HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20150407
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
April 07, 2015
4:30 PM Sister Cities Room
130 S Galena St, Aspen
I. SITE VISIT
II. ROLL CALL
III. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IV. MINUTES
A. February 3, 2015
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hotel Lenado , 200 S Aspen - Planned Development (Continued from May 19th)
B. 69 Shady Lane - Special Review for variances from Stream Margin Review
Standards
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Commission Input on Residential Mitigation Policies
VIII. BOARD REPORTS
IX. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 7
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clari fications of ap plicant
7) Public comments
8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
1
Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM
with members, Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, LJ Erspamer, and Kelly McNicholas.
Also present from City staff; James True and Jessica Garrow.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Ryan presented a commendation to LJ in appreciation for his service on the P&Z board as Resolution
number 5, Series 2015.
STAFF COMMENTS:
On behalf of the Community Development Department, Ms. Garrow presented Mr. Erspamer with a
special parking permit recognizing his service on P&Z.
Ms. Garrow provided an overview of the code amendment change process. Typically City Council directs
Staff to analyze amending code. Staff will then reach out to P&Z to get feedback on the code to be
amended. Other times, City Council initiates code amendments and there is a quick turnaround time so
Staff may check in with P&Z. She stated both situations are applicable this evening.
Ms. Tygre asked Ms. Garrow to confirm there is no provision for the check-ins to be a public hearing to
take in public input. Ms. Garrow agreed but stated Staff tries to build in a public outreach for code
amendments instead of only holding public hearings. Ms. Tygre feels P&Z does not get to hear the
public. Ms. Garrow stated Staff tries to explain what they have heard from the public in regards to code
amendment to P&Z. But she stated there are some circumstances when they don’t have time to provide
notice for a public hearing due to the quick turnaround timeframes. Mr. Erspamer agrees with Ms. Tygre
and feels P&Z would be a good place to start the hearing so imperfect items could be weeded out.
Mr. Walterscheid asked when these items go to City Council, it is a public hearing. Ms. Garrow
confirmed this was accurate.
Ms. Tygre feels in the quick turnaround situations, P&Z does not get the direct benefit of public
comment and it concerns her. She feels the public should be able to address P&Z so they can hear and
interpret comments themselves. Ms. Garrow stated they do post the meetings and all the information is
available on the website so folks who are interested can read the packet and could come to provide
comment even though it is not a noticed public hearing. If someone was at the meeting, the commission
could allow for comment to be heard.
Mr. McNellis asked if there was a process or authorization in which one of the P&Z members felt there
was a need to have code amended. Ms. Garrow stated there is time during Commissioners Comments or
Other Business agenda areas in P&Z meetings for members to determine if the commission wants to
pursue something or not. In the past the commission has passed a resolution requesting code
amendment on issues. In those circumstances, the resolution is presented to City Council. Staff tries to
meet with Council a couple of times a year to review their work plan and they have yet to do this for
2015. City Council can then direct Staff to work on an issue or not.
P1
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES – January 20 2015
Mr. Goode moved to approve the January 20 th minutes with the requested corrections, seconded by Ms.
Tygre. The change was noted to be made prior to finalizing the minutes. All in favor, motion carried.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Erspamer stated there is a potential for a conflict. There is an item to be discussed that may impact
his property. Mr. True stated the proposed amendment would not affect his property alone, but all
properties similarly situated so he does not feel there would be a conflict requiring recusal. They agreed
to discuss it further when the item was discussed by the commission.
Other Business – Code Amendment Check-In: Vacated Rights of Way
Ms. Garrow reviewed the Vacated Rights of Way amendment proposed by the Sky Hotel applicants. City
Council passed the amendment on the first reading January 12 th . The second reading is scheduled for
Monday, February 9 th . Ms. Garrow requested feedback regarding the impacts of the amendment and
the language in the amendment or the policy behind it.
Ms. Garrow explained in the current land use code, floor area is a function of the net lot area. As an
example of the current calculation on a 6,000 sf lot located in a zone district with a floor ration of 1:1,
the owner is allowed to build 6,000 sf. If there is a vacated right of way on the property, it is deducted
from the net lot area. This method of calculating floor area was adopted in 1975, but exempted
properties that had vacated rights of way to that point. In 1988, the City rewrote a great deal of the
code and the exemption was eliminated. The Sky Hotel applicants propose bringing back the pre-1975
exempt status in the lodge zoned district on vacated rights of way in relation to the calculation of floor
area. Ms. Garrow stated Staff was able to identify nine vacations on six properties impacted including
the Sky Hotel, Aspen Alps, St. Regis, Lift One Condominiums, Lift One Lodge and One Aspen AKA South
Aspen Street Townhome project. All the projects currently provide short term accommodations. There is
a broad range of area impacted from 500 sf of floor area to 46,000 sf of floor area. Staff recommends
support for this amendment to City Council. Staff feels it is narrow and focused and corrects something
that perhaps was not intentionally deleted in 1988. The resolution proposes to include vacated rights of
way in the floor area calculation if it occurred prior to 1975 for properties in the lodge zoned district and
directs Staff to conduct outreach with P&Z and effected property owners in their newsletter. She asked
P&Z for the questions and comments.
Mr. Gibbs asked if the original exemption only applied to properties in the lodge zone district. Ms.
Garrow stated it originally applied broadly and Staff felt limiting it to the lodge zoned district made the
most sense at this time to see how it works in an incremental approach to further understand
unintended consequences before applying it to the broader city.
Ms. Tygre asked Staff to explain more specifically how this policy connects to a dimensional
amendment. Ms. Garrow stated the clearest example is the Sky Hotel which would allow them to
restore 46,000 sf of available floor area. Without this code amendment they would not be able to come
P2
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
3
forward with the lodge they have proposed which includes new lodge rooms. This amendment would
allow the Sky Hotel to provide more and improved lodging. Other properties may take advantage of this
as well. Ms. Tygre is concerned about setting a precedent for other zoned districts to come forward and
to ask for the same opportunity. Ms. Garrow stated they limited it to ensure for now it only allows a
limited number of properties in the lodge zoned district.
Mr. True mentioned it is only vacations pre-1975 and will not include vacations after 1975. Although it
may give someone the argument to pursue post-1975 vacations but there is nothing to mandate it to
happen. Council could decide each on case by case basis.
Mr. Walterscheid wanted to confirm it would not change setbacks. Ms. Garrow confirmed this and
stated former streets and alleys that were vacated are now part of private property and the owner could
build on this area. This code amendment would allow the owner to also take advantage of the additional
floor area. Ms. Garrow added this amendment affects streets and alleys that have already been vacated
and incorporated in the property and the owners have built on them. This amendment doesn’t change
where the building can be built in terms of setbacks.
Mr. Erspamer asked if there could be an instance where an owner obtains the additional floor area, but
may not have the footprint to build it. Ms. Garrow stated each of the properties has code limitations and
many are in planned developments limiting internal floor area, external floor area and non-floor area
floor area. The code amendment doesn’t automatically give them the ability to build without applying
for a planned development amendment. Mr. True stated added it would not give anyone the right to
build in a setback.
Mr. Walterscheid asked what would be the hesitation in giving this opportunity to other zoned districts.
Ms. Garrow stated there are some potential legal ramifications with other properties and they wanted
to see how the amendment would work in a narrow instance. She said P&Z could recommend granting
this to additional zoned districts. Mr. True stated the Sky Hotel applicant had previously argued the
removal of the pre-1975 was by accident. He was not sure this was the case, but it may have
ramifications on decisions made in the past. He added the City is not sure about the ramifications of the
vacations in other zoned districts at this time.
Mr. Erspamer felt it may have negative impacts on him personally if this was allowed in other zoned
districts and would only want it amended in the scope as presented. Mr. Walterscheid feels it would
open up opportunities for land owners to increase the value of property.
Mr. McNellis questioned the decision for the limit of pre-1975 vacations. Ms. Garrow stated typically
when the City made a code amendment that had significant impact, they exempted properties up to the
date of the ordinance. Mr. McNellis understands it would be important to look at other properties pre-
1975 before expanding the scope. Ms. Garrow stated if the included all properties in the lodge zoned
district and dropped the pre-1975 restriction, it would include a lot more areas including the St. Regis
and buildings along Galena, and the Hyatt.
Ms. Garrow asked if P&Z supports what Staff has proposed on this amendment or changes to pass on to
City Council.
Mr. Erspamer asked if any properties with buildings on the vacated rights of way now are
nonconforming. Ms. Garrow stated not necessarily. If an owner wanted to take advantage of the
P3
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
4
additional floor area, they would have go through a plan review process with P&Z. Mr. Erspamer asked if
the St. Regis was passed by a citizens vote and additional buildings would have to be approved by vote.
Ms. Garrow did not feel this was accurate and any additional applications would have to go through the
planning department for approval.
Mr. True explained in 1975 there was a major rewrite of the code. It was determined at that time if a
property owner had a vacation prior to that, the property would be exempt from floor area calculations.
Vacations after 1975 would not be exempt. He doesn’t feel it would be beneficial to allow vacations
after 1975 to be included in the exemption and P&Z should presume the community was vacating a right
of ways after 1975 knowing would not count in any circumstances. The pre-1975 vacations bring up
questions of intent because it was chanted in 1988.
Mr. Gibbs recommends moving forward with the amendment but at some point in the future, the City
Council should consider the other pre-1975 vacations of right of ways other zoned districts to be fair to
all the other property owners. The original code did not specify only the lodge zoned district and he feels
it would be better to look at those situations now to understand the impact.
Ms. McNicholas agrees with Mr. Gibbs and feels we could be missing part of the interpretation of the
objective from 1988. Mr. True responded going back to the pre-1988 is a benefit to the zoned district
and part of City Council’s goals.
Mr. Erspamer felt it happened because they grandfathered them in 1975, but not in 1988.
Mr. McNellis agreed it should be examined in a broader context. Ms. Garrow stated they have a very
unclear record from 1988. The applicant provided a letter from Alan Richman, Aspen Planning Director
at the time, where he states it was never discussed and could have been an oversight.
Mr. True stated since 1988 we have interpreted the code that no vacation counts for floor area.
Ms. McNicholas asked if Staff had conducted the impacts of the code amendment as it pertains to
benefitting the public including the possibility of increased density in the short term bed base. Ms.
Garrow provided examples including the Sky Hotel which it would enable them to redevelop their
existing 90 room hotel and add another 14 rooms. Without the amendment, the might not be able to
even rebuild the 90 rooms. Other properties may only be able to increase the size on one unit and other
may be able to add two to ten lodge units.
Ms. Tygre asked if the Sky could build under the PUD. Ms. Garrow stated they could and they have
amended their proposal without their floor area variance for a variety of reasons. They are requesting a
code amendment instead of varying through the plan development process.
Mr. Walterscheid asked Mr. John Sarpa if he would like to speak.
Mr. Sarpa stated they have worked with Staff to consider the alternatives and they believe an
incremental approach is the best approach but have it equally applicable. This would allow the City to
better understand the impacts.
Ms. Tygre asked if they can build under the PUD, why is this a better way to go. Ms. Garrow stated this is
just a different way, not necessarily better. Ms. Tygre feels there are many pitfalls with this path when
P4
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
5
the applicants can build what they propose subject to approval without going through this method. She
feels it sets a weird precedent of alternative methods used that are not necessary. Given the public’s
current sentiment about variances and the potential for the variance to be bypassed by a code
amendment that the public does not get to vote on, she does not like the approach. Mr. True pointed
out the proposed charter amendment would not change this at all and the charter would allow the code
amendment.
Mr. Erspamer agrees with Ms. Tygre’s position yet he is sympathetic to their cause. He wants to know
why it’s a better for them to use this chosen method. Mr. Garrow stated they don’t have final approval
yet and their approval is contingent on passage of this code amendment. They are not requesting a
variation of their floor area through planned development. Staff has tried to narrow the impact to
reduce the consequences by stating it is pre-1975 and only in the lodge zone district. Mr. Erspamer
doesn’t feel he has enough information to support the amendment and worries about making a choice
without knowing the full consequences. Mr. True stated P&Z approved the Sky Hotel under a different
type of code amendment. Staff feels this amendment is fairer for others in the same zone district to take
advantage of similar benefits.
Mr. Goode would approve the code change for the lodges and feels it is good to set a standard instead
of an exception for one lodge. He would like to see other ways to use this.
Ms. Garrow summarized what she heard from P&Z:
a. Mixed feelings and opinions
b. Some are concerned about the impacts of amendment
c. Some are okay with the incremental approach but want to look at how it could be applied more
broadly
Other Business – Code Amendment Check-In: Small Lodges
Ms. Garrow reviewed the recent history of the lodge incentive ordinance that was passed and then
rescinded. City Council then directed Staff to conduct additional public outreach and come back with a
revised proposal. Staff conducted additional outreach in the fall 2014 and met with City Council in
December 2014 asking them to approve a new policy resolution giving them direction on lodging. This
policy resolution was approved and the first on the list was providing incentives to small lodges to help
remain operating as lodges.
Staff is asking P&Z to comment on the methodology for defining the list of 12 small lodges, the proposed
incentives and their prioritization of items in the memo. Ms. Garrow added there are budget
implications with many of the items and Staff is not sure the City would be able to implement all of
them.
Regarding the small lodge definition, Ms. Garrow stated it is difficult to come so they came up with a
definition so they defined a list of combined characteristics. To identify the list of characteristics, Staff
reviewed the following:
1. The assessor categorization including moderate and economy lodges
P5
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
6
2. The lodges in the districts with either lodge zoning or a lodge preservation overlay.
3. The lodges identified with the lodge preservation overlay which was established in the 1980’s to
assist existing lodges with updates and refurbishment incentives.
4. The self-identified moderate and economy lodges from a survey conducted in 2012 by the City
of all the lodges in town to gather information regarding existing conditions.
The list of lodges from Staff’s review is on p 17 of the agenda packet. She stated the Hotel Lenado was
originally on the list, but was pulled off because of their assessor category which is defined as deluxe
accommodations. The Chalet Lisl was initially missed from the survey, but Staff decided to add it based
on the categorization of the lodge.
She stated Staff decided they did not want to identify size as a limiting characteristic. For example, the
Mountain Chalet is quite large but was included on the list because it is a family-operated lodge and is
an economy-moderate accommodations.
She asked if P&Z had comments regarding the definition of the list.
Mr. Erspamer asked if the City was looking to preserve the lodges or tear them down and replace them
with a moderate type lodge. Ms. Garrow replied the overall goal expressed by City Council was to enable
the lodges to continue to be in operation. The incentives would primarily be to remodel the existing
structures. Ms. Garrow stated the goal may be somewhat different for each of the lodges based on
historic designations and other restrictions and abilities to expand. The Aspen Mountain Lodge may
decide to add to existing structure whereas the Snow Queen is historic and cannot be torn down. Mr.
Erspamer feels Staff is on the right track.
Mr. Goode asked if the Mountain House is slated to be demolished. Ms. Garrow stated it is potentially
identified to be demolished and they included it partly in the hope that the owner may decide to
maintain the existing structure if incentives were made available.
Mr. Goode also inquired about the Hotel Durant. He thought P&Z had approved a full remodel. Ms.
Garrow stated they did some basic interior upgrades. She stated their application was the event that
started the lodging conversation. Once they determined what their fees would be to redevelop based on
the approval, they asked City Council and the City Manager’s Office for some form of relief.
Ms. McNicholas asked if there was a requirement for the identified lodges to remain an economy lodge
if they take advantage of the incentives. Ms. Garrow stated that is one area they want to obtain
feedback from P&Z at the meeting.
Mr. Erspamer asked about the theory of changing the zoning after ten years. Once a property is zoned a
lodge, does it always have to remain a lodge. Ms. Garrow stated a change in the zoning would require a
land use review. In some cased the existing structures are too large for a single family home.
Mr. Walterscheid feels there should be a defining category with thresholds instead of a list of properties
to allow for future properties to be included in the category. Ms. Garrow feels his thought is valid, but
stated the direction provided by City Council was to preserve existing lodges.
Mr. Gibbs feels they are missing the free market residences and he has a hard time having the tax payers
fund incentives when they include significant free market components. He feels the developers should
P6
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
7
understand they can utilize the offered incentives or utilize the free market components. Ms. Garrow
stated Staff agrees with this point. She stated they plan to include a trigger for free market component
that would exclude applications from the upper tier of incentives. The other commissioners agreed with
Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Erspamer stated maybe future developments could petition to be included on the list at a later time.
In response, Mr. Walterscheid doesn’t feel the City will attract affordable lodging unless is incentives are
available.
Ms. Tygre felt it was best to keep it small and concentrate on the existing lodges initially. Mr. Goode
stated based on Ms. Tygre’s comment, he feels the Boomerang should be a candidate for the list. Ms.
Garrow stated should would review the Boomerang to determine if it could be added to the list. Ms.
Garrow asked P&Z if they would support the Boomerang being added based on the assumption it is less
than 60-ish rooms and in the assessor category is economy. The commissioners agreed they would want
it added to the list if those assumptions were verified.
Mr. Walterscheid asked about other smaller lodges located in the core at which Ms. Garrow stated they
are deluxe accommodations. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there was any desire in keeping these smaller
lodges. Ms. Garrow stated at this time, they are focusing on the moderate and economy lodging.
Ms. McNicholas asked if the categorization of the properties on the list could change over time. Ms.
Garrow stated that it is possible and noted the Molly Gibson as an example of an economy lodge moving
to moderate or even deluxe.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if they could require a property to remain moderate or economy for a 7-10 year
period or require them to pay back a portion of the fees.
Ms. Garrow reviewed the proposed amendments on p 18 of the packet. She clarified some are more
policy adaptations versus code amendments. The policy adaptations may not amend the code but they
require funding and change to administrative policies. City Council stated they do not want to see
additional height, additional floor area or a reduction in affordable housing mitigation. The first idea is
to have a small lodge ombudsman to assist the lodges navigate the City review process and assist the
lodge to determine if they need a minor remodel up to a major redevelopment. The ombudsman could
assist with the selection of a project team to fit the scale of the project and shepherding the lodge
through the process whether it be a building permit, land use process or both. The ombudsman could
also help them identify additional incentives that may be available. The lodges that may be considering a
project in the near future felt an ombudsman could be valuable.
Mr. Gibbs asked how this would be limited so the City would not be competing with the private planning
businesses. Ms. Garrow stated this person would not currently on staff and could be an outside
consultant and perhaps one of the private planners at a discounted rate.
Mr. Walterscheid felt it may create competition and a conflict of interest. Ms. Garrow stated they would
need to identify a separate, private team. She stated they may need to add language limiting the role of
the ombudsman. Mr. Gibbs felt the smaller lodges would receive the most benefit but was having
difficulty understanding the benefit to the lodges as defined. Ms. Garrow stated the ombudsman would
assist the lodge in understanding what the property could accommodate and the parameters they
would have to work within. Mr. Erspamer felt this may be helpful with the Development Review
P7
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
8
Committee (DRC). Mr. Walterscheid asked how this would be different than the current Planner of the
Day. Ms. Garrow stated Staff wants someone identified specifically for the lodges and they hope the
person would know the engineering side as well as the planning side. Ms. Garrow stated the current
level of staff could not absorb this responsibility.
Ms. Tygre feels there is a thriving private sector that could help these lodges and she doesn’t feel the
ombudsman is needed.
Mr. Erspamer feels identifying architects (#2) is a liability and feels they should do it themselves.
Ms. Garrow summarized as having mixed support but removing bullet #2.
Mr. Gibbs feels this role would be similar to a HPC project monitor.
Mr. Goode does not feel this would be a full time position at which Ms. Garrow agreed.
Mr. Erspamer asked who would pay for the person. Mr. Goode thought ultimately the taxpayers would
be responsible. Mr. Walterscheid noted current permitting fees include payment for staff time. Ms.
Garrow stated the building and planning fees subsidize long range planning efforts. The permit fees
subsidize services including planner of the day, future planning, etc.
Ms. Garrow then moved on to the topic of the express lane. She stated there are two proposed express
lanes. One for land use reviews and one for building permit reviews. There are two options for providing
express lanes. One is adding staff to process the case load or place permits already in the queue on hold
and move the small lodges to the front of the line. For the planning review, Staff recommends
expediting the small lodge reviews over the other reviews. On the building side, small lodges already
have priority over other applications. For the building permit review, Staff recommends the hiring of
subcontractors or part time staff to process the expedited review. She added this would be for permits
within the engineering and building departments which already contract out certain services and
personnel is available who already know the code and willing to take on the extra services.
Mr. Walterscheid wished in general the city departments had more staff.
Ms. Garrow next reviewed the building code assessment topic. She stated probably someone contracted
by the City would perform a walk-through of the small lodges to identify the accessibility, energy and
other building code upgrades needed. Following the assessment, a detailed report would be provided
including items in urgent need of an upgrade and items to consider updating in the next 5 years. This
report would help lodges know what to plan for in the future. This type of services costs about $0.50 per
sf. Mr. Erspamer asked if this would be required of the lodges and Ms. Garrow replied it would be
voluntary.
Ms. Garrow stated Staff proposes to create additional funding so small lodges could obtain an energy
assessment for free. Currently there is a rebate of 50% of the costs up to $1,000. Staff is recommending
a subsidy of 100% up to a $2,000. The P&Z commissioners were in favor.
Ms. Garrow stated the building permit fee reduction is the main incentive and carries the largest cost.
Staff attempted to identify the scenarios the lodges may want to address from simple face lifts to a full
redevelopment. The costs if everyone did the minor upgrades are about $150,000. If all the lodges
P8
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
9
wanted to pursue redevelopment, the costs would be about $5,000,000 to the city for building permit
fees. This does not include fees associated with sewer and water. Staff feels the overall cost to the City
would be somewhere between these two extremes. She asked if they would support a reduction in fees
for the small lodges and under what circumstances.
Mr. Erspamer asked about the hard costs and said he would be in favor of reducing the fees to assist the
small lodges.
Mr. Walterscheid wanted to know if the budget for Community Development could absorb the costs.
Ms. Garrow stated his question leads to the her next question to P&Z regarding identifying the top one
or two incentives so Staff can communicate this to City Council to discuss budgeting for them over a five
to ten year period. Ms. Garrow then asked the commission to prioritize the incentives as discussed.
Overall, the commissioners felt permit fee reductions should have the top priority.
Ms. McNicholas asked if the incentive program has a sunset. Ms. Garrow replied Staff had proposed five
to ten years. She then asked if the commissioners had a suggestion on the sunset time period. Mr.
Erspamer stated he would like it to be at least ten, maybe 20 years. Mr. Walterscheid and Ms. Tygre felt
seven to ten years would be sufficient, especially for interior projects.
Regarding the fee benefits, Ms. Garrow stated that Staff is proposing a sliding scale where smaller
projects would receive a larger fee benefit (75% reduction) and the full redevelopment project would
receive a lower fee benefit (25% reduction). She asked if P&Z agreed with this suggestion in concept.
Ms. Tygre and Mr. Walterscheid agreed. Mr. Walterscheid asked for a definition of small and large
projects at which Ms. Garrow pointed out the definitions in items 1 and 2 on p. 19.
Ms. Garrow then stated in regards to the completion of infrastructure improvements, the City would
absorb the cost of improvements in the right of way with larger benefits to the smaller projects and
smaller benefits for the larger project. Money potentially available to the lodges for infrastructure
projects would be in the form of grants and loans. Staff is proposing the grants be used for basic types of
infrastructure upgrades. Examples of grants would be carpet, energy efficient appliances, and windows.
Loans would be used for the bigger projects including new siding or a significant remodel.
Parking passes was the number one item the small lodges wanted as an incentive. They are three dollars
each and valid for seven days. The Parking Department has reported not many of the smaller lodges use
them. Staff is proposing they be offered for half the current cost.
Mr. Walterscheid, Mr. Erspamer, Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Goode stated they agreed with all except the
parking passes. Most felt the cost could be passed on to the customer for a parking pass.
Mr. Erspamer asked Staff to consider suggesting an increase in the bed tax to pay for the incentives. Mr.
Walterscheid felt there may be issues because the larger hotels who are charging more will pay more to
benefit competition.
Mr. Erspamer did state he is concerned loans will be granted by the lone discretion of Council. Mr.
Walterscheid responded there needs to be a baseline. Mr. Erspamer suggested Staff outline specifics on
the loans. Mr. True acknowledged there would be a number of issues to address. Mr. Gibbs felt there
need to be defined limits on the loans and grants. Ms. Garrow thought one way would be to base it off
the sf affected and the estimated valuation. She added use tax currently uses a similar type of formula.
P9
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
10
Mr. Walterscheid added the project would be audited and adjustments are paid when necessary at
which she agreed.
Other Business – Code Amendment Limitations on Variations to Land
Use Code Requirements
Ms. Garrow referred to the petition to add a question on the May ballot that would limit the ability to
request variation of increased height, increased floor area, decrease in parking or a decrease in
affordable housing requirements. Council asked Staff to look into a code amendment to potentially
replace the petition with the idea of adopting the code amendment prior to the election.
Ms. Garrow stated P&Z has discussed this concept before and have been generally in support of some
threshold. The idea outlined in the agenda packet outlines thresholds to vary dimensions through
planned development and then either the applicant triggers a public vote or there can’t be any more
variation beyond the established threshold. The other alternative would have variations up to ten
percent and anything over would trigger a public vote. She asked for feedback from P&Z.
Ms. Tygre feels if a set percentage is established, then everyone will come in at that number. Mr.
Walterscheid agreed with her statement. Ms. Tygre added that planned development should follow the
code and the underlying dimensions of the underlying zone district should be the baseline. As long as
the overall dimensions are within the underlying zone district, it should not be a problem. She doesn’t
feel a set percentage will work because planned developments are site specific. She stated this was how
planned unit developments were initially proposed to P&Z. This would allow for variation on the overall
design within the overall dimensions. She feels the code is in place and just needs to be enforced.
Mr. Walterscheid stated every PD application that comes before P&Z is a variance request. Ms. Tygre
added that people are not liking the results.
