and 2019, while the
number of households only increased by 4 percent as shown in Figure 2. However,
most housing unit growth was in “vacant units” that are largely comprised of
second homes. The share of vacant units in Pitkin County increased from 37
percent of all housing units in 2010 to 40 percent of all housing units in 2019.
The number of jobs in Pitkin County increased by 19 percent since 2010, compared to
only a 4 percent in population. With unemployment generally low after 2012, most
of the new jobs could only be filled by an increase in commuting into the county.
17,156 17,128 17,201 17,321 17,521 17,701 17,691 17,658 17,643 17,413 17,363
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
19,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source: DOLA; Economic & Planning Systems
13
Economic & Planning Systems
3
Figure 2. Households vs. Housing Unit Growth, Pitkin County, 2010-2020
EPS analyzed the composition of households in Pitkin County using estimates from
the American Community Survey (ACS) part of the U.S. Census. As of 2019,
approximately 42 percent of households in Pitkin County live with an unrelated
roommate, up from 39 percent in 2012, while 25 percent live with family
members, 19 percent live with a partner or spouse, and 14 percent live alone, as
shown in Table 1. This suggests that roommate arrangements are prevalent,
which is a source of demand for multi-bedroom unit types.
Table 1. Household Composition, Pitkin County, 2012-2019
104%
109%
119%
95%
100%
105%
110%
115%
120%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
% of 2010
Households
Housing Units
Vacant Housing Units
Source: DOLA; Economic & Planning Systems
Description 2012 % Total 2019 % Total
Households
Living Alone 2,648 16%2,457 14%
Living with Roomates 6,665 39%7,550 42%
Living with a partner/spouse 3,201 19%3,353 19%
Living with family 4,361 26%4,432 25%
Total 16,875 100%17,792 100%
Source: U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\213032-Aspen Lumber Yard\Data\[213032-HH Characteristics.xlsx]T-Summ
14
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
4
Age Distribution
The population of Pitkin County has become older over the past decade. The
median age increased from 42.1 in 2010 to 44.8 in 2020, while the age cohort
with the most significant increase in its share of population over that period was
65 and over, growing from 11.4 percent of the population in 2010 to 19.3 percent
of the population in 2020, as shown in Figure 3. In addition, the share of the
population aged 0 to 14, 25 to 34, 35 to 44, and 45 to 54 all decreased between
2010 and 2020.
Figure 3. Age Distribution, Pitkin County, 2010-2020
14.3%
9.1%
15.3%
16.1%
17.3%
16.4%
11.4%11.9%
11.0%
13.9%13.5%14.2%
16.3%
19.3%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
0-14 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65+
2010 2020
Source: U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems
15
Economic & Planning Systems
5
Home Prices
Pitkin County continues to have a high-priced housing market that has
appreciated significantly in recent years. From 2018 to 2021, the median sale
price increased from $2,800,000 to $5,037,000, as shown in Figure 4, with the
largest increase occurring between 2019 and 2020, when the median sale price
rose by 50 percent year-over-year. In terms of price distribution, approximately
10 percent of the homes sold in 2020 and 2021 were under $500,000, while one-
third of homes in 2020 and 2021 were under $1,000,000.
Figure 4. Median Home Sale Price, Pitkin County, 2018-2021
Key Demographic Finding
Three trends: slow growing to decreasing population, household growth outpacing
population growth, and the aging population have important implications on
affordable housing, the sustainability of the local economy and character of the
place. The decline in population since 2016 is likely comprised of a combination of
natural decreases (deaths and aging) and people moving out of the county.
The faster rate of household growth compared to population is a complex trend. It
may indicate that newer households moving into the county are smaller than the
households leaving the county. The new households could be empty nester
households and retirees. When paired with the change in age distribution
(declines in young and working age population, increase in over 65 population), a
picture emerges of an increasingly older wealthier population.
$2,800,000
$3,275,000
$5,000,000 $5,037,000
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2018 2019 2020 2021
Median Sale Price
Source: Land Title Company; Economic & Planning Systems
16
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
6
2018 Greater Roaring Fork Regional
Housing Study
In 2018, EPS and RRC Associates conducted an in-depth housing study for the
Greater Roaring Fork Region lying between Aspen, Rifle, and Eagle. The study
involved extensive data analysis as well as a detailed survey. The study had the
following key takeaways:
• The region has a 2,100-unit shortfall in housing for households at 60% of area
median income (AMI) and less, and a 1,900-unit shortfall for households
between 100 and 160% AMI, the “missing middle”.
• Overspending on housing (cost burden) costs the region $54 million per year
that could be spent in the local economy or used to save for the future or pay
off debt.
• More than 26,000 workers (out of 47,000 employed residents) cross paths in
their daily commute versus just 19,000 employed residents who live where
they work. This cross-commuting impacts roads, quality of life, and the
environment.
• Year-round business has grown, which can increase the region’s resilience to
another down-turn.
• The population is aging and retiring; over the next 10 years, it is projected
that the population over 65 will increase 60 percent (7,800 people).
• Non-local property ownership and short term rentals put pressure on the
housing market by reducing supply, which impacts the local workforce and the
permanent resident population.
Many of these takeaways are confirmed by the analysis in this study, including an
aging population and a supply and demand imbalance in the housing stock below
60% of AMI.
17
Economic & Planning Systems
7
Employment Trends
This chapter summarizes trends in employment by industry and wage level in
Pitkin County. From this information we estimate the household incomes that
result from combining multiple job holders into a household.
Wage and Salary Job Trends
The Pitkin County economy has been generally strong over the past decade, as
wage and salary jobs grew by 1,724 or 1.3 percent annually between 2010 and
2019, as shown in Figure 5. The momentum slowed in 2020, when jobs contracted
by 9.4 percent due to the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of
early 2021, total employment has mostly rebounded to its pre-pandemic levels.
Figure 5. Employment, Pitkin County, 2010-2021
Job growth in Pitkin County was primarily driven by tourism-related sectors,
including Accommodation and Food Services, Arts and Recreation, and Retail
Trade, as shown in Figure 6. Collectively, these sectors accounted for
approximately 60 percent of total job growth from 2010 through 2019. As shown
in Table 2, the household incomes for these jobs range from 74 percent to 116
percent of area median income. It is important to note that these jobs are
essential to the Pitkin County economy and also drive demand for workforce
housing. Other sectors that grew included Public Administration (government),
Real Estate, and Health Care.
15,003 15,061
15,329
15,707
16,437
15,826
16,129
16,371 16,534
16,801
15,215
16,727
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Source: QCEW;Economic & Planning Systems
18
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
8
Figure 6. Employment Change by sector, Pitkin County, 2010-2019
Table 2. Wages and Incomes, Top Five Growth Sectors, Pitkin County, 2010-2019
An analysis by wage quartile shows the range of wage levels where job growth
has been. Between 2010 and 2019, 29 percent of new jobs in Pitkin County were
at or below the 25th percentile of wages, which equates to $47,372 per year or
below $23 per hour, as shown in Figure 7. Just over half of new jobs were in the
25th to 50th percentile of wages, at $47,372 to $61,620 per year or $23 to
approximately $30 per hour. The remaining 19 percent of jobs were above
$61,620 per year or $30 per hour.
437
433
332
205
172
150
108
100
97
55
50
47
27
14
2
-47
-53
-85
-240
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Acc. and Food Services
Arts and Recreation
Public Admin.
Real Estate
Retail Trade
Health Care
Transport and Warehousing
Professional and Tech Srvcs
Other Services
Ag & Forestry
Educational Services
Management of Companies
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Utilities
Finance
Information
Construction
Admin and Waste Services
Description % of Job Growth Avg. Wage HH Income [1]AMI APCHA Category
Pitkin County
Accommodation and Food Services 24%$43,368 $69,389 74%Category 2
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 24%$50,024 $80,038 85%Category 3
Public Administration 18%$66,352 $106,163 113%Category 3
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 11%$68,120 $108,992 116%Category 3
Retail Trade 10%$51,896 $83,034 88%Category 3
[1] Assumes 1.6 Earners per Household
Source: BLS; Economic & Planning Systems
19
Economic & Planning Systems
9
Figure 7. Change in Employment by Wage Quartile, Pitkin County, 2010-2019
While wages relate to household income, the above information is only part of the
picture as a working household is often comprised of multiple earners. The 2019
housing survey found that on average there are 1.6 earners per household.
Household income is therefore estimated by multiplying the average wage for an
industry, or the wages in the quartiles shown, by 1.6. This assumes that the
“second” 0.6th of an earner makes the same wage as the first (1.0) earner. When
thinking about the workforce in a mountain resort area, it is common for people
with similar job types to pair up as roommates.
The wage information is converted to estimated household income. As shown, 26
percent of the job growth translates to household incomes in APCHA Category 2
(50-85% AMI) and 55 percent of the job growth translates to Category 3 (85-120%
AMI). If a goal is to serve the local workforce and employers, then a significant
portion of the Lumber Yard unit mix should be in the Category 2 and Category 3
income ranges.
20
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
10
Figure 8. Change in Employment AMI, Pitkin County, 2010-2019
A more granular breakdown of sectors in Pitkin County illustrates the wages in
specific industries. As shown in Table 3, hotel jobs and restaurant jobs both
comprise approximately 10 percent of total employment. For a household with 1.6
earners, hotel jobs pay a household income equivalent to 97 percent of AMI
(Category 3) and restaurant jobs pay a household income equivalent to 82
percent of AMI (Category 2). Skiing Facilities, which comprise 9 percent of total
jobs, pay a household income equivalent to 109 percent of AMI. For a one-earner
household, hotel jobs pay an income equivalent to 74 percent of AMI and
restaurants pay an income equivalent to 63 percent of AMI, placing jobholders in
Category 2 under APCHA guidelines. In a few sectors with a sizeable presence in
Pitkin County, including Supermarkets and Temporary Help Services, incomes in
one-earner households place jobholders in Category 1.
0
(0%)
436
(26%)
913
(55%)
117
(7%)
0
(0%)
202
(12%)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Below 50% AMI 50%-85% AMI 85%-120% AMI 120%-205% AMI 205%-240% AMI Above 240% AMI
Source: QCEW; Economic & Planning Systems
21
Economic & Planning Systems
11
Table 3. Wages and Incomes, Top Sectors, Pitkin County, 2020
Description % of Total Jobs Avg. Wage AMI [1]Category HH Income AMI [2]Category
Pitkin County
Hotels and Motels 11%$57,092 74%Cat. 2 $91,347 97%Cat. 3
Full-Service Restaurants 10%$48,405 63%Cat. 2 $77,447 82%Cat. 2
Skiing Facilities 9%$63,916 83%Cat. 2 $102,266 109%Cat. 3
Executive and Legislative Offices 6%$68,979 89%Cat. 3 $110,366 117%Cat. 3
Residential Property Managers 5%$73,835 95%Cat. 3 $118,136 126%Cat. 4
General Medical Hospitals 3%$86,511 112%Cat. 3 $138,418 147%Cat. 5
Elementary and Secondary Schools 3%$56,715 73%Cat. 2 $90,743 97%Cat. 3
Temporary Help Services 2%$30,795 40%Cat. 1 $49,272 52%Cat. 2
Landscaping Services 2%$48,181 62%Cat. 2 $77,090 82%Cat. 2
Supermarkets and Grocery Stores 2%$36,052 47%Cat. 1 $57,684 61%Cat. 2
[1] Assumes a 1-person household size
[2] Assumes a 2.5-person household size
Source: BLS; Economic & Planning Systems
C:\Users\Carson\Documents\[QCEW Pitkin Eagle Garfield CLEANED.xlsx]T-6 digit Summ Pitkin
1-Earner Household 1.6-Earner Household
22
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
12
Supply and Demand
This chapter analyzes supply and demand information on housing and household
demographics in Pitkin County and the greater Roaring Fork Valley, including
Basalt, Carbondale, and Glenwood Springs – referred to as the Primary Market
Area (PMA).
Household Income
EPS analyzed data on households by income range using census tract-level data
from the American Community Survey (ACS). The incomes from the ACS data
were translated into area median income using guidelines set by the Aspen-Pitkin
County Housing Authority (APCHA). The tracts in this analysis encompass the
entire Primary Market Area.
From 2010 through 2019, growth in renter households was concentrated above
85% of AMI (above Category 2). The majority of renter household growth was in
the 120-205% AMI category (mostly Category 4), as shown in Figure 9. By
contrast, the number of renter households below 85% of AMI contracted,
indicating a net loss of the lowest-income households.
Figure 9. Change in Renter Households by AMI, 2010-2019
-222
-114
190
623
22
198
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
Below 50%
AMI
50%-85%
AMI
85%-120%
AMI
120%-205%
AMI
205%-240%
AMI
Above 240%
AMI
Source: U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems
23
Economic & Planning Systems
13
Owner households showed a similar pattern. New household growth primarily
occurred in the 85-120% AMI (Category 3) and above 240% AMI categories
(Category 5), while there was a significant loss of households below 85% of AMI
(Category 2), as shown in Figure 10. Overall, this analysis highlights a pattern in
which higher-income households are replacing lower-income households in the
Roaring Fork Valley, likely due to displacement of lower-income households
because of rising housing costs and scarce supply.
Figure 10. Change in Owner Households by AMI, 2010-2019
Household Size
Within the Primary Market Area, the most common household size is a two-person
household, comprising 39 percent of all households, followed a one-person
household with 28 percent, four or more-person household with 17 percent, and a
three-person household with 16 percent, as shown in Figure 11. From 2010 and
2019, the share of two-person households grew the most, increasing from 34 to
39 percent of all households, while the share of three-person households
increased marginally. The decrease in share of households with 4 or more people,
which dropped from 21 to 17 percent of all households, indicates a loss of families
and larger households.
-500
-265
-8
439
84
457
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
Below 50%
AMI
50%-85%
AMI
85%-120%
AMI
120%-205%
AMI
205%-240%
AMI
Above 240%
AMI
Source: U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems
24
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
14
Figure 11. Households by Size, Market Area, 2010-2019
Renters and O wners
In terms of tenure, owner households comprise approximately two-thirds of all
households in the Primary Market Area. The share of renter households within the
Primary Market Area increased slightly between 2010 and 2019, increasing from 34
percent to 36 percent of all households, as shown in Figure 12. As such, the share
of owner households decreased from 66 to 64 percent of all households.
Figure 12. Households by Tenure, 2010-2019, Market Area
30%
34%
14%
21%
28%
39%
16%17%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1-Person HH 2-Person HH 3-Person HH 4+ Person HH
2010 2019
Source: U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems
34%
66%
36%
64%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Renters Owners
2010 2019
Source: U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems
25
Economic & Planning Systems
15
Housing Units by AMI
On the supply side, EPS analyzed data on units by value and units by rent using
census tract-level data from the American Community Survey (ACS). The incomes
from the ACS data were translated into area median income using guidelines set
by the Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). The tracts in this analysis
encompass the entire Primary Market Area.
Rental Housing
Among rental units, the vast majority of new unit growth occurred between 85%
and 120% of AMI, while there was a loss of units below 50% of AMI and above
205% of AMI, as shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13. Renter Units by AMI, 2010-2019
-324
-124 -96
212
1,041
235
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Below 50%
AMI
50%-85%
AMI
85%-120%
AMI
120%-205%
AMI
205%-240%
AMI
Above 240%
AMI
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
26
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
16
On the owner side, new unit growth was distributed between units in the 50-85%
AMI category and the 120-205% category as shown in Figure 14. These trends
reflect increases in rental rates at the low end, and likely conversion of units to
ownership or second homes at the higher end.
Figure 14. Owner Units by AMI, 2010-2019
-340
-95
-513
554
89
562
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
Below 50%
AMI
50%-85%
AMI
85%-120%
AMI
120%-205%
AMI
205%-240%
AMI
Above 240%
AMI
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
27
Economic & Planning Systems
17
Number of Bedrooms
The most common type of rental unit in the Primary Market Area is a 2-bedroom
unit, comprising 40 percent of all rental units, as shown in Figure 15. One- and
3-bedroom units both comprise approximately 20 percent of rental units, while
studios and 4- and 5-bedroom units comprise less than 10 percent of rental units.
Between 2010 and 2019, the share of 2-bedroom units grew significantly,
increasing from 32 to 40 percent of all rental units, while the share of 3-bedroom
units fell from 26 to 19 percent of units, and the share of 1-bedroom units fell
from 22 to 20 percent. The increase in 2-bedroom units is attributed to
construction of new APCHA projects and other new apartments noted below.
Figure 15. Rental Units by Bedroom County, Pitkin County, 2010-2019
11%
22%
32%
26%
7%
2%
7%
20%
40%
19%
10%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
No Bedroom 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom 5+ Bedrooms
2010 2019
Source: U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems
28
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
18
Recent Multifamily Projects
EPS gathered information on recent multifamily projects in the Roaring Fork
Valley to gauge what the market has delivered, with a particular focus on unit mix
and rental rates. Several multifamily projects, both market rate and affordable,
have been built in the Valley over the past decade. A brief description of each
project is provided below and project characteristics are summarized in Table 4.
Newer apartment developments have rents concentrated in the Category 4 and
RO categories. These are not APCHA properties; EPS converted the rental rates to
the equivalent APCHA categories and AMI ranges for comparison. As shown in
Table 5, the only properties serving people earning less than 120 percent of AMI
(Category 4) are properties developed using low income housing tax credits
(LIHTC). The two LIHTC projects shown here have rents affordable to people
earning between 50 and 85% of AMI (Category 2).
Table 4. Recent Apartment Developments
Description Units Percent Avg. Size Avg. Rent Per Sq. Ft.Yr Built Type
Willits Seven - Basalt
1 Bedroom 18 36%624 $1,901 $3.05 2017 Affordable
2-Bedroom 17 34%909 $2,168 $2.39 2017 Affordable
3-Bedroom 15 30%1,072 $2,280 $2.13 2017 Affordable
Total 50 100%855 $2,105 $2.46 2017 Affordable
One 10 Harris - Basalt
1 Bedroom 5 10%733 $2,275 $3.10 2018 Market
2-Bedroom 20 41%947 $2,850 $3.01 2018 Market
3-Bedroom 24 49%1,114 $3,450 $3.10 2018 Market
Total 49 100%1,007 $3,085 $3.06 2018 Market
Six Canyon - Glenwood Spgs
1 Bedroom 55 47%683 $1,840 $2.69 2020 Market
2-Bedroom 61 53%980 $2,308 $2.36 2020 Market
Total 116 100%821 $2,086 $2.54
Glenwood Greens - Glenwood Spgs
1 Bedroom 28 47%708 $917 $1.30 2014 LIHTC
2-Bedroom 20 33%950 $1,095 $1.15 2014 LIHTC
3-Bedroom 12 20%1,084 $1,265 $1.17 2014 LIHTC
Total 60 100%
Roaring Fork Apartments - Basalt
1 Bedroom 45 80%N/A N/A N/A 2018 LIHTC
2-Bedroom 11 20%N/A N/A N/A 2018 LIHTC
Total 56 100%N/A N/A N/A 2018 LIHTC
1201 Main - Carbondale
1 Bedroom 15 56%660 $1,800 N/A N/A Market
2-Bedroom 12 44%1,020 $2,800 N/A N/A Market
Total 27 100%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\213032-Aspen Lumber Yard\Data\[213032-Apartment Comps.xlsx]T-Summ
29
Economic & Planning Systems
19
Table 5. Rents by AMI Levels in Recent Properties
Description Units Avg. Rent
Equivalent
APCHA Category AMI
Willits Seven - Basalt
1 Bedroom 18 $1,901 Cat. 4 120-205%
2-Bedroom 17 $2,168 Cat. 4 120-205%
3-Bedroom 15 $2,280 Cat. 4 120-205%
Total 50 $2,105
One 10 Harris - Basalt
1 Bedroom 5 $2,275 RO Above 205%
2-Bedroom 20 $2,850 RO Above 205%
3-Bedroom 24 $3,450 RO Above 205%
Total 49 $3,085
Six Canyon - Glenwood Spgs
1 Bedroom 55 $1,840 Cat. 4 120-205%
2-Bedroom 61 $2,308 RO Above 205%
Total 116 $2,086
Glenwood Greens - Glenwood Spgs
1 Bedroom 28 $917 Cat. 2 50-85%
2-Bedroom 20 $1,095 Cat. 2 50-85%
3-Bedroom 12 $1,265 Cat. 2 50-85%
Total 60 $1,046
Roaring Fork Apartments - Basalt
1 Bedroom 45 N/A Cat. 2 50-85%
2-Bedroom 11 N/A RO Above 205%
Total 56 N/A
1201 Main - Carbondale
1 Bedroom 15 $1,800 Cat. 4 120-205%
2-Bedroom 12 $2,800 RO Above 205%
Total 27 $2,244
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\213032-Aspen Lumber Yard\Data\[213032-Apartment Comps.xlsx]T-Summ
30
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
20
Willits Seven
Located in Willits Town Center in Basalt, Willits Seven is a 50-unit apartment
complex built in 2017. Willits Seven has a relatively even mixture of 1-, 2-, and 3-
bedroom units, and is only leased to employees in Roaring Fork Valley. Units are
income-restricted at up to 120% of area median income under current APCHA
guidelines (Category 2). Current rents are $1,901 per month for a 1-bedroom,
$2,168 for a 2-bedroom, and $2,280 for a 3-bedroom.
One 10 Harris
Also in Willits Town Center, One 10 Harris is a 49-unit market rate apartment
project built in 2018. One 10 Harris sits at the higher end of the apartment
market, with rental rates over $3.00 per square foot. Approximately half of the
units are 3-bedroom, the highest share of the comparable properties, while 41
percent are 2-bedroom units and 10 percent are 1-bedroom units.
31
Economic & Planning Systems
21
Six Canyon
Six Canyon is a 116-unit market-rate apartment project built in 2020 located
along U.S. Highway 6 in the northwestern part of Glenwood Springs. The unit mix
is evenly split between 1- and 2-bedroom units and the average rent is $2.54 per
square foot. It is one of the newest for-rent residential projects in the Roaring
Fork Valley.
Glenwood Greens
Glenwood Greens is a 60-unit affordable apartment project located in Glenwood
Springs adjacent to the Glenwood Meadows shopping center. Built in 2014,
Glenwood Greens is a low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) project with below-
market rents averaging $1.21 per square foot. The unit mix consists of 28 1 -
bedroom units, 20 2-bedroom units, and 12 3-bedroom units.
32
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
22
Roaring Fork Apartments
The Roaring Fork Apartments is a 56-unit multifamily project located along State
Highway 82 in Basalt. Built in 2018, the Roaring Fork received funding from the
low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program and contains a mixture of
affordable units (under 60% of AMI) and market-rate units. Approximately 80
percent of the units are 1-bedroom units and 20 percent are 2-bedroom units.
1201 Main
Located in Carbondale at the intersection of Main Street and State Highway 133,
1201 Main is a 27-unit market-rate apartment project. 1201 Main has a mixture
of 1- and 2-bedroom units.
