The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.20010403AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2001 4:15 PM PUBLIC DISCUSSION WITH STAFF 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES ROOM I. COMMENTS Commissioners, Public and Staff II. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST III. MINUTES (02/20/01 & 03/06/01) IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. LOT 11, SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION DRAC, Fred Jarman B. ASPEN MOUNTAIN AMENDMENT OF CONCEPTUAL PUD, Julie Ann Woods, continued from 3/12 t>15M IT—,--b 4-1 *fi ovi4 7- -vo D i5,K4 D-2- Core V. ADJOURN ,-' Pc-a4 ,z�t> S—o 44�,� V�- L-j--ems "'Op'0►Lzz MEMOKANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission (acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee) TH KC.I: Joyce Ohlson, City of Aspen Community Development Department Deputy Director FROM: Fred Jarman, Planner�� , KE_: Build -to Lines & Secondary Mass Variance Requests DATE: April 3rd, 2001 Kequest: The applicant, Gregory Register, requests two variances from the Residential Design Standards in order to construct a single-family dwelling on Lot 11 of the Silverload Subdivision on Silverload Drive. Specifically, the proposed design requires variances from 1) the "build -to lines" standard and 2) the "secondary -mass" standard. Staff Comments: A. BUILD -TO LINES (26.410.040(A)(2)) The build -to lines standard requires that on parcels or lots of less than 15, 000 square feet, at least 60% of the front fagade shall be within 5 feet of the minimum front yard setback line... and porches may be used meet the 60% standard. (The graphic to the right illustrates this standard.) Staff Finding Yes No Yes IL In fact, this parcel is 13,339 sq. ft., which is less than 15,000 sq. ft. and thereby required to respect this standard. However, Staff supports the variance request from "build -to lines" standard because there is a site specific constraint on the lot in the form of an existing "boulder retaining wall" located at the front of the site (on the setback line) which holds the current slope in place on the front of the lot practically prohibiting the applicant's ability from meeting the requirement. In addition, due to the slope of the lot and accessibility issues associated with providing a driveway, the applicant proposes to place 60% of the front fagade within thirty feet of the front setback line. The build -to standard is intended to bring the front facades of residences closer to the street thereby providing a more consistent streetscape. When placed in context, this standard does not effectively address this because of the site and the related slopes of the surrounding properties and the houses upon them. B. SECONDARY MASS (26.410.040(B)(1)) The secondary mass standard requires that all new structures shall locate at least 10%of their total square footage above grade in a mass, which is completely detached from the principal building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. Staff Finding Staff supports the request for a variance from the secondary mass standard because the slope of the lot presents a practical difficulty from meeting the general interpretation of a subordinate linking element as described in the standard. Staff believes the applicant's design (although, in effect is a two-story linking element) is appropriate given the site's slope. In general, Staff has interpreted the subordinate linking element to mean or resen a single -story element. In this specific case, Staff believes the proposed design meets the intent of the standard; that is, to break up the massing of the structures on the site in light of a difficult situation of the slope without having to make an even larger hillside cut. It is for these reasons Staff supports this request for a variance from the secondary mass standard. Staff Kecommendation: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee, approve the request for variances from the Residential Design Standards for build -to lines and secondary mass, finding that the proposal 1) "yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan" and 2) "more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to." Kecommended Motion (all motions are stated in the Positive): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2001, approving variances from the Residential Design Standards for "build -to lines" and "secondary mass", finding that the proposal 1) "yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan" and 2) "more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to." Attachments: Exhibit A -- Design review Appeals Committee Criteria & Responses Exhibit B -- Parcel Location and Vicinity Map Exhibit C -- Applicant's Letter & Supporting Plans Exhibit D -- Resolution No. a, Series 2001 7 EXHIBIT A DESIGN REVIEw APPEALS COMMITTEE CRITERIA a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed design regarding "build -to lines" and "secondary mass" yields greater compliance with the goals of the AACP and residential design standards. The main policy driving the design quality element of the AACP indicates that the community should retain and encourage an eclectic mix of the design styles to maintain and enhance the special character of the community. Staff finds that the requested variances for build -to lines and secondary mass are proposed in a specific design in a way that brings the overall design of the proposed residence to fit better with this policy in the AACP and residential design standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or Staff Finding Staff finds that the proposed design does not better address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints; Staff Finding Staff finds that as a result of a considerable slope and existing boulder retaining wall located in the front yard setback, the proposed design sensitively responds to the standards as much as possible given these site constraints. As described in the Staff Comments regarding these two requests: A. The subject parcel is 13,339 sq. ft., which is less than 15,000 sq. ft. and thereby required to respect the "build -to Lines" standard. However, Staff supports the variance request from "build -to lines" standard because there is a site specific constraint on the lot in the form of an existing "boulder retaining wall" located at the front of the site (on the setback line) which holds the current slope in place on the front of the lot practically prohibiting the applicant's ability from meeting the requirement. In addition, due to the slope of the lot and accessibility issues associated with providing a driveway, the applicant proposes to place 60% of the front fagade within thirty feet of the front setback line. The build -to standard is intended to bring the front facades of residences closer to the street thereby providing a more consistent streetscape. When placed in context, this standard does not effectively address this because of the site and the related slopes of the surrounding properties and the houses upon them. B. Staff supports the request for a variance from the secondary mass standard because the slope of the lot presents a practical difficulty from meeting the general interpretation of a subordinate linking element as described in the standard. Staff believes the applicant's design (although, in effect is a two-story linking element) is 3 appropriate given the site's slope. In general, Staff has interpreted the subordinate linking element to mean or resemble a single -story element. In this specific case, Staff believes the proposed design meets the intent of the standard; that is, to break up the massing of the structures on the site in light of a difficult situation of the slope without having to make an even larger hillside cut. It is for these reasons Staff supports this request for a variance from the secondary mass standard. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion is met. L EXHIBIT B PARCEL LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP Resolution No. 13 (SERIES OF 2001) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTING AS THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES FOR BUILD - TO LINES AND SECONDARY MASS FOR LOT 11, SILVERLODE DRIVE, OF THE SILVERLOAD SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-074-30-011 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Gregory Register, seeking variances from Section 26.410 Residential Design Guidelines for Build -to Lines and Secondary Mass for a proposed two-story single- family residence for Lot 11 of the Silverload Subdivision, Silverlode Drive, Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the applicant's property is a vacant lot encompassing 13,339 sq. ft. lot and located in the AH PUD Zone District in the Silverload Subdivision; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant's application for compliance with the Residential Design Standards Section of the Aspen Municipal Code and found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with Standard 26.410.040(A)(2) "Build -to Lines" and 26.410.040(B)(1) "Secondary Mass"; and WHEREAS, Section 26.410.020(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that if an application is found by Community Development Department staff to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines, the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staff s findings to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee pursuant to Chapter 26.222, Design Review Appeal Committee; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant submitted a request for variances from Standards 26.410.040(A)(2) and 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee as it applies to Build -to Lines and Secondary Mass; and WHEREAS, all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: Co a) Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints; WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, after review of the requested variances, recommended approval for variances from the residential design standards for Build -to Lines and Secondary Mass for the proposed residence on Lot 11, Silverlode Drive of the Silverload Subdivision; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on April 3ra, 2001, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee, approved variances from the Build -to Lines and Secondary Mass standards of Section 26.410 of the Aspen Municipal Code as it applies to Residential Design Standards finding that the proposal complies with Criteria # a and # c listed above, for a proposed residence located at proposed residence on Lot 11, Silverlode Drive of the Silverload Subdivision by a vote of to L - J NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, that the proposed variances for a proposed single-family residence on Lot 11, Silverlode Drive of the Silverload Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado, are approved pursuant to Section 26.410.040(A)(2) Build -to Lines and 26.410.040(B)(1) Secondary Mass of the Residential Design Standards. section 2-- This Resolution shall not effect 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 1! 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 a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 3rd' 2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Robert Blaich, Chair CANly Documents\Current Cases\DRAC\Variance Request for SilverKing Drive.doc Plasning•Developmenf•Inferior Design tommercial•Residenfial DRAC VARVIANCEIREOUEoT LOT I ISILVERLODE Gregory D. Register, AIA Phone:970.384.2838 1217 P46 Ave. Glenwood Springs, f0 81601 VIZ, ' 142 CAA RHaLTY 4 (103 ,, Q f" 4 ATTACHMENT 41 LAND USE APPUCAM% PC". praitxl name LaCYT I 2. F1rvj'e1ftt b(' abon LO-Tt i S. (ind'Mate ,street addrs,,sa, W_ and Nock number or mites and bounds descriptionl f 16. 