Ms. Tygre feels P&Z has discretion within the PD to vary the dimensions and designs within the overall
zone districts. Mr. Walterscheid asked why the underlying zone districts can’t then just dictate what is
and what is not allowed. Ms. Tygre responded the PD allows for the variation so you just don’t end up
with a box. Ms. Garrow stated there may be site specific items to consider including slope, trees and
neighbors. Ms. Garrow added on the floor area side there is an overall cap and individual caps.
Ms. Gibbs feels we could end up with very tall buildings for some of the larger projects. Ms. Tygre
responded that it would still be discretionary. Mr. Gibbs doesn’t feel he could apply that criteria and
feels set criteria should be defined and variations should not be allowed. He feels the public should
provide input to the code amendments and not to specific applications. Mr. Erspamer and Mr.
Walterscheid agreed.
Ms. Nicholas doesn’t feel there would be public support for Ms. Tygre’s option. Mr. Walterscheid
agreed.
Ms. Tygre also agreed with Mr. Gibbs but would like to see a way the PD could be what is was originally
proposed. Mr. Gibbs stated the variations in use may be more acceptable to meet the needs of the
community, but variations in height are very noticeable.
Ms. Garrow brought up the recent Aspen Club application. They requested an additional eight inches to
reroof the building above the allowed 28 ft. P&Z recommended approval to Council and under Mr.
P10
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
11
Gibb’s scenario, they would not be able to do the reroof. Mr. Gibbs stated the applicant could come to
P&Z and Council and ask for a code amendment. Ms. Garrow replied that every time one project needs a
unique item for their site, it would be processed as a code amendment. Mr. Gibbs feels there are many
times when there is more creativity in the design than what is presented in applications but he also
acknowledged applicant driven code amendments could get out of hand.
Ms. Garrow state the variations proposal is going in front of Council on the 23 rd and it would be helpful
to wrap it up at this meeting.
Mr. Erspamer motioned to continue the meeting until 7:15pm and seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor,
motion carried.
Ms. Garrow asked if reduction in parking requirements should be subject to the same parameters as
height and floor area. Currently it is allowed through special review. Mr. Walterscheid feels this may be
a reaction to the petition and feels there should be further study as to what the parking numbers should
be and address it accordingly. He is not in favor of it going to a public vote. He would prefer the public
voice their opinion to Council and recommends the City execute a PR project to educate the public. Mr.
Erspamer feels there should be a comprehensive parking plan. Ms. Tygre agrees this is a reactive
approach and should allow time to be examined in the appropriate scope and detail. Ms. McNicholas
added you don’t get good planning with the threat of a vote.
Ms. Garrow stated the final item to add to the code amendment was to designate P&Z as the board that
hears hardship variance hearings. The City does not get a lot of these types of requests but Staff feels
the P&Z is well equipped to handle them instead of the Board of Appeals which current meets
infrequently. There were no concerns voiced by P&Z on this item.
Other Business – Code Amendment Public Projects
Mr. True stated there a number of cases from the Supreme Court that state one governmental entity
cannot control the application of another governmental entity when their project is on their own land to
a great extent. The statute defines the location and extent of the review and must be done in 60 days
and if the governing body puts forth conditions or denies the approval, then the owning body can do
what they want anyway. The Home Rule Charter does not change this and the City does not have a
location and extent process currently. Staff feels the best approach is through co-op chapter including
an administrative review for governmental or quasi-governmental or City-owned projects. Staff is
recommending an administrative review for minor matters and larger proposals would go through an
advisory body that would then present to City Council. The review should take place within 60 days as
mandated by the State Supreme Court.
Ms. Garrow pointed out the review authority outlined on p 30 identifies the first tier as administrative,
second tier would go to the advisory group and the third tier would go through the full process.
Mr. True reiterated Staff is proposing the changes to align the code with state statute.
Mr. Erspamer asked if these type of projects could first go through the normal process and then the 60
day limit would then start after approval or denial. Mr. True stated the application has 60 days total to
be reviewed, not in addition to the normal review process.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if an expedited process including administrative, P&Z and then Council could be
developed. He is concerned that forming a co-op could take 60 days.
P11
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
12
Ms. Garrow noted the recommendations.
Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P12
IV.A.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Hotel Lenado (200 S. Aspen Street) – Planned Development, Resolution No. ,
Series 2015 – Public Hearing
MEETING
DATE: April 7, 2015
Due to the scope of comments received at the March 17 th public hearing, the applicant is requesting
the public hearing to be continued to May 19 th .
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation of the public hearing to May 19 th .
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to continue the Hotel Lenado application to May 19 th .”
P13
VI.A.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Hillary Seminick, Planning Technician
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
MEETING DATE: April 7, 2015
RE: 69 Shady Lane – Special Review, Resolution No.__, Series 2015
APPLICANT /O WNER :
Mustang Holdings II
REPRESENTATIVE :
Janet Leverson, Galambos Architects,
Inc.
LOCATION :
69 Shady Lane, PID # 2737-073-000-
12
CURRENT ZONING & USE
This property is located in the Low-
Density Residential (R-30) zone
district with a Planned Development
overlay. A single family home and
accessory dwelling unit is currently
being constructed on the property.
PROPOSED LAND USE :
The Applicant is proposing a
demolition and replacement of an
existing pedestrian bridge spanning the
Roaring Fork River.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends that the Planning
and Zoning Commission deny the
request outlined in Resolution No. __,
Series 2015.
Figure A: existing bridge over the Roaring Fork
P14
VI.B.
2
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning
Commission:
Special Review
Pursuant to Lane Use Code Section 26.435.040.E, variances to Stream Margin Review standards.
This application is required to undergo Stream Margin review as the proposed bridge
replacement is within the Stream Margin Review area. This heightened review has been deemed
necessary by the City of Aspen in order to reduce and prevent property loss by flood and to
ensure the natural and unimpeded flow of the river. The applicant seeks variances from the
following Stream Margin Review Standards: Section 26.435.040.C.8 and 9 to allow for the
construction of a bridge outside of the established building envelope.
The Planning and Zoning Commission will determine if the proposed development meets the
intent of the Stream Margin Review standards.
BACKGROUND:
69 Shady Lane is zoned Low-Density Residential (R-30) with a Planned Development (PD)
overlay. The nearly three acre (120,007sf) property shown in Figure B is located at the
confluence the Roaring Fork River and Hunter Creek and is entirely within the Stream Margin
Review Area. An existing pedestrian bridge connects the mainland portion of the property with
an island in the Roaring Fork River, upstream of the confluence.
Stream Margin Review applies to areas located within one hundred (100) feet, measured
horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams or
within the one-hundred-year floodplain where it extends one hundred (100) feet from the high
water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams or within a Flood Hazard Area
(stream margin). Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to
reduce and prevent property loss by flood while ensuring the natural and unimpeded flow of
watercourses. Review shall encourage development and land uses that preserve and protect
existing watercourses as important natural features.
A single family home and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is under construction in accordance
with Resolution No. 13, Series 2010. The resolution approved a top of slope and building
envelope for the property. A building envelope is established in Stream Margin Review to
provide a designated area in which all structures and development may occur.
A pedestrian bridge spans a braided channel of the Roaring Fork River, connecting the mainland
portion of the lot to an island. This bridge is located just upstream of the Hunter Creek
confluence. The age of the bridge is unknown; however, the bridge was in place prior to the
purchase of the property by the applicant. The building permit file for the property contains no
evidence of permitting for the bridge.
P15
VI.B.
3
The existing bridge is within the floodplain and within the top of slope of the river, as shown in
Figure C. Erosion of the river banks is evident around the bridge and ad-hock bank
reinforcement, including placement of concrete and boulders below the top of slope, shown in
Figures E and F, has occurred over the years.
Figure B: Vicinity Map
P16
VI.B.
4
Fi
g
u
r
e
C
,
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
r
i
d
g
e
P
l
a
n
,
n
o
t
t
o
s
c
a
l
e
P17
VI.B.
5
Figure D, View upstream/east towards the existing structure. The mainland is to looker’s left and the island to
the right. The steel support will be cut off during bridge demolition and the concrete pad will remain to prevent
further disturbance of the channel.
Figure E, Looking downstream towards the structure and the island. The bank has been reinforced on the
island bank, below the top of slope, just upstream of the bridge.
P18
VI.B.
6
Figure F, Close-up of concrete and boulder reinforcement noted in Figure X.
Figure G, Looking downstream towards existing bridge; the island is in the center of the photo and the
mainland is to the right. Damming has occurred just upstream of the bridge.
P19
VI.B.
7
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes to replace the existing bridge with an arched, single-span pedestrian
bridge, shown in Figures H and I. The existing bridge deck, or walking surface, is within the 100
year FEMA floodplain and modeled base flood elevation. Additionally, a single pier is within the
channel of the Roaring Fork River.
The proposed design of the new bridge would be an arched, single-span structure 57.5 feet in
length. The base of the replacement bridge deck (walkway) would be 2.13’ above the base flood
elevation at its highest point and the clearance would be reduced to zero at both banks. The
existing pier would be removed at the concrete pad, shown in Figure D. The concrete pad would
not be removed to prevent further disturbance. The concrete and boulder bank reinforcement
placed over the years on the island side of the bank, shown in Figures E and F, would not be
removed.
P20
VI.B.
8
Fi
g
u
r
e
H
,
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
r
i
d
g
e
P
l
a
n
,
n
o
t
t
o
s
c
a
l
e
P21
VI.B.
9
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
,
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
r
i
d
g
e
(
G
r
e
y
)
,
T
o
p
o
f
s
lo
p
e
(
r
e
d
)
,
t
o
p
o
f
s
l
o
p
e
1
5
’
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
“
n
o
t
o
u
c
h
”
(
o
r
a
ng
e
)
,
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
be
l
o
w
1
5
’
t
o
p
o
f
s
l
o
p
e
(
b
l
u
e
)
P22
VI.B.
10
Stream Margin Review, Section 26.435.040.
According to section 26.435.040 Stream Margin Review of the Land Use Code, all development
must be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the top of slope or the high water line, whichever is
more restrictive. For this proposal, 15’ top of slope setback is the most restrictive line. The
proposed bridge replacement is within the 15’ top of slope setback and within the top of slope
line as shown in Figure I. There are eleven (11) review criteria associated with Stream Margin
Review, and two (2) associated with Section 26.435.040.E, Special Review pursuant to Stream
Margin Review. Staff findings for the aforementioned review criteria are summarized below and
full responses are in Exhibit A. Additionally, the application was referred to both the
Engineering and Parks Departments for review and comment. A narrative of the referral agency
comments are below and full comments are in Exhibit B.
Staff Comments
The applicant is seeking a variance from five review criteria, 26.435.040.C.1-3 and 8 - 9 to
reconstruct an existing pedestrian bridge. Criteria 1 does not allow for the base flood area to be
impacted by a structure. Criteria 2 requests a fisherman’s easement be established on the
property. Criteria 3 prohibits vegetation removal or slope changes outside a building envelope.
Criteria 8 does not permit development other than City-approved native vegetation planting
below the top of slope or within 15’ of the top of slope. Criteria 9 does not allow for
development outside the 15’ setback from the top of slope to exceed a height delineated from a
line drawn at 45 degrees (also known as the progressive height restriction) as shown in the figure
below.
The replacement of the structure would be outside the building envelope. The review criteria
states no structures are permitted beyond the building envelope. Additionally, limits of
disturbance, as shown in Figure I, are beyond the established, recorded building envelope. The
applicant is requesting to replace an existing bridge that is below the top of slope. The property
has a designated building envelope that all improvements and disturbances. The bridge is not
within the building envelope. The bridge is outside of the progressive height limit area that is
intended to protect the viewshed from the Roaring Fork River.
The application initially requested a variation from the review criteria standard that does not
allow lighting to be directed towards the river to allow for lights to be downcast from the bridge
into the Roaring Fork River. This request has since been withdrawn.
P23
VI.B.
11
A fisherman’s easement was recommended in Resolution 13, Series 2010. An easement
associated with this approval has not been established nor has an easement been proposed as part
of this application. The applicant does not wish to pursue a fisherman’s easement.
The proposed development is not considered to pollute nor contribute a significant amount of
sediment discharge to the river. The applicant has not requested a new top of slope
determination. The watercourse will not be altered as a result of the bridge replacement. A letter
of notification will be provided to the Army Corps of Engineers if the bridge replacement project
is approved. Staff recommends as a condition of approval the notification letter, and any
applicable permits, be submitted prior to building permit approval.
Referral Agency Comments
Engineering Department
The bridge is located within the stream margin and within the floodplain. Bridge replacement
will impact the water course, river bank, riparian zone, and wetland areas. Construction in this
area goes against the City’s stance to protect the Roaring Fork River by limiting impacts to the
surrounding area.
That being said, the existing bridge does not meet floodplain standards. In a 100 year storm event
the bridge would most likely break apart and become debris in the flooded waterway. Debris
carried in a flood event is hazardous to structures downstream. An updated bridge with an
effective design will still induce flood hazards.
Since the existing bridge and proposed bridge is located entirely within the stream margin,
Engineering’s recommendation is to remove the existing bridge and restore the area to its natural
condition.
Parks Department
The Parks Department supports revegetation below the top of slope and the 15’ top of slope
setback area provided approved seed mix and planting guidelines are implemented with no
machinery. Parks does not support the use of a backhoe or machinery in the top of slope or 15’
top of slope setback area nor use of said machinery outside the building envelope. If the project
were to move forward, Parks would like to see a breakaway bridge that is anchored on one side
to allow for peak flows without washing downstream. The Parks department recently constructed
a public bridge on Hunter Creek with this design feature. Additionally, Parks is concerned with
further degradation of the riverbanks.
Summary
The proposed project does not meet the following review criteria of Section 26.435.040.C.,
Stream Margin Review Criteria: 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9. Additionally, the project does not meet the
intent of Sections 26.435.040.C8 and 9 which the applicant seeks variances from to allow for
construction of a new bridge. The project is also lacks support from the Engineering Department
because it is located within the stream margin and the floodplain. Parks supports a revegetation
plan subject to City approval.
P24
VI.B.
12
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the Applicant’s request for a
variance from the Stream Margin Review Criteria.
RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends that the
Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for variance from Stream Margin Review.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend
denial for the request, they may use this motion “I move to make a recommendation to deny the
requests for variation from Stream Margin Review at 69 Shady Lane.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Stream Margin – Review Criteria
Exhibit B – Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C – Application
Exhibit D – Supplemental Letter (s)
Exhibit E - Revised Existing and Proposed Bridge Drawings
Exhibit F – Recorded Plat
Exhibit G – Public Notice
Exhibit H - Resolution No. 13, Series 2010
P25
VI.B.
Page 1 of 2
P&Z Resolution No. __ (2015)
RESOLUTION N0. __
(SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION DENYING STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AT THE PROPERTY
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 69 SHADY LANE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2737-073-000-12
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Mustang Holdings II, represented by Galambos Architects, a request for a Special
Review from variances from Stream Margin Review at 69 Shady Lane; and
WHEREAS, the subject property established a building envelope in Planning
and Zoning Commission Resolution 13, Series 2010; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission for to allow for the replacement of an existing pedestrian bridge over the
Roaring Fork River located outside the building envelope; and,
WHEREAS, the property is located at 69 Shady Lane and is currently zoned
Low-Density Residential (R-30); and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department found that the review criteria included in
Exhibits A of the Staff memo are not met and recommended denial of the project; and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Stream Margin Review
The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the Stream Margin review criteria are
not met, specifically review criteria 26.435.040.C.1 – C.3 and , , 26.435.040.C.8 – C.9,
and therefore deny the requested variances from the Stream Margin Review Criteria; and
Section 2:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
DENIED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 7th day of
April, 2015.
P26
VI.B.
Page 2 of 2
P&Z Resolution No. __ (2015)
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
__________________________ ______________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Walterscheid, Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
P27
VI.B.
Sec. 26.435.040. Stream margin review.
E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review
standards or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be processed
as a special review in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in
Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has
been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with
conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria:
1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different
determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream
Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City
Engineering Department; and
The applicant has not provided a new determination for the top of slope established by
Resolution No. 13, Series 2010 and recorded at Reception No. 573126. Additionally, a
survey has not been provided for the top of slope located on the island. Staff finds this
criterion not met.
2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the
Community Development Director had based the finding of denial.
The proposed development does not meet the following review criteria of Section
26.435.040.C., Stream Margin Review Criteria: 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9. Staff finds this
criterion not met as noted below.
C. Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream
margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood
Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for
development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a
professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood
elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques
on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the
development; and
A flood hazard report was prepared by Sopris Engineering analyzing the impacts of the
existing and proposed pedestrian bridges on the 100 year FEMA floodplain. The existing
bridge is within the 100 year FEMA floodplain. The proposed bridge would be 2.13’
above the 100 year floodplain at its highest point; however, either end of the bridge is
within the floodplain. The base flood elevation for the existing bridge was not included in
P28
VI.B.
the 1985 FEMA flood insurance study. Because the data is 29 years old, an updated
study was conducted in 2014. The food analysis did not include the existing bridge. The
Engineering Department commented that an updated bridge with an effective design
will still induce flood hazards. Additionally, the existing bridge would likely break apart
in a 100 year flood event and the resulting debris would create hazards to structures
downstream. Staff finds this criterion not met.
2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open
Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the
proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic
public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A
fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of
the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and
Resolution 13, Series 2010 approved a Special Review for a Stream Margin Review to
redevelop the lot at 69 Shady Lane. Section 3 of the Resolution included a condition that
encouraged the applicant to provide a Fisherman’s’ Easement along the watercourses
within this property. At this time, an Easement for the 2010 approval has not been
established. An easement has not been proposed as a part of this application . A
fisherman’s easement cannot be required as a condition of approval. Staff finds this
criterion not met.
3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made
outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be
designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said
envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F.1; and
The building envelope for the subject property was established by Resolution 13, Series
2010. The building envelope was recorded on August 30, 2010, Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder, Reception No. 573126 (Exhibit H). The recorded building envelope does not
include the area where proposed bridge is located. The applicant is not proposing a
building envelope amendment to include the structure, the revegetation area, nor the
proposed riparian restoration area. The project proposes removal of the existing bridge
and construction of a replacement bridge outside the building envelope. Additionally,
the limits of disturbance, as shown in Figure I of the Staff Memo; are outside the
building envelope. Staff finds this criterion not met.
4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the
river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during
construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to
prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside
of the designated building envelope; and
Demolition of the bridge will result in a small amount of sediment discharge to the river.
Best management practices will be included in the construction management plan (CMP)
to reduce sediment discharge and erosion impacts during construction. The CMP will be
P29
VI.B.
approved by the Engineering and Parks Department prior to building permit approval.
No pools or hot tubs are proposed. Staff finds this criterion met.
5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration
or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency; and
No alternation of the watercourse is proposed; therefore written notice to the Colorado
Water Conservation Board and copies to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
are not required. Staff finds this criterion met.
5. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to
the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying
capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and
The construction management plan proposes using a crane to construct the bridge and
the bridge replacement will not alter nor relocate the Roaring Fork River. Staff finds
this criterion met.
7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the
100-year flood plain; and
The applicant represents that the project will not impact any non-jurisdictional wetlands
or waters nor any jurisdictional Wetlands or Waters of the US. The applicant states that
Beach Resource Management will provide a letter of notification to the US Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps), Sacramento District, Grand Junction Field Office, prior to
initiating any work over the Roaring Fork River. Staff recommends a condition of
approval that t he applicant provide copies of the Corps notification letter, and any
applicable permits, prior to building permit approval. Staff finds this criterion met.
8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place
below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline,
whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation
and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside
of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as
approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development
applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork
River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community
Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and
The application requests to replace an existing bridge that is below the top of slope and
replace it with a bridge within the top of slope. This property has a designated building
envelope to contain disturbances – the bridge is located outside of the defined envelope.
Staff finds this criterion not met.
P30
VI.B.
9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not
exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground
level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community
Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and
method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and
The proposed bridge development is within the top of slope. The progressive height
restriction applies to development that is beyond the 15’ setback because the Code does
not allow for development within the top of slope nor the 15’ setback. The applicant did
not provide a bridge profile depicting the 45 degree progressive height limit because the
bridge is not within this height-restricted area. The intent of this criterion is to reduce
visual impacts from the river and the proposed bridge will be fully visible to those
recreating on the river. Staff finds this criterion not met.
10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or
located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting
plan will be submitted with all development applications; and
The applicant had proposed downcast lighting into the river; however, due to lack of
support from the Engineering, Parks and the Community Development Department(s);
this variation request has been withdrawn. Staff finds this criterion met.
11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones.
The applicant has provided a wetland delineation report and identified wetlands in
Exhibit C and E. A riparian restoration area has been identified in Exhibit C and is
highlighted in the Staff Memo. Staff finds this criterion met.
P31
VI.B.
Memorandum
From: Hailey Guglielmo, EIT
Civil Engineer I
City of Aspen Engineering Department
To: Hillary Seminick
Planner Technician
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
Date: March 30, 2015
RE: 69 Shady Lane
The bridge is located within the stream margin and within the floodplain. Bridge replacement will impact
the water course, river bank, riparian zone, and wetland areas. Construction in this area goes against the
City’s stance to protect the Roaring Fork River by limiting impacts to the surrounding area.
That being said, the existing non-conforming bridge does not meet floodplain standards. In a 100 year
storm event the bridge would most likely break apart and become debris in the flooded waterway. Debris
carried in a flood event is hazardous to structures downstream. An updated bridge with an effective
design will still induce flood hazards.
Since the existing bridge and proposed bridge is located entirely within the stream margin, Engineering’s
recommendation is to remove the existing bridge and restore the area to its natural condition.
P32
VI.B.
Parks Department Comments, April 1, 2015
1. There are concerns regarding the potential degradation of the island side abutment area. There has
been historical scouring of the bank and we must assume that there will be in the future. (The
Parks Department recently built a bridge just upstream on Hunter Creek and it may be a good
example to follow if this project moves forward).
2. As long as the approved seed mix and plantings guidelines are used in the Top of Slope and 15’
setback area, Parks has no objections( Please advise the applicants that all plantings and any work
done in these areas must be done by hand – NO MACHINERY).
3. We would like to discuss the “Breakaway Bridge” idea…. We used the incorrect term to describe
this bridge. It is actually anchored on one side so that if it does come loose in high water, it stays
put, rather than float away downstream to cause damage.
4. We would not be supportive of a much larger bridge, however moving it further away from the
Top of Slope area would seem prudent.
5. As far as the use of a backhoe or machinery on the island, I thought that was not allowed in the
Top of Slope and 15’Setback area.
P33
VI.B.
P34
VI.B.
P35
VI.B.
P36
VI.B.
P37
VI.B.
P38
VI.B.
P39
VI.B.
P40
VI.B.
P41
VI.B.
P42
VI.B.
P43
VI.B.
P44
VI.B.
P45
VI.B.
P46
VI.B.
P47
VI.B.
P48
VI.B.
P49
VI.B.
P50
VI.B.
P51
VI.B.
P52
VI.B.
P
5
3
V
I
.
B
.
P
5
4
V
I
.
B
.
P55
VI.B.
P56
VI.B.
P57
VI.B.
P58
VI.B.
P59
VI.B.
P60
VI.B.
P
6
1
V
I
.
B
.
P
6
2
V
I
.
B
.
P
6
3
V
I
.
B
.
P
6
4
V
I
.
B
.
P
6
5
V
I
.
B
.
P66
VI.B.
P67
VI.B.
P68
VI.B.
P69
VI.B.
P70
VI.B.
P71
VI.B.
P72
VI.B.
P73
VI.B.
P
7
4
V
I
.
B
.
P
7
5
V
I
.
B
.
P76
VI.B.
P77
VI.B.
P78
VI.B.
P79
VI.B.
P80
VI.B.
P81
VI.B.
P82
VI.B.
P83
VI.B.
P84
VI.B.
P85
VI.B.
P86
VI.B.
P87
VI.B.
P88
VI.B.
P89
VI.B.
P90
VI.B.
P91
VI.B.
P92
VI.B.
Memorandum
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704 -0311 • Fax (970) 704 -0313
S OPRIS E NGINEERING • LLC civi l consultants
To: Janet Leverson
Galambos Architects
jleverson@galambosarchitects.net
From: Yancy Nichol / John Petaisto
Date: March 27, 2015
RE: 69 Shady Lane (11057.03) - Response to COA Technical Review comments on the Pedestrian
Bridge Special Review.
This memo responds to the technical review comments received for the Special Review of the proposed
pedestrian bridge at 69 Shady Lane. The comments received include:
March 11, 2015 email from David Radeck, COA Parks to Hillary Seminick , COA Planner. This email
was forwarded to you on March 16, 2015.
March 20, 2015 email from Hillary Seminick to you, which included a pdf with the COA
Engineering department comments.
The emailed comments from David Radeck that are applicable to the Civil Plans are included below. The
redline comments on the pdf from the Engineering Department are summarized below. The SE response
follows in bold font.
COA Parks – David Radeck comments
1. A breakaway system should be included in the design of the bridge in case of failure due to
flooding. (Parks incorporated this into the new bridge upstream on Hunter Creek)
The entire bridge structure is above the 100 year floodplain. A breakaway system is not
necessary, and is not recommended as good engineering practice. Structures that break
away become flood hazards downstream.
4. Abutment placement is within the Top of Slope area and a variance has been requested, however,
code states that this not be allowed.
The special review is requesting replacement of an existing bridge in the top of slope area
onsite. This allows consideration of a variance from the code standard.
5. Wetland areas need to be clearly marked and any planting in this area must be cleared by the City
Forester.
Noted. No planting or disturbance is proposed within the wetland. The contractor will
install fencing to protect and ensure no access or encroachment into the wetland area.
8. Island bank has scour issues where the bridge currently sits and may need some fortification. (This
may solicit the Army Corps of Engineers involvement.)
The proposed bridge abutment has been designed to withstand the river flows. This will
provide the bank fortification necessary. The wetlands consultant has recommended
against further island bank disturbance. If additional fortification is still deemed necessary
upstream of the bridge, the applicant will determine a solution and determine if a Army
Corp permitting is necessary.
P93
VI.B.