33
Economic & Planning Systems
23
Recommendations
This chapter provides recommendations and considerations for the unit mix and
targeted income ranges for the rental portion of the Lumber Yard development.
For context, the chapter begins with a summary of the current unit mix in
APCHA’s rental properties.
APCHA Rental Inventory
APCHA has 1,382 units in its inventory, shown in Table 6. The inventory is
concentrated in smaller units ranging from studios (22 percent) and dorm units
(15 percent) to 1-bedroom (27 percent) and 2-bedroom units (31 percent). The
inventory includes properties built over decades when the focus was on employee
and seasonal housing, reflected in the dorm style and 1- and 2-bedroom
apartment units.
Most of APCHA’s rental inventory is in income Categories 2 and 3 (50-85% AMI
and 85-120% AMI), with 56 percent of units. There are another 8 percent of units
in Category 1 (under 50% AMI) and a third of the units as RO Category. RO units
do not have an income limit; the occupant must be a full time resident and full
time employee in Pitkin County with net assets less than $2.4 million.
Table 6. APCHA Rental Housing Inventory
Rental Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 RO Total Units % Mix
Unit Type
Studio 51 78 80 4 88 301 22%
1-Bedroom 33 144 145 6 39 367 27%
2-Bedroom 17 86 171 28 126 428 31%
3-Bedroom 1 18 43 5 9 76 5%
Dorm Units 6 0 10 0 190 206 15%
Single-Family 0 0 0 2 2 4 0%
Rental Total 108 326 449 45 454 1,382
Rental %8%24%32%3%33%100%
Source: APCHA; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\213032-Aspen Lumber Yard\Data\[213032-APCHA inventory.xlsx]APCHA summ
34
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
24
Analysis Findings
Household Income
The number of households in income Categories 1 and 2 in the PMA (Aspen to
Glenwood Springs) have declined by approximately 1,100 (renters and owners)
over about the past 10 years. Some Category 1 and 2 units should be provided to
serve this lower income population and workforce and to help mitigate the
increases in housing costs in the Upper, Mid, and Lower Valley areas.
Jobs and Economic Base
Most of the job growth in Pitkin County over the past 10 years has been in
Accommodations and Food Services ($43,368), Arts and Recreation ($50,024),
Public Administration ($66,352), and Retail Trade ($51,896). Besides public
administration, these industries have average wages ranging from $43,368 to
$51,896. For a single earner, those are incomes of 56% to 67% of AMI (Category 2).
When multiple earners are considered, the job growth translates to household
incomes in 50 to 85 % of AMI (26 percent of new jobs, Category 2) and 85 to
120% of AMI (55 percent of new jobs, Category 3). If a goal is to address
workforce and employer needs, then a focus on up to Category 3 is also
recommended. When single person households (e.g., a single parent) are
considered, targeting the traditional APCHA mix of Category 1, 2, and 3 is still a
good approach at Lumber Yard and will address multiple types of housing need.
Private Market Development
The private market is able to build rental housing in Category 4 and up as the
recent projects illustrate. For rental housing, it is recommended that Lumber Yard
continue to focus on Category 1, 2, and 3 for the time being. The County and all
municipalities should also be encouraging market rate rental housing and looking for
ways to incentivize market rate development down into Category 3 or even below.
Unit Sizes
EPS recommends that the Lumber Yard rental component include 1, 2, and 3
bedroom units. No studio units are recommended. Studio units do not offer the
living arrangement flexibility that a unit with a separate bedroom offers. None of
the recent projects in the area have included studio units; they are more typical in
urban markets. EPS does recommend that the rental component include larger
3- bedroom units.
Three bedroom units offer more options for families as well as roommates. There
is a long tradition of seasonal workers and “ski bums” pairing up as roommates,
which has social benefits and helps to save money on rent. The family market
appears to be underserved, which is important in building and maintaining
community and a middle class, as well as creating an opportunity for low income
residents to live closer to work and attend Aspen schools.
35
Economic & Planning Systems
25
Proposed Unit Mix
The recommended unit mix is shown in Table 7. The unit mix covers a wide
range of unit types and incomes, focusing mostly on Category 1, Category 2, and
Category 3 Units, which collectively comprise 93 percent of proposed rental units,
with Category 2 having the largest share of 38 percent of all rental units. On the
ownership side, more units are priced at Category 4 and above, with 26 percent
of all units are Category 4 and 17 percent of all units are Category 5. This
recommendation is for general guidance and does not need to be tied exactly to
any final project design.
Table 7. Recommended Unit Mix
APCHA Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category RO Total %
%AMI <50%50-85%>85-130%>130-205%>205-240%no limit Units Mix
Rental Product
Studio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
1-Bedroom 28 37 35 4 0 0 104 49%
2-Bedroom 15 31 25 7 0 0 78 37%
3-Bedroom 4 12 10 4 0 0 30 14%
Rental Total 47 80 70 15 0 0 212 100%
Rental %22%38%33%7%0%0%
Ownership Product
Studio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
1-Bedroom 0 12 12 10 6 0 40 41%
2-Bedroom 0 11 11 12 8 0 42 43%
3-Bedroom 0 0 10 3 3 0 16 16%
Ownership Total 0 23 33 25 17 0 98 100%
Ownership %0%23%34%26%17%0%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\213032-Aspen Lumber Yard\Data\[Draft Lumberyard Program Updated 11-19-2021.xlsx]T-Program
36
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
26
Alternate Unit Mix
An alternate unit mix is shown in Table 8. The City of Aspen may be able to
decrease public subsidies and/or increase overall public benefit by establishing an
employer partnership to house employees who otherwise qualify at the Category
2 and Category 3 levels and who typically reside in roommate arrangements . In
this case, modification to the unit mix to accommodate such arrangements is
recommended by re-allocating some 1-bedroom units to instead be 3-bedroom
units. This alternative arrangement is consistent with the findings of this study, as
additional 3-bedroom units meet an established market need. The unit mix shifts
20 1-bedroom units to 3-bedroom units, pulling 10 from Category 2 and 10 from
Category 3. In this alternate mix, approximately one-quarter of all units are 3-
bedroom units, up from 14 percent in the original scenario.
Table 8. Alternate Unit Mix
APCHA Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category RO Total %
%AMI <50%50-85%>85-130%>130-205%>205-240%no limit Units Mix
Rental Product
Studio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
1-Bedroom 28 27 25 4 0 0 84 40%
2-Bedroom 15 31 25 7 0 0 78 37%
3-Bedroom 4 22 20 4 0 0 50 24%
Rental Total 47 80 70 15 0 0 212 100%
Rental %22%38%33%7%0%0%
Ownership Product
Studio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
1-Bedroom 0 12 12 10 6 0 40 41%
2-Bedroom 0 11 11 12 8 0 42 43%
3-Bedroom 0 0 10 3 3 0 16 16%
Ownership Total 0 23 33 25 17 0 98 100%
Ownership %0%23%34%26%17%0%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
37
Economic & Planning Systems
27
Appendix
Figure 16 Households by Tenure and AMI, Pitkin County, 2010-2019
Figure 17. Households by Tenure and AMI, Primary Market Area, 2010-2019
2010 2019 Change % total 2010 % total 2019 % Change in Share
Renter Households
Under 30% AMI 407 262 -144 15%10%-5%
30% to 50% AMI 461 528 68 17%20%4%
50% to 60% AMI 270 199 -71 10%8%-2%
60% to 80% AMI 444 403 -41 16%15%-1%
80% to 100% AMI 390 340 -50 14%13%-1%
100% to 120% AMI 217 270 53 8%10%3%
Above 120% AMI 594 614 20 21%23%2%
Total 2,782 2,616 -166 100%100%0%
Owner Households
Under 30% AMI 631 210 -421 14%9%-4%
30% to 50% AMI 598 329 -269 13%14%1%
50% to 60% AMI 238 119 -118 5%5%0%
60% to 80% AMI 447 305 -142 10%13%4%
80% to 100% AMI 352 248 -104 8%11%3%
100% to 120% AMI 290 213 -77 6%9%3%
Above 120% AMI 2,079 868 -1,211 45%38%-7%
Total 4,635 2,292 -2,343 100%100%0%
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-year; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\213032-Aspen Lumber Yard\Data\[213032-HHs by Income.xlsx]Table 5 - Pitkin Summ
Households by AMI 2010-2019
2010 2019 Change % total 2010 % total 2019 % Change in Share
Renter Households
Under 30% AMI 1,161 1,017 -144 19%15%-4%
30% to 50% AMI 1,166 1,088 -78 19%16%-3%
50% to 60% AMI 573 565 -8 9%8%-1%
60% to 80% AMI 916 815 -101 15%12%-3%
80% to 100% AMI 800 767 -33 13%11%-2%
100% to 120% AMI 501 719 218 8%11%2%
Above 120% AMI 960 1,803 843 16%27%11%
Total 6,077 6,774 697 100%100%0%
Owner Households
Under 30% AMI 1,384 1,256 -128 12%10%-1%
30% to 50% AMI 1,530 1,159 -372 13%9%-3%
50% to 60% AMI 664 651 -13 6%5%0%
60% to 80% AMI 1,610 1,370 -240 13%11%-2%
80% to 100% AMI 1,273 1,580 307 11%13%2%
100% to 120% AMI 1,030 1,200 170 9%10%1%
Above 120% AMI 4,524 5,057 533 38%41%4%
Total 12,016 12,273 257 100%100%0%
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-year; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\213032-Aspen Lumber Yard\Data\[213032-HHs by Income.xlsx]Table 5 - PMA Summ
Households by AMI 2010-2019
38
Page 1 of 8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
THROUGH: Scott Miller, Public Works Director
MEMO DATE: September 11, 2020
MEETING DATE: September 14, 2020
RE: Community Outreach for Lumberyard Conceptual Design Process
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is seeking input from Council for the upcoming round of
community outreach for the Lumberyard conceptual design process. Included below are
topics planned for the public outreach, including sample questions which the public will
be asked to weigh in on.
Council is asked to provide input as to whether these are the right questions to ask or
whether Council would prefer to ask alternate questions or additional questions as part of
the upcoming public feedback process.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: Beginning June of 2019, the goal of the Lumberyard
conceptual design process has been to create community-vetted conceptual design
alternatives for the development of affordable housing at the Lumberyard property, and
for Council to select a preferred conceptual design by December 2020.
On June 24, 2019, Council approved Resolution #70 of 2019 and associated contract
with DHM Design for initial community outreach and conceptual design for the lumber
yard affordable housing development for 2019. The first round of public community
outreach occurred as planned during the fall of 2019, and a second round of public
community outreach occurred again in early 2020.
On April 14, 2020, Council approved a contract extension for DHM Design which included
a scope of work to allow for the continued conceptual design while the COVID-19 Stay-
at-home Order was in place. At a work session on July 6, 2020, DHM Design presented
the updated conceptual designs, and Council provided the design team with direction for
further plan refinements aiming toward 300+ units.
During a consent agenda discussion at Council’s regular meeting on August 11, 2020,
Council approved a contract amendment with DHM Design which included a work plan
for the Lumberyard conceptual design process through the end of 2020. The work plan
aimed to reach a preferred conceptual design by the end of 2020 and included an
additional round of public community outreach, consisting mainly of 6 weeks of web -
based online feedback through October. During the consent agenda discussion on
August 11, Council expressed some interest in reviewing what the public would be
specifically asked to weigh in on during the next round of outreach. The discussion below
39
Page 2 of 8
explains the current plan, and requests input from Council as to whether or not Council
feels the right questions are being asked and, if not, how the questions should be modified
to be more suitable with Council’s expectations.
DISCUSSION: The upcoming round of community outreach for the Lumberyard
conceptual design process will be the third tranche of public community outreach
regarding this project. Council provided their most recent design direction to the
Lumberyard team at a work session on July 6, 2020, including the direction to refine the
conceptual plans to aim in the area of 300+ units on the site.
The next work session for City Council to review the design progress is scheduled for
October 26, 2020, and the objective of the upcoming round of community outreach is to
collect feedback from the community related to Council’s most recent design direction. At
the same time, the design team is also gathering technical data on noise and air quality
at the site as well as traffic impact information. Having both the community feedback and
the technical data in hand at the next work session with Council on October 26 will allow
Council to be fully informed when directing the next set of conceptual plan refinements.
After the work session on October 26, the design team expects to prepare near -final
versions of the conceptual plan alternatives. Those near-final conceptual plans will be
presented to Council at a work session on November 23, and Council will be asked to
select a preferred conceptual plan to continue forward with.
What tools will be employed for the upcoming community outreach?
Before jumping into the outreach topics, it is important to understand the format of the
outreach to be performed, or more specifically, the tools which will be employed. Due to
the ongoing public health crisis, the outreach will need to rely primarily on approaches
that generate participation and feedback without creating health risks for participants. The
following tools will be put to use for this purpose:
Project Website: All advertising will direct outreach participants to a website which will be
available at “aspenlumberyard.com”. The website will offer various ways to learn about
the project and provide feedback.
Community feedback topics and questions: On the project website, participants will be
able to view background information about each topic, consisting of graphic depictions
and explanatory text, to first inform them and provide appropriate background and
context. Participants will then be asked to answer certain questions after first having the
context established. Furthermore, each of the questions will be asked in a manner which
requests that they put on their “community hat” and provide answers based on their
perception of what the community needs, not based on what they as individuals want.
Conceptual Plans: On the project website, participants will be able to view the most
recently refined conceptual plan alternatives based on Council input from July. This will
include plan alternatives with density ranging from 250 to 350 units. The website will
provide a means for collecting participant feedback on the plans.
40
Page 3 of 8
Event schedule/information for webinars and small pop-up events: The project website
will provide information for participants to get further involved if they so desire.
General project information and schedule: The project website will allow participants to
understand where we’ve been and where we’re heading, including the process to date
and information about previous outreach and what has been learned to date.
Survey: The survey will available via the project website and will also be distributed
through social media and email. The survey is integrated into the website and offers
participants a chance to provide feedback on the topic questions and conceptual plan
alternatives.
Forms for open comments: Form fields will be integrated into the project website for any
other comments and ideas from the community. This will allow for folks to provide
additional comments as they see fit.
Webinar(s): A live internet-based presentation, open to the public and hosted on multiple
platforms (Zoom and Facebook Live), with pauses to answer questions and take polls.
Also planned are smaller live online events for targeted community groups. Recordings
of such live events will be posted on the project website after each such event.
Small group in-person pop-up events: These will include 10 or less people at a time,
consisting of socially distanced pop-up events to provide some level of personal
interaction (if possible, dependent on infection rates locally).
What topics will be discussed during the upcoming public outreach?
Since meeting with Council in July, the Lumberyard team has studied various alternatives
to respond to comments from City Council. From studying these alternatives, certain
variables emerged as central topics which are key differentiators. These are the topics
which the team is planning to ask the community to weigh in on:
• Density and massing trade-offs related to parking
• Density and massing trade-offs related to unit mix
• Innovations, such as co-living, green roofs, solar, net zero, project phasing
• Architectural character
• Project add-ons, such as childcare, ancillary surface parking, transit facilities
• Amenities, such as bike-share, car-share, parks, community gardens
What questions will be asked, and how will those be framed?
Each question will include background information to establish context. Below are sample
questions within each topic area which have thus far been discussed by the team for
potential inclusion.
41
Page 4 of 8
Topic: Density and massing trade-offs related to parking
Graphic representation of the trade-offs being discussed:
Question 1 Background:
• Podium parking is ground-level parking with housing units constructed above
• Podium parking is less expensive to construct than underground parking
• Podium parking results in more building height and mass or less total units
• Podium parking requires drive access through the site, creates bike and ped conflicts
• Underground parking is an underground parking garage with buildings above
• Underground parking results in less building height and mass or more total units
• Underground parking requires ramp access, car circulation occurs underground
Question 1a: Is it worth it to the community to have lower building height and massing or
the ability to create more units, even if this causes a higher project cost?
[ ] No [ ] Yes
Question 1b: Does the community benefit more from podium parking or underground
parking at the Lumberyard site? [ ] Podium [ ] Underground
Comments:
42
Page 5 of 8
Topic: Density and massing trade-offs related to unit mix
Graphic representation of the trade-offs being discussed:
Question 2 Background:
• The Housing Authority reports the greatest need is for rental housing
• New ownership units will be available at Burlingame Ranch Phase 3 in 2022
• Ownership units lean towards larger (more 2 & 3 bedrooms with some 1-bedrooms)
• Rental units lean towards smaller (more studio and 1-bedrooms with some 2-bedrooms)
• Larger units result in more building square footage or less total units
• Smaller units result in less building square footage or more total units
Question 2: What percentage rental vs ownership do you think the community needs at
the Lumberyard? [ %] Rental [ %] Ownership
Comments:
Question 3 Background:
• Studio and one-bedroom units are great for individuals, couples, and seniors.
• Two- and three-bedroom units are great for families
• Smaller units result in either less building mass or more units total
• In the current conceptual plans, the mix is based the unit mix from the findings of the
regional housing needs study, 67% studio and one-bedrooms and 33% 2 and 3-
bedrooms.
Question 3a: What percentage of studio and one-bedroom units do you think the
community needs at this site? [ %]
Question 3b: What percentage of 2- and 3-bedrooms do you think the community needs
at this site? [ %]
Question 3c: What percentage of 4+ bedrooms do you think the community needs at this
site? [ %]
Comments:
43
Page 6 of 8
Topic: Innovation – Co-Living
Graphic representation of the trade-offs being discussed:
Question 4 Background:
• Co-living is an innovative lifestyle trend occurring today in residential development that
responds to rising costs of real estate and the need for affordable housing
• Co-living employs the use of small individual studio units (not shared), but provides
larger shared common-area spaces for lounging, working, exercising, socializing
• Each small studio (not shared) is equipped with a small kitchen and a bathroom
• Including the common area amenity space, the overall amount of floor area is
decreased or there can be more units
Question 4a: With the proximity to transit and the AABC, do you think the Lumberyard is
a good potential site for co-living? [ ] No [ ] Yes
Question 4b: Are you afraid of the concept of co-living due to Covid-19, or do you think
that social distancing and other mitigation measures could be successfully
implemented? [ ] Afraid due to Covid-19 [ ] I think it could work
Question 4c: Are you disinclined to advocate co-living for some other reason?
[ ] I do not advocate this [ ] I think it could work
Comments:
44
Page 7 of 8
Topic: Architectural Character
Background: TBD (Work in process, actual images and quantity of questions will vary)
Question 5a: Considering the Lumberyard site and its surrounding neighborhood,
please choose the character image which more suitable:
Question 5b: Considering the Lumberyard site and its surrounding neighborhood,
please choose the character image which more suitable:
Question 5c: Considering the Lumberyard site and its surrounding neighborhood,
please choose the character image which more suitable:
NOTE: The Lumberyard team is also looking into a ranked-choice version of this
outreach component. If ranked-choice can be implemented, would Council
prefer that?
45
Page 8 of 8
Questions related to the following items are in process and will be similarly framed:
• Project add-ons, such as childcare, ancillary surface parking, transit facilities
• Amenities, such as bike-share, car-share, parks, community gardens
In addition to the questions included above, participants will be able to view the most
recently refined conceptual plan alternatives based on Council input from July. This will
include plan alternatives with density ranging from 250 to 350 units. For each density
scenario, participants will be able to view the updated site plans, parking plans and
perspective views, and form fields for comments will be provided. Those comments will
be collected with all other participant responses.
On the website and during all online events, an email address will also be provided so
that participants will be able to provide additional customized input as they see necessary.
Included as an exhibit is a draft communications outline which describes the approach,
strategy, tactics and timing related to upcoming public communications for the community
outreach as conceived to this point. When staff has heard feedback from Council, the
communications outline will be updated as needed to be finalized and the work will be
initiated.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: n/a
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that Council consider the topics and
questions proposed and provide direction whether these are the right questions to ask or
whether Council would prefer to ask alternate questions or additional questions as part of
the upcoming public feedback process.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
A – Draft communications outline
B - Presentation slides
46
COMMUNICATIONS OUTLINE
LUMBER YARD HOUSING PROJECT
CAMPAIGN: OCT-NOV 2020
MDC - Manifest Darnauer Communications
600 East Hopkins, Suite 303, Aspen, CO 81611
47
COMMUNICATIONS PLAN OUTLINE - REVISED
LUMBERYARD PROJECT
Six-week Campaign – Oct 5 through November 6 or 13, 2020
(Proposing limited outreach and advertising Oct 28 through Nov 3 because of the election)
APPROACH
This fall campaign must utilize a multi-pronged approach because of the changed nature of
business and social life during COVID-19. While communication efforts always include many
facets, it is even more important now to reach people in new ways. We must realize that people
are getting “Zoomed out” and have screen fatigue. We can’t rely solely on online
communications. That means open houses via Zoom can’t be the primary way of reaching our
audiences. To be effective with online or possibly an in-person open house, there needs to be
an incentive for people to participate –a drawing for a product(s), a gift certificate to a
restaurant – some motivator to sit in front of the screen for yet another hour.
Traditional advertising should be combined with more innovative ways of reaching people in
today’s environment. So we propose more direct community outreach to target businesses and
a grassroots network in order to reach those most in need of housing. Our plan suggests
personal one-on-one public engagement with a handful of important large employers.
We strongly suggest a new web project landing page that is a one-stop-shop for information and
two-way communication to garner feedback. Aspen Community Voice is too bulky and many
people won’t take the time to sign up in order to comment. However, we should connect the
two since the City likes to use that platform.
We also propose stepping up our visual communications game. Because we’re not meeting in
person, it’s even more important that the Lumberyard brand is consistently presented through
high quality graphics guided by an artist/graphic designer.