7- -1 "�' 4, Lot Stw. 6. Reprasentatve"s na-M. e, dms�, and photerwir2w 7, Type of applicabov, {Check all that apply): CQnditiarial Use gipeda-! Rekdrievy 8040 Greenlins Stream Nfargln Subdi,%Asion GMQS aRGt1r7ORFt t0ew la be. Loot 8p(WLot Line ustment C�Onc�epwaj Final SPA Conceptual I -Ito Final PUD GfAQS imemipticn C-Chrx;ePtual HAPc Firal H'FC Minof HFC"' Relocabon HPC Htstork. LandrTrark Darna/ftfsal Deno Design Review Appea( Commiftee A ,Approximaie sq. number of bedroams, any previoup, apPM eds gran te AD Propel-tv �9' DesGription 'of de'vellogrAA'At. applicatcri J M Have you completed and attach the follow" Attachiment I- Land rise application form. Response to Aftatc-11-iment 2 Responas to Att-achmient 3 Kane:970:384.2838 1217 Pifkin Ave. Glehwood Springs; (0 81601 I It n 0- 17 ri t e Ao I 4 ci hc�� 000 i 1 - 8� I Mob V) 4 r► • 4 k I m From kkm NUKiW To Gregwy Ragntaf 03126f,2001 13:52 970-384-22332 GDR ARa4I TECTS (-age z at PACE 32)' March 24,2001 Ci Of Aspen Tty Building Department RE: Lot 'II. S&edode Subdivision To whom it may concem The owners of the above referenced lot hereby authorize GregoiT Register to make any Feces aary appliCation -with !be City as is necessary vaith,their building port. -nit. if ykiu have aay questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for yoLx time and attention in thismatter My best regards, Williams Ram.-h Joint Ven,,ture County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) I, G-�. t2►�5i, , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements. pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (3 00) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of , 200_ (which is days prior to the public hearing date of ). 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from th2Z day of HAW--� , 200J to the 3 day of .,&PR_4 L_ , 200�. (Must be posted for at least -wr (V) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. 5 pljLA'NINO�N' NG A�WID� Z°OINIIIN'10' C'O�MiINII�SSI�O�M'. MEETING DATE: 114/113/01 NAME OF PROJECT: LOT 11, SilverLode Subdivision, (2735-074-30-011) CITY CLERK: Jackie Lothian STAFF: Fred Jarman WITNESSES: 1. Gregory Register 2. Gary Wright EXHIBITS: 1. Staff Report (x) (Check If Applicable) 2. Affidavit of Notice (x) (Check If Applicable) MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve P&Z Resolution #13, series 2001, approving the variances from the Residential Design Standards for the build to lines and secondary mass finding that the proposal more effectively addresses the issue or problem given standard or provision responds to and is clearly necessary for the specific site. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Cohen, yes; Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-0. VOTE: YES 5 NO 0 ERIC COHEN YES _x_ NO RON ERICKSON YES _x_ NO ROGER HANEMAN YES _x_ NO STEVEN BUETTOW YES _x_ NO JASMINE TYGRE YES _x_ NO PZVOTE DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE CRITERIA DRAC may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards if the variance is found to be: In greater compliance with the goals of the AACP, or A more effective method of addressing the standard in question, or Clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director r DATE: April 3, 2001 RE: Aspen Mountain PUD--Amended Conceptual Approval (Public Hearing, continued from March 6, 2001) Lots 3 and 5 (Top of Mill and Grand Aspen Sites) SUMMARY: The new owners of the Aspen Mountain PUD, Top of Mill Investors, LLC (Lot 3) and Grand Aspen Lodging, LLC (Lot 5), managed by Four Peaks Management, LLC, is requesting an amendment to the previous conceptual approval granted by City Council on December 61 1999. The owners are proposing a minor change to Lot 3 (Top of Mill) whereby they would be creating a new lot where an existing parking garage for the Summit Place Condominiums exist. The garage was required as a condition of the City's approval of various amendments to the Lot 2, Summit Place project. Upon final PUD and subdivision approval, the area underneath the garage (approximately 2500 s.f. of Lot 3) could be deeded to the Summit Place Condominium owners. This is the only change from the previously approved conceptual design. Lot 5 (Grand Aspen) has not changed substantially in physical form, however, the applicants are now requesting that the project be developed not as a hotel, but as a "fractional ownership" project. The physical changes are the relocation of the parking garage ramp from Galena St. to Dean St.; the reduction in "rooms" from 150 hotel rooms to 51 two, three and four bedroom units (with each unit having one or two "lock off units" for a total of approximately 125 rooms); an increase of 18 parking spaces under the building; the addition of 9 parallel parking spaces along Galena St. to serve the Silver Circle Ice Rink; and the elimination of the "semi-public" accessory uses (restaurant and gift shop) located along the Dean St. fagade. ISSUES FROM LAST MEETING: At the conclusion of the last meeting, the P&Z requested that the applicant come back with more information addressing a variety of issues including: how the applicant can ensure that the rooms not occupied will be available for rent; what the ownership shares will likely be; the height of the project in relationship to nearby buildings; and comparison of other seasonal areas more relevant to our area, such as Tahoe and Beaver Creek. (Please refer to Minutes of March 6, 2001 included in this packet). In response to those requests, the applicant has provided responses in a supplement addressed to myself and dated March 26, 2001 (Attached as new Exhibit A). There is a significant discussion regarding the tax benefits of such a project which the City Council will particularly be interested in. APPLICANT: Top of Mill Investors, LLC (Lot 3) Grand Aspen Lodging, LLC (Lot 5) Four Peaks Management, LLC will be managing the development of the two properties. Four Peaks is represented by David Parker and Sunny Vann. LOT 3 ZONING: Lodge/Tourist/Residential with a mandatory PUD overlay (L/T/R-PUD), R-15 (PUD)(L), and C Conservation PROPOSED LOT 3 ZONING: As part of the final PUD, the property is proposed to be rezoned to L/TR-PUD and C Conservation. LOT 5 ZONING: Lodge/Tourist/Residential with a mandatory PUD overlay (L/T/R-PUD) PROPOSED LOT 5 ZONING: Same as existing, no rezoning is proposed for Lot 5. PROCESS: Conceptual PUD Amendment reviewed by P&Z with a recommendation to City Council. Upon approval of this amendment, 'the applicant would then proceed directly into final PUD, subdivision, and the remaining land use approvals required with both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. LOT 3 ISSUES: Essentially, the owners would be creating an additional parcel of approximately 2500 s.f that can then be deeded to the Summit Place condominiums for the use of the parking garage. The applicant agrees to deed restrict the parcel to ensure it will always serve as parking for the condominiums. Although the applicant indicated that the revised lot area, density and floor area calculations for Lot 3 would be provided, they were not submitted to staff at the time of this writing. Conceptually, staff does not see any problems with this minor amendment to Lot3 and recommends approval of this amendment request. LOT 5 ISSUES: Four Peaks proposes to convert the 150 unit hotel which received conceptual approval into 51 club suites which will be condominiumized and sold. The applicant has indicated in the supplement that each suite will be a 1/20 interest. Ownership of a fractional interest will be "unit specific" and will allow the owners to occupy the unit during a specific time. When not occupied by the owners, the suite will be available through an exchange program or may be part of the rental pool and available to the public on a nightly basis. The idea under this arrangement is to create "hot beds" in the heart of the lodging area. Additional information regarding the benefits of this type of ownership have been provided. Staffs one reservation regarding this type of ownership is that property ownership does not change on a regular basis, therefore, the tax generated through the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) may not be a steady revenue source beyond the first three years of sales. 17 The applicant has indicated that no significant changes have been proposed to the footprint, exterior architecture or height. The subgrade parking garage, pool area, courtyard and guest drop-off are essentially the same, and the Floor Area of 115,000 s.f remains unchanged. Modifications will be made to the interior of the hotel and are indicated schematically on the set of floor plans previously provided. The garage ramp approved along Galena St. has been relocated to Dean St. There will be two ramps that will allow entry and exit from the garage. As a result of this relocation of the ramps on the north side of Dean St., more parking spaces are available within the garage structure. The approved conceptual plan called for 106 spaces while this revised plan contains 124 spaces. The garage ramps will encroach into the Silver Circle Lot, slightly reducing the observation deck located along Dean St. In addition, the nine parking spaces reserved for skating patrons will be relocated along Galena St. Staff is still concerned regarding the loss of the accessory uses the hotel had proposed to locate along the Dean St. frontage. The applicant addresses this issue in the supplement. The Planning and Zoning Commission will need to evaluate whether the lack of a restaurant or retail space compromises the benefit of this project to the community. These uses would have created a more lively street front than what is currently being proposed. Staff still believes that a small corner gift shop, accessible to the public as well as hotel guests, would still improve the interface between the private vacation hotel and the community at large. These small convenience shops are very typical in the Whistler vacation complexes and would be appropriate at this location. With respect to affordable housing, the applicant has agreed not to seek any relief from the affordable housing requirements set forth in Ord. 99-111. That is, the project will continue to provide a minimum of 9 units, housing at least 16 employees on site. Though staff expressed concern regarding the segregation of the AH units, the applicant addresses this issue in their supplement, and staff agrees that this is an appropriate solution. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the amendments to Lot 3 be approved with the conditions set forth below: 1. The. Application for Final approval shall meet all of the conditions set forth in City Council Resolution No. 99-93; 2. The revised lot area, density and floor area calculations for Lot 3 will be provided at Final PUD; 3. The additional lot created will have the appropriate deed restrictions placed on it requiring that the lot remain for parking purposes only as part of the Summit Place project; 4. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder. 5. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. z With regard to Lot 5, if the Commission believes that the interval ownership approach will benefit the community, then they should decide if an accessory use open to both guests and the public is appropriate as part of this project. Staff recommends that the amendment to the conceptual PUD be approved with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant be required to provide a small convenience/gift shop at the corner of the project with both interior and exterior entrances, and that this be included as part of the final PUD application; 2. That the application for final PUD approval will meet all of the conditions set forth in City Council Resolution No. 99-111, except as otherwise modified; 3. The project will provide 124 parking spaces as shown on the revised plans; 4. That the intervals be 1/20 interests; 5. The final PUD application include a revised landscape plan that will address the area where the reconfiguration of the new ramps and the observation area interface with the Silver Circle rink; 6. The final PUD application shall include a request to amend Section 470.070, GMQS Exemptions, of the Land Use Code regulations to permit the conversion of lodge reconstruction credits to residential development units; 7. The final PUD application shall contain a request for conditional use and subdivision approval for the applicant's timeshare development proposal; 8. Revised development data that addresses the dimensional requirements of the L/TR zone District shall be submitted with the final PUD application. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. finding that the proposed amendments to conceptual approval for Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD are consistent with the previously approved plans." "I move to approve Resolution No. I finding that the proposed amendments to conceptual approval for Lot 5, Aspen Mountain PUD, with conditions stated above, are consistent with the previously approved plans." Attachments: Exhibit A Supplement dated March 26, 2001 G: /planning/aspen/cases/pud/ampud/amendconcept2. doc 91 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director r DATE: April 3, 2001 RE: Aspen Mountain PUD--Amended Conceptual Approval (Public Hearing, continued from March 61 2001) Lots 3 and 5 (Top of Mill and Grand Aspen Sites) SUMMARY: The new owners of the Aspen Mountain PUD, Top of Mill Investors, LLC (Lot 3) and Grand Aspen Lodging, LLC (Lot 5), managed by Four Peaks Management, LLC, is requesting an amendment to the previous conceptual. approval granted by City Council on December 6, 1999. The owners are proposing a minor change to Lot 3 (Top of Mill) whereby they would be creating a new lot where an existing parking garage for the Summit Place Condominiums exist. The garage was required as a condition of the City's approval of various amendments to the Lot 2, Summit Place project. Upon final PUD and subdivision approval, the area underneath the garage (approximately 2500 s. f. of Lot 3) could be deeded to the Summit Place Condominium owners. This is the only change from the previously approved conceptual design. Lot 5 (Grand Aspen) has not changed substantially in physical form, however, the applicants are now requesting that the project be developed not as a hotel, but as a "fractional ownership" project. The physical changes are the relocation of the parking garage ramp from Galena St. to Dean St.; the reduction in "rooms" from 150 hotel rooms to 51 two, three and four bedroom units (with each unit having one or two "lock off units" for a total of approximately 125 rooms); an increase of 18 parking spaces under the building; the addition of 9 parallel parking spaces along Galena St. to serve the Silver Circle Ice Rink; and the elimination of the "semi-public" accessory uses (restaurant and gift shop) located along the Dean St. fagade. ISSUES FROM LAST MEETING: At the conclusion of the last meeting, the P&Z requested that the applicant come back with more information addressing a variety of issues including: how the applicant can ensure that the rooms not occupied will be available for rent; what the ownership shares will likely be; the height of the project in relationship to nearby buildings; and comparison of other seasonal areas more relevant to our area, such as Tahoe and Beaver Creek. (Please refer to Minutes of March 6, 2001 included in this packet). In response to those requests, the applicant has provided responses in a supplement addressed to myself and dated March 26, 2001 (Attached as new Exhibit A). There is a significant discussion regarding the tax benefits of such a project which the City Council will particularly be interested in. The applicant has indicated that no significant changes have been proposed to the footprint, exterior architecture or height. The subgrade parking garage, pool area, courtyard and guest drop-off are essentially the same, and the Floor Area of 115,000 s.f. remains unchanged. Modifications will be made to the interior of the hotel and are indicated schematically on the set of floor plans previously provided. The garage ramp approved along Galena St. has been relocated to Dean St. There will be two ramps that will allow entry and exit from the garage. As a result of this relocation of the ramps on the north side of Dean St., more parking spaces are available within the garage structure. The approved conceptual plan called for 106 spaces while this revised plan contains 124 spaces. The garage ramps will encroach into the Silver Circle Lot, slightly reducing the observation deck located along Dean St. In addition, the nine parking spaces reserved for skating patrons will be relocated along Galena St. Staff is still concerned regarding the loss of the accessory uses the hotel had proposed to locate along the Dean St. frontage. The applicant addresses this issue in the supplement. The Planning and Zoning Commission will need to evaluate whether the lack of a restaurant or retail space compromises the benefit of this project to the community. These uses would have created a more lively street front than what is currently being proposed. Staff still believes that a small corner gift shop, accessible to the public as well as hotel guests, would still improve the interface between the private vacation hotel and the community at large. These small convenience shops are very typical in the Whistler vacation complexes and would be appropriate at this location. With respect to affordable housing, the applicant has agreed not to seek any relief from the affordable housing requirements set forth in Ord. 99-111. That is, the project will continue to provide a minimum of 9 units, housing at least 16 employees on site. Though staff expressed concern regarding the segregation of the AH units, the applicant addresses this issue in their supplement, and staff agrees that this is an appropriate solution. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the amendments to Lot 3 be approved with the conditions set forth below: 1. The Application for Final approval shall meet all of the conditions set forth in City Council Resolution No. 99-93; 2. The revised lot area, density and floor area calculations for Lot 3 will be provided at Final PUD; 3. The additional lot created will have the appropriate deed restrictions placed on it requiring that the lot remain for parking purposes only as part of the Summit Place project; 4. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder. 5. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. z RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE GRAND ASPEN SITE, LOT 5OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITIUN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO.2737-782-85005 Resolution #01- WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Top of Mill Investors, LLC, applicant, for an amendment to the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval received for the property from the City Council, as specified in Resolution No. 99-111; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on March 6, 2001, and continued to April 33- 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a to vote, that the City Council approve the amendment to the Conceptual Planned Unit Development for the Grand Aspen (Lot 5) property, with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development is further subject to Final PUD, Subdivision, conditional use, and timeshare approval pursuant to the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the City Council approve the amendment to the Conceptual Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant be required to provide a small convenience/gift shop at the corner of the project with both interior and exterior entrances, and that this be included as part of the final PUD application; 2. That the application for final PUD approval will meet all of the conditions set forth in City Council Resolution No. 99-111, except as otherwise modified; 3. The project will provide 124 parking spaces as shown on the revised plans; 4. That the intervals be 1/20 interests; 5. The final PUD application include a revised landscape plan that will address the area where the reconfiguration of the new ramps and the observation area interface with the Silver Circle rink; 6. The final PUD application shall include a request to amend Section 470.070, GMQS Exemptions, of the Land Use Code regulations to permit the conversion of lodge reconstruction credits to residential development units; 7. The final PUD application shall contain a request for conditional use and subdivision approval for the applicant's timeshare development proposal; 8. Revised development data that addresses the dimensional requirements of the L/TR zone District shall be submitted with the final PUD application. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 3, 2001. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE TOP OF MILL SITE, LOT 30F THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITIlN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO.2737-782-85003 Resolution #01- WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Top of Mill Investors, LLC, applicant, for an amendment to the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval received for the property from the City Council, as specified in Resolution No. 99-93; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on March 6, 2001, and continued to April 33, 20017 the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a to vote, that the City Council approve the amendment to the Conceptual Planned Unit Development for the Top of Mill (Lot 3) property, with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development is further subject to Final PUD, Rezoning, Subdivision, and Residential Design approval pursuant to the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the City Council should approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: 1. The Application for Final approval shall meet all of the conditions set forth in City Council Resolution No. 99-93; 2. The revised lot area, density and floor area calculations for Lot 3 will be provided at Final PUD; 3. The additional lot created will have the appropriate deed restrictions placed on it requiring that the lot remain for parking purposes only as part of the Summit Place project; 4. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder. 5. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 3, 2001. Four Peaks 308 South Galena Street Aspen Colorado 81611 970.925.2114 March 26, 2001 Julie Ann Woods, Director Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen Colorado 81611 Dear Julie Ann: This submission attempts to address the issues raised by Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission since our March 1 submission. First, a note of the contents of this submission. The first portion of this submission is dedicated to those issues best addressed by Four Peaks. • The Restaurant Issue • The Interior hallway issue ■ The height issue • Quick summary of the Vacation Ownership benefits to the community. After these first four pages the next portion is dedicated to a presentation addressing the questions posed by Planning and Zoning at our March 6 meeting. This material was prepared by Ragatz Associates with input from Hobson Ferrarini, Hyatt and Four Peaks. Following the question and response portion is a revised Executive Summary from Ragatz Associates (starting on page 18) incorporating the minor changes resulting form the directed study of the P & Z. Followed by letters from Telluride Mountain Village Town Manager and Finance Director. Regarding the restaurant issue: Staff says in part• 'Without some sort of accessory retail or food service use, Staff cannot support this requested chap,ge from the previous approval. " Four Peaks requests that a restaurant/accessory retail not be a part of the project for the following reasons: From a community perspective: • We've lost a lot of small retailers as national chains have moved in. Restaurants are still largely owned and operated by locals. Why add another restaurant to an already over crowded market? ACRA says there are approximately 80 restaurants in the Aspen area. Many retailers and restaurateurs are complaining about slow seasons and sales. Why make it worse. • The "mom and pop" restaurants are a critical part of Aspen's "messy vitality", we do not want to play a role in the demise another local restaurant, by adding, what in effect is a subsidized competitor. 