HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sr.Aspen Pitkin Accom.1982
\\\
r.....,
r>;
, /-
f)
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Sur.vey
A. P~rcel Identification
1. Block Number / /
2. Lot(s) ....::2./,- ~ 7- C:4~ ..~
3. Street Address/Buildin9 Narrc ..IF 7' JCl a,~l-~~ /4V ?iLt'.,~)
4. Name/Address of Owner s;:d-/?aM-t..J 9-rc:::t: 2/<.ij~, '"
/7 /I' ~.~
L!orJ-~
---zJ~-<--c-o. (~~
.'
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning ,4 - c:<..
6. Development
6.1 COl]1lllercial
6.2 Residential
6.3 lodge/Condo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. lot Area (Square Feet) c3 / -5- cJ()
.. ----B...Improvements (Square Feet) ?
C. Description of Activity
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
Floor
Use
Square Feet
\~
City of Aspen. Commercial Land Use Survey
, A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number 4- .
: ~:~:; Ad~= 15i~=j )crj6t ~)
4. Name/Address of Owner
~~~--- ae....t./'""P1-a-/...'f!J
,.
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning __L-I
6. Development
6. 1 Commerci (; 'j
6.2 Residential
6.~Condo
6.4 Undeveloped
Lot Area (Square Feet)
Improvements (Square Feet)
7.
8.
/ ~ #--0--6 L:/
.3 3. ,{, P-o 9f
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Nurri6'er of
Employees
Length of
Stay
i.
I
I
f
I
I
I
f
I
,
\\.0
..t1
f)
City of Aspen. Comrnerci a 1 land Use Survey
A. Pa.rcel Identification
~: ~~~~~)Nurn~r ~~ ._(et77 d&~)~~~
3. Street Add:ess/Building NallY" I "" ~
4. Name/Address of Owner
~, ~
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning _ L - )
6. Development
6.1 Commerci,,";
6.2 ?~ntial
6.3~Condo
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Squa;e Feet) <j,li'-O-C 7V
8. Improvements (Square Feet) '737.;;, 91
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Num"tier of
Employees
Length of
Stay
I
I
I
I
,
;
I
i
I
I
f
I
1
,
,y\
. . ~
I
, A.
tl
,
.
.r-,
4 .
City of Aspen Con~nerci a 1 Land Use Survey
Parcel Jdentificiltion
\...-\;\ , . f\ r. t ,
1. B'l~!lel" '\, ~ q,""..\C" E ~,~,'" II".,.,~ ,,,,,,",,,~
2.. Lot(s) \"l.,I"?,I,\. e\"'~1(. ~ (dA......~ /.\-tlL.f..;_
3. Street Addr~ss/Buildin,! Ni:lllY-.O S."-\"'~4
4. Name/Address of Owner ~h,,\/.)~.
i . ... I",,{:
c.\.. I'. \L\
~M"l
"
... w''> 1\.. ('A-~ A ~
'.~~ (; ,\ltu.-! '!>{,
, .
.'
B.
Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning.. .... 'j..
6. Develo'pment
6.1 CO(llrnerci 0.1
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) /;l:7'10...z.
8. Improvements (Squar~eet) s; 8$0 ",".
Description of Activity ~ 3 f:/o4'-
~, Ol)~ -
6/<-oe"? T. S.,t. ~
~.... A-J("~"'- 57.
Length of
Stay
C.
SO. ASI"'" ;; j-
~;~CRR-r . s.r.
Number of
Employees
Fl oor
Use
Square Feet
'3--?---
A
~
,. \1
"
City of Aspen Conunercial Land Use Suryey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number 7 7
2. lot(s) f, Q, RI S
3. Street Addr~s:;/Duildin'J. N.::urc :1: II
4. Name/Address of Owner I?rl~ ~
.'
B. .Parce1 Description
5. Present Zoning 1.- -/
6. Development
6.1 Colinnercial
. 6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo )( .
,
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) /~ ~
8. Improvements (Square Feet) 79'/3?lf'
C. Description of Activity
Fl oor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
,
.I
I
,
~.
'}'J
~
n
City of Aspen COllullercial Land Use SUl".vey
A. Parcol Identification
1. Block Number 77
2. Lot(s) A- I 6 .
3. Streot Addr~ss/nuilding: N= ~/0;02./j da~4-:r.V-kM.:<,;e./&-e.._.'
4. Name/Address of Owner at?-c~-t~;;:;::"'j;i )(k~,,,.....".. V.
, ~dJ.e:z ~~~~;;~
a~a~ t!tf"l!aR /,0 / /
. i7 ."
"
B. .parcei. Description
5. Present Zoning t -_. /
6. Development
6.1 Corjunercial
, 6.2 Residential
6.3 lodge/Condo ,X- .
6.4 Undeveloped
7. lot Area (Square Feet) ;j
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
C. Description of Activity
?~ ~
'Y;,s .{, 5/.~ .,"'W
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
.1- '"\.\. ";.~
,...,
n
-.
'.
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
, A.
Parcel Identification
1. Block Number ,(" > \.-~.\:< 0, ~,Q;(, S ?6: 000 4>-,::,j .4-",,) C/;:,6~~8 ~ -*--r)
2. lot(s) '\"1, Lo~ ~\), € ~. (,., ~,J:"~ 2~'-
3. Street Addr,"ss/l3uildin<;j NiJ.l1'() L\~,,\,~~t)~p;::}-?-~ ",llLS'}lc....\-'It
4. Name/Address of Owner ,~_____, u
< ~/.Odt7-fr<:"d4"a)( '7.U"(<P' ::rf 4-<-)
6:ru", I:?~ ",' ( "",k )
.
.'
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning _
6. Develo'pment
6.1 COrylmercic;l
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo .~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
'C. Description of Activity
'.
C-- ({'\ LM< C\..L'" \<..
