HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.01171996 .h�;�.' , ��.r,. � ,. , . . . � � .. . ^
�;�;1,�;,
�•.:c"'!;':.
C,;�:4
, �;;:
. �,..:�.:,.���.
WEDNFSDAY. JANUARY 17. 7996 �-'�
�
3:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING :�,
Lacation: Council Chambers, City Hall -
Agenda: Highlands Village PUD Subdivision General Submission Rezoning and Code '�. +. ,
Amendment,Tim Malloy
5:00 PM AD70URN i. ;
,'7' �
�
� '
�
/ ��':�
t
... . r -,
•
..:-�r�'.: ,
..._.�� vW_._ _
3_ �
�pp�toa ,y �`';::'.:<:
4 i.;:; :
q-�I-9G
, ,
MINUTES ,
, �..
PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
�.�
SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARX 17,1996
,:r..
CALL TO ORDER:Chairman True called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in Yhe City - -
Hall Council Chambers. �
COMMISSIONER MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Michael Ireland, James ,
True,Bill Tuite,and Leslie Lamont.
CQMMISSIONER MEMBERS ABSENT: CommissionerEthridge, '
�f'
HIGHLANDS VTLLAGE PUD SUBDNISION GENERAL SUBMISSION. �
REZONING. AND CODE AMENDMENTS: Tim Mal(oy presented the issues as
. outlined in his January 17, 1996 Memorandum. The Memorandum is made a part of the
record and attached hereto as Exhibit"A"
Staff has met with representatives from the adjacent homeowners to the Aspen Highlands �
subdivision. Subsequent to that meeting, Staff had a telephone conference call with the � '
applicanYs representatives and the representativas from the adjacent subdivision. There � J
were four issues that were raised: .
� �.
1. There are too many lots in the Thunderbowl area. They are not greatly concerned �
about the Jerome neighborhood or the Viliage. r
2. The adjacent property owners are concemed about the activity associated with the
traffic on the Thunderbowl road. Also,the alignment of the road sends the headlights
of the vehicles coming up the road into a couple of the houses. In particular, they '
shine in the house ofRick Jones and the house below the Jones'.
3. They are concerned about two or three affordable housing lots. They are concerned '
that they are too ctose to two adjacent homes. They wanted to know if there was
some way the three lots could somehow othenmise be located on the property or
perhaps changed to a different kind of affordable housing that could be located
elsewhere on the property. '
4. Lots i,2,and 3 have the greatest impact on some homes. They would prefer to see
these lots eliminated entirely. Alternatively,they could be relocated further up or into �
the Jerome neighborhood.
Staff recommends the Board consider the additional information. They also recommend "
that the Board direct the Planning and Zoning Commission to commence review of an AH -
� i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER$ I JANUARY 17,1996
i
/ 7.� .
-+ ` r
�
_____
_ -- - +.,�.,.�.�.., ..___ �
� ;rk�i
4."•.
t. r-
overlay legisfation; that the Planning and Zoning Commission review the amendment to �
the Code which would need to occur relative to the change in the employee housing ti•
mitigation for commercial projects;and that the Board direct Staff to prepare a resolution �
of approval and ordinance for the current project. Staff has a preference for not�ranting �
any final approval unti! such time as an AH overlay mechanism is in place, The same
would apply to the affordabie housing mitigation standard. The code amendments on the
affordable housing would be under the new Code. (The project is under the old Code.)
Commissioner True asked if under the PUD and the old Code,do they have the ability to '
modify house size? Mr. Malloy said they do have the ability to change house size. He
stated the cap they are suggesting is somewhat below even what would be allowed. If one � '
were to do a PUD calculation and incorporate the open space that they are including •
within their residential pods,they would come up with an allowed floor area that is slightly
greater than the 5,500 cap the applicant is talking about. Staff is of the opinion tfiat the
nei results here,in terms of open space and in terms of the overall intent and objective and
of the PUD,is not really very well met by this project. Mr. Malloy has said in the past
there are very many community objectives which are better served by allowing these free
market pods on either side of the central Village. He believes the Board has the flexibility
to work with the PUD regulation and provide some variances from the area-invoked
requirements and not others. It is Staffs opinion to allow the house size to be governed
• by the underlying FAR than by the PUD as applicant is requesting.
Glenn Horn said with respect to TDRs, the Board requested applicant to incorporate
TDRs into this project. They have responded by incorporating TDRs into the project.
The concept proposed is the applicant is to acquire a TDR and thus be exempted from the ?
exactions required by tha Code in the Growth Management Quota System process.
, Affordab(e housing exactions were not contempiated in the previous discussions and they
really are not part of the applicanYs proposal.
In August,applicant modified iYs single family lot proposal in response to comments from
the Board. Applicant reduced the number of Jots in the Thunderbowl neighborhood from
15 to 13. Applicant ieduced the number of lots in the Maroon neighborhood from 26 to
18. This is a total reduction of 10 lots. Lot sizes were also significantly reduced in the
Thunderbowl neighborhood in response to the Board's comments. The Maroon
neighborhood lot sizes were increased because applicant reduced the number of lots and
there was more land available. When the reduction was made, it was clear the floor area
proposed for these lots was 5,500 square feet per lot. The floor areas determined by ihe
PUD mechanism allows the inclusion of common open space for the benefit of the entire
project in the calculation of the floor area permitted on each lot. If the PUD mechanism is �
utilized,the maximum permitted floor area in the Thunderbowi neighborhood would be
7,500 square feet per lot,2,000 square feet more than what applicant is requesting. The
sizes could be as large as approximately 5,600 square feet per lot. Applicant is requesting
5,500 square feet per lot. The maximum floor area of 5,500 square feet per lot is
significantly less than the maximum permitted floor area on the adjoining metes and
6ounds parcels and the Willtrout and Rudolph subdivisions which adjoin the site. It is 3
i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 JANUARY 17,199G
� t.�
e
....y�.,'. :�.i. ' � -.
�.�,'�i.�' .
�.''�.'?..
�7 .._ .,,"�.:. -
misnomer and misunderstaading to think that the Aspen Highlands subdivision's filings I '� `� .
and 2 adjoin the Thunderbowl neighborhood. There are 12 metes and bound parcels,two �.;_ .�,
lots in the Willtrout subdivision,and two lots in the Rudolph subdivision,making a totai of 1.
16 lots, The avera�e floor area permitted on those]6 lots is 6,430 square feet,which is :,�•�. •
significantly higher than what applicant is requesting. The 5,500 square feet is less than � ''.
iheir origina! proposal in the Thunderbowl neighborhood. They are not able to
compromise on this issue with respect to floor area.
Mr.Horn stated with regard to GMQS,Mr. Malloy su�ested the general submission of -
this project be postponed pending the changes to the affordable housing zone district,the �",'r'
affordable housing overlay district, and the attainment of the allotments that would be
necessary to grant general submission approval. Mr. Horn said obtaining all of the - '
allotments for this project is not a prerequisite of general submission approval. He also •
said looking at the Code,it is clear and it is common practice in this community to grant
general submission approval for land use applications wiYhout those applications obtaining ,.
all of the �rowth management allotments that are necessary. The af£ordable housing
overlay district is a mechanism to obtain ihe additional allotments that would be required
for this project over and above the rights that it already has. There are existing rights
associaYed with Yhe demolition of the Hi�hlands Inn's 49 units and the demolition of the ��'
Maroon Creek Lodge,which are another 13 units. The additiona]allotments that would
• be needed for this project as part of generai submission, or subsequent to general �
submission,woufd be associated with the single family houses and those couid be obtained �
through the legislative process that has been proposed. In conclusion,the applicant would ,
like the Board to move forward with the genera[submission keeping open obtaining the i
aliotments through the land use process which has been done in numerous land use
projects;i.e.,Castle Creek Vatley Ranch,the Moore PUD,East Owl Creek, Owl Creek, 't �
. Lazy O,Reservoir at WesY Buttermilk,et cetera. f .�
Gideon Kaufman commented one thing that was raised regarding TDRs, a TDR has
assaciated with it 5,000 square feet. Therefore,the 5,500 square feet they are asking for
is somehow inappropriate to Staff. He feels it would be to the benefit of the community,
the Board of County Commissioners, as well as the TDR program, if somebody came
forward and acquired a TDR and used it for 500 square feet instead of 5,000 square feet.
He feels this is a positive kind of situation. Right now applicant needs to obtain 20 TDRs.
If someone chose to go with a 5,500 square foot house,then they would need 40 TDRs.
Appticant anticipates having to obtain these TDRs before Yhey can sell the lots.
Suzanne Konchan, County Manager,clarified the County's TDR program,as adopted by
ordinance,requires the applicant to have the TDR before the Board would grant approval
of the subdivision. It catls for a receipt of a certificate. �
Commissioner Ireland said in order for appiicant to get its subdivision recorded,applicant
has io buy a minimum of 20 TDRs,but then a buyer can go up in square footage and
acquire a TDR on his own.
i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 JANUARY 17,199G
� . �
i
� ' .
e •
-;i
� .
>., - , . �
.. _, . , , ;,:- , . _. � .
����`
;��
: .
Commissioner Tuite asked Gideon Kaufman to clarify his position with regard to approval -
of the conceptuai submission. = `
v� �,
Mr. Kaufinan stated applicant is suggesting that it get its general submission approval. =' ""..iY
Many of the applications that Mr.Horo cited to previously have secured a portion of the '
approval of general submission, and then before the project gets final plat approval, � `
applicant has to�o through the additional process.
Suzanne Konchan stated there is a distinction between the cases that Mr.Horn pointed to . �
and this pcaject. Where projecis received general submission,those subdivision general ��Y
submission applications were submitted concurrent(y with applications for growth �.�� _
management atiotment. In those cases, the number of allotments available in that year's ;
competition were tess than the ultimate number of allotments necessary for them to ;.
compJete the proposed subdivision. In none of those cases were any legislative or Code '
changes reQuired itt order to make the subdivision approvabEe. The only outstanding issue
at conceptual approval was their subsequent successful competition in future GMQS
i
a!lotments. Tn fact,the County's practice is that you cannot submit a detailed submission
application until you have gathered an adequate number of allotments throvgh future year .�.
competition. In this applicanYs particular case,the proposal catls for the Board to initiate �r`
• legislative changes or Land Use Code amendment changes ihat would provide for the
subdivision appiicant is asking the Board to approve. The old Code says that you can only !
approve general submission applications that are in conformance with ihe provisions of the �
Code. "
�
Mr. Malloy stated one option available is to utitize the grow[h management competition
and continue to submit them. Another option available is AH overlay,if it is adopted.
� �
Mr:Kaufman stated with the 63 demolition reeonstruction tourist accommodation credits
they wiil be obtai�ing, they will still need 1] credits. They are preparing to submit a
tourist accommodation growth management application to obtain the additional 11
allotments. With respect to the single family units that are needed,20 of them are going
to be done through TDRs. The remaining 7 single family units and 32 townhouses witl be
done through the creation of the affordable housing overlay zone or,in the absence of the
creation of that zone district in acceptable form, they will be looking at growth
management competition or maybe even TDRs.
Commissioner Ireland stated he might be willing to take the applicanYs suggested path if
they have a resolution of the two key outstanding issues. Those issues are whether there
is mitigation associated with the TDRs and what is going to happen with the 32 unit .
shortfalt.
Tim Malloy stated the plan,as cunently proposed in the mechanism of AH overlay,has a
mix of 60/40 units and 70/30 population. This has been accomplished but for the issue of
the 32 employee units under the 60 percent. This ptan also requires that the overlay
inciude the Village because some oF ihe affordable housing units,which are attributable to
i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 JANUARY t7,199G
�1 �,';.. .
.. �
e '
. . ....�,... _. ,, ,. .
; .,..:. ... . . . . ..
�;iYi�
�: .
S _
; ' �
� I..TI�.;..
this calculation, are within the Village. Mr. Malloy is concerned about approving the `� .
project subject to one or the other of these mechanisms for obtaining the rest of the rights �,,
because if they were to compete under the growth management process, they woutd '�;.
probabfy get the same thin�. The Coanty would probably require the 60/40 miti�ation for .,-
those units under competition. If they were to go the AH overlay route and it were Yo �,
become available in the next month or 45 days,then the project would have to be rezoned
to include the overlay and then the mix would stili be ihere.
Mr. Kaufman responded that ihe app]icanis are the ones taking the risk. To address
Commissioner Ireland's issue, Mr. Kaufrnan stated the reason they want general
submission approval is so that they can know that there is finality in a process that has
taken a long time. Also, it �ives them the ability to go out and to begin to app[y for ' �
TDRs. They want to satisfy the issues that aze outstanding today,get a comfort level,and '
then reach understanding of the mechanism that would be available to reach the ne�ct goai.
Commissioner Ireland stated he would like to resolve some of the issues today and move
forwud.
Mr. Kaufman stated with regard to the 32 unit shortfall in the commerciai sector, the
applicant is seekin�approval for the commercial package that the applicant has proposed.
- If they are 32 people short in their miti�ation for the commercial component of the
project, they have committed that they wifl build in the first phase of construction the
locally serving commercial component of the project which will vary between 1,500 and
2,000 square feet, Yo be determined at detai[ed submission. It includes the use of a
grocery store, drug store, et cetera. They have committed to reconstruct the Christian
Endeavor Bar. If applicant has to reduce the amount of commercial space that is
. constructed in the first phase to address the 32 person shortfai[,they wili. They could also
come forward with a commercial growth management application or some other form of
mitigation such as housing employees associated with the commercial development. They
will commit ta only build the amount of commercial space for which they have affordable
housing mitigation for.
Commissioner Lamont expressed she would not support reducing the commercial square
footage permanently to eliminate the referred to employee shortfall. She questions
whether 1,500 to 2,000 square feet of locally serving space is really enough.
Mr. Kaufman concurs with Commissioner Lamont. They want to build the commercial
space that has been proposed. The restaurant space cannot be varied at a(L The retait
space can be phased. They want to build all af the retaif space. They want to program the
space before detailed submission. Applicattts feef the I,500 to 2,000 square feet is a
threshoid and are not lookin�to reduce that.
Mr.Malloy stated any reduction in commercial squaze footage would reduce the employee
mitigation requirement. Mr. Malloy prefers that applicant not reduce the square footage
for the local serving portion of their commercial component. !
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS � JANUARY 17,199G
. �,`,
-�. .
.:,
•.. , ^
;�. �, � . , .
"�
�;' .;,;
�: ..