STRATEGIES
1. Build awareness of the final stage planning and outreach for the Lumberyard
2. Employ a variety of innovative tactics to generate feedback among target audiences
3. Utilize more one-on-one than group communication tactics to personalize the
engagement in a safe manner to influence audiences to act
48
AUDIENCES
1. Large and medium-sized employers
2. Public at large
3. ACRA
4. AYPA
5. Next Gen and possibly CCLC
6. City of Aspen
7. Pitkin County
8. Aspen Skiing Company
9. Aspen Valley Hospital
10. Other Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations
a. Tap into the COVID business outreach of the city and county, if possible
TACTICS
1. Communication Tools
a. One-on-one phone calls or emails
Updates to all outreach audiences with emphasis on employers and
business leaders
b. Flyers
For employees to post on employee bulletin boards and/or email to
employees
Post around town in coffee shops and restaurants
c. Fact sheet one-pager on the project progress and updated plans
Call to action with links to survey plus webinar and open house/pop ups
dates for community feedback opportunities
Employer emails to staff, post on social media, include in
newsletters/eblasts
Request employers post on bulletin boards for offices with on-site staff
d. Paid Advertising – media schedules, content, graphic design
Drive time radio
Print – newspaper ads
Digital – Aspen Times and ADN leader board or column ad
CGTV with City’s slate
e. Social Media
Paid social on FB and Instagram – geo targeted to Aspen, Snowmass and
Basalt and to Glenwood, if budget allows
f. Media Outreach
Press release on campaign launch
Release sent to CoA communications department to distribute
Media alerts with date reminders for open houses/pop ups/webinar
49
g. Interactive Website
DHM to create
DHM will coordinate with City on directing AspenCommunityVoice.com to
aspenlumberyard.com page
Work with CoA communications department on content for ACV site
MDC to send DHM all graphic elements for incorporation in the website
h. Survey to gather broader community feedback
Bob leads on wording; Chris involved
MDC does final edit and gives thoughts on messaging for consistency
i. Main Street banner
Two-sided for three weeks (Fees waived by City)
j. Possibly a special e-mail to members of associations (eg, lodging, restaurants,
some non profits), to include the flyer and/or fact sheet plus a link to the survey
k. Eblasts – a series – probably one/week
MDC designs and writes content and distributes to DHM’s general list
Sign as “The Lumberyard Team”
l. Emails – personalized to target audience contacts
One/week
Include a graphic to accompany general blurb (MDC writes)
Sent to target audiences for them to send out/post
MDC to coordinate
m. A special page to include in ACRA’s September board of directors packet, possibly
in lieu of a live presentation
n. PowerPoint Presentations for web meetings
DHM designs and provides content
o. Open Houses/In person pop-ups
DHM hosts
MDC communicates in advance through social post and media alerts
Do a FB event and push thru City of Aspen – work with Mitzi on content;
Maybe every Thurs have a pop up??
p. Webinars
# TBD
DHM hosts
MDC communicates in advance – MDC advise on appropriate day of
week/what dates to avoid
Incentive – Submit your email when you sign up and we’ll do a weekly
drawing for six weeks for a $50 (?) gift certificate to a local business –-
$300 budget - Delia to check w. Jason – MDH to suggest businesses for gift
certificates
50
2. Outreach Meetings/Strategic Partnerships
Strategy: Work with organizations and businesses listed below to leverage their
databases and social channels in order to create awareness of project status, engage
staff and solicit feedback. We will ask them to send an eblast or newsletter to their
networks with a one-page fact sheet and links to the survey.
DHM creates the PPT for presentations; how MDC should be involved??
a. NextGen Commission (Zoom meeting or submit written summary)
b. ACRA Board of Directors update (either via Zoom meeting or written summary)
c. ACRA Newsletter to members; possibly distribution of survey to members
d. ACRA Public Affairs Committee (either via Zoom meeting or written summary)
e. Commercial Core and Lodging Committee (CCLC) – optional
f. APCHA database
DHM is adding content to APCHA NL; DHM solicits their input; Chris wants
to send emails to those who’s been in lotteries
MDC to coordinate??
g. SkiCo
h. St. Regis
i. Aspen School District
j. City of Aspen
k. Pitkin County
l. Aspen Valley Hospital
3. Graphic Design – hard designer costs – up to $2,000
a. Flyer
b. Fact Sheet
c. Print ads
d. Digital banner/column ads
e. Social media graphics
f. Email NL - a general blurb to send out to short blurb w. graphic that others can
send out/post – MDC to coordinate
g. Eblast design
51
TIMELINE - DRAFT
Campaign Launch Oct 5
Six-week campaign Oct 5-Nov 6 or Nov 13
3 of those weeks more intense – weeks of 5th the 12th the 19th
Possible break Oct 28 through Nov3 because of election – if so, we may want to do mini
push at the end from Nov 4 –Nov 13
Delia to check w. Jason and Chris
Public webinar should be on the Oct 14 or 15 – MDC to weigh in on best dates and days
for them
Graphic Design Sept 14 - 25
Flyer
Fact Sheet
Print ads – ¼ pg newspaper
Digital banner/column ads for print
Social media graphics for paid
Email graphic
Eblast design
Concept and content development; copy writing Sept 14-18
Campaign launch Press Release Oct 5
Newspaper ad campaign Oct 5 – Nov 6 or 13
Radio ad campaign (length depends on stretch of budget) Oct 5 – Nov 6 or 13
Social media paid campaign Oct 5 – Nov 6
Digital campaign Oct 5 – Nov 6 or 13
Survey platform Oct 5 - Nov 13
Webinars "probably launching" the second week of October
Webinar dates Oct 14 or 15 + ??
Website live Oct 5
Aspen Community Voice website content Oct 5
52
Community Outreach for Lumberyard
Conceptual Design Process
September 14, 202053
•Beginning June of 2019, the goal of the Lumberyard conceptual
design process has been to create community-vetted
conceptual design alternatives for the development of
affordable housing at the Lumberyard property, and for Council
to select a preferred conceptual design by December 2020 .
•At a work session on July 6, 2020, DHM Design presented the
updated conceptual designs, and Council provided the design
team with direction for further plan refinements aiming toward
300+ units.
Background
2 54
•During a consent agenda discussion at Council’s regular
meeting on August 11, 2020, Council approved a contract
amendment with DHM Design which included a work plan for
the Lumberyard conceptual design process through the end of
2020.
•During a consent agenda discussion at Council’s regular
meeting on August 11, 2020, Council expressed some interest
in reviewing what the public would be specifically asked to
weigh in on during the next round of outreach
Background
3 55
•The upcoming community outreach for the Lumberyard will be
the third tranche of public outreach for this project.
•Council provided design direction at a work session in July,
including the direction to refine the conceptual plans to aim in
the area of 300+ units on the site.
•The next work session for Council to review progress is
scheduled for October 26. Having both community feedback
and technical data in hand at that time will allow Council to be
fully informed when directing the next set of conceptual plan
refinements.
Discussion
4 56
What tools will be employed for the upcoming community
outreach?
•Project Website
•Community feedback topics and questions
•Conceptual Plans
•Event schedule/information for webinars and small pop-up events
•General project information and schedule
•Survey
•Forms for open comments
•Webinars
•Small group in-person pop-up events
Discussion
5 57
What topics will be discussed during the upcoming public
outreach?
•Density and massing trade-offs related to parking
•Density and massing trade-offs related to unit mix
•Innovations, such as co-living, green roofs, solar, net zero, project
phasing
•Architectural character
•Project add-ons, such as childcare, ancillary surface parking,
transit facilities
•Amenities, such as bike-share, car-share, parks, community
gardens
Discussion
6 58
What questions will be
asked, and how will those
be framed?
Discussion
7 59
What questions will be
asked, and how will those
be framed?
Discussion
8 60
What questions will be
asked, and how will those
be framed?
Discussion
9 61
What questions will be
asked, and how will those
be framed?
Discussion
10 62
What questions will be asked, and how will those be framed?
•Questions related to project add-ons, such as childcare, ancillary
surface parking, transit facilities and potential project amenities,
such as bike-share, car-share, parks, community gardens will also be
similarly framed and asked.
•Participants will also be able to view the most recent conceptual
plans based on Council input from July,including site plans, parking
plans and perspective views, and form fields for comments will be
provided.
•An email address will also be provided so that participants will be
able to provide additional customized input as they see necessary.
Discussion
11 63
•Staff recommends that Council consider the topics and questions proposed
and provide direction whether these are the right questions to ask or whether
Council would prefer to ask alternate questions or additional questions as
part of the upcoming public feedback process.
•When staff has heard feedback from Council, the communications outline will
be updated as needed to be finalized and the work will be initiated.
Questions for Council
12 64
Page 1 of 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
THROUGH: Rob Schober, Capital Asset Director
MEMO DATE: January 7, 2022
MEETING DATE: January 10, 2022
RE: Lumberyard Schematic Design Process Update #2
SUMMARY:
The project team will present information about project-related topics including site scheme
development, architectural precedents, community outreach results, sustainability
recommendations, market study and unit mix recommendations, pathways forward, financial
resources and implementation planning, ongoing areas of study, and land use actions in process.
The project team is seeking Council direction for moving forward based on the specific request of
Council described below.
BACKGROUND:
The packet for Council’s November 1, 2021 work session contained an exhibit which provided
detailed background about project work prior to November 1, 2021. At the November 1, 2021
work session, Council agreed to the project values and vision statement. The project team
presented four parking/site layout schemes - Pivot, Latch, Hinge, and Flange - and received
direction to make modifications prior to seeking community feedback on the four schemes.
Throughout December 2021, community outreach #4 included and a month-long survey and
community feedback opportunity via the Aspen Community Voice website along with an in-
person public outreach event held in downtown Aspen.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Council is being asked to provide the following direction during the work session:
1. Can the team proceed with a ‘kit of parts’ approach toward a single site scheme based
on Council input and the community input received?
2. Acceptance of how the design team will approach finalizing a unit mix moving forward
3. Adoption of baseline sustainability goals and direction to further explore sustainability
‘stretch goals’
65
Page 2 of 7
DISCUSSION:
Site Scheme Development:
The design team has made minor modifications to the four site schemes based on Council input
from the November 1 work session as well as related to additional design team stakeholder
meetings and recommendations as noted. Those are described below, and this list also includes
two impactful items from key referral agencies:
• Provide an option for a parking structure along the highway
• Provide better access to daylight where lacking
• Modify underground parking ratios to be 73%, 56%, 40%, 0%
• Increase open/green space where appropriate
• Modification to Hinge buildings to soften the arrival at the site green space
• Elevator access to upper-level units to maximize accessibility (CoA Building Dept.)
• Improvements to fire truck access (Aspen Fire Protection District)
During the work session, the team will walk through the modifications to the four site schemes
and explain the refinements made and the impacts to the project where applicable.
Architectural Precedent Study:
A study of relevant architectural precedents will be presented. This will include existing precedents
in Aspen and the surrounding area as well as an expanded view of pertinent precedents sampled
from around the world, intended to help to illustrate the use of double-loaded corridor building
types and breezeway-access building types as well as examples of similar size buildings with
horizontal articulation and articulating roof elements. The architectural precedent study will
conclude with a look at the potential to blend the base of buildings with the pedestrian streetscape
with stoops, gardens, and foliage.
Community Outreach Results:
The team will review the results to date of Lumberyard community outreach #4 which was
conducted throughout December 2021, including a public event held in downtown Aspen and a
month-long survey and community feedback opportunity via the Aspen Community Voice
website. Analysis will include applicability to project recommendations.
Sustainability:
The team will present the process by which project sustainability recommendations have been
developed. This process began with a review of the City of Aspen’s climate action commitments
and has been further developed through close collaboration with City of Aspen Environmental
Health Climate Action staff and with representation from Aspen’s Community Office for Resource
Efficiency (CORE).
Project sustainability recommendations will be presented in the format of a baseline certification
recommendation and recommended ‘stretch goals’ which will require further research in terms of
66
Page 3 of 7
feasibility. The team assembled a set of ‘must haves’ and ‘nice-to-haves’ as tools for identifying
10 big ideas that should be the focus of the project’s sustainability efforts:
1. Net zero on-site energy (or near net-zero)
2. 100% electric buildings (no on-site fossil fuels)
3. Minimum 15% full EV charging for parking spaces and additional 15% EV-ready spaces
4. Battery storage for partial site back-up power (See Resilient Design #6 below)
5. Equity in project design and in material sourcing
6. Resilient Design to prepare for increasing temperatures, wildfires, power outages, etc.
7. Healthy spaces, air filtration, ventilation, material selection, daylight, acoustics
8. Diversion of construction waste & on-site recycling and composting
9. Requiring third party commissioning and site verification
10. Metering of individual resident utility use
This effort has included an extensive review of sustainability certification programs available, the
opportunities and challenges associated with those certifications, and an analysis of the best
possible fit(s) for this project. As a result of this effort, the project sustainability recommendations
are outlined below:
Recommended Baseline Sustainability Goals:
• Certification to Enterprise Green Communities Plus, which includes WELL Certification
(International WELL Building Institute - IWBI), and which is a prerequisite for many types
of state and federal funding programs
• Net Zero Energy Certification, under any of Passive House PHUIS+ Source Zero, ILFI
Zero Energy Petal, Zero Carbon Petal, or DOE Zero Energy Ready Home
Recommended Stretch Sustainability Goals: (require further research of feasibility)
• Zero Carbon Certification
o Embodied Carbon remaining
o Put project on the map as a leader in carbon reduction
• Living Building Challenge Petal Certification (ILFI Zero Energy Petal, Zero Carbon Petal)
o Highest level of green certification
o Easily tailored to affordable housing project
o Push projects from being less bad to truly regenerative
• Recycled water
o Irrigation, flushing
o Close to plant
o Improves resilience
67
Page 4 of 7
Demographic Study and Program Unit Mix Recommendation:
The attached Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment was prepared by Economic &
Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) for the City of Aspen with the aim of providing recommendations
on the unit and income mix for the Lumberyard affordable housing development.
The report seeks to align the affordable housing development program based on analysis of income
data for households throughout the Roaring Fork Valley (RFV) and job growth within Pitkin
County. The study also examines demographic trends and condition along with other recent
additions to the affordable housing supply in the RFV.
The report reiterates the findings of the 2018 Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study in
terms of the overall scale of the affordable housing need and goes on to additionally conclude
mainly the following:
• 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
The recommended unit and income mix includes a range of possibilities while maintaining a total
of 310 housing units. The baseline recommendation considers a higher concentration of 1-bedroom
units, while in the alternate unit mix, EPS recommends that the City consider including more 3-
bedroom units in place of 1-bedroom units for the purpose of adding more bedrooms to the project
while maintaining a total of 310 units and to house more 3-bedroom families or roommate
arrangements.
The recommended program unit mix range includes 310 total units apportioned as follows:
• 212 rental units proportioned as 40% to 49% 1-bedroom units, 37% 2-bedroom units, and 14%
to 24% 3-bedroom units, and across income levels distributed as 22% Category 1, 38%
Category 2, 33% Category 3, and 7% Category 4
• 98 ownership units proportioned as 41% 1-bedroom, 43% 2-bedroom, and 16% 3-bedroom,
and across income levels distributed as 23% Category 2, 34% Category 3, 26% Category 4,
and 17% Category 5.
The project team is seeking the ability to work within this range as an opportunity to optimize the
project as the design process moves toward full schematic design. The program unit mix will be
further refined throughout the remainder of the schematic design process and will be considered
for final adoption at the conclusion of the schematic design process and will be included in the
affordable housing development application.
Pathways Forward:
The project team has considered the Council direction to this point along with the feedback
received from the community engagement efforts to date. The team will present the Site Matrix
68
Page 5 of 7
Comparison in which over 30 evaluation criteria categories have been developed from the input
received. And the four site schemes - Pivot, Latch, Hinge, and Flange - have been ranked in each
criteria category. Results and recommendations from this analysis will be presented and discussed.
The project team is requesting Council agreement to proceed with a ‘kit of parts’ approach to
continuing with the schematic design process toward a single site scheme based on the Site Matrix
Comparison discussion. The proposed ‘kit of parts’ will be presented for discussion. This
recommendation will primarily consist of utilizing the Hinge site layout and parking scheme as a
baseline with proposed modifications and refinements which are consistent with Council and
community feedback throughout the process. Proposed modifications and tools to be utilized in
further developing the Hinge scheme will include techniques discussed during the precedents
section of the presentation, including horizontal and vertical articulation, ground level softening
and creation of neighborhood-like elements at the entry of the ground-level units.
Financial Resources and Implementation Planning:
The project team will review the scope of work and goals related to planning financial resources
and the implementation of the development. This effort is being performed with the aim of
informing a project implementation phasing plan that may likely be proposed to include an initial
access and infrastructure project to be developed by the City of Aspen to prepare the site for
development. This could potentially be followed by private development of two or three affordable
housing implementation phases.
Sources of state and federal funding will be targeted for applicability and potential use to help
leverage the City’s investment, and the financial and development scope of study will be used to
inform City RFQ/RFP efforts to solicit private development involvement, which could also include
ongoing operations and management of housing facilities. This scope of effort will be equally
useful should the City remain in the development role for the implementation of housing facilities.
To develop an approach to the detailed effort with key City management staff, and with the aim of
creating a plan that can be executed to implement the project, the project team has a meeting
scheduled for January 11, 2022 with City of Aspen and APCHA management staff to review the
financial resources and implementation planning scope of work and the associated project
opportunities and challenges. Three such coordination meetings are proposed over the next six
months. Progress updates and recommendations are expected from this effort.
Ongoing Air Quality Study:
City of Aspen Environmental Health Department staff have invested many hours of challenging,
detailed cooperation with the Lumberyard project team. The project team is receiving assistance
from the City’s Air Quality Program Manager, Jannette Whitcomb, in designing appropriate air
quality monitoring, both short term and long term, at the Lumberyard housing project to provide
additional air quality information to decision makers, the project design team as well as the
community. With the assistance from the City’s air quality monitoring consultant, Air Resource
Specialists, we are in receipt of a proposal for a 2022 wintertime VOC snapshot air quality study
to improve knowledge on VOC levels during a worse case wintertime scenario. Staff is preparing
to commission the study and will submit that for Council’s consent soon.
69
Page 6 of 7
Also, in 2022, the City of Aspen Environmental Health and Sustainability Department plans to
expand Aspen’s air quality monitoring program into neighborhoods and outer portions of Aspen
using low-cost fine particulate sensors. The first phase will be installing two sensors at the
Lumberyard housing project site this January/February of 2022. Staff are currently identifying
locations at or near the site for these sensors. This effort will be moving forward with the aim of
informing the affordable housing development application, when appropriate.
Ongoing Noise Study:
The project team is utilizing the noise study information which was previously commissioned to
develop noise mitigation strategies and is considering additional scope of study related to noise
considerations at the project site.
Ongoing Transportation Impact Analysis:
On December 14, 2021, Council approved a scope of study with transportation consultant, Fehr &
Peers, including a Level Two Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Study which are required for the land use application. The approved scope
of work additionally includes analysis of transportation impacts around the AABC area and
through the SH 82 corridor. This effort will be getting underway with the aim of informing the
affordable housing development application, when appropriate.
Land Use Actions in Process:
The following two land use approval steps need to occur to make the Lumberyard project site
ready for the affordable housing development application. These actions are underway as
described below.
• Annexation of Mini Storage Site: The land use application to annex the 3-acre Mini Storage
site has been submitted to the City of Aspen Community Development Department and
70
Page 7 of 7
reviewed for completeness. Information about the schedule for the public hearing process will
be available shortly.
• Subdividing the Undeveloped Site: The undeveloped, developable portion of the adjacent
Burlingame Lot 1A property needs to be subdivided so that it can be joined with the balance
of the project site for development. The application for this action is being prepared.
While the prerequisite actions described above are in process, the Lumberyard project team plans
to continue to develop the schematic design for affordable housing development with direction
from City Council and as informed by the community outreach to date. When City Council is
satisfied with the resulting schematic design for affordable housing development, such information
will be crafted into a development application and submitted for review and approval. The attached
presentation slides contain both a short- and long-term project timeline.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2022 project budget of $1,500,000.00 was approved by City
Council. Ongoing financial impacts related to project design decisions are TBD.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that Council consider the recommendations and
provide the requested direction as recommended or as modified by a majority of Council.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Presentation slides
Exhibit B – Lumber Yard Market Assessment, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
71
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION I JANUARY 10, 2022
72
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
2CUSHING TERRELL
4.0 TODAY’S DEEP DIVE
4.1 DESIGN
4.4 SUSTAINABILITY
4.2 SITE SCHEME DEVELOPMENT
4.5 DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY RESULTS
4.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS
4.6 PATHWAYS FORWARD
4.7 FINANCIAL RESOURCES DISCUSSION
5.0 WHERE WE ARE GOING
3.0 VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES
2.0 WHERE WE ARE NOW
1.0 WHERE WE HAVE BEEN
TODAYS TOPICS
73
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
3CUSHING TERRELL
WHERE WE HAVE BEEN
74
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
4CUSHING TERRELL
WHERE WE HAVE BEEN
Recap of 11.01.2021 City Council Work
Session
Our Asks from the Meeting:
• Reach agreement on Vision and definitions of guiding principles.
• Provide feedback on additional explorations or metrics that will assist the council and community in
evaluating success moving forward.
• Confirm the range of parking alternatives presented today are reasonable for the council to allow the
Design Team to present to the community for feedback.
Our Takeaways / Tasks:
• The Guiding Principles presented reflect project values: Prioritize Quality of Life through Livability,
Green Space, Energy Efficiency, and Parking.
• Direct Feedback
• Push buildings back toward Deer Hill
• Explore a scheme with a parking structure similar to those proposed in the site studies
• Overall Hinge and Flange (with anticipated modifications) generally aligned more closely with
the priorities
• Community Feedback sought on modified versions of all four alternatives presented
1.0
22 SPACES
22 SPACES
LATCHPIVOTHINGEFLANGE75
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
5CUSHING TERRELL
TASK AT HAND
Programmatic Elements
• 10.5 Acre Site
• Program of 310 Affordable
Housing Units
• High Density 30+ Units per acre
• On-site resident parking for 432
cars
• Combination of Rental and For
Sale Units
• Phased approach to construction
over 10+ years
• Sustainable and Resilient Design
• Space for Childcare Center on
Site
• Trail Connectivity
• Access to Daylight Views within
Housing Units
• A Public Transit Stop
• Noise Mitigation to adjacent
Highway & Airport
• Elevator Access to Upper Level
Housing Units
• A Safe and Inviting Pedestrian
Experience
OUR CHALLENGES
• Tight spacing between buildings, access to daylight
• Concern about building scale, heights and orientation
• Noise Mitigation
• Elevator access to units
• Innovation through modular design and sustainable building
strategies
• Demographics of target user mix (i.e. “who is this housing
for?”)
• Maintain a schedule for construction to begin in 2024
1.0
76
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
6CUSHING TERRELL
WHERE WE ARE NOW
77
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
7CUSHING TERRELL
What will be covered
Our ask of you:• Address council’s concerns from the previous effort
• Updates on Site Parking Scheme Development
• Preliminary Public Outreach Results
• An Overview of Sustainable Goal Workshops and Recommendations
• An Overview on Demographic Studies and Recommendations on Unit
Mix
• Pathways Forward
Scheme Development:
• Can we proceed with a Kit of Parts approach to a single
scheme based off of your input and community input?
• Acceptance of how the design team will approach finalizing a
unit mix moving forward.