2000 AACP: calls to "Reduce the adverse impacts of freight and construction vehicles on Aspen." No full service restaurant helps to this end. From a "vitalist" perspective: • Redesigned pedestrian friendly stzeetscape on Dean Street with no parking will encourage vitality and dramatically improve the feel and vitality of the area. • The street will be revitalized by the addition of a project with average occupancies of around 85"o. The comings and goings of the Hyatt guests and owners will markedly improve the vitality of the area in off-seasons as well as peak seasons. • The Silver Circle provides vitality, but to date this facility has been managed to survive, not to thrive. We will make it thrive and bring with it vibrancy and activity. From a operations perspective: • The project will provide necessary services for our guests — for example continental breakfast and after ski snacks. An open and inviting lobby will be open to the public and those seeking accommodation and/or information. • Most Vacation Ownership projects do not offer full restaurant services. Owners and guests can conveniently use dozens of in town restaurants within easy walking distance to the facility. • Without a full service restaurant rental rates will be kept lower than they may have otherwise been for two reasons: 1) Full service hotels can demand higher room rates because of the increase in services — these tend to be four and five star facilities, and 2) to offset losses associated with the restaurant room rental rates would likely be increased. ■ A small accessory retail facility will be on site largely to serve guests and owners for immediate needs. ReLyardina the addition of an interior hallwav "seL•reL•atinLi" the emt)lovees from the nests. Staff says in part.- "Staff would like to point out that the interior of the pr ject now segregates the AH units from the free market units by the addition of a parallel non -connecting corridor. This is a disappointment and should be eliminated in the final design." Four Peaks requests to leave the plans as submitted. The proposed scenario far benefits the employees, guests, owners and management because: • This is not an attempt to segregate employees from the community, but an effort to separate naturally conflicting uses. ■ The separation allows the employees more flexibility in dealing with their own "neighborhood" than if they have to keep it "pristine" and managed to accommodate the feelings of hotel guests, owners and management. ■ Issues associated with "stuff' outside of employee units and the "look" goes away. There won't be an issue with personalized decoration or convenience of employee units, for instance: • Christmas decorations, • Notes on doors for friends, • Leaving something out to be picked up, Im Letting kids loose out of the units to play, Temporary- storage of items like skis, outside the front door of a unit, etc. If the hallway were shared between visitors and residents all of these conveniences would go away- and the feeling of living in a "neighborhood" would be lost. This is the employee's small community and any chance of their adding their own "messy vitality" would be lost if it were shared with weekly tourists and a management that would demand uniformity. ■ Clearly the frame of mind behind the two divergent uses is completely different. On one hand you have "hotel guests" in town for a week or less here to have a good time. Hotel guest roaming the halls after bar hours looking for their rooms and singing college fight songs is not great for those needing sleep before work or school. Hotel guests with kids out making noise in the halls is not conducive to the quiet enjoyment of employee's homes. By the same token, an employee or its family making noise when the hotel guest is trying to catch up on their sleep is also counter productive to the relationship management would like to cultivate between guests and employees. • The uses clash, and forcing them together does no one any good and, in our minds provides no social benefit. Regarding the building height. Neighboring properties generally along the Durant Street corridor are of the following peak heights: The Little Nell Hotel: 44' 8" North of Nell Condominiums: 45' The St. Regis: 62' Proposed Hyatt Grand Aspen: 45'. Resolution 99-111 granted conceptual approval of a proposed 45' height limit for a project on this site. We believe that this height is warranted and needed for the current proposed project to provide the benefits that the community is looking for in this critical downtown core location. On April 3`d we will make available for review a scale model of the core area around the site. We believe that this model will show that the scale and massing of this building is appropriate to its location and use. We are proud to be using the local architecture firm of Poss and Associates and believe that the architecture, massing, scale and finishes will be something that will add to the already impressive architectural resume of the Aspen area. In the meantime the following two pages show an "Existing View and Proposed View" presentation of the visual impacts of the proposed project. Photos were taken from the second floor of the Wheeler Opera House (we couldn't see the project from the ground level) and from the corner of South Galena and Cooper (Paradise Bakery courtyard). The Existing View was not enhanced to show the existing Grand Aspen. However, we have enhanced the Proposed View so that the reviewer can be clear on the general height and impact that the proposal represents. These "Proposed View" representations exaggerate the actual impacts of the proposal because 1) actual color and finish variations are not represented and those variations will reduce the visual impact, 2) these photos were taken during the winter season and no foliage was present on the numerous deciduous trees, and 3) the proposal contemplates a landscaping plan that will further enhance the visual character of the proposal on the community. ReLyardinLy the Vacation Ownership Droiect vs. hotel nroiect: In addition to the quantifiable economic benefits largely generated by significantly higher occupancies and spending habits (demonstrated in the following 20 pages) a series of other benefits also exist — especially when compared to a hotel. These include: 1. Greater year-round stability in employment patterns and consumer expenditure patterns. This type of project is better than any other in generating off-season occupancies. 2. "New Blood". Vacation ownership, through exchange programs and rental opportunities will bring more diversity and visitation than any comparable moderately priced, upscale hotel. 3. Improves the vitality of the downtown core area. 4. Vacation ownership owners feeling more like citizens of Aspen than hotel guests. Due to the feeling of "ownership" and annually spending more days in Aspen than hotel guests, vacation ownership owners probably would better "care" for the community, e.g., more charitable contributions, more concern about its appearance, etc. 5. Vacation Ownership typically requires far less parking than a comparable hotel project with restaurant and meeting facilities. 6. Less traffic and use of public facilities. 7. Higher repeat visitation patterns and customer loyalty. This stability lessens the need to always be attracting more tourist flow. 8. Goodwill. Vacation ownership clients report higher satisfaction rates than those from hotels. 9. General spreading out of the economic benefit across a greater number of providers of goods and services in the community. As visitors stay for longer periods of time and return to Aspen more frequently, they are likely to explore the area and begin to also visit local shops and restaurants more "off the beaten path." lv 10. Practically every destination -resort communit�T in North America now contains several vacation ownership developments. This even includes communities with unique characteristics and a high -end vacation profile such as Aspen. Without such developments, Aspen over the long run could lose a desirable proportion of its tourist -flow to other communities that successful capture this very positive market. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter and please let me know if there is any thing else I can provide for our meeting on the 3`d of April. Sincerely, Four Peaks Scott Writer, Manager v O Existing View Grand Aspen Hotel Proposed view Corner of S Mill St. and E. Hyman Ave. 03-21 -01 � � Y IFA 44' K E IYAW r m y � , 11 x i .{. - yes.. .• y i RESPONSE TO MOST SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS RAISED BY CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGARDING A VACATION O'WNT ERSHIP OFFERING AT THE GRAND ASPEN A. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to address the most pertinent questions raised by Planning and Zoning Commission in regard to a possible vacation ownership offering at the proposed Grand Aspen development. The questions were raised by various commissioners during the meeting of March 6, 2001. A revised Executive Summary from Ragatz Associates follows starting on page 18. B. P &Z QUESTIONS / FOUR PEAKS RESPONSES Responses to the questions are addressed via two formats in this document. This section states each question, and a brief response from Richard Ragatz is then provided. The next section (Section C)provides more lengthy backup, in event the reader desires more information. Some questions do not require/generate additional backup because of their concise wording. Question 1: Please provide additional detail on the vacation ownership product to be offered at The Grand Aspen. At this point in the planning process, The Grand Aspen will sell 1/20 shares, allowing owners 17 days of access every year. The 125 rooms will be in two -bedroom, three -bed room, and four -bedroom configurations in a total of 51 units. Owners will have access to one peak season week in either winter or summer, with the other 10 days "floating" on a year-round basis via an equitable points -based system. Prices will vary in accord with timing, size of unit and view, with an overall average price of between $100,000 and $150,000 (subject to further review and market forces). Annual dues will be charged. The project will be affiliated with Interval International for external exchanges. A well -marketed rental program will be available for owners' unused time. The Grand Aspen will be marketed and managed by Hyatt Vacation Club, a leading company in the vacation ownership industry. Question 2: Please provide additional information on occupancy rates that are more specific to Aspen or other nearby Mountain communities instead of just for the United States as a whole Year Round Occupancy Rates • Hyatt Grand Aspen / Vacation Ownership / Projected 84.5% • Aspen Hotel Industry / General / 2000 56.8% • Aspen Condos (Aggressive rental)/ Whole Ownership / 2000 48.6% The 84.5 percent reflects a downward adjustment in The Grand Aspen from the 87 percent in our previous report, in order to be more conservative. The adjustment is caused by applying a 48.6 percent occupancy rate for condos in Aspen to the rental space in the Hyatt rather than the previous 56.8 percent — which applied to hotels. Additional details regarding occupancy are provided in Part C (starting at page 5 of this document). Annual Average Occupancy Rate By Location and Property Type 100% 93.0% 90% 80% c 70% u 60% 52.3% 518 50.5/. 