A discussion ensued regarding the pros and cons of approving the AH overlay. �r�= `.,
. , ti,
Gideon Kaufman stated what needs to be done is to get some closure in terms of the :''�r•' '.;r
Board's understanding of applicant's physical plan, that applicant understands the risks �
involved, and that they need to go on to the next steps so applicant can try to find out j `:
wheiher the plan that everyone is happy wiih can be accomplished either through the
acquisition of TDRs or the AH overlay. -
Commissioner True commented c�eady there would be risks that are the applicaaYs if the f '�
County took the su�ested course and did a general submission prior to the completiort of I��'
the legislation, ii :
i. `
Commissioner True opened the hearing to public comment.
f .:
King Woodward, a member of the pubtic, stated at the previous meeting applicant said
they would purchase the 20 TDRs if they were reasonably priced. What happens if prices �
aze raised for the TDRs and the applicants decide not to purchase the TDRs? �
..:
Commissioner Irela�d responded Yhey can sue for a conspiracy to resuain a trade against !�-
_ the hoiders of the TDRs. Commissioner Ireland stated they understand that if they do not N+
obtain the TDRs,it is their problem,not the Board's problem. They do not build without -j
the TDRs. Instead,they would have to go through GMQS or f nd another way to get the
approvals.
Mr. Woodward also asked with regard to the 29 MAA units,why caa't ihey be included -
in the affordahle housing allotments?
Commissioner Ireiand responded by saying they do count towards the requirement.
�'.
Barbara Conviser asked whether the Maroon neighborhood is opposed to the additional
lots proposed for the area? She also stated she has a real problem with the 5,500 square �
feet floor area sizes. 3he feels it is awfully large.
�'
Tim Malloy responded Staff will evaluate the relative impact.
Wally Obermeyer commented to put this project into prospective, there is a question of �
how much should an individual developer pay and how long can we keep extracting things
for society versus what the developer pays. He really urged Yhe County to get on wiYh the
project expeditiously.
Bill Brierly,with the law frrm oFOught and Johnson,represents a group of homeowners, �
including Jack Higher and Rick Jones,that are adjacent to the project. They have a list of '
four concerns that they are currently discussing with members of the Hines PaRnership.
He would like to preserve the opportunity for one of the representatives to speak before ! -
j• i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 dANUARY 17,199G
� 4.: '
1
� r
,.� .....�.,...
. .
: .
�� ,,. ... .. - _.
��F�t
�
°i;`
the Board at a later date prior to takin�any final aciion on this submission in order to
update the Board of their progress on negotiations on the concerns. � ��.
ti.
Paui Rose commented he feels the discussion between the Board and the applicant is really ' ;; .
handicapped by the fact that they constantly have to �o through a third party, the third '.
party being Staff. It seems Staff has a different sort of priorities. Motivations are
different. He feels Staff is goin� to"go down kicking and screaming and clawin�for
every employee housing uniY'. He believes it is a scam and Staff is pulling it off with the "
Board's blessing. He wants to know who is running the show? The Board or Staft? He � .
wants the Board and the applicant to talk to each other. :�r:
Art Pfister stated the govemment is supposed to help people,not hurt them. This process �
has been going on too lon�.
Bill Hattis commented with regard to the statement made by legal counsel,this is not final i
� approval. Tt is conceptual approval of the project. There are at least two more steps that
have to be taken before the final approval is granted. He also concurs with Art Pfister.
He wants this project moved on. i.
Anne$obsy stil[feels the project is too big. She approves of the 70/30 portion of ihe
, project. Some of ihe things that have not been discussed yet are water resources,garbage
disposal,and the pollution.
R.J.Gallagher stated he wants"energy"put back into Aspen Highlands.
Steve Gurns commented the objections he keeps hearing tonight seem to be areas of detail �'`
rather than areas of concept. He urges the Board to get on with the concept and get into
the details.
Kiaus Obermeyer stated things cannot be!eft the way they are. They have to be able to
grow a�d get better. The ski resort needs to be fantastic if it wants to be competitive. He
feels it is a�reat opportunity to make this place a better place.
Ernie Freywald stated applicants have come to the table with every resistance that there is.
He says there is not a whole lot that can be done to stop some form of development. At
this point in time,he tE�inks the projecf is the best thing they have seen so far. He feels it is
time to get on with it. He concurs with Mr. Gums. He supports the project
wholeheartedly.
Bob Spicer expressed he supports this project and he thinks it would be the right thing to
do by approving the project conceptually and work out the details later.
Biti Brierty would like to reemphasize that he would like to come back before the Board
and at least tell the Board where they are in negotiating their concems prior to the Board's .
final action.
i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 'I JANUARY 17,1996
/ �, . .
� � .
,
, , s ., s=;:Mdcv,�nJ:t:.�s,.�AV,.:�« ...,..___..a_.' .
�ctr
i'"�`,��� .
t '•.:
l^
�.; .t
Commissioner Trve,in addressin�Mr.Rose's comments,stated he relies very heavily on , "`;.
the Staff. He thinks they act professionally at all times attd he is very confident in them. �`��' �;;
He thinks they reflect the position that the Board takes on most issues. He would like to •.
talk to Mr.Rose about some of his other comments on employee housing at a later date.
At this time,the pubiic hearing was closed for this hearing. ;:�':
Commissioner Lamont stated she wants to address some other issues in this meeting. One �"r
issue is the wetlands issue. It is her understanding from the County Code and Staff that �
even if the Army Corps feels that t6e wetlands are iow quality and they are wetlands that °
are being created by leaky irrigation ditch,it is her preference that applicant replace the '
wetlands on site. Since applicant is doing two detention ponds,it would seem easy to do
and it would be an enhancement to the open space and beaver sites.
Mr.Horn responded it has not been determined that it is a jurisdictional weYland. They
will not be able to determine this until Spring. It is applicant's position that the
Commissioners have no authority or jurisdiction whatsoever over those wetlands nor aze j�
there any Code provisions that requires the appiicant do anythiag about the wetlands if
- they are determined to be not in jurisdictional wetlands. IF they are determined to be in
jurisdictional wetlands,it is applicant's position that they will replace them on site. If they
are not determined to be jurisdictional wetlands, they do not have a proposal to do
anything with the area.
Tim Mailoy stated he disagrees with Mr.Horn's position that the Board has no authority ;�
- to require mitigation for wetlands. The Pitkin County Land Use Code is not clear on this
point but that it does provide direction. It says in Policy 2-3 and in Section 5-404,Policy
2-3 prevents the construction of any improvement which is "unduly destructive to
identified natural resources" or "cause immediate or foreseeable material danger to
significant wildlife habitat...." Mike Claffey stated he is not sure if this is a jurisdictional
wetland. It means he is not sure the Army Corps has jurisdiction over it because of the
issue of whether or not it was created by a leaicy irrigation ditch. LTltimately, what the
Army Corps does,in his opinion, is a separate issue from what the County requires. He
believes there 6as been ample precedent in the past in Yerms of the County's actions where
these two sections of Land Use Code have been used to say the County asserts jurisdiction
over wetlands. Staff recommends mitigation occur regardless of the Army Corps'actions.
Commissioner Lamont stated the mitigation can be identified at detailed submission.
Commissioner Ireland stated if the wetlands are incidental to a leaky irrigation ditch, he
does not think they should require protection of the wetlands. If they are natural
wetlands,then that is an issue.
Mr.Mailoy said mitigation would be for a natural wetland or expansion of it.
i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSiONERS 8 JANUARY 17,199b
i '
.,,.... .
_ �
a
d'
�
_. �
. .
.,,:Y , . -
t.:,.
�`.:
.:
Commissioner Lamont said she stiii has concerns regarding the overall height of the
buildings. She feels this mi�ht be a conceptual issue. Applicant agrees height of buildings `•>
�..
is a conceptual issue. •
, .�.
Commissioner Lamont also commented she feels the screening birm near the parking lot is
too thick. Tim Malloy su�ested that the Board include language saying that they will
provide the applicant some flexibility to work with Staff on the screening. Commissioner
True agreed this would be the easiest way to address the issue so the Board can look at it
at detailed submission.
Commissioner Ireland stated if the Board directs Siaff to prepare a resolution of approval,
that it wiil give the applicant and neighbors an opportunity to work out the problem the
neighbors have raised. The problems raised are: (1)the number and location of units in
the Thunderbowl neighborhood;(2)the road alignment to correct the headiighls beaming
into houses;and(3)the view corridors through the neighborhood. He would like to see
the neighbors and the applicant work together on these issues. He will be looking closely
at the efforts made.
Going back to the wetlands issue,it was clarified if it is a jurisdictional wetland,appficant
will do whatever the Army Cotps of En�ineers requires.
With regard to mitigation of TDRs for the employee housing,both Commissioner True
and Commissioner Tuite are against requiring TDRs for the empioyee housing.
Commissioner Tuite stated he wants incentives for TDRs. He thinks TDRs are a lot more
of a problem in the 18 homes in Thunderbowl. Commissioner True stated he does not
think the Board should be trying to obtain employee housing mitigation on the TDRs at
. this stage. Commissioner Lamont stated she does have some concem with the overall
balance that the County has defined by the metro area with the ACP. When the ceilings
and caps were defined for the metro area,they did not foresee TDRs and the ability for
176 units to be transferred into the metro area. The City of Aspen has some concerns
about the ba(ance issue within the ACP if all the TDRs are transfened into metro areas.
Sfie asked how will the 60/40 balance be maintained between permanent and second home
residences? Commissioner Ireland stated they cannot fairty require TDRs in light of the
silence in the Ordiaance and the gap in the Ordinance. He feels the gap in the Ordinance
has to be filled. Commissioner Ireland said he would direct Staff to start working on
filling the gap so there is not this problem in the future. At this time,the Board cannot
require mitigation of this applicant. The Board stated in majority that mitigation for the
TDRs on employee housing is not required for this project.
Commissioner Tuite stated he is willing to iet it go forward with the 32 employee units
with Yhe stipulation it is recognized it has to be taken care of. Commissioner Irefand's
preference is that the 32 employee units be mitigated off site. He feels the project is as big
as it ought to be. The site is already saturated. Tim Malloy said language can be inserted
into the resolution acknowledging that the 32 employee units need to be resolved. There _
are several different ways to address the problem. _
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 JANUARY 17,199G
/ ,�.., ..- .
"` r
„, ,
.y;,F . . . . ,
: ..a:: i .,.:, ... � .. . . .
; � . ' .� _. ....,. � . .. .... � �i.. .��._.,. ":::�.�.. i... . 1 . . .
. . .. . ... .... .. . . ...... . .. �uf4
.�,�.;:
Addressing the AH overlay issue, Commissioner True siated he is willing to go forward �� .
with approval with the understanding that there is a risk that the applicant is taking with :,��.
regard to the AH overlay. If the AH overlay ordinance is not adopted,then applicant will ''.
have to make substantiai amendment to the application and go through GMQS. � .
Commissioner Tuite and Commissioner Ireland concurred with Commissioner True's
statement. -
Cindy Houbeq County Planner,stated in the ordinance it needs to be very clear that the ' r,
applicant would have to go through the growth management process if the AH overlay ���'
does not go through. Applicant stated they will not go to detaited submission without the �: • -
AH overlay legislation iR place. •
Tim Malloy stated he will talk with John Ely before the next meeting with regard to
determining whether or not the County wants to let them go that faz separately. Mr. •
Kaufman stated the Code is clear on the fact that all zonings are not finalized until you get i
to the final approval. Mr.Kaufman stated it is clear what direction Applicant is going in
the event the affordable housing overlay is adopted. °�'
Commissioner Ireland stated with re$ard to floor areas for the two neighborhoods, 5,500 �
• square feet is acceptabie if the applicant is wilting to show some flexibility with the ''
neighborhood on some of the lots. One of the concerns of the neighborhood is view �
corridors and the impact on being immediately adjacent to the Thunderbowl �,
neighborhood. He would support even a larger FAR if some of the houses that were �
immediately adjoined to the neighborhood were smaller than the maximum allowable so as � �
to provide a transition up from the nei�hborhood of 3,800 square feet to 5,500 or 6,000
. square foot houses.
Mr. Kaufman wanted to bring to the Board's attention satisfying two or three of the ,
neighbors might create a larger hardship on other neighbors. �'
Commissioner Ireland stated the entire neighborhood benefits when the FAR is used �
flexibly to provide perspectives and view planes. Commissioner Lamont concurred with �•
Commissioner Ireland's idea. '
Tim Malloy said he understands the net available floor area would be 5,500 square feet in
the Thunderbowl neighborhood times 13, It is 5,500 square feet times IS in the other �
neighborhood. All of this will be resolved at detailed.
Tim Malloy stated the Planning and Zoning Commission did not come to a
recommendation with regard to height and bulk of the buildings. Commissioner Lamont is �
not comfortable with the overall height of the ridge of the roof on buildings 5,7 and 9 as
it runs along parallel to the Maroon Creek Road.
f' �
BOARD QF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 JANUARY 17,199G
. i..;” -
�
-.. � .
.,.,
.;t.. , �
� �-i+�:
�:•;',.y'
.ry..
;- .
Glen Hom stated they feel very, very strongly that the heights and mass are not only "
critical to the feel of the Village,but also the function oEthe Village as it relates to the unit
mix,the floor area,and all ihe various components o£the project. •'= �;�,
A discussion ensued regarding how the height of buiidings 5,7,and 9 should be chan�ed. �� ' , �. .
Appiicants agreed to work on the problem and bring it back before the Boazd at detailed
submission. Commissioner Ireland is agreeable to the height on one building being at 44 � �" .
feet if the result is an average of what they are looking at now.
It was agreed the next Aspen Highiands special meeting will be February 5, 1996 at 3:00
p.m. �
i.� .
Commissioner Ireland moved to direct the Stati' to prepare a resolution and .
ordinance for approval on 6rst reading for the Aspen Highlands PUD subdivision
general submission,rezoning and Code amendments with the following direction to
Staff: �
I. witN the understanding that the 32 employee shorti'all can be satisfied through a
mix of solutions;that the TDRs wili not be required to provide miligation; .
2. Staff is directed to begin work shortly on amending the portion of tegislation to r.
t'ix the silence on the TDR regalation;
%.
3. Staff is directed to provide the basis for daing this without having the AH
" overlay legislation in place aod with the understanding that the applicant is �
taking all the risk if the AH overlay does not come oat satisfactorily and will j
have to obtain additiona{ development rights through GMQS or some ofher ;
method; �
4. that the tloor area be provided with tiexibility so that the average for the 13 �
units in the Thunderbowl neighborhood and the 18 units in Maroon Creek �.
average 5,500 square feet;
5. with the understanding that the overall height solid line be broken up with a 1
range of heights on buildings 5, 7, and 9 to be Pinally resoived at detailed i
submission;
6, the Board will take comment,at the public hearing at that time,on the results oP
the discussion between the neighborhood and the applicant on the issues the
' neighborhood has raised such as the number�nd placement of ihe units in the
Thunderbowl neighborhood, the view corridor, and the road alignment and
headlights problem;
7. the wetland issue will only be required to be mitigated if the Army Corps finds
that this is a jurisdictiona!wetlands;and
8. that there be discussion of rezoning in the requested underlying zone districts
ihat they are R15,R30,PMH,and 1041 hazard review. �
With a second by Commissioner Tuite,the motion passed unanimously.
i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11 JANUARY 17,1996
� ,,'
.. �
� .
r ' .