11057-SE Memo-COA Bridge Review Comments 03-27-2015.doc
Page 2
502 Main Str eet • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704 -0311 • Fax (970) 704 -0313
S OPRIS E NGINEERING • LLC civil consultants
COA Engineering – pdf comments
Pg 6 – Stream Margin Review – VI.F - “It is possible to inadvertently alter the river with
construction equipment. Equipment includes a crane and mini excavator. While not intentional,
any alteration of the water course will need to be corrected and a guarantee should be in place.”
o The applicant will work with the engineering department to provide the guarantee
necessary. The CMP describes the protection measures necessary in this sensitive area. The
contractor will take all precautions and care in the bridge construction. Any work will occur
well outside of spring high flow periods. The contractor will protect employees and
equipment by removing equipment if a flood event is foreseen. Materials and equipment
will be transferred by crane.
Pg 32 – L3.0 Plan Review- “A restoration plan should include the area with concrete bank
reinforcement.”
o The wetlands consultant has recommended that the concrete remain in place to avoid
further island bank disturbance. The concrete has been in place for a long period of time
and appears stable. If restoration is still deemed necessary, the applicant's Wetlands
Consultant and Landscape Architect will determine a solution, and will submit the plan for
approval to the COA.
Pg 41 – Figure 3: Ex Bridge Plan Review- “Show top of bank delineation.”
o The top of bank has been added to Figure 3 and will be included in the permit submittal.
Pg 42 – Figure 4: Proposed Bridge Plan Review
o “Show top of bank delineation.”
▪ The top of bank has been added to Figure 4 and will be included in the permit submittal.
The top of bank will be clearly delineated in the field prior to construction.
o "How is flagging the wetlands boundary going to protect the wetland area? Provide stronger
plan of action to protect the area."
▪ The flagging shown on plan is the surveyed location from the wetlands consultant's
delineation. Prior to construction the wetlands consultant will confirm the extent of the
wetlands. The contractor will then install fencing to protect and ensure no access or
encroachment.
o " Analyze the stability of this reinforced bank. Consider the benefits and harm to the area to
redesign and restore this area."
▪ The wetlands consultant has recommended that the concrete remain in place to avoid
further island bank disturbance. The concrete has been in place for a long period of time
and appears stable. If restoration is still deemed necessary, the applicant's Wetlands
Consultant and Landscape Architect will determine a solution, and will submit the plan
for approval to the COA.
o "Show high water mark."
▪ The high water mark has been added to Figure 4 and will be included in the permit
submittal.
o "Show existing concrete pad that will remain. "
▪ The concrete pad has been added to Figure 4 and will be included in the permit
submittal.
P94
VI.B.
11057-SE Memo-COA Bridge Review Comments 03-27-2015.doc
Page 3
502 Main Str eet • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704 -0311 • Fax (970) 704 -0313
S OPRIS E NGINEERING • LLC civil consultants
Pg 47 – SE CMP Narrative, 4.3: Sequencing of Construction:
o “Staking wetland extent will be pivotal and closely inspected.”
▪ The flagging shown on plan is the surveyed location from the wetlands consultant's
delineation. Prior to construction the wetlands consultant will confirm the extent of the
wetlands. The contractor will then install fencing to protect and ensure no access or
encroachment.
o “Where will the crane be set up? The crane shall not influence the 15' top of bank no touch
set back.”
▪ The crane will be set up within the hatched area shown on the CMP plan. This area is a
native grass area, and any disturbance will be re-vegetated with native vegetation per
the landscape plan. The crane will be set up and removed only during dry periods. We
will discuss load spreading and surface protection methods to minimize the disturbance
with the contractor. This will be included in the CMP prepared for permit submittal.
▪ If possible, the crane will be set up outside of the 15' top of bank no touch set back. For
crane sizing and setup however, the closer the crane is to the construction location, the
smaller the crane setup footprint can be. The crane set up location also needs to
consider the proximity of native vegetation and the building onsite.
▪ We have read through the stream margin review standards regarding the 15' no touch
setback. A crane setup is temporary and will not involve any grading changes. Because
the bridge improvement is also within the 15' setback, it is our opinion that if a a
temporary crane setup is needed within the 15' setback, this is appropriate to facilitate
the bridge installation.
o “Ensure no impact to wetlands from foot traffic or a temporary bridge. Explain how access will
be achieved with wetlands fenced off.”
▪ The wetlands consultant will confirm the access route to ensure no wetlands impact.
With the existing bridge removed, there is access to the river over existing boulders.
Based on our site inspection, we expect that there are additional gaps in the existing
wetland areas, which will allow for foot traffic to the island.
Pg 48 – SE CMP Narrative, 5.4: Staging Areas:
o “All stock piles must be placed outside of the floodplain. It is prohibited to store movable
materials within the floodplain. Stockpiles must also be outside of the 15' top of slope no-
touch setback."
▪ No stock piles will be within the floodplain or 15' top of slope setback. The CMP
narrative has been revised and will be included for permit submittal.
Pg 49 – SE CMP Narrative, 8.1: Erosion Control Requirements:
o BMPs shall ensure sediment does not leave the construction site and extra care shall be taken
with BMPs to ensure sediment does not enter the river.
▪ This text has been added to section 8.1 of the CMP that will be submitted for the permit
submittal.
Pg 50 – SE CMP Narrative, 9.1: Fugitive Dust Control Plan:
o Tunnel and building??
P95
VI.B.
11057-SE Memo-COA Bridge Review Comments 03-27-2015.doc
Page 4
502 Main Str eet • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704 -0311 • Fax (970) 704 -0313
S OPRIS E NGINEERING • LLC civil consultants
▪ The erroneous text in this CMP section stating 'inside the tunnel and building' has been
removed. The amended text states; 'FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN: The contractor
shall use water or other BMP’s as necessary and appropriate, to control and minimize
the dust from the bridge construction.'
Please call or email with any questions or if you need additional information.
P96
VI.B.
P97
VI.B.
B
R
I
D
G
E
C
L
P
R
O
F
I
L
E
7820 7830
7
8
2
0
7
8
3
0
5
4
.
4
0
'
0+00 7829.47829.38
7829.6
7829.61
0
+
5
0
7823.4
7823.44
7826.7
7826.65
0
+
9
4
7829.6
7829.59
I
S
L
A
N
D
S
I
D
E
y
͘
t
d
Z
>
s
>
с
ϳ
ϴ
Ϯ
ϱ
͘
Ϭ
ϱ
ц
(
0
5
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
4
S
U
R
V
E
Y
)
W
E
T
L
A
N
D
S
E
X
T
E
N
T
E
X
.
R
I
V
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
(
0
5
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
4
S
U
R
V
E
Y
)
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
T
E
E
L
C
O
L
U
M
N
T
O
B
E
R
E
M
O
V
E
D
W
E
T
L
A
N
D
S
E
X
T
E
N
T
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
R
I
D
G
E
,
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
C
A
L
E
:
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L
A
N
D
V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L
:
1
"
=
1
0
'
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
A
D
F
O
O
T
I
N
G
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
T
O
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
W
E
T
L
A
N
D
/
R
I
P
A
R
I
A
N
A
R
E
A
E
X
1
0
0
-
Y
R
F
L
O
O
D
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
(
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
E
X
B
R
I
D
G
E
)
E
L
E
V
=
7
8
3
0
.
2
0
ISLAND
T
O
H
O
U
S
E
100 YEAR FLOW DEPTH < 1'цKE/^>E
S
H
A
L
L
O
W
F
L
O
W
W
d
,
ф
Ϭ
͘
ϳ
Ϭ
Ζ
ц
H
I
G
H
W
A
T
E
R
L
I
N
E
P
E
R
H
C
E
S
U
R
V
E
Y
.
OPRIS ES NGINEERING, LLC.
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
EXISTING BRIDGE PLAN & PROFILE
69 SHADY LANE-PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
FLOOD STUDY EXHIBITS
J
O
B
N
O
.
1
1
0
5
7
F
I
G
U
R
E
3
D
A
T
E
:
0
9
-
1
9
-
1
4
NO.REVISION BY DATE
502 MAIN STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 704-0311
FAX: (970)-704-0313
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
C
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
1
0
'
WF#11SB#7 WETLANDS FLAG/DE
S
I
G
N
A
T
I
O
N
#
WETLANDS SOIL BO
R
E
/
D
E
S
I
G
N
A
T
I
O
N
#
WETLANDS/FLAGGE
D
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
WETLANDS LEGENDWETLANDS/RIVER A
R
E
A
1 COA SPECIAL REVIEW JPP 03-27-15
P98
V
I
.
B
.
OPRIS ES NGINEERING, LLC.
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
PROPOSED BRIDGE PLAN & PROFILE
69 SHADY LANE-PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
FLOOD STUDY EXHIBITS
J
O
B
N
O
.
1
1
0
5
7
F
I
G
U
R
E
4
D
A
T
E
:
0
9
-
1
9
-
1
4
NO.REVISION BY DATE
502 MAIN STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 704-0311
FAX: (970)-704-0313
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
C
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
1
0
'
WF#11SB#7 WETLANDS FLAG/
D
E
S
I
G
N
A
T
I
O
N
#
WETLANDS SOIL B
O
R
E
/
D
E
S
I
G
N
A
T
I
O
N
#
WETLANDS/FLAGG
E
D
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
WETLANDS LEGENDWETLANDS/RIVER
A
R
E
A
1 COA SPECIAL REVIEW JPP 03-27-15
P99
V
I
.
B
.
P100
VI.B.
P101
VI.B.
P102
VI.B.
P103
VI.B.
P104
VI.B.
RECEPTION#: 572119, 07122!2010 at
10:15:22 AM,
1 of 4, R $26.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
RESOLUTION N0. 13
SERIES OF 2010)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A SPECIAL REVIEW STREAM MARGIN REVIEW FOR 69 SHADY
LANE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
PARCEL ID: 2735-073-00-012
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the
owners of 69 Shady Lane -Jack Rowland, Fleeta Baldwin, Jill Boyd, and Roine St. Andre,
owners as tenants in common. The application has been authorized for submission by Jack
Rowland, Fleeta Baldwin, and Jill Boyd, representing a majority of the property ownership; and,
WHEREAS, the property is located at the confluence of the Roaring Fork River and
Hunter Creek and is subject to the City's regulations on stream margin development; and,
WHEREAS, the City's mapping for top-of--slope excludes this property entirely from
that area where development can occur and the applicant has submitted an appeal of the
determination as permitted in Section 26.435.040 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the property is also affected by the floodplain and the floodway designation
as depicted on the Flood Insurance Rate Map and interpreted and enforced by the City Engineer
in her official capacity as the City's Floodplain Administrator; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing continued from May 18, 2010 to and
held on June 15, 2010, upon review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community
Development Department, presentation from the applicant, public testimony, and discussion and
consideration of the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Stream Mazgin
Special Review, by a six to zero (6-0) vote, with the allowances and limitations as outlined in
this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Apuroval of Stream Mar¢in Review
The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Stream Margin Special Review with
the following conditions:
1. A Stream Mazgin map for this property shall be prepazed by the applicant for approval by
the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The map shall describe
and depict a development boundary based on the more restrictive of the Floodway and the
top-of-slope. The map shall also indicate and tabulate all areas of the property above and
below the high water line, those azeas affected by steep slopes, and those azeas affected
P&Z Reso No. 13, Series of 2010
Page 1 P105
VI.B.
by right-of--way or access easements, including potential proscriptive easements. This
map shall be attached to and recorded along with this Resolution. A 24" x 36" copy of
the map shall also be retained in the planning file and the building address file.
2. All development within the development boundary shall be setback at least fifteen (15)
feet from the top-of-slope. In addition, any development within the development
boundary and within thirty (30) feet of the top-of--slope shall be subject to both aforty-
five degree (45°) progressive height limit from the top-of--slope and the height limitations
of the zone district.
3. Development between the development boundary and the top-of--slope shall be limited to
those types of development allowed within property setbacks as defined in the Land Use
Code and the height limitations described above, provided such development is also
consistent with floodplain and floodway restrictions.
4. Development on the river-side of this development boundary shall be limited to at-grade
type work which will not raise the base flood elevation and which is secured to the
ground and cannot enter a flood event. Any development activity including landscaping
shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director and the City
Engineer.
5. A riparian restoration plan approved by the City of Aspen Pazks Department shall be
required prior to acceptance of a building permit application for this property. The
restoration plan shall require implementation of the restoration prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy. Remodeling or other similazly limited development activity, as
determined by the Community Development Director, shall not trigger this restoration
requirement.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit for redevelopment of this property, the well and
irrigation pump shall be vacated and all water rights shall be assigned to the City of
Aspen. The property shall be connected to the City of Aspen water system. Remodeling
or other similarly limited development activity, as determined by the Community
Development Director, shall not trigger this well abandonment requirement.
Section 2: Lot Area
The effective Lot Area of the subject property for purposes of calculating allowable Floor Area
FAR) is as follows:
Lot Size: 120,007.8 sf
Area below High Water Line (HWL): - 18,751.0 sf
Sub-total 101,256.8 sf
Shady Lane prescriptive easement: - 288.0 sf
Sub-total 100,968.8 sf
2 Area above HWL and with 20-30% slope: - 1,247.5 sf
Sub-total 99,721.3 sf
P&Z Reso No. 13, Series of 2010
Page 2 P106
VI.B.
Area above HWL and with > 30% slope: - 2.035.0 sf
TOTAL LOT AREA for calculating FAR: 97,686.3 sf
The Lot Area for purposes of determining allowable density (no slope area reductions) is
100,968.8 s.f.
The Floor Area for the pazcel shall be according to the zoning for the parcel and the Land Use
Code in effect at the time of building permit submission.
Section 3: Fishine Easement
The Planning and Zoning Commission encourages the applicant to provide a Fisherman's
Easement along the watercourses within this property. The applicant is encouraged to discuss
with the City of Aspen Pazks Department ideas that may facilitate such a grant of easement such
as labor or design assistance with the riparian restoration plan.
Section 4: Vested ltiehts
This approval shall be valid for the greater of the three-yeaz period of statutory vested rights, as
more precisely defined in the Development Order issued by the Community Development
Department, or until the City's Stream Margin regulations aze amended. The period of statutory
vested rights may be extended pursuant to Chapter 26.308 of the Land Use Code. Until said
time, development on this property in compliance with this resolution may proceed to building
permit as allowed herein. After said timeframe, this approval shall be subject to any revised
provisions of the Land Use Code and may, based on a determination by the Community
Development Director, be subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Section 5:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
Section 6•
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 7•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
P&Z Reso No. 13, Series of 2010
Page 3 P107
VI.B.
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 15w day of
June, 2010.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jim True, Special Counsel
ATTEST:
O
clde Lothian, Deputy City
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Stan Gibbs, Chairman
P&Z Reso No. 13, Series of 2010
Page 4 P108
VI.B.
Residential employment study – page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Work Session: Single-Family and Duplex Employee Generation Study
DATE: April 7, 2015
SUMMARY :
The City Council will be considering a series of policy questions regarding affordable housing
mitigation for residential construction. Staff is seeking input from the Commission
BACKGROUND :
The City requires the redevelopment (“scrape-and-replace”) of single-family and duplex properties
to provide affordable housing mitigation. The requirement was established in 1990 and uses an
employment generation factor of one employee per 3,000 square feet of residential floor area.
Standard practice suggests impact fee studies be renewed every 5-10 years. This impact fee
requirement has not been analyzed or updated since its inception, 25 years ago.
Determining the employees generated from the construction and operation of residences is a highly
technical exercise. The City contracted with RRC Associates of Boulder, Colorado. RRC
specializes in these technical planning studies and is very familiar with
Aspen and other mountain resorts. Employment needs for construction
were derived from government and private sector data correlating valuation
and labor reports. RRC also interviewed several local contractors in-depth
regarding specific recent projects and their exact labor needs. Ongoing
employment needs for homes were derived from a comprehensive survey
sent to all residents and in-depth interviews with property managers
regarding specific properties.
RRC’s analysis suggests a home of 3,000 square feet of floor area
generates .445 employees, accounting for both the initial construction and
ongoing operations. (Please see chart). This is less than the 1990 standard
of one employee. Using today’s cash-in-lieu figures, the affordable
housing mitigation requirement for home construction is $79.97 per square
foot of floor area. This is assessed at building permit and, like all other
impact fees, is only assessed on net new floor area. Using the RRC study,
this requirement becomes $35.59 per square foot of floor area.
Link to Report:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Po
rtals/0/docs/Residential%20E
mployee%20Generation%20St
udy%203-4-2015.pdf
P109
VII.A.
Residential employment study – page 2
Estimated Employment Generation Associated with Free-Market Residential Units, by Unit Type
Notes:
• Operations and maintenance employment excludes “owner FTE labor,” i.e. labor contributed by the owner and
household members to unit upkeep.
• Results exclude employment associated with personal service employees who travel with the household. The
results do not deduct for other types of employees (such as caretakers) who may be housed by the owner.
• Operations and maintenance employment for single family/duplex units larger than 7,000 sqft may be assumed
to grow by 0.128 employees for every 500 square feet in excess of 7,000 sqft. Operations and maintenance
employment for condominium/townhome units larger than 3,500 sqft may be assumed to grow additional 0.041
employees for each 500 square foot increment in excess of 3,500 sqft. Construction employment is assumed to
grow linearly beyond 7,000 sqft, at 0.110 employees per 1,000 sqft for single family/duplex units, and 0.096
employees per 1,000 sqft for condominiums/townhomes.
POLICY QUESTIONS :
Tonight’s work session will include a brief overview of the report from RRC and will cover a series
of policy questions for City Council. Staff is seeking input from the Commission on these policy
questions.
Should the City continue to require affordable housing mitigation for single-family and duplex
development? This first question is fundamental to the remaining questions. If the community no
longer needs or wants to require mitigation for residential development, the remaining questions are
irrelevant.
Development in Aspen brings impacts and the community has imposed various requirements for
those impacts to be mitigated or lessened. Affordable housing continues to be an important
community issue. Staff recommends the City continue requiring mitigation for residential
development. Continuing the mitigation requirement is consistent with the AACP and is in keeping
with community expectations for all types of new development. This requirement was first adopted
Floor Single family/ Condominium/ Single family/ Condominium/ Single family/ Condominium/
area duplex townhome duplex townhome duplex townhome
500 0.055 0.048 0.034 0.085 0.089 0.133
1,000 0.110 0.096 0.043 0.126 0.153 0.222
1,500 0.165 0.144 0.055 0.167 0.220 0.311
2,000 0.220 0.192 0.070 0.208 0.291 0.400
2,500 0.276 0.239 0.090 0.249 0.365 0.488
3,000 0.331 0.287 0.115 0.290 0.445 0.577
3,500 0.386 0.335 0.146 0.331 0.532 0.666
4,000 0.441 0.383 0.187 n/a 0.628 n/a
4,500 0.496 0.431 0.239 n/a 0.735 n/a
5,000 0.551 0.479 0.306 n/a 0.857 n/a
5,500 0.606 0.527 0.391 n/a 0.997 n/a
6,000 0.661 0.575 0.499 n/a 1.161 n/a
6,500 0.716 0.623 0.638 n/a 1.355 n/a
7,000 0.772 0.671 0.816 n/a 1.588 n/a
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYMENT TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION
EMPLOYMENT
P110
VII.A.
Residential employment study – page 3
in 1990 and there is no support for abandoning this policy in the community plan or other
documented city goals.
Is the RRC report sufficient?
Staff is satisfied with the work product, but suggests one additional area of study – remodeling
activity. The study (as was requested) addresses initial construction and ongoing operations.
Within the estimated 40-year life of a structure, several remodels should be expected which also
incur certain employee demands. Staff suggests the study be broadened to include remodel activity.
Outreach reflected this same desire. The Housing Board in particular noted their concern that
remodel activity is not addressed in the study.
The information needed for this analysis is readily available and can be accomplished quickly.
Additional costs can be covered with department savings.
Should mitigation requirements include both construction and operations?
Affordable housing mitigation requirements for commercial uses are based on the number of
employees generated by the end uses. Mitigation requirements for commercial properties
downtown, for example, are based on the number of employees necessary to operate a blend of
retail shops, restaurants, galleries, etc. Commercial mitigation does not account for the employees
necessary to build a commercial building.
The RRC study details residential employment generation from both construction and operations,
with the majority of impact coming from construction. Staff recommends the mitigation
requirements be based on the sum total of construction and operations. This is a more accurate
representation of actual community impacts and an approach supported by the AACP. The
community plan calls for a complete accounting of impacts as a basis for informed policy making.
Should the requirement affect all residential expansions?
The current requirements only apply when an old home is “demolished” and the new home is larger.
Often this forces contractors to manage precise construction parameters to avoid technically
demolishing the structure and requires staff to monitor these projects more closely. Staff believes
managing demolition incorrectly focuses on the process of construction as opposed to the impacts of
the end product on the community. All other impact fees apply to any increase in size, regardless
of whether the building was demolished or simply made larger. Staff suggests the same approach of
focusing on the end product be applied to housing mitigation.
Staff also believes the residential impact fee should apply to townhome and condo expansions.
From a community impact standpoint, these types of residences are no different than single-
family/duplex and should be treated equally.
Should the City provide a “credit” for RETT taxes?
P111
VII.A.
Residential employment study – page 4
City Council asked staff to research the accumulated RETT payments made by a typical home as
part of this study. The Real Estate Transfer Tax assesses a tax of 1% on property transaction values
above $100,000. The funds are designated for the construction of affordable housing.
Andrew Ernemann, the City’s real estate broker, determined that residential properties pay
approximately $26.26 per square foot of floor area over the life of the structure. The same set of
assumptions for structure life span and floor area ratios used in the RRC study were used in this
analysis. The full report is attached.
Lowering the impact fee commensurate with the value of historic RETT payments would reduce the
fee to $9.33 per square foot of floor area.
Staff suggests the impact fee not be lowered based on presence of this tax. Taxes are voter adopted
to address specific community issues while impact fees are used to insure the community is not
financially burdened by additional development. Providing an impact fee “credit” to compensate
for the historic value of this tax effectively waives a voter-approved tax. Staff suggests that the
question of waiving this tax for residential properties is a question that should be asked of the
voters, not City Council. (Also see next question).
Should the City assess the full impact fee?
If the impact fee is considered disproportionate, the City has the ability to assess less than the full
amount, shifting some or all the burden to the general public. Communities often assess less than
the full impact fee for political acceptance reasons or to promote or incentivize certain types of
development. The School District, for example, collects 1/3 of their possible fee for new
development.
It is important to remember that the remainder of the burden then falls to the general public. Staff
suggests the question be stated as: what portion of the impact should be paid by developer and what
portion should be paid by the general public, and why? Free-market residential construction has not
been identified as needing incentives or subsidy. In this context, staff suggests that none of the
affordable housing impacts of residential construction be borne by the public.
Should the City provide an exemption or waiver for “small” projects?
Previous discussions on this topic included this policy question of whether this fee should only
apply to houses over a minimum size. For example, exempting the first 1,000 square feet and
assessing the fee from 1,001 and above. Staff does not consider this to be necessary. The context of
this idea envisioned a fee twice or triple today’s rate and the need to lessen its effects for political
acceptance reasons. There is no similar exemption today and staff does believe one is necessary.
Should the City continue to allow payment deferral as an option for local working residents?
The current policy allows homeowners who are local working residents to defer payment of this
affordable housing impact fee until the property is transferred to a non-working owner. Deferral
agreements are recorded against the property and are typically addressed upon sale. This policy
P112
VII.A.
Residential employment study – page 5
acknowledges that current working residents essentially mitigate their own housing impacts. Staff
believes this policy has worked well and does not recommend altering the policy moving forward.
Should Accessory Dwelling Units continue as a mitigation option?
Mitigation options for residential projects currently include
providing an off-site affordable unit, payment of a cash-in-
lieu fee, providing an affordable housing certificate, or
building an ADU on the property. An ADU is an accessory
dwelling unit that must be separate from the main house
and may only be rented to a local worker. Occupancy of
these units has been much lower than desired by many.
The most-recent study estimates ADU occupancy at 39%.
The “ADU option” has been criticized for not providing
enough actual benefit to the community’s housing
dilemma. The AACP, and other ongoing community
discussions have suggested elimination of this mitigation
option.
Staff recommends the ADU option be eliminated as a
mitigation choice. This is consistent with policy discussions to date. Eliminating the ADU option
will leave cash-in-lieu and housing certificates as the two likely choices for developers.
Should there be a voluntary process to eliminate existing ADUs?
There is no process currently for a homeowner wanting to retire an ADU and eliminate the deed
restriction on their property. The deed restriction is often a discussion point during property
transactions and it appears there would be interest in a program to “unwind” existing ADUs and
relive a property of the deed restriction. This has been reinforced by local real estate agents who
often witness the effects of the deed restriction being “discovered” by a purchaser during due
diligence. Staff recommends property owners be allowed to eliminate ADUs if they so choose.
Staff also suggests some replacement mitigation be provided for those ADUs originally developed
to meet the City’s requirements.
Should cash-in-lieu continue as a mitigation option?
Mitigation options for residential projects currently include providing an off-site affordable unit,
payment of a cash-in-lieu fee, providing an affordable housing certificate, or building an ADU on
the property. The Affordable Housing Certificate program didn’t exist until recently but is now a
viable mitigation option preferred by APCHA. Previously, cash-in-lieu represented the only
reasonable option for certain types of projects. Small expansions, for example, where the impact is
very minor are enabled to mitigate commensurate with their impact via the cash-in-lieu option.
The significant downside to the cash-in-lieu option is the shift of responsibility from the private
sector to the public. Writing a check is much simpler than finding a property, negotiating the
P113
VII.A.
Residential employment study – page 6
development review process, and producing the affordable housing. There can also be a significant
delay between the impact and provision of the affordable housing mitigation. These downsides do
not exist with the AH Certificate program.
As the AH certificates program matures, the cash-in-lieu option will become less necessary. Staff
suggests the certificates program could replace the cash-in-lieu option altogether. The question is
when. Currently, there is one primary developer utilizing the credits program. Staff would be more
comfortable recommending elimination of the cash-in-lieu option if more developers held credits.
Staff suggests this may soon come, but the cash-in-lieu option should remain for the time being.