Sustainability:
• Adoption of baseline sustainability program and approach to
Net Zero
• Acceptance of further exploration of Stretch Goals
TODAY’S OBJECTIVES2.0
78
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
8CUSHING TERRELL
Near-term Timeline
Overall Development Timeline
January 10, 2022
Present Public Outreach results to Council
Mid January - December 2022
Land Use Entitlement Process and Planned
Development Documentation
Mid February 2022
Present Progress Update on Schematic Design
to Council
Mid March 2022
Present Final Schematic Design to Council
Late March 2022
Post Final Schematic Design Package on
Project Website
April – September 2022
Design Development, Land Use Application and
Preliminary Budgeting
January 2023 – October 2023
Construction Documents
October 2023 – January 2024
Bidding
February 2024
Construction Start on First Phase
2.0
YOU ARE HERE
2005 2022 2023 2024 ... 20282027202520202019201620112007
City of Aspen Reserves Ability to Develop Housing at 3+ acre “Triangle Parcel” North of BMC West
Use of Housing Funds to Purchase BMC West Property 4+ acres
Annexation of BMC West Property into Aspen City Limits
Lease Assumed by ProBuild/BFS, Extended through 7/31/2025
Community Outreachand Conceptual Design Process Begins
Community Outreach, Conceptual DesignTarget of 310 Units,Purchase of 3-acre Mini Storage Property
Complete Schematic Design, Submit Development Application forApproval Process
Remaining Phases of Housing Construction and Occupancy TBDTarget for First Phase of Housing Construction to Start
Target for Occupancy of First Phase of Affordable Housing
PD Recording,Construction Documents,Building Permit Application Process
Target for Access & Infrastructure Construction Start
Parking Alternatives Analysis, Schematic Design Community Outreach, Mini Storage Annexation Application
2021
79
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
9CUSHING TERRELL
ENGAGEMENT
Public Stakeholder
• December 15th afternoon and evening
Public Engagement events at the
Limelight Hotel - Featuring a Facebook
Live Event
• Ongoing online Survey available for
public input until January 25th
• Aspen Community Voice Project page
provides project updates and solicits
feedback
• Next Chance for Engagement: Schematic
Design posted to Community Voice
Project page
• City Engineering and Public Works
• City Environmental Health and
Sustainability Department
Air Quality
Climate Action Office
Waste & Recycling
• City Parks and Open Space
• City Parking and Transportation
• Community Development
• Building Department/ Accessibility
• Fire Marshall
• APCHA Housing
• Pitkin County Community Development
• John McBride - Aspen Business Center
• CORE
• AVLT
2.0
80
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
10CUSHING TERRELL
VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES
81
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
11CUSHING TERRELL
We believe that a strong and diverse year-round community and a viable and
healthy local workforce are fundamental cornerstones for the sustainability of
the Aspen Area community.
We are committed to providing affordable housing because it supports:
• A stable community that is invested in the present and future of the Aspen Area.
• A reliable workforce, also resulting in greater economic sustainability.
• Opportunities for people to live in close proximity to where they work.
• A reduction in adverse transportation impacts.
• Improved environmental sustainability.
• A reduction in down valley growth pressures.
• Increased citizen participation in civic affairs, non-profit activities and recreation
programs.
• A better visitor experience, including an appreciation of our genuine,
lights-on community.
• A healthy mix of people, including singles, families and seniors.
City of Aspen - 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan
(Housing Section) Vision
Philosophy
3.0 VISION
82
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
12CUSHING TERRELL
3.0 VISION
The goal of APCHA is to provide affordable housing opportunities through
rental and sale to persons who are or have been actively employed or self-
employed within Aspen and Pitkin County, and that provide or have provided
goods and services to individuals, businesses or institutional operations,
within Aspen and Pitkin County (prior to retirement and/or any disability),
and other qualified persons as defined in these Regulations, and as they are
amended from time to time.
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
(2021 APCHA Housing Regulations) Mission Statement
83
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
13CUSHING TERRELL
A stable, thriving affordable neighborhood.
Pedestrian friendly, environmentally sustainable,
connected, and welcoming.
Looks, lives and feels authentically Aspen!
VISION STATEMENT
84
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
14CUSHING TERRELL
3.1 COMMUNITY CONNECTION
Defining Community Connection
Successful neighborhoods are integrated into the fabric of their communities.
A big part of this connection is ensuring ease of access to the diversity of
modes of transit that already exist in Aspen.
Having the ability to select the appropriate mode of transit based on
weather, destination, purpose, or whim allows residents of the Lumberyard to
leave their cars parked for incidental travel.
A connected community can greatly contribute to well-being and
contentment in day-to-day life.
What success might look like:
• Adequate parking on-site so as not to negatively impact neighboring
areas
• Pedestrian walkways throughout and connecting to the ABC and existing
trails
• Maintain and improve the bike paths to the ABC and Annie Mitchell
• Vehicular connections to the ABC and Highway 82 with appropriate
stacking distances
• Space for a possible transit stop
• Space for multimodal transportation alternatives
• Spaces allowing neighbors to engage with one another
85
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
15CUSHING TERRELL
Defining Sustainability
In working with the City of Aspen Environmental
Health & Sustainability department and
Community Office for Resource Efficiency
(CORE), the design team has defined
Sustainability through three pillars: Environment,
Economic, and Social. All three are needed to
create a strong and long lasting community.
Environmental Sustainability - The ability to avoid
depletion and degradation of natural resources
while allowing for long term environmental quality.
Economic Sustainability - The ability of an economy
to support an appropriate level of economic capacity
and activity to serve societal needs.
Social Sustainability - The capacity to create healthy,
accessible, livable places for all.
What success might look like:Energy
• Full Electrified Buildings and Net Zero Energy Site-wide,
including on-site storage
• Forward-looking Electric Vehicle infrastructure
• Leveraging passive solar strategies
• Enhanced building commissioning and metering
Water
• Advanced metering
• Low usage building systems and fixtures
• Native plantings and xeriscaping
Waste & Recycling
• C&D waste management and planning
• Construction activity pollution prevention
Wellness
• Healthy and sustainable building materials
• Dedicated and filtered fresh air
• Increased daylighting and well controlled electric lighting
3.2
SUSTAINABILITY
- City of Aspen Climate Plan.
As history has shown, Aspen has a civic
responsibility to act on behalf of its
constituents, a moral imperative to take
the steps necessary to meet the challenge
of climate change, and the potential to be a
catalyst for meaningful and effective action
around the state, country and world.
86
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
16CUSHING TERRELL
Defining Pedestrian Friendly
3.3 PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY
The goal of this development is to emphasize people over cars. We know
there will be a lot of vehicles housed at the lumberyard along with residents.
Strategies that calm traffic and reduce physical conflicts between cars and
people will be utilized. Providing landscaping or parallel parking along
walkways bordering streets helps provide physical separation.
Pedestrian friendly means thoughtfully designed sidewalks. Walkways should
be connected and well lit. They should be wide enough to allow people to
pass comfortably, especially when pushing strollers, walking dogs, or carrying
that particularly heavy bag of groceries. A walkway lined with trees providing
dappled shade in the summer makes them inviting places to be.
What success might look like:
• Separated sidewalks
• Connected circulation paths throughout the site
• Tree-lined walkways
• Appropriate lighting strategies
• Sidewalks with winter solar access
• Snow storage plans and snow shed safety
87
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
17CUSHING TERRELL
Defining Living Well
At the root of all housing projects, but particularly acute
when discussing affordable communities, is the sentiment
that everyone deserves a good place to live. What does
this mean and how do we get there?
Living Well means providing for community members basic
needs, but also allowing them the opportunity to thrive
and enjoy all the same benefits afforded to all members of
the community.
At a basic level, Living Well means providing a safe
and secure environment. It also means creating an
environment that allows for positive physical and mental
health. For the sake of this effort the Design Team has
categorized items such as indoor air quality, noise and
hazard materials under the ‘sustainability’ tag, but it is
important to note the interconnectedness.
Specific to the way the community members of Aspen at
large live, Living Well might mean creating a community
that does not preclude or challenge one’s ability to enjoy
the natural resources found in abundance in and around
the area.
3.4 LIVING WELL
What success might look like:
• Day-lit indoor spaces with access to views
• Adequate storage space for outdoor lifestyle
equipment as well as maintenance and repair
facilities
• Easy access to parking or public
transportation when running errands
• Quality design & finishes to promote a sense
of ownership- Easy access to outdoor spaces
• Comfortable spaces to allow for gathering of
friends and family
• Quiet, efficient and reliable fixtures and
equipment
• Increased accessibility both on site and within
dwellings
ASPEN TIMES
SKI MAGAZINE
88
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
18CUSHING TERRELL
Defining Authentically Aspen
A practical rugged quality that reflects the alpine lifestyle of this historic mining
town turned ski destination.
SURVEY RESULTS:
3.5 AUTHENTICALLY ASPEN
“I think keeping it mountain contemporary in style fits
best with the ABC area, the aspen ideal, and the appeal
to a broader range of inhabitants”.
“...Needs to have mountain appeal due to entrance to
Aspen and how many people see this every day”.
“Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency. The design should
be efficient! Aspen has a long history of building very
inefficient and affordable housing units with excess
emphasis on ‘custom’ design, ‘no 2 units alike’. Housing
resources are limited and outstrip demand.”
“Keep the mountain aesthetic
89
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
19CUSHING TERRELL
COMMENTS & QUESTIONS
90
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
20CUSHING TERRELL
TODAY’S DEEP DIVE
91
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
21CUSHING TERRELL
4.1 DESIGN
Refinement of November 1,2021 Parking Alternatives site schemes based upon City Council feedback
and further Design Team due diligence. Schemes explore various parking strategies and building
typologies and their impact on energy performance, quality of life, and connectivity to the community.
Timeline
NOV. 1, 2021 COUNCIL WORK SESSION: PARKING ALTERNATIVES
JAN. 10, 2022 COUNCIL WORK SESSION: UPDATED PARKING ALTERNATIVES
How to Use this Section
The Design section of this document will focus
on the exploration of how to solve the challenges
of the Lumberyard project. Design explorations,
such as drawings, are a critical tool in which the
team synthesizes information into a relatable
format to spur discussion and further exploration,
but also to drive consensus.
The type and scale of these explorations will
be particular to the moment in time within the
design process, but will always be specific to
conversations and studies necessary to move
the project forward. This section will serve a
chronology of solutions or possibilities presented
to various stakeholder groups.
92
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
22CUSHING TERRELL
4.2 SITE SCHEME DEVELOPMENT
City Council Feedback from
November 1, 2021 Meeting
Potential Project Impacts from Other
Engagement & Due Diligence Efforts
Provide elevator access to all upper units
In considering equity, accessibility and potential future code adaptions and
recommended amendments the design team is exploring how to approach
elevator access to all upper level units.
Refined fire truck access
At the November work session it was noted that a key driving factor to
developing the concept design was to provide fire truck access within 150 feet
of all building facades. The design team has continued to test concepts against
this requirement.
Site Boundaries
Through the entitlement process, particular to the south triangle of the site,
the team has been working to find a final determination of the site boundaries.
Concepts presented today will reflect a change in these boundaries since last
meeting, but without detriment to the project.
• Prioritize Quality of Life through Livability, Green Space, Energy
Efficiency, and Parking.
• Push buildings back toward Deer Hill
• Explore a scheme with a parking structure similar to those proposed in
the site studies
• Overall Hinge and Flange (with anticipated modifications) generally
aligned more closely with the priorities
• Provide better access to daylight where lacking
• Explore if the various schemes can have better distribution of
underground parking
• Break up the large buildings shown in Hinge
• Make arrival into site more of a public space
93
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
23CUSHING TERRELL
4.2
PIVOT SITE CONCEPT
WHAT HAS CHANGED?
• Revised site boundaries at south triangle
• Created a mix of building types to allow for
better separation between buildings to allow
for more access to light and views
• Revised building types to allow for potential
elevator access to upper floor units
NOVEMBER
CURRENT
22 SPACES
0 50’ 100’ 200’
94
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
24CUSHING TERRELL
4.2
Below Grade Parking Greenspace ConnectivityDirect Sun Hours
Winter
DWELLINGS:
PARKING COUNT:
DWELLING COUNT:
PIVOT SITE CONCEPT
42.3%73%0.6 ACRESBELOW GRADE PARKING
316
63
53
432
UNDERGROUND
CARPORT
SURFACE
TOTAL
UPPER UNIT ACCESSED VIA CATWALK
DIRECT ACCESS TO LOWER UNITS
2 STORY SINGLE UNIT
ELEVATOR FOR ACCESSIBILITY TO UPPER LEVEL UNITS
PEDESTRIAN STREETS TO CREATE COMMUNITY
SHARED GREENSPACE
4 STORY BLDG
Units in Pivot scheme are imagined primarily as
two-story structures stacked upon one another
with single-story accessible units located on
grade. The units would be accessed via exterior
stairs located within a covered breezeway
With no units back to back the idea was to
provide all units with access to southern sun light
as well as the ability to have windows on at least
two sides.
The potential for double-height interior spaces
with the two-story units provides an opportunity
for a dynamic space while also limiting the height
necessary for stairs to access the units.
WHY PIVOT? A DIFFERENT TAKE
ON APARTMENT LIVING!
Pivot began inside out and explores two story units that aren’t back-to-back. This approach provides more access to daylight and views as well as opportunities for cross ventilation. Breaking the buildings apart in this manner creates a series of pedestrian streetscapes occupied by front stoops and balconies providing the opportunity for smaller communities to flourish within the Lumberyard.
95
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
25CUSHING TERRELL
4.2
LATCH SITE CONCEPT
WHAT HAS CHANGED?
• Revised site boundaries at south triangle
• Revised building types to allow for potential
elevator access to upper floor units
• Revised frontage road on the northwest site to
allow for more space between buildings within
the site
• Added fire truck access all the way around
perimeter of south triangle of site
• Refined relationship of underground parking
with buildings to be more efficient
NOVEMBER
CURRENT
22 SPACES
0 50’ 100’ 200’
96
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
26CUSHING TERRELL
4.2
Units in Latch scheme are imagined primarily as two-
story structures stacked upon one another with single-
story accessible units located on grade. The units
would be accessed via exterior stairs in front of the
buildings
The units are located back-to-back and side-to-side to
reduce the exposure of the building envelope to the
elements. The exterior stairs in front of the buildings
provide opportunities to break up the massing and
scale of the building while as providing shade and
dedicated exterior patio space to each unit
The potential for double-height interior spaces with the
two-story units provides an opportunity for a dynamic
space while also limiting the height necessary for stairs
to access the units.
WHY LATCH? BIGGER
GREEN SPACES!
Latch strives to provide connected
public-facing open spaces on the site.
Imagine children playing in the central
green space or walking your dog along
the landscaped pedestrian alleys. Latch
buys bigger green spaces by putting
more parking underground. A vehicular
loop skirts the perimeter of the site
providing functional access while
still providing a pedestrian friendly
environment.
Below Grade Parking Greenspace ConnectivityDirect Sun Hours
Winter
DWELLINGS:
PARKING COUNT:
DWELLING COUNT:
LATCH SITE CONCEPT
43.2%56%1.25 ACRESBELOW GRADE PARKING
243
91
98
432
UNDERGROUND
CARPORT
SURFACE
TOTAL
DIRECT ACCESS TO LOWER UNITS
UPPER UNITS ACCESSED VIA CORRIDOR
PEDESTRIAN STREETS TO CREATE COMMUNITY
2 STORY SINGLE UNIT
ELEVATOR FOR ACCESSIBILITY TO UPPER LEVEL UNITS
4 STORY BLDG
97
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
27CUSHING TERRELL
4.2
HINGE SITE CONCEPT
WHAT HAS CHANGED?
• Revised site boundaries at south triangle
• Revised frontage road on the northwest site to
allow for more space between buildings within
the site
• Added fire truck access all the way around
perimeter of south triangle of site
• Removed central road and flipped building
layout to create a viable centralized green
space upon arriving on site
• Shifted some underground parking to surface
for a better balance between the two
NOVEMBER
CURRENT
200'100'50'0
SCALE: 1"=100'-0"
0 50’ 100’ 200’
98
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
28CUSHING TERRELL
4.2
Below Grade Parking Greenspace ConnectivityDirect Sun Hours
Winter
With the Hinge scheme the name of the game is
with the building typology is efficiency. A double
loaded corridor to access the units limits exterior
snow maintenance on sidewalks. With walls and
floors adjoining the exterior envelope exposed to
the elements is also greatly reduced versus other
options. The result is a much smaller footprint on
site, but a much bulkier building
Unit layouts in this scenario would work best as
single level. With corridors and elevators to access
upper floors meeting and exceeding accessibility
standards becomes less of a concern.
The smaller footprint overall on site allows for
the potential of more variation in roof line which
is critical in combating the perceived bulk of a
building this size.
DWELLINGS:
WHY HINGE? NEIGHBORHOOD
STREETSCAPES!
Hinge understands how we live. Our
friends come to visit. We run quick
errands. And sometimes that happens
in a car. Hinge provides parking on the
street to accommodate our daily lives.
It also provides parking underground
for those less frequent trips. Hinge is a
walkable neighborhood with architecture
defining streetscapes on the public side
and cloistered courtyards on the
private side.
PARKING COUNT:
DWELLING COUNT:
HINGE SITE CONCEPT
48.9%40%1.77 ACRESBELOW GRADE PARKING
172
120
140
432
UNDERGROUND
CARPORT
SURFACE
TOTAL
DOUBLE LOADED COR-RIDOR WITH COMMON AREA ON EACH FLOOR
BLDG CONSOLIDATED TO PROVIDE LARGE COMMUNITY GREEN SPACE
1 STORY SINGLE UNIT
ELEVATOR FOR ACCESSIBILITY TO UPPER LEVEL UNITS
4 STORY BLDG
99
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
29CUSHING TERRELL
4.2
FLANGE SITE CONCEPT
WHAT HAS CHANGED?
• Revised site boundaries at south triangle
• Added standalone parking structure within
highway buffer at northwest corner of site to
allow more room within the site
• Addition of parking structure also allowed for
better separation between buildings to allow
more access to light and views
• Revised building types to allow for potential
elevator access to upper floors
NOVEMBER
CURRENT
0 50’ 100’ 200’
100
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
30CUSHING TERRELL
4.2
Units in Flange scheme are imagined as single-
story structures stacked upon one another with
accessible units located on grade. The units
would be accessed via exterior stairs located
within a covered breezeway.
The units are located back-to-back and in most
locations side-to-side to reduce the exposure of
the building envelope to the elements.
Similar to the double-loaded corridor typology
this creates an efficient footprint across the site.
The smaller footprint overall on site in this case
allows for more surface parking, but with an
alternative parking strategy it would also create
opportunity for more variation in roof line.
WHY FLANGE? LET’S BE GOOD
STEWARDS!
Flange explores providing all parking
through a variety of street spaces, lots
and carports maximizing the challenging
site boundaries. With Flange the initial
carbon footprint has a smaller offset
by not constructing an underground
garage. The resultant neighborhood is a
walkable balance between our vehicles
and other modes of connection.
Below Grade Parking Greenspace ConnectivityDirect Sun Hours
Winter
DWELLINGS:
PARKING COUNT:
DWELLING COUNT:
FLANGE SITE CONCEPT
42.4%0%0.5 ACRESBELOW GRADE PARKING
147
140
145
432
PARKING DECK
CARPORT
SURFACE
TOTAL
1 STORY SINGLE UNIT ELEVATOR FOR ACCESSIBILITY TO UPPER LEVEL UNITS
WALK-UP BREEZEWAY ACCESS TO EACH UNIT
PEDESTRIAN STREETS TO CREATE COMMUNITY
4 STORY BLDG
101
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
31CUSHING TERRELL
4.2 SITE SCHEME DEVELOPMENT
4-Story Precedents in Aspen
North of Nell - Aspen Aspen Square Hotel - Aspen
102
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
32CUSHING TERRELL
4.2 SITE SCHEME DEVELOPMENT
Hotel Jerome - Aspen
4-Story Precedents in Aspen
Lift One Condos - Aspen
103
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
33CUSHING TERRELL
4.2 SITE SCHEME DEVELOPMENT
North of Nell
Building
Ground Level
Floorplate:
20,468 SF
Pivot
Building
Ground Level
Floorplate:
11,356 SF
Hinge
Building
Ground Level
Floorplate:
36,198 SF
Latch
Building
Ground Level
Floorplate:
6,300 SF
Flange
Building
Ground Level
Floorplate:
12,096 SF
Building Scale Comparison
In Aspen Lumberyard Typologies
86’238’150’42’216’56’276’66’66’124’
287’167’68’
104
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
34CUSHING TERRELL
4.2 SITE SCHEME DEVELOPMENT
Hinge Green Space Scale Comparison
Paepcke Park
1.5 Acres
Glory Hole Park
1.2 Acres
Koch Park
1.2 Acres
Hinge’s Center Park
0.94 Acres
105
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
35CUSHING TERRELL
4.2 SITE SCHEME DEVELOPMENT
Green Leaf Lofts - Glenwood Springs
4-Story Precedents in the Roaring Fork Valley
Glenwood Green Apartments - Glenwood Springs
106
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
36CUSHING TERRELL
4.2 SITE SCHEME DEVELOPMENT
Six Canyon - Glenwood Springs
4-Story Precedents in the Roaring Fork Valley
Roaring Fork Apartments - Basalt
107
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
37CUSHING TERRELL
4.2 SITE SCHEME DEVELOPMENT
4-Story Precedents around the World
Huski Apartments - Falls Creek, Australia Oporto Anselmo Apartments - Porto, Portugal
Similar Typologies - Double Loaded Corridor Buildings
108
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
38CUSHING TERRELL
4.2 SITE SCHEME DEVELOPMENT
4-Story Precedents around the World
Valenton Housing - Valenton, France The Beverly - Los Angeles, CA
Similar Typologies - Breezeway
109
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
39CUSHING TERRELL
4.2 SITE SCHEME DEVELOPMENT
4-Story
Precedents
around the
World
Tributary Rise - Vestavia, AL
Tietgen Residence Hall - Copenhagen, Denmark
• Various sized windows
• Facades broken up by
multiple materials
• Various textures and colors
• Shading elements
• Balconies with varying
depths
New Water Condos Vancouver, Canada
Horizontal
Articulation
110
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
40CUSHING TERRELL
4.2 SITE SCHEME DEVELOPMENT
Precedents
around the
World
Vertical
Articulation
• Set backs
• A distinct ground floor level
• Recessed/extruding
balconies
Terrace House - Frankfurt, GermanyBenedict Commons - Aspen, CO
Virginia Placer - Telluride, CO Preston on Fourteenth - Mission, Canada
111
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
41CUSHING TERRELL
4.2 SITE SCHEME DEVELOPMENT
Precedents
around the
World
Softened
Ground Plane
• Blending the buildings base
with the pedestrian street
• Stoops, porches, and private
balconies
• Gardens and foliage
• Soft lines
The Three Sisters - Chicago, IL
Legends Park Apartments - Memphis, TN
Venue on 16th - Denver, CO
112
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
42CUSHING TERRELL
4.2 SITE SCHEME DEVELOPMENT
Interior
Corridor
Precedents
Cornerstone Village - Pittsburgh, PA
Cornerstone Village - Pittsburgh, PA
ERG 6 Apartments - Jurmala, Latvia
Tietgen Residence Hall - Copenhagen, Denmark
• Access to natural light
• Open central staircase
• A variety of high quality
materials and textures
• Dynamic lighting
• Areas for informal gatherings
or quite reflection
113
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
1CUSHING TERRELL
4.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS
The following summary of responses represents:
• Open House Event (12/15) - 40 Attendees
• On-line Survey (In Progress, Closes 1/15) -
204 Responses (as of 1/7)
• Respondent questions at the Open House
and on the Survey mirror each other
• Our primary outcome for this effort was to
ask the public to identify the best kit of parts
by choosing weighted priorities. They had to
do this knowing they had limited resources.