µ c re 3'
���i�'f
�['.�ti•,�n
�.,�.:�..'�r,'.yT
�:.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjoumed by Chairman True at 5:00 p.m. ''
.;�5_ ,�
• 't a
Respectfully submitted, .,���: �:��
�,� fip G��� . ;."� � �.
Lynn Cordova ��
Dep ty County Clerk T ��
.._�.r
.k..:
:�. _ .
.,,�
MES R TRUE,CHAIRMAN •
PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMA�IISSIONERS
Date:
����V :�`,
rczscnvwinocc�ciM��rot-i�•�s.a� `•
�k�,
',Fy�.
�,'
� l
i
i
�
n -
i
�i,
i
�'}
� �.
';, �
BOARD OF COUNTY CQMMISSIONERS 12 JANUARY 17,1996 i.
��
. �
/ �:;�':
, r
.-, +
•
';'*�' ,
,'�
�,`•�.. � . � . . . . � , ..., . .,. . ...""t.53'+aw,t_Z-D:e�.�cr..tei..i'rn_ . «....."�w.< s. � .
�� ,`�
Y7.
� �
, �. \.� 1� �_ h�� "
t � _/�— �1� .
�
'
- _ � ,j�i� _`�.
r ^,.
.i' .'
:�
R�MORANbUM 1�`
TO: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners ;�`^
Regulaz Meeting-January t7,1995 . .
�
k:;
THRU: Cindy Hoaben,Community Development Director „�;, ,.
FROM: Tim Malloy,Planning O�ce
r";
R�: Highlands Village PUD Subdivision General Submission,Rezoning,and Code
Amendments. �
_ �I,.
I1�ITRODUCTTON:The Boazd of County Commissioners last reviewed this case on December 19, ��
1995.At that meeting,resolution was reached on several previously unresolved issues.Those issues
include: �
• Atlo�v issue of remote parking facility to be resolved at"detailed submission";
• Allow development within the wetland area provided that a similar area of +�
wetlands be provided elsewhere within the same watershed.Mitigation could be
_ partialIy or en4rely done on site by designing the.proposed detention ponds to act
as wetlands and provide wetland habitat If the area of wetlands disturbed by "T
construction cannot be entirely mitigated on-site,then off-site mitigation, within
the same watershed,would be allowed. This mifigation could be in the form of
restoration of a poor quality wedand to better,quality, expansion of an existing � r
wetland,or creation of a new wetland;
• Atlow Highlands Base Area to serve as a receiver site for the transfer of
development rights from Rural/Remote zoned areas;
• Allow some encroachment into areas of siopes greater than 30 percent in the
Thunder6owl Neighborhood to provide applicant with flexibility to modify site �
design ko improved view corridors for existing residences in the Aspen Aightands �
Viilage snbdivision; .�,. .
�,
The Board also directed the Applicant and Staff to provide additional information on several other �
issues.These issues are iisted as follows; r'��
, �'
� Should the hdusing eicaction standard for the non-residential portion of AH �`"
projects invotving mixed uses be reduced in recognition of the desire to encourage -
mexed use(micro-commnnity)projects? ,� i
�- •
1 ,+
. ''' .
—. r
.:i
�
. . _�- - -
- ���. ,�___....
_.. . ._ .. . _ �
,i: ' ��
��,-��`� .
�� . .
• If the Eiines project is evaluated using 60 percent as the aft'ordable housing -
exactian standard for the non-residentia[ uses, the proposed employee housing = �
program still falls short of ineefing the dual objective of the AH exetnption and the . '`:
employee housing exacdon by 32 employees. How does the applicant propose to :�"r'�;
address thu shortfall? '
• Shouid employee housing mitigation 6e reqaired for newly subdivided tots which i `
are obtaining their development rights thcough TDR?
• Could the current AH legislation(AHZJPUD or AH3/PUD)be modified and used
to grant exemption from growth management for the Highlands Vi[lage project or .:,;.�`
would an AH Overlay amendment, as discussed by the applicant, be a more
kk.;
applicable tool for this project and othersi'milar pmjects involving mixed uses and ,�. , .
;.
affordable housing? .
• Provide an analysis of the ftoor area that would be allawed on each of the ,;.
currently proposed lots.
'. .
Staff wi11 address each of these issues in this memoraz�dum.The applicant has also provided further �
information which is summarized in this memo and is included in the attached memo fmm Glenn �
Hom,dated January 10, 1996,StafF is in the process of.preparing a draft resolution approving the '�'r
general submission,planned unit development,and 1041 envimnmental haxard review portions of
the applicants request. Staff is alSO preparing a draft ordinance granting approvat of the vacious '��
rezoning requests (exclusive of the affotdable housing zoning most recently requested). This
' ordinance would also grant ttie bther land use code amendments which have been requested since ;
the beginning of the review process.These documents are bneing reivewed by the County Attomey `
and Staff and wi]]be discussed at the Board meeting.
Housin¢Exaction Standard
Secdon 5-300 of the"ofd"Land Use Code requires 100 percent of the employees generated by
commerciai and tourist accommodation projects be mitigazed.Applying both this standazd and the y
60/40 objective associated with the affocdable housing growth management exemption to che -
current Hines proposal shows that these two standazds, when applied cumulatively, create an +
unreasonable burden on a mixed use project For this reason, the Boazd requested that Staff
examine the concept of reducing the commercial employee generation standard for affordable
housing projects which include commercial uses.
3taff has reviewed this issue and supports the idea af ceducing the employee mitigation standazd for
nonresidential uses for the foltowing reasons.First,according to the fisca!impact analysis provided �'
by the applicant, it appears that in this particular case (the Hines proposal) the commercial
component of the project creates a positive fiscal impact which helps offset the negauve fiscal �'
impact associated with the residential portions of the projec[, especially the affordable housing
,�
.component (see attached Fiscal Impact Asse�sment prepazed by Roy Fronczyk dated January 9, �"•;�
1996 and January 10 memo from Tom Oken).It follows that this problem could also apply to other
affordable housing projects, that fnclude commercial uses. TGe dual standazd also creates a �`�'
2 ��, I.
. ,r
a.
. 1�
� r
:�
.. .
,,,.
.`r> , .
F�'.
�„�
. E:�,;:'i;
,
,•
significant economic burden on the developec These two economic barriers couid deter future - `
development of affordable housing projects which incorporate local serving commercial uses. . '�
. .�
The community has placed a greater reliance on the private secror in the provision of affordable � '.
housing,as evidenced by the creation of the affordable housing exemption and the reduction in the
free-market quota in the growth management quota system. In addition, the Aspen Area �
Community Plan supports the concept of creating mixed use (micro-community) projects in
appropriate localions within the County.Staff is concemed that without allowing flexibility in the
commercial employee mitigation standard we may be discouraging projects which meet these nvo �r
community objectives(affordable housing with accessory locai serving commercial uses). . .
Staff would also note that allowing for the provision of accessory/local-serving commercial uses in
association wittt affordable hoasing projects shoald reduce the amount of off-site traffic generated
by such pmjects. This also heips to further several other community objectives relative to
transportation and air quatity. ,
Staff would point out that the AACP called for a reduc[ion in the amount of new commercial square r
footage in the Aspen Metro Area, thus cauuon should be taken so as not to create an incentive
which results in an increase in the overall amount of commercial development. This is r►ot a
_ significant concem for the Hines proposal since the amount of commercial square footage proposed
is similar to what was anticipated for this site when the AACP was being prepared.Staff would also
caution that if this reduced employee mi[igation standazd were wide[y used,it could have a negazive
impact on the numerical objectives of the affordable housing program. Staff believes that the
opportunity for use of[he AH Overlay district for mixed use projects should be relatively limited, i,.:.
since there is litde commercially zoned land available and the•overlay would rely on the underlying
zoning for the allowed uses. Therefore, expansion of this program would be dependant upon
rezoning of other lands for commercial use.Such rezoning would be subject to review under the
Land Use Code and could be evaluated at thaz time.
The next question is how much should the employee mitigation standard for commcrcial uses be
reduced.Recently,staff had been contemplating establishine a common standard for both the City
of Aspen and the Metro Area of the County.Since the current standard in the City is 60 percent,
staff recommends thac the Coanty's Metro Aiea standazd also be 60 percen�
During the December 19th meeting on the Highlands projec4 Staff pointed out that even if the
commercial employee housing standard is reduced to 60 percent,the Hines project would still need
to provide affordable housing for an additional 32 persons in order to meet the dual standard for
employee mitigation and growth management exemption. The applicant has indicated that one
possible solution would be to simply not build all of the commetcial squaze footage,thus reducing
the amount of employee housing required.Staff has two concerns regarding this approach.The first
is that reducing the commercial square footage would result in a corresponding reduction in the
posicive fiscal benefit of the commercial component of the project,which has been identified as one .
of the radonale for allowing a reduced employee mitigation standard. This may be a catch 22
situation.The second concem is co preserve the amount of local-serving commercial sQace.The �
, 3
,;.::.... :
� i'' .
-:.,
;
. � �t,.r�,,:;.
I:��i:>
• local-serving retail space provides an important benefit to the communiry hy helping to redace the
number of tr�c trips on Highway 82 and Maroon Creek Road. 3taff recommends diat the �
applicant be required to construct all of the tocal-serving commercial space which was propo:.d,as `•>
a condition of approvaL • ~"
. ._�.
AH Overlav Versus AH2/PUD
At the December 19th meeting,the Boazd supported the idea of using the AH appcoach for granling �
some of the development rights necessary for the free-market residential units proposed.During this
discussion,two alternauve mechanisms where discussed for the AH approach.One was to modify �';7�'
the AH2/PUD legislation, which is in the process of•being adopted. The other was to creace a .
sepazate AH Oveday district. The Board requested that Staff examine these two options and . -
provide a recommendation as to which was better.Staff has reviewed this issue and we believe that •
the separate AH Overlay zone district is the preferred mechanism.The primary reason behind staffs
recommendation is that the overtay provides more flexibility for a wider variety of projects
involving both affordable housing.and associated commercial uses. Further, an overlay district
which utilizes the underlying zoning for allowed uses and area and bulk requiremenu would be
both easier to implement and would provide greater guidance in teims of allowed uses and area and '
bulk requiremen�s.Staff was concerned that in an effort to modify ihe use iables and area and bulk �'
requirements of the AH2/PUD legislation to accommodate a variety of mixed use projects, we
would compromise the ordinance for hon-mixed use projecu.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Planning Commission to begin work on drafting an
AH Oveday district regulation.Obviously,thc growth management exemptions provided for in this
legistlation would not be available to the applicant unless or until this regulation was approved and
adopted. J'�'
Floor Area Analvsis
The applicant has provided a summary of the floor area which could be accommodated on each of
the lots as currendy configured(see attached memorandum from Glenn Horn dated January 10,
1996). The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the floor area for the free-market
single-family homes be limited by the#7oor area ratio provided for in the Land Use Code for the R-
15 and R-30 zone districts,with a maximum cap of 5,500 square feet This has been included as a
condition of approval.
3taffs recommendation is based on the desire ro minimize visual impacts and potential adverse
impacts on the adjacent Aspen Highlands subdivision. The applics►nt requests the ability to
construct 5,500 square feet of floor area on aii of the free-market tots.According to the appticant's .
, analysis,the 5,500 square foot cap would exceed the FAR on ali but 5 of the 31 fcee-market lots
(not accounting for the PUD floor area calculation).Staff would also note that the TDR program
allows the consWction of a maximum of 5,000 square feet for each right transfe�red.
4 ti
� ._ .
. '�
� �
,.:t . :. ': ' ' '.• :.�kdc�'S:t�.r7;+.:�xrrr.•x� .. .r.,y,......_.._.,.
. , 'i�,:
� .;::
t;
� �;
c
i.
�maiovee Miti¢ation For TDR .• �';~
The applicant proposes to obtain rights for 20 of the free-market residential units through purchasa
of transferable development rights.The cucrent legislation,adopted in association with the
RuraURemote zone district,is silent on the issue of wfiether affordable housing mitigation shoutd
be required when the developmeat right is acquired through TDR purchase. This issue is raised ".
when the lot to be developed is created through the subdivision process,since it is through the '�
sabdivision process that the affordable housing exaction occurs.The Boazd directed Staff to analyze
this issue at the December I9th meeting.
There is an argument that iequiring employee-housing mitigation in association with TDR will
create too great a disincentive for the TDR program.Since the TDR program is imporcant to the
success of the Rura!/Remote zone disttict,the County will want to minimize any disincentives.
However,5taff believes tha[the disincentive argument has been overstated. The impact of
affordable housing mitigation may,in fact,be a relatively small number.For example,if an �.
applicant were aflowed to pay cash-in-lieu,at the Category 4]evel,for the employees generated by
a S bedroom home(assuming maximum square footage of transfer is constructed-S,OdOs�,the
- total cash contribution requirect wquld be$38,200(based on 1995 Affordable Housing Guidelines). ,
'This translates to a total of$765,600 for the 20 rights associated with the current Hines proposal.
Obvioulsy,the net impac[of requiring affordable ttousing mitigation will depend on a number of
other factors which will be specific to each project,The key factors wilI be the purchase price of the
Tl}R and the ultimate sale price of the developed property.Since no[ransfers have as yet occui�ed,it
� is diffieult to predict how the TDR mazket is going to develope. However,given that the lots in the
Highlands Village project should bring premium retums,it seems reasonable that the housing
miti[gation fee discussed above could be absorbed.
Staff's concem is that imporcing developmentrights from ouuide of the Metro Area and not
reqairing affordable housing mitigation will affect the balance(between free-market and affrodable
housing)objective of the AFcCP.Staff analyzed this issue in an effort to deterrtune the magnitude of
the impact if all of the potential rights from all of the RuraURemote zoned propoerties were
uansfered to the Metro Area.
There are 176 rights associated with the RuraURemote zoned Iands that couid be transferred into
the Metro Area(not including rights in the Fryingpan area).If all of these rights wece transferred ro
newly subdivided lots,on which 5 bedcoom homes were buitG affotdable housing for a rotal of "
1,056 persons would have io be provided in order to maintain the 60/40 balance objective in the ,
AACP.Whi(e this is a highly spxulative number, it provides some idea of the worst c8se scenario.
�Even if only half of the rights were transfetred,there would sti[I be a need to house 528 more
person in affordable anits.Ciearly,this represenLS a significant impact which should not go
unaccounted for.Staff recommends that affotdable housing mititgation be required in association
with subdivisions where TDR is used.The exact formula for this mitigation should be anaiyzed in -
greater detait prior to the approval of any transfer.In the case of the Highlands Village project,Staff �
• 5
. '
. �._..
� ~ ,'
.
. „ • i,ti.. :;.
, %; I:.�;,;fi�,�
. ��;._..:;
• recommends that[he applicant be required[o pay cash-in-lieu at the Category 4 level as discussed `� .
previously. �
�
�..
Other Issues .
, ..�.