NEXT STEPS :
Staff will provide the Commission’s input to City Council at the April 27 th hearing. The Council
may consider these policy questions during several public hearing before proceeding into a formal
code amendment process.
EXHIBITS :
A – RRC Residential Employment Generation Study, March 4, 2015. Attached by reference -
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/Residential%20Employee%20Generation%20Study%203-4-2015.pdf
B – Ernemann RETT Analysis, March 24, 2015.
P114
VII.A.
RRC Associates Contents
Prepared for:
City of Aspen
Prepared by:
RRC Associates
4770 Baseline Rd, Suite 360
Boulder, CO 80303
303/449-6558
www.rrcassociates.com
Aspen Residential
Employment Generation Study
March 4, 2015
P115
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Background .................................................... 1
Methodology ................................................................................ 2
Summary of Residential Employment Generation ................... 3
Employment Associated with Construction of Floor Area ..... 5
Estimates of Construction Employment ........................................................................... 5
Average Construction Value per Square Foot – Single Family Units ................................ 6
Average Construction Value per Square Foot – Duplexes and Condos/Townhomes ...... 7
Construction Employment Derived from Employment:Valuation Ratios ........................ 7
Construction Employment Derived from Employment:Labor Income Ratios ................. 9
Final Estimates of Construction Employment ................................................................ 10
Interviews with Building Contractors ............................................................................ 10
Residential Operations and Maintenance Employment ........ 11
Utilization of Service Providers for Home Operations and Maintenance ........................ 11
Conversion of Expenditures on Home Services to Jobs ................................................... 17
Relationship between Employment and Floor Area: by Unit Type ................................. 19
Relationship between Employment and Home Size: by Unit Type and Occupancy ......... 24
Total Labor Associated with Home Operations/Upkeep (Including Owner Labor)........... 26
Aspen Property Management Company Survey ............................................................. 28
Employment Relationships Based on Multi-Community Data (Heated Square Feet) ....... 29
Total Residential Employment Generation ............................. 33
Appendix A: Homeowner Survey Results – by Unit Type .... 35
Respondent Housing Characteristics ............................................................................. 35
Unit Usage Characteristics ............................................................................................ 46
Respondent Household/Demographic Characteristics ................................................... 48
Intended Future Use of Unit .......................................................................................... 53
Characteristics of and Expenditures on Home Operations and Upkeep .......................... 55
Appendix B: Homeowner Survey Results – by Occupancy . 64
Respondent Housing Characteristics ............................................................................. 64
Unit Usage Characteristics ............................................................................................ 76
Respondent Household/Demographic Characteristics ................................................... 78
Intended Future Use of Unit .......................................................................................... 83
Characteristics of and Expenditures on Home Operations and Upkeep .......................... 85
P116
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 1
Introduction and Background
This report summarizes findings regarding the employee generation associated with free-market single-
family/duplex and condominium/townhome floor area in Aspen.
By way of background, the Aspen Land Use Code requires the provision of affordable housing for the
development of free-market single family and duplex units (26.470.060). One of the options for fulfilling
the affordable housing requirement is paying an affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the APCHA
Housing Guidelines (Guidelines Part VII, Section 12, 3 – Payment in Lieu Fee). Per the Guidelines, the
payment in lieu formula “…assumes that for every 3,000 square feet of new single-family or duplex floor
area, the public will be required to provide housing for one moderate income employee…”. This
requirement (of one employee per 3,000 square feet of floor area) was established per City of Aspen
Ordinance 1 (Series of 1990). The primary purpose of this study is to update this aspect of the payment-
in-lieu formula for free-market single-family and duplex units, based on an empirical analysis.
Additionally, this study extends the employee generation analysis to free-market condominiums and
townhomes as well, insofar as those units are also subject to an affordable housing payment-in-lieu
structure.
This study evaluates two types of residential employment impacts for each of these categories of
housing units:
1. Employment impacts associated with the construction of new floor area; and
2. Employment impacts associated with the ongoing operation and maintenance of the home (and
particularly services delivered to/provided at the home).
Based on conversations with staff and Aspen City Council on April 22, 2014, it was determined that a
third category of employment impacts, i.e. as associated with associated with public safety services
delivered at residences (i.e. police and fire), would not be examined, primarily since public funding for
those services is provided via a variety of other means.
Note that other types of employment impacts associated with residential units, such as construction-
supporting architecture and engineering services, services related to purchasing and financing the
home, and employment stemming from occupant purchases of retail goods and services at commercial
establishments, are excluded from the residential employment calculation, since those employment
impacts (and associated housing mitigation requirements) are assigned to the development of
commercial floor area in Aspen. Additionally, construction employment associated with residential
alterations and remodels which don’t add floor area is also excluded from this analysis.
Both of the categories of residential employment outlined above (construction and operations) have
been evaluated through their own methodologies and data sources, as described in the following
Methodology section. The two categories are then summed to derive total residential employment
generation.
In addition to providing Aspen-specific data, this report also provides comparative community data as a
point of reference, to the extent identified and available.
P117
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 2
Methodology
As noted previously, this study evaluates two types of residential employment, which are then summed
to estimate total employment:
1. Employment associated with the construction of new floor area; and
2. Employment associated with the ongoing operation and maintenance of the home (and
particularly services delivered to/provided at the home).
The study focuses particularly closely on the relationship between employment generation and
residential floor area. For purposes of this study, “floor area” is defined pursuant to section
26.575.020.D of the Aspen Land Use Regulations (“Measuring Floor Area”). As described in the
regulations, “floor area” is generally defined as above-grade interior space, plus basement space
proportionate to the share of basement wall area which is above grade. Additionally, floor area also
encompasses space above certain size thresholds for certain structural elements in some circumstances
(garage, porch, deck, etc.), and also encompasses other adjustments. The terms “floor area” and
“square footage” are used interchangeably in this report unless noted otherwise.
Following is a brief overview of the methodology used to evaluate each category of employment.
Additional methodological details are contained in the respective sections of the report.
1. Calculation of employment associated with construction of floor area
Two complementary efforts were undertaken to estimate employment generation associated with
construction of floor area, as outlined below.
a. Derivation of employment generation from data on local construction economics. This
methodology involved the use of a variety of data on the economics of construction in Aspen
and the Roaring Fork Valley, including construction volume and valuation, employment, labor
income, and materials costs. The analysis attempted to account for complexities of the Aspen
market, where many construction firms doing business in Aspen are located downvalley, and
many construction workers are sole proprietors rather than working for employers (and are thus
excluded from employer statistical series). A variety of governmental and private sector data
sources were used to derive factors used in the analysis, such as construction
valuation:employment ratios and labor income:employment ratios. Details are described in the
associated section of the report.
b. Interviews with contractors regarding employment patterns. RRC conducted interviews with a
sample of Aspen contractors in order to gain a better understanding of the factors impacting
local residential construction employment needs, as well as to examine employment
requirements for a sample of homes built in Aspen. The data is primarily intended as a
complement and reasonableness cross-check of the results gained through the analysis of
secondary data described above.
2. Calculation of the employment associated with the operation and maintenance of homes
P118
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 3
For purposes of estimating the employment associated with operating and maintaining homes in Aspen,
RRC undertook two efforts, as follows:
a. Aspen homeowner employment generation survey. RRC conducted a mailback survey of owners
of free-market single-family, duplex, condominium and townhome units located in Aspen. The
survey questionnaire collected a variety of information regarding the physical characteristics of
the home, homeowner demographics, unit occupancy patterns, and the use of (and
expenditures on) various service providers (homeowners associations, property managers, etc. –
including the homeowner’s own time spent maintaining the home). The survey form was
introduced by a letter outlining the purpose of the study that was signed by Chris Bendon,
Director of the Aspen Community Development Department.
The survey was fielded in late August/early September 2014. A total of 3,465 non-duplicated
owners of free-market homes in Aspen, as identified through Pitkin County Assessor records,
were mailed a survey, of which 56 were returned as undeliverable. A total of 849 usable survey
responses were received, for a strong net response rate of 24.9 percent. Given the breadth of
information collected on the survey, the results may be of interest for other policy, planning and
research purposes in addition to employment generation.
b. Property management company interviews/surveys. As a complement to the household survey,
interviews and/or surveys were conducted with a sample of property management firms in
Aspen. The research sought to better understand the employment dynamics of property
management firms generally and for a sample of illustrative “case study” homes. The data has
been used in this analysis as a “reasonableness check” on the homeowner survey results, as well
as an additional source of insight on the employment generation associated with the provision
of property management services to homes.
Summary of Residential Employment Generation
Total employment associated with free-market residential units had been calculated as the sum of
construction employment associated with new floor area and operations and maintenance
employment. The results using factors specific to Aspen are summarized in Table 1 to follow, for 500
square foot increments of floor area. As shown, total employment generation for a single family/duplex
unit with 3,000 square feet of floor area is estimated to be an average of 0.445 workers.
Looking at each category of employment generation separately:
Construction employment is estimated to increase with floor area at a linear rate of
approximately 0.110 employees per 1,000 square feet for single family/duplex units and 0.096
employees per 1,000 square feet for condominiums/townhomes.
Operations and maintenance employment is estimated to grow with floor area at an
exponential rate for single family/duplex units, and at a linear rate for condominium/townhome
units.
As the sum of construction and operations/maintenance employment, total employment is
estimated to grow quasi-exponentially for single family/duplex units, and linearly for
condominium/townhome units.
P119
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 4
Table 1
Estimated Employment Generation Associated with Free-Market Residential Units, by Unit Type
Notes:
Operations and maintenance employment excludes “owner FTE labor,” i.e. labor contributed by the owner
and household members to unit upkeep.
Results exclude employment associated with personal service employees who travel with the household. The
results do not deduct for other types of employees (such as caretakers) who may be housed by the owner.
Operations and maintenance employment for single family/duplex units larger than 7,000 sqft may be
assumed to grow by 0.128 employees for every 500 square feet in excess of 7,000 sqft. Operations and
maintenance employment for condominium/townhome units larger than 3,500 sqft may be assumed to grow
additional 0.041 employees for each 500 square foot increment in excess of 3,500 sqft. Construction
employment is assumed to grow linearly beyond 7,000 sqft, at 0.110 employees per 1,000 sqft for single
family/duplex units, and 0.096 employees per 1,000 sqft for condominiums/townhomes.
The body of the report also includes estimates of operations and maintenance employment by unit type
by occupant type (owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year vs. other occupancy types). The analysis found that
for single family/duplex units, employment generation appears to be relatively similar for owner and
non-owner-occupants across the home size spectrum evaluated (up to 5,500 sqft). For
condominium/townhome units, non-owner-occupied units tend to generate somewhat more
employment than owner-occupied units across the size spectrum evaluated (up to 2,500 sqft).
While the preceding discussion has focused on the relationship between paid employment and unit
size/type/occupancy characteristics, it is important to note that many homeowners spend a
considerable amount of their own time on home operations and maintenance tasks. Based on results
from the Aspen homeowner survey, it was found that owner-occupants tend to supply more labor for
maintaining their home than non-owner-occupants in both absolute and relative terms. In particular,
for single-family/duplex units, owner-occupants are estimated to supply an average of 49 percent of the
total labor required to maintain the home, while non-owner-occupants supply an average 11 percent of
Floor Single family/Condominium/Single family/Condominium/Single family/Condominium/
area duplex townhome duplex townhome duplex townhome
500 0.055 0.048 0.034 0.085 0.089 0.133
1,000 0.110 0.096 0.043 0.126 0.153 0.222
1,500 0.165 0.144 0.055 0.167 0.220 0.311
2,000 0.220 0.192 0.070 0.208 0.291 0.400
2,500 0.276 0.239 0.090 0.249 0.365 0.488
3,000 0.331 0.287 0.115 0.290 0.445 0.577
3,500 0.386 0.335 0.146 0.331 0.532 0.666
4,000 0.441 0.383 0.187 n/a 0.628 n/a
4,500 0.496 0.431 0.239 n/a 0.735 n/a
5,000 0.551 0.479 0.306 n/a 0.857 n/a
5,500 0.606 0.527 0.391 n/a 0.997 n/a
6,000 0.661 0.575 0.499 n/a 1.161 n/a
6,500 0.716 0.623 0.638 n/a 1.355 n/a
7,000 0.772 0.671 0.816 n/a 1.588 n/a
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYMENT TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION
EMPLOYMENT
P120
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 5
the labor needed for their units. Similarly, for condominiums/townhomes, owner-occupants are
estimated to supply an average of 35 percent of the total labor required to maintain the home, while
non-owner-occupants supply an average of 10 percent of the labor needed for their units.
The body of the report also includes estimates of the operations and maintenance employment
observed in a cross-section of mountain resort communities. The analysis suggests that operations and
maintenance employment in Aspen is similar to the multi-community average for single family/duplex
homes (up to approximately 6,000 sqft, after which Aspen homes appear to generate somewhat more
employment). For condominiums/townhomes, Aspen operations and maintenance employment
generation appears to be somewhat higher than the multi-community average, particular as units get
larger. Insofar as the multi-community database has a larger sample size, including for very large units,
it can be considered as an additional possible resource by the City when developing employment
generation mitigation policies and formulas.
In addition to the bottom-line conclusions summarized here, the data collected as part of this study, and
particularly the homeowner survey results, provide additional insights that may be useful for a variety of
informational and policy purposes as related to the free-market housing stock and potentially other
topics. As such, the survey results, summarized in Appendices A and B, should be viewed as an
informational resource for other possible uses as well, as the underlying survey results can also be
segmented and analyzed in a variety of other ways.
Employment Associated with Construction of Floor Area
The objective of this element of the analysis is to estimate the average number of construction
“employee-years” and “permanent construction employees” required to build 1,000 square foot of new
free-market residential floor area in Aspen, with floor area defined consistent with section 26.575.020.D
of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Included in the calculations are employees classified as being in the
construction industry, including general contractors and specialty trades contractors. Excluded are
employees classified as being in allied industries, such as architectural and engineering services, building
materials wholesalers and retailers, utility providers, etc. (insofar as the associated employment impacts
and housing mitigation requirements of those activities are assigned to the development of commercial
floor area in Aspen.)
Construction employment was primarily estimated via an analysis of a variety of secondary data on
pertaining to construction economics. Additionally, for additional perspective and as a reasonableness
check, construction employment was also evaluated on a case-study basis for a sample of single family
units via interviews with contractors in Aspen.
Estimates of Construction Employment
Two primary approaches were used to estimate construction employment: 1) employment based on
employment:construction valuation ratios, and 2) employment based on employment:labor income
ratios. The results of the two approaches were then averaged to develop final employment estimates
for the respective unit types.
P121
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 6
Average Construction Value per Square Foot – Single Family Units
Both construction estimation techniques listed above first required the estimation of average
construction valuation per square foot of floor area in Aspen. For purposes of single-family homes, four
sources were consulted, with the Pitkin County Assessor data ultimately chosen as the most complete
and reliable source, while the other three sources serve to provide reasonableness checks.
1. Pitkin County Assessor data: The Pitkin County Assessor database contains data on various
categories of residential spatial area (e.g. basements, above-grade area, etc.), as well as the
value of improvements. From this data, RRC derived a close equivalent to floor area defined by
section 26.575.020.D of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.1 Based on these measures for a
sample of 104 single family units constructed in 2006-13 with no accessory buildings, the
average improvement value per square foot of floor area is $802 / sqft. 2 (The median
improvement value across the units evaluated was $883/sqft.)
2. City of Aspen impact fee data: The Aspen Community Development Department maintains
detailed data on projects that are required to pay impact fees as a result of adding floor area.
Based on a sample of 26 new residential projects built in 2012-14 for which valuation and new
floor area is available and construction valuation is at least $175/sqft (the minimum value
threshold observed in the Assessor data), the average construction value per square foot of
floor area from this source is $705 / sqft.
3. Construction valuation per Dodge Data and Analytics: This national firm estimates that a total of
881,500 square feet of space (i.e. square footage “under the roof,” but excluding basements)
was built in new one-family houses in Pitkin County over the 2006-2014 period, at a total
construction value of $477 million, for an average of $571 in construction value per square foot.
The average value per square foot varied by year from $441/sqft to $691/sqft ($476/sqft in
2014). While of interest, this data should be interpreted with caution insofar as garages are
presumably “under the roof,” making this an imperfect measure of construction value per
square foot of floor area as defined by Aspen land use regulations. Additionally, the data
reflects all of Pitkin County, rather than Aspen only.
4. Aspen Building Division guidance: For additional perspective, a “Memorandum of Policy” dated
11/19/07 by Stephen Kanipe, Aspen Chief Building Official, provides the following figures as
“reasonable” estimates “to begin determining permit valuation”: deed restricted - $250/sqft;
good: $400 - $600/sqft; luxury: $600 - $1,000/sqft.
Insofar as it has the largest sample size, while also roughly aligning in logical ways with other local data
sources, the Pitkin County Assessor data is felt to provide a reasonable representation of average
construction value for new single-family units in Aspen, at $802 per square foot of floor area.
1 Specifically, RRC calculated floor area as equivalent to above-grade heated area (excluding heated garages), plus
an assumed 25 percent of garden-level basement area, plus pro-rated garage area above the size thresholds
identified in 26.575.020.D. No adjustments were made for decks, porches, balconies, sheds, storage areas, and
other categories of space which can in some instances be counted as floor area, due to data limitations and the
assumption that such adjustments would likely be minor.
2 Of note, the average improvement value per square foot of heated area (excluding heated garages and
unfinished basements) is a much smaller $480. This reflects the fact that the ratio of estimated floor area to
heated area for the subject properties is 0.60.
P122
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 7
Average Construction Value per Square Foot – Duplexes and Condominiums/Townhomes
Based on a review of Assessor data, duplexes (i.e. duplex condominiums, as classified by the Assessor)
are assumed to have the same improvement valuation per square foot as single family residences, i.e.
$802 / sqft. Duplex condominiums built in Aspen over the 2006-13 period have a ratio of floor area to
heated area (excluding heated garages and unfinished basements) of 0.59, similar to the ratio for single
family units (0.60). Additionally, duplex condominiums built over the 2006-13 period have an average
total valuation (land plus improvement) per square foot of floor area ($1,537) which is similar to that
observed for single-family residences ($1,568).6 These design and valuation similarities suggest that
construction valuations, on a per unit of floor area basis, are likely to be similar for new duplex condos
and new single-family homes.
Condominiums/townhomes (other than duplex condominiums) are assumed for purposes of this report
to have a construction valuation per square foot of floor area which is approximately 13 percent less
than that for single family/duplex units, or $697 / sqft. This is based on Assessor data showing that for
Aspen units built in the 2006-13 period, average total (land plus improvement) valuation per square foot
of floor area is 13 percent lower for condominiums/townhomes ($1,352) than for single family/duplex
units ($1,561). For additional perspective, Dodge Analytics data also indicates that for Pitkin County
units built over the 2006-14 period, attached units have a lower average valuation per square foot than
single family units (specifically 37 percent lower, at $305/sqft vs. $480/sqft), although the Dodge figures
would be expected include deed-restricted affordable units as well as Pitkin County units outside of
Aspen, and thus may not be representative of free-market condominium/townhome units in Aspen.
Also of note, Assessor data indicate that condominiums/townhomes built recently tend to have less
basement space than single family/duplex homes, which (all else held equal) would tend reduce their
construction cost when evaluated per unit of floor area (recall that floor area calculations exclude
basement square footage in proportion to the share of basement wall area below grade). Conversely,
condominiums/townhomes in some cases have common circulation areas, structured parking, and
common amenities (partially or entirely excluded from floor area) which may increase their relative
construction costs on per unit of floor area.
Construction Employment Derived from Employment:Valuation Ratios
As noted previously, one method used to derive construction employment was via the use of
construction employment:valuation ratios, as shown in Table 2 to follow. As shown, the analysis
involves dividing the average construction valuations per 1,000 sqft (i.e. $802,000 for single
family/duplex units and $697,000 for condominiums/townhomes, as derived previously) by the average
construction value per employee (estimated at $207,124 for residential construction in Pitkin County;
assumed to be the same for both single family/duplex units and condominium/townhome units). For
single family/duplex units, this results in an estimated 3.872 construction employee years required to
construct 1,000 square feet of floor area. Assuming an average construction employee career length of
40 years, this results in an estimate of 0.097 permanent construction employees per 1,000 square feet
built. For condominium/townhome units, the figures are about 13 percent lower, at 3.365 employee-
years per 1,000 square feet, and 0.084 permanent construction employees per 1,000 square feet.
6 The Assessor does not report estimated improvement valuation for duplex condos or other types of
condominiums, but rather just total valuation.
P123
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 8
Two of the factors involved in this calculation warrant additional explanation. The estimate of average
construction valuation per construction worker is derived from economic modeling data produced by
IMPLAN, an economic modeling system sold by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group. The valuation estimate
reflects a one third/two-thirds blend of ratios for Pitkin County and the State of Colorado respectively.
The State of Colorado was chosen as a proxy for construction establishments based in Eagle and Garfield
Counties but doing work in Pitkin County, insofar as average wage rates for construction workers in
Garfield County and Colorado are similar. The 33 percent/67 percent Pitkin/Colorado weighting was
chosen to approximate the location of construction establishments doing business in Pitkin County (with
most construction employment in Pitkin County estimated to be attributable to downvalley firms). This
is based on a finding that in 2006-10, among construction/agriculture/mining employees working in
Pitkin County and living in the Roaring Fork Valley, 32 percent lived in Pitkin County and 68 percent lived
in Eagle and Garfield counties.8
Regarding employee career length, it is common to assume 35 or 40 years. Pitkin County currently
assumes 40 years for purposes of its housing impact fee calculations, so 40 years is used here for
consistency.
Table 2
Derivation of Construction Employment from Employment:Valuation Ratios
OPERATION
SINGLE
FAMILY/
DUPLEX
CONDO/
TOWNHOME DESCRIPTION AND SOURCE
$802,000 $697,000
Construction valuation per 1,000 sqft. (Source: RRC estimates, per previous
section)
$247,587 $247,587
Construction valuation per employee-year: persons employed at construction
establishments based in Pitkin County. (Source: Pitkin County IMPLAN 2012,
inflation-adjusted to 2014, for IMPLAN sector 37 - new residential permanent site
single- and multi-family structures.)
$186,892 $186,892
Construction valuation per employee-year: persons employed at construction
establishments firms based in Colorado (as a proxy for Roaring Fork Valley
construction firms based in Eagle and Garfield counties). (Source: Colorado
IMPLAN 2012, inflation-adjusted to 2014, for IMPLAN sector 37 - new residential
permanent site single- and multi-family structures.)
/ $207,124 $207,124
Blend: Average construction valuation per construction job, 33%/67%
Pitkin/Colorado weighting.
= 3.872 3.365 Average construction worker-years per 1,000 sqft of new residential construction
/40 = 0.097 0.084 Permanent construction workers per 1,000 sqft (assuming 40 year career)
8 Census Transportation Planning Products 2006-10 (place of work by place of residence); RRC Associates. Also
supporting an estimate of significant Aspen construction work done by downvalley firms are data indicating that
Pitkin County accounted for 60 percent of the combined valuation of Pitkin County/Garfield County new residential
and nonresidential building construction over the 2006-14 period (per Dodge Analytics), but Pitkin County
construction establishments accounted for just 23 percent of employees in the two counties in the building
construction and specialty trade contractor sectors over the 2006 -13 period (per Colorado State Demographer).
P124
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 9
Construction Employment Derived from Employment:Labor Income Ratios
The second primary method utilized to derive construction employment was via the use of
employment:labor income ratios, as shown in Table 3 and described to follow.
The analysis first involved determining the share of construction valuation attributable to labor; this was
inferred from City of Aspen use tax audit data, which (based on data from 48 reviewed residential
projects) suggests that materials account for an average of approximately 44 percent of project
valuation (with the remaining 56 percent attributable to labor), with roughly similar ratios observed for
single-family and multi-family units. Thus, it was inferred that construction labor costs per 1,000 square
feet of floor area averages $449,120 for single family/duplex units and $390,320 for
condominium/townhome units. These labor values were then divided by average labor income per
employee, estimated to be $90,812 for residential construction in Pitkin County (again based on a blend
of factors for establishments located in Pitkin County and in Colorado-as a proxy for downvalley firms).
This results in 4.946 construction employee years per 1,000 square feet of single family/duplex floor
area, and 4.298 employee years per 1,000 square feet of condominium/townhome floor area. Assuming
an average construction employee career length of 40 years, this results in an estimate of 0.124
permanent construction employees per 1,000 sqft of single family/duplex floor area, and 0.107
employees per 1,000 sqft of condominium/townhome floor area.
Table 3
Derivation of Construction Employment from Employment:Labor Income Ratios
OPERATION
SINGLE
FAMILY/
DUPLEX
CONDO/
TOWNHOME DESCRIPTION AND SOURCE
$802,000 $697,000 Construction valuation per 1,000 sqft. (Source: RRC estimates, per above)
44% 44%
Percent of construction value attributable to materials. (Source: City of Aspen use tax
audit data for 48 projects involving new single-family or multi-family floor area; RRC
Associates.)
$352,880 $306,680 Average materials value per 1,000 sqft (derived)
x 56% 56% Percent of construction value attributable to labor (inferred).
= $449,120 $390,320 Average labor value per 1,000 sqft (derived)
$131,904 $131,904
Average labor income per employee, including employee compensation and proprietor
income, for persons employed at construction establishments based in Pitkin County.
(Source: Pitkin County IMPLAN 2012, inflation-adjusted to 2014, for IMPLAN sector
37 - new residential permanent site single- and multi-family structures.)
$70,266 $70,266
Average labor income per employee, including employee compensation and proprietor
income, for persons employed at construction establishments based in Colorado (as a
proxy for Roaring Fork Valley construction firms based in Eagle and Garfield counties).
(Source: Pitkin County IMPLAN 2012, inflation-adjusted to 2014, for IMPLAN sector
37 - new residential permanent site single- and multi-family structures.)
/ $90,812 $90,812 Blend: average labor income per employee, 33%/67% Pitkin/Colorado weighting.