Responses are also separated by a key
demographic: do you see yourself living at
the Lumberyard?
Outreach Channels
114
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
2CUSHING TERRELL
25-30% of Open House Attendees and Survey
Respondents Identify as Prospective Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
All Survey Respondents:
84% Live in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County
91% Work in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County
---------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Of Prospective Residents:
75% 1 or 2 Person Household
<2% 3 Person Household
21% 4 or More
---------------------------------------------------------------
Of Prospective Residents:
21% Live OUTSIDE the City of Aspen or Pitkin
County
Only 7% Work OUTSIDE the City of Aspen or
Pitkin County
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Suggests this project WILL house a
measurable number of people who currently
work in the City/County but are unable to live
there.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Demographics
4.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS
115
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
3CUSHING TERRELL
Open Space
4.3
Findings at the Open House and via the survey
indicate that people want to see plenty of open
space. Survey respondents averaged 35 out of
100 toward MORE open space.
Respondents via the survey preferred slightly
larger, concentrated open space (57 out of 100).
Open House attendees tended toward larger,
concentrated open space as well.
Of respondents who are prospective residents,
their desire for smaller, distributed space is
slightly higher (52 instead of 57).
0
0
OH
100
100
PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS: OPEN SPACE
116
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
4CUSHING TERRELL
4.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS: OPEN SPACE
2: OH prospective resident
12: Survey prospective resident
6: OH non-prospective resident
36: Survey non-prospective resident
8: OH prospective resident
30: Survey prospective resident
19: OH non-prospective resident
89: Survey non-prospective resident
0: OH prospective resident
10: Survey prospective resident
6: OH non-prospective resident
29: Survey non-prospective resident
117
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
5CUSHING TERRELL
4.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS: PARKING
11.5: OH prospective resident
41: Survey prospective resident
22.5: OH non-prospective resident
95: Survey non-prospective resident
2.5: OH prospective resident
11: Survey prospective resident
4.5: OH non-prospective resident
59: Survey non-prospective resident
118
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
6CUSHING TERRELL
4.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS: STORAGE
9: OH prospective resident
31: Survey prospective resident
16.5: OH non-prospective resident
77: Survey non-prospective resident
5: OH prospective resident
21: Survey prospective resident
16.5: OH non-prospective resident
77: Survey non-prospective residentIT’S A TI
E!
119
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
7CUSHING TERRELL
4.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS: EXTRA PARKING
2: OH prospective resident
12: Survey prospective resident
9: OH non-prospective resident
30: Survey non-prospective resident
12: OH prospective resident
31: Survey prospective resident
18: OH non-prospective resident
95: Survey non-prospective resident
COMM
E
N
T
S:If Yes, th
e
n
p
ut
e
xtr
a
off-
site an
d
c
h
ar
g
e f
or it!
COMM
E
N
T
S:
No, sho
ul
d
b
e f
or
pri
m
ar
y
vehicle
s,
bi
k
e
s,
str
oll
er
s,
etc.
120
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
8CUSHING TERRELL
4.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS: UNIT ACCESS
0: OH prospective resident
12: Survey prospective resident
2.5: OH non-prospective resident
27: Survey non-prospective resident
12: OH prospective resident
40: Survey prospective resident
24.5: OH non-prospective resident
125: Survey non-prospective resident
121
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
9CUSHING TERRELL
4.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS: UNIT TYPE
3.5: OH prospective resident
17: Survey prospective resident
8.5: OH non-prospective resident
66: Survey non-prospective resident
9.5: OH prospective resident
35: Survey prospective resident
16.5: OH non-prospective resident
88: Survey non-prospective resident
122
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
10CUSHING TERRELL
4.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS: SHARED WALLS
3: OH prospective resident
23: Survey prospective resident
9: OH non-prospective resident
42: Survey non-prospective resident
5: OH prospective resident
25: Survey prospective resident
8: OH non-prospective resident
88: Survey non-prospective resident
4: OH prospective resident
4: Survey prospective resident
6: OH non-prospective resident
24: Survey non-prospective resident
123
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
11CUSHING TERRELL
Costs were assigned to the ‘kit of parts’ for the
project. When give limited resources ($100)
participants had to decide where to spend those
limited resources.
NET ZERO BUILDINGS - $80
UNDERGROUND PARKING - $60
LARGE PROGRAMMED OPEN SPACE - $60
PEDESTRIAN FIRST DESIGN - $60
ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL STYLE - $40
COVERED / STRUCTURED PARKING - $40
SMALLER BUILDINGS - $40
SURFACE PARKING - $20
ENHANCED AMENITIES - $20
Trade-offs
4.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS
PROSPECTIVE RESIDENTS RANKING
ENHANCED AMENITIES 19
NET ZERO BUILDINGS 19
UNDERGROUND PARKING 13.33
ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL STYLE 10
COVERED / STRUCTURED PARKING 6.5
SURFACE PARKING 5
OPEN SPACE 4.67
PEDESTRIAN FIRST DESIGN 4.33
SMALLER BUILDINGS 4
NON-PROSPECTIVE RESIDENTS RANKING
UNDERGROUND PARKING 42.33
NET ZERO BUILDINGS 37.75
PEDESTRIAN FIRST DESIGN 36.67
ENHANCED AMENITIES 30
OPEN SPACE 19.33
ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL STYLE 18.5
COVERED / STRUCTURED PARKING 15.5
SURFACE PARKING 15
SMALLER BUILDINGS 12
124
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
12CUSHING TERRELL
4.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS
The following considerations can be summarized from the outreach efforts and should be discussed as we move forward:
• Generally, prospective and non-prospective residents gave similar feedback.
• ‘Hiding’ parking via underground was consistent throughout the outreach, including all participants who want to spend
limited resources on this.
• When considering the trade-offs, underground parking and net-zero were both in the top three. Pedestrian first design
was less important to non-residents which is worth discussion.
• Enhanced amenities ranked high for both and talks directly to the livability of the units. Carefully consider what
amenities will take the units ‘over the top’ in livability. Cross-reference this with great storage (parking and in-unit),
decks and private open spaces, quality interior finishes, etc.
• Open space should be generous but everyone is looking for a balance between small and large spaces. Prospective
residents seem to pushing for smaller spaces and spending less on the ‘amenities’ so O.S should be modestly
programmed.
• The survey closes EOW but the feedback has been consistent so no surprises are anticipated.
Considerations
125
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
44CUSHING TERRELL
4.4 SUSTAINABILITY
Our Process to Achieve Success
City of Aspen Commitments:
• 80% reduction in GHG emissions
by 2050 from 2004 baseline.
• This requires a 26% reduction in
the residential sector
The Six Categories of the Climate
Action Plan:
• Reduces Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
• Promotes Equity
• Fosters Economic Sustainability
• Improves Local Environmental
Quality
• Enhances Public Health and Safety
• Builds Resilience
Guiding Principles
Energy & Environment
To move on from current practices to design buildings that
benefit people without sacrificing the ecosystem or needs of
future generations.
A design that takes current UN SDG (Sustainable
Development Goals) goals into consideration. A design that
not only reduces operational impact, but also impact during
the construction process.
Equity
To create a development that enables all people to
participate, prosper, and reach their full potential. Create a
positive impact for people who have been disadvantaged or
excluded.
Resilience
The ability to adapt to changing conditions and maintain
functionality when faced with know environmental and
infrastructural vulnerabilities.
Resilient design to deal with warming climate, wildfires and
drought.
Recommended Targets
1. Near Net Zero On-Site Energy
2. Fully Electrified Buildings
3. Minimum of 15% full EV charging for parking
spaces and additional 15% of EV-Ready Spaces
4. Battery Storage for partial back-up power of site*
5. Equity in project design and in material sourcing
6. Resilient Design to protect against wildfire, power
outages and higher temperatures
7. Focus on healthy spaces through filtration,
material selection, daylight, acoustic and
ventilation
8. Diversion of construction waste & On-Site
Recycling and Composting
9. Requiring Third party commissioning and site
verification
10. Metering of individual resident utility use
Identify The Baseline Stakeholder Goal Setting
• Performance Targets
• Programs or Methodologies
for implementation within
design and construction
• Metrics for evaluation both
now and on-going
• Identify hazards,
vulnerabilities, opportunities
and their impacts
Create Path for
Implementation
126
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
45CUSHING TERRELL
4.4 SUSTAINABILITY
Set a Baseline Strategy: Adopt Enterprise Green Communities Plus
Why Adopt a Sustainability Certification Program?
Accountability & Structure
• Cementing community goals as project requirements
• Continuity of project goals from design team to contractor to eventual building
operations
• Specific and measurable goals to guide design and measure success
Funding Opportunities
• The majority of tax credit financing programs require projects to achieve one of the
certification programs outlined here
• Supported by the community
Why Choose Enterprise Green Communities Plus?
• Nation’s only green building program design explicitly for affordable housing
• Best aligned with stakeholder / design team project goals
• Interactive design approaches that give residents a voice in the design process
• A path to zero energy with strategies to help all developments move closer to zero
emissions
• Healthy living practices such as ample ventilation and healing-centered design
• Water standards that promote efficiency and protect against lead poisoning
• Resilience requirements that prepare homes for local climate hazards
• Certification process is a good value, versus many other programs, balancing checks
& balances and documentation
Comparison: Certification Programs vs. Project Goals
127
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
46CUSHING TERRELL
4.4 SUSTAINABILITY
Net Zero
Alignment with Aspen Climate Targets & Public Engagement
• Aspen’s Climate Action Plan provides a green house gas reduction kit of tools. Pursuing or requiring Net
Zero is included
• Aspen’s Climate Action Plan also sets a 47% reduction of green house gas emissions by 2030. While it is
hard to say how the future developments contribution to this reduction target, it highlights the importance
of being aggressive in reduction targets for the planning of new developments today
• The public engagement efforts during concept design as well as this team’s schematic design, the public
has expressed continued support for Aspen to generally be a leader in sustainability, but also specifically in
pursuing Net Zero energy targets for the Lumberyard project
Recommendation: Minimum 75% On-Site Renewable Energy
Achieving 100% on-site renewable, based upon the limited development of the project to-date, appears to be a
stretch, but achieving close to Net Zero is a possibility. This is achievable with strategies such as highly-insulated
envelope, heat pump technology, passive orientation, and PV located on roof and parking structures.
As further design development occurs, energy modeling will inform the project feasibility of pushing toward
100% energy use offset, but based upon city climate action targets and public feedback, the design team would
recommend proceeding under the assumption of setting a 75% offset baseline.
On-Site Energy Production:
Cost of PV system and any on-site
storage/infrastructure
Building Envelope:
Insulation and window performance
beyond code minimums
Systems:
All-Electric HVAC and plumbing systems
required. Centralized systems may be
required to reduce consumption
Design:
Optimal passive orientation and PV
location drive building design
Services:
Requires alignment with capabilities local
utilities. May be operational hurdles with
resident metering.
Project Impacts
128
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
47CUSHING TERRELL
4.4 SUSTAINABILITY
Stretch Goals
Stretch goals may be stretch because of their
feasibility within the project context, or because
at this early point in the projects development not
enough information is available to establish whether
their pursuit is possible.
The programs / targets presented here represent
an extraordinary commitment to leadership in
sustainability. The selected opportunities here are in
line with the project’s goals / targets established in
the design team’s goal setting efforts.
The design team would like to gauge the City
Council’s interest in further investigation in any or all
of these programs / targets.
Recycled water
• Irrigation, Flushing
• Close to plant
• Improves resiliency
Challenges: Unknown if capacity available
to connect to plant, potential regulatory
hurdles, additional piping required to
serve site
Zero Carbon Certification
• Only Embodied Carbon remaining
• Put project on the map as a leader in
carbon reduction
Challenges: Cost
Living Building Challenge Petal
Certification
• Highest level of green certification
• Easily tailored to affordable housing
project
• Push projects from being less bad to
truly regenerative
• Cement the City of Aspen as a leader
when it comes to sustainability
Challenges: Cost + Added Complexity of
design process
129
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
48CUSHING TERRELL
4.4 SUSTAINABILITY
Colorado Affordable Housing Reference Projects
Allison Village
Arvada, CO
EGC + ZERH
In Construction
Basalt Vista Affordable Housing Community
Basalt, CO
Net Zero + All Electric
In Construction
1500 N Valentia
Denver, CO
EGC + ZERH
In Construction
Alta Verde
Breckenridge, CO
EGC + ZERH
In Construction
Cadence
Fort Collins, CO
EGC + ZERH
In Construction
130
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
49CUSHING TERRELL
4.5 DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY RESULTS
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) had
done a Demographic and Market Assessment
for the City of Aspen with the aim of providing
recommendations on the unit and income mix
for the Lumberyard.
The report seeks to align the affordable housing
development program based on analysis of
income data for households throughout the
Roaring Fork Valley (RFV) and job growth
within Pitkin County. The study also examines
demographic trends and condition along with
other recent additions to the affordable housing
supply in the RFV.
The report reiterates the findings of the 2018
Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study
in terms of the overall scale of the affordable
housing needs.
Summary
• 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
The Main Takeaways
from this Study
131
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
50CUSHING TERRELL
4.5 DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY RESULTS
Change in Renter Households by AMI 2010 - 2019
• Household growth
overwhelmingly in category 3
and above
• Loss of renter households in
category 2 and below
• Employment growth is
among lower-incomes, yet
household growth is among
higher incomes
• Workers being pushed to
other areas
• Housing units are not being
occupied by new job holders
• Household growth
overwhelmingly in
category 3 and above
• Declines in Category
1 & 2
Change in Owner Households by AMI 2010 - 2019
EPS Report Takeaways
CAT. 1 CAT. 1CAT. 2 CAT. 2CAT. 3 CAT. 3CAT. 4 CAT. 4CAT. 5 CAT. 5CAT. RO CAT. RO
132
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
51CUSHING TERRELL
4.5 DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY RESULTS
Change in employment by AMI, Market Area
• Market area: Aspen to Glenwood
• Converted wages to household income using
APCHA AMI guidelines
• 1.6 earners per hh
• 39% of job growth under 80% of AMI; 35%
between 80% and 120%
• High demand under 80% of AMI
EPS Report Takeaways
CAT. ROCAT. 5CAT. 4CAT. 3CAT. 2CAT. 1
133
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
52CUSHING TERRELL
4.5 DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY RESULTS
The recommended unit and income mix
includes a range of possibilities while
maintaining a total of 310 housing units. The
baseline recommendation considers a higher
concentration of 1-bedroom units, while in the
alternate unit mix, EPS recommends that the
City consider including more 3-bedroom units
in place of 1-bedroom units for the purpose
of adding more bedrooms to the project
while maintaining a total of 310 units and to
house more 3-bedroom families or roommate
arrangements.
Unit Mix Range Recommended Unit Mix
Alternate Unit Mix
134
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
53CUSHING TERRELL
4.6 PATHWAYS FORWARD
ExploreResearch Evolve Recommend
To date the primary objectives of the design team were to: 1. Define what success
looks like overall for the project moving forward; and 2. Research and explore parking
alternatives that will drive forward successful site and building design.
Through council, stakeholder, and public engagement, the design team has been
able to evolve site concepts based upon parking alternatives to a point that allows for
evaluation to these concepts against overall project goals.
The design team will present our comparative analysis of the parking alternatives
developed to this point and will ask for the adoption of a recommended path forward
allowing future development under a single scheme.
135
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
54CUSHING TERRELL
4.6 PATHWAYS FORWARD Site Comparison Matrix
Good
Construction Cost
Project Phasing (Does scheme allow for project to be phased)
Building Envelope (Linear Feet of Exterior Exposed to Elements)
Elevators (Minimum Number of Anticipated Elevators)
Interior Corridors (Cost associated with constructing int. common space)
Operations & Maintenance
Waste Management (Ease of accommodate waste infrastructure)
Snow Storage (For plowing of roads, drives & parking)
Snow Removal (Sidewalks / Exit Stairs & Catwalks)
Elevator Maintenance (Annual maintenance based on number of elevators)
Mechanical Systems (Ability to centralize systems / simplify maintenance)
Parks Dept Maintained Green Spaces
x45 x46x31Baseline
Baseline
12 20106
x2.15 x1.79 x1.44Parking (Relative cost based on mix of parking types)
Good Best BestBest
Good Best BetterBetter
Good Best Better
NoNoNo
Better
No Yes
Yes YesYesYes
NoNo
Streets Dept Maintained Streets (Paved areas likely designated as streets v. parking lots)
Better Best GoodBetter
Better Best GoodBetter
PIVOT
PROJECT FEASIBILITY
LATCH HINGE FLANGE
Community Connection
PIVOT
Buffer to Annie Mitchell (Building at within Triangle Adjacent to Annie Mitchell)
Parked Entirely on Site
GUIDING PRINCIPLES LATCH HINGE FLANGE
On-Site Daycare
Sustainability
Net-Zero Ability (Ability of on-site PV to offset energy consumption)
Stormwater (Ease of Surface Detention v. Underground Detention)
Access to Daylight (Direct Sun Hours at all S/E/W Unit Faces)
Pedestrian Friendly
Concentrated Green Space
Trail Connectivity
Public Transit Stop
Safe Site Circulation (street / driveways limited in traversing site)
Living Well
Universal Design (Units can be accessed by elevator and/or from inside)
Access to Views (Uninterrupted view >60' before adjacent structure)
Outside of Noise Buffer (Units Outside 200' buffer from Hwy 82)
Mechanical Noise (Ability for Centralized Systems vs. Individual Units)
Authentically Aspen
Design Innovative (Ability for architectural variation)
Potential for some 3-story Roofs
Mass & Scale (Option w/ Smallest Structures)
Exterior Accessed Units (Can units be access without using an interior corridor)
Parking Near Unit (Parking Distributed Proportionately w/ Units)
Storage At/Near Parking (Cover Parking w/ Room to Add Storage Space)
42.3%
0.6 acres 0.5 acres1.25 acres 1.77 acres
Mixed
Most
Best Best GoodBetter
Better Best
Most
BestBest Better
Half
BetterBetter
Good Best BetterBetter
Better Better GoodBest
Better Best GoodBest
Better
Unlikely Unlikely UnlikelyLikely
Best GoodGood
Best Good BetterBetter
All All All1/3rd
MostAllAll
MixedUnderground
No No
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Some Some
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Surface
43.2%48.9%42.4%
Best Better GoodBetter
Yes
Good
Construction Cost
Project Phasing (Does scheme allow for project to be phased)
Building Envelope (Linear Feet of Exterior Exposed to Elements)
Elevators (Minimum Number of Anticipated Elevators)
Interior Corridors (Cost associated with constructing int. common space)
Operations & Maintenance
Waste Management (Ease of accommodate waste infrastructure)
Snow Storage (For plowing of roads, drives & parking)
Snow Removal (Sidewalks / Exit Stairs & Catwalks)
Elevator Maintenance (Annual maintenance based on number of elevators)
Mechanical Systems (Ability to centralize systems / simplify maintenance)
Parks Dept Maintained Green Spaces
x45 x46x31Baseline
Baseline
12 20106
x2.15 x1.79 x1.44Parking (Relative cost based on mix of parking types)
Good Best BestBest
Good Best BetterBetter
Good Best Better
NoNoNo
Better
No Yes
Yes YesYesYes
NoNo
Streets Dept Maintained Streets (Paved areas likely designated as streets v. parking lots)
Better Best GoodBetter
Better Best GoodBetter
PIVOT
PROJECT FEASIBILITY
LATCH HINGE FLANGE
Community Connection
PIVOT
Buffer to Annie Mitchell (Building at within Triangle Adjacent to Annie Mitchell)
Parked Entirely on Site
GUIDING PRINCIPLES LATCH HINGE FLANGE
On-Site Daycare
Sustainability
Net-Zero Ability (Ability of on-site PV to offset energy consumption)
Stormwater (Ease of Surface Detention v. Underground Detention)
Access to Daylight (Direct Sun Hours at all S/E/W Unit Faces)
Pedestrian Friendly
Concentrated Green Space
Trail Connectivity
Public Transit Stop
Safe Site Circulation (street / driveways limited in traversing site)
Living Well
Universal Design (Units can be accessed by elevator and/or from inside)
Access to Views (Uninterrupted view >60' before adjacent structure)
Outside of Noise Buffer (Units Outside 200' buffer from Hwy 82)
Mechanical Noise (Ability for Centralized Systems vs. Individual Units)
Authentically Aspen
Design Innovative (Ability for architectural variation)
Potential for some 3-story Roofs
Mass & Scale (Option w/ Smallest Structures)
Exterior Accessed Units (Can units be access without using an interior corridor)
Parking Near Unit (Parking Distributed Proportionately w/ Units)
Storage At/Near Parking (Cover Parking w/ Room to Add Storage Space)
42.3%
0.6 acres 0.5 acres1.25 acres 1.77 acres
Mixed
Most
Best Best GoodBetter
Better Best
Most
BestBest Better
Half
BetterBetter
Good Best BetterBetter
Better Better GoodBest
Better Best GoodBest
Better
Unlikely Unlikely UnlikelyLikely
Best GoodGood
Best Good BetterBetter
All All All1/3rd
MostAllAll
MixedUnderground
No No
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Some Some
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Surface
43.2%48.9%42.4%
Best Better GoodBetter
Yes
136
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
55CUSHING TERRELL
4.6 PATHWAYS FORWARD
Core Concepts from Hinge!
Why is Hinge the best launching pad?