S[aff inet with representatives of some of the adjacent Aspen Highlands Subdivision resic. ,on
January 12th,to discuss dieir concerns and possible solutions.Several ideas for modifica� s to the
site plan were discussed. A follow-up meeting was scheduled with the applicants represr ltives
for Monday,7anuary I Sth.Staff will report on the results of these discussions at the Bc .
meeting. r
Tom Oken has been working with Roy Fronczyk,the applicant's consultant on refining the fiscal �
Impact ananlysis for the project.A copy of the r�vised report has been attached for referrence.In �
addition,Tom Oken has provided a brief inemo summarizing his coments on the fronczyk report.
The bottom line is that the revised project still results in a negative fiscal impac[on the County of ;
�16,300 per year.However,Tom points out that this ananlysis does not address the fiscal impact on -
RFTA or affordable housing.He also notes that if t6e project provides more affordable housing
than is required[o offset direct impacts, the value of this additional affordable housing may offset �
the negative fiscal impact of the project on other County services,excluding transit.Tom also notes
the impact of amendment one on the Counry's ability to spend increased pmperty tax revenues.
R�COMM�NDATION:Staff recommends that the boazd consider the additional imformation
provided in this memo(inciuding the following conditions of approval)and at the public hearing
and direct staff to prepaze a resotution of approval and ordinance. Staff also recommends that the
Board continue the pubiic hearing to allow firsi and second reading of the resolution and ordinace
as required by the Land Use Code and A�me Rule Charter. �'�
CONDITIONS:
Generai
l. All material representations made in the application and in public meetings shall be
adhered to and considered conditions of approval,unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
Eneineeri nQ/Iiazards
2. Surface water runoff shall be designed to maintain the historic runoff ra[c.
3. At detailed submission,the Applicant shall provide a comprehensive drain:: pla: This �
. plan shall include an analysis establishing the historic runoff rate for the su: [p� arty �
in order to provide baseline data for comparing the estimated runoff at build� .Ti.:
drainage plan shall include calculations for sub-basin azeas,flows,sizing of :verts, �
detention basin sizing,drainage at all unde�passes,dninage of surface parki areas and ,
6 r I
i.
,,.
i ,
. /
e
,.i' .
�..
.. ,. . _...��rti�..t:'�.,�..rv��.wsw.-..�_.n u��stc:wr..m . �.�..
r. ,s .._ ... ...., . .. � , . .. . , � . _.. rs;'r ���.
r;4;,
; `.. ..
. �.
parking structures,drainage of all hard surface in the central village area,clean outs and .�`=
grit collectors for pazking area drainage sysiems,and treatment of surface runoff to ensure `. �
that water quality of r�noff exiting the propercy is equal to or better than in the cucrent . . '
conditian. �
4. At detailed submission,the Applicant shall provide an erosion control plan.This plan
shall identify all areas that will be disturbed during construction;ihose areas with slopes 'r�`
of 15 percent or greater shall be specifically delineated_The plan shall also establish any
erosion control methods to be used during construction.The erosion controt plan shall , -
establish guidelines to be followed during the development of all affordabie and free- .
mazket lots as well as all other aspects of the develogment proposal.These guidelines
shall incorporate the standards identiFed in condition#5 below and shall be made binding
on the general contractors for each lot and for all aspects of the development.The erosion
control plan shall also addtess soil stabilization and interim revegetation measures
(including revegetation or stabilization of stockpiled topsoil)and final revegetation as �
each phase of construction is completed. !�'
5. All development within the subdivision shall adhere to the following standards for 1
development in areas�vhere slopes exceed 15 percent: �
)
" a. Cuts shall nof be made into slopes steeper than thirty percent{30%)unless �
mechanical support is provided.
b. Cuts and fills,and grading and scraping shall be confined to the minimum area
needed for construction. �
c. Steepness of cut and fill slopes shall be the maximum which will insure stability
and stiil allow revegetation.
� d. Development plans shall include reasonable but adequate control measures. Large �
tracts should be develoged in small,workable uniu withou[leaving lazge ueas �°
exposed for long periods. •
e. Use mulches or temporary cover on exposed soil areas and re-establish permanent
vegetation and install erosion control measures as soon as possible.
f. Incoiporate natural drainage pattems into the development plan. Culverts,
sediment basins and other engineering measures should be used where necessary t
to conuol erosion. �
g. Soil abso�ption sewage disposal systems should not be placed on siopes steeper ��
than fifteen percent(15%a). ',. .
t
6. All soil retaining structures shatl be designed by a Colorado registered professional k�
engineer.Plans for such structures shall be provided at detailed submission and shall j�
• require approval by the Counry Engineer.
, i ';i .
7. All roadways shall6e constructed to the standards outlined in the Pitkin County Road � _
Standards Manual or better.All paved roads shall be designed based on the types of �, i
7 *
1�
. � .
� ` - '.�
, - '
.,�
� _,
i„ .. ,� .
-m, ._ .,... ,:,. .
. , . . , ;, .. . ��ufI
�
��4� ..
vehicle loadings expected(including construction vehicles)and the soils conditions in the •' �'
area. �.,
-:;•;: �
. �..
8. Site specific soils investigations shall be conducted to ensure proper foundation design, :,.•�.;
particularly in areas�vhere existing grade exceeds 15 percent. The results of the soils ''.
investigations shall be provided,at building permit application. � �
Y�'..
9. At de[ailed submission,the Applicant shall provide a costruction phasing plan.This plan s"<�.
shall include a construction phasing schedale and shall identify travel demand
management measures designed to minimize traffic and noise related impacts associated ` � r
with construction.These measures shall be incoiCporated into the subdivision � ' .
improvements agreement. � "•``� ' �
(0. Structural mitigation for avalanche hazard shall be provided for all segments of roadway
crossed by avalanche blue zone hazazd as defined in the avalanche hazazd reports
prepared by Art Mears.An engineering analysis for all required avalanche mitigation
structures shall be provided at building perniit application � :
l 1. The portion of Smuggler Lane located within the avalanche red zone shall be closed `
during high avalanche hazazd periods.Plans for monitoring the avalanche hazard for this •�� .
roadway and for its closure'st�all be provided at detailed submission and shall be included �!
- in the subdivision improv,ements agreement. j
12. Prior to building permit application,the Applicant shall be required to obtain all
necessary State and Federal permits.
13. The applicantshall mitigate for all wetland encroachment by providing a similaz area of
. wetlands within the same watershed.Mitigation should be provided on site to the greatest
extent possible.If the area of wetlands disturbed cannot be fuily mitigated on site,then
off-site mitigation wili be required for any balance.Mitigation can be provided in the "
form of restoration of a poor quality wetland to one of higher quality,expansion of an *�
existiag wedand,or creadon of a new wetland AU wetland mitigaaon shall be reviewed �
and approved by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and Colorado Division of Wildiife.
Utilities
14. The Applicant shall pursue connection to the City's central water distribution system as a �
f rst priority. �
-�� -
15. At detailed submission,the Applicant shall provide either a letter from the.City of Aspen �
demonstrating a commitment to serve the project with domestic wate�,or a detailed water �
. ;��;
sights and engineering analysis demonstratiag that a private water system can be
construc[ed to serve the project's domestic water needs.If private water systems aze r=}
pursued for both the Aspen Highlands and Moore projects,the Applicant shall agree to �
8 �•� ' i -
;-
. .i�
. t�� .
' �
.� .
.;,
. , �^;�'fYn
i� ���`'
. t>'.��: ...:;
^�. _`,.
cooperate in sharing water system facilides,wherever possible,in order to minimize the - -
visual and environmental impacts�ssociated with the installation of these facili[ies. P�� '.,
� .
The engineering analysis shall identify all facilities(if any)ro be shazed between the . -%��' ';~
Aspen Highlands project and the Moore project.A letter of"agreement in concept"
signed by representatives of both the Moore family and Hines Highlands Limited i"`
Partnetship,identifying all private water system facitities to be shared artd outlining the
specifics regarding who is responsible for construction and maintenance of these -
facilities,shall be provided at detailed submission.A final executed agreement shall be
recorded with the Fina(Plat and accompanying documents.The engineering analysis shall ?
also inclade any technical information deemed necessary by the City Water Department, i-,
�-
to demonstrate that the private system will function adequately. .
If water is to be provided by connection to the City of Aspen water distribution system,
the Applicant shatl work with the Ciry Water Department to resotve technical issues
identified in Phil Overynder's May 18,19941etter to the Planning Office.These issues .
shall be resolved prior to detailed submission. �
!6. At detailed submissiort,the Applicant shall provide a"commitment to serve"letter from �,•
the Aspen Highlands Water and Sanitation District(AHWSD)demonscrating a t
commitment to provide wastewater disposal for the project.
, A
17. The Applicant shall fund a proportionate share of the ongoing sanitary sewage collection 1
system capacity study being conducted by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District •`
(ACSD).The App[icant atso commiu to pay a proportioriate share of any collection �
system improvements necessary to serve the project.�unds for the collection system
capacity study shall be deposited with the ACSD prior to detailed submission(if not
aiready deposited).Funds for collection system improvements shall be provided in
accordance with the subdivision improvemenu agreement,which shall be prepazed prior
to final plat review. • _
(
18. All sewage collection system improvements shall be designed in accordance with the ;
. AHWSD specifications.At the ApplicanYs expense,plans and specifications for the
proposed sanitary sewage collection system shall be reviewed by the engineer for the �
Aspen Highlands Water and Sanitation District.
l9. At detailed submission;the Applicant shall be required to provide"will serve(atters"
from Holy Cross Electric and Rocky Mountain Natural Gas.
20. All utilities shall be extended underground.
AiriOualitv
21. Prior to detailed submission,the Applicant shall contact the sta[e Environmental Health
Department to determine whether a state emissions permit is required for the partcing , -
9 !
, "
� �;��.
1 � � , .
° .
.,,
�-• e��ew_
—M-�-._,.�.w�.__..
�:�=,�.� ,.,; .
, �:
,
�L..:. .
��,'�':��R:'i.��...
. `..:.'�..
.'�`�...r�:
garage vent stack.A letter from the State Environmental Health DepaRment addressing I..° -
this issue shall be included in the detailed submission appiication.
22. At detailed submission,the Applicant shall provide an air quality report.This report shait �. �
be prepazed by a quatified experC and shalt include data and ana]ysis regarding existi-•�z air , "^:
quality chazacteristics and an estimate of the air quaiity impacts of the proposal.An. �t -' ';
air quality impacrs nat specifically addressed in other conditions in this reso]ution s. .l be � �
mitigated to che satifaction of the Pitkin County Environmentai Heaith Department �d
Air Quaiity Control Disvision of the State Hea]th Department. •
23. The Applicant shall provide a fugitive dust contro]plan prior to building perntit issuance. �,;r.�.
This plan shall identify aIt measures to be used to minimi2e dust created during
construction.At a minimum,this plan shatl address waterictg of haul roads and disturbed
areas,daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads ta remove mud that has been caaied out, ,
speed limits,and any other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing
the propeRy line or causing a nuisance.The fugitive dust control plan shall require
apptovai of[he Environmental Health Department. !
24. Prior to building pettnit issuance,the Applicant shall obYain a fireplace/woodstove permit
from the Environmental Iiealth Department.Woodburning fireplaces shall be prohibited,
nor shall any heating device nse coai as a fueL
25. Prior to demolition,the existing structures shali be tested for asbestos.If any asbestos is
discovered,the Applicant shal!consult with the Colorado Heatth Department and comp]y
with any requirements the Health Department may impose regarding proper removal.
26. The Appticant shall mitigate any net increase in PM-10 attributable to the project �,
� (including that associated with any increase in vehicle miles traveled,"VMT").The
Applicant shall work with County Staff to establish enforceable and verifiabie measures
for mitigating the increase in PM-10.A PM-10 mitigation plan shall be submitted
concurrent with detailed submission and shail be reEerred to the Aspen/Pitkin County
Environmental Health Department and the Air Quality Control Division of the State
Environmental Health Department.
Transportation
27. At detailed submission,the Applicant shall provide a detailed transit plan addressing the
following issues:
a. The level of transit service that is to be provided by the Applicant including hours
of cperation and season of operation,frequency of service(headways),vehi�_Ie
types and capacities. �
b. Where transit vehicles will be stored and maintained.
10
' .
� �.�•
� � .
e ' '
.;�i"
`�
''�:.. . . . � -. .
, . • �+':;.i.ti.'i
� �� . 1;.l.,..-
; !�•. ,
..`.. .
c. Whether spare transit vehicles will be provided to account maintenance dowa �
�
time,etc. '�
ti.
d. Route/s to be served. •
e, Promotion strategies for transit service. , � . �.
f. Management and operations plan for transit service and intended provider.
MonitorinE and Fufure Mitieation
28. The applicant shall fund the road improvements and travel demand management Y. '
measures contained in the application and in the December 22, 19941etter from Glenn �
Hom(attached).The details regarding how and when roadway improvements are to be , -
funded shall be identified in the subdivision improvements agreement,a draft of which -
' shall be provided at detailed submission.
29. In addition to the mitigation measures offered in the amended app3icacion and in the letter
from Glenn Horn da[ed December 28,1994(attached),the Applicant shall instali a left
turn lane at the main entrance to the Aspett Highlands Basa a;ea as recommended by
Kath2een Ktager,This left tum lane shall be included in the detailed roadway plans for
the improvements to Maroon Creek Road,which shall be provided at detailed
submission. �
30. The applicant,in conjunction with the Asoen Skiing Coingany,shall provide remote
pazking facilities to accommodate a total of 415 vehicles. At detailed submission,the
applicant shall provide a copy of an executed agreement between Hines Highlands
Limited Partnership and Aspen Highlands Mountain Liability Company stipulating all of
the issues associated with the provision and maintenance�of the remote parking faciiity.
This document shall identify where these stalls will be located,funding for installadon
and permanent maintenance,control of dust and other pollutants,use,hours of operation,
staffing,signage and any other issues associated with this facility(s).
31. At Detailed Submission,the appticant shall provide a monitoring progam addressing the
following condiuons:
a. PM-101evels;
b. Transii ridership; �
c. Traffic counts ott Maroon Creek Road;
d. Tr�c counts entering and exiting ttte Base Viilage area(differentiate between
ski related trips and other).
The following baseline information shall also be provided:
e. Baseline traffic volumes,current transit ridecship in thc Maroon Creek Va!ley; ,
f. PM-10 tevels;
g, Parking co�nts for current ski operation including peak day counu and average. _
11
/ �_r ...
� - .
�
.,..
�
.�.�: �
� j E,.:
�,;..