48.6% 50% 40% Hyatt Tahoe Hyatt Bearer Upscale Hotels Upscale Aspen Mdprioed Resort Condos Aspen Condos Creek Y Hotels Hotels 2/ 3/ 1/ Vail, Sun Valley, Park City, Aspen, Telluride, Snowmass, and Beaver Creek 2/ Park City, Aspen, Beaver Creek, Silverthorne and Keystone 3/ Aspen, Snowmass, Jackson Hole, and Vail SOURCE: Hyatt Vacation Ownership, Smith Travel Research, David Booth, Coates, Reid and Waldron and Hobson Ferrarini Associates 2 Ouestion 3: Please provide additional information on consumer expenditure patterns. The data confirm that consumer spending in vacation ownership projects ranges from 18 percent to 26 percent or more than in comparable hotel projects. Information on consumer expenditure patterns was derived from D.K. Schifflet Associates, a leading firm in the hospitality industry. These figures are onlv available on a national basis, and are not unique to Aspen. The. national figure is $119 per person (each family member) per day for the hotel industry. Applying an 18 percent higher spending pattern in vacation ownership yields a very conservative $140 average spending per person per day in Aspen. Additional details regarding consumer expenditures are provided in Part C (starting at page 10 of this document). Ouestion 4: Please provide additional information on the various public ta.-ces to be generated by The Grand Aspen for the City of Aspen. The followinLy taxinLy schedules were assumed in the report: a. Retail Sales Tax: 2.2 % to the City of Aspen, of the total 8.6 %. b. Short -Term Lod-gina Tax: 3.06 % to the City of Aspen, of the total 9.6%. This includes 2.2% directly to the City and 0.86% rebated back to the City by Pitkin County. c. Real Estate Transfer Tax: 0.5 % of the first $100,0001 and 1.5% thereafter. These tax rates were provided by Larry Thoreson of the City of Aspen Finance Department. Ouestion 5: How much tax will The Grand Aspen generate to the City of Aspen compared to the hypothetical 150-room hotel? Please make the comparison reflect Aspen as much as possible. Over a 10 year period we can conservatively project that the proposed vacation ownership project will generate about $1.8 million more in taxes than a moderately priced upscale hotel. The total would be $7,148,470, compared to $5,358,550, or a 33.4% differential. This information is expanded on below (all projections are in today's dollars). The additional taxes from The Grand Aspen are due to: (1) the greater number of occupant-nights/person-days; (2) higher consumer expenditure patterns; (3) payment of the Real Estate Transfer Tax; and (4) payment of additional Sales Taxes from local expenditures from maintenance fees and marketing costs. Additional details regarding tax benefits are provided in Part C (starting on page 10 of this document). 10-year proiections The Grand Aspen Hotel Source Sales Tax $611186,380 $311826,480 Lodging Tax $ 299,090 $175325070 Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 663,000 0 . Total $7,1481470 $5,35811550 Question 6: Will The Grand Aspen generate additional new visitors ("New Blood') to Aspen, and if so, how? The Grand Aspen definitely will generate additional new, and a broader base of, visitors to Aspen. Based on 25 years of experience in the vacation ownership industry by Resort Condominiums International (the world's leading exchange company) and on the conduct of hundreds of vacation ownership consumer surveys by Ragatz Associated (including for Hyatt Vacation Club), and applying the information to Aspen, it is assumed that of all the nights available to owners at The Grand Aspen, the following use patterns will result: • 35 percent is used by the owners • 30 percent is used by exchangers • 5 percent is used without a fee by friends and relatives • 30 percent is available for rent Expected Usage Hyatt Grand Aspen: Exchange use 30% X In other words, the 70 percent usage by owners includes their exchanges, rentals and allowing others to use without a fee. This use pattern means 0 that about 65 percent of the space in the 125 rooms at The Grand Aspen will always be used by, or available to, others than the owners. It should also be commonly accepted that the socio-economic profile of exchangers in Interval International is considerably lower than it is for owners in the Hyatt Vacation Club. This means that a much wider disparity of users will have access to The Grand Aspen than just those who can afford, on average, between $100,000 and $150,000 for a 1/20 share. Question 7: How can the City be assured that unused time by the owners will be available for public rentals? It is difficult to assure the City that owners' unused time at The Grand Aspen will actually be available for public rentals. It is illegal to force owners to make this commitment. However, the assumptions used in the report are based on responses to numerous consumer surveys conducted by Ragatz Associates containing questions about how vacation ownership owners would utilize their time if an appropriate rental program were available. More importantly, the assumption is supported by owners' use patterns in other Hyatt Vacation Club resorts. The mind set of the fractional interests owner is to expect their unit to be used by others basically every day they are not there — it is the nature of fractional ownership. There is every reason to believe that each owner would make their units available for rent when they would otherwise be available. C. DETAIL ON THE QUESTIONS Question Z: Please provide additional information on occupancy rates that are more specific to Aspen or other nearby Mountain communities instead of just for the United States as a whole. Year Round Occupancy Rates • Hyatt Grand Aspen / Vacation Ownership / Projected 84.5% • Aspen Hotel Industry / General / 2000 56.8% • Aspen Condos (Aggressive rental)/ Whole Ownership / 2000 48.6% A very significant advantage of vacation ownership over any other type of resort development (including hotels and whole ownership properties) is the very high year- round occupancy rates achieved at properly implemented projects. During the past years 5 we have surveyed thousands of vacation ownership owners and hundreds of vacation ownership projects. We repeatedly find that year-round occupancy rates average around 88 to 95 percent, even though the resort hotel industry in the same community may only be averaging 70 percent or less. Our most recent study, The Community Benefits of Resort Timesharing: 2000 Edition received responses from 2,609 randomly selected vacation ownership owners throughout the United States. One summary paragraph notes: Timeshare owners report a 93.5 percent utilization factor, far exceeding most resort hotels. Timeshare owners report using 93.5 percent of the time available to them in their timeshare, whether personally, by exchanging, by giving away time to friends and relatives, or by renting out time. Surveys confirm that many sold -out timeshare resorts experience occupancy rates of 90 percent -plus, although the average occupancy rate of timeshare resorts is lower than this due to many having unsold inventory. Timeshare occupancy rates far exceed those of resort hotels, which average in the 70 percent range, and second homes, which are used an average of only about eight weeks per year. High timeshare occupancy rates result in strong year-round utilization, which reduces seasonal fluctuations in employment and income in the host community. Annual Average Occupancy Rate By Location and Property Type 120% a --Upscale I-btels Aspen ' Condos Aspen 100% i Hyatt Bearer Creek 80% Ar 60% , � ♦ 40% 20% ♦ 0 0% Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec SOURCE: Hyatt Vacation Ownership, Smith Travel Research, David Booth, Coates, Reid and Waldron, and Hobson Ferrarini Associates So, now let us attempt to estimate what such high occupancy rates mean for The Grand Aspen in terms of annually generated room -nights (upon sell -out). In a conservative estimate, it is assumed that the year-round usage (occupancy) rate by on nights). However, there will be 29,054 room -nights actually available at The Grand Aspen. This is calculated as follows, by using the two -bedroom units as an example. • 26 units times 70 percent utilization rate of the entire unit times 365 nights equals 6,643 available room nights; 26 units times 30 percent utilization of the hotel room lock -off equals 2,847 available room nights; 26 units times 30 percent utilization of the remaining lock -off unit equals 2,847 available room nights; 6,643 plus 2,847 plus 2,847 equals 12,337. • When repeating this same process, we find that the 21 three -bedroom units would generate 13,797 available room -nights and the four four -bedroom units would generate 2,920 available room nights. When adding the three types of units together, the total is 29,054. Of these 29,054 available room -nights, it has been assumed that owners will use between 50 and 70 percent themselves, or 20,337. This leaves 8,717 available for rent. Of these 8,717 nights, it has been assumed they would be occupied 48.6 percent of the time, or 4,237 nights. When adding the 20,337 to the 4,237, it means a total of 24,574 annually occupied room -nights in the 51-unit Grand Aspen. As noted, there would be a total of 29,054 room -nights annually available for occupancy at The Grand Aspen. Of these, 20,337 would be occupied by owners, 4,237 would be occupied by renters, and the remaining 4,480 would be vacant. Thus, the anticipated year-round occupancy rate would be about 84.5 percent. This is a very conservative estimate. The preceding information is detailed in Table IV-1 and summarized in Table IV-2. Occupant -Nights (Person -Days) Because units at The Grand Aspen will be larger than hotel rooms, the average number of occupants actually would be considerably higher. This means that the number of occupant -nights (person -days) would be greater in the vacation ownership project— 79,273 compared to 62,196 in a comparable hotel — a difference of 17,077 occupant - nights (person -days), or 27.5 percent. TABLE IV-1 Annual Room -Nights and Occupant -Nights Generated by Vacation Ownership Project Remaining 1 or 2- Whole Bedroom Hotel room Hotel room Unit Lock -Off Unit Lock -Off Lock -Off Total A. 2-Bedroom Units (26) Owner usage 70% 30% 30% - - Total nights available 6,643 2,847 2,847 - 12,337 Owner occupancy rate 70% 70% 70% - 70% Nights occupied by owners 4,650 1,993 1,993 - 8,636 Nights available for rent 1,993 854 854 - 3,701 Renter occupancy rate 48.6% 48.6% 48.6% - 48.6% Nights occupied by renters 969 415 415 - 1,799 Total nights occupied 5,619 2,408 2,408 - 10,435 Occupants per unit 3.5 2.5 2.0 - - Occupant -nights 19,667 6,020 4,816 - 30,503 B. 3-Bedroom Units (21) Owner usage 60% 40% 40% 40% - Total nights available 4,599 3,066 3,066 3,066 13,797 Owner occupancy rate 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% Nights occupied by owners 3,219 2,146 2,146 2,146 9,657 Nights available for rent 1,380 920 920 920 4,140 Renter occupancy rate 48.6% 48.6% 48.6% 48.6% 48.6% Nights occupied by renters 671 447 447 447 2,012 Total nights occupied 3,890 2,593 2,593 2,593 11,669 Occupants per unit 5.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 - Occupant -nights 19,450 9,076 5,186 5,186 38,898 C. 4-Bedroom Units (4) Owner usage 50% 50% 50% 50% - Total nights available 730 730 730 730 2,920 Owner occupancy rata 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% Nights occupied by owners 511 511 511 511 2,044 Nights available for rent 219 219 219 219 876 Renter occupancy rate 48.6% 48.6% 48.6% 48.6% 48.6% Nights occupied by renters 106 106 106 106 424 Total nights occupied 617 617 617 617 21470 Occupants per unit 7.