"?(,<lO'v
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
fi!l2loyees
Length of
Stay,
..€
1fo
f"',
r'\
City of Aspen Commercial land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number "1 \,
2. lot(s) l;. \01 <>~ (.. ,I>,-\\o~ \)_~
3. Street AddresS/Building Nam:.o .;'"'-o~ F\..."a L,,~
4. Name/Address of Owner
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning l-'
6. Development
6.1 Commerci21
7.
8.
6.2 Residential
6.3 lodge/Condo
6.4 Undeveloped
lot Area (Square Feet)
Improvements (Square Feet)
,/
',\oeCl
\ '\ "\ 10"1
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Nuniber of
Employees
length of
Stay
,
I,
-:J-~
r'\
('"')
,... "
'.
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A.
Parcel Identification .
1. Block Number \j01;k~J..t ~~.' /!aud I,}...
2. Lot(s) '-n:l ~. , Ii
3. Street Address/Building NanY..o'too 5, MOI/l!Jxc-h N!t1LlAfai /) Quee n
4. Name/Address of Owner . I ~ . .
9n~ 0Le.ac~_ ~;
-;/ ~ ~--<--<> rflu./-U.#' to.
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning. L -,;{ (4.1f
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
6.2~ntial
6.~ondo
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) -->Ld, .3 9""c:? 9f.
8. Improvements (Square Feet) O?~- YY6' --y;:;
C. Description of Activity
Floor .
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
'~
"'-
'V~
A
A
City of ~spen commercial Land Use survey
~.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Vf!i-,.L/~'L<:> ./
~
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning
6. Development
6.1 commerci a 1
1:- - ft.
----
6.2 ~Wentia1
6.~condo~/
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot ~rea (squar: Feet) _ 9 He) "-7-=,
8. Improvements (square Feet) /t2..1tf:J:.-/7
- I
Length of
~tay
C. Description of ~ctivity
Number of
1!nP1oyee~
~uare Fee!.
Fl oor
:-c---
Use
-
./
9
A
City of Aspen CommerCial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1.
2.
3.
4.
Bl", ''''bee . c.h2
Lot('J~i~/"_/~4 ,'.
Street AddreSS/Buildin.s ... N_ Z';'~"L /~: .~
'''''IAdd"" of "'''ee:. ~ '~. _ _
~ ~ --?~: ..~~ a~ _L. 4c..t"<2.~.
B.
Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning _.~
6. Deve lopment
6. 1 Commercial
7.
8.
--------.
6.2~ential
6. LOd e/ on do ~
-
6.4 Undeveloped _
Lot Area (Square Feet) _ /.r;:J ,;;?s-c; ?!'
Improvements (Square Feet) _' /1--? dc:J ~
C.
Description of ActiVity
DooJ.:
Use
~
Square Feet
Number of
imp 1 0 VeeJi
Length of
l!~
'.
----
f"">,
A
3\
.
.,2;
City of ^spcn COllullcrcial Land Use Suryey
A. Parcel Identification
. 1. Block Number OJ Lf
2. Lot(s) A,9,C.P .'
3. Street ^ddr~s;/l3uilding: Nurre ;:;'.v3 :t-;';AYA-n+ :ttu.e.~~
4. Name/Address of Owner., ~~ t6' ~~--,-"J<7
(?'{f)'~'.,$?'6 !
d;.;n, ~U'?/61:0
.'
B. .Parce1 Description
5. Present Zoning
6. Development
6.1 Coi\Jmerci a 1
. 6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo 'f'
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) /;? i"J'-a--r:J
8. Improvements (Square Feet) . 76.:5",;2 z:;!/
L - \ t L-2-
c. Description of Activity
Floor
Number of
Employees
Use
Square Feet
Length of
Stay
,,;'Y
.~
n
..
.>
City of Aspen COllul1ercial LJnd Use Suryey
. A.
Parcel IdentificJtion
.1. Block Number ~
2. Lot(s) c,fs, w,.I. :
3. Street Addr~s:;'/nci.ldin9. N.:urc 33'BDura.V'i-f (\{&"'vVvl+i2nC!..h.oJ&.::t .
4. Name/Address of Owner 7;pC;-L~'"'0-ta..~;,,-, d~"L~' 6'f""~,, j,,,,:",,,, .%-r<...
d 33 &_V d;.L.d..,,~r
d,-"-'7, ~ ,f'/';// .
.'
B. ,Parce1 Description
5: Present Zoning
6. Development
6.1 Coi\1mercial
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo )(.
/
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
L-\
/ .;;;~ 7f'
';;;'::<.tJ3;;2..
.
?/
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
. ,
n
r)
......
'?~
.
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number 'ir 2-
2. Lot(s) l'xo,L 0
3. Street Addrcss/Bui.lding Nam-O
4. Name/Address of Owner
~ Q"-4><~o-
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning L L
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) \"1...0.00
8. Improvements (Square Feet) 'lr5"2.e c........J........ U>"'.. \-...,)
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
I
"'(
.,....."
~
.'
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A.
Parcel Identification b J :
1. Block Number ~~. ~ "17.
2. Lot(s) I/:~. ~I"'vo !ukfJ.A,oO .
3. Street Address/Building Narn:.-.' 747 5',~e) ~AL
4. Name/Address of Owner ::t-<j,t:~ .
f/'
~@-j-<-~ c2-uh--t4.v
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning. L:-"""2.---
6. Development
6.1 Commerci 3.1
6.2 ~entia1
6.3~Condo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
Lot Area (Square Feet)
Improvements (Square Feet)
It:,. :/7'/ ~
g 7 c:, fr it>-
7.
8.
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
stay
'1""'\,
~
'. )
'.
y
..
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number _1_"___ .:. .
2. Lot('1 9./~~&~
3. Street Addr<2ss/Building Nartr.J it 5. ];1,J.1,.J~f~
4. Name/Address of Owner . _ j. .
':jOx7~~,{~~ ~~J
rf
:;?Pa-k-J.-~ rl--Ah'1 a./..., _
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoni ng I- - a-.,
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
7.
8.