32. In the event the monitoring program shows that traffic mitigation measures are not
accomplishing the following desired results:mitigating any increase in PM-10 •
at[ributable to the project and,generating vehicle trips in the range projected in the traffic -
study included in the application(1150 vehicles per day);the Apglicant shall be required
to provide additional mitigation to accomplish these objectives. �
VisuaUlVoise
33. The detailed submission application shall include a detailed landscape plan. This pian
shail address screening of the Central Village ftom Maroon Creek Road,Chamonix
Condominiums and the Heatherbed Lodge.The plan shall aiso address screening of
developmen[in the upper portions of the Jerome and Thunderbowl neighborhoods from
Highway 82 and from Mazoon Creek Road.In addition,the plan shall provide screening
between the Central Village and the Thunderbowl�eighborhood and the adjacent Aspen
Highlands Subdivision. Raforestacion of the Thunderbowl ski run,as represented by the
Applicant in public meetings,shall also be shown,Screening of ali avalanche mitigation
st�uctures shail also be addressed on the landscape plan.Where appropriate,low water
(xeriscaping)concepts and native piant materiais sha[1 be utilized.
34. Lighting for the project shali comply with the lighting standazds ondined in the
application.In additiori,iighting shall comply with che Pitkin County Land Use Code
standazds in place at the time of building permit application. Landscape lighting shall be
limited to that required for safety pucposes.Driveway iighting shall be prohibited.The
tighting restrictions outIined in this condition shall be included in the�estrictive
covenants.
35. At detaiied submission,the Appticant shall identify site specific building envelopes. The
location of building envelopes shall be selected to minimize visual and environmencal
impacts and shail generally conform with the]ocations represented on the site plan
approved at general submission
36. Yoise,including construction noise,shall not exceed the levels esiablished in the Pitkin
' County Noise Abatement Ordinance.If a noise complaint is filed and noise tevels are
found to vioiate the County siandazds,consuuction activities shall be suspended until
resolution of the noise violation has been established and appmved by the Environmenta!
Health Department. •
Conservation
37. All structures shall comply with the Energy Code in effect at the time of building permit � �
application.
12 -
� . ',' .
� +
q
. f
:�;.:' . '
,.
� ��Yn
r ,� 'fa:`.
/
� � �:i .
38. The Applicant shall utilize energy and water conserving products in the construction and �
maintenance of the project.These energy saving measures shail be indicated in the ';,
building plans and specifications provided at building permit application. '
Area and Bulk
39. The detailed submission application shall include a list of all necessary vaziations from
the area and bulk requirements of the Piticin County Land Use Code.
. � :
40. Pazking for the project shall comply with County parking requirements as identified •
within the Pitkin County Land Use Code in effect in June of 1993.If the Applicant - '
wishes to deviate from this standard Fparticularly within the central village portion of the •
project),a parking analysis shall be provided,at detailed submission,demonstrating why
a lesser standard is adequate.The pazking analysis shall address the criteria in§3-7J of ;
the Land Use Code in effect in Jane of t993,If availabiliry of mass transit service is to be
used as a criteria for allowing a reduction in parking,the pazking analysis shall include a
quantitative analysis for the reduction in pazking attributable to the mass transit use.
Miscellaneous
- 41. The Applicant shall enter into an avigation easement agreement with the County.The
agreement shall be recorded with the final plat documents.
42. The gondola or ski lift link to Tiehack is not part of this approval and shall require further
review by the County. �
� 43. This approval does not include the 20 caretaker units discussed in the application.Review
for any desired caretaker uniu should be incorponted into the Detailed Submission
review for the project. •
44. To the extent that the mountain access road crosses the subjeci property,this road shall be
made available to the publie for recreationai use during summer months.Vehiculaz use of
this road shall be restricted to persons authorized by the Aspen Skiing Company for
maintenance and conshuction pucposes.
45. Use of the 5maggler Lane connection between Highlands and the Moore property shall be
limited to emergency seryice vehicles,shuttle buses,pedestrians,bicycles and nordic
skiers.Signs shall be posted indicating this restriction.In addition,the private covenants •
for the subdivision shatt address this restdckion and how it wi11 be enforced.
ATTACI�A�NTS: � �
1. Memo from Glenn Hom dated January 10,1996 �
2. Memo from Tom Oken re:revised Fiscal Impact Analysis . �� �-
�
. 13
� ':.;
... . +
e
.:.�
��..�.�,..�..,,� �,�. _ _ _
.'�'.� Y-r... Ix.J.,...., .. � .,.. . . "". . '... ...... . ..�. ..... ..... ,i... .. ... .. ........ . ..
. '' ���.
/ �'*�'+���
��" .
.�}'1''i"'�.
i �-.
I..�.::�"�+r.l:.
3. Revised Fiscal Impact Analysis . ����-� v�'
� c:kasrsltubd�highland�mcmjanl7.doc � `� '��•
q.
. :�•
�^. .
.r ':
' , }
�u:
.
. � ,
14 t
I
. _..^..�. ..
/ ..._ . . . . . . . � .',:.�;:1� ..
4
� � '".
•
;..rx�� �
u. '7.
:,.i
.;. ; ..� .. . '' ' ' . . ' � � � � . -.i'.... . . .. .. ... �. . �. .. ' . ..
yq.µ������� N,
[y
• ' /ilY/�VWYI�. � r ,�
w�.. .��.�. .
� ' �^ ..
/� : �� `:', `-
r�, � 't.,: �
O >- �.
:JAN 1 0 1996 �'r'. 1r,.
GC+.�u..,,d fY �.•� . .
�EVELOFMENT
,9Sf'FN P�"���t,
Memorandum � t° ' z
!
�.� _ .
TO: Tim Malloy C�
FROM: Glenn Horn I`
DATE: January 10, 1996 `
I
RE: Aspen Highlands Village: Lot Sizes, Commercial Space and ,
Wetlands
'r
-----------M��----°-- ---�
;:�q ,,, � -
Y ,..,aM �>'� ._ ' ,. � - . y .. .. �_ ,:.flMii401�hF�Y'.�iMnC�luN�a'lv.,,,'w�+. � .
� � �
: f�; �,
;:. � ��;.,.Vr.;,.
. ?>x,�;,
���'
xauie i � :;; ,,
ti.
Thunderbowl Neiqhborhood: Free Market Lots .,���,�;�.�,
Potential Floor Area
Lot Lot SiZe Square Feet
..�".'
1 41,385 5,380 � .
2 34,487 4,483 `'�*'
3 51,770 6,730 j:�� `
4 50,995 6,629 F:_ .
5 50,235 6,530 ,
6 32,472 4,221 �'
7 31,000 • 4,030 f
8 46,810 6,Q85 �.
9 38,052 4�946
10 29,682 , 3,858 f,
11 36,967 �•4,805
12 36,967 4,805 ;�.p
13 48,902 6,357 �
1•,•:
Source: Davis Horn Incorporated, January, 1996 t
_ �
Maroon Creek Neiqhborhood
75
Approximately 452,669 s.f is devoted to free-market and affordable
- housing lots, 50,919 s.f. of roads and 193,238 s.f. to open space.
Table 1 shows lot size and potential floor area for the free market
lots based upon the codified FAR's, exclusive of the PUD approach.
�
. �
r
{
, .
�
i -`
r �
�
;
. ��._:
� �
.
,:�: .
...:;
�
�..,.�.�.��--_
.;;.•. .�:,: �
. , .
�
�f' �"
. � rY;~*��'.
r
�
• .`,: .
r
Tabl@ 2 i.
Marooa Neiqhborhood: Free Market Lots � ,?.
Potential Floor Area
Lot Lot Size Square Feet
1 31,260 5,001
2 21,932 3,509 -r4
3 20,692 3,310 ;"
4 25,962 4,153
5 24,492 3,918
6 20,227 . 3,236 �
7 21,190 3,390 ,
8 20,615 3,298
9 21,622 3,459 _ �
10 20,382 , 3,261 .
11 42,857 6,857
12 25,697 4,111
13 25,730 4,I16
14 27,125 4�340
15 25,915 • 4,146
• 16 21,545 3,447
17 19,490 � 3,118
18 19,995 3,199
SourCe: Davis Horn Incorporated, January, 1996
;,:.:
' commercial Space
As noted on Page 20 of the Consolidation of Documents aad
Materials, the applicant proposes 54,725 s.f. of commercial and
institutional uses divided between net leasable retail, restaurant,
accessory skier services, condominium meeting rooms, meeting rooms
and ski area storage. .At the last Board of County Commissioners
meeting, the Board agreed to consider a land use code amendment for
the AHO zone to change the non-residential mitigation factor from
10o per cent to 60 percent. According to the Community Development
Department, the applicants affordable housing proposal is 32 people
short of fully mitigating for the proposed commercial space.
The applicant intends to ultimately build all of the commercial
space. However, it may be necessary to phase the development of �
non-residential sgace to coincide with provision oE housing
mitigation. For example, the applicant could reduce the amount of
restaurant or retail space to reduce the need for affordable
housing. The applicant will analyze all non-residential space and i
provide a detailed phasing plan at Detailed Submission. At this
time, it appears that retail space may have to be reduced rather
than restaurant space. -
i
The applicant has always proposed to incorporate local serving
, '�,;' �.. •
.
` �
.
.
, % 4 a;,
r
. I'�� �'� �
� ra t .�:;
J_.�':_ii
commercial space and a meeting room that will be available Por the r�r`":rt��;•.
, Castle Maroon Neighborhood. Additionally, the applicarit has ;���•"
committed to reconstruct the Christian Endeavor Bar, a locally
serving facility. It is presently projected that the local serving °�5�� `�.
commercial space will range between I,500 and 2,00o s.f. of NLA. . ,'�::
Exact sizes will addressed at Detailed Submission. ;,'�;�:••
: �, .
Wetl.ands ' ` '
Y`
At our last meeting, the Board suggested investigating the
potential of replacing damaqed wetlands on site in the event the
Army Corps of Engineers finds that wetlands are damaged. The .
applicant will continue to work with the Corps and its wetland � ?"
consultant between General and Detailed Submission to determine the k��
size of the existing wetland, if one exists, and a plan to replace � . �
the wetland on site. . E��: .
� ,
�'�.
�..
• Malloy �
z
�
k
.;�.
7�
�
�
. �. .
/
;I;:
il ��
�� ..
�1 �1 ��
ti�.
,.a;
� �a'.
i ' , '' .
t
t
a
-•i
. �• AtlachrntMx z�.°`1`�''.
�
,
,.
�
Memorandum . �•
. �:;
DATE: January 10,1996
TO: Tim Malloy
FROM: Tom Oken '
RE: Aspen Highlands�Ilage-Fiscal tmpact Assessment .
Attached is the updated fiscal impact assessment prepared try the applicant's �
consultant. We are in agreement on the methodology and assumptions used in the
assessment with the sole exception of average population figures for the free market
and tourist accommodation.units. Thus the assessment presenis results using both Yhe
applicanYs preferred average population assumption (which totals 648 persons and is
refened to as"codified")and my preferred assumption(which totals 737 persons and is
referred to as"modified").
Under either assumption,.however, the overall project has a negative fisca! impact on
Pitkin County,i.e.,the cost o#providing County services to the project is greater than the
� revenues generated to the County from the project. it is important to note that this
assessment only addresses current County services and specifically excludes the fisca!
impact on transportation (RFTA)and affordable housing. If the project provides more
affordable housing than required to offset its direct impacts,the value of this additional
affordable housing may offset Yhe negative fiscal impact of the projecY on oYher County �"
services,exciuding transit. '
In addition to presenting the overall fiscal impact,the attached report also analyzes the
impact of plan components(see table on page 4). The surprising result here is that the
free market residential units show a fisca! deficit under both assumptions. This is a
result of the Gallagher Amendment which currently has residential property assessed at
about one-third of the rate applied to commercial property. Affordable housing units
show a significant fiscal deficit,as expected,and ihe tourist accommodafion condos and
commercial space generate fiscal surpluses.•
The fiscal impact assessment also assumes that approximately $150,000 of property
tax to 6e generated from the project will be availa6le to the County to partially offset the
increased service costs. � Unforiunately Amendment One to the Staie Constitution
essentially precludes the County from realizing any real increase in property tax revenue
from future development unless voter approval is obtained for a mill levy increase to �
compensate for inflation. In November of 1993 County voters overwhelmingly rejected
such an increase, so for now all property tax revenue from growth ends up being used
fo.offset cost inflation, leaving none to co;mpensate for growfh impacts. This is not a
problem specific to this project,but ins�=ad is the result chosen by local voters.
i
, � �1:;-
_ ,
:;
,
�
.
_, , .
... 52 a ��.I.:t "� -�"�P . ., ..... .
'i ..-.. ...... . .� ..-
: , . ., ,.... ._,... . . ..... .. .
. � . . Atta�inw�P+tit 3 -
;: s�.�ry3.
4�;�.:;�,:_�.
;.�':��':�ri';:
_ .�;-:::
...,�
,,z:
�, .�
1.
,'.'! .
UPDATED TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
FTSCAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE ��`:?`.
1.:,Y:..__
t
i
�
• ' i
+�
'
1
� ' Prepazed For
Hines Interests Limited Pac�ership
Davis Horn Incorporaced �
By •
• • Roy Fmnczyk,AICP�
January 9,1996
1 '
� '.. .
c
.� 4 '
_ /
f �
`�^. ^
f.: . �
-...�
�.
..�,.—�_—_d ...� �....,� , �� ��i::�
• ., e;:.
, • I'?i`:
, � �.
UPDATED TECHNJCAL MEMORAF/WM
Aspen hAghlaAds V'Yleqs .' �-
�
-t.
�.
UPDATED TECFIHICAL MEMORANDUM
FISCAL IMPACT ASSESSi4fENT
ASPEN FiIGFILANDS VILLAGE ,,��;.
�:r�:
INTRODUCTIOAi �
This assessment has boen prcpazu!in cesponse to che necd to address Sectlon 5.204 of the Pitkin -
County Code,by evaluating the impact on community services and facitltIes which woutd result from
development of the Aspen Highlands Viliage. The focus is on lhe effects of devclopment of Ihe base
azea �
'Ihis revision of the fiscal scudy incorporates comu[ents from discussioas between tha applicant and
Pitkin County representatives whlch were held throughout the pmcess. Key technical points related
[a the conclusions wece identified in memo's dated April 21, I994 and May 27, 1994 from Tom
Okeai to the Pitkin County Planning Office and fmm the"Draft Fscal Report,Aspen Highlands
Village-Review of Flscal Impact Assessment,August, 1993.° More recentty discussions were held
- during the week of Decembu I8,1995 and again during eazty lanuary of 1996 regazding factors
pertaining to the updating of informatlon and approaches. Every effort has beca made to agcet on
the assumpdons used ln the asS�ssment and where disagreeme�t has occured the codified sections of
the Pltkln County Land Use Code have been used.
A spreadsheet model was developcd to apply the vazious factocs which camprlse asscssing the
revenues and racpendilvres associated with che base azea developmeriL Each of the factors which A_
make up the model azc dependeat on e3ther the number of housing units or squaze foo[age of •
� commerical space being praposed and the population resuitlng froin the pm)ect Aa on-going issue
ot concun relates to the use of accuQancy rates!n dweillng units to determine avuage daity
popvlation geaerated by tho project 'I7�e specific issues azsociatrd with this concern is addressed in
the conclusion of this report. [t is an important faccor because the need for county servicrs aze bazed
on population estimates associated with the proJec[.