= 4.946 4.298 Average construction worker-years per 1,000 sqft of new residential construction
/40 = 0.124 0.107 Permanent construction workers per 1,000 sqft (assuming 40 year career)
P125
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 10
Final Estimates of Construction Employment
Final estimates of construction employment were derived by taking an average of the two methods
outlined previously. As illustrated in Table 4 to follow, for single family/duplex units, this results in an
estimate of approximately 4.409 construction worker-years per 1,000 square feet of floor area, or
approximately 0.110 permanent construction workers per 1,000 square feet (assuming a 40 year
career). For condominiums/townhomes, the corresponding figures are 3.832 construction worker years
and 0.096 permanent construction workers per 1,000 square feet of floor area.
Employment demands are assumed to grow linearly, so that 2,000 square feet of floor area requires
twice as many workers as 1,000 square, and so forth as unit size increases.
Table 4
Final Estimates of Construction Employment
SINGLE
FAMILY/
DUPLEX
CONDO/
TOWNHOME DESCRIPTION AND SOURCE
3.872 3.365 Construction worker-years per 1,000 sqft: method 1 (employment:valuation ratios)
4.946 4.298 Construction worker-years per 1,000 sqft: method 2 (employment:labor income ratios)
4.409 3.832 Construction worker-years per 1,000 sqft: Average of two methods
0.110 0.096 Permanent construction workers per 1,000 sqft (assuming 40 year career)
Interviews with Building Contractors
With outreach assistance from the Aspen Community Development Department, RRC conducted
interviews with three residential general contractors active in Aspen.9 The contractors each provided
information about a single-family unit they had recently constructed in Aspen. The contractors
estimated employment associated with their project by estimating the average number of construction
workers on site at a time throughout the duration of the project, and/or through job logs documenting
workers on site each day of construction. From this information, along with data on construction
duration and floor area, RRC was able to estimate the number of “employee-years” required to
construct 1,000 square feet of floor area.
Altogether, the three projects are estimated to have required an average of 4.6 employee-years per
1,000 square feet of floor area. The three projects had an average of approximately 3,300 square feet of
floor area, and an average construction valuation (labor plus materials) of approximately $880 / square
foot of floor area. The projects varied considerably in their employment generation, likely in part
reflecting differences in the complexity of the projects and on-site staffing levels. The average
employment generation rate indicated by these contractors is similar to the estimate derived in the
prior section (approximately 4.4 employees per 1,000 sqft for single family units), providing a degree of
corroboration, although it should be recognized that a sample of three projects is limited.
For additional perspective from other communities, Rees Consulting and RRC Associates conducted
similar interviews and surveys with builders of residential units in four resort counties (Gunnison, San
9 A fourth contractor was contacted but did not respond to invitations to participate.
P126
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 11
Miguel, and Summit, CO; and Teton, WY) in 2000, as part of a multi-county residential employment
generation study. Again, contractors were asked to estimate the average number of workers onsite
throughout the duration of the project. Altogether, across 33 projects (including custom single-family,
single family projects with multiple similar units built by a single contractor, and multifamily projects),
there were an estimated 2.3 jobsite workers per year per 1,000 square feet of heated space. For custom
single family home projects only, there were an average of 2.9 jobsite workers per year per 1,000 square
feet of heated space (sample of 22 projects). Importantly, these figures are benchmarked to heated
area, which is typically significantly larger than floor area defined pursuant to the Aspen Land Use
regulations, if the employment generation rates derived in this research would be accordingly higher if it
were possible to restate the figures in floor area terms. Notwithstanding this caution, as well as the fact
that the data is dated and covers different geographic areas, the results (particularly allowing for
upward adjustment to floor area terms) are “in the same ballpark” as the Aspen estimates.
Residential Operations and Maintenance Employment
This chapter summarizes findings regarding employment associated with home operations and
maintenance.
Utilization of Service Providers for Home Operations and Maintenance
Following is a summary of findings pertaining to the types of service providers used by Aspen
homeowners for home operations and maintenance, based on the 2014 Aspen Homeowner Survey. The
analysis examines the use of employment-generating service providers (as well as owners’ own labor) by
unit type, occupancy, and floor area. Results are for free-market units only. Subsequent analysis
quantifies employment demand associated with use of these service providers.11
Utilization of service providers by unit type: As shown in Figure 1 to follow, most single family
home/duplex households hire contractors/employees/specialty services (87 percent) and/or
perform household operations/maintenance tasks themselves (78 percent). Much smaller
shares hire a property management company (27 percent), belong to a homeowners association
(21 percent), or hire an on-site caretaker (8 percent). In addition, 27 percent obtain other
services locally, such as chef/kitchen help/catering (18 percent), pet sitter (7 percent), and child
care provider/nanny (6 percent).
Condominium and townhome owners primarily take care of home maintenance via a
homeowners association (98 percent), as well as doing the work themselves (64 percent).
Progressively smaller shares hire a property management company (57 percent),
contractors/employees/specialty services (55 percent), and/or an on-site caretaker (11 percent).
Additionally, 15 percent obtain other services locally, such as a pet sitter (5 percent) and
miscellaneous other services.
Comparing the two unit types, single family/duplex owners are relatively more likely to hire
contractors (87 percent vs. 55 percent), perform work themselves (78 percent vs. 64 percent),
11 Note as well that additional detailed Aspen Homeowner survey results by unit type are also cont ained in
Appendix A, while additional survey results by occupancy type are contained in Appendix B.
P127
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 12
and obtain miscellaneous personal services locally (27 percent vs. 15 percent). By contrast,
condominium/townhome owners are more likely to belong to a homeowners association (98
percent vs. 21 percent) or hire a property management company (57 percent vs. 27 percent).
Figure 1
Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep, and
Use of Additional Services Obtained In the Home: by Unit Type (Free-Market Units Only)
Utilization of service providers by occupancy type: Use of service providers has been examined
for two occupancy groups: 1) owner occupants (defined as owner occupancy at least 40 weeks
per year), and 2) all other occupancies (i.e. owner-occupied less than 40 weeks per year,
including households using their unit primarily as second homes, short-term rentals, long-term
rentals, and/or other uses or combinations of uses).
As illustrated in Figure 2 to follow, most owner-occupants report that operations and
maintenance is performed by themselves or by family members (90 percent). Additionally, 74
87%
78%
27%
21%
8%
1%
27%
18%
7%
6%
6%
1%
2%
1%
1%
55%
64%
57%
98%
11%
1%
15%
4%
5%
4%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Hire contractors/employees/specialty services
Work is performed by myself or family members
Hire a property management company
Use or belong to a homeowners association
Hire an on-site caretaker
Other
Total share obtaining other services locally (net)
Chef/kitchen help/catering
Pet sitter
Child care provider/nanny
Personal trainer
Other
Personal assistant
Driver, pilot
Concierge/butler
Percent of Respondents
Single family / duplex
Condominium / townhome
Which of the following do you use to
maintain and operate your Aspen residence?
What other services do you obtain
in your home when in Aspen? (Percent
obtaining services locally only; providers
traveling with household excluded)
P128
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 13
percent hire contractors/employees/specialty services, while 45 percent belong to a
homeowners association and small shares hire a property management company (14 percent)
or an on-site caretaker (4 percent). In addition, 20 percent obtain miscellaneous personal
services locally, such as a pet sitter (7 percent), chef/kitchen help/catering (7 percent), and child
care provider/nanny (5 percent).
Non-owner-occupants mainly take care of work through homeowners associations (73 percent),
contractors/employees/specialty services (67 percent), doing work themselves (62 percent), or
hiring a property management company (59 percent). An additional 13 percent indicated that
they hire an on-site caretaker. In addition, 20 percent obtain miscellaneous personal services
locally, such as chef/kitchen help/catering (12 percent) and child care provider/nanny (5
percent).
Comparing the two occupancy types, owner-occupants are relatively more likely to perform
work themselves (90 percent vs. 62 percent) and are slightly more likely to hire contractors (74
percent vs. 67 percent). By contrast, non-owner-occupants are relatively more likely to belong
to a homeowners association (73 percent vs. 45 percent), hire a property management company
(59 percent vs. 14 percent), or hire an on-site caretaker (13 percent vs. 4 percent). Both groups
are about equally likely to obtain other miscellaneous personal services (20 percent each).
It should be recognized that results by occupancy type and unit type are interrelated. In the
survey response, most owner-occupants lived in single family/duplex units (66 percent), with 31
percent living in condominiums/townhomes and 3 percent living in other unit types. By
contrast, other occupancy groups were less likely to own a single family/duplex unit (32
percent), and more likely to own a condominium/townhouse unit (66 percent), with 2 percent
owning other unit types.
P129
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 14
Figure 2
Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep, and
Use of Additional Services Obtained In the Home: by Occupancy Type (Free-Market Units Only)
Utilization of service providers by floor area – single family/duplex units: Generally speaking, for
single family/duplex units, the use of paid service providers increases with floor area. As home
sizes rise from under 2,000 square feet to 5,000+ square feet, use of the following service
providers increases: contractors (73 percent to 90 percent), homeowners associations (16
percent 49 percent), property management companies (13 percent to 47 percent), caretakers (3
percent to 16 percent), and miscellaneous personal services (10 percent to 32 percent). These
results would support an expectation that employment needs accordingly rise as home sizes
increase, potentially at an increasing rate as homes get larger (insofar as more types of service
providers are used, and as the space needing service increases).
90%
74%
45%
14%
4%
0%
20%
7%
10%
5%
5%
2%
1%
0%
0%
62%
67%
73%
59%
13%
2%
20%
12%
4%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
1%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Work is performed by myself or family members
Hire contractors/employees/specialty services
Use or belong to a homeowners association
Hire a property management company
Hire an on-site caretaker
Other
Total share obtaining other services locally (net)
Chef/kitchen help/catering
Pet sitter
Child care provider/nanny
Personal trainer
Other
Personal assistant
Driver, pilot
Concierge/butler
Percent of Respondents
Owner-occupied at least 40
weeks/year
All other occupancies
Which of the following do you use to
maintain and operate your Aspen residence?
What other services do you obtain
in your home when in Aspen? (Percent
obtaining services locally only; providers
traveling with household excluded)
P130
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 15
Figure 3
Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep, and
Use of Additional Services Obtained In the Home:
Single Family/Duplex Units, by Floor Area (Free-Market Units Only)
92%
73%
16%
13%
3%
2%
10%
5%
3%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
86%
92%
10%
21%
1%
1%
27%
14%
9%
8%
3%
1%
0%
0%
0%
74%
93%
20%
26%
9%
1%
27%
23%
5%
5%
6%
1%
0%
0%
0%
64%
89%
27%
42%
18%
0
37%
23%
12%
7%
14%
2%
7%
0%
2%
63%
90%
49%
47%
16%
2%
32%
20%
5%
9%
7%
2%
7%
7%
2%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Work is performed by myself or family members
Hire contractors/employees/specialty services
Use or belong to a homeowners association
Hire a property management company
Hire an on-site caretaker
Other
Total share obtaining other services locally (net)
Chef/kitchen help/catering
Pet sitter
Child care provider/nanny
Personal trainer
Other
Personal assistant
Driver, pilot
Concierge/butler
Percent of Respondents
1,999 sqft or less
2,000 - 2,999 sqft
3,000 - 3,999 sqft
4,000 - 4,999 sqft
5,000+ sqft
Which of the following do you use to
maintain and operate your Aspen residence?
What other services do you obtain
in your home when in Aspen? (Percent
obtaining services locally only; providers
traveling with household excluded)
P131
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 16
Figure 4
Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep, and
Use of Additional Services Obtained In the Home:
Condominium/Townhome Units, by Floor Area (Free-Market Units Only)
99%
65%
55%
50%
6%
1%
10%
3%
4%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
97%
66%
57%
57%
14%
0%
16%
4%
4%
5%
3%
4%
1%
1%
1%
91%
66%
57%
71%
18%
2%
33%
11%
13%
4%
5%
9%
0%
4%
2%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Use or belong to a homeowners association
Work is performed by myself or family members
Hire a property management company
Hire contractors/employees/specialty services
Hire an on-site caretaker
Other
Total share obtaining other services locally (net)
Chef/kitchen help/catering
Pet sitter
Child care provider/nanny
Personal trainer
Other
Personal assistant
Driver, pilot
Concierge/butler
Percent of Respondents
Under 1,000 sqft
1,000 - 1,999 sqft
2,000 - 2,999 sqft
Which of the following do you use to
maintain and operate your Aspen residence ?
What other services do you obtain
in your home when in Aspen? (Percent
obtaining services locally only; providers
traveling with household excluded)
P132
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 17
Utilization of service providers by floor area – condominium/townhome units: For
condominium/townhome units, the use of paid service providers generally shows more
moderate variation by floor area than for single family/duplex units, at least across the size
groupings analyzed. As condominium/townhome floor area rises from under 1,000 sqft to
2,000+ sqft, there is increased use of contractors (50 percent to 71 percent), on-site caretakers
(6 percent to 18 percent), and miscellaneous personal services (10 percent to 33 percent). By
contrast, use of HOAs decreases slightly with size (99 percent to 91 percent), while use of
property management companies holds relatively steady with size (55-57 percent), as does the
incidence of self-performed work (65-66 percent).
Conversion of Expenditures on Home Services to Jobs
In addition to tracking the incidence of use of services, the Homeowner Survey also gathered data on
annual expenditures made for each type of service provider. These results were converted into
estimates of employment associated with home maintenance and upkeep, through the use of
expenditures per employee ratios. This section outlines the methodology utilized to convert
homeowner expenditures to employment. The employment findings themselves are analyzed later in
this chapter.
The Homeowner Survey collected data on five different types of home operations expenditures, as listed
below:
Expenditures on homeowner association (HOA) dues / assessments
Expenditures on property management company (PMC) services
Expenditures on contractors / employees / specialty services hired by the household
Expenditures on on-site caretakers
Expenditures on an array of other services obtained in the home (e.g. kitchen help/catering,
childcare/nanny, personal assistant, etc.).
For most types of home service providers, annual spending amounts were converted into employees12
based on published economic data on average business revenue per employee for the applicable
service, per the 2007 U.S. Economic Census, inflation-adjusted to 2014 (on the basis of the Denver-
Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index [CPI], or Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages [QCEW]
wage rates). Where available, Pitkin County factors were used; if Pitkin County data was unavailable,
Colorado (preferably) or U.S. nationwide data was used instead. For some expenditure categories, other
or additional conversion approaches were used. The methodology is summarized by type of service
provider below.
Property management companies (PMCs): We assumed a conversion ratio of $93,974 in
homeowner expenditures on PMC services per job. This is based on the 2007 Pitkin County ratio
of revenue per job for NAICS13 industry sector 531311 (residential property managers) per the
US Economic Census, inflation-adjusted to 2014 based on the 2007-2014 change in average
12 Employees represent the number of workers that would typically be employed to complete the service, based
on existing employment patterns in the respective industries, which generally includes a blended hybrid of full-
time and part-time employees.
13 North American Industry Classification System.
P133
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 18
QCEW wage per employee for this sector in Pitkin County (resulting in a figure of $103,173 PMC
expenditures per PMC job). The $103,173 figure was then divided by 1.1, to reflect a finding
from an RRC survey of Pitkin County PMCs (discussed in a separate section later) that PMCs
purchase an average of approximately 0.1 FTE in subcontracted labor for every 1.0 job they have
on in-house staff (i.e., approximately 0.1 additional service jobs is directly associated with every
1.0 PMC job).
Homeowners associations (HOAs): We assumed a conversion ratio of $99,059 in HOA
expenditures per job. This reflects an 80 percent/20 percent weighted blend of
expenditures:jobs ratios for PMCs (per above) and HOAs respectively.14 For HOAs serving as
employers, the expenditures:jobs ratio is based on 2007 U.S. revenue per job for NAICS sector
8139904 (property owners’ associations), adjusted to 2014 based on the 2007-2013 change in
average wage per employee for the most similar comparable sector nationwide (NAICS sector
813990 – “other similar organizations, except business, professional, labor, and political
organizations”), and the 2013-14 Denver CPI. This resulted in an estimate of $132,134 per HOA
direct job. The PMC and HOA expenditures:jobs ratios were then blended on a weighted 80
percent/20 percent basis, and divided by 1.1 to account for subcontracted labor.
Other contracted services: We assumed a conversion ratio of $109,882 in other contracted
services expenditures per direct job. This is based on a 67 percent/33 percent blend of
expenditures:employment ratios for NAICS sector 5617 (services to buildings and dwellings) and
maintenance and repair construction (IMPLAN industries 39 and 40) respectively. Looking at
each of these in turn, the expenditures:job ratio for NAICS sector 5617 is based on the 2007
Pitkin County ratio of revenue per job for that sector, adjusted to 2014 based on the 2007-2014
change in average wage per employee for that sector in Pitkin County. The IMPLAN
expenditures:employment ratio comes from the IMPLAN modeling system for Pitkin County in
2012 (based on the aggregate for residential and nonresidential structures), inflation-adjusted
to 2014.15
Caretakers: We assumed a conversion ratio of $51,924 in expenditures on caretakers per direct
job. This is based on a 75 percent / 25 percent weighted blend of wage rates for private
household employees as reported by QCEW (industry 814 – private households, in Pitkin
County, in 2014), and as estimated by IMPLAN (IMPLAN sector 425 – private household
operations). The blended average wage was divided by 0.85, to reflect assumed total
compensation costs of approximately 82% wages / 18% benefits.
Other services obtained in the home: Expenditure:employment ratios were developed for other
services obtained in the home on a case by case basis, depending on the service received.
Generally, the ratios were either assumed to be similar to caretakers (and more generally,
private household employees), or were derived from an averaging of business
sales:employment ratios (from the 2007 US Economic Census data for Colorado, inflation-
14 While some Aspen HOAs directly hire their own in-house staff to manage the property (and thus the HOA
functions as an employer), most appear to contract with property management companies to manage HOA
business.
15 IMPLAN is a proprietary economic modeling system, along with associated location-specific economic data, sold
by the Minnesota Implan Group.
P134
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 19
adjusted based on CPI to 2014), and average occupational wages (as reported for Colorado in
2013 by the Occupational Employment Statistics & Wages Program).
It should be noted that only locally-hired employees were included; employees who traveled
with the household (as identified on the survey) were excluded from the employment
estimates.
o Chef/kitchen help/catering: We assumed a conversion ratio of $58,192 in expenditures on
chef/kitchen help/catering per direct job. This reflected a 50/50 weighted average of the
sales:employment ratio for NAICS 72232-catering businesses (in Colorado, per 2007
Economic Census, inflation-adjusted to 2014), and the 2013 Colorado average annual wage
for chefs and head cooks (multiplied by 1.25 to reflect compensation in the form of
benefits).
o Child care provider/nanny: We assumed a conversion ratio of $36,063 in expenditures on
child care services per direct job. This reflected a 50/50 weighted average of the
sales:employment ratio for NAICS 6244-child care businesses (in Colorado, per 2007
Economic Census, inflation-adjusted to 2014), and the 2013 average annual wage for
childcare workers (multiplied by 1.25 to reflect compensation in the form of benefits).
o Personal trainer: We assumed a conversion ratio of $47,648 in expenditures on personal
training services per direct job. This reflected a 50/50 weighted average of the
sales:employment ratio for NAICS 7139409-other fitness and recreational sports center
businesses (in Colorado, per 2007 Economic Census, inflation-adjusted to 2014), and the
2013 average annual wage for fitness trainers and aerobics instructors (multiplied by 1.25 to
reflect compensation in the form of benefits).
o Driver/pilot: We assumed a conversion ratio of $102,964 in expenditures on driver/pilot
services per direct job. This reflected a combination of sales:employment ratios in Colorado
for NAICS 485320-limousine services and NAICS 488190-other support activities for air
transportation, as well as average occupational wages in Colorado for taxi
drivers/chauffeurs and airline pilots, copilots and flight engineers.
o Concierge/butler, personal assistant, and other household employees: We assumed a
conversion ratio of $51,924 in expenditures per direct job, equivalent to the average used
for caretakers, and more generally for private household operations/employees (per above).
Relationship between Employment and Floor Area: by Unit Type
A total of 680 survey responses were available to evaluate the relationship between floor area and
employment, by unit type. As shown in Table 5 to follow, most available survey responses were
concentrated in the lower to middle home size categories, and were less numerous in the largest size
categories, although it is notable that several larger units were included in the sample.
For purposes of evaluating the relationship between home size and employment, homes were grouped
into 500 square foot (sqft) increments, and the average floor area and the average employment were
P135
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 20
calculated within each increment. The home size groups were then arrayed on a sqft:employment
scatterplot, and trend lines were fitted to the data to model the sqft:employment relationships.16
Table 5
Average Floor Area, Average Employment, and Number of Usable Survey Cases
by Floor Area Size Category and Unit Type
The results of this analysis for single family/duplex homes and condominiums/townhomes are shown in
Figure 5 and Figure 6 respectively to follow. For both unit types, floor area:employment relationships
were only evaluated across home size ranges (in 500 sqft increments) up to 7,000 sqft for single-
family/duplex residences, and up to 3,500 sqft for condominium/townhome residences (larger units
were excluded due to small sample sizes).17
16 This approach to evaluating the relationship between home size and employment was chosen to give equal
weight to homes in different size categories. Additionally, the approach also strips out the significant variation
that exists between homes within a given size increment, and thus emphasizes an understanding of the “average”
employment within a given size grouping. This approach was also found to yield a closer fit between modeled and
average actual employment for most size groupings than other statistical approaches (particularly curves fitted to
ungrouped data).
17 For single family/duplex units, the <500 sqft and 500-999 sqft categories were consolidated for analysis
purposes, as were the 6000 – 6499 sqft and 6500 – 6999 sqft categories, due to limited sample sizes in these
ranges.
Floor area Average Average # of Average Average # of
square footage floor area employment survey floor area employment survey
category per unit per unit responses per unit per unit responses
Under 500 sqft 240 0.085 1 389 0.047 30
500 thru 999 812 0.022 6 768 0.107 147
1000 thru 1499 1,223 0.043 15 1,171 0.167 132
1500 thru 1999 1,678 0.073 24 1,698 0.211 39
2000 thru 2499 2,217 0.076 34 2,151 0.205 24
2500 thru 2999 2,673 0.092 48 2,629 0.262 12
3000 thru 3499 3,135 0.109 39 3,213 0.294 5
3500 thru 3999 3,657 0.204 32 n/a n/a n/a
4000 thru 4499 4,120 0.367 28 4,400 0.215 2
4500 thru 4999 4,703 0.255 14 4,750 0.280 2
5000 thru 5499 5,083 0.301 17 n/a n/a n/a
5500 thru 5999 5,706 0.178 6 5,700 0.309 3
6000 thru 6499 6,039 1.514 3 n/a n/a n/a
6500 thru 6999 6,619 0.435 4 n/a n/a n/a
7000 thru 7499 7,169 0.420 2 n/a n/a n/a
7500 thru 7999 7,500 2.077 2 n/a n/a n/a
8000 thru 8499 8,000 0.549 1 n/a n/a n/a
8500 thru 8999 8,650 0.510 2 n/a n/a n/a
9000 thru 9499 9,100 0.478 3 n/a n/a n/a
9500 sqft or more 12,000 2.347 3 n/a n/a n/a
Total 3,419 0.217 284 1,212 0.149 396
CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOMESINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE/DUPLEX
P136
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 21
For both unit types, there is a statistically significant relationship between home size and floor area. In
the case of single family/duplex units, the relationship appears to be exponential, with an accelerating
level of employment as floor area increases. For condominiums/townhomes, the relationship between
employment and floor area appears to be more linear in nature across the size range evaluated.18
Figure 5
Association between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area:
Single Family/Duplex Units
18 For both unit types, the strength of the relationship between square footage and employment is suggested by
the high R squared values (approximately 0.85 to 0.93 for each unit type, where 0 indicates no relationship and 1
indicates a perfect relationship). However, it should be cautioned that the R squared results are significantly
inflated using “grouped” data, because the significant variation that exists among individual homes within a given
size grouping is stripped out in the grouping process. As such, the R squared measures shown should not be
interpreted as representing the strength of the relationship between square footage and employment at the
individual unit level, but rather as a measure of the relationship at a grouped level.
y = 0.0262739146e0.0004908383x
R² = 0.8519679637
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Floor Area
Average sqft & employment for
homes in each sqft increment
Expon. (Average sqft &
employment for homes in each
sqft increment)
P137
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 22
Figure 6
Association between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area:
Condominium/Townhome Units
Based on the statistical analyses above, the relationship between floor area and operations and
maintenance employment for single family / duplex units and condominiums/townhomes respectively
are described by the equations shown in Table 6 below.
Table 6
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area:
By Unit Type
Unit Type
Modeled Relationship between Floor Area and
Operations and Maintenance Employment
Floor Area Range
Modeled
Single family home/duplex y = 0.0262739146e0.0004908383x 0 – 6,999 sqft
Condominium/townhome y = 0.0000818430x + 0.0443701179 0 – 3,499 sqft
Note: x=floor area, y=employment.
Table 7 and Figure 7 to follow illustrate the modeled relationships between floor area and employment
across the size ranges evaluated.19
19 For single family/duplex homes in excess of 7,000 square feet, employment:square footage relationships might
be modeled on the basis of the linear slope between 5,000 and 7,000 square feet, i.e. an additional 0.1 28
employees for every 500 square feet in excess of 7,000 square feet (e.g. 0.944 employees at 7500 sqft, 1.072
employees at 8000 sqft, etc.). Alternatively, multi-community data might be considered as well, given larger
sample sizes for large units (discussed later in this chapter). For condominiums/townhomes in excess of 3,500
square feet, employment:square footage relationships might be assumed to be described by the same function as
below 3,500 square feet, i.e. an additional 0.041 employees for each 500 square foot increment in excess of 3,500
square feet.
y = 0.0000818430x + 0.0443701179
R² = 0.9375733510
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Floor Area
Average sqft & employment for
homes in each sqft increment
Linear (Average sqft &
employment for homes in each
sqft increment)
P138
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 23
Table 7
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area:
By Unit Type
Figure 7
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area:
By Unit Type
Square footage Single family/duplex Condominium/townhome
500 0.034 0.085
1,000 0.043 0.126
1,500 0.055 0.167
2,000 0.070 0.208
2,500 0.090 0.249
3,000 0.115 0.290
3,500 0.146 0.331
4,000 0.187 n/a
4,500 0.239 n/a
5,000 0.306 n/a
5,500 0.391 n/a
6,000 0.499 n/a
6,500 0.638 n/a
7,000 0.816 n/a
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE EMPLOYMENT
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Floor Area
Condominium/townhome
Single family/duplex
P139
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 24
Relationship between Employment and Home Size: by Unit Type and
Occupancy
A similar statistical approach was used to model the relationship between employment and floor area,
for different occupancy types. Specifically, employment:floor area relationships were examined for
units which are owner-occupied at least 40 weeks per year, and units with all other occupancy patterns
(e.g. vacation home, short-term rental, long-term rental, etc.).