6.2 ,S+dential
6.3~~~)condo
6.4 eveloped
Lot Area (Square Feet)
Improvements (Square Feet)
~
/(i, cJc?lS- cf
,. -/
/ c:: t)-a-6 1fT
/
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
~
,...."
r"',
City of Aspen Connnercial Land Use Survey
A.
Parcel Identification
1. Block Number /
2. Lot(s) g:--'---.;z;;;rM-"j ~A-/ J. '
3. Street Address/Building Nam.:o 4f1() s,Ck/M,A, /Of~7'1_.ij./~
(j I
4. Name/Address of Owner
7"#
O~<:-A7~
/'//~~'-'-, ~'-n_~b
B. Parcel Description
"
5. Present Zon,ing __ L.. -;(
6. Development
6.1 Commercii'l
6.2 Residential
6.~condo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) ;?~ Jr&6~ ~
8. Improvements (Square Feet) -Y77,:? ."'#
C. Description of Activity
!loor
Use
~are Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
"-JfA..
1"""'1
,
""
fI
..
,
City of Aspen COllvl1erci a 1 Land Use Sur.vey
. A. Pa.rcel Identification
1. Block Number ;2
2. Lot(s) t9~-t-,,/ ~~C-- /-'Y' - ctJ/22/',"7' a:~
.?'
3. Street Address/Building: Narro
4. Name/Address of Owner Vz.-e. /fZLu4"->-cZ: t!r/l~
'71t.-.f..<_~-<-~' ~-~.>
"
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning
6. Development
6.1 COl]1merci a 1
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) 17 7/d? y' -9f
/
8. Improvements (Square Feet) 7/ 'J' / 4
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
\\0
, A.
..
City of Aspen Conmlercial Land Use Survey
Parcel Identification
1. Block Number .....0;" Pc1ff'\'''~
2., Lot(s) !\"'~~"\ (l,v~~
3. Street Addr,;ss/BuildinS)' Nil11Y"
4. Name/Address of Owner
","oJ" ~\,~~\e.-:s.~~,
l ,",,;, ('~t<Z ~~ (.e.......\'"'tllr")
'-' t'P,~~ La ~
10, Q> 6~""t:o s~-{
v
.'
--ze
bD'f.
?;;;;
( <f 7-
r/.-7:;v0. .
',L'
Ol'/':...!'
L- L
"
a
1ft: ItliJ. ~.v
---
.t""'''K~''t
B.
Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning
6. Develo'pment
6.1 Co~merci<:l
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo .~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) :?'zCC::>.,:e;-
8. Improvements (Square Feet) -'7-930 ~
C. Description of Activity
F1 oor
Square Feet
Number of
Emp 1 o.xe~~
Length of
StC\,/',
Use
r.."
f4
"
'v\J\
.
.
, A.
Ci ty of Aspen Commerci a 1. Land Use Survey
Parcel Identification ~
:: ~::;:t~~: '7 ~/ LANJ.L bt ;J/.6;j ~ J(d&!
3. Street Address Building N= 555 d.QJiVY1),~'/P//Y :d~~ .
4. ,,,,/Add,,,, of 0"" ~:LLf;&<> ~f~~ I
~()t~V
B. Parcel Description
5. Presen.t Zoning _ L- - ~
6. Development
6.1 Commercii',l
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo )I~
I'
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
C. Description of Activity
/7/~o
/ ~ ,Z-03 'Jr
Fl oor
Use
Square Feet
Number 9f
Emp 1 oyees
Length of
Stay
V\\
r'1
n
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel identification
1. Block Number ~'l
2. Lot(s) "-, \~
3. Street Address/Building Name
4. Name/Address of Owner
'"1 , ~ ph. -L.." to....t, <,.
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zon i ng \.... - 1.-
6. Development
6.1 Commerci1:l
6.2 Residential
6.3 lodge/Condo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
Lot Area (Square Feet)
Improvements (Square Feet)
7.
8.
,1,)<;
9:1'Ih
C. Description of Activity
Fl 001'
Use
Square Feet
Nuniber of
Employees
Length of
Stay
,
--...
v\')--
("'\,
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number \ <> ,
2. Lot(s) f'<. '-\
3. Street Address/Building Nam0
4. Name/Address of Owner
k~
<S ") "d~
o
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning _ L \...
6. Development
6.1 Commercial )(
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
Lot Area (Square Feet)
Improvements (Square Feet)
7.
8.
<>"\ 000
,
"'Ss,"Io", t<2:H)-\-11;'b:. (U)~....)
C. Description of Activity
Fl oor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Emp 1 oyees
Length of
Stay
f"".
~
L{3,
City of Aspen CO~TIercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number '-00 .
2. Lot(s) ~ G- f!-?
3. Street Address/Bui.lding N=
4. Name/Address of Owner
~~ ~ C"'-I'-.\<l./>.-"
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoni ng .. L-\
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) ''-,000
8. Improvements (Square Feet) '-0 $ '"I'll
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Nuniber of
Employees
Length of
Stay
;
n'
I: .
~
: fi1i\lun ~r. . e
. I~r' ~
!
.
"
... v.'^
o
C.
,
r)
f\
",' '7
a1 Land Use
/ (\\ .pS
A. Parcel r~entifi f?>.pl
A~r'
1. Brock Number 10 1 / o~:,
2. Lot(s) 157( iX?,?37, 3~ 39 If
3. StreetAddrels/Building ~am" Joe) IJSCt (/v~( 17J1MA/{../..c.e-<L/I:z~t {)~^t2f
4. Name/Address of Owner / I
B.
fe,'
Parcel De. scription I _ I
5. Present ZOning_~
6. Deve1o'pment
6.1 Commercial_"/
6.2 Residential /
6.3 Lodge/Condo
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) 2 s-3Q~ '/;-
"
8. Improvements (Square Feet) -eS-/S"g 9f
Description of Activity
Floor
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
Use
Square Feet
,
i
I
~
Parcel Identification
1. Block Number~ /07 1TY1'11&~
2. Lot(s) 35'1,'?GJ%1 -a~ ~'b4 I ~ FN if /&1.::, ~ClI 1'1; 18; 4~~~
3. Street Address/Building N=7"-,, E. UTe.) ~ ~ $_Af'-k.,
4. Name/Address of Owner I I
~v,,,.s ~h
;
(""'),
r'\
r ,
City of Aspen Conmercial Land Use Survey
A.