'I�vo populadon ratios have been used in thts versian of the assessment
1. Ttu Cadified hausehold sizes which are those factors which were identified ta trie General
Submission Revisions letter W the Boazd of County Commtssioners dated 5optember 5,1995;
2. The Modified factors aze those requested by Tom Oken for his zeview of the findin$s
repocted herein
The popWalion components of the vazlous assumptions ate summarized in the foltowing tabie.
COMPAAISON OF POPULATION FACTQRS
Average Daiy Popiletia�perUn�1
Unh TYM Cod�od Mod'�od
. ree Markel Single am ts 30 4. 5.
Markel Single es •15 e. 5.
rea Markel owMomes 3 .O .
wnsl Accommodatlon Condomiru�ene 2 2.
adable Housing Same fa {
Resutlitu)Popu atiore 6 3
Page 2
Jarwerys,1s96
� i;,� -
� ,
: �
_:.
� i
' UPOATEOTECHN/GALDIEMOHANOUM t;.e
Aspen FUghlsnds Ydkge ��1•
r:�'
G��� ..
'[l�e poputaUon factors used 1n catculaUng Tourlsc Accommodauon unics are declved by applying `- .
either the codified household siu or the modified household siu to the proposed number c untCS ' ,,
and thai using occupaney rates whlch aze then factored to the number of units available fc se. " 1
'ihe average daily populaUon flguces appeaz to be diffemt than previousiy cited,but reIIecc� e .
esdmatcd acmal use and occupancy of the units. :'�' �;
'Ihis revisian is based on tht most cutrent development program for Aspen Highlands Vil' ;az ' `
identified in the previousiy tefe[ed lettu of September 5, 1995. "Ihe tables and statistical . .teri-.in i �
this version has also been simQiified to where buildout resalts are shown,rath�r than che mai
buiiding pcogram idoaUfied in the previous efforL As with the previous vecslon,the sP .ic toeus af -
the analysis is att the direct costs and revenues generaDed by the proposai and there is� discussion
of off-site or indirect effects. ' 'r�
Tho 5rst secdon of the repoR summarizes the findiags of the assessment and idendfies ihe flscal � � .
impacts of the populadon altunatives. It also desccibes ihe effect of vazious projcct components on ;, '
[he results. Nezt,the supponing tables which are�used to calcula[e the resuits are provided. 'Ihe •
tables are annotatcd with the assumptions used in the calculations identlfied.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS and ROLE OF PROJECT COMPONENTS
This Update to[he Fiscai Impacc AnatysIs shows tha[the projecG under Codified assumptions results �,�
in an annual deficit of 516.300 to the Gencral Fund of Pitkln County and the deficit increasts to 549,. �•
A number of factors have caused the changc from a surplus of a7t,000 rcported in the Feb�uary 28, '�,•�
1994 version of the study,to the defcits Shown In this version. These include: . �'.
The unit mix has changed.with a reducdon in the number of free-mazket and tourist ��
' • accommodation units, This has reduced the amount of proputy taxes gonecated from the �
projecc tiecauso the rstimated total doAaz value of the project has been reduced.
• The mazket value to assessed value rado in PitkIn County has changed. 'Ihe assessed valne on
5100,000 of resideufla!property has gone from 512,860 to S10,360. This 3s an 20°Xo
reducuon. Each 5100,000 of residendal property now generates S81 to the Pitkin County
General Fund compazed to thc S1U0 in the prior analysis.
• There is only a slight change in the milt levies,which does not appreciably affcct the propeRy
tues generated.
• An increase in[he numher of affo[dablo housing units has generated an additional 120 people
from the ptevious version.
• Thece is a 8.0°b increase in the pu capita expenditure rates. This has risen from 5467 pec ;
capita ta SSO8 prx caplta. -
Each of these factors has been applied in exanuning ihe effcct of alternative population 6asis to the �
£scal impact to Pitkin County.
Alternative Populat(on Scenarios
As previously mentloned hvo populat[on assumptions were ezamined and ihe results of applying the
model are shawn in the foilowing table: +
1
COMPARISON OF flSCAL IMPAC7S �
' Avaage Daiy Per Cepla
. , Population Scenario Poputalion Rsvanues � F.�endAures � DIFFERENCE� D'Aterenee
coailied 64 12, 33?91 (516,30U (S?S) •;1
M ed 737� 332d�7 S37<.20��� (367) � �
i.:�:
���, I:
Page3 �
' ' . Jantwry4,1936 � .
;r`
I .
i ,�
i
,�.� -
___�..�,
_.,,.--- --.. ...� .._._.. . .. �`i::::•�
a:,..._",..
� UPDATED 7ECNNIGAL M9lORANWM
Aapen HIgAlanda V'�lage �
�. .�
As r�ught he expccted from�lte populations associated wlth each altunadve,the Modtned alternative i.,
resuits in the lazgest deficit due primarily to more people requiring county services. "Ihe Modifiul ' "
altunative also shows the iazgcst amount of revenues generated which is due primazily to the tazger ' ' �•;, .
populatlon ratias in used in the Taursist AccommodaUon units whlch then results!n the greater sales
tax revenues by tourist ezpenditures. �
Impact of Plan Components
It has been demonstratui In tho vazious iteraUOns of the project analysls that diffuent componenLS of ' �'
thc pian affect the£scal outcome. The foUowing ta61e segments the residential and commeccial �_:
components of the proposal and shows the calculatlons of the impacts on the Generai Fund of Pitkin j, .
County
COMPARISON OF PRQIECT COMPONENTS •
Per Uni i
COOIFIEU iiavenue� Expend'deres DtffEflflJCE Dittarake `
rceMarkeluttite s1o1 s119, (s17,80D (5281)
7ourist Accommodalfai Unis 595, 584, 510, 5115 �
flad e using UniL� S19 512�,7 (5101,800 (51.069) ..
mmetcialSpaCe 595, S 395, NA !
7a�s saiz,eoo s�zs.too spe.3oo1 is�q
MOOIflEp �i,
sMakelUrils 5102, 5113 517,tOD (5852� a,
oursl Acaommodation Unia ' 5706, 5106, Sf t
Aflordable Housing Unils S19 5124,7 (510C,800 (51,069) .•_
mmeraa pace 595, 595, NA
" TO7ALS 5324,700 5374,200 (549,500) (521� `
Effecu of various pcoject componenu are deseribed as follows:-
Ajfordable Haustng Uniis.
Zhe fiscal impacts oF the afiordable housing componen[shows a consistent dcficit in cach alternative.
' '[he resulting deficits eztend to each of the afiordable housing categories. This result is not
sucprising and even ezpec[ed given the purpose af providing affordable housing in Ihe communiry.
Affordable housing units do not genaate the amount of pcopecty taxes as do Free Market units aad
occupants need to meet incomc guidetines which limit thelr purchasing power and subsequent sales e
tax genecation. Also occupants aze anticipated to be yeaz-round residents who would utltize all of the
services provlded by Pitkin County.
Commertial.
The commucial category also Is consistant wlth each altemative and shows a positive impact There
are a numbcr af ceasons for this:commercial propetiy is typically of highu mazket value than
residential propeRy and is assessed at a rate of 29.0°b raUur than tho 10.36°6 that is applicd to '
ceside»tial propaty. Thus residentiai development typlcally genuates Iess in property taxes than do '1.
commercial develapment. Most impottanfly however,the busincsses on commercial property �, .
goncrate sales iaxes and do no[have any direct populaUons assoclated with them. �'
Free Market Unils. �j
77ie calculated impact of tho Free Market units show a noticeable difference among the alternatives
and can be directly related to the populatlon rados. .4sis shown in the Appendix tables,the csdmadng �
of revenues for the pzaject coasists of three Qrimazy sources:(1)property taxes,(2)sales taxes and
(3)muscellaneous revcnues. Prapecty[aues aze asscssed whether a resldenUal unit or commercial �.�.
spacc is occupied or not Misceltancous revonues aze ca]cuiated on a per capita basis and are directly , -
relatcd to population,but thc amount generated is mino[. Sales tax generacion hoarevu,is affected �'�'r i
by lhe population as is the eapenditure esUmates which aze calculated on a per capita base. `f �
I �
.•�
Pagsl
. January 9.1998
. , .
� ' ,
,
�
1
UPDATEDTEGHNJCALMEMORANOUM �:i:'.�''•�':
Aapen klg�lsrMS Village �,;, .p
Tourist Accommodat(ort Unfts. -
'Ihe revenues and expendltures associated wlth ihese units!s ttu most sensflive to the population `- .
alternaUves and occupancy projections. Thece is almost S10,000 difference in suplus revenues ,
betweett the Codlt3ed and Modified a2ternatives whlch is dlrectly due to the assumptions on �
household size per unit. •
. �
The following chaz[illusra[es the flscal impacts of the vadous project components:
REVENUES and EXPENDtiURES ASSOCtATED WfTH THE PROJECT COMPOkEH7S-
CODIFlED -
�� 0 Aevanuaa Y`
p EypundWre: ' �
itoqaoo [7 OIFFEAENCE . � �
. <� ,
f54ao
;_.,
A :,��
1��1
�_;?�'
(S�roAaq
Rlsaao�l
Fn•Jluket tMiu 7auWAamrroaa�bn Wd. Mad�bN Ibusln0 Unda. Wmnurcid S We�
Conctusion `,'
'Ihe use of alternattve paplatton assumptions under which to assess the fiscal Impacts of the project
has provided a range of pcojcet results. Victually ever oae of the factors which aze paz[of Ihe model
and analysis are based on azsumptions-same aze based on survey data and prior studies and others
` are based on experience and a test of reasonableness. '[hae aze however,some gen�ral conclusions
which are indicated:
• The range of net resulu of the project aze fcom a�ci[of 516,300 using the Codified
populatlons vecus a deflcit of 549,500 per year usiag ihe ModiQed numbets.
• From a fiscal perspective,Affordable Elousing will cost the community moro to pcovide
servicts than revemus receivcd,
. Cammerical develqpment is a prime revenue source wtilch does not demand any direct
ezpenditures of county tunds and in mized-use projuxs often provides the income to batance
out the deticits from residential devc2opmenL
• Uppec end Free Mazket residenlial units aze stwwn to cesult in su�pluses in each of the '
alternatives. Loca!expertence with the occupancy charactecistics of ownus of these types of
units aze consistent wi[h these findings and we be]ieve that the occupancy adjustments aze
typical of the fiscal impact of thSs type of hqusing uniL
�• 'Ihe expendilure paUerns of tourists at�d their Short stay in the community also aze consistent
with the findings of slight sucpiuses in the Modified and a somewhat larger sucplus in the
Codified alternative. Tourists aze typically viewed are revenue sources in a cammunity rather
than as ccquiring suvicu.
i
' Page 5
Ja�wdry9,1996
/ ;. ,
� �
i
,,::
:,: ,,::, , ,
� JAN-�y-7o ..�c u2:5& rn �.`••.#.�'
�
UPA4TEl3 TECHNICAL MEMOAANDUM
A.+pen hdgAlends Wlege
• 'The focus of the analysis has been on the Genecal Fund of Pilkin County,however other
entltles would receive revenues from the proJect,ihe reveunes generated annvally under the
Codifled alternative include:
• Aspen Fire Protection District - $25,300 .
• Aspea Schooi Discrict - 5208,200
• Colorado Mountaln College - �78,000
• Clty of Aspen - St56,900 '
• Snowmass Village - 547,500
• RFPA - 5179,900
AdJustment for Occupancy � , -
Adjustments for occupancy has been an on-going point of discussion throughout the analysis.The
concem is thatthe occupancy and use of Free-mazke[housing untu is overstated and thetefore
calculates as a commuidty service ezpenditures which may no[be required.
We have contacted a number of proputy managus in Aspen to gain their views on the typical
occupancy characteristics of the vppu end housing market, (71�e average price of a Free Mazket R-
30 uait wili be 52.5 million,the R-15 nnits 51.6 million and tlu townhomes 5800,000 pu unit). 71ie
property managers equated occapancy with price,that!s the higher the price of a uniG!he less likely
the owner wili make the unit availabie for rent or to guests. The second home or part-time owners of
upper end units aze often the exclusive users of the proper[y and thelr homes ace no[offcred to
guests or seasonal rentezs. .
IC is somewhat surprising ehen to see that the calcualted fiscal impact of free-market units result in
d�cits. 'it�is oceucs desQite high prope�ty values attd the hlgh disposable incomes of households
residing in the units.
An occupancy factar was used in the caiculaUons which assumes that oue-third of the wuts would be
occupied yeaz round and the remaing two tlurds would be occupied 5096 of the time. Yet the process
of applying this factor involved doubling the lwusehold siu of[he units to wh�ce part-yeaz reaidents
were calculated as the same as full-year residence. 5pecifically,4.0 persons per household for yeaz
round occupants was ustllized for the yeaz-round residents in Iree-maket R-30 and R-15 uniu and
8.0 persons per household wue used for part-year occupancy-which computes tlu same as the yeaz
raund occupancy factor. '[here waz esentiai[y no adjvshnent for those residing ia free-market units
50°k of the time. •
If ihere were occupancy adjustmcnts applied,then the nc[results would be significantly diffecent. By
using the 50�occupancy adjustment to two-thirds of tho units to just the R-30 u�d R-15 dwellings,
the ovuall project shows a small surplus af�4500 per year and the free-mazket units aze would
generate a surplus of just over 5725 per uait
It is suggcsted that there should be recognlUon of the chazacteristics of the Freo-mazket units in tho
project and their likdy patterns of useaga which would not created a negadve IIscal impact to the
county. �
i �-
+
Page 6
� January 9,l996
� � ..
... �
,:�.
,.�
_. _ �µ
.'.1.�„ .,e��• .,a�r� .r�r ��+� aJ<.�a s � �1 ' � . . . . ^ .
. , ` �.
% �.''Y.:t,:i
/��'�±".
. l,:
.;,:. _
CALCULATIONS fOR COD►FfED POPULATIONS `
ti.
7abk COD�1: '
POPULATION GENERATEO 8Y BASEAREA OEVQOPMENT '. i�
CflDtFIED HOUSEHOLD SI7E • .
Unds a Pasanc Px
Base Area Dave meN Slze IMd P tion
. rea I S . 1 •3�5 • u ear � 4,0 16
ree uke! -so • aq •ar e 4.o s�
ree Market f •15 eu 6 4.0 24
ree N es -15 • er1 ear 72 L �B r•��.
teb 1 owManea 4 - ul ear 11 3.6 39 �
tsa l 4 - arl ear 21 � 4 �� �
. ounst aUOn c 2-3 7 2.0 i8T . . .
i �mi •-� A 23 3.5 B7
. aks 29 Id . .
. a s-3 3 2B 3.0 E4 - . .
A utm ts•1 1 8 t.I5 1�
ord ahman Is-7 2. B 1.i5 14 � � � �
orda6k artrneM -2 3 2 Y 5 5
234 • WB
No1es: .