Table 8 below shows the statistical relationships between employment and floor area which were
derived for each unit type / occupancy combination. Figure 8 and Figure 9 to follow provide a graphical
illustration of these relationships for single-family/duplex units and condominiums/townhomes
respectively. For single family/duplex units, employment generation (on average) is modeled to be
highly similar for owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied units across the size ranges modeled. For
condominiums/townhomes, employment generation (on average) is modeled to be somewhat lower for
owner-occupied units than for other occupancies.
Table 8
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area:
By Unit Type and Occupancy
Unit type
Occupancy
Modeled relationship between floor
area and operations and
maintenance employment
Size range
modeled
Usable
survey cases
in size range
Single family home/duplex Owner-occupied
40+ weeks/yr
y=0.0175178311e0.0005898944x 0 – 5,499 sqft 128
Single family home/duplex Other
occupancies
y= 0.0256683785e0.0005052129x 0 – 6,999 sqft 129
Condominium/townhome Owner-occupied
40+ weeks/yr
y=0.0000874692x + 0.0004218381 0 – 2,499 sqft 76
Condominium/townhome Other
occupancies
y=0.0000764484x + 0.0594369631 0 – 3,499 sqft 304
Note: x= floor area (in square feet), y=employment.
P140
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 25
Figure 8
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area:
Single Family/Duplex Units, by Occupancy Type
Figure 9
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area:
Condominiums/Townhomes, by Occupancy Type
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Floor Area
Single family/duplex, owner-
occupied 40+ weeks/year
Single family/duplex, other
occupancies
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Square Footage
Condominium/townhome, other
occupancies
Condominium/townhome,
owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year
P141
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 26
Total Labor Associated with Home Operations/Upkeep (Including Owner Labor)
While the preceding analysis has focused on the relationship between paid employment and unit
size/type/occupancy characteristics, it is important to note that many homeowners spend a
considerable amount of their own time on home operations and maintenance tasks.
To evaluate this owner contribution, the Aspen homeowner survey asked respondents to estimate how
many hours per year they or other family members devote to home operations and upkeep. This hourly
figure was divided by 2000 to derive an annualized measure of “FTE labor” contributed by the owner.
This owner labor contribution was then added to the employee labor measure to provide an indicator of
total labor associated with home operations and upkeep, as well as the share of total labor contributed
by the owner’s household.
Summary statistics by unit type and occupancy are shown in Table 9 below. As might be expected,
owner-occupants tend to supply more labor for maintaining their home than non-owner-occupants. On
average, for single-family/duplex units, owner-occupants supply approximately 49 percent of the total
labor required to maintain the home, while non-owner-occupants supply approximately 11 percent of
the labor needed for their units. Similarly, for condominiums/townhomes, owner-occupants supply an
average of 35 percent of the total labor required to maintain the home, while non-owner-occupants
supply an average of 10 percent of the labor needed for their units.
Table 9
Average Total Labor Associated with Home Operations and Upkeep:
Paid Labor and “Owner FTE Labor” By Unit Type and Occupancy
Note: Owner FTE labor is calculated as total annual hours spent on home operations/upkeep by the owner’s
household, divided by 2,000 hours.
Note: Sample size is slightly larger by unit type alone, then by occupancy type within unit type, as reflected above.
Taking the analysis a step further, using the same statistical approach as previously, total labor:floor
area relationships were modeled by unit type and occupancy. As shown in Figure 10 to follow, for single
family/duplex units, the total labor outlay associated with home maintenance and operations was found
Unit Type Occupancy
Paid
Employees:
FTE
Owner
labor:
FTE
Total FTE
(paid &
owner)
Owner FTE
as a share of
Total FTE
Survey
cases
Single family/duplex Owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year 0.135 0.127 0.262 49%106
Single family/duplex Other occupancies 0.292 0.035 0.327 11%124
Single family/duplex Total 0.221 0.077 0.298 26%233
Condo/townhome Owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year 0.106 0.056 0.162 35%61
Condo/townhome Other occupancies 0.170 0.018 0.188 10%259
Condo/townhome Total 0.157 0.026 0.182 14%324
Total Owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year 0.124 0.101 0.226 45%167
Total Other occupancies 0.209 0.024 0.233 10%383
Total Total 0.184 0.047 0.231 20%557
P142
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 27
to be higher for owner-occupied homes than other occupancies, after including the owner labor
contribution. For condominiums/townhomes (Figure 11), owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied
units were found to incur similar labor outlays.20
This analysis helps to shed light on the impact of owner contribution to home operations and upkeep.
To the extent owners (and especially owner-occupants) contribute to home operations and upkeep –
and house themselves – they avert some of the employment and workforce housing demand that might
otherwise stem from maintaining and operating the home.
Figure 10
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment plus “Owner FTE Labor”
vs. Floor Area: Single Family/Duplex Units, by Occupancy Type
20 It should be noted that the employment:sqft relationships derived from this analysis are based on a smaller
number of usable survey responses (n=550) than the previous analysis of employment by unit type by occupancy
type (n=637). As such, the curves from these sets of analysis cannot be directly c ompared.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
p
l
u
s
"
O
w
n
e
r
F
T
E
L
a
b
o
r
"
Floor Area
Single family/duplex, other
occupancies
Single family/duplex, owner-
occupied 40+ weeks/year
P143
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 28
Figure 11
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment plus “Owner FTE Labor”
vs. Floor Area: Condominiums/Townhomes, by Occupancy Type
Aspen Property Management Company Survey
With outreach assistance from the Aspen Community Development Department, RRC conducted a
survey of Aspen property management companies. The primary purpose of the survey was to gather
information about the employment requirements associated with delivering property management
services to homes in Aspen. A total of 13 Aspen property management companies were contacted and
five provided data about their operations via surveys or interviews. The results provide an additional
point of reference for understanding Aspen’s residential employment picture, particularly employment
associated with property management services.
Selected notable findings from the research are summarized below.
Each of the responding property management firms provides both services related to property
upkeep (the physical asset) as well as concierge/personal services to the owner/occupants.
Some of the responding firms also provide short-term rental management services, HOA
management services, and/or commercial property management services.
Firms specializing in property management services to individual residential owners only (not
HOAs or commercial property) utilize an average of approximately 0.5 FTE in labor per
residential unit served.
For every in-house FTE, responding firms subcontract for an average of approximately 0.1 FTE in
additional labor.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
p
l
u
s
"
O
w
n
e
r
F
T
E
L
a
b
o
r
"
Floor Area
Condominium/townhome, other
occupancies
Condominium/townhome,
owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year
P144
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 29
Each firm was asked to quantify the labor needs associated with a randomly selected unit in
each of three categories of their inventory: one unit with “high” employment/service needs, one
unit with “average” needs, and one unit with “low” needs.
o In the “high employment needs” category, respondents each selected single
family/duplex units, with a median of 8,000 square feet of living area. A median of
1,300 hours (0.65 FTE) of in-house and subcontracted labor was used to service the
units annually, with a range of 700 to 2500 hours per unit.
o In the “average employment needs” category, respondents selected a mix of single
family/duplex and condominium/townhome units, with a median of 5,500 square feet
of living area. A median of 490 labor hours (0.245 FTE) were spent servicing these units
annually.
o In the “low employment needs” category, respondents selected a mix of single
family/duplex and condominium/townhome units, with a median of 3,200 square feet
of living area. A median of 175 labor hours (0.0875 FTE) were spent servicing these
units annually.
o It should be noted that the labor needs above only reflect labor provided by the
property management firms or their subcontractors. To the extent that owners may
have used additional service providers (e.g. HOAs, contractors, caretakers, etc.), those
employment demands are excluded.
o Firms were also asked to comment on factors that caused the respective units to have
either “high” or “low” service needs. The following factors were mentioned:
Size. Generally, the larger the size of the unit and property, the greater the
service needs; this is consistent with the square footage differences of the units
selected in each needs category as summarized above.
Amenities.
Degree to which the owner is in town; greater time in Aspen often equates to
higher service needs. Relatedly, firms tend to be busier at the times of year
when owners are in town.
Number of persons in owner travel party, including children and guests (higher
needs with more people).
Desire of the owner to do things themselves vs. have services provided.
Employment Relationships Based on Multi-Community Data (Heated Square
Feet)
RRC has conducted similar homeowner employment generation surveys in a variety of mountain resort
communities over the past 15 years. The data has been aggregated into a single database to permit
analyses based on a larger sample of units, which is particularly useful for understanding employment
patterns for especially large homes (for which data tends to be limited at the individual community
level). Some communities have chosen to base affordable housing mitigation requirements on multi-
community patterns rather than data for their community alone.
P145
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 30
Specifically, the merged database is based on homeowner surveys conducted in the following areas:
Aspen (2004, 2008, 2014)
Blaine County, ID (2002)
Breckenridge/Upper Blue River Valley, CO (2000/01)
Eagle County, CO (2001)
Gunnison County, CO (1999/00)
San Miguel County, CO (1999/00)
Snowmass Village, CO (2008)
Teton County, WY (1999/00, 2012)
It should be noted that this database is benchmarked to “heated square feet” (excluding heated
garages), rather than floor area as defined by the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Aspen’s data has been
incorporated into the merged database on a heated square footage basis. Comparisons between Aspen
and multi-community data is also made on a heated square footage basis in this section, rather than a
floor area basis.
A total of 4,531 usable survey cases with heated square footage, employment, and unit type are
available from the database. Similar statistical techniques to those employed above were used to derive
employment:heated square footage relationships for different unit types and occupancies.
In the multi-community database, an exponential relationship again appears to exist between
employment and square footage for single family/duplex units, similar to Aspen’s results, as illustrated
in Figure 12 to follow. Also of note, when fitted across the 0 – 6,999 sqft range only, Aspen’s modeled
results and the multi-community modeled results are highly similar across most of the size spectrum
(except units larger than approximately 6,000 sqft, where Aspen’s employment generation becomes
slightly higher), as shown in Figure 13.21 The rough similarity of results provides a “reasonableness
check” on the Aspen results, and it could also potentially be grounds for considering using the multi-
community average data for policy purposes (e.g. for very large units), although a conversion from
heated square feet to floor area would be needed before doing so.
21 Note that square footage:employment models vary depending on the range of home sizes included in the
modeling process, insofar as the models are designed to produce a single equation which best fits all of the
available datapoints. As such, models for a given community/area are likely to differ to the extent they are derived
from differing home size ranges.
P146
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 31
Figure 12
Association between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Heated Square Footage:
Single Family/Duplex Units (Multi-Community Database)
Figure 13
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Heated Square Footage,
Single Family/Duplex Units: Aspen vs. Multi-Community Database
(Models derived from homes up to 6,999 sqft only)
For condominiums/townhomes, a linear relationship appears to exist between employment and heated
square footage in the multi-community database (Figure 14), again similar to Aspen’s pattern. However,
Aspen’s modeled employment generation is generally somewhat higher than the multi-community
y = 0.0435038234e0.0003251223x
R² = 0.9152239732
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Heated Square Footage
Average sqft & employment for SF/duplex homes in each sqft increment
Average sqft & employment for
SF/duplex homes in each sqft
increment
Expon. (Average sqft &
employment for SF/duplex
homes in each sqft increment)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Heated Square Footage
Chart Title
Multi-community database:
modeled based on homes thru
6999 sqft
Aspen: modeled based on homes
thru 6999 sqft
P147
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 32
average, particularly as square footage increases, as shown in Figure 15 (data fitted across the 0 – 3,499
sqft range only in both areas for this comparison).22
Figure 14
Association between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Heated Square Footage:
Condominium/Townhome Units (Multi-Community Database)
22 Note that heated square footage:employment models vary depending on the range of home sizes included in
the modeling process, insofar as the models are designed to produce a single equation which best fits all of the
available datapoints. As such, models for a given community/area are likely to differ if derived from differing
home size ranges.
y = 0.0000421201x + 0.0724057998
R² = 0.7319430357
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Heated Square Footage
Average sqft & employment for units in each sqft increment
Average sqft & employment for
units in each sqft increment
Linear (Average sqft &
employment for units in each
sqft increment)
P148
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 33
Figure 15
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Heated Square Footage,
Condominium/Townhome Units: Aspen vs. Multi-Community Database
(Models derived from homes up to 3,499 sqft only)
Total Residential Employment Generation
Total residential employment generation has been calculated from the sum of construction
employment (new floor area only) and operations and maintenance employment. The results
using factors specific to Aspen (instead of multi-community averages) are summarized in Table
10 to follow, for 500 square foot increments of floor area. As shown, average total employment
generation for a single family/duplex unit with 3,000 square feet of floor area is estimated to be
0.445 workers.
Looking at the two categories of employment more specifically:
Construction employment per square foot is projected to increase at a linear rate for
both unit types, with an approximately 13 percent higher employment generation ra te
for single family/duplex units than for condominium/townhome units.
Operations and maintenance employment is estimated to grow at an exponential rate
for single family/duplex units, and at a linear rate for condominium/townhome units.
As the sum of construction and operations/maintenance employment, total employment is
estimated to grow quasi-exponentially for single family/duplex units, and linearly for
condominium/townhome units.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Heated Square Footage
Chart Title
Multi-community database:
modeled based on units thru 3499
sqft
Aspen: modeled based on units
thru 3499 sqft
P149
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 34
Table 10
Estimated Total Employment by Unit Type and Floor Area
Notes:
Operations and maintenance employment excludes “owner FTE labor,” i.e. labor contributed by the owner
and household members to unit upkeep.
Results exclude employment associated with personal service employees who travel with the household. The
results do not deduct for other types of employees (such as caretakers) who may be housed by the owner.
Operations and maintenance employment for single family/duplex units larger than 7,000 sqft may be
assumed to grow by 0.128 employees for every 500 square feet in excess of 7,000 sqft. Operations and
maintenance employment for condominium/townhome units larger than 3,500 sqft may be assumed to grow
additional 0.041 employees for each 500 square foot increment in excess of 3,500 sqft. Construction
employment is assumed to grow linearly beyond 7,000 sqft, at 0.110 employees per 1,000 sqft for single
family/duplex units and 0.096 employees per 1,000 sqft for condominiums/townhomes.
Floor Single family/Condominium/Single family/Condominium/Single family/Condominium/
area duplex townhome duplex townhome duplex townhome
500 0.055 0.048 0.034 0.085 0.089 0.133
1,000 0.110 0.096 0.043 0.126 0.153 0.222
1,500 0.165 0.144 0.055 0.167 0.220 0.311
2,000 0.220 0.192 0.070 0.208 0.291 0.400
2,500 0.276 0.239 0.090 0.249 0.365 0.488
3,000 0.331 0.287 0.115 0.290 0.445 0.577
3,500 0.386 0.335 0.146 0.331 0.532 0.666
4,000 0.441 0.383 0.187 n/a 0.628 n/a
4,500 0.496 0.431 0.239 n/a 0.735 n/a
5,000 0.551 0.479 0.306 n/a 0.857 n/a
5,500 0.606 0.527 0.391 n/a 0.997 n/a
6,000 0.661 0.575 0.499 n/a 1.161 n/a
6,500 0.716 0.623 0.638 n/a 1.355 n/a
7,000 0.772 0.671 0.816 n/a 1.588 n/a
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYMENT TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION
EMPLOYMENT
P150
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 35
Appendix A: Homeowner Survey Results – by Unit Type
Results of the 2014 Aspen Homeowner Survey are summarized in this section of the report, as
segmented by unit type (single family/duplex vs. condominium/townhome). Results are limited to free-
market units only.
Respondent Housing Characteristics
Following is a summary of key characteristics of Aspen housing units owned by respondents, particularly
physical characteristics of the units. Results are also illustrated in Figure 16 to Figure 25 to follow.
Unit type: A little over half of units represented in the survey response were condominiums/
townhomes (53 percent), followed by single-family houses (33 percent), duplexes (11 percent),
and mobile/modular homes (2 percent). For purposes of the remainder of the analysis, results
for single family and duplex units have been combined, and mobile/modular units have been
excluded.
Restricted vs. free-market housing: Fully 98 percent of respondents overall said their unit was
unrestricted free-market housing, while 2 percent said their unit was restricted housing. In the
remainder of this section, only free-market units are included in the analysis.
Property location: The most common locations for single-family/duplex residences were the
West End (29 percent), Cemetery Lane (24 percent), and East of Aspen (22 percent). The top
location for respondents in condominiums/townhomes was downtown (53 percent), followed
distantly by the West End (14 percent) and East of Aspen (11 percent).
Number of bedrooms: Single family or duplex homes had an average of 3.3 bedrooms. Most
homes had three bedrooms (28 percent), four bedrooms (34 percent), or five bedrooms (21
percent). More modest shares of units had 0 – 2 bedrooms (9 percent) or six or more bedrooms
(9 percent). Respondents in condominiums/townhomes on average had 2.1 bedrooms. A
majority of these respondents reported having one bedroom (21 percent), two bedrooms (38
percent), or three bedrooms (29 percent), while smaller shares had no bedrooms (5 percent) or
four or more bedrooms (7 percent).
Presence and use of accessory units/homes located on property: Fifteen percent of single
family/duplex homeowners and 2 percent of condominium/townhome owners said that there
was one or more separate, accessory units located on their property.
Among respondents reporting the presence of accessory units, most single family/duplex
homeowners reported that there was one (73 percent) or two (24 percent) accessory units, with
an average of 1.4 units. Fifty percent of condominium/townhome owners with accessory units
reported the presence of one, 17 percent reported two, and 33 percent reported 3 or more,
with a 2.2 unit average (results for condominiums/townhomes should be interpreted with
caution due to a modest response size).
P151
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 36
Among single-family/duplex owners reporting the presence of accessory units, the largest share
reported that the units were rented long-term to local residents (39 percent). Smaller shares
used the units for visiting guests of the owner/household (27 percent) or for household/family
member use (24 percent). Condominium/townhome respondents with accessory units
indicated the greatest use as a caretaker residence (56 percent), followed by renting long-term
to local residents (33 percent) and use by visiting guests of owner/household (33 percent). A
modest 4 percent of single-family/duplex homeowners and 0 percent of
condominium/townhome visitors indicated that their accessory units are left vacant/not used.
Finished, unfinished, and total living space (including accessory residences, if applicable): Single-
family house and duplex homeowners reported that their unit had an average of 3,631 square
feet of finished space and a median of 3,300 square feet, as well as an average of 68 unfinished
square feet. Condominium/duplex owners reported an average of 1,269 finished square feet
(median 1,027 square feet) and an average of 5 unfinished square feet. These figures include
space in the primary residence plus any accessory residences on the property, if applicable. As
would likely be expected, single family homes/duplexes were significantly larger in total space
(average 3,676 square feet, median 3,300 square feet) than condominiums/townhomes
(average 1,280 square feet, median 1,045 square feet).
Garage space: Seventy-seven percent of single family/duplex homes and 24 percent of
condominiums/townhomes have a garage or access to a common garage. Among single
family/duplex homeowners with garages, respondents most frequently reported having one (23
percent) or two (69 percent) parking stalls (average 1.8 stalls). Condominium/townhome
owners generally had slightly less garage space, with 55 percent indicating they had one stall
and 40 percent indicating there had two (average 1.6 stalls).
Basement space: Basements were less common than garages—32 percent of single family
house/duplex homeowners indicated that they have a basement, either finished or unfinished,
and 8 percent of condominium/townhome owners did as well. Among single family/duplex
homes with a basement, the average basement size was 1,063 square feet with a median of
1,000 square feet. Condominium/townhome owners with a basement reported an average
basement size of 556 square feet (median 500 square feet).
Lot size (single family/duplex units): Among single family house/duplex owners, 43 percent
reported that their property was a small residential lot (up to 6,000 square feet); 35 percent had
a medium residential lot (6,000 – 15,000 square feet); and 18 percent had a large lot (more than
15,000 square feet).
Year residence was built: Single family home and duplex owners reported a broad range of
dates that their home was built, ranging from before 1900 up through the present with the
largest share of respondents indicating that the unit was built between 2000 and 2009 (21
percent). The average year that single family homes/duplexes were built was 1973 (median
1979). Condominium and townhome owners were most likely to report that their home was
built during the 1960s (31 percent) or 1970s (46 percent). Similar to single family homes, the
average year of building for condominiums/ townhomes was 1973 (albeit with an earlier median
of 1970).
P152
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 37
Year residence was purchased: The distribution of purchase dates is similar between single
family/duplex respondents and condominium/townhome respondents, with 93 percent and 96
percent respectively purchasing their house between 1970 and today. The largest shares of
owners for both unit types bought their residences in the decade of 2000-2009 (33 percent of
single family/duplex respondents, 32 percent of condominium/townhome). The average year of
purchase by single family house/duplex homeowners was 1998 (median 2000), and the average
year of purchase by condominium/ townhome owners was 1996 (median 1999).
Value of residence: Single family home and duplex homeowners reported a wide range of value
levels for their homes, with an average value of $4,385,077 and a median of $3,700,000. As
would be expected, condominium and townhome owners reported lesser home values, with
average value of $1,409,699, with a median of $1,100,000. Most condominium/townhome
owners (70 percent) valued their home at between $500,000 and $2,000,000.
Recent remodels/renovations: Twenty-six percent of single family/duplex respondents and
forty-one percent of condominium/townhome respondents indicated that they have remodeled
recently. Of single family house and duplex owners who have recently renovated, 54 percent
reported having renovated between 2010 and 2014. The average remodel cost of single family
homes and duplexes was reported to be $588,629, with a median of $300,000. Among
condominium and townhome owners who have recently renovated, 57 percent indicated that
their remodels occurred between 2010 and 2014, with an average remodel cost of $163,634 and
a median of $100,000.
Planned future remodels/renovations: Eight percent of single family home/duplex owners and
10 percent of condominium/townhome owners expressed an intent to remodel soon.
Approximately 78 percent of single family home and duplex owners with plans to renovate
intended to do so in 2014 or 2015, while 22 percent expected their plans to be completed in
2016 or later. Single family and duplex homeowners expected to spend an average of $487,632
on their remodel (median $200,000). Most condominium and townhome owners also expected
to remodel in 2014 or 2015 (76 percent), while the other 24 percent plan to complete
renovations later. The planned cost of remodeling for condominiums and townhomes on
average was $112,105 (median $45,000).
P153
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 38
Figure 16
Residence Location
Figure 17
Number of Bedrooms
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P154
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 39
Figure 18
Accessory Units
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P155
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 40
Figure 19
Finished and Unfinished Heated Space (in square feet)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
0%
2%
6%
7%
23%
27%
15%
21%
91%
4%
6%
7%
37%
31%
10%
11%
2%
2%
1%
98%
2%
0%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
1 - 499 sqft
500 - 999 sqft
1000 - 1499 sqft
1500 - 1999 sqft
2000 - 2999 sqft
3000 - 3999 sqft
4000 - 4999 sqft
5000+ sqft
0 sqft
Under 499 sqft
500+ sqft
Percent of Respondents
Single family / duplex
Condominium or townhome
HEATED, FINISHED
SQUARE FEET
HEATED, UNFINISHED
SQUARE FEET
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 3631 sqft; Median: 3300 sqft
CONDO/TOWNHOME
Average: 1269 sqft; Median: 1026.5 sqft
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 68 sqft; Median: 0 sqft
CONDO/TOWNHOME
Average: 5 sqft; Median: 0 sqft
P156
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 41
Figure 20
Total Heated Space (in square feet)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
0%
2%
5%
7%
23%
27%
15%
22%
7%
36%
32%
10%
11%
2%
2%
1%
0%10%20%30%40%
1 - 499 sqft
500 - 999 sqft
1000 - 1499 sqft
1500 - 1999 sqft
2000 - 2999 sqft
3000 - 3999 sqft
4000 - 4999 sqft
5000+ sqft
Percent of Respondents
Single family / duplex
Condominium or townhome
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 3676 sqft; Median: 3300 sqft
CONDO/TOWNHOME
Average: 1280 sqft; Median: 1045 sqft
P157
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 42
Figure 21
Garage/Basement Size
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
77%
32%
16%
23%
69%
6%
1%
6%
12%
20%
8%
26%
15%
13%
24%
8%
70%
55%
40%
3%
3%
22%
22%
41%
0%
7%
4%
4%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
A garage
A finished or unfinished
basement
None of the above
1
2
3
4 or more
1 - 249 sqft
250 - 499 sqft
500 - 749 sqft
750 - 999 sqft
1000 - 1499 sqft
1500 - 1999 sqft
2000+ sqft
Percent of Respondents
Single family / duplex
Condominium or townhome
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 1063 sqft; Median: 1000 sqft
CONDO/TOWNHOME
Average: 556 sqft; Median: 500 sqft
DOES YOUR RESIDENCE
HAVE:
(If have garage) NUMBER OF
PARKING STALLS
(If have basement) BASEMENT
SQUARE FOOTAGE
P158
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 43
Figure 22
Lot Size and Year Built/Purchased
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P159
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 44
Figure 23
Value of Residence
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P160
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 45
Figure 24
Remodeling Plans, and Details of Recent Past Remodel
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P161
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 46
Figure 25
Future Remodeling Plans
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
Unit Usage Characteristics
Table 11 to follow illustrates the average number of weeks homes are used for a variety of purposes
across a 52-week year, both overall and segmented by unit type. It should be understood that the data
on “average weeks of use” reflect net total weeks of use across a range of use types, not for a single use
type. For example, long-term rentals to local residents account for a net annual average of 4.1 weeks of
P162
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 47
occupancy across all respondent homes, including homes that are not used for long-term rentals at all.