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 - Occupant -nights 4,319 3,085 1,234 1,234 9,872 9 fl TABLE IV-2 Summary of Annual Room -Nights and Occupant -Nights (Person -Days) Owner occupied nights Renter occupied nights Total occupied nights Occupant -nights (Person -days) Available nights Occupancy rate Occupied nights Persons per room Occupant -nights (Person -days) 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom Units (26) Units (21) Units (4) Total (51) A. 51-Unit Vacation Ownership Project 8,636 9,657 2,044 20,337 1.799 2,012 436 4.237 10,435 11,669 2,470 24,574 30,503 38,898 B. 150-Room Hotel 54,750 56.8% 31,098 2 62,196 9,872 79,273 These totals were generated by assuming the following average number of persons per unit -type and room. unit - a persons per unit whole 2-bedroom 3.5 whole 3-bedroom 5 whole 4-bedroom 7 hotel room unit 2 Remaining 1-bedroom unit 2.5 Remaining 2-bedroom unit 3.5 Remaining 3-bedroom unit 5 hotel room 2 The above averages then were multiplied by the number of occupied room -nights in each type of unit/room. The process is detailed in Table IV-1 and summarized in Table IV-2. Questions 3, 4 and S: Consumer Expenditures When compared with overall tourist and hotel industries in the same communities, extensive research finds that vacation ownership occupants typically spend about 18 to 26 percent more per day than all visitors/hotel guests. Expenditure patterns for vacation ownership owners are higher for two basic reasons: 10 1. They already have their accommodations paid for prior to their vacation due to the previous purchasing process. Thus, they typically bring additional monies to spend locally for dining, shopping, entertainment, etc. 2. Vacation ownership owners typically have higher incomes than do tourists/hotel guests in general. It is reported by Shifflet Associates that for the overall hotel industry in the United States (regardless of quality or location of hotel), the average per person per day expenditure in the local community is $119. Unfortunately, no such information is available for Aspen, but this average is most likely far too low. If the previous range of 18 to 26 percent more expenditures by vacation ownership owners than by hotel guests were applied to the $119, it means that the average per person per day expenditure for vacation ownership owners would be between $140 and $150. Let us be very conservative, and for purposes of this paper, simply assume that vacation ownership occupants at The Grand Aspen will spend only 18 percent more (the low end of the typical range) than will guests in the 150-room hotel, or $140 compared to $119. In Table IV-3, we find that occupants of The Grand Aspen are expected to annually spend about $11.1 million when vacationing in Aspen ($140 times 79,273 occupant -nights/ person -days). By comparison, occupants of a 150-room hotel would be expected to spend about $7.4 million ($119 times 62,196 occupied-nights/person-days). Economic impact theory shows that for every $1 spent in a community, another $1.35 of consumer expenditures are generated elsewhere in the community. This is referred to as the "multiplier effect" or "induced" expenditures, whereas monies spent by the tourists themselves are referred to as "direct" expenditures. When combining both "direct" and "induced" expenditures, the totals become $26.1 million generated by the 51-unit Grand Aspen and $17.4 million generated by a 150-room moderately -priced hotel. In accord with past research in the resort timeshare industry, the $11,098,220 of direct consumer expenditures by vacation ownership owners at The Grand Aspen are expected to be distributed as follows. Expenditure category Restaurant meals and drinks Groceries and liquor bought in stores Rental cars Other transportation Tours Entertainment Shopping Admissions Other percent of expenditures amount spent 29.7% $3,296,171 10.3% $1,143,117 11.0% $11,2207804 1.4% $155,375 4.1 % $455,027 8.3% $921,152 15.9% $1,764,617 9.0% $998,840 10.3% $1,143,117 Total 100.0% $11,098,220 11 Table IV-3 shows estimated Sales Tax to be generated from occupants of the 51- unit Grand Aspen and from guests at a 150-room hotel. This table also summarizes both direct and induced consumer expenditures. TABLE IV-3 Annual Consumer Expenditures and Sales Taxes Collected From Occupants Vacation Additional From Ownership Hotel Vacation Ownership (51) (150) Amount Percent Expenditures per person per day $140 $119 — — Occupant-nights/person-days 79,273 62,196 17,077 27.5% Total annual "direct" consumer $11,098,220 $7,401,324 $3,696,896 49.9% Expenditures Multiplier effect 1.35 1.35 — — Total annual "induced" consumer $14,982,597 $9,991,787 $4,990,810 49.9% Expenditures Total annual consumer expenditures $26,080,817 $17,393,111 $8,687,706 49.9% Sales Tax 2.2% 2.2% — — Sales Tax from "direct" expenditures $244,161 $162,829 $81,332 49.9% Sales Tax from "induced" 329 617 $219,819 $109,798 49.9% expenditures Total Sales Tax $573,778 $382,648 $191,130 49.9% We find in Table IV-3 that the 51-unit Grand Aspen would annually generate about $191,130 more in Sales Tax than would a 150-room moderately priced hotel. This is a 49.9 percent difference. These totals are summarized below. Sales Tax Direct from occupants Induced by occupants Total from occupants additional from Vacation vacation ownership Ownership hotel 150 amount percent 51 $244,161 $162,829 $329,617 $219,819 $573,778 $3827648 $81,332 49.9% $109,798 49.9% $191,130 49.9% As noted in previous sections, additional Sales Tax will be generated by The Grand Aspen due to maintenance fees and marketing expenses. These are added to the Sales Tax from consumer expenditures below. 12 Additional from Annual Sales Tax from: vacation ownership Source vacation ownership (5 1) hotel 150 amount ep rcent Consumer expenditures Direct $244,161 $162,829 $811)330 49.9% Induced $329,617 $219,819 $109.798 49.9% Total $573,778 $382,648 $191,130 49.9% Maintenance fees Direct $6,732 -0- $6,732 - Induced $9,088 -0- $9,088 - Total $151,820 -0- $15, 820 - Marketing Direct $411360 -0- $411,360 - Induced $55,440 -0- $55,440 - Total $96, 800 -0- $96, 800 - Total annual long term $589,598 $382,648 $206,950 54.1% Total annual 1st 3 years $686,398 $382,648 $303,750 79.4% Total direct annual long term $2505,893 $162,829 $88,064 54.1% annual 1" 3 years $292,253 $162,829 $129424 79.4% Total induced annual long term $338,705 $219,819 $118,886 54.1% annual lst 3 years $394,145 $21%819 $1745326 79.4% When including consumer expenditures and maintenance fees, the 51-unit Grand Aspen would annually generate about $589,598 in Sales Tax. This is $206,950 (or 54.1 percent) more than would be generated by a 150-room moderately priced hotel ($382,648). The difference would be even more exaggerated during the first three years due to marketing costs at the vacation ownership project -- $686,398 compared to $382,648. This is a three-year annual difference of $303,750, or 79.4%. It should be noted that the preceding information on expenditures and Sales Tax collections do not account for inflation over time. B. Lodging Tax In Table IV-4 we find estimates for Lodging Tax paid by the two types of developments. It is assumed that the overall Lodging Tax in Aspen is 9.6 percent, and that the City receives 3.06 percent. The left-hand column in Table IV-4 shows renter -occupied nights by type of unit - accommodation at The Grand Aspen and a 150-room hotel. This information is taken directly from Table IV-1. The second column shows current published rack rates in Aspen for various types of unit -sizes in rental condominium projects. The information was obtained by visiting five such projects in the City, including Aspen Square, Durant, Fifth Avenue, Monarch and Alpenblick. Rack rates also were obtained from three moderately -priced hotels, including Limelite, Aspen Club Lodge and Independence Square Lodge. The published 13 rack rates were then applied toward the various unit -sizes and lock -off features in The Grand Aspen. For tax calculation purposes only it is assumed that average rack rates at The Grand Aspen would range from $210 in a hotel room lock -off unit to $451 for a whole three -bedroom unit. (The assumed figure for a whole three -bedroom unit is lower because of the rates reported by the "comparables." Developments offering such units were older than the other developments. Again this assumption results in conservative estimates.) Nightly rates will be determined by management philosophy and market forces. Vacation ownership projects do not have the same "success" criteria as hotels and often will rent a comparable room for less than the comparable hotel might. It also is conservatively assumed that the average rack rate for a hotel room lock - off unit in The Grand Aspen would be the same as for a room in a moderately priced hotel - $210. The third column shows the estimated achieved ADR's (Average Daily Rates) for the various types of units. These figures were obtained by applying information from Smith Travel Research for the Rocky Mountain region. The information basically shows that achieved ADR's are 23 percent less in the region than published rack rates. The ADR figure is more important because this is what the Lodging Tax is charged against. TABLE IV-4 Lodging Tax Collected From Renter -Occupied Nights Renter Typical Sales Sales and City's and Occupied Rack Total Lodgin Lodging Tax Portion 9 Nights Rates ADR Revenue Tax Collected (3.06%) 2-Bedroom Units (26) Whole unit 969 $326 $251 $2437219 9.6% $23,349 $7,443 1-Bedroom lock -off 415 $261 $201 $83,415 9.6% $8,008 $2,553 Hotel room lock -off 415 $210 $161 $66,815 9.6% $6414 $2,045 (1 per unit) 3-Bedroom Units (21) Whole unit 671 $451 $347 $232,837 9.6% $221)352 $7,125 2-Bedroom lock -off 447 $326 $251 $112,197 9.6% $10,771 $3,433 Hotel room lock -off 894 $210 $161 $1437934 9.6% $13, 818 $4,404 (2 per unit) 4-Bedroom Units (4) Whole unit 106 $420 $323 $34,238 9.6% $3,287 $1,048 2-Bedroom lock -off 106 $326 $251 $261606 9.6% $2,554 $814 Hotel room lock -off 212 $210 $161 $34,132 9.6% $3,277 $1,044 (2 per unit) Totals 2-Bedroom Units 11799 — — $393,449 9.6% $37,771 $12,041 (26) 3-Bedroom Units 2,012 — — $4889968 9.6% $46,942 $141,962 (21) 14 4-Bedroom Units 424 — — $94,976 9.6% $9,118 $2.906 (4) Total (51) 4,235 — — $977,393 9.6% $93,830 $29,909 Hotel (150) 31,098 $210 $161 $5,006,778 9.6% $480, 651 $153,207 The fourth column shows total annual revenue generated by renters at the two facilities (not accounting for inflation). The amount at The Grand Aspen would be $4,029,385 less than at a 150-room moderately priced hotel -- $977,393 compared to $5,006,778, respectively. The sixth column shows the Lodging Tax of 9.6 percent applied commonly to all types of accommodation. The seventh column shows the amount of annual Lodging Tax collected from the various types of accommodation at 9.6 percent. The amount at The Grand Aspen would be $93,830, compared to $480,651 at a 150-room moderately priced hotel. Thus, the hotel would annually generate $386,821 more in total Lodging Tax. The final column on the right hand side shows the amount of Lodging Tax directly received by the City of Aspen at 3.06 percent. Here, we find that the hotel would annually generate about $123,298 more for the City than would The Grand Aspen - $29,909 compared to $153,207. C. Real Estate Transfer Tax The third type of public tax generated for the City of Aspen from any development with real estate sales is the Real Estate Transfer Tax. Reportedly, this tax is 0.5 percent of the first $100,000 of the sale price and 1.5 percent thereafter. As noted previously in this report, it is somewhat premature to designate exact sales prices for the proposed vacation ownership offering at The Grand Aspen. But, the best estimate at this time is $110,000 per 1/20 share. This means each share sold would generate a Real Estate Transfer Tax of $650 (0.5 percent times the first $100,000 equals $500, plus 1.5 percent of the next $10,000 equals $150). Each unit would generate a total tax of $13,000 ($650 times 20 shares). The entire 51-unit Grand Aspen vacation ownership offering would generate a total Real Estate Transfer Tax of $663,000 ($13,000 times 51 units). This type of tax would not be levied against a 150-room hotel. It is noted that the Real Estate Transfer Tax only occurs at time of sale, and not annually. Therefore, if we assume the previously stated anticipated three-year sellout, it means that the City of Aspen would collect about $216,750 for each of the three years. Additionally, and to be conservative with our projections, no consideration has been made for the RETT that will be paid on the resale of units. Furthermore, the taxes generated by the sales price over $100,000 (at 1.5% instead of just .5%) is significant. Higher averages than projected here would have a significant positive impact on the taxes generated. For instance, if the average price per fraction ended up being $150,000 instead of the projected $110,000, the RETT generated would be $1,275,000 vs. the $663,000 shown above (again, not including resales). 