• Strongest alignment to Guiding Principles per initial metrics
• A reduction of underground parking by 51 - 60% from concept design
• Best access to daylight & views / separation between buildings
• Most cost effective... energy efficiency, fewest number of elevators, least amount building
perimeter, relationship to underground parking
• Provides flexibility with further development of parking & building design
Strategies for Success
Already in place with Hinge:
• Fewer and more condensed buildings producing larger consolidated green space
• Balanced approach to parking between underground and surface
• Parking directly related to building footprint
• Centralized and public facing green space
• Buildings outside of noise buffer to highway/airport
‘Kit of Parts’ for further development:
• Use efficiency of building layout on site plan to leverage horizontal and vertical building
articulation
• Mix and Match building typologies to allow for ground level entry direct into unit
• Soften ground plan through layering landscaped areas and patios as transitions to building
• Create light-filled and dynamic interior common spaces
• Explore opportunity for more Green Space due to ability to increase underground parking
+
Latch Hinge
137
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
56CUSHING TERRELL
4.7 FINANCIAL RESOURCES
• Review of market information
• Unit mix, rent and income assumptions
• Rental and for-sale housing options
• Underwriting assumptions
• Rent and income requirements
• Comparison with APCHA standards
• Phasing and schedule provide input to
project schedule
• Flow of funds and phasing work
• Timing of outside funding resources
• Site and infrastructure development
• Optimizing funding sources to leverage
Aspen’s investment
• Opportunities to attract private investment
• Possible developer RFP
Scope & Goals
Prepare Sources and Uses
Statement
Identify Funding Sources from
State and Federal Programs
Development Strategy
138
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
57CUSHING TERRELL
4.7 FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Schedule for City Department
Head Coordination and Input
Focus for January 11th Financial
Resources Meeting with City Council
• Budgeting - Cost estimate for all aspects of
the project
• Phasing of work and flow of funds
• Beginning with site and infrastructure
development
• Leveraging other funding sources
• Timing of city fund to support this and other
affordable housing initiatives
• Funding strategy and underwriting
assumptions
Late March 2022 June 2022January 11, 2022
Third MeetingInitial Meeting Second Meeting
139
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
58CUSHING TERRELL
COMMENTS & QUESTIONS
140
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
59CUSHING TERRELL
WHERE ARE WE GOING
141
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
60CUSHING TERRELL
WHERE WE ARE GOING
Our Ask of You Today Moving Forward
Scheme Development:
• What kit of parts can we move forward with to develop a single scheme?
• Acceptance on range of unit mix and awareness of impacts moving
forward.
Sustainability:
• Adoption of baseline sustainability program and approach to net zero.
• Acceptance of further exploration to reach goals.Mid February: Council Work Session Presenting Design Progress
The design team will look to present a single refined site scheme that will
look for the development in the areas of site infrastructure and logistics.
At this time the design team will also present preliminary building
concepts looking for feedback on final unit mix as well as a more informed
conversation on architectural character.
YOU ARE HERE
2022 2027 2028 ...20242023 2025
Complete Schematic Design, Submit Development Application forApproval Process
Remaining Phases of Housing Construction and Occupancy TBDTarget for First Phase of Housing Construction to Start
Target for Occupancy of First Phase of Affordable Housing
PD Recording,Construction Documents,Building Permit Application Process
Target for Access & Infrastructure Construction Start
142
thank you.thank you.
303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 105
Denver, CO 80203
720.359.1416
cushingterrell.com
143
ASPEN LUMBERYARD
62CUSHING TERRELL
APPENDIX
144
Lumber Yard Demographic and
Market Assessment
Prepared for:
City of Aspen
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
EPS #213032
January 6, 2022
145
Table of Contents
Trends and Conditions ............................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
Population, Household, and Job Trends ............................................................ 1
Age Distribution ............................................................................................ 4
Home Prices ................................................................................................. 5
Key Demographic Finding ............................................................................... 5
2018 Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study ........................................... 6
Employment Trends .................................................................................. 7
Wage and Salary Job Trends ........................................................................... 7
Supply and Demand ................................................................................ 12
Household Income ...................................................................................... 12
Household Size ........................................................................................... 13
Renters and Owners .................................................................................... 14
Housing Units by AMI .................................................................................. 15
Recent Multifamily Projects ........................................................................... 18
Recommendations .................................................................................. 23
APCHA Rental Inventory ............................................................................... 23
Analysis Findings ........................................................................................ 24
Proposed Unit Mix ....................................................................................... 25
146
List of Tables
Table 1. Household Composition, Pitkin County, 2012-2019 .................................... 3
Table 2. Wages and Incomes, Top Five Growth Sectors, Pitkin County, 2010-2019 ..... 8
Table 3. Wages and Incomes, Top Sectors, Pitkin County, 2020 ............................. 11
Table 4. Recent Apartment Developments .......................................................... 18
Table 5. Rents by AMI Levels in Recent Properties ............................................... 19
Table 6. APCHA Rental Housing Inventory........................................................... 23
Table 7. Recommended Unit Mix ....................................................................... 25
147
List of Figures
Figure 1. Pitkin County Population, 2010-2020 ....................................................... 2
Figure 2. Households vs. Housing Unit Growth, Pitkin County, 2010-2020 .................. 3
Figure 3. Age Distribution, Pitkin County, 2010-2020............................................... 4
Figure 4. Median Home Sale Price, Pitkin County, 2018-2021 ................................... 5
Figure 5. Employment, Pitkin County, 2010-2021 ................................................... 7
Figure 6. Employment Change by sector, Pitkin County, 2010-2019........................... 8
Figure 7. Change in Employment by wage quartile, Pitkin County, 2010-2019 ............. 9
Figure 8. Change in Employment AMI, Pitkin County, 2010-2019 ............................ 10
Figure 9. Change in Renter Households by AMI, 2010-2019 .................................... 12
Figure 10. Change in Owner Households by AMI, 2010-2019 .................................... 13
Figure 11. Households by Size, Market Area, 2010-2019 ......................................... 14
Figure 12. Households by Tenure, 2010-2019, Market Area ...................................... 14
Figure 13. Renter Units by AMI, 2010-2019 ........................................................... 15
Figure 14. Owner Units by AMI, 2010-2019 ........................................................... 16
Figure 15. Rental Units by Bedroom County, Pitkin County, 2010-2019 ...................... 17
148
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
213032-Lumber Yard Report 1-6-22.docx 1
Trends and Conditions
Introduction
This report was prepared for the City of Aspen and the Aspen-Pitkin County
Housing Authority, under a subcontract with DHM Design in Carbondale. The
purpose of this analysis is to provide recommendations on the unit mix in the
Lumber Yard housing development. The City is particularly interested in aligning
the development program with job growth and the associated wage and
household income levels. The study also examines demographic trends and
conditions, and the rental housing supply to address the full range of housing
demand and supply in the rental market.
The report begins with an overview of macro level growth trends and
demographics in Pitkin County. The second chapter reviews employment and
wage trends. Chapters 3 and 4 summarize housing supply characteristics
including profiles of recently constructed apartments. Chapter 5 contains
Economic & Planning Systems’ (EPS) recommendations on the mix of units by size
(bedrooms) and APCHA income categories.
Population, Household, and Job Trends
Over the past decade, the population of Pitkin County has experienced minimal
growth, increasing from 17,156 residents in 2010 to 17,363 in 2020, which is an
addition of 207 people, as shown in Figure 1. The annual growth rate over this
time period was 0.12 percent. The State Demographer estimates that the
County’s population actually declined by over 300 since 2016 when the population
was 17,691.
149
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
2
Figure 1. Pitkin County Population, 2010-2020
When looking at demographic trends in Colorado’s mountain communities, it is
also important to examine trends in the number of households, a group of people
related or unrelated living in one occupied housing unit.
Overall, growth in housing units outpaced household growth, with the overall
housing stock increasing by about 9 percent between 2010 and 2019, while the
number of households only increased by 4 percent as shown in Figure 2. However,
most housing unit growth was in “vacant units” that are largely comprised of
second homes. The share of vacant units in Pitkin County increased from 37
percent of all housing units in 2010 to 40 percent of all housing units in 2019.
The number of jobs in Pitkin County increased by 19 percent since 2010, compared to
only a 4 percent in population. With unemployment generally low after 2012, most
of the new jobs could only be filled by an increase in commuting into the county.
17,156 17,128 17,201 17,321 17,521 17,701 17,691 17,658 17,643 17,413 17,363
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
19,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source: DOLA; Economic & Planning Systems
150
Economic & Planning Systems
3
Figure 2. Households vs. Housing Unit Growth, Pitkin County, 2010-2020
EPS analyzed the composition of households in Pitkin County using estimates from
the American Community Survey (ACS) part of the U.S. Census. As of 2019,
approximately 42 percent of households in Pitkin County live with an unrelated
roommate, up from 39 percent in 2012, while 25 percent live with family
members, 19 percent live with a partner or spouse, and 14 percent live alone, as
shown in Table 1. This suggests that roommate arrangements are prevalent,
which is a source of demand for multi-bedroom unit types.
Table 1. Household Composition, Pitkin County, 2012-2019
104%
109%
119%
95%
100%
105%
110%
115%
120%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
% of 2010
Households
Housing Units
Vacant Housing Units
Source: DOLA; Economic & Planning Systems
Description 2012 % Total 2019 % Total
Households
Living Alone 2,648 16%2,457 14%
Living with Roomates 6,665 39%7,550 42%
Living with a partner/spouse 3,201 19%3,353 19%
Living with family 4,361 26%4,432 25%
Total 16,875 100%17,792 100%
Source: U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\213032-Aspen Lumber Yard\Data\[213032-HH Characteristics.xlsx]T-Summ
151
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
4
Age Distribution
The population of Pitkin County has become older over the past decade. The
median age increased from 42.1 in 2010 to 44.8 in 2020, while the age cohort
with the most significant increase in its share of population over that period was
65 and over, growing from 11.4 percent of the population in 2010 to 19.3 percent
of the population in 2020, as shown in Figure 3. In addition, the share of the
population aged 0 to 14, 25 to 34, 35 to 44, and 45 to 54 all decreased between
2010 and 2020.
Figure 3. Age Distribution, Pitkin County, 2010-2020
14.3%
9.1%
15.3%
16.1%
17.3%
16.4%
11.4%11.9%
11.0%
13.9%13.5%14.2%
16.3%
19.3%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
0-14 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65+
2010 2020
Source: U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems
152
Economic & Planning Systems
5
Home Prices
Pitkin County continues to have a high-priced housing market that has
appreciated significantly in recent years. From 2018 to 2021, the median sale
price increased from $2,800,000 to $5,037,000, as shown in Figure 4, with the
largest increase occurring between 2019 and 2020, when the median sale price
rose by 50 percent year-over-year. In terms of price distribution, approximately
10 percent of the homes sold in 2020 and 2021 were under $500,000, while one-
third of homes in 2020 and 2021 were under $1,000,000.
Figure 4. Median Home Sale Price, Pitkin County, 2018-2021
Key Demographic Finding
Three trends: slow growing to decreasing population, household growth outpacing
population growth, and the aging population have important implications on
affordable housing, the sustainability of the local economy and character of the
place. The decline in population since 2016 is likely comprised of a combination of
natural decreases (deaths and aging) and people moving out of the county.
The faster rate of household growth compared to population is a complex trend. It
may indicate that newer households moving into the county are smaller than the
households leaving the county. The new households could be empty nester
households and retirees. When paired with the change in age distribution
(declines in young and working age population, increase in over 65 population), a
picture emerges of an increasingly older wealthier population.
$2,800,000
$3,275,000
$5,000,000 $5,037,000
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2018 2019 2020 2021
Median Sale Price
Source: Land Title Company; Economic & Planning Systems
153
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
6
2018 Greater Roaring Fork Regio nal
Housing Study
In 2018, EPS and RRC Associates conducted an in-depth housing study for the
Greater Roaring Fork Region lying between Aspen, Rifle, and Eagle. The study
involved extensive data analysis as well as a detailed survey. The study had the
following key takeaways:
• The region has a 2,100-unit shortfall in housing for households at 60% of area
median income (AMI) and less, and a 1,900-unit shortfall for households
between 100 and 160% AMI, the “missing middle”.
• Overspending on housing (cost burden) costs the region $54 million per year
that could be spent in the local economy or used to save for the future or pay
off debt.
• More than 26,000 workers (out of 47,000 employed residents) cross paths in
their daily commute versus just 19,000 employed residents who live where
they work. This cross-commuting impacts roads, quality of life, and the
environment.
• Year-round business has grown, which can increase the region’s resilience to
another down-turn.
• The population is aging and retiring; over the next 10 years, it is projected
that the population over 65 will increase 60 percent (7,800 people).
• Non-local property ownership and short term rentals put pressure on the
housing market by reducing supply, which impacts the local workforce and the
permanent resident population.
Many of these takeaways are confirmed by the analysis in this study, including an
aging population and a supply and demand imbalance in the housing stock below
60% of AMI.
154
Economic & Planning Systems
7
Employment Trends
This chapter summarizes trends in employment by industry and wage level in
Pitkin County. From this information we estimate the household incomes that
result from combining multiple job holders into a household.
Wage and Salary Job Trends
The Pitkin County economy has been generally strong over the past decade, as
wage and salary jobs grew by 1,724 or 1.3 percent annually between 2010 and
2019, as shown in Figure 5. The momentum slowed in 2020, when jobs contracted
by 9.4 percent due to the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of
early 2021, total employment has mostly rebounded to its pre-pandemic levels.
Figure 5. Employment, Pitkin County, 2010-2021
Job growth in Pitkin County was primarily driven by tourism-related sectors,
including Accommodation and Food Services, Arts and Recreation, and Retail
Trade, as shown in Figure 6. Collectively, these sectors accounted for
approximately 60 percent of total job growth from 2010 through 2019. As shown
in Table 2, the household incomes for these jobs range from 74 percent to 116
percent of area median income. It is important to note that these jobs are
essential to the Pitkin County economy and also drive demand for workforce
housing. Other sectors that grew included Public Administration (government),
Real Estate, and Health Care.
15,003 15,061
15,329
15,707
16,437
15,826
16,129
16,371 16,534
16,801
15,215
16,727
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Source: QCEW;Economic & Planning Systems
155
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
8
Figure 6. Employment Change by sector, Pitkin County, 2010-2019
Table 2. Wages and Incomes, Top Five Growth Sectors, Pitkin County, 2010-2019
An analysis by wage quartile shows the range of wage levels where job growth
has been. Between 2010 and 2019, 29 percent of new jobs in Pitkin County were
at or below the 25th percentile of wages, which equates to $47,372 per year or
below $23 per hour, as shown in Figure 7. Just over half of new jobs were in the
25th to 50th percentile of wages, at $47,372 to $61,620 per year or $23 to
approximately $30 per hour. The remaining 19 percent of jobs were above
$61,620 per year or $30 per hour.
437
433
332
205
172
150
108
100
97
55
50
47
27
14
2
-47
-53
-85
-240
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Acc. and Food Services
Arts and Recreation
Public Admin.
Real Estate
Retail Trade
Health Care
Transport and Warehousing
Professional and Tech Srvcs
Other Services
Ag & Forestry
Educational Services
Management of Companies
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Utilities
Finance
Information
Construction
Admin and Waste Services
Description % of Job Growth Avg. Wage HH Income [1]AMI APCHA Category
Pitkin County
Accommodation and Food Services 24%$43,368 $69,389 74%Category 2
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 24%$50,024 $80,038 85%Category 3
Public Administration 18%$66,352 $106,163 113%Category 3
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 11%$68,120 $108,992 116%Category 3
Retail Trade 10%$51,896 $83,034 88%Category 3
[1] Assumes 1.6 Earners per Household
Source: BLS; Economic & Planning Systems
156
Economic & Planning Systems
9
Figure 7. Change in Employment by Wage Quartile, Pitkin County, 2010-2019
While wages relate to household income, the above information is only part of the
picture as a working household is often comprised of multiple earners. The 2019
housing survey found that on average there are 1.6 earners per household.
Household income is therefore estimated by multiplying the average wage for an
industry, or the wages in the quartiles shown, by 1.6. This assumes that the
“second” 0.6th of an earner makes the same wage as the first (1.0) earner. When
thinking about the workforce in a mountain resort area, it is common for people
with similar job types to pair up as roommates.
The wage information is converted to estimated household income. As shown, 26
percent of the job growth translates to household incomes in APCHA Category 2
(50-85% AMI) and 55 percent of the job growth translates to Category 3 (85-120%
AMI). If a goal is to serve the local workforce and employers, then a significant
portion of the Lumber Yard unit mix should be in the Category 2 and Category 3
income ranges.
157
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
10
Figure 8. Change in Employment AMI, Pitkin County, 2010-2019
A more granular breakdown of sectors in Pitkin County illustrates the wages in
specific industries. As shown in Table 3, hotel jobs and restaurant jobs both
comprise approximately 10 percent of total employment. For a household with 1.6
earners, hotel jobs pay a household income equivalent to 97 percent of AMI
(Category 3) and restaurant jobs pay a household income equivalent to 82
percent of AMI (Category 2). Skiing Facilities, which comprise 9 percent of total
jobs, pay a household income equivalent to 109 percent of AMI. For a one-earner
household, hotel jobs pay an income equivalent to 74 percent of AMI and
restaurants pay an income equivalent to 63 percent of AMI, placing jobholders in
Category 2 under APCHA guidelines. In a few sectors with a sizeable presence in
Pitkin County, including Supermarkets and Temporary Help Services, incomes in
one-earner households place jobholders in Category 1.
0
(0%)
436
(26%)
913
(55%)
117
(7%)
0
(0%)
202
(12%)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Below 50% AMI 50%-85% AMI 85%-120% AMI 120%-205% AMI 205%-240% AMI Above 240% AMI
Source: QCEW; Economic & Planning Systems
158
Economic & Planning Systems
11
Table 3. Wages and Incomes, Top Sectors, Pitkin County, 2020
Description % of Total Jobs Avg. Wage AMI [1]Category HH Income AMI [2]Category
Pitkin County
Hotels and Motels 11%$57,092 74%Cat. 2 $91,347 97%Cat. 3
Full-Service Restaurants 10%$48,405 63%Cat. 2 $77,447 82%Cat. 2
Skiing Facilities 9%$63,916 83%Cat. 2 $102,266 109%Cat. 3
Executive and Legislative Offices 6%$68,979 89%Cat. 3 $110,366 117%Cat. 3
Residential Property Managers 5%$73,835 95%Cat. 3 $118,136 126%Cat. 4
General Medical Hospitals 3%$86,511 112%Cat. 3 $138,418 147%Cat. 5
Elementary and Secondary Schools 3%$56,715 73%Cat. 2 $90,743 97%Cat. 3
Temporary Help Services 2%$30,795 40%Cat. 1 $49,272 52%Cat. 2
Landscaping Services 2%$48,181 62%Cat. 2 $77,090 82%Cat. 2
Supermarkets and Grocery Stores 2%$36,052 47%Cat. 1 $57,684 61%Cat. 2
[1] Assumes a 1-person household size
[2] Assumes a 2.5-person household size
Source: BLS; Economic & Planning Systems
C:\Users\Carson\Documents\[QCEW Pitkin Eagle Garfield CLEANED.xlsx]T-6 digit Summ Pitkin
1-Earner Household 1.6-Earner Household
159
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
12
Supply and Demand
This chapter analyzes supply and demand information on housing and household
demographics in Pitkin County and the greater Roaring Fork Valley, including
Basalt, Carbondale, and Glenwood Springs – referred to as the Primary Market
Area (PMA).
Household Inc ome
EPS analyzed data on households by income range using census tract-level data
from the American Community Survey (ACS). The incomes from the ACS data
were translated into area median income using guidelines set by the Aspen-Pitkin
County Housing Authority (APCHA). The tracts in this analysis encompass the
entire Primary Market Area.
From 2010 through 2019, growth in renter households was concentrated above
85% of AMI (above Category 2). The majority of renter household growth was in
the 120-205% AMI category (mostly Category 4), as shown in Figure 9. By
contrast, the number of renter households below 85% of AMI contracted,
indicating a net loss of the lowest-income households.
Figure 9. Change in Renter Households by AMI, 2010-2019
-222
-114
190
623
22
198
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
Below 50%
AMI
50%-85%
AMI
85%-120%
AMI
120%-205%
AMI
205%-240%
AMI
Above 240%
AMI
Source: U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems
160
Economic & Planning Systems
13
Owner households showed a similar pattern. New household growth primarily
occurred in the 85-120% AMI (Category 3) and above 240% AMI categories
(Category 5), while there was a significant loss of households below 85% of AMI
(Category 2), as shown in Figure 10. Overall, this analysis highlights a pattern in
which higher-income households are replacing lower-income households in the
Roaring Fork Valley, likely due to displacement of lower-income households
because of rising housing costs and scarce supply.
Figure 10. Change in Owner Households by AMI, 2010-2019
Household Size
Within the Primary Market Area, the most common household size is a two-person
household, comprising 39 percent of all households, followed a one-person
household with 28 percent, four or more-person household with 17 percent, and a
three-person household with 16 percent, as shown in Figure 11. From 2010 and
2019, the share of two-person households grew the most, increasing from 34 to
39 percent of all households, while the share of three-person households
increased marginally. The decrease in share of households with 4 or more people,
which dropped from 21 to 17 percent of all households, indicates a loss of families
and larger households.
-500
-265
-8
439
84
457
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
Below 50%
AMI
50%-85%
AMI
85%-120%
AMI
120%-205%
AMI
205%-240%
AMI
Above 240%
AMI
Source: U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems
161
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
14
Figure 11. Households by Size, Market Area, 2010-2019
Renters and Owners
In terms of tenure, owner households comprise approximately two-thirds of all
households in the Primary Market Area. The share of renter households within the
Primary Market Area increased slightly between 2010 and 2019, increasing from 34
percent to 36 percent of all households, as shown in Figure 12. As such, the share
of owner households decreased from 66 to 64 percent of all households.
Figure 12. Households by Tenure, 2010-2019, Market Area
30%
34%
14%
21%
28%
39%
16%17%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1-Person HH 2-Person HH 3-Person HH 4+ Person HH
2010 2019
Source: U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems
34%
66%
36%
64%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Renters Owners
2010 2019
Source: U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems
162
Economic & Planning Systems
15
Housing Units by AMI
On the supply side, EPS analyzed data on units by value and units by rent using
census tract-level data from the American Community Survey (ACS). The incomes
from the ACS data were translated into area median income using guidelines set
by the Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). The tracts in this analysis
encompass the entire Primary Market Area.
Rental Housing
Among rental units, the vast majority of new unit growth occurred between 85%
and 120% of AMI, while there was a loss of units below 50% of AMI and above
205% of AMI, as shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13. Renter Units by AMI, 2010-2019
-324
-124 -96
212
1,041
235
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Below 50%
AMI
50%-85%
AMI
85%-120%
AMI
120%-205%
AMI
205%-240%
AMI
Above 240%
AMI
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
163
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
16
On the owner side, new unit growth was distributed between units in the 50-85%
AMI category and the 120-205% category as shown in Figure 14. These trends
reflect increases in rental rates at the low end, and likely conversion of units to
ownership or second homes at the higher end.
Figure 14. Owner Units by AMI, 2010-2019
-340
-95
-513
554
89
562
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
Below 50%
AMI
50%-85%
AMI
85%-120%
AMI
120%-205%
AMI
205%-240%
AMI
Above 240%
AMI
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
164
Economic & Planning Systems
17
Number of Bedrooms
The most common type of rental unit in the Primary Market Area is a 2-bedroom
unit, comprising 40 percent of all rental units, as shown in Figure 15. One- and
3-bedroom units both comprise approximately 20 percent of rental units, while
studios and 4- and 5-bedroom units comprise less than 10 percent of rental units.