(k.O...." -<:. S
**,,,,,,, iLos. ~ T
i _
B. Parcel Description
5. Pres~nt Zoning ..fZ-"" 1"I)D
6. Development
6.1 Commerci21
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo ~-
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) 33.000
8. Improvements (Square Feet) 7 -"; +'+'''l' fIG-
C. Description of Activity
Fl oor
Nunibe r of
Imployees
Use
Square Feet
-.
.4"" J." ~<Jl
z-ed J
~'1'
Length of
Stay
\A~
A.
"
("'\
City of Aspen Conullercia1 Land Use Survey
Parcel Identification
ft2
Block ~~t:i~~ );'1 vJvffo' /.R
Lot(s) ~ L",,", ",..,0 ,e.j--w + ,po",;" '7 V<><, f.;,!
Street Addr"ss/Buildin'l N= \,j o",C-t"~.\o~"-
Name/Address of Owner
1-
2.
3.
4.
n
"
S/'.'~)
"1.'",,,,
s/......;/
"
,
\
7.
8.
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo
6.4 Undeveloped
Lot Area (Square Feet) Z.c;;, ooo~ /N;).
Improvements (Square Feet) /f 2:.. / <r s;:
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning.
6. Development
6.1 Commerci<:l
../
C. Description of Activity
f.loor
-'11 f1 ,p
t 7.~ .p-
6f 1'/ .fr
~L
/..7S'f! " .
, '---/
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
/.y b<7,y 4r
'-(Z, /<( 5" f!>-
\A~ ..
.r:,
\/IY
/cP
"
t"'1
,
City of Aspcn COllulIcrci a 1 Land Use Sur.vey
h. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number /;j '7
2. Lot(s) ~ t
3. St.reet Addr"s~/Building Narrc
1,. r:ame/Address of Owner · . U~ ~ k"';7V/./"'.:::6- ~~-? .
--zld!-I-<--+--:~ ~~='
.
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning
6. Development
6. 1 COl!1l1lerci a 1
6.2 Residential
6.3 lodge/Condo ..-----
6.4 Undeveloped
7. lot Area (Square Feet) /-f? cJ-O '" 4/
8. Improvements (Square Feet) ;t~a? a ~
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
[mp loyees
Length of
Stay
..
.
....'
'A^'
. A.
~
f"')
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
.'
Parcel Identification
1. Block Number 107_
~: ~~~~:~ AJre~/~l~ Narrc 7~5ard77 5 J!WU1/~/ji~~
4. Name/Address of Owner
~~ k.".r-.r?c:r;-
0kJ / . . A
?"~ ~ UJ!"..,,;.cJt-;rtJ-h-/.
B.
Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning
6. Deve1o'pment
6.1 COl)1mercial
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo fC
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) /.,;; c:J-t:;--o "9f
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
,:.....--
L-I
I
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
Use
Square Feet
raG
. '
I'"""j
,
M
City of Aspen COllullercial Land Use Suryey
. A.
Parcel Identification
1. Block Number 77
2. Lot(s) f::-, LdY) N D .
, ' U -"- f. A n I \L
3. Street Addr,-,ss/Duilding; N= 20 I D!..Ul.9---'v'.A. '\.A<~\~ VR...."R.
' I.
4. Name/Address of Owner ,fIf3'-n4 If.%. .4J, ~~
~cZa~' ~ 4
6~ &,_.~ ~;2:~-, c?~~
.4 .4.4 (/
{fla",_;? (...d-.e:...eJ j?j&,././
"
B. .Parcel Description
5. 'Present Zoning
6. Development,
6.1 CorjJmerCial
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo )<
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) / .5:'/Jo-..p-rl -";7/
.
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
L-- /
C. Description of Activity
~9.?9
-#
Fl 001'
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
"" .,~ .
fi
n
\y\
City of Aspen Commerci a 1 Land Use Survey
~
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number ~,.
2. lot(s) G>,--;,
3. Street Address/Building Namu
4. Name/Address of Owner
\\od"'- ()~ 'i\~\\ G:.""-~,,,
J
. J
B. Parcel DescrJption
. I.
5. PresenYZoning_
6. Devel.0'pment
/
6.1 Commercicl
C\"
'I..
.6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo )(
6.4 Undeveloped
7. lot Area (Square Feet) "2, >c ,"'1-;> 0
8. Improvements (Square Feet) <(; 'b ~'l; ~ l \o~,,\ ')
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Nurrioer of
Employees
Length of
Stay
. .
,
\vi
.
I'.
.".
Ie '-1
,.,., .
A
~
-.
I
City of Aspen Conunerci a 1 Land Use Survey
. A.
Parcel Identification
1. Block Number '10
2. Lot(s) (4...lo'S
3. Street Addre:ss/Buildin<:1lk:uru
4. Name/Address of Owner
'::=:>/-LG- 4..-...<%C_"f':' ;//..--- "0 :It?e4,,vf) ~G&a;0.:v/u
'"6,,><"'" ,z7E?'1
Afl..eA;/ ,f7 6/2-
..-;~
e \ "'"'-,
\ 'i '-\ r;. t;,~
.'
B. Parcel Description
5. Presen t Zon i ng _ I.- - \ .
6. Deve1o'pment
6.1 Commerci"l
"
7.
8.
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo
6.4 Undeveloped
Lot Area (Square Feet)
Improvements (Square Feet)
,/
1.00000
?/,j-,f ~.
C. Description of Activity
Square Feet
Number of
Employee~
Length of
Stay
Floor
Use
,
,
'II
~ lI( ~.