Frea Ma�cel Unda:one-th'rd yeu rard residents;lwolhirds oaupied 50X d Ua tims
Tauis!AaammodaGa�Unils:
Ownus:(56 daya X 3 petsonsNnil X 73 unils)= t6,352
Touisls:(TabbGW�2.bebr�. 44,574
Tdal:(Uss Days)= 64D26 Ooatpanry=(60,926l365 daya/73 urils) 2.3 Persorts par U�al
AI(adable units-t00x occupanry
Ta6k CAD�2•
OCCUPANCY CHARAC7EAISTH:S�ASPEN YILLAGE
• TW RISTACCOA�WIODK710N UNITS
t�nuy MaunN
o.ys ampu,c�, uni., una: raonlF, Mmu,y
Avaia6la Mailh Ral� OaWiad' OcaPied Gwsls° Guesis f
� - $p pye 13A% 9 285 38 1.194 �
� � � • 24 85.0% 62 1 S89 24Q 5,957
� ' - � 24 75.DY. 1.314 219 5.256 , .
21 � � .0% 6S 1.380 263 5519
� . 24 �5.D'K 1,314 .219 S,ZSfi �
. . - 30 d ' 35.0X 28 76 102 3 066
� � 153 8,546� 26.192 � .
� - . 30 3 1A9 148 �,380
� � � . . � fl 65.0% 4� 190 • 9,227
- 17 65.0% �7 E07 190 3227
- . 30 � embet .07. 3 1.095 1�6 t960 �
94 3,803 15,215
. 31 Od v Z0.0% i �53 5S 1 S10
. � 31 15.0% 11 339 /4 1.35E
62 plais . 92 �,168 �
309 ArrwalTdals 11.1/3 �4.674
•IX Ilw+a aval�We la nA•awman ue�ssuned W oceup}�urNa durin9 Datl ol seata�.
� ••4.0 persau per unM.
I
iECMl1CAL APPfN01X�
� � Gakulaflon�HCod17N��dPop u�on
. . . PM g P�COO� .
/ . �,'_
—. *
�
i •
,� �.
ww..n,,,.r _. ......... ....�. ._. _._. _.. ...__ _... .. . . .... ....
JHI`/�CI7��b ��G V<:Vtl rl'1 '�'�'i'�.`����'
�,�!�
. : . . i..:::
� r� .
'',J �,
'1.•
TabbCODJ: ��� •' '
PROPOERiY TAX f3ENEHATED FROM THE BASE AREA DEVELOPMENT '. ';
TaW •
P'dkinCa+tiY �:`..
per Urril TaW ' Td� Propwy
Unis a Maiksl Mairst Aaessed Tax
8ua Ana D�vo rreM Size Vdw Valw VaMa I .816 m� -
rea ukal s anof -30 58 13 106.000 1,304.000 49091 +�8 ..
1es et e anes •15 1B 51.675.000 330 150.000 53,723 40 4.411 . .
tes l 0 32 Sl 090 000 8B0 000 'S9 613 B 528R44 :����7��
wmt coomm 23 75 5790000 557.670.000 SSA74.612 6608 � ;� .
abb artu s-� 4 23 5193500 � 1A�2 � f- •
pbs 29 575000 .175.006 5225 11.781 •
k ow s•3 3 28 126.D00 53 52B 000 .501 S2.B57 ' .
a artm Is-1 1 8 . 2000 5256.00U 526.522 S2U7 '
Atl b artmen U-1 2 B 9 000 52 000 35 1B7 34/7 �- �
ordab artmen Is•2 3 2 17b,0�0 5252,000 526107 5204 �
eta wra eel 21 600 100 160 000 SG28 400 Z4�B98 � .
eslauraM uare eet 14 125 1 .189,375 919 �
Sinunue as S6SD� •� � � � i
od.Plaza, k. ara eet 10a.000 510 1,000.000 90.000 8 ,
519,516,102 5152,53E
koles•
ResideMial a+seased valua=10.3874 0l ma�kat value. ,
Commereial assessad valus�29.OY.d ma�kel valus.
�.
Tabb CAD-!: ' ��
. SALES TAX GENERAIED BY AESIDENTS OF THE BASE AREA DEVELOPMENT �
PerUnH PuUnd PerUrol }�
Mnwi Aw7abis RsW PerUnl Tdal C'
Unds or Housshdd Fa RelaB Capttre in Plkin CouMy Cariy Salea �
Base Ares Deve meN S¢a Ineam� Puchuss P71dn Cou Saks Tar Taz
roa 1 . mias •30 SB - ear ! 5750035 150.00 •S90.a04 t .941
rts e1 . anes R-30 5 • aA ear. B 50.Oi5 75003 2502 2 .�� _
�ea l 15 Yeu 8 21723 101,345 807 �9
ree et5 . i5 •PaA sar 12 5521.723 21)2 S21 1� 33.SB0
ree 1 es eu 11 5334 509 7.802 3�0,711 661
� ree 1 s - ul aar 21 333� 9 313,951 ,766 34A
ourW alim 23 73 A�7 .169 55719 54B 5��411
am' e•4 4 23 100 000 0 000 1 2 5315!
o� za . 2 o se.aoo se eoo si.wz ;
ad av -3 3 28 . SSD .000 � t0�OD0 SB6 S2 B '
Aflor aNnenl ts•7 7 8 522.ODU .800 .400 5288
a abk aAmeM �ts•t 2 8 535.000 Si I.D00 000 a .
� or I� arlmeN u•2 B � 2 ,000 534.000 77.000 146 52 8
�4 . 772 "
NWas:
Household Inootm�baud on hanb puchase loan Qualikstfotn:80%d puchase prce is moAgege
�mount;ban is lor 30 yeus;IMorod nta is B9:pv aimum;wwalmatgegs payment is 25%d'neame.
Froa ma�ket FUA1 YFAR Muwholds sp�nd 20X d in�ome ai relai p�r�Assu ud 60%aro msde in Pitldn Courdy.
FRa mo�kel PART YFAR households epend 2uX of ineoma an rNad pud�saa�nd 7UY.aro m�de in PRldn CouNy.
Tovista�coammodal'ion eandomiNUns Faw awnership imits ol two momhs par yesr,haissfald inaomsa luva been
pmraled l0 76.8'ti on amud incoms lo quaGfy-reta�purchuw sarta u Fns Muksl•PeA Ysu.
Allordable houceholds spand�M,L d Mcane on retai purchases and SoK aro made in Pwkn Caudy -
Residents make SY.ot their pur�uu al v�laqe businasses,and are aawntd ta n Tahk AIOD-7(bst oolumn
is ASX d per utiA amount:iwanber ol unils�.
I
i .
�
� TECFWM.AL MPENW7c � �
� CNcul.11aularCOdl/YdPopuW 7on
bPm H'qhlmds Vdags
Pag�C007
i ,',
�
:i
� _. _.um
� . -
♦1� ...:'�l-Y,. .�. . . '. ' . . ��.. . :.. . .'�.f�.i:-. .�Vi:�:'�.'. _ ..,,...�,..:.....� . . . . .
. . . ' • M1ly�k�'''. .
�;�
h�:
� :;t,�.� .t-
♦ 'L.
TabbCOD-5: :y�•�.� .
DAILY W ACHASES MApE BY TOUAISTS STAYING AT 1HE BASEAREA ' .�'•
199596 '.
Aspen �':.
Ana Aspen Hk�hlaMs
S�s Cafe Awn s Puk S�mn�r Shouldx
4B1 .61 S2BA7 326 _
estaunM MerlaruneN 1.�5 7.36 19.15 519.75 .
s miseel aneous rNa 36152 ObO� 8.42 328.42 '
Semees 57.11 54.89 .42 53.42 . � `Y` '
S17<99 5737.�6 .07 125 ;k�.:: .
ea��: . ,;�
�are•su�,���„o r�.s.ro asx d��c,Shouldor is 36;G d peak ' .
66%d ReshwatYa,Slpps ard Olher Serviw nspeN at alhx Pitlm CouMy .
beaiion�•33%at�hs basa uea and is aaawed(or in Tabl�COD�7..
&mnv and shoukkr saason reetauraN,shopa and dher scrvkes ara
roducea ey 7ox�o re(laa�asa per apaa spaW'ing awing u,ese pe,ieda, ;;.`
it�i
Ta6N COUa: . - "t;.: �
SALES TAX GENEMiF_[1 BYTW RISTS STAYINa AT THE BASE ARFA � �
Total PiUu�Caumy �; �
YaAon end'durea Sda Ta�c � "r
um er d aason VisMn 58.8%d lot 28192 600 76 963
. mbar umrtwr xlois 34,1ti Id 15 13 1.2181t4 10476
xos
.r 0asm �seors .ix d ia 3,168 s2asass .oza
as
44,574 .053.745 q62
Naw:
- Ywlora=See TaWe COD-2 ' i
Tabk CAD-7:
RETAIL SALES TAX FROM BASE AREA BUSINESSES
Sire Saksper Groasa PhkinCamry
&ainess ft S Fool Saps Salas Tax
e s 21.606 �00000 548400
. eslaixaMS 11.1 ,531 0 .369 �
� 3+J' ,A71,?50 578,809 . .
. .�
�
!
. . 1
1
�1
="1
� • I
�I ��
�':
,� ..
� ' i
�'�
rECrar�t�rP�ax t .
. . c,kwLrlw�codpl�d�Po +,�uo9s i,.�i .
� - . � � Faga W09
�>l�. .
� -:. .
� •
'„
�
�
�.� , .
.:.�
: , . . ,., .. :. .
,;��• , .,,, . .
t.:�>
.,..,,-...-_.. ..._ __.__ . ,. ���::,�.F:,
.• `�°i;:=
! ;i:�.
, .`,- ,
� .�
�..
Tahb C00•R: ',�'•
REYENUES AND EI�ENDfNRES TO THE PITICIN CAUMY GENEflAL FUND FRO�A BI15E AREA DEIiELOPA�ENT • '.
CADIfIED POPUUTION
Uniaa Pmpaty Satos !A'ise. Tdal TaW
BdaeMeaDave motl Sizo Tex Tax Ravanus� Revenws EY a�uesIDIFFERENCE _
rso r N S u - 13 5 .�2 5584 39 734 8.116 58.�13
tee el i a a •15 18 1�14 i8,849 3809 1,EM 6 703� � ,
tee el ovmhanea 32 244 39 ' 1,258 7 10 6 518.6Eb1 �
. auul Aawmm sian a 2•3 73 6Y6 .873 t,E75 59 415 1. 510.650 �
oNable b am mes-4 CA 4 23 SJ604 . 58.75d 590i 58266 SW894 262d1 ' .
ones 29 51.761 1 2 5.7 3 4,384 1.011f - .
ab ow a•3 3 28 85 288 f6,088 SI2.672 S36SBA ,
a ab a artmeM Is•1 1 8 5207 5288 15T 2 57.112 56,463/ �
attm la•1 2 B 7 8 � 157 51,062 112 (Sfi.O50i .
artmen Is-2 3 2 1 5276 1 5534 52.28E St.) 1
ercial 5 7B 755 S78 80B SO 5,661 SS6�
0 152,59fl St52 983 7,276 5312,79 5329.1�3 10.376!
Naes: ;,•
Ab�xlaneoua revanuea are calculaled at St 1.23 per apifa. F�
Ezpaddusa aro cdcualled al SSOB per upila•Iran Ta6k COD•1D
7o61e CODA: ��.
• REVENUES TO OiHER ENTITIES IN PfiKIN�OUNiY i
Amml �
PHOPERN T/+X BASED b61 Le Amani
en re rdecdon t29s .36t �
and atx sniatq� 3.769 3�558 �� .
en �strct 10.W1 5208.258 �
. . a o AbuMun oGego 3.997 518.008 �:•'-
�o rol�od�iverConearv 0.991 7�689 .
dal 2,859
Nola: .
. A4scequ�ears revenues aro ca�aAaled at S1723 per rapila �
Expendiires a�a eaWAated sl i5a9 Qer capfla-Irom tabk MOp-iQ 4
Amud ,
SALES TAX BASED Tax Aak Maw1
We d a o � 3.00OX .867 .
� - GN sPen � 0.672% 158,E63 "
SrawmassPd a 0.264% 7.191 ,
axn aA o.040x
7.000X 178A89 '
d ' 24,03G
!
i
. i �
TECHNKAL MpPuENOik �
� GkufWal!lofCo�be'dPo 7Won
� - A�pui Hphlandr VW W �
Paya C061
/ . tw_,
• ,
e
�' � '
i
� !' f;;f�,r�,;�;
, r. '
�,j�•;
i;: .
i
'l.
,.
Tabk COD�10: �
PRKW COUNTY BUDGE7-1996
Na11996 Loeal Net 1996 locs:
SECTIOWDeparunenl 6ryen3tures Modfied SEGTIOWDeparirr�enl Experdihxes Mo�fie6
Tf�$�15R 1 1S'�.��1 •
Airpat ad49,181 SO UseTaxAdministra6on .7 SO ' :r
RFTp Operalan 8 Capital �,160.026 SO Risk Management Cost Center SO SO
Use Taz•Hvry 82 Road Pro�ecls S7B5,317 3785,317 0166s Serviee Cost CeMer SO =0
Use Tax•Couty fload Projecls S7B5.317 5785,317 Operadng Saving (5150,000) (5150,000) - '
Road 6 Bridge Road Projecp 3374,313 5374,343 A�ninis4alive Albeslion SO SO .
Road 6&idge Operalwns S6B0,006 5680,006'� Admininatraliw FacSEes
Genaral Road Improvemenl Disl 5106,703 SO Buidng Mainknanee Cost Ctr. 518,001 SO
RFTA SltierShutlb S?5,000 �25,000 CoufiousdCouMhwse Plaza S37o,391 5370,39t
RFTA De61(Masler Lease) So SO Couthoua Plaza UP Debt 5346,241 5346,241 •
SWk CDOT Fwid'ng j0 . �0 Fleel Setvite Center Debt 5363,368 $3fi3,368
Transit Sales Ta�c Debt =170,338 j0 �fleel Cost Cenler SO 50
7ransi[Sale 6 Use Taz fS2,A07,000 SO Radio Cosl Cenler SO SO ,
--�Il� , ,7J1 8 Phone Cost Cmter SO SO �,t
PUBLIC SEAVICE , ,
Translatw 5359,861 5359,961 HUMAN SERVICES �
Lbrary =1,285,013 j1,285,013 HumanServlaesAdrtJnistralion 5104,7�7 5104,747
Exlension SO � ' SO Agentbs-13 ptograms 5304,166 5304,166 �
qerkBRecorder 5120�74 Si24,574 SeNorServkes 5122,63� 5122,634 •
Elxti«u s99,4A3 598,483 SaW Setviees 3107,192 5107,192 �
- , ,03t Heallh E Numan Srvs Bfdg. S1o0,087 5100.OB7 ,
ENVIRONMENTAL WALITY � 7�6��T38,8� �
Planning�Zoning 5144,871 5149,8T1 PUBLICSAFEiY
EnvironmentalNeallh 5136,a18 St36,i18 IXstriGAllomey 5217,014 5217,014
Bwldmg Inspectlon (�158,570) (SS58,570) SheritPs Ot6ca 51.654,003 51,654,003
Land Managemenl 5102,552 S1D2,552 Clvi Praess 548,528 549,526
WeedslAevegetatbn SO s0 Daknlion 5981,739 5981,739
qeryeing+Conpostin'g 5574,589 SO �ispakh 5318,172 5�18,1J2
�„a� (sa�,r�sy so �aw�,�o��,�a�� sas,ox� sw,ozi
� Open Spaca Fund 51,719,593 11,714,593 Coroner 536,821 536,821
fleud Walu�Poxxr 53,697 . SO M�bWance Dislrkl 5235,206 5235,206
LotterylGen.Fund Open Spaee 528�00 529,2D0 M'vnal Contrd 576,116 576,418 �
-�TJ81'BTAL--31,�8�'F-�1�7�Sa- Enhaneed611 Aulhorih (514,298) SO
ADMIMSTRATNESUPPORT �DBTaT , ,630 . B �
Baard ol Co�mly Commiuionera $325,670 =325,670 FIOUSING
County Manager 5216,568 =246,569 Comy Housing Projeds 30 SO �:•
Personnel 5109,297 j109,297 Asped PitCo Fbwing OfEce i86,782 586,782 !.