Between 2010 and 2019, the share of 2-bedroom units grew significantly,
increasing from 32 to 40 percent of all rental units, while the share of 3-bedroom
units fell from 26 to 19 percent of units, and the share of 1-bedroom units fell
from 22 to 20 percent. The increase in 2-bedroom units is attributed to
construction of new APCHA projects and other new apartments noted below.
Figure 15. Rental Units by Bedroom County, Pitkin County, 2010-2019
11%
22%
32%
26%
7%
2%
7%
20%
40%
19%
10%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
No Bedroom 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom 5+ Bedrooms
2010 2019
Source: U.S. Census; Economic & Planning Systems
165
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
18
Recent Multifamily Projects
EPS gathered information on recent multifamily projects in the Roaring Fork
Valley to gauge what the market has delivered, with a particular focus on unit mix
and rental rates. Several multifamily projects, both market rate and affordable,
have been built in the Valley over the past decade. A brief description of each
project is provided below and project characteristics are summarized in Table 4.
Newer apartment developments have rents concentrated in the Category 4 and
RO categories. These are not APCHA properties; EPS converted the rental rates to
the equivalent APCHA categories and AMI ranges for comparison. As shown in
Table 5, the only properties serving people earning less than 120 percent of AMI
(Category 4) are properties developed using low income housing tax credits
(LIHTC). The two LIHTC projects shown here have rents affordable to people
earning between 50 and 85% of AMI (Category 2).
Table 4. Recent Apartment Developments
Description Units Percent Avg. Size Avg. Rent Per Sq. Ft.Yr Built Type
Willits Seven - Basalt
1 Bedroom 18 36%624 $1,901 $3.05 2017 Affordable
2-Bedroom 17 34%909 $2,168 $2.39 2017 Affordable
3-Bedroom 15 30%1,072 $2,280 $2.13 2017 Affordable
Total 50 100%855 $2,105 $2.46 2017 Affordable
One 10 Harris - Basalt
1 Bedroom 5 10%733 $2,275 $3.10 2018 Market
2-Bedroom 20 41%947 $2,850 $3.01 2018 Market
3-Bedroom 24 49%1,114 $3,450 $3.10 2018 Market
Total 49 100%1,007 $3,085 $3.06 2018 Market
Six Canyon - Glenwood Spgs
1 Bedroom 55 47%683 $1,840 $2.69 2020 Market
2-Bedroom 61 53%980 $2,308 $2.36 2020 Market
Total 116 100%821 $2,086 $2.54
Glenwood Greens - Glenwood Spgs
1 Bedroom 28 47%708 $917 $1.30 2014 LIHTC
2-Bedroom 20 33%950 $1,095 $1.15 2014 LIHTC
3-Bedroom 12 20%1,084 $1,265 $1.17 2014 LIHTC
Total 60 100%
Roaring Fork Apartments - Basalt
1 Bedroom 45 80%N/A N/A N/A 2018 LIHTC
2-Bedroom 11 20%N/A N/A N/A 2018 LIHTC
Total 56 100%N/A N/A N/A 2018 LIHTC
1201 Main - Carbondale
1 Bedroom 15 56%660 $1,800 N/A N/A Market
2-Bedroom 12 44%1,020 $2,800 N/A N/A Market
Total 27 100%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\213032-Aspen Lumber Yard\Data\[213032-Apartment Comps.xlsx]T-Summ
166
Economic & Planning Systems
19
Table 5. Rents by AMI Levels in Recent Properties
Description Units Avg. Rent
Equivalent
APCHA Category AMI
Willits Seven - Basalt
1 Bedroom 18 $1,901 Cat. 4 120-205%
2-Bedroom 17 $2,168 Cat. 4 120-205%
3-Bedroom 15 $2,280 Cat. 4 120-205%
Total 50 $2,105
One 10 Harris - Basalt
1 Bedroom 5 $2,275 RO Above 205%
2-Bedroom 20 $2,850 RO Above 205%
3-Bedroom 24 $3,450 RO Above 205%
Total 49 $3,085
Six Canyon - Glenwood Spgs
1 Bedroom 55 $1,840 Cat. 4 120-205%
2-Bedroom 61 $2,308 RO Above 205%
Total 116 $2,086
Glenwood Greens - Glenwood Spgs
1 Bedroom 28 $917 Cat. 2 50-85%
2-Bedroom 20 $1,095 Cat. 2 50-85%
3-Bedroom 12 $1,265 Cat. 2 50-85%
Total 60 $1,046
Roaring Fork Apartments - Basalt
1 Bedroom 45 N/A Cat. 2 50-85%
2-Bedroom 11 N/A RO Above 205%
Total 56 N/A
1201 Main - Carbondale
1 Bedroom 15 $1,800 Cat. 4 120-205%
2-Bedroom 12 $2,800 RO Above 205%
Total 27 $2,244
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\213032-Aspen Lumber Yard\Data\[213032-Apartment Comps.xlsx]T-Summ
167
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
20
Willits Seven
Located in Willits Town Center in Basalt, Willits Seven is a 50-unit apartment
complex built in 2017. Willits Seven has a relatively even mixture of 1-, 2-, and 3-
bedroom units, and is only leased to employees in Roaring Fork Valley. Units are
income-restricted at up to 120% of area median income under current APCHA
guidelines (Category 2). Current rents are $1,901 per month for a 1-bedroom,
$2,168 for a 2-bedroom, and $2,280 for a 3-bedroom.
One 10 Harris
Also in Willits Town Center, One 10 Harris is a 49-unit market rate apartment
project built in 2018. One 10 Harris sits at the higher end of the apartment
market, with rental rates over $3.00 per square foot. Approximately half of the
units are 3-bedroom, the highest share of the comparable properties, while 41
percent are 2-bedroom units and 10 percent are 1-bedroom units.
168
Economic & Planning Systems
21
Six Canyon
Six Canyon is a 116-unit market-rate apartment project built in 2020 located
along U.S. Highway 6 in the northwestern part of Glenwood Springs. The unit mix
is evenly split between 1- and 2-bedroom units and the average rent is $2.54 per
square foot. It is one of the newest for-rent residential projects in the Roaring
Fork Valley.
Glenwood Greens
Glenwood Greens is a 60-unit affordable apartment project located in Glenwood
Springs adjacent to the Glenwood Meadows shopping center. Built in 2014,
Glenwood Greens is a low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) project with below-
market rents averaging $1.21 per square foot. The unit mix consists of 28 1-
bedroom units, 20 2-bedroom units, and 12 3-bedroom units.
169
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
22
Roaring Fork Apartments
The Roaring Fork Apartments is a 56-unit multifamily project located along State
Highway 82 in Basalt. Built in 2018, the Roaring Fork received funding from the
low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program and contains a mixture of
affordable units (under 60% of AMI) and market-rate units. Approximately 80
percent of the units are 1-bedroom units and 20 percent are 2-bedroom units.
1201 Main
Located in Carbondale at the intersection of Main Street and State Highway 133,
1201 Main is a 27-unit market-rate apartment project. 1201 Main has a mixture
of 1- and 2-bedroom units.
170
Economic & Planning Systems
23
Recommendations
This chapter provides recommendations and considerations for the unit mix and
targeted income ranges for the rental portion of the Lumber Yard development.
For context, the chapter begins with a summary of the current unit mix in
APCHA’s rental properties.
APCHA Rental Inventory
APCHA has 1,382 units in its inventory, shown in Table 6. The inventory is
concentrated in smaller units ranging from studios (22 percent) and dorm units
(15 percent) to 1-bedroom (27 percent) and 2-bedroom units (31 percent). The
inventory includes properties built over decades when the focus was on employee
and seasonal housing, reflected in the dorm style and 1- and 2-bedroom
apartment units.
Most of APCHA’s rental inventory is in income Categories 2 and 3 (50-85% AMI
and 85-120% AMI), with 56 percent of units. There are another 8 percent of units
in Category 1 (under 50% AMI) and a third of the units as RO Category. RO units
do not have an income limit; the occupant must be a full time resident and full
time employee in Pitkin County with net assets less than $2.4 million.
Table 6. APCHA Rental Housing Inventory
Rental Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 RO Total Units % Mix
Unit Type
Studio 51 78 80 4 88 301 22%
1-Bedroom 33 144 145 6 39 367 27%
2-Bedroom 17 86 171 28 126 428 31%
3-Bedroom 1 18 43 5 9 76 5%
Dorm Units 6 0 10 0 190 206 15%
Single-Family 0 0 0 2 2 4 0%
Rental Total 108 326 449 45 454 1,382
Rental %8%24%32%3%33%100%
Source: APCHA; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\213032-Aspen Lumber Yard\Data\[213032-APCHA inventory.xlsx]APCHA summ
171
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
24
Analysis Findings
Household Income
The number of households in income Categories 1 and 2 in the PMA (Aspen to
Glenwood Springs) have declined by approximately 1,100 (renters and owners)
over about the past 10 years. Some Category 1 and 2 units should be provided to
serve this lower income population and workforce and to help mitigate the
increases in housing costs in the Upper, Mid, and Lower Valley areas.
Jobs and Economic Base
Most of the job growth in Pitkin County over the past 10 years has been in
Accommodations and Food Services ($43,368), Arts and Recreation ($50,024),
Public Administration ($66,352), and Retail Trade ($51,896). Besides public
administration, these industries have average wages ranging from $43,368 to
$51,896. For a single earner, those are incomes of 56% to 67% of AMI (Category 2).
When multiple earners are considered, the job growth translates to household
incomes in 50 to 85 % of AMI (26 percent of new jobs, Category 2) and 85 to
120% of AMI (55 percent of new jobs, Category 3). If a goal is to address
workforce and employer needs, then a focus on up to Category 3 is also
recommended. When single person households (e.g., a single parent) are
considered, targeting the traditional APCHA mix of Category 1, 2, and 3 is still a
good approach at Lumber Yard and will address multiple types of housing need.
Private Market Development
The private market is able to build rental housing in Category 4 and up as the
recent projects illustrate. For rental housing, it is recommended that Lumber Yard
continue to focus on Category 1, 2, and 3 for the time being. The County and all
municipalities should also be encouraging market rate rental housing and looking for
ways to incentivize market rate development down into Category 3 or even below.
Unit Sizes
EPS recommends that the Lumber Yard rental component include 1, 2, and 3
bedroom units. No studio units are recommended. Studio units do not offer the
living arrangement flexibility that a unit with a separate bedroom offers. None of
the recent projects in the area have included studio units; they are more typical in
urban markets. EPS does recommend that the rental component include larger
3- bedroom units.
Three bedroom units offer more options for families as well as roommates. There
is a long tradition of seasonal workers and “ski bums” pairing up as roommates,
which has social benefits and helps to save money on rent. The family market
appears to be underserved, which is important in building and maintaining
community and a middle class, as well as creating an opportunity for low income
residents to live closer to work and attend Aspen schools.
172
Economic & Planning Systems
25
Proposed Unit Mix
The recommended unit mix is shown in Table 7. The unit mix covers a wide
range of unit types and incomes, focusing mostly on Category 1, Category 2, and
Category 3 Units, which collectively comprise 93 percent of proposed rental units,
with Category 2 having the largest share of 38 percent of all rental units. On the
ownership side, more units are priced at Category 4 and above, with 26 percent
of all units are Category 4 and 17 percent of all units are Category 5. This
recommendation is for general guidance and does not need to be tied exactly to
any final project design.
Table 7. Recommended Unit Mix
APCHA Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category RO Total %
%AMI <50%50-85%>85-130%>130-205%>205-240%no limit Units Mix
Rental Product
Studio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
1-Bedroom 28 37 35 4 0 0 104 49%
2-Bedroom 15 31 25 7 0 0 78 37%
3-Bedroom 4 12 10 4 0 0 30 14%
Rental Total 47 80 70 15 0 0 212 100%
Rental %22%38%33%7%0%0%
Ownership Product
Studio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
1-Bedroom 0 12 12 10 6 0 40 41%
2-Bedroom 0 11 11 12 8 0 42 43%
3-Bedroom 0 0 10 3 3 0 16 16%
Ownership Total 0 23 33 25 17 0 98 100%
Ownership %0%23%34%26%17%0%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\213032-Aspen Lumber Yard\Data\[Draft Lumberyard Program Updated 11-19-2021.xlsx]T-Program
173
Lumber Yard Demographic and Market Assessment
26
Alternate Unit Mix
An alternate unit mix is shown in Table 8. The City of Aspen may be able to
decrease public subsidies and/or increase overall public benefit by establishing an
employer partnership to house employees who otherwise qualify at the Category
2 and Category 3 levels and who typically reside in roommate arrangements. In
this case, modification to the unit mix to accommodate such arrangements is
recommended by re-allocating some 1-bedroom units to instead be 3-bedroom
units. This alternative arrangement is consistent with the findings of this study, as
additional 3-bedroom units meet an established market need. The unit mix shifts
20 1-bedroom units to 3-bedroom units, pulling 10 from Category 2 and 10 from
Category 3. In this alternate mix, approximately one-quarter of all units are 3-
bedroom units, up from 14 percent in the original scenario.
Table 8. Alternate Unit Mix
APCHA Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category RO Total %
%AMI <50%50-85%>85-130%>130-205%>205-240%no limit Units Mix
Rental Product
Studio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
1-Bedroom 28 27 25 4 0 0 84 40%
2-Bedroom 15 31 25 7 0 0 78 37%
3-Bedroom 4 22 20 4 0 0 50 24%
Rental Total 47 80 70 15 0 0 212 100%
Rental %22%38%33%7%0%0%
Ownership Product
Studio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
1-Bedroom 0 12 12 10 6 0 40 41%
2-Bedroom 0 11 11 12 8 0 42 43%
3-Bedroom 0 0 10 3 3 0 16 16%
Ownership Total 0 23 33 25 17 0 98 100%
Ownership %0%23%34%26%17%0%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
174
Economic & Planning Systems
27
Appendix
Figure 16 Households by Tenure and AMI, Pitkin County, 2010-2019
Figure 17. Households by Tenure and AMI, Primary Market Area, 2010-2019
2010 2019 Change % total 2010 % total 2019 % Change in Share
Renter Households
Under 30% AMI 407 262 -144 15%10%-5%
30% to 50% AMI 461 528 68 17%20%4%
50% to 60% AMI 270 199 -71 10%8%-2%
60% to 80% AMI 444 403 -41 16%15%-1%
80% to 100% AMI 390 340 -50 14%13%-1%
100% to 120% AMI 217 270 53 8%10%3%
Above 120% AMI 594 614 20 21%23%2%
Total 2,782 2,616 -166 100%100%0%
Owner Households
Under 30% AMI 631 210 -421 14%9%-4%
30% to 50% AMI 598 329 -269 13%14%1%
50% to 60% AMI 238 119 -118 5%5%0%
60% to 80% AMI 447 305 -142 10%13%4%
80% to 100% AMI 352 248 -104 8%11%3%
100% to 120% AMI 290 213 -77 6%9%3%
Above 120% AMI 2,079 868 -1,211 45%38%-7%
Total 4,635 2,292 -2,343 100%100%0%
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-year; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\213032-Aspen Lumber Yard\Data\[213032-HHs by Income.xlsx]Table 5 - Pitkin Summ
Households by AMI 2010-2019
2010 2019 Change % total 2010 % total 2019 % Change in Share
Renter Households
Under 30% AMI 1,161 1,017 -144 19%15%-4%
30% to 50% AMI 1,166 1,088 -78 19%16%-3%
50% to 60% AMI 573 565 -8 9%8%-1%
60% to 80% AMI 916 815 -101 15%12%-3%
80% to 100% AMI 800 767 -33 13%11%-2%
100% to 120% AMI 501 719 218 8%11%2%
Above 120% AMI 960 1,803 843 16%27%11%
Total 6,077 6,774 697 100%100%0%
Owner Households
Under 30% AMI 1,384 1,256 -128 12%10%-1%
30% to 50% AMI 1,530 1,159 -372 13%9%-3%
50% to 60% AMI 664 651 -13 6%5%0%
60% to 80% AMI 1,610 1,370 -240 13%11%-2%
80% to 100% AMI 1,273 1,580 307 11%13%2%
100% to 120% AMI 1,030 1,200 170 9%10%1%
Above 120% AMI 4,524 5,057 533 38%41%4%
Total 12,016 12,273 257 100%100%0%
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-year; Economic & Planning Systems
Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\213032-Aspen Lumber Yard\Data\[213032-HHs by Income.xlsx]Table 5 - PMA Summ
Households by AMI 2010-2019
175
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Matt Kuhn, Parks and Open Space Director
Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager
THROUGH:Sara Ott, City Manager
MEMO DATE:February 22, 2024
MEETING DATE:February 27, 2024
RE:Wildfire Related Code Updates & Ignition Resistant Design and
Construction Guide
This informational memosummarizes the currentefforts of city departments to increase wildfire
resiliency in the Aspen community. There is no request of City Council. Currently, staff across
departments are working to publish a guide to explain the intersection of various City codes
related to wildfire resiliency within our urban forest and built environment. Staff are also
investigating and preparing possible municipal code updates related to wildfire resilience. Please
contact the City Manager for any follow up questions or comments.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:Recent wildfires in Hawaii, California, on the front range of
Colorado and locally demonstrate the increasingly catastrophic nature of wildfire events. City
staff have been working on a plan and evaluating specific responses to reconcile current city
code with efforts to reduce and mitigate wildfire risks in the Aspen area. This interdepartmental
team represents a range of stakeholders with a focus on those that have oversight and
involvement in development and in the management of Aspen’s urban forest and built
environment. The team consists of:
Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager
Matt Kuhn, Parks and Open Space Director
Justin Forman, Utilities Director
Ben Anderson, Community Development Director
Austin Weiss, Parks and Recreation Director
John Spiess, Open Space and Natural Resource Manager, Parks Dept.
Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner, Historic Preservation, Comm Dev.
Bonnie Muhigirwa, Chief Building Official, Comm Dev.,
Megan Killer, Plans Review Technician – WELS, Utilities Dept.,
Steve Hunter, Utilities Resource Manager, Utilities Dept.
176
The following memo is divided into four parts: forestry, historic preservation, building codes,
and utilities. Each section discusses current efforts in these areas and the various components
and considerations for near and mid-term policy and code changes.
Forestry:
In the mid 1990’s Aspen’s City Council recognized the environmental, aesthetic and health
benefits of the urban forest. The code that was developed at this time was robust and
groundbreaking in its protection of trees. The code gave the city forester and the Parks and
Open Space department broad oversite of the urban forest and the removal of trees related to
the development of properties. While the code does address some climatic factors it does not
specifically address the risk of wildfire and owners’ efforts to pursue wildfire mitigation
strategies in their landscape.
The City of Aspen Parks and Open Space department has been working with the Aspen Fire
Protection District (AFPD) on a unified approach to wildfire mitigation strategies within city limits.
To frame the discussion and potential outcomes, the department is working with the AFPD to
agree on standards for mapping of wildfire risk, as well as best practices for wildfire mitigation
actions.
Risk Mapping: The Parks and
Open Space department and
AFPD are considering the use
National Hazard and Risk
Model (No-HARM) for
mapping of wildfire risk in the
Aspen area. The National
Hazard and Risk Model,
maintained by FEMA, is a
decision support tool for
wildfire hazard and risk
assessment. Incorporating the
predicted severity (hazard)
and the predicted frequency
(risk) of a wildfire in a given
location. This mapping can
help property owners and city
staff understand the
environmental wildfire risk
specific to a property.
The natural environment risk layer (the No-HARM Wildfire Map) captures vegetation,
topography, neighboring land features and many other elements inherent to a defined land
area.
177
Fire Mitigation Best Practices: The Parks and Open Space department also had lengthy
discussions with the AFPD about guidelines and best practices related to fire mitigation in the
landscape. The National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) has developed the Firewise USA
program to help residents reduce wildfire risks on their property. This model has been adapted
across the country by local organizations to reflect local risks and provide region specific
guidance. Critical to the Firewise program is the definition of the home ignition zone and how
to manage the landscape surrounding structures.
Recognizing that lots within the City of Aspen can be smaller than other wildland-urban
communities, the zone measurements are proposed to be adjusted (from what is shown in the
above graphic):
Home Ignition Zone NFPA – Dimensions Modified Aspen Dimensions
Zone 1 – Immediate Zone 0-5 ft.0-5 ft.
Zone 2 – Intermediate zone 5-30 ft.5 - 15 ft
Zone 3 – Extended zone 30 – 100 ft.15 – 30+ ft .
Tree Removal Allowances and Fire Mitigation: The Parks and Open Space department has been
working to build a draft evaluation tool (matrix) that accounts for a properties risk level and
Firewise best management practices. This
tool attempts to balance the historic values
and benefits of having a healthy and diverse
urban forest with fuel reduction best
practices. The draft matrix (left) uses a
properties risk level mapping to guide the
allowances for removals, pruning and
planting per home ignitions zones. This
matrix is being refined with AFPD and will be
included in future documentation.
178
Next Steps: The Parks and Open Space department staff aim to next consider levels of
mitigation fee reduction and further look for opportunities to incentivize replanting removed
trees with Firewise plant alternatives. The team also aims to develop agreements between
AFPD and the City regarding the cooperation for property assessments, as well as finalizing the
methodologies for wildfire related tree removal within the City of Aspen.
Building Codes:
In January 2023, City Council adopted the 2021 International Building Codes. As part of this
adoption, staff added local amendments that incorporated sections of the International
Wildland-Urban Interface Code (IWUIC) specific to ignition resistant construction. These
regulations are intended to “mitigate risk to life and structures from intrusion of fire from
wildland fire exposures and fire exposures from adjacent structures and to mitigate structure
fires from spreading to wildland fuels.” The regulations pertain to every new building and
addition as well as certain exterior alterations to existing structures.
Some highlights of the ignition resistant construction requirements include the following:
Roofs and re-roofs require a Class A assembly (highest level of fire resistance)
Protection of eaves, gutters, and downspouts.
Exterior walls must be ignition-resistant, 1-hour fire-resistance-rated, fire-retardant
treated, or equivalent.
Projections (including decks) must be ignition-resistant, 1-hour fire-resistance-rated,
fire-retardant treated, or equivalent.
These provisions are still new, and staff is becoming familiar with the various testing methods
for ignition-resistance to provide maximum flexibility for building owners without
compromising safety. Staff is also closely following the State of Colorado Wildfire Resiliency
Code Board created by the legislature in 2023 to establish codes and best practices for
the wildland-urban interface across the state and will ensure that the local code is in line with
any future State requirements.
Next Steps: The Community Development Department is working on aligning the IWUIC
provisions with the Historic Preservation guidelines for designated properties.
Historic Preservation:
The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines begin by stating that “Aspen is a
unique community, rich with history, dramatic landscapes, a vibrant economy, and vital cultural
scene. Each of these elements contributes to the appeal of the City and enhances its livability.
Within this context, the preservation of historic resources is a high priority.”Preservation
prioritizes original materials as much as possible, for authenticity in communicating the stories
that these resources played a part in, throughout the growth of Aspen to today.