'"
~
j
'.
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number "Lo
2. Lot(s) '<.-,L,,,,^,,V\,o,q\Q,i<, S
3. Street Addrc:sS/Building Name Cp~'-e..,-::t
4. Name/Address of Owner
& 00 CA..--f)",.
,.". . ..... ,. ...
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning _ L - \
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
.6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo )(
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) '-' '? I'" '''>
8. Improvements (Square Feet) '\"l, ba" C~'\ ~ Lo~'--)
C. Description of Activity
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
Floor
Use
,
f
('{.\,
..10; ..
0,
.~
.';"
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
, A.
Parcel Identification
1. Block Number (0 7
2. Lot(S)":;O?.it ~ . ~ /f'4 A, % -:::: /J /
3. Street Address/Building N~ c"tJO ~1A Ule.? U ~fAht:r'-#~.tfi~.g/?
, f "'. / ____~ '"'C.._
4. Name/Address of Owner . {/.' __~g.:>hZc,
~ ~'!:.- &2<,dr-, ' ('
--Z/~---= ~..tL/<?../,
.
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zon i ng ?- - I
6. Develo'pment
6. 1 Commerci a l.{"X',
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo . ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
.,5' cf-6 oj ?y
o17o,:f' 1/.
C. Description of Activity
F1 oar
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
,
.:;_.i.:
.'
r">,
'. ....:'};
r">,
..
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A.
Parcel Identification
1. Block Number 3
2. Lot(s) -.:ld...\'- A.' Q '.d. '_0
3. Street Addr"ss/Buildin~ Nurn:.:
4. Name/Address of Owner
" 'QQ J.",:-/-~-I'-I'I'-
t\ \i
\\0 \\I\~-3-- *o'-"'>R
G''''iMtS 4<1./,
1?-0 s: t\SjJv--
~~K ~ P",,1fR:
(
"
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning. L-';;l
6. Develo'pment
6.1 Commerci,,]
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area. (Square Feet) 7/50....
8. Improvements (Square Feet) f? 7/ j' <<-
"
.C. Description of Activity
Square Feet
Number of
Emp 1 oyees
Length of
Stay
F1 oor
Use
..
A.j.
~
r'\
h
A
"
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number -.:1/
2. Lot(s)~L +hr it S -+ !ii'''''f"t->fL " "~/2. ()
3. Street Address/Building Name 5/S W.!) ~.';j,-tluI~.;-p~/~1)
I
4. Name/Address of owner; ~
1/;/1/ 5 8 (_\)/i/TRPL/
'~ . 1/
. . k =-gor
. .~<=--#-
B.
Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning _
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) .B-1 t; /.::u .
8. Improvements (Square Feet) :3 J:.?7 0
C. Description of Activity
L-;Z
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
;f'
\o~
~
I; ~f\
~-J' '0
1"'\
]I
1"'\
City of Aspen Con~ercial Land Use Survey
.'
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning ). - ~_
6. Development
6. 1 COf!lIl1ercial
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo ~ .J
~ \,.:;>'-^
6.4 Undeveloped 0.0
rh K
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) b.3,;?'j?/', /d 7'/ / /
8. Improvements (Square Feet) dJ'7'5;f ft!' 4/
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Numb€!r of
Employees
Length of
Stay
Use
Square Feet
\\'0
f'""J
,
("""),
)
J.- .
(/'"
~ C <;'i"
City of Aspen Conunercial Land Use Sur,vey
A. Parcel Identification
. 1. Block Number 7 ~
2. lotes) ft. -qr
3. Street Addr,,;sS/DuildinS( N=c -1.1 7 /v1oNA"Ft~
4. Name/Address of Owner ~-1--"-<-<"'-~";' #.. oJo--c,,,-'/.//
/0-,,2. ~~ PLaZ ~
7/.//(.J q#LP i!,~-&: /:"1, 91, /,1 tJ.2-f
{/ 1'/ {/
.'
B. .Parce1 Description
5. . Present Zoning R - 1..0
6. Development,
6.1 Commercial
6.2 Residential 'I-
6.3 lodge/Condo
6.4 Undeveloped
7. lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
C. Description of Activity
IV1F
~~-#
/ 3g'~ 9f'
Floor
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
~
Square Feet
': .
,
-,'t
\'1/ "\ },
~ ()"
r-,
j
~
, .
City of Aspen COllullerciul Lund Use SUt~vey
, A.
Parcel Identification
1. Block Number 7 ~
2. Lot(s) ~! 0, ~ 4 .
3. Street Addr')sS/Ouilding: N= 'Zr'2-0 fb ~-.%"
4. Name/Address of O~mer & L"..RA.-:;___,-, &,.,. ~",-<~",'.,,0-/
%<~-<- /
_:2 f'.'<1/:j~ ~-""'l1-<?"";v ~-e.Y4
">>1/:J!.,~~"",- / M4':'- _ S3dt'J/
"
B. ,Parcel Description
5.- Present Zoning fZ -Lp
6. Development
6.1 ColjJmercial
6.2 Residential 'f '5-+-
6.3 Lodge/Condo
6.4 Undeveloped
7. lot Area (Square Feet) /q ;H-<.J ,:;I
8. Improvements (Square Feet) /7"7'>" :4
C. Description of Activity
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning .-E,-(o
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
6.2 Residential
6.~ondo-
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) ! Z cJOcJ 9-
8. Improvements (Square Feet) ~ ZtJ,Z. '*
C. Description of Activity
--I
Flool'
~
,
'Inv~~
~WJ W-- . f C . 1 L d U
.rgJc1;.i\~. .J Clay O' Aspen, ommerCla an se Survey
IV ~m:rvn~
Parcel Identificatio~
1. Block Number 53 - .
2. Lot(s) ~-rk.I-~' N. J. I
3. Street AddresS/Building NatlY" 2::;20. Hq/0At.J/~~ ~
4. Name/Address of Owner ,
IV/a Rtf JIIlc.C&I<TtFN . .