With this understanding in mind, key findings include the following:
Overall - all respondents: Across the entire set of responses, the leading use of homes is as a
primary residence for the owner (average 20.0 weeks, or 39 percent of time available for
occupancy in a year). To a lesser extent, homes are used as a vacation rental (14 percent,
including time occupied and unoccupied), as a vacation home occupied by the owner or guests
of owner (10 percent), and rented long-term to local residents (8 percent of available time).
Additionally, units are vacant (and not available for vacation rental) an aggregate of 29 percent
of the time.
Single family/duplex residences: Among respondents owning a single family house or a duplex,
homes are occupied as the primary residence of the owner an average of 54 percent of the year
(28.1 weeks) and are vacant (and unavailable for vacation rental) 28 percent of the time (14.6
weeks). Other uses include as a vacation home for the owner/guests (9 percent), a vacation
rental (4 percent, including time vacant but available for rent), or a long-term rental to a local
resident (4 percent).
Condominium/townhome residences: Among respondents owning a condominium or a
townhome, on average the residence is occupied as the primary residence of the owner 24
percent of the time (12.2 weeks) and is vacant 31 percent of the year (16.2 weeks).
Respondents reported that their condo/townhome is also commonly used (or available for use)
as a vacation rental (23 percent of the year), rented long-term to a local resident (11 percent),
or used as a vacation home for themselves or for their guests (10 percent).
Table 11
Average Annual Weeks of Use of Home23
UNIT TYPE
OVERALL - ALL
RESPONDENTS
Single family /
duplex
Condominium /
townhome
Type of Use # weeks % weeks # weeks % weeks # weeks % weeks
Primary residence for owner 20.0 39% 28.1 54% 12.2 24%
Vacation home for owner or guests of owner 5.1 10% 4.9 9% 5.4 10%
Vacation rental - weeks actually occupied by visitors 3.9 7% 1.0 2% 6.5 13%
Vacation rental - weeks avail. for rent, but not occupied 3.4 7% 1.1 2% 5.3 10%
Rented long term to local resident 4.1 8% 2.0 4% 6.0 11%
Business/corporate function 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0%
Other use 0.3 1% 0.3 1% 0.3 1%
Vacant - not occupied (and not avail. for vacation rental) 15.2 29% 14.6 28% 16.2 31%
TOTAL WEEKS 52.0 100% 52.0 100% 52.0 100%
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
23 To clarify, the data on “average weeks of use” reflect net total weeks of use across a range of use types, not for a single use
type. For example, long-term rentals to local residents account for a net annual average of 4.1 weeks of occupancy across all
respondent homes, including homes that are not used for long-term rentals at all.
P163
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 48
Respondent Household/Demographic Characteristics
Following is a summary of selected demographic characteristics of the households of respondents to the
survey.
Who typically occupies your Aspen home when you are in residence? Most respondents said
they themselves (95 percent of single family/duplex respondents, 89 percent of condominium/
townhome respondents) and/or their spouse/partner (77 percent single family/duplex, 62
percent condominium/townhome) occupy their unit while they are in residence. Smaller shares
of single family home/duplex owners and condominium/townhome owners said their unit is
typically occupied by children (56 percent and 42 percent), friends (34 percent and 33 percent),
or relatives/other family members (32 percent and 26 percent). Very small proportions share
their unit with business associates (4 percent each) or rent a room to housemate(s) (2 percent
and 1 percent). Nine percent of condominium/townhome respondents and 1 percent of single
family/duplex respondents said they don’t use their home for personal use.
Total persons who live/stay in your home while you are in residence: Respondents said an
average of 3.4 persons (including themselves) stay in their single family home/duplex while they
are in residence and an average of 3.0 persons stay in their condominium/townhome while they
are in residence.
Total persons under age 18 in the home: Forty-four percent of single family/duplex owners and
37 percent of condominium/townhome owners indicated that children under age 18 typically
live or stay in their home. On average, owners of both unit types have 1.0 children under 18 in
their homes.
Total persons who are retired: Half of single family/duplex respondents (50 percent) and 45
percent of condominium/townhome respondents indicated that one or more retirees reside in
their household. Single family house/duplex owners reported an average of 0.8 retirees, while
condominium/townhome owners reported an average of 1.0 retirees.
Total persons who work in Aspen: Thirty-one percent of single family/duplex owners indicated
that one or more Aspen workers reside in their household (average 0.5 persons).
Condominium/townhome owners were less likely to report the presence of residents employed
in Aspen, with an 18 percent incidence and an average of 0.2 persons.
Total persons who work in the Roaring Fork Valley: Thirty-nine percent of single family/duplex
respondents and 22 percent of condominium/townhome respondents indicated that one or
more residents of their household work within the Roaring Fork Valley (average 0.7 persons in
single family homes/duplexes and 0.3 persons in condominiums/townhomes).
Total persons who work outside the Roaring Fork Valley: Twenty-five percent of single family
house/duplex owners and 32 percent of condominium/townhome owners reported the
presence of one or more persons who are employed outside the Roaring Fork Valley living in
their household, with an average of 0.8 persons per household for each unit type.
P164
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 49
Number of hours worked by residents employed in Roaring Fork Valley: Respondents who own
single family homes/duplexes reported an average of 1,171 hours worked per year by members
of their household in the Roaring Fork Valley (data includes households with no one employed in
the valley). Condominium/townhome owners reported an average of 658 hours worked per
year by members of their household in the Roaring Fork Valley.
Among households with at least one Roaring Fork Valley worker, the average aggregate number
of hours worked in the Roaring Fork Valley per year was similar among single family/duplex
households (average 2,842 hours) and condominium/townhome households (average 2,727
hours).
Figure 26
Who typically occupies your Aspen home when you are in residence?
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P165
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 50
Figure 27
Number of Persons in Household – Total and by Age
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P166
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 51
Figure 28
Number of Persons in Household – by Employment Characteristics
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
69%
13%
15%
2%
61%
18%
19%
3%
75%
9%
6%
1%
2%
7%
82%
13%
5%
0%
78%
15%
7%
1%
68%
9%
11%
1%
6%
3%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
0
1
2
3 or more
0
1
2
3 or more
0
1
2
3
4
5 or more
Percent of Respondents
Single family / duplex
Condominium or townhome
TOTAL PERSONS WHO
WORK FOR AN
EMPLOYER OR OWN A
BUSINESS LOCATED IN
CITY OF ASPEN
TOTAL PERSONS
EMPLOYED IN ROARING
FORK VALLEY
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 0.8 person; Median: 0 persons
CONDO/TOWNHOME
Average: 0.8 person; Median: 0 persons
TOTAL PERSONS
EMPLOYED OUTSIDE
ROARING FORK
VALLEY
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 0.5 person; Median: 0 persons
CONDO/TOWNHOME
Average: 0.2 person; Median: 0 persons
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 0.7 person; Median: 0 persons
CONDO/TOWNHOME
Average: 0.3 person; Median: 0 persons
P167
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 52
Figure 29
Aggregate Number of Hours Worked by Household Members in Roaring Fork Valley
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
59%
9%
3%
6%
7%
10%
2%
4%
76%
7%
2%
4%
3%
5%
1%
2%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
0 hr
1 - 999 hours
1000 - 1999 hours
2000 - 2999 hours
3000 - 3999 hours
4000 - 4999 hours
5000 - 5999 hours
6000+ hours
Percent of Respondents
Single family / duplex
Condominium or townhome
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 1171 hours; Median: 0 hours
CONDO/TOWNHOME
Average: 658 hours; Median: 0 hours
P168
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 53
Intended Future Use of Unit
How do you expect to be using your Aspen home five years from now? Overall, most single
family house and duplex owners (55 percent) expect to use their unit as a primary residence in
five years’ time. Smaller shares expect to use their home as a vacation home for the
owner/guests (36 percent), to use the unit as a retirement residence (10 percent), to use the
unit as a vacation rental to visitors (8 percent), to sell it (6 percent), or to rent long-term to a
local resident (4 percent).
About half of condominium and townhome owners said that they planned to use their unit as a
vacation home for the owner/guests (53 percent). More modest shares plan to use the unit as
the primary residence for the owner (25 percent) or as a vacation rental to visitors (22 percent),
or plan to sell the unit (9 percent), retire in their Aspen residence (8 percent), or rent it out long-
term to a local resident (8 percent).
Changes in personal/friend/family use over the next five years: A majority of single family
home/duplex owners (61 percent) expected their use of the unit to stay the same over the next
five years. Respondents were more likely to indicate that their use of the unit would increase
(27 percent) than decrease (5 percent).
Somewhat similarly, about half of condominium/townhome owners (53 percent) anticipated
that their usage of the unit would stay the same over the next five years, while 31 percent felt it
would increase and 4 percent indicated that it would decrease.
P169
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 54
Figure 30
Intended Future Use of Unit
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P170
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 55
Characteristics of and Expenditures on Home Operations and Upkeep
Following is a summary of data pertaining to selected aspects of home operations and upkeep, including
the types of service providers used by respondents and the services and homeowner expenditures
associated with each type of provider.
Providers used for home operations and upkeep: Most single family home or duplex owners
hire contractors/employees/specialty services (87 percent) or perform work themselves (78
percent). Roughly a quarter hire a property management company (27 percent) or belong to a
homeowners association (21 percent), while 8 percent hire an on-site caretaker. Condominium
and townhome owners primarily take care of home maintenance via a homeowners association
(98 percent), as well as doing the work themselves (64 percent). Progressively smaller shares
hire a property management company (57 percent), contractors/employees/specialty services
(55 percent), or an on-site caretaker (11 percent).
Figure 31
Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P171
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 56
Services delivered by respective providers: Figure 32 and Figure 33 to follow illustrate the
services delivered by home service providers (in instances when the respondent uses the
provider), for single family homes/duplexes and condominiums/townhomes respectively.
Among single family house and duplex owners, contractors/employees/specialty services hired
by the household are identified as providing the most types of services (average 4.6 services
provided, among those using these services), followed by on-site caretakers (average 4.2
services), property management companies (average 4.1 services), and HOAs (2.3 services). As
illustrated, different types of service providers tend to deliver different mixes of services. For
example, HOAs are especially likely to provide single family home and duplex owners with
operation/maintenance of community amenities; property management companies are
comparatively likely to provide building maintenance and housekeeping/cleaning; and
contractors/employees are especially likely to be hired for trash removal, lawn/landscape
maintenance, systems/appliances repair, and security services.
Among condominium and townhome owners, HOAs are reported by respondents to provide the
most types of services (average 5.5 services provided, among those using HOAs), followed by
property management companies (average 4.9 services), on-site caretakers (average 2.9
services), and contractors/employees/specialty services (average 2.5 services). Similar to single
family homes, the services provided vary by provider type. HOAs are comparatively likely to
provide snow removal, trash removal, building maintenance, lawn/landscape maintenance, and
operation/maintenance of community amenities; property management companies are
comparatively likely to provide security service, rental management, and
housekeeping/cleaning; and contractors/employees/specialty services are comparatively likely
to be hired for systems/appliances repair.
P172
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 57
Figure 32
Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Providers – Single Family/Duplex
(Base: Respondents Who Use Each Respective Provider)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P173
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 58
Figure 33
Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Providers – Condominium/Townhome
(Base: Respondents Who Use Each Respective Provider)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P174
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 59
Annual expenditures on home service providers: Respondents were asked to estimate how
much they spend annually on each of respective home service providers that they use. As
illustrated in Table 12 below, annual HOA costs are considerably higher for condominium/
townhome owners (average $9,545 / median $6,800) than single-family homeowners (average
$4,785 / median $2,100).
For single family house and duplex homeowners, among those using property management
companies, the average annual expenditure is $13,384 (median $10,000). The average annual
expenditure for on-site caretakers is $29,722 (median $7,500), and the average annual
expenditure for other contractors/employees is $11,994 (median $5,000).
For condominium and townhome owners, the average annual expenditure for property
management companies is $9,909 (median $5,250), the average annual expenditure for on-site
caretakers is $4,555 (median $1,500) and the average annual expenditure for other
contractors/employees is $3,173 (median $2,000).
On average, among those using the respective service providers, condominium/townhouse
owners spend more than single family/duplex owners on HOAs, while single family/duplex
owners have higher expenses for property management companies, caretakers, and other
contractors/employees.
Table 12
Annual Expenditures on Home Service Providers (If Use Provider)
Single family /
duplex
Condominium /
townhome
Annual Expenditures on Provider (If Use Provider) Mean Median Mean Median
Amount spent on HOA $4,785 $2,100 $9,545 $6,800
Amount spent on property management company $13,384 $10,000 $9,909 $5,250
Amount spent on on-site caretaker $29,722 $7,500 $4,555 $1,500
Amount spent on other contractors/employees $11,994 $5,000 $3,173 $2,000
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
Caretaker housing: Among single family house and duplex owners with on-site caretakers, 33
percent provide free housing as part of their compensation, 42 percent offer discounted
housing, and 25 percent do not provide housing assistance as part of compensation. Among
condominium/townhouse owners, 27 percent provide free housing, 64 percent provide
discounted housing and 9 percent don’t provide housing assistance.
Home maintenance and upkeep services delivered by self/household members: Single family
house and duplex homeowners indicated that they provide their own service for an average of
3.7 services to their household. Condominium and townhome owners reported that they
typically provide their own service an average of 2.0 services. Top self-provided services for
single family houses/duplexes include building maintenance (64 percent), housekeeping/
cleaning (61 percent), lawn/landscape maintenance (57 percent), and snow removal (51
percent). Condominium/townhome owners reported as their top self-provided services
P175
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 60
housekeeping/cleaning (72 percent) and systems/appliances repair (45 percent). Single family
house and duplex owners estimated they spend an average of 221 hours a year on housework
(median 150 hours), while condominium and townhome owners reported an average of 100
hours (median 50 hours), each inclusive of households not providing any self-service.
Figure 34
Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Self/Household Members
(Base: Respondents/Household Members Who Engage in Home Maintenance/Upkeep)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P176
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 61
Additional services obtained in your home: Respondents were asked to further identify any
other services they obtain in the home, and specify whether the associated service providers are
obtained locally or travel with their household.
Single family/duplex owners are much more likely to obtain such services locally (27 percent in
aggregate) than to have providers travel with their household (5 percent in aggregate). The
most prevalent type of locally obtained service is chef/kitchen help/catering (used by 18 percent
of respondents), followed by pet sitter (7 percent), child care provider/nanny (6 percent), and
personal trainer (6 percent). The most prevalent type of service delivered by persons traveling
with the household is childcare/nanny (3 percent), followed by chef (1 percent) and driver/pilot
(1 percent).
As shown in in Figure 36 on the following page, 15 percent of condominium/townhome owners
obtain personal services locally and 1 percent have providers who travel with their household.
The most common locally-obtained services are pet sitter (5 percent), child care provider/nanny
(4 percent), and chef/kitchen help/catering (4 percent).
Among those using the respective services, the annual amount spent on the respective services
is summarized in Table 13 to follow. Among those procuring the respective services, the highest
average amount spent is for drivers/pilots.
Figure 35
Additional Services Obtained In the Home, by Where Service Is Obtained – Single Family/Duplex
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
73%
18%
6%
7%
6%
2%
1%
1%
1%
95%
1%
3%
0%
1%
0%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
None of these
Chef/kitchen help/catering
Child care provider/nanny
Pet sitter
Personal trainer
Personal assistant
Driver, pilot
Other
Concierge/butler
Percent of Respondents
Obtained locally
Travels with my household
P177
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 62
Figure 36
Additional Services Obtained In the Home, by Where Service Is Obtained – Condominium/Townhome
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
Table 13
Annual Expenditures on Other Services Obtained in the Home (If Obtain Service)
Single family /
duplex
Condominium /
townhome
Annual Expenditures on Services (If Obtained) Mean Median Mean Median
Chef / kitchen help / catering $4,982 $2,000 $10,323 $2,000
Child care provider / nanny $9,772 $2,000 $5,238 $1,000
Concierge / butler $5,000 $5,000 $4,500 $4,500
Personal assistant $16,375 $7,700 $20,367 $1,000
Personal trainer $6,544 $5,000 $13,171 $3,000
Driver, pilot $49,100 $55,000 $41,733 $5,000
Pet sitter $1,695 $1,000 $869 $800
Other $3,708 $2,250 $6,600 $2,000
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
Housing for employees: Six percent of single family house/duplex owners and 4 percent of
condominium/townhome owners indicated that they provide living quarters for locally hired
employees. Single family/duplex respondents provided housing for an average of 1.5 employees
(median 1.0 employee), while condominium/townhome respondents housed an average of 3.8
employees (median 2.0 employees).
85%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
99%
1%
1%
0%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
None of these
Pet sitter
Child care provider/nanny
Chef/kitchen help/catering
Other
Personal trainer
Driver, pilot
Concierge/butler
Personal assistant
Percent of Respondents
Obtained locally
Travels with my household
P178
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 63
Housing for employees traveling with the household were slightly less prevalent at 4 percent of
single family/duplex respondents and 3 percent of condominium/townhome respondents. The
average number of employees housed was 1.1 employees for single family/duplex owners
(median 1.0) and 1.2 employees for condominium/townhome owners (median 1.0).
Figure 37
Housing Provided for Employees
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
6%
94%
63%
31%
6%
4%
96%
90%
10%
4%
96%
36%
27%
36%
3%
97%
80%
20%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Yes
No
1
2
3 or more
Yes
No
1
2
Percent of Respondents
Single family / duplex
Condominium or townhome
DO YOU PROVIDE LIVING
QUARTERS FOR
EMPLOYEES HIRED
LOCALLY?
(If provide housing) HOW
MANY DO YOU PROVIDE
HOUSING FOR?
DO YOU PROVIDE LIVING
QUARTERS FOR EMPLOYEES
BROUGHT WITH YOU?
(If provide housing) HOW
MANY DO YOU PROVIDE
HOUSING FOR?
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 1.5 employees
CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOME
Average: 3.8 employees
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 1.1 employees
CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOME
Average: 1.2 employees
P179
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 64
Appendix B: Homeowner Survey Results – by Occupancy
This section of the report summarizes the results of the 2014 Aspen Homeowner Survey by occupancy
status, i.e. units occupied by the owner at least 40 weeks per year vs. all other occupancies (i.e. owner
occupancy less than 40 weeks per year, e.g. second homes, short- and long-term rentals, etc.). Results
are limited to free-market units only.
Respondent Housing Characteristics
Following is a summary of key characteristics of Aspen housing units owned by respondents, particularly
the physical characteristics of the units. Results are also illustrated in Figure 38 through Figure 48 to
follow.
Unit type: Most owner-occupant respondents live in single family/duplex units (66 percent),
with 31 percent living in condominiums/townhomes and 3 percent living in other unit types. By
contrast, other occupancy groups are less likely to own a single family/duplex unit (32 percent),
and more likely to own a condominium/townhouse unit (66 percent), with 2 percent owning
other unit types.
Property location: The top location for owner-occupied units was the West End (26 percent),
followed by East of Aspen (21 percent) and Cemetery Lane (21 percent). The leading location
for non-local respondents was downtown (43 percent), followed by the West End (18 percent)
and East of Aspen (14 percent).
Number of bedrooms: Owner-occupied residences had an average of 3.1 bedrooms. Most of
these respondents reported having three bedrooms (29 percent) or four bedrooms (25 percent),
while 15 percent have 0 – 1 bedrooms, 17 percent have two bedrooms, and 14 percent have
five or more bedrooms. Respondents reporting other occupancies had an average of 2.9
bedrooms. The largest share have two bedrooms (28 percent) or three bedrooms (29 percent).
Smaller shares reported having 0 – 1 bedrooms (15 percent), 4 bedrooms (15 percent), or five or
more bedrooms (14 percent).
Presence and use of accessory units/homes located on property: Twelve percent of owner-
occupants and 6 percent of other homeowners said that there was one or more separate,
accessory units located on their property.
Among owner-occupied units with accessory units, most reported the presence of one (73
percent) or two (23 percent) accessory units (average 1.4 units). Similarly, 65 percent of
respondents in other occupancy groups with accessory units reported having one accessory unit,
while 23 percent have two units and 12 percent have three or more, with an average of 1.7
accessory units.
The most common uses of accessory units for owner-occupied homes include renting long-term
to local residents (40 percent) and use by household/family members (30 percent). More
modest shares reported use by visiting guests of the owner/household (20 percent), caretaker
residence (7 percent), renting short-term to visitors (7 percent), and unit left vacant/unused (7
P180
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 65
percent). Among respondents reporting all other occupancies, the largest shares indicated that
the units were rented to long-term local residents (39 percent) or used by visiting guests of the
owner/household (35 percent). Less common uses include caretaker residence (26 percent),
household/family member use (19 percent), and short-term rentals to visitors (10 percent).
Finished, unfinished, and total living space (including accessory residences, if applicable):
Inhabitants of owner-occupied residences reported an average of 2,439 finished square feet in
their home (median 2,250 square feet) and an average of 27 unfinished square feet.
Respondents living in units with all other occupancy types reported an average of 2,222 finished
square feet (median 1,400 square feet) and an average of 36 unfinished square feet. These
figures include square footage in the primary residence plus any accessory residences on the
property, if applicable. In aggregate, owner-occupants tend to have more total space (average
2,468 square feet, median 2,200 square feet) than units with other occupancies (average 2,244
square feet, median 1,425 square feet). In particular, owner-occupants were more likely to have
residences of 2000-4999 sqft than other occupancy groups (51 percent vs. 29 percent).
Conversely, non-owner-occupants were more likely than owner occupants to have small units
under 1,500 sqft (51 percent vs. 34 percent, consistent with their greater ownership of
condominium/townhome units), as well as large units in excess of 5,000 sqft (11 percent vs. 6
percent).
Garage space: Fifty-two percent of owner-occupied units and 44 percent of units with other
occupancies have a garage or access to a common garage. Among owner-occupied units with
garages, units had on average 1.7 stalls, with a majority of respondents reporting the presence
of one (32 percent) or two (64 percent) parking stalls. Most units with other occupancies
similarly had one (31 percent) or two (61 percent) parking stalls, with an average of 1.8 stalls.
Basement space: Basements were less common than garages—25 percent of owner-occupied
units have a basement, either finished or unfinished, and 16 percent of other occupancy units
do as well. Owner-occupants with basements reported an average basement size of 820 square
feet with a median of 625 square feet. Among units with other types of occupancies, the
average basement size was 1,051 square feet (median 950 square feet).
Lot size: Among local owners, 35 percent identified their property as a small residential lot (up
to 6,000 square feet); 23 percent identified it as medium (6,000 – 15,000 square feet); and 11
percent identified it as large (more than 15,000 square feet), while 30 percent had a
condo/townhome (lot size not asked/often not applicable). Approximately 17 percent of
respondents in other occupancy households reported having a small lot, while 13 percent have a
medium lot and 6 percent have a large lot, and 64 percent own a condo/townhome.
Year residence was built: Respondents reported a wide range of years that their home was
built. The largest shares of respondents indicated that their residence was built during the
1960s (24 percent owner-occupied, 24 percent other occupancies) or 1970s (34 percent owner-
occupied, 31 percent other occupancies). Consistent with the high shares of respondents
reporting their house was built during these decades, the average year of building for owner-
occupied residences was 1968 and the average year for other occupancy residences was 1975.
P181
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 66
Year residence was purchased: Units with “other” occupancies were generally purchased
somewhat more recently than owner-occupied units, with 53 percent and 42 percent
respectively buying their residence between 2000 and today. Conversely, owner-occupants
were somewhat more likely to have bought their unit in the 1970s, 80s or 90s (54 percent vs. 42
percent of non-owner-occupants). The largest shares of owners for both occupancy types
bought their residence in the 2000 – 2009 decade (29 percent of owner-occupied units, 34
percent of other occupancy units). The average year of purchase for owner-occupied residences
was 1997 (median 1997) and the average year of purchase for residences with other occupancy
styles was 1996 (albeit a slightly more recent median of 2001).
Value of residence: Respondents who are owner-occupants reported an average residence
value of $2,682,432 and a median of $2,000,000, with more than half valuing their homes at
$2,000,000 or more (57 percent). Respondents who do not live in their homes full-time
reported a generally similar average value of $2,631,210 and a lower median of $1,505,000.
Among these respondents, 45 percent valued their home at $2,000,000 or more.
Recent remodels/renovations: Thirty percent of owner-occupied residences and 36 percent of
units with other occupancies have been remodeled recently. Among owner-occupants who
have renovated recently, about half (47 percent) renovated in 2010-14, and 50 percent
renovated in 2000-09. The average remodeling expenses for owner-occupied units was
$364,367, with a median of $100,000. Among owners of residences with other occupancies, 61
percent reported that their renovations occurred between 2010 and 2014, with an average cost
of $271,036 and a median of $125,000.
Planned future remodels/renovations: Eight percent of owner-occupants and 10 percent of
other owners expressed an intent to remodel soon. Among owner-occupants planning to
remodel, all anticipated doing so in 2014 – 2016, and the average anticipated cost was $207,222
(median $40,000). Among other occupancy groups, 96 percent intended to remodel in 2014-
2016, with an average anticipated cost of $251,154 (median $100,000).