Attomsy S28f,727 ;284,727 Fbus) Oebt 3570,960 5570,9fi0
Assesaor�Treacurcr 582,�88 S82,IBB .. , �.
Pubic W«ks Administration 547,073 s47,073
�evebpmentDirsclor SO t0 GRANDTOTAL Z15,23: )4 514,410,845
AdministraWe Serviees ' �
Adrt�in Sarvices D6ecbr 566,238 566,238 Px Unll Expen�Nres 51,135 51,080 ,
Financa 5332,272 �32272 (13,3TJ Unik) �. .
DataProcessingOperationa 5157.486 5457.R86 PerCapilaF�cpendturas t5d4 =506 �
GIS Implementalion d Debl SO SO (Ave�ge DaTj Populafion of 28,405)
f
�:
I
TECHMCALAPPENDIX
c.xu�anena Jor coaieea A(oanea
Aapen Hfghlends V�lage
, Pegs COD S
�`�
• I .
�
,;,;' .,,, . _ .
.a. _ . .. ,. .. ..... ..., .
.7qtv—e9—ye i ut ez:aa rr+ " " r� ���� �
. . �y
• ,.
i
..
�
�.
CALCULA7lONS FOR MODlFIED POPULATIONS �.�'.
Tabk MOD-1:
POPULATfON GENER11iID BY BASE NiEA DEYELOPMENf
MODIFIFD kWSEFi01D S1� ,
UniLV ar Pxsau Per
BuaAroa Davel meN Sks Uril P lion
as dml •30 aar 4 .0 20 . r- :
ree MarkN . anee R-30 - eA ev 9 5.0 44
reo -15 - u ear 6 5.0 3� .
ree Ma -05 - art rar 12 40 ' 60 � ' �
ree a 1 owNamss R• ear lt 4.0 44 .
res t 4 - aA ear 21 40 B4
ounsl A 2� 73 ' 29 209
S omes•4 4 23 35 81
� d � �
-3 3 28 3.0 84
arlme -1 1 B 1.75 14
b a�4nent Is•1 2 8 1.75 14
AHordahb artman ls•2 3 2 295
yy� 717
NWea:
Fres Mukat UnYs:onalhird yaar round rosidenlr,Mro-UvRk oaupied 50X d Ihe Gms
Taaist AcwmmodafionUnila:
Owners:(68 days X 5 pwsoreluM X 73 uniCs}=20,440
iaxisb:(Tabta COD-2,belovQ= 55,717
• Tolal:(Use Days)a • 76,157 Occupan.Y•(l6.157/365 dayt/73 urnils) 2.9 Puaore per Uril
Alfadabls uMS•100%occup�ncy .
Tabb MOD�2:
OCCUPANCY CHAMCTERISi1CS OF ASPEN Vk.LAGE
TWRISTS aI TOURISTACCOAMODATION'UNRS • "
KwhtN �H
unia unls Mphty MaNh►i
Aw,ia�hle MaYh Ra�N P� Oawied' Oeapied Guests" Gusxp
30' ow ar � 15.0% 9 2B5 47 1,�24
� ae 85.OX. 62 tA89 310 7.M6
24 750X 55 1.31d 274 6,570
21 e 90.OY. 6fl 1 0 32Y 6,899
24 75.0% 55 1.311 271 8,570
� 9p �1� ffi O% 26 76] 126 3,833 �
� . .�3��^da 6,5�8 32.7{1
.. 3p uns 50.0% 3 1085 197 � 5 47
• tT 0% �7 B07 237 4.031
� - 17 . .OX 47 807 237 1.039
3o e e u 50.0X 37 1.095 1&1 S,Qi
. 81 ummer da �,E03 18.017
� Jt t a ZO.OY. 1 �59 73 2.283 �
� 31 —FiG 75.0'b 11 339 55 1697
62 Sesson� 792 3,960
. 309 AnnualTotals 11,143 55.717
'q ihoae avaBa6k/or nrd-ownew ua�ssumed W acc�py wNs during part ol season. `
•'S.0 panans per ur�l. '_
. 1
iEG9�(�(ICAI.APPFNDIJc
� � CakufaRon�lorlbN!'i�dP lotion
�+Pen�r VAa.9�
_ Papr MOD 1
/ . �'......_ .
r
a
:.i' .
-,i
.. • �. '�1�e
;;. .
Tabla MOOJ: `
PROPEATY TAX GENLRATED FROM 7HE BASEAflEA DEYELOPMENT ti•
Total
Pdkin CouNY -.,
Pu Unt Taal Tdal ProparN � -
Unls ar Madrot Makel As+essed Tax
Baso Area Dav� rtwd Sa� VaMis V�lue Va1us 916 m7:)
rae t i e s 5 13 408,000 1,304,000 43A94
tee arket5 os -15 78 167 1�000 33123 52�.�1�
ree Market TowNiomes 32 51.090 D 8!0 ODO xl.613,56! S2D,2-
ounsl uamn afnn ruums 23 73 ODO S57.W0.000 55.974fi12 546.� j �
o a Si k am' -4 4 23 5193 0 ,500 10�2 S: �
rtndones 28 7i ODO }5 000 . �
a ow s-3 3 28 12600q 28000 1 S: �T
aAmeM la-i 1 8 000 000 5 r_J7 . - .
artment fs•1 2 8 569 5552000 S57.tE7 1
oMs arfmml !s-2 � 2 128000 5252.000 6107 4 '
elal uaro al 21.6oa 100 160 000 26 400 S4 BB6
• siwroM Wre eet 7�,725 S 5 32189 75 S634A19 983
SWeWre S aus 450 500 9?5000 48250 63�
Pool,Plaza,Ela 5 are cN 100,000 10 Sl 000 000 290.000 52.26
. S1Y$ ,1U2 552,575 �
Naes:
RuideMial sssassed vafua./0.96X of maikel value.
Commercial auessad valw=20.0%d market valua.
T�6b MODJ:
SAtES TAX GENERAIED BY RESIDENTS OF iHE BASE AREA DEVELOPMENT
PuUn7 PaUnit PerUnil
. Arn�W Avalahk Retai Px U� Tdal
' Unleor Flowehdd FarRelsd Capturein PildnCouNy CoWySaks
Base Ares Dava mero 5'ae Ycams Puchasas PRkh Cou Sda Tax T�x
r.o c u ao - u ur 4 soa3s i � .00a 714 ,941
ns tS . -36 - M au. 9 50035 5003 . 2 2 .881
rea Markel S . a/ •15 5 • ui ear 8 21723 164,345 2.607 SS78 53.069
rae el . 15 • �A esr 12 2 1 2 1 14 .5A0 !_
tee Markal - u mr 11 9 1,902 ,7/ 5350 53,661
ree 1 4 - art eu 21 1 7 6 4 ,077
ounslAcoomnodalan 3 73 47 ,169 , 1B i3.�11
- i oma�-4 23 looOW SC0.000 000 172 .7 8
� tm�lones� 28 .800 SI400 f.0lZ .
a owMqmea-3 3 28 S50 0 0 0 St0000 6 288
artmen� m-a � e ooa eoo .+oo e
« anm �-i z e t�000 ,000 0
arlment •2 3 2 000 17.000 f16 8
234 712
Nolu:
Fiauehold k�oomss based on han�pvchase ban qual'diwliatx 80%d Durchase priu u matgaqe
amard;loan a ta 30 yoan:iMensl rata is 9X psr amum:aru�usl malgapa paymeM is 25X d hoome.
Fme markat FULLYEAR housafwlds spend 2oX d'000ms on reWl puchasaa and eo%�re mada n�ilfCfn County.
Frss maAcel PMTYEAR houselaids ape�d 20X d ineare an tehY ptrdases and 70lL an mede in Pitldn CwNy.
Tauislo a�commodafion�have ownuchp imisW Nro ma�hs paryw.Aousshotd incomes haw 6een
proralad l016.6%on aMUal inootna lo quaSty-rchi pure4fasa s�ms u Fres MbkN•Part Yur.
AHardaNa hauseholds spend 46X d iinon�a m rNai qrd�u�ard5ox aw madeln Pilldn Car+ty
Ruidents milcs SX of tl�eir purchasw at v�age b�se�aues,and u�umwlad lor in Lbk MOD-7(last whunn
a OSY.d per wii!atrwunt x rxtmhxd�sj.
• 1
I
iEGNMAL dPPENOIX
' CakWatlanslorlbd7qh��d�Ynp�
. . ��x Piy�M��Op92 .
/ ,- .
� �
.,�
: . .,
. :,
�. ,
,, , • , , . _ _
, JHN—u7^ye I'UE 132:4b e'M � � �:.,��.,.;+,�a'��.
� � ,, ' ���.5;''.
� ���ya;�•
� ��.
• . . � 1•:.:4"�;.,i�.
i:i:.
`
1�
T7bb A10Q6: � '• �'
DAILY PURCHASES MADE 9Y TOt1R15T5 S7AYING AT T1�BASE ARFA �
i99rr86
A4P9R
M� Aspon H'whlands
SataeCale Avera Psak Summu Shwider
� 561.61 4.81 A7 28 ,
e Ntaun�N .45 7.36 10.16 ' 9.1 _ .
rNa 152 b0 6.<2 t.<2
ervieee 57,41 .89 42 53.42
fl4A9 St37.46 .07 425 ,
Naea: "
Lodpkp-Summer lodgirp retes are 45�:d peek,SiaWQe�(s 36%d peak •
66X W Fisa�aunnts.Staps and Olfier Ssrviesn t�spent at othecPitlu�Coaray►xatians • .
loatbns•33%a�Ihs bus aroa and h aeeaWSd torin 7ablr MOD-7.
Summar and eFiwidw swsm rastaaranR shaps andaUiersarvicaa an
reduc�d by 707:W tetkct less percap1a spendn9 dwtng 1h�se periods.
Ta6k MOD�e:
SAI.ES TAX GENERA7ED BY TOURISTS STAYING AT THE BASE AREA
Tdal P'akin Counly
Vtsias E t�dqrtas Satas Tax -
r d q Scason wlas SBRY.d t 32 741 SI ,470 538,0�
u unroef Gtbrs 34.1X lot 1961 ii &3 1
' erS um a 7.1 Id 3,960 068 28
. . SS.717 .317.1a1 ,328
Notu:
Numberd Vislon-Ses TahW MOD•2
' Ta64 FAODd:
AEfAlL SALES TAX FAOM BASE AREA BUSWESSES
Size Sa4s px 6�osss P�Cwayr
Buslness I Sa Fl.. (Squue Foot I Saiea 1 Sataa Ta
� ws 2i,�ao—"�.s,taa.aoo s+a,�+o
�estaunNS uaz�l�ss��3. t� o �aea
ss.izs . ,a��o—�is,eos
�
. TECFN/CAL APPFHOVX
� GkuW/aufaWaYfMdWgy Wlen
. Aip�nifglYsMr VNags
MOD
� ',` .
—• �
a
i . .
. a.
.,_�
:�.: .
.
"� ' .. '!� .. ._ . . . . _
� • �� ��i;,asi�:,
K �l
[ �
r`..�:•..��;
. _ _
r��e Moo•e: f�'' �''
REVENUES AND FJ�fiNDITURES TO THE PRKW COUN7Y GENEAAI.fUND FliOM 6ASE AREA DEVELOP6�NT ~�
MODIFIED POPULATI0�1 ,�'; .'�
. ;
Unka Prtpay Sabs 1�9s�. To1�1 Tdtl ° � •.
Bas�Area Ow merl Slxe Tax Tatc Revenues Aova�ues _i DIFFERENCE .
ree uket am / 30 5 t3 348 58AO2 730 0 02L I 1401 �:�`..
ree t •15 19 4N4 .6�4 10U 074 54 TA 19,6461
rN r t owrV�omes �2 328 44 S7.39 1�37 7A20 4 .604 ��-. � .
ouisl A mwn •3 73 546.698 7.738 106, L 1 .991 BS °`��'"
S k mea-4 4 23 S3TSB 4 B4 2 fl1 �'
p�y Z9 1.81 ,042 S24 4 1 1 .'�r..�_-
o b aw s-3 3 2B .286 19 O0e 872 ,564 � .
•1 A 7 8 7 5288 157 2 .112 460 �'�'
a aM�enl lata-1 CA 2 8 7 6 t57 t66z 712 0 0 �. � - '
a le aAme k•2 8 2 4 5278 S51 5532 .286 17511 .
35725 1! 55 909 5 � 4 .
p 5152,539 163 39279 4.6 337� 1! S19,iS9 .
Ndes: � I
Msaetlansaus revmuse are cafadated d Stt2:1 pu apda
Experd'dures ue ulalsled al SSOB per capia-han 1a61e COD-10
�.f.
v'
Tabk 1AOD�9: • (;
HEVENUES TO OTHER ENSI'f�S 1N PfiKIN COUNiY'
� �
' PROPERNTA7CBASED ' 6QILe Amou�f �
eo re rdedan 1S9C ..��
4n et�r SaMabon 3 69 3$3�� �`
� en S stnd___ . 10.871 OB,256
on�a�n`Z:d--- 3.997 SM 408 t`
ado erConsarv und 0 9
� . d 2As �_.��1t
AnY1a1
� SALES T1J(BASED Tax Hala Mpwl
. � tde d or 3,OU0% 77510
- � � 0.l72Y. 187,BE0
� Srowmass s 0.264% �826 .
own p 0.040X �
a �
, i
TfCFNICAI.MPEHDU( - �
C�IwWIaN l�YodiMd�yPopWW�on
id�
. . � PagaN00I �
. ,,ra,y.'. '
� I . . 1�'���.
-�. �
s
�::,�;�: .
,.