!t;p~f-IrM"~ 4v.~
A.
B.
Use
Numb'er of
Employees
Length of
Stay
Square Feet
"",
r
!
I'
i
.
t
r
I
I
,
.
i
I
,
t
r
I
f
,
.
I
!
I
';:":",,^,
(.,:..;
,
,
\~
r"j
..-..
, :0-
City of Aspen. Commerc-i a 1 Land Use Survey
,..
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number .k 'if . .
2. Lot(s) /f. ;;( '1J-z. . ,
3. Street Addr2ss/Building N.~ IDo~T#;~~;/
4. Name/Address of Owner ;1~_ __~;.. ~
~-/ 4L~~J--"... ,'...~
/~ ~A_J- ~~,_ ~
d~/,na_?- &&. P/6//
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
.!2-M,F
6.2 e'dential
6.3odge Condo
6.4 Un eveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
C. Description of Activity
?~ -9&
C:??'~O ~
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Numher of
Employees
Length of
Stay
i
i
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
5~
tJ~ ~l1,(WYlr~
. ~l1tty of '.,eo '"""m',, L,", U" S''''y
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number /7
2. Lot(s) ;; f4< ~ /1 t[&/4 If::? 9 ..?!d;Z .
:: ~:::;:d:~~::S;:Bo~n~dring Na= ~/B~I Al-PJ~[iiooceC
')-.n4.<JE-/V?" tt ,#",,-/.-,-,,-/1'. /t'u~J
V . " u
/ ~ >"0 t:.&--z::- AI-~ ?;6 ~ tf} Bif ?/~
~~. t?-a-C:;~i'J6/h
I' ,
.,-"
;
;
"'"
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
-
~.2 Re '~ial
6 LodgelC~do ~
ndeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
C. Description of Activity
/,;;: /J cJ 0 -?:7
.
"/353
""'if
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Emp 1 oyees
Length of
Stay
;..'1
.
n
~
"
(~
City of Aspen Commercial land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number ;2, I/)/';J
2. lot(s) /- /,-/lfb"~-t'~~ ~ /1 -H \,
3. Street Address/Building Na=i~O I N-O ~;<. ~""'~~
4. Name/Address of Owner . . .
0~ti'--a.<~ d-p.-ifJ--('
0'
!? &l3-c-;c t:3d7 d
~~-""l.- 6~e; Y/d/~
, "
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning __ ;q _ /5"
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
6.2 Residential
6.3 lodge/Condo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
C. Description of Activity
..5" ,;:? ,;( 7 d .1#
.; i' /7 7?
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Emp 1 oyees
length of
Stay
;j
l
:~
~
~
'.
I
y.
r
i
i.
i
I
I
I
i
,
,
~ :~
(),-\\(\'~Co '""'-\1 L., L.-( c; '"" A-~
Gity af Ihl'cn (,omlllell..!" 1 Lalli; lI~o ~'Jr'ley
A.
Parcel identification
1. Block Number
2. Lot(s)
3. Street Addr2ss/Building NaIll:-' _^
4. Name/Address of Owner /
lhY{~~J
o-c.."'Ale"" .
\...~
,
c,^-",....."", II(
.
s;:; . ..
~.,~ ~Yl'I'( N"'(~""~
""
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning ~~, \
6. Development
6.1 Commerci;:.]
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo )('
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) 62,"3 ?tJ 9f
8. Improvements (Square Feet) /6: f?;;;~ J,l1-
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Nunioer of
Employees
\.:
f z.- t/-".ls
<"-'-y
Length of
Stay
.
fi
~
.,
e,1,-\",'~Lo'AJ, 1oJ.;f <:---~
ti l} uF A51li:!n 6orrnl'lCrcia1 LUlIdU"e 3ur'Vey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number
2. Lot(s)
3. Street Addr~ss/Building Narou
4. Name/Address of Owner
\\o-A.~~ L>~~
~-
6 '/
,.. /t-'1 w;f "T / .e:r
'" I( ,,:::-_.
',. __;:;if'
'~.~~"';.~~
B. Parce,l Description
5. Present Zoning t\~ -\
6. Development
6.1 Commerc;<;l
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo )<'
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
C. Description of Activity
~. g AC4:e-' , /#fi;'.
7.k 7;Z. iJIF
Floor
Square Feet
Nuniber of
Employees
Use
Length of
Stay
.
'.
{7\-\'C.~~ C,g~"",~ l,,~ S"(.!,,....,
Gityaf ,1l,Spl.;l'l t:UIIU!ll;;I'~:1;1 1 LU'lid !:1St ~l:Jr'.let
A. Parcel identification
1. Block Number
2. Lot ( s )
3. Street Address/Building N~
4. Name/Address of Owner
\\0 ~ v&.^l "1 '^ "'-
B. Parcel Descri pti on
5. Present Zon i ng . ~S ~ "1,...-
6. Development
6.1 Commerci <; 1
.6. 2 Res i denti a 1
6.3 Lodge/Condo \I'
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
C. Description of Activity
7:00 ~iF..s
, 7 7, .6-6'-~ ?"
/'
#ft-
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Numoer of
Employees
Length of
Stay
,
\..'
,-
Fl oor
1
(")
f\~"<- ~~ c'~<'v~",\ \.... ~ <;"'(1 v "'1 .
C1.tY,rf-*,~n-€"'Of!1ftle"re+~brtcl-\1s~~fvey
A.