To break Aspen’s Historic Preservation Program down into numbers, there are two historic
districts which encapsulate a total of 81 designated historic resources. Not all of these
designated resources in the historic districts are buildings, they also include resources such as
179
the Pedestrian Malls and Paepcke Park Gazebo. The Aspen Meadows Campus has historically
designated components, including a mix of buildings, landscapes, and art objects. There are
parcels within the city that were designated as part of historic lot split, but do not include
historic buildings. Aspen also has designated resources that are parks, cemeteries, bridges, and
ruins or other structures not classified as buildings.
For further context, GIS data suggests that there are a total of 17,885 parcels not designated or
in historic districts, 500 parcels that are within historic districts but not individually designated,
and 755 parcels on the roughly 314 individually designated historic resources described above.
Although the relation of parcel to building is not an equal comparison, considering procedures
such as lot splits and condominiumization, it does provide a starting point for understanding an
important point - a very small portion of the building stock in Aspen consists of designated
historic buildings.
Currently, the building code aligns with Historic Preservation review in requiring a Class A roof
assembly. It is important to note that wood shingle roofs must meet this requirement, and
there are different ways that this can be done through pressure-impregnation of the shingles
with fire retardant polymers and certain types of underlayment. Wood shingles are not
necessarily required on a designated resource, and it has generally been the practice of the
historic preservation program to allow for replacement with architectural asphalt shingles. This
substitute is a generally accepted practice across the nation in historic preservation. Depending
on a resource’s specific character defining features, often this substitute can be reviewed at a
staff level but may be referred to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) if necessary.
Further, landscaping near the resource is encouraged to be minimal, and a 1 foot wide, pea
gravel filled maintenance border is required around the historic resource for several reasons,
which helps with defensible space. This particular provision is in alignment with Parks’ efforts
described above related to Home Ignition Zones.
Next Steps: Historic Preservation Staff are currently scheduling conversations with HPC to open
dialogue about newer substitute roof materials on the market, insurance company concerns,
benchmark what other communities are doing to address historic preservation’s intersection
with wildfire mitigation, and brainstorm next steps as we navigate these emerging challenges.
Staff has reached out to the Professional Insurance Agents of Colorado (PIACC) and History
Colorado, the State Historic Preservation Office of Colorado to facilitate these planned
conversations and will continue outreach as needed.
Long range goals include participation in the creation of a larger document addressing wildfire
concerns in the community and the identification and coordination of a prioritization plan for
historic and community resources in the event of wildfire. Community Wildfire Protection Plans
and Prioritization Plans help the community come together in mutual understanding and allow
first responders to triage more effectively. Further, the implementation of Community Wildfire
Protection Plans can allow for the application to grants for the purpose of undertaking work to
protect a site, including mitigation and defensible space work.
180
Water Efficient Landscaping Standards (WELS):
The Water Efficient Landscaping Standards, WELS, set a Maximum Allowable Outdoor Water
Budget for residential and commercial properties became effective on January 1
st, 2019. This is
to ensure the landscape receives the amount of water necessary for the plants to be healthy,
but not overwatered. Healthy plants that receive the proper watering and routine maintenance
tend to be more ignition resistant.
Currently WELS states “All landscape plantings for properties located in the Moderate or High
Wildfire Hazard zone of the City must be Firewise.” WELS provides two appendices relating to
ignition resistant plants with best practices from CSU Extensions as well as the City of Aspen
Wildfire Hazard Assessment Maps.
Next Steps: The long-term goals for incorporation of ignition resistant practices into WELS
include creating requirements of ignition resistant best practices and plantings in Aspen,
supporting a community network for creating defensible space within the smaller lots in
Aspen’s core, and balancing ignition resistant, waterwise and aesthetically pleasing landscapes
to maintain the uniqueness and beauty of Aspen.
Conclusion:
This memo for informational purposes only and does not require Council feedback at this time.
Staff will be returning to Council with draft guide in the near future. Staff will continue to work
with Aspen Fire Protection District as the City navigates challenges of building urban wildfire
resilience. Any approval of municipal code changes will be through ordinance.
181
INFORMATION ONLY
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Ben Anderson, Community Development Director
THRU: Sara Ott, City Manager
MEMO DATE: February 22, 2024
RE: Development Review: Comparative Data and Summary of
Process and Customer Experience Improvements
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
This memo serves to update Council on the current status of development review, with a
specific lens on Community Development, but also in relationship to other City agencies
that play important roles as referral agencies to building permits and in the granting of
their own distinct permits. This memo serves to provide information and there is no
specific request of Council from staff. Should Council desire additional information, please
discuss further with the City Manager.
The memo contains two categories of information. First, as our reporting capacities within
Salesforce have improved dramatically in the last 18 months or so, we are able to provide
more reliable and better framed data that captures important metrics across the review
process. The data provided within this memo illustrates this reporting progress and serves
as a place holder as we continue to work on more regular, more useful, and better
depicted updates on the volume, scale, and timeliness of permit and development review.
Secondly, this memo provides a qualitative summary of the myriad process improvements
and customer experience upgrades that are either in progress or have been completed
since the Spring of 2023. Some of these items are specific and tactical. Others are
strategic, systemic, and more significant. All are having tangible effects in building trust
and collaboration across review agencies, in making processes more efficient internally,
and in improving the experience for our customers.
SUMMARY AND STAFF DISCUSSION:
The data provided below is a snapshot derived from permit and review data produced by
improved reporting functionality from the Salesforce permitting platform. The summary
data is a work in progress and staff welcomes inquiries or suggestions for the framing of
this data that would be helpful. Working with the City Manager’s office, staff intends to
arrive at a quarterly reported data set that can show trends over time in permit volume,
permit type, complexity, and the success of our efforts to improve the development review
process.
182
Info Only Memo; 2/22/24
Development Review – Status Update
Page 2 of 11
Permit and Review Data – 2023
SUBMITTED Permit Volume Summary; Comparing 2022 and 2023
Building Permits – Residential and Commercial
2023 2022 Difference % Change
535 448 +87 19.4% Increase
All Permits (*Engineering, ComDev, Utilities, Parks)
2023 2022 Difference % Change
2,102 1,974 +128 6.5% Increase
*Includes: building, mechanical, electric, EPIC, IFFR, repairs, plumbing, fences, signs, temp.
structures/tents, right-of-way, encroachments, landscaping, trees, utilities.
Table 1.
ISSUED Permit Volume Summary; Comparing 2022 and 2023
Building Permits – Residential and Commercial
2023 2022 Difference % Change
491 405 +86 21.2% Increase
All Permits (*Engineering, ComDev, Utilities, Parks)
2023 2022 Difference % Change
1,986 1,863 +123 6.6% Increase
*Includes: building, mechanical, electric, EPIC, IFFR, repairs, plumbing, fences, signs, temp.
structures/tents, right-of-way, encroachments, landscaping, trees, utilities.
Table 2.
SUBMITTED Permit Valuation Summary; Comparing 2022 and 2023
Building Permits – Residential and Commercial
2023 2022 Difference % Change
$612,722,805 $249,012,450 $363,710,355 146% Increase
Lift One Lodge was submitted in 2023 and distorts these numbers – less L1L below
$413,223,088 $249,012,450 $164,210,638 66% Increase
Table 3.
ISSUED Permit Valuation Summary; Comparing 2022 and 2023
Building Permits – Residential and Commercial
2023 2022 Difference % Change
$302,767,506 $276,819,772 $25,947,734 9.4% Increase
Table 4.
Submitted and Issued permit data provide similar results but do offer an important
snapshot differentiating when permits come into our system and when permits are issued
following review. The Volume Summaries above (Tables 1 and 2) are probably the best
measure of the permit pressures on staff from year to year across review agencies.
Valuation (Tables 3 and 4) is an interesting measure that provides a view into permit
complexity but has issues in comparing this quality year over year. Staff is evaluating new
ways to understand and measure permit complexity.
183
Info Only Memo; 2/22/24
Development Review – Status Update
Page 3 of 11
The following tables are the beginning efforts of staff to report review data out of
Salesforce – in terms of timeliness across different types of permits and reviews. The
first table shows review volume across all review agencies year over year.
Total Reviews across all referral agencies; Comparing 2022 and 2023
2023 2022 Difference % Change
4,963 4,438 +525 11.8% Increase
*ComDev, Engineering, Parks, Utilities
A review is any formal touch that a referral agency has on a permit following submittal, but before issuance.
Table 5.
The table below (Table 6.) has important information related to building permit volume by
type – year over year. Additionally, the second column in each year shows the total time
that a permit once in review – sits in the hands of City staff and in the hands of the
applicant as City staff are waiting for response to comments. In most categories of
permits there has been an improvement in the number of days that permits are sitting
with City staff prior to issuance. While there is more to do, these improvements can be
attributed to specific improvements that have been made within the process.
Building
Permits by
Type
Number
Issued
2022
Avg Days City /
Avg Days w/ Appl.
2022*
Number
Issued
2023
Avg Days City /
Avg Days w/ Appl.
2023*
RESIDENTIAL Major Permits 34 206 / 64 29 184 / 50
Minor Permits 87 92 / 17 57 76 / 22
Mini Permits 22 28 / 1 55 21 / 3
Repairs/Roofs/IFFR 118 13 / 1 151 9 / 1
Change Orders 54 64 / 10 98 59 / 11
COMMERCIAL Major Permits 4 227 / 34 9 164 / 71
Minor Permits 16 69 / 7 16 60 / 10
Mini/EPIC 23 35 / 1 26 26 / 8
Repair/Roof/IFFR 23 18 / 2 35 16 / 3
Change Orders 16 56 / 4 10 58 / 3
*Note: the important data on this shows the average number of days prior to issuance that a permit is in
City staff queues versus average number of days in it takes for the applicant to respond to comments.
Table 6.
Table 7, on the following page differentiates Round 1 reviews (the first round of review
following submission) across review agencies between Q1 and Q4 of 2023. Staff is
continuing to build out the best way to report and display the data in this area. Like the
data in Table 6, this data shows quantifiable improvement that seem attributable to
specific improvements described below.
184
Info Only Memo; 2/22/24
Development Review – Status Update
Page 4 of 11
Table 7.
Anticipated Review Timelines (aspen.gov/244/Building-Permit-Timelines):
"…turnaround times begin once a permit
application is deemed complete and are subject
to change based on queue volume. Additional
review rounds are dependent upon number of
departments requiring rereview and compliance,
see Response to Comments. “
Q1 Vs. Q4 Round 1 Building Permit Review Times 2023
Source: Salesforce
These two clips from ComDev’s
webpage give guidance to applicants
about anticipated wait times for the
completion of the first round of reviews
(across all review agencies) for different
types of permits. ComDev is striving to
update this quarterly.
185
Info Only Memo; 2/22/24
Development Review – Status Update
Page 5 of 11
Land Use – Total Pre-Applications, Applications, POD Inquiries, RDS Review Requests ; 2021 - 2023
Pre-Application Summaries
2023 2022 2021 Pre-Application Summaries provide the basis for an
eventual land use application - Free 149 140 154
Land Use Applications
2023 2022 2021 These are full applications that translate into an
Administrative or Board Review 98 121 136
Planner of the Day (POD) Inquiries and Reponses
2023 2022 2021 Formal inquiries via phone, email, or walk-ins to our
planner of the day service 381 375 582
Residential Design Standards Reviews (RDS)
2023 2022 2021 Reviews for new construction and any external
changes to existing residences 95 85 107
Table 8.
Table 8, above, describes volume related to the Planning function, while related and
intersecting, it is distinct from the permit process described above. Volumes for key
services remain relatively constant, year-to -year.
Process and Customer Experience Improvements
Following direction from the City Manager’s Office in the Spring of 2023, Community
Development, in full partnership with City Engineering, Utilities, Parks, and other referral
agencies, has initiated several formal projects to work on improving processes, reducing
silos between agencies, and in finding alignment in efforts to make development more
efficient and effective. It should be noted that these kinds of efforts across City agencies
have not happened consistently in the City’s past and are a direct outcome of improved
communication and trust between those responsible for development review. In this new
context, opportunities abound for collaboration and creative problem solving.
New Working Groups and Strategic Initiatives
Permit Advisory Group – This group has been meeting regularly to identify points of
friction and inefficiencies within the flow of permit review. The group has identified
several necessary improvements (described specifically below) and has helped to
refine the reporting needs evolving from Salesforce.
Code Alignment Group – Similar representation as the Permit Advisory Group, but
with a different purpose. This group has created space and a process to do two things:
1) Communicate with other agencies when proposed changes are emerging to
adopted regulatory codes and standards, and
2) Identify areas across the City codes that may be in conflict, or work against each
other, or prevent better coordination with customers.
This group meets quarterly and has implemented formal communication and
documentation methodologies as new code is considered.
186
Info Only Memo; 2/22/24
Development Review – Status Update
Page 6 of 11
Staff Reorganization for Permit Process Oversight and Enhancements – ComDev
leadership has been working with the Public Works Director and Deputy Director, the
SIO team, Finance, and HR to build a new concept for a more centralized permit
intake, coordination, and analysis function that would wield influence and provide
analysis across the entirety of the development review context. We are currently
finalizing proposed job descriptions and aligning proposed functionality across the
review agencies. This reconfigured permit intake and analysis function would be
primarily housed under ComDev but will result in increased coordination across review
agencies.
Talking Permits – This is a meeting that has informally happened for some time but
has recently become more regular and better structured. This is a large and fluid group
that meets twice a month and includes all front-line staff that are involved in any type
of development review. It is a time to talk about challenges and successes broadly
and to troubleshoot and provide status updates on significant or complex permits.
Consultant Review of Planning Process and Code – ComDev should have a contract
in place within the next month with a private planning firm to review our processes as
they relate to the Land Use Code and to provide recommendations for optimizing the
use of our current staff and in proposing both code and non-code related
improvements to our processes and review effectiveness.
Specific Process and Customer Experience Improvements
The following are descriptions of specific, often tactical changes that have been made
or will soon be implemented by the individual agencies that are most involved in our
review processes. Some of these changes have risen independently within review
agencies as they have internally identified areas for improvement, others have
emerged directly from the work of the Permit Advisory Group.
City Website and Department Webpages
A common and significant improvement across agencies that has happened in
coordination with the larger City effort to bring the website into conformance with
accessibility requirements – are fundamentally redesigned webpages for the review
agencies. Required processes are described more clearly, necessary documents and
checklists are re-designed and more easily and centrally available. Staff has received
feedback from customers that these improvements are noticeable and much
appreciated.
Salesforce
Since its inception as the database for our permitting and development review
function, Salesforce (permitting software platform) has been a continual work-in-
progress. Across the board, reporting ability and case tracking have improved
significantly. Two recent improvements are likely to provide the most impact. First,
over the last year, several new fields have been added to the permit pages to bring
more powerful reporting capacity in differentiating between permit types. Once fully
187
Info Only Memo; 2/22/24
Development Review – Status Update
Page 7 of 11
implemented, these changes will allow for more granular analysis than has previously
been available. Second, a full redesign of the customer portal will significantly improve
the customer experience when interacting with Salesforce. The new portal is
scheduled to be implemented by early summer.
Community Development
Building
• Creation of “over-the-counter” permits for like-for-like window replacements.
This process which will be implemented by the end of February will serve
as a test case for other possible permit types that could be handled similarly
– with the purposes of streamlining application process and reducing permit
issuance times for less complex and less impactful development.
• Work on the website brought web administrators across review agencies
together in an organized way to create shared SOPs and customer facing
consistency.
• Expedited permits for projects pursuing 100% electric.
• Worked in partnership with City GIS staff to create a new, interactive
permitting map – allowing for public access to all permits in review or
recently issued.
• Leadership across referral agencies to identify and implement process
efficiencies and improved channels of communication.
Planning and Zoning
• Creation of affidavits from owner/contractors to eliminate the need for
zoning review and inspection on certain types of permits – like-for-like
fenestration replacement, interior remodels that do not impact floor area,
and ground mounted mechanical equipment. This removes steps
throughout the permitting and inspection process.
• Cross training between inspectors so that different kinds of inspections can
be combined when appropriate. This is particularly impactful on mechanical
permits.
• Development of outdoor lighting compliance calculator to ease permit
submission requirements for customers and improve consistency and
efficiency of lighting review under new regulations.
• New process in development for differentiating administrative PD
amendments between changes that just need to be memorialized in
approval documents and changes that are more substantial and require
review and potentially conditions of approval.
• Significant improvement to internal processes to ensure that inquiries to
planner of the day or requests for Pre-Application Summaries are
responded to in a timely manner.
188
Info Only Memo; 2/22/24
Development Review – Status Update
Page 8 of 11
Engineering
Construction Management
• New Salesforce fields that allow review staff to better differentiate and
prioritize reviews and inspections.
• Internal process improvements to “triage” and provide reviews and
inspections.
Development Review/URMP
• Focused improvements to the website to clarify process and submittal
requirements.
• Staff are building a library of standardized review comments and templates
to more efficiently respond to common scenarios.
• Restructured staff meetings to give more time to coordination on
development reviews.
• Development of a training program in support of on-boarding new
development review staff.
Utilities
The items described below may seem very technical, but combined are probably the
most immediately impactful improvements to date in reducing overall review times and
improving the customer experience. They have required significant coordination
between ComDev, Utilities, Engineering, and SIO staff to implement. These not only
required changes to the permit process – but also significant modifications within
Salesforce to facilitate.
• A major victory has been the removal of a separate UTWC sub-permit
when a master permit includes “adding, changing, or removal of plumbing
fixtures.” Finding compliance is now simply part of the Utilities/Engineering
reviews under the master permit. Eliminating this sub-permit brings
numerous staff efficiencies and reduces overall permit issuance times.
• Connected to the elimination of the UTWC sub-permit, necessary Utilities
documentation is now included as part of the total permit submission and
is now reviewed for completeness by ComDev intake staff with the whole
of the permit materials, rather than separately by Utilities/Engineering staff.
• Coordination with ComDev staff to include any necessary tap fees within
the total permit fees at permit issuance. Tap fees have historically been
collected separately by Utilities and at times served to unnecessarily delay
permit issuance.
• Tactical changes to more readily facilitate “like for like” fixture replacements
and reviews of Change Orders to reduce review queues in process.
189
Info Only Memo; 2/22/24
Development Review – Status Update
Page 9 of 11
Parks
In 2023, Parks hired a new Permit Coordinator following the retirement of a
longtime staffer. This transition offered an opportunity to rethink this role and bring
improvements to longstanding processes.
• Better training and onboarding – including intentional cross training with
other referral agencies and the development of SOPs.
• Focusing on internal and external communication and building efficiencies
in the use of Salesforce and Bluebeam – staff worked to reduce building
permit review queue times and stand-alone Parks’ permit review times.
• Implemented a new fee-structure to simplify and clarify Parks’ permit fees.
Continuing Challenges:
Staff turnover within review agencies – In the last year, review agencies have had
more than ten (10) new, front line staff members with a direct role in development
review. Engineering has had recent success in the hiring of three, new staff
engineers in filling vacancies that opened following staff departures – but in
general, vacancies and challenging hiring processes have been the norm.
Inconsistent capacity with third-party permit review support – ComDev has long
relied on the occasional contracted support of third-party plans examination
review. Building staff have engaged these services for particularly complex
projects or when there are concerns about staff capacity and review turn-around
times. For building review, ComDev continues to have contracts with firms that
we have long-standing relationships with – but have found recently that their
capacity to take on reviews at different times or of differing complexities is also
limited and cannot be assumed to be relied on at any given moment. Additionally,
adoption of the new 2021 Building Code and specific standards related to
demolition allotments have created hesitancy in bringing on third party reviews for
some projects.
Role of Salesforce – Changing long-standing processes is a difficult task in itself,
but the implementation of changes can at times be paced entirely by the
complexity of the programming work required in Salesforce to implement the
process change. Both our staff and consultant capacity to implement these
changes has dramatically improved, but the inherent challenge remains.
Salesforce (and particularly Aspen’s platform) is incredibly powerful and complex
but is often not as nimble as staff would hope or assume and at times can delay
or preclude even minor process improvements.
Risk Assessment – Development review staff take their jobs very seriously. They
know the stakes of their work are very high – whether through a life-safety lens,
an environmental stewardship lens, a development impact lens, or any other of a
number of community expectations through which their work is evaluated. With
190
Info Only Memo; 2/22/24
Development Review – Status Update
Page 10 of 11
stakes this high, staff are often reluctant to eliminate steps or processes which
allow them to carefully verify that a project is compliant with Aspen’s numerous
regulatory documents.
However, we also know that “streamlining” or “efficiency creation” requires some
loosening of the grip. Finding the right balance requires careful evaluation and
developing trust – most importantly with those submitting permit applications.
Some staff are more comfortable with this type of work than others – and
managers need to do better at setting the parameters of the risk the organization
should take on in pursuit of efficiency. This is a particularly difficult challenge to
navigate with less experienced staffers. When turnover is high, new staff is much
less likely to apply discretion, take agency, or find efficiency while meeting the
intent of a particular regulation.
Conclusion:
While new dynamics are continually being introduced and evaluated within Aspen’s
development context, two things have not changed. First, Aspen’s regulatory
environment remains complex with locally implemented rules on land use, development
impacts, building efficiency and performance, historic preservation, community character,
water quality and efficiency, and tree protection. This regulatory environment requires
numerous touches on every permit across development review staff to ensure compliance
with these community implemented standards. Second, permit volumes and complexity
continue to increase.
The intersection of these distinct factors contributes to long-standing concerns from the
development community that permit issuance times are unacceptably long and the
process overly cumbersome. Staff is well aware of these concerns and has over the
years been in a continual state of searching for areas of improvement, processes that
could be eliminated or made more efficient, and more targeted allocation of staff
resources and focus. In past years, improvements have been made and tangible
modifications to process efficiency and customer experience have been implemented.
And yet, there is consensus that we can and should do better.
The memo provides numerous examples of current and near future actions in this area.
While these specific improvements are significant, perhaps more important is a sea
change in the attitudes that development review staff are bringing to these efforts to
improve. Previously established silos are eroding, staff cooperation across agencies to
improve Salesforce and the information available to customers on our website has been
notable, and the trust necessary to pursue doing things differently is building. While all
of this will take time to fully implement and realize the benefits of these efforts, the entire
context around process improvement and enhancing the customer experience feels very
different in this moment.
191
Info Only Memo; 2/22/24
Development Review – Status Update
Page 11 of 11
City Manager Comments:
The Administration has put in considerable efforts on the permitting process
improvements over several years. More progress has been made in the past year due to
heavy emphasis on a collaborative culture between staff.
Moving forward, I anticipate making resource requests in the 2025 budget to further this
work even more. These requests will be a combination of additional staffing for
coordination and oversight of permitting, along with resources for third party vendors in
plan review, drafting proposed code amendments, and process enhancements in
Salesforce and within staff activities. - SGO
192