P182
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 67
Figure 38
Unit Type
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
Figure 39
Residence Location
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
51%
13%
18%
15%
2%
1%
0%
0%
24%
36%
30%
9%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Single-family house
Condominium of townhome
(21 or more units in complex)
Condominium or townhome
(20 or fewer units in complex)
Duplex
Mobile/modular home
Other
Triplex
Timeshare/fractional unit
Percent of Respondents
Owner-occupied at least 40 weeks/year
All other occupancies
P183
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 68
Figure 40
Number of Bedrooms
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P184
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 69
Figure 41
Accessory Units
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P185
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 70
Figure 42
Finished and Unfinished Heated Space (in square feet)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
2%
16%
15%
9%
23%
19%
9%
6%
94%
3%
2%
4%
23%
23%
9%
13%
9%
6%
11%
94%
3%
3%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
1 - 499 sqft
500 - 999 sqft
1000 - 1499 sqft
1500 - 1999 sqft
2000 - 2999 sqft
3000 - 3999 sqft
4000 - 4999 sqft
5000+ sqft
0 sqft
Under 500 sqft
500+ sqft
Percent of Respondents
Owner-occupied at least 40 weeks/year
All other occupancies
HEATED,FINISHED
SQUARE FEET
HEATED, UNFINISHED
SQUARE FEET
OWNER-OCCUPIED
Average: 2,439 sqft; Median: 2,250 sqft
OTHER OCCUPANCIES
Average: 2,222 sqft; Median: 1,400 sqft
OWNER-OCCUPIED
Average: 27 sqft; Median: 0 sqft
OTHER OCCUPANCIES
Average: 36 sqft; Median: 0 sqft
P186
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 71
Figure 43
Total Heated Space (in square feet)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P187
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 72
Figure 44
Garage/Basement Size
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P188
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 73
Figure 45
Lot Size and Year Built/Purchased
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P189
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 74
Figure 46
Value of Residence
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P190
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 75
Figure 47
Remodeling Plans, and Details of Recent Past Remodel
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P191
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 76
Figure 48
Future Remodeling Plans
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
Unit Usage Characteristics
Table 14 to follow illustrates the average number of weeks homes are used for a variety of purposes
across a 52-week year, both overall and segmented by occupancy type. It should be understood that
the data on “average weeks of use” reflect net total weeks of use across a range of use types, not for a
single use type. For example, long-term rentals to local residents account for a net annual average of
4.1 weeks of occupancy across all respondent homes, including homes that are not used for long-term
rentals at all. With this understanding in mind, key findings by occupancy type include the following:
P192
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 77
Owner-occupied residences: Among respondents in owner-occupied residences, homes are
occupied as the primary residence of the owner an average of 98 percent of the year (51.0
weeks), and are vacant (and unavailable for vacation rental) 2 percent of the time (0.9 week),
with an additional average of 0.1 week of use as a vacation rental.
Other occupancies: Among respondents in residences with other occupancy types, on average
the residence is occupied as the primary residence of the owner 7 percent of the time (3.7
weeks) and is vacant (and unavailable for vacation rental) 44 percent of the year (22.7 weeks).
Respondents reported that their units are also commonly used (or available for use) as a
vacation rental (21 percent of the year), used as a vacation home for themselves or for their
guests (15 percent), or rented long-term to a local resident (12 percent).
Table 14
Average Annual Weeks of Use of Home24
OCCUPANCY TYPE
OVERALL - ALL
RESPONDENTS
Owner-occupied
40+ weeks/year Other occupancies
Type of Use # weeks % weeks # weeks % weeks # weeks % weeks
Primary residence for owner 20.0 39% 51.0 98% 3.7 7%
Vacation home for owner or guests of owner 5.1 10% 0.0 0% 7.7 15%
Vacation rental - weeks actually occupied by visitors 3.9 7% 0.1 0% 5.9 11%
Vacation rental - weeks avail. for rent, but not occupied 3.4 7% 0.0 0% 5.2 10%
Rented long term to local resident 4.1 8% 0.0 0% 6.2 12%
Business/corporate function 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0%
Other use 0.3 1% 0.0 0% 0.5 1%
Vacant - not occupied (and not avail. for vacation rental) 15.2 29% 0.9 2% 22.7 44%
TOTAL WEEKS 52.0 100% 52.0 100% 52.0 100%
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
24 To clarify, the data on “average weeks of use” reflect net total weeks of use across a range of use types, not for a single u se
type. For example, long-term rentals to local residents account for a net annual average of 4.1 weeks of occupancy across all
respondent homes, including homes that are not used for long-term rentals at all.
P193
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 78
Respondent Household/Demographic Characteristics
Following is a summary of selected demographic characteristics of the households of respondents to the
survey.
Who typically occupies your Aspen home when you are in residence? Almost all respondents in
owner-occupied households indicated that they themselves (99 percent) occupy their unit while
they are in residence, while 88 percent of respondents in other occupancy units reported this as
well. Other common occupants in owner-occupied units include a spouse/partner (60 percent)
and children (33 percent), followed by relatives/other family (11 percent), and friends (10
percent). Respondents in non-owner-occupied units also said their occupants frequently include
a spouse/partner (72 percent), as well as children (54 percent), friends (45 percent), and
relatives/other family (38 percent). Marginal shares of both occupancy types said they share
their unit with housemates who rent rooms (3 percent of respondents in owner-occupied units
and 1 percent of respondents in other occupancy units) or business associates (2 percent and 5
percent). Eight percent of other occupancy homes are not used for personal purposes.
Total persons who live/stay in your home while you are in residence: Owner-occupants said an
average of 2.3 persons (including themselves) typically stay in their home when they are there.
Other occupancy groups report a larger average of 3.8 persons in their unit while they are in
residence.
Total persons under age 18 in the home: Twenty-nine percent of respondents living in owner-
occupied units and 45 percent of respondents living in units with other occupancies indicated
that children under age 18 typically live/stay in their home. Respondents in owner-occupied
residences reported an average of 0.6 children under 18 in their homes, while respondents in
other units reported an average of 1.2 children.
Total persons who are retired: Forty-two percent of respondents in owner-occupied residences
and 58 percent of respondents in other occupancy residences reported that one or more
retirees reside in their home. An average of 0.6 retirees live in owner-occupied units and an
average of 1.1 retirees live in other units.
Total persons who work in Aspen: Over half (55 percent) of respondents in owner-occupied
residences indicated that one or more Aspen workers live in their household (average 0.9
persons). Only 7 percent of owners who do not primarily occupy their homes reported the
presence of Aspen employees in their unit (average 0.1 persons).
Total persons who work in the Roaring Fork Valley: Sixty-nine percent of owner-occupied units
and 9 percent of units with other occupancies house one or more residents who work within the
Roaring Fork Valley (average 1.1 persons in owner-occupied units and 0.1 persons in other
units).
Total persons who work outside the Roaring Fork Valley: Eleven percent of residents in owner-
occupied homes and 39 percent of residents in homes with other occupancy types indicated
P194
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 79
that one or more people in their household is employed outside the Roaring Fork Valley, with an
average of 0.2 persons in owner-occupied units and 1.2 persons in other units.
Number of hours worked by residents employed in Roaring Fork Valley: Owners who primarily
occupy their residence reported an average of 1,903 hours worked per year by members of their
household who are employed in the Roaring Fork Valley (data includes households with no one
employed in the valley). Owners who do not primarily occupy their residence reported an
average of 349 hours worked per year by household members employed in the Roaring Fork
Valley (including households with no employees in the valley).
Among households with at least one Roaring Fork Valley worker, the average aggregate number
of hours worked in the Roaring Fork Valley per year by household members was somewhat
higher among owner-occupied households (average 2,997 hours) than households with other
occupancies (average 2,282 hours).
Figure 49
Who typically occupies your Aspen home when you are in residence?
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P195
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 80
Figure 50
Number of Persons in Household – Total and by Age
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P196
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 81
Figure 51
Number of Persons in Household – by Employment Characteristics
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P197
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 82
Figure 52
Aggregate Number of Hours Worked by Household Members in Roaring Fork Valley
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P198
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 83
Intended Future Use of Unit
How do you expect to be using your Aspen home five years from now? A large majority of
owners who are the primary occupants of their units (85 percent) expect to continue to use
their unit as their primary residence in five years’ time. Significantly smaller shares expect to
use their home as a retirement residence (10 percent), sell it (8 percent), use it as a vacation
rental for visitors (4 percent), rent it long-term to a local resident (3 percent), or use it as a
vacation home for the owners/guests (2 percent).
Non-owner-occupants most commonly expressed plans to use the unit as a vacation home for
themselves/guests (67 percent). Other expected uses for the unit in five years’ time include
using it as a vacation rental to visitors (22 percent), using it as a primary residence for the owner
(16 percent), using it as a retirement residence (9 percent), selling it (8 percent), or renting it
long term to a local resident (7 percent).
Changes in personal/friend/family use over the next five years: A majority of respondents in
owner-occupied residences (79 percent) expected their use of the unit to stay the same over the
next five years. Six percent indicated that their use would increase, while 7 percent expect it to
decrease.
Respondents in units with other occupancies were considerably more likely to anticipate that
their usage of the home would increase (41 percent), while an additional 45 percent believed
their use would stay the same. Only 3 percent felt their use would decrease.
P199
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 84
Figure 53
Intended Future Use of Unit
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P200
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 85
Characteristics of and Expenditures on Home Operations and Upkeep
Following is a summary of data pertaining to selected aspects of home operations and upkeep, including
the types of service providers used by respondents and the services and homeowner expenditures
associated with each type of provider.
Providers used for home operations and upkeep: Almost all respondents in owner-occupied
households report that housework is taken care of by themselves or by family members (90
percent). Additionally, roughly three-quarters hire contractors/employees/specialty services (74
percent), while 45 percent belong to a homeowners association, and small shares hire a
property management company (14 percent) or an on-site caretaker (4 percent). Owners in
units with other occupancy types mainly take care of work through homeowners associations
(73 percent), contractors/employees/specialty services (67 percent), doing it themselves (62
percent), or hiring a property management company (59 percent). An additional 13 percent
indicated that they hire an on-site caretaker.
Figure 54
Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P201
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 86
Services delivered by respective providers: Figure 55 and Figure 56 to follow illustrate the
services delivered by home service providers (in instances when the respondent uses the
provider), for owner-occupied and other occupancy residences respectively.
Among inhabitants of owner-occupied units, property management companies hired by the
household are identified as providing the most types of services (average 4.1 services, among
those using these companies), followed by contractors/employees/specialty services (average
4.0 services), HOAs (average 3.8 services), and on-site caretakers (average 3.8 services). As is
illustrated in the graph, different types of service providers tend to deliver different mixes of
services. For example, HOAs are particularly likely to provide owner-occupied unit owners with
trash removal; property management companies are comparatively likely to provide building
maintenance and private swimming pool/hot tub maintenance; on-site caretakers are
comparatively likely to provide snow removal, lawn/landscape maintenance, and
housekeeping/cleaning; and contractors/employees are especially likely to be hired for
systems/appliance repair and security services.
Among owners with other residence occupancies, HOAs are reported to provide the most types
of services (average 5.5 services provided, among those using HOAs), followed by property
management companies (average 4.7 services), contractors/employees/specialty services
(average 3.7 services), and on-site caretakers (average 3.2 services). Similar to owner-occupied
homes, the services provided vary by provider type. HOAs are comparatively likely to provide
snow removal, trash removal, lawn/landscape maintenance, building maintenance, and
operation/maintenance of community amenities; property management companies most often
provide rental management and housekeeping/cleaning; and contractors/employees/specialty
services are comparatively likely to be hired for systems/appliances repair.
P202
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 87
Figure 55
Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Providers – Owner-Occupied
(Base: Respondents Who Use Each Respective Provider)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P203
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 88
Figure 56
Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Providers – Other Occupancies
(Base: Respondents Who Use Each Respective Provider)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P204
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 89
Annual expenditures on home service providers: Respondents were asked to estimate how
much they spend annually on each of respective home service providers that they use. As
illustrated in Table 15 below, average annual provider costs are higher for residences with non-
owner occupancies than those mainly occupied by owners.
For owner-occupied residences, among those using HOAs, the average annual expenditure is
$4,662 (median $4,000). The average annual expenditure for property management companies
is $4,702 (median $3,044), the average annual expenditure for on-site caretakers is $8,800
(median $2,000), and the average annual expenditure for other contractors/employees is
$7,941 (median $4,000).
For owners with other occupancy situations, the average annual expenditure for HOAs is
$10,191 (median $8,000), the average annual expenditure for property management companies
is $11,397 (median $6,350), the average annual expenditure for on-site caretakers is $22,464
(median $5,000), and the average annual expenditure for other contractors/employees is
$9,298 (median $3,000).
Table 15
Annual Expenditures on Home Service Providers (If Use Provider)
Owner-occupied
40+ weeks/year Other occupancies
Annual Expenditures on Provider (If Use Provider) Mean Median Mean Median
Amount spent on HOA $4,662 $4,000 $10,191 $8,000
Amount spent on property management company $4,702 $3,044 $11,397 $6,350
Amount spent on on-site caretaker $8,800 $2,000 $22,464 $5,000
Amount spent on other contractors/employees $7,941 $4,000 $9,298 $3,000
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
Caretaker housing: Among owner-occupied residences with on-site caretakers, 33 percent
provide free housing as part of their compensation, 67 percent offer discounted housing, and 0
percent do not provide housing assistance as part of compensation. Among residences with
other occupancies, 30 percent provide free housing to on-site caretakers, 50 percent provide
discounted housing and 20 percent don’t provide housing assistance.
Home maintenance and upkeep services delivered by self/household members: Owners who
primarily occupy their residences indicated that they provide their own service for an average of
3.5 types of tasks. Owners who are not the primary occupants reported that they provide their
own service for an average of 2.4 tasks. Top self-provided services for owner-occupied units
include housekeeping/cleaning (72 percent), building maintenance (56 percent), lawn/landscape
maintenance (49 percent), and systems/appliance repair (45 percent). Respondents in units
with other occupancies identified housekeeping/cleaning (63 percent) as their top self-provided
service. Local owners estimated they spend an average of 230 hours on average per year on
home tasks (median 178 hours), while other owners reported an average of 47 hours (median
10 hours), each inclusive of owners not providing any self-service.
P205
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 90
Figure 57
Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Self/Household Members
(Base: Respondents/Household Members Who Engage in Home Maintenance/Upkeep)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
72%
56%
49%
45%
38%
27%
24%
18%
9%
8%
3%
14%
9%
7%
21%
21%
7%
10%
11%
63%
29%
15%
35%
14%
29%
34%
13%
4%
1%
1%
47%
23%
9%
13%
5%
2%
1%
0%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Housekeeping/cleaning
Building maintenance (interior and/or
exterior)
Lawn/landscape maintenance
Systems/appliances repair (e.g.,
heating, plumbing, appliances)
Snow removal
Security service
Rental management
Trash removal
Private swimming pool/Jacuzzi/hot tub
maintenance
Operation and maintenance of
community amenities
Other
0 hr
1 - 49 hr
50 - 99 hr
100 - 199 hr
200 - 299 hr
300 - 399 hr
400 - 499 hr
500+ hr
Percent of Respondents
Owner-occupied at least 40 weeks/year
All other occupancies
OWNER-OCCUPIED
Average: 230 hr;
Median: 178 hr
OTHER OCCUPANCIES
Average: 47 hr;
Median: 10 hr
SERVICES PROVIDED BY
SELF/HOUSEHOLD
MEMBERS (if provide at
least 1 service)
ANNUAL HOURS SPENT ON
HOME TASKS (all
respondents)
P206
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 91
Additional services obtained in your home: Respondents were asked to further identify any
other services they obtain in the home, and specify whether the associated service providers are
obtained locally or travel with their household. The most prevalent of these services used by
respondents in owner-occupied residences is a pet sitter (used by 10 percent of respondents),
followed by chef/kitchen help/catering (7 percent), personal trainer (5 percent), and child care
provider/nanny (5 percent). Respondents in owner-occupied households are significantly more
likely to obtain these services locally (20 percent in aggregate) than to have providers travel with
their household (0 percent in aggregate).
Depicted in Figure 59 to follow, respondents in units with other occupancy types most
frequently utilize a chef/kitchen help/catering (12 percent), child care provider/nanny (7
percent), pet sitter (4 percent), and personal trainer (4 percent). Like owner-occupants, other
owners are more likely to obtain services locally (20 percent in aggregate) than to have the
providers travel with their household (4 percent in aggregate).
Among those using the respective services, the annual amount spent on the respective services
is summarized in Table 16 to follow.
Figure 58
Additional Services Obtained In the Home, by Where Service Is Obtained – Owner-Occupied
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
80%
10%
7%
5%
5%
2%
1%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
None of these
Pet sitter
Chef/kitchen help/catering
Personal trainer
Child care provider/nanny
Other
Personal assistant
Driver, pilot
Concierge/butler
Percent of Respondents
Obtained locally
Travels with my household
P207
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 92
Figure 59
Additional Services Obtained In the Home, by Where Service Is Obtained – Other Occupancies
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
Table 16
Annual Expenditures on Other Services Obtained in the Home (If Obtain Service)
Owner-occupied
40+ weeks/year Other occupancies
Annual Expenditures on Services (If Obtained) Mean Median Mean Median
Chef / kitchen help / catering $1,893 $2,000 $7,257 $3,000
Child care provider / nanny $9,208 $2,550 $6,237 $1,000
Concierge / butler n/a n/a $4,750 $4,750
Personal assistant $7,700 $7,700 $22,240 $1,000
Personal trainer $9,450 $8,000 $7,700 $2,500
Driver, pilot n/a n/a $46,338 $32,500
Pet sitter $1,387 $1,000 $1,209 $400
Other $11,860 $2,400 $3,097 $2,000
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
Housing for employees: Four percent of respondents in owner-occupied households and five
percent of respondents in households with other occupancies reported that they provide
housing for locally hired employees. Among those providing employee housing, owner-
occupied residences provided housing for an average of 1.6 employees, while other owners
housed an average of 2.6 employees.
80%
12%
5%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
1%
96%
1%
2%
1%
0%
0%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
None of these
Chef/kitchen help/catering
Child care provider/nanny
Pet sitter
Personal trainer
Other
Driver, pilot
Personal assistant
Concierge/butler
Percent of Respondents
Obtained locally
Travels with my household
P208
VII.A.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 93
None of the owner-occupied households reported housing employees that travel with the
household. For respondents in residences with other occupancies, 5 percent provided housing
traveling employees, with an average of 1.1 employees housed.
Figure 60
Housing Provided for Employees
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
4%
96%
75%
13%
13%
0%
100%
0%
0%
5%
95%
48%
33%
19%
5%
95%
88%
13%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Yes
No
1
2
3 or more
Yes
No
1
2
Percent of Respondents
Owner-occupied at least 40 weeks/year
All other occupancies
DO YOU PROVIDE LIVING
QUARTERS FOR
EMPLOYEES HIRED
LOCALLY?
(If provide housing) HOW
MANY DO YOU PROVIDE
HOUSING FOR?
DO YOU PROVIDE LIVING
QUARTERS FOR EMPLOYEES
BROUGHT WITH YOU?
(If provide housing) HOW
MANY DO YOU PROVIDE
HOUSING FOR?
OWNER-OCCUPIED
Average: 1.6 employees
OTHER OCCUPANCIES
Average: 2.6 employees
OTHER OCCUPANCIES
Average: 1.1 employees
P209
VII.A.
City of Aspen Real Estate Transfer Tax Analysis
March 24, 2015
Andrew Ernemann, Broker Associate
ASPEN SNOWMASS SOTHEBY’S INTERNATIONAL REALTY
415 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
970.379.8125
andrew@aspenupdate.com
www.AspenUpdate.com
Background Information
The purpose of this analysis is to explore what the average Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT)
contribution is to affordable housing mitigation over the lifespan of a house/condo/townhome (i.e.
homes) in the City of Aspen. Every time a property sells in the City limits a 1.0% transfer tax is
imposed on the sale and that transfer tax is allocated toward an affordable housing fund (note that
the first $100,000.00 of the sale price is excluded from the 1.0% transfer tax).
For the purposes of ascertaining an appropriate measurement of the RETT contribution over the
lifespan of a property it is assumed the average lifespan of all homes is 40 years. Although many
homes are constructed to last longer than 40 years the nature of the Aspen market often lends itself
to houses being demolished and replaced in shorter timeframes, the condo stock is more likely to
last longer due to the ownership structure of condo buildings.
The methodology used for the analysis was as follows:
1. Download the number of sales per year over the past nine years from the Aspen/Glenwood
Multiple Listing Service (AGSMLS) and segment the sales by property type. It should be
noted the field “Transfer Tax” was used to delineate sales within City of Aspen limits so
there is some possibility for data mis-entry when pulling information from the AGSMLS.
The data chart goes back to the year 2005 and it was clear there was incomplete data for that
year in the AGSMLS so 2006 data is the first year used for the purposes of this analysis.
2. The County Assessor provided information about the total housing inventory within the
City limits for each of the years analyzed. The number of sales for each property type in a
particular year was divided into the total housing inventory for each property that year and
the result was a snapshot of how long the average “hold period” was forecasted to be based
on each year’s information. The 2006 through 2014 study period represents a strong real
estate upcycle (2006-2008 – although the number of sales was declining during that time),
subsequent severe drop in sales activity (2009) and then a steady buildup (2009-2014).
3. The average hold period for single family and for condo/townhomes was then calculated
over the 2006-2014 timeframe. Interestingly the average hold time was approximately 28
years for both property types. While 28 years may seem to be longer than the timeframe one
might expect for the average hold time in Aspen it’s hard to know if perhaps the AGSMLS
data is incomplete or if the mix of properties held for 40-50+ years weighted the hold time
to a longer duration than one might expect.
4. The total sales dollar volume for each property type and year during the analysis timeframe
was then calculated from the AGSMLS. The total RETT was calculated based on the sales
dollar volume information and an average RETT per transaction was then established.
5. The total number of square feet for each property type in a given year to sell was also
downloaded from the AGSMLS, and the square feet figures were used to establish what the
Exhibit B
P210
VII.A.
City of Aspen Real Estate Transfer Tax Analysis
March 24, 2015
Andrew Ernemann, Broker Associate
ASPEN SNOWMASS SOTHEBY’S INTERNATIONAL REALTY
415 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
970.379.8125
andrew@aspenupdate.com
www.AspenUpdate.com
average RETT per square foot was for each property type. A blended average RETT of
$11.03 per square foot was calculated for the study period.
6. Next the lifespan RETT contribution per square foot was calculated by dividing the average
hold period of 28 years into the 40 year lifespan assumed for this study, and finally
multiplied by the $11.03 per square foot blended average.
7. An FAR adjustment factor of 60% was divided into the $15.76 average lifespan RETT per
square foot resulting in the final RETT per square foot number of $26.26 to be used final
RETT contribution purposes. Note that the FAR adjustment factor is based on a prior study
performed by RRC.
8. The typical structure size used in historic City studies has been 3,000 square feet. For
consistency this number was used to determine a total RETT contribution of $78,775 over
the 40 year life of a typical Aspen structure.
9. The number of employees mitigated during the typical lifespan of an Aspen home
was calculated to be 0.33 employees (based on the midpoint of the current Category 2
and 3 mitigation rates).
It should be noted that although it was necessary to make certain assumptions through the process, the final calculation
would change only modestly with adjustments to most of the assumptions.
P211
VII.A.
Aspen MLS Data
Notes:Duplex is counted in Condo/Townhouse data (approx. 8-15 sales per year)
This data captures only MLS sales - I'm guessing there's an additional 3-5% that takes place outside the MLS
I used the field "transfer tax" in the MLS to segregate only City of Aspen sales (there are probably some sales left out and others added in by human error)
2005 seems to be very incomplete (it's probably that the transfer tax field wasn't implemented after 2005)
Number of Sales
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average
Single Family 3 50 50 41 36 39 38 46 37 44 42
Condo/Townhouse 4 162 169 83 69 83 102 122 130 118 115
Grand Total 7 212 219 124 105 122 140 168 167 162 158
SFH Inventory 1136 1170 1173 1166 1171 1170 1177 1165 1182 1168
# yrs hold 22.7 23.4 28.6 32.4 30.0 30.8 25.6 31.5 26.9 28.0
Condo/Duplex Inventory 2747 2781 2824 2894 2910 3216 2936 2925 2927 2907
# yrs hold 17.0 16.5 34.0 41.9 35.1 31.5 24.1 22.5 24.8 27.5
Sales Dollar Volume
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Single Family $7,100,000 $243,732,500 $300,857,000 $271,381,476 $204,267,711 $175,539,000 $230,849,500 $227,728,307 $166,849,300 $254,127,500
1.0% RETT $2,437,325 $3,008,570 $2,713,815 $2,042,677 $1,755,390 $2,308,495 $2,277,283 $1,668,493 $2,541,275
Adjust for $100K $2,387,325 $2,958,570 $2,672,815 $2,006,677 $1,716,390 $2,270,495 $2,231,283 $1,631,493 $2,497,275
Average RETT per Transaction $47,746.50 $59,171.40 $65,190.60 $55,741.03 $44,010.00 $59,749.87 $48,506.15 $44,094.41 $56,756.25 $53,441
Condo/Townhouse $3,521,000 $289,807,100 $315,535,825 $207,266,038 $142,547,126 $162,088,803 $207,254,537 $182,628,783 $228,501,563 $240,686,826
1.0% RETT $2,898,071 $3,155,358 $2,072,660 $1,425,471 $1,620,888 $2,072,545 $1,826,288 $2,285,016 $2,406,868
Adjust for $100K $2,736,071 $2,986,358 $1,989,660 $1,356,471 $1,537,888 $1,970,545 $1,704,288 $2,155,016 $2,288,868
Average RETT per Transaction $16,889.33 $17,670.76 $23,971.81 $19,659.00 $18,528.77 $19,319.07 $13,969.57 $16,577.04 $19,397.19 $18,443
Total Sq Ft
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Single Family 5,416 215,325 239,958 207,292 178,880 170,700 199,885 219,965 151,546 220,092
Condo/Townhouse 3,709 244,851 250,360 145,965 129,484 156,146 195,744 189,353 222,512 196,834
Grand Total 9,125 460,176 490,318 353,257 308,364 326,846 395,629 409,318 374,058 416,926
AVG SFH RETT $11.09 $12.33 $12.89 $11.22 $10.06 $11.36 $10.14 $10.77 $11.35 $11.24
AVG Condo RETT $11.17 $11.93 $13.63 $10.48 $9.85 $10.07 $9.00 $9.68 $11.63 $10.83
Blended AVG RETT $11.13 $12.12 $13.20 $10.91 $9.96 $10.72 $9.61 $10.12 $11.48 $11.03
Blended AVG RETT $11.03
Lifespan multiplier 1.43
Lifespan AVG RETT $15.76
FAR Adjustment (60%)$26.26
Typical structure size 3000
Total RETT contribution $78,775
Mid Cat 2/3 Mitig. Rate $239,914
# of Employees Mitig.0.33
P212
VII.A.