Parcel identification
1. Block Number
2. Lot(s) .
3. Street Address/Building Nartl(.) Q 1) "'-"'-4~"'A ~e J:: '" '"
4. Name/Address of Owner ~/'..{~s . <:::'d T/-I.&Ap'
7ot:? /~lef//t!.?/V ;7";i,:-J ep:;
-5//1( eV-4? {lJtvi L f-l '
I 7/IO(
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning ~S - "2-
6. Development
6.1 Commercic:l
.6.2 Residential
6.3 lodge/Condo
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
./
//!, ?' ~e~
3;t5 ? ff ~ yr--
4:~
C. Description of Activity
Use
Nunib"er of
Emp 1 oyee s
Square Feet
(1Lu. ~~~s ')
7'
/
Length of
Stay
,
,
p(~\<-:", Lo,,~-l,"\lo~ S~~
61 L,y vf !'.SflL'n Cnmm"rc;i~l laRd I:IJe &l:Jl"vc:)'--
~
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number
2. Lot(s)
3. Street Addri2ss/Building N= (Jp. R\<- MtA-.Qo"-./<;
4. Name/Address of Owner Y{"'I<1dS (~-f,,"J'. t7&:1be'A? S
~_._""
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoni ng .
6. Development
6.1 Commerci<::l
.6.2 Res i dent i a 1
6.3 Lodge/Condo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
~S.'"L .
Z.L kes .-?/'~
% '7 91/. ?f'
C. Description ,of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Nurrioer of
Employees
Length of
Stay
. .
,
1
f4
',. ~
~
lV\ 'f~rl~
;V~ Urn!?
u-(-e-
./
City of Aspen Commerci a 1 Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number ~ ~
2. Lot(s) ~~^....~, 0, (f-to' c~t'-\
3. Street Address/Building Nam~
4. Name/Address of Owner Ho-r-e-l -::r<:-(Dvv"\~
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoni ng
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
Lot Area (Square Feet)
Improvements (Square Feet)
{)~LL
7.
8.
'-"\""1 \ '10 <>
"'..... "10"'1
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
(\
f'v
". ~ ".,
City of Aspen Comnlercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number '\ .,
2. Lot(s) r~ &..
3. Street Address/Building Namp
4. Name/Address of Owner
c"'~X-,"'... L~
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoni ng _ -0
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
.6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) \0 CeO
8. Improvements (Square Feet) '-\'"\10<.
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
, .
. '
("'.
/
.
City of Aspen Corr,ncrcial Land Use Sur'vey
A. Parcel Identification
1. 810ck Number "":, \ .
2. Lot(s) .~ ~~
3. Street Addr~ss/Building N~
4. Name/Address of Owner (,l~\s.\.\"''''1\ "'<;-. ~~
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning. .()
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
.6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo v
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) 2'") 00;)
8. Improvements (Square Feet) \ ~ I \ b"3>
C. Description.of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Numoer of
Employees
Length of
Stay
.
.
.
?-
1"'\
!
C)
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number ~ 0
2. Lot(s) 'L L"", {\ +,,,'It. 0
3. Street Address/Building NaJll2
4. Name/Address of Owner
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning . 0
6. Development
6.1 Commercicl
v \\(to.
l.,~
7.
8.
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo
6.4 Undeveloped
Lot Area (Square Feet)
Improvements (Square Feet)
v'
Description of Activity
Floor
Use
\"'? 500
Ii ,~S,,\
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
i
,
I
I
I
i
I
r
I:
I
f
,
I
!
'-\
C\
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A.
Parcel Identification
,
1. Block Number '^ ~
2. Lot(s) I;:\h ~~ \) II.Ho~
,
3. Street Address/Building NaJ:1:le
4. Name/Address of Owner
f~,"\.h!.
'~\L'~~(.~ :r...~
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning ,0
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
7.
8.
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo
6.4 Undeveloped
Lot Area (Square Feet)
Improvements (Square Feet)
\l" ,)00<.)
.
\~ ,'9'''lS
,./
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Nurrib'er of
Employees
Use
Square Feet
Length of
Stay
h
~
;!"""\
" . .(~
f'\
'.
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number '--I.u,
2. Lot (s) -e \ h. 0. G- l \ j).. \ \ <:> I;- ""^
3. Street Addr2ss/Building NaI"r>2 CO ~ \,\-<>" <>t
4. Name/Address of Owner
B. Parce 1 Description
5. Present Zoning \)
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
7.
8.
.6.2 Residential
6.3 lodge/Condo vi
6.4 Undeveloped
lot Area (Square Feet)
Improvements (Square Feet)
,""$""'~
7.).h....
C. Description of Activity
Square Feet
Nullifier of
Employees
length of
Stay
Floor
Use
(,
t)
r:"'\
. ,
City of Aspen. Commerci a 1 Land Use Survey
, A.
Parcel Identification
1. Block Number ~ .
2. Lot(s) -f::. I L-( M
3. Street Address/Building Nam--! 33'4 vJ. /.!YMAN /.o,T, Mor<:.IT Z
4. Name/Address of Owner '7Jf-,-",:4A~..e ):?"',,{,:d-JZ
/XR__.._ A/ '1J1"'/]"'l.4-.,] ~A~.d-6
33:: /"'';;''AY 7;;-;~ d'.-,~
4,,/t!,y ,/~ / t. / /
;.-
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning -IZ -(p
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
6.2 Residential
6.3 ~~ondo
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) 7! ~
8. Improvements (Square Feet) ~~~~ ~
C. Description of Activity
"
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Nunib'er of
Employees
Length of
Stay
~
'\
I
I
I
I
I
I;
f
f
I
I
,
I
I
J
<6
,-,
A
'.
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1 . Block Number ,,>"1-
2. Lot(s) ~ "':,L- <) IS
3. Street Address/Building Nffirr~
4. Name/Address of Owner
'"J;."'.... <;(>,A.-,,-(.\<. 1:""",,
B. Pal'ce 1 Descri pti on
5. Present Zoni ng .0
6. Development
6.1 Commerci 2. 1
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo vi
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) ~ $""000
8. Improvements (Square Feet) \\ 'v\ ~ ~
C. Description of Activity
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
Fl oor
Use
C\
I!""\
~
'.
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
, A.
Parcel Identification
1 . Block Number .:;- \
2. Lot(s) \c..,L,,,,,,-~,,,,\\'1.
3. Street Address/Building NaJ:!D
4. Name/Address of Owner
.. ~ t-\
L\....<t.~~ 4--M
1:'--
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning .0
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo vi
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) \ 0 \ )<> C)
8. Improvements (Square Feet) '\ II> \~
C. Description of Activity
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
Floor
Use
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\0
r-,
rl
'.