15 D. Summary of Tag Collections Preceding sections have compared three types of public taxes generated for the City of Aspen by a 51-unit vacation ownership offering at The Grand Aspen and by a hypothetical 150-room moderately priced hotel. Included were the Sales Tax, the Lodging Tax and the Real Estate Transfer Tax. This information is summarized below for the two land uses. additional from vacation vacation ownership Tax ownership (51) Hotel 150 amount percent Annually collected Sales Tax (2.2%) Direct $250,893 $1623,829 $881,064 54.1% Induced $338,705 $219,819 $118,886 54.1% Total $598,598 $382,648 $206,950 54.1% Lodging Tax (3.06%) $29,909 $153,207 ($123 295) (412.2%) Total $6191507 $535,855 $83,655 15.6% add'l collected during 1" 3 years Sales Tax from marketing $290,400 -0- $2901,400 — expenses (2.2%) Real Estate Transfer Tax (0.5%) $663,000 -0- $663,000 — Total $953,400 -0- $111572,907 — As shown above, it is anticipated that when combining the Sales Tax and the Lodging Tax, The Grand Aspen would annually generate about $83,655 (15.6 percent) more than the 150-room hotel -- $619,507 compared to $535,855. During the first three years in the operations of The Grand Aspen, it would generate another $953,400 in taxes, including $290,400 from the Sales Tax on local marketing expenditures and $663,000 from the Real Estate Transfer Tax. Neither of these taxes would be generated by a hotel. IC I - 10-Year Projection This section estimates economic benefits generated by The Grand Aspen and by the hypothetical 150-room moderately priced hotel over a 10-year period. No compensation is made for inflation during the 10 years. additional from vacation vacation ownership ownership (51) hotel 150 amount percent Occupied room -nights 245,740 310,980 (65,240) (26.5%) vacant room -nights 44,800 .236,520 (191,720) (427.9%) Occupant-nights/person-days 792, 7310 6215960 1705770 27.5 % Consumer expenditures' $260,808,170 $173,931,110 $861,8771,060 49.9% Maintenance fees2 $3,060,000 -0- $5,060,000 — Marketing expenditures2 $5,6007000 -0- $5,600,000 — Sales Tax (2.2%)3 $6,186,380 $3,826,480 $2,359,900 61.7% Lodging Tax (3.06%)4 $299,090 $1,532,070 ($1,232,980) (412.2%) Real Estate Transfer Tax $663,000 -0- $663,000 — (0.50/o/1.P/W Total $7,148,470 $5,358,550 $1,789,920 33.4% 'Includes both direct and induced. 2Includes only proportion anticipated to be spent locally on goods and services. 3Includes both direct and induced, and by maintenance fees and marketing expenditures. 4Includes only the amount collected directly by City of Aspen (3.06%). 5Assumes no turn -over of properties during the 10 years. As shown in the above summary, it is conservatively anticipated that over a 10- year period, a vacation ownership offering at The Grand Aspen would generate $11789,920 more in taxes (33.4 percent) than would the 150-room hotel - $7,148,470 compared to $5,3581500. The Grand Aspen also would generate: • 170,770 more occupant-nights/person-days • 191,720 fewer vacant room -nights • $86.9 million more of consumer expenditures What follows is the revised Executive Summary from Ragatz Associates reflecting the changes between his original work submitted for the March 6 Planning and Zoning Meeting and revisions made based on input from the Commission. 17 Ragatz Associates Inc. (Formerly RCI) March 25, 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COMMUNITY ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM A VACATION OWNERSHIP OFFERING AT THE GRAND ASPEN ASPEN, COLORADO The purpose of this report is to analyze potential economic benefits generated to the City of Aspen by a proposed 125 room/51 unit vacation ownership offering at The Grand Aspen development. Wherever possible, comparisons are made with a hypothetical 150- room moderately priced hotel. The term vacation ownership refers to any type of shared ownership of resort property, involving more than one owner per unit, as opposed to whole ownership involving only one owner per unit. The two most important forms of vacation ownership are resort timeshare and fractional interests. It is anticipated The Grand Aspen will be a hybrid of these two products. Vacation ownership is the fastest growing segment of the international tourism and resort hospitality industries — increasing in owners by about 15 percent annually for the last 10 years. Currently, about 3.75 million households own vacation ownership in almost 5,000 resorts. Last year, gross sales volume was over $6.5 billion. Considerable economic benefits are incurred from properly implemented vacation ownership projects, as described in the previous discussion. It is anticipated that the year-round occupancy rate at The Grand Aspen would be about 84.5 percent, as compared to only 56.8 percent in the local hotel industry and 48.6% in the local condominium rental market. All 51 units would have a lock -off feature, and short-term rental and exchange programs would be available to owners and the general public. This feature would generate 125 rooms. Because units at The Grand Aspen will be larger than hotel rooms, the average number of occupants would be considerably higher. When combined with the higher occupancy rate, it means that The Grand Aspen would annually generate more occupant nights/person-days-79,273 compared to 62,196. The Grand Aspen also would annually generate many fewer vacant room -nights than would the 150-room hotel —only 4,480 compared to 23,652. To further demonstrate this particular benefit to the community, the following is a quote from the Planning Director for the Town of Telluride. The aspect of vacation ownership that we find beneficial to the community is that it addresses our desire to have a larger bed base. While the 18 vacation ownership projects in Telluride sell usage time to owners, they also offer units for short-term rentals when they are not being occupied by their owners. Like Aspen, Telluride has numerous condos bought as second homes that sit empty the majority of the year. These condos add nothing to our rental bed base, while vacation ownership properties do if terms of sale are structured appropriately. Please see attached letters form the telluride Mountain village Finance Director and Town manager regarding the benefits of this project. Research repeatedly shows that vacation ownership owners spend 18 to 26 percent or more on consumer expenditures while in the local community than do hotel guests. However, this report at -hand conservatively assumes that expenditure patterns by occupants at The Grand Aspen would be the same as by occupants at a 150-room hotel. However, The Grand Aspen still would annually generate more consumer expenditures -- $11.1 million compared to $7.4 million. This is due to the greater number of occupant- nights/person-days. Economic impact theory shows that for every $1 spent in a community, another $1.35 of consumer expenditures are generated elsewhere in the community. This is referred to as the "multiplier effect." When including the "multiplier effect" these expenditure figures increase to $26.1 million from The Grand Aspen compared to $17.4 million from the hotel. Annual Sales Tax generated from these consumer expenditures (including both from direct and indirect expenditures) would be about $573,778 from The Grand Aspen versus $382,648 from the hotel. However, the annual Lodging Tax would be greater at the hotel - $153,207 compared to $29,909. When combining these two taxes on an annual basis, the 51-unit vacation ownership project would generate about $67,832 more that the 150-room hotel, or 12.7 percent. When including additional Sales Tax collected from appropriate maintenance fees, and more importantly, by the Real Estate Transfer Tax and additional Sales Tax collected from local marketing expenditures during the first three years of operation (i.e. the sell- out period), The Grand Aspen would generate another $290,400 in Sales Tax and $663,000 in Real Estate Transfer Tax. Over a 10-year period, The Grand Aspen would generate about $1,789,920 more in taxes for the City of Aspen than would a 150-room moderately priced hotel. The totals would be $7,148,470 compared to $5,358,550, or a 33.4 percent differential. During this 10-year period, The Grand Aspen also would generate: • 170,770 more occupant-nights/person-days • 191,720 fewer vacant room -nights • $68.9 million more of consumer expenditures 19 In recognition of the many economic advantages of a properly implemented vacation ownership project, community leaders are supporting this type of development. Material at the end of this report evidence such support. In addition to the quantifiable economic benefits generated by The Grand Aspen to the City of Aspen, a series of other benefits also exist — especially when compared to a hotel. These include: 1. Greater year-round stability in employment patterns and consumer expenditure patterns due to the significantly higher year-round occupancy rates. Obviously, seasonal unemployment rates would therefore be less, and local merchants and service providers would have to worry less about severe seasonal peaks and declines in their income. 2. Vacation ownership owners feeling more like citizens of Aspen than hotel guests. Due to the feeling of "ownership" and annually spending more days in Aspen than hotel guests, vacation ownership owners probably would better "care" for the community, e.g., more charitable contributions, more concern about its appearance, etc. 3. Some vacation ownership owners probably would upgrade to whole ownership over time, thus paying more property taxes, extending the advantages in (2), etc. 4. Less traffic and use of public facilities. Due to their longer average lengths - of -stay, vacation ownership owners typically spend more time in their units, and less time driving around sight-seeing, creating impacts on other facilities such as police and fire protection, etc. 5. Higher repeat visitation patterns. Since "ownership" is attached to the concept, vacation ownership owners tend to return much more frequently over time than do transient renters. This stability lessens the need to always be attracting more tourist flow. 6. General spreading out of the economic benefit across a greater number of providers of goods and services in the community. As visitors stay for longer periods of time and return to Aspen more frequently, they are likely to explore the area and begin to also visit local shops and restaurants more "off the beaten path." 7. Practically every destination -resort community in North America now contains several vacation ownership developments. This even includes communities with unique characteristics and a high -end vacation profile such as Aspen. Without such developments, Aspen over the long -run could lose a desirable proportion of its tourist -flow to other communities. 20 03/01/01 09 : 06 FAX 9710 728 4342 HT VILLAGE TOWN nM SVS \ TOWN OFN I OUNTAIN ILLAGE February 21, 2001 Richard L. Ragatz, Ph.D. Ragatz Associates 767 Willamette Street Suite 307 Eucene, Oregon 97401 Dcar Dr. Ragatz: I understand you are conducting an Economic Impact Analysis comparing the benefits of a vacation ownership development versus those of a moderately priced hotel in Aspen. Tile purpose of this letter is to state my opinion that vacation ownership development offers as much financial benefit to a city as does a hotel. As the Finance Director of Mountain Village, I have witnessed tremendous financial remuneration for our community resulting directly from the numerous vacation ownership projects within its boundaries. During last year 138 vacation ownership shares were sold in Mountain Village, representing some $18.7 million in real estate. The total amount of real estate sales in Mountain Village last year was roughly $233.8 mullion, meaning vacation ownership sales accounted for 7.9 percent of all of our real estate activity. Obviously, the real estate transfer assessment on $1. 8.7 million is sizeable, and influences my above stated opinion. Additionally, many of the vacation ownership resorts in Mountain Village also allow short-term rentals, generating additional income for the municipality through the collection of sales and lodging taxes. According to industry research, vacation ownership units are occupied more regularly than hotel rooms, adding warm bodies to the community to spend money and generate sales tax revenues for Mountain Village. In summary, I believe that Aspen, like Mountain. Village, has as much more to gain fi,om a vacation ownership development than from a moderately priced hotel- Please do not hesilate to call me if you would like to discuss this further. sincerely, Steven Wilson Finance Director 113 Lost Creek Lane, Suite A - Mountain Village, CO 81435 - Phone: 970-728-8000 - FAX 970-728-4342 �D2/22/01 THU 17: 57 FAX 970 728 7 577 MTNI VILLAGE 00 .. Town OF OUNTAIlY ILLAGE February 21, 2001 Richard L. Ragatz, Ph.D. Ragatz Associates 767 Willamette Street Suite 307 Eugene, Oregon 97401 Dear Dr. Ragatz: This letter serves to affirm that Z believe that vacation ownership is a positive part of development in Mountain Village, Colorado. There are essentially two reasons for our support of vacation ownership: 1. Live bodies. Vacation ownership projects seem to light up the windows of our community as much or more thanhotels do. While we lose some revenue by not receiving sales and lodging tax from these properties (although some allow rental of vacant rooms and pay sales and lodging tax), we gain in having a higher visitor population throughout all periods of the year. Much of the time not used by owners of the vacation ownership shares is utilized by exchangers, friends and family, etc. Additionally, many of the vacation ownership projects in Mountain Village allow owners to use time outside of their contracted amount when it has not been reserved by others, thus units do not often sit empty. Occupants often spend more money in the community than hotel guests, since their lodging has already been paid for. 2. Real Bstate Transfer Assessment. Any revenue that we lose in sales and lodging tax is more than made up by real estate transfer assessment. The bottom line — from our point of view here in the Mountain Village, there is as much to be gained from a vacation ownership development as from a moderately priced hotel, assuming that you have a well developed bedbase. I welcome your telephone call if you would like to discuss my comments. Sincerely, Kathy Maho ey Town Managor 113 Lost Creek Lane, Suite A - Mountain Village, CO 81435 - Phone: 970-728-8000 - FAX 970-728-4342 Petersen Thomas Slade Peter W. Thomas, Jr. City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Commissioners: PLLC April 3, 2001 Re: Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD Application for Amended Conceptual Approval ASPEN 616 E. Hyman Avenue Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone: (970) 544 - 0898 Facsimile: (970) 544 - 0916 www.Colorado-Lawyers.net Peter@Colorado-Lawyers.net We represent the owners of the Galena Place Townhomes immediately adjacent to the proposed timeshare project on Lot 5. Our clients do not oppose the application generally, and in fact applaud the applicant's efforts to revitalize the area. However, we ask you to give serious consideration to the proposed sight and fourth floor of the proposed timeshare before passing a recommendation to the City Council. The applicant initially sought to provide Aspen with 150 moderate -priced hotel rooms and was granted conceptual approval for a four-story forty-five foot high hotel. l Armed with that conceptual approval, the applicant now seeks to "amend" the project to instead provide 54 privately owned fractional - interest suites (timeshares) to be sold on the free market and managed by Hyatt. Whether or not a timeshare project is appropriate is up to you, but we would suggest that a timeshare project is ill -suited to achieve the benefits that would be provided by a moderately priced hotel. Regardless, the fourth floor must be eliminated from the plan. The underlying L/TR zone district imposes a twenty-eight foot height limitation. Building height limitations are legally recognized as bearing a direct and rational relationship to the safeguarding of light, air and views, as well as the preservation of community and architectural homogeneity. In other words, there is well-grounded reason for building height limitations that must not be blithely ignored. There are, of course, circumstances that occasionally merit negligible height variances. This is not one of those cases. To warrant any variance, there must be clear and convincing evidence of unnecessary hardship that deprives the owner of any and all reasonable use of his or her land. Suffice it to say, a timeshare project at the base of Aspen Mountain will be grossly profitable. There is no evidence that a building of more circumscribed height dimensions would result in undue hardship to the applicant by The scope of this letter is limited to the applicant's application for amended conceptual approval. We are not commenting at this time on the propriety of the conceptual variance pursuant to the initial project proposal. Aspen Boulder Denver (970) 544 - 0898 (303) 998 - 0417 (303) 260 - 6424 Aspen Mountain PUD, Amended Conceptual Approval Letter to Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission depriving it of all beneficial use of the property. In the absence of such a showing, there is no permissible legal basis for approving a building of such proportions. Moreover, an approved variance must be the minimum necessary to overcome any such hardship that forms the basis for the underlying variance. Here, however, the addition of a fourth floor will raise the structure to an imposing forty-five feet, constituting a greater than sixty percent variance. This is hardly an inconsequential difference. Lastly, no variance can be granted to benefit one landowner at the expense of another landowner. The profit of the applicant must not then be elevated above the rights of adjacent landowners. Views will be obstructed. Light, air and shadows will be compromised. Our clients' properties will suffer a real and significant diminution in value. We certainly don't fault the applicant for seeking to maximize its economic return. However, no rational articulable basis exists for approving a forty-five foot high four-story timeshare building at this 'te. Should this board recommend approval to the City Council of the applicants' request for amended nceptual approval, we implore you to do so with the express condition that the building be limited to three floors and a height consistent with the underlying zone district. Anything higher will be at the expense of our clients, the surrounding neighbors, and the community as a whole. Very truly yours, Law Offices of PETE H AS & SLADE, P.L.L.C. �l ,�='�� BY: Ago - Peter W. Thomas, Jr. 9o0oc 8000C 7000C 60000 a 50000 z C t4 Q. v 40000 0 30000 20000 10000 Occupant Nights Comparison Hotel Vs Vacation Ownership E3 Repeat Visitors 0 New Visitors 0 0 1009E •i' W% 70% M 30% 20% 10% Occupant Night Comparisons Hotel Vs Vacation Ownership ❑ Vacant 0 Repeat Visitors 0 New Blood FPS, MMO 0 31SIPM mw M�ixL No.?5l , P, ?..Os 6�W MOTJr,-41IN RM ROM M9QL7ATlON DOW i x SA c + 4 rhP � ' . �. PA,, �tioId CS, alum* �As t Icily ci Opi Cm 4� i0o fk 'r A�: Youth A�p�a r,� �qi�1 TomhonM Dr�ap��et 414$ ' 4 M In OW r � 'O01 baW of � ,'o � Ara�c{ KW t +a►a , Tarr Ated r;Oddi l dip t ► Md" I Jbr qt� f OudiAmpan Icui 00upW by jotp, 40 mooh for was ft r"* ano* tba �11 WD=3p, 3 Fa q. of a for tMab, bUIN sad v ajo �the oM* puking Awb* � At and of Um boo � � ► IA At,o of a r - r+ q► t ved qre A & t � dsa M, wall *mod b4dow Vey 4 e arm goof#he 61 ward �o►'1ar mod, o A bmu aid oae io br 40Pma t s A�re� r.OV01Y =d snAmNIM biftWd M o Wddw �0 Q 8*00 to PMOV640 of rows � � ►�Pq$A01=44 In to soppal stw As60koWtaLift IA4 o ��W-4�d ��, �� fU� � pad be on skwx tier �tnd to ,Apan Sid CIO � � ba tb4 cq��aj �� tlkp go* bad i MAR. 26.2001 3:32PM M MARK MENX- 215 540 3277 NO.251 P.3/3 I MY Of Aspen. Commission on Planning & Zoning March 26, 200I ccu amcrcial and residend3W ply could be well satisfied b a conOept in favor oil and econ®mi�call ' o Y approving the to�uvn home the � � y ; unsound lodges which would have difficulty g prows hive costs of Pid& coucty consttuction and its expensive debt service which; residenU could eas9y do. South AOpeo, Street should �fi=fore couftuc to be a residential jewel pleasing to the eye and coxapatiblo with what adrcady Wrists. Sin6erely yours, At Qom, C M. , AIM xV1MEL P�c�ident ShadOw Mountains TO`VM Home Association MMM,BS ' l 4=1t�mmiaRp�alxAO��sa,n�.30�, i i I fi� MEETING DATE: 04/03/01 (continued from 03/06/01) NAME OF PROJECT: ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD AMENDED CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL LOT #3 (Grand Aspen) CITY CLERK: Jackie Lothian STAFF: Julie Ann Woods WITNESSES: (1) Sunny Vann (2) Scott Writer (3) David Parker (4) John Burlingame (5) Dick Ragatz (6) Steve Ferrarini (7) Kim Wyle (8) Peter Thomas (9) Jerry Monkarsh (10) David Boothe EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report (x) (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice (x) (Check If Applicable) 3/6/01 3 various maps, drawings, exhibits MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve P&Z Resolution #11, series 2001 finding the amendment to the conceptual approval for Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD were consistent with the previously approved plan and conditioned upon approval of Lot #5, P&Z Resolution #14, series 2001. APPROVED 5-0. ROLL CALL VOTE: YES 5 ROBERT BLAICH YES _x_ NO ROGER HANEMAN YES _x_ NO JASMINE TYGRE YES x NO NO 0 ERIC COHEN YES _x_ NO STEVEN BUETTOW YES _x_ NO PZVOTE — ampudlot0jeso# 11 a.w MEETING DATE: 04/03/01 (continued from 03/06/01) NAME OF PROJECT: ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD AMENDED CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL LOT #5 (Top Of Mill) CITY CLERK: Jackie Lothian STAFF: Julie Ann Woods WITNESSES: (1) Sunny Vann (6) Steve Ferrarini (2) Scott Writer (7) Kim Wyle (3) David Parker (8) Peter Thomas (4) John Burlingame (9) Jerry Monkarsh (5) Dick Ragatz (10) David Boothe EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report (x) (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice (x) (Check If Applicable) 3/6/01 3 various maps, drawings, exhibits MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to approve P&Z Resolution #14, series 2001 finding the amendment to the conceptual approval for Lot 5, Aspen Mountain PUD the Top of Mill site, with the conditions stated being consistent with the previously approved plans and adding to condition #4 after the "," or less with a maximum of one ownership share per person. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Haneman, no; Buettow, no, Cohen, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, no. DENIED 4-1. ROLL CALL VOTE: YES 1 NO 4 ROBERT BLAICH YES NO x ERIC COHEN YES _x_ NO ROGER HANEMAN YES NO _x_ STEVEN BUETTOW YES NO _x JASMINE TYGRE YES NO _x MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to deny the approval to the amendment of the Aspen Mountain PUD based upon not having enough information to make an accurate determination at this time and the applicant preferred to move ahead. Eric Cohen second. Roll call vote: Cohen, yes; Buettow, no, Haneman, no; Erickson, no; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 3-2 to deny. PZVOTE — ampud1ot#5,reso# 14