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number s- '"
2. Lot(s) ~~~
3. Street Address/Building N~~
4. Name/Address of Owner
\ '\ (l.o \~ '" l." S-..p
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
1\:0
7.
8.
.6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo
6.4 Undeveloped
Lot Area (Square Feet)
Improvements (Square Feet)
,/
bc:.oJ>
"2)'-\"") $
C. Description of Activity
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
Floor
Use
\\
r...
1:""
€!....".'~
City of Aspen. Commerci a 1 Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number 61 .
2. Lot(s) L 'I- (!J
3. Street Address/Building NaIl\:.) /30 tU,
4. Name/Address of Owner 9;7,
~. /3-tr/l-ft 7
cl:,A-,/~, 6- .)J / ti, /~
(f'"
,.
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning R- Mr
6. Development
6.1 Commerciz:l
6.2 Residential
6.~ndo ...-
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) /.:;;: ~... 71 ..
8. Improvements (Square Feet) J 0. /~J?-#
,
~
C. Description of Activity
Fl oor
Use
Square Feet
Numher of
Emp 1 oyee s
Length of
Stay
!
J
,
I
, ~
!
!
'ft;
,
11/
'\
f""'\,
~
'.
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
, A, Parcel Identifi cati on
1. Block Number 57
2. Lot(s) ~.. f/ -..(- d<
3. Street Addr<:ss/Building: Narne _ /~r? e:d ~1".e"~ __ 7;;:~//4.J;tL~F>~.
4. N"eJAdd~" of 0.." ..o~)~~ '
tf''''''/''P--h &-. .. ?/6/ /
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning ;1': Go
6. Develo'pment
6.1 Commercial
6.2 Residential.
6.3 Lodge/Condo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
C. Description of Activity
f~o #
f376 ?P
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Emp 1 oyee s
Length of
Stay
.'1
:i
;j
,;
'j
;,
;"
r
,
,
I
P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'0
f~
f"l
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number 5""ir
2. Lot(s) (:'~RS 1:. '\ ~ (; j.\. ::I:
.....
3. Street Address/Building Nama {\.~ '\ e+ L'~e
4. Name/Address of Owner
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning ~- 6 I 0
6. Development
6.1 Commerci2l
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) t. "\ \ 0 "c
8. Improvements (Square Feet) \"\ ,~"1.
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet.
Nuniber of
Employees
Length of
Stay
.
Lf~
~orC~~ ,
, ,~~+ e:nJ
'r-,
.""
."
City of Aspen ConUllcrcidl Land Use Survey
A.
Parcel Identification
1. Block Number \O~
2. Lot(s) ~ ,L,l/'^, i\ 0,
3. Street Address/Building Name
4. Name/Address of Owner
P -\: La. 7-",' o<r L,,~. G.
~~\ ~'" L..~
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoni ng _ 0
6. Development
6.1 Commerci c.l
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo ,i
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
'(...0 . 0 -'l "3>
,
.. ?-- }. !.
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
\\~
,.....,
f)
"
'-
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1 . Block Number '-0 '('"
2. Lot(s) @.., s
3. Street Address/Building N= e---v~.. ,^-,,~~ L..~
4. Name/Address of Owner
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning
6. Development
6.1 Commerci a 1
o
x
6.2 Residential
6.3 LOdge/Condo 'f..
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
C. Description of Activity
\p<;<.."1
6 \11"2. l.\<>~<- *-M-- ')
Floor
Use
Square Feet .
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
r"\
, ;;
f""'j
-.
~\
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
. A.
Parcel Identification J'~ .
1. Block Number 3""2. g;;:: y-\""s,----C- ~\=>,.-::::-V
:: ::;t~~::~;;:,~ng-?D6,~~!6:t4VO~
Mri '/lJ
LooC:iE"
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning
6. Development
6.1 Commerci2l
6.2 Residential
6(~dO
6. 4 '(j;'dev~l ~ped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) -if S~ ~ 7'f
8. Improvements (Square Feet) g; '7'/'7
R-MF
,
7
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
r>..
r'i
!)
I'^'
'1
~
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
'.
, A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number Jlfl _ ,...+_ A ( , A. Ii /) -
2. Lot(s)~W'~~~"'--~ lv-1 (!i.uP~;: ~
~: ~:::~;d~~:::S:;B~:::ng Narnc~~~~~~~~~~
rrP (!J ;!j,.NJ c3ii" . I
rJ,"",~'r" &.&) .?/0/'2/
I ;'
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning _ R -1\/1 E-
6. Development
6.1 Commerci Q.l
6.2 ~~tial
6.~ondo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
C. Description of Activity
,f,;;; %5 ~
'7.it eb <:,,! r:;?
Fl oor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
~,(
Length of
Stay
r"'>,
('1
"
s~
~ ,~
.,
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number J Ie .
2. Lot(s) -Rli:; /
3. Street Address/Building Na= q~b &.~.I1i: / ~ '&d. ~
4. Name/Address of Owner ~,,~ lS~a~L..A_ V~tL~.J)c1<J-P:r^--
~ ;;;':;' ~---Y "a4&?~Y tZv--t
Ur~/ eff--& R/{, II
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning _ fZ - (V)F
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
6.2 Residential
6.~dg~ndo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
C. Description of Activity
/.:; ffzJ---t:)
7%76 ?'l-
Floor
Use
Square Feet.
Nunioe r of
Employees
Length of
Stay
\rJV
.__c-;"
f""I
"
. .
, .
"
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A.
Parcel Identification
1. Block Number --L1-~D
2. Lot(s)
3. Street Address/B lding Narn0
4. Name/Address of Owner
B.
v.
r2 edb a~~~~
. . f
9/?L aJ tl~ f'-d-{'.
a~ ~Co %/6//
R-MF
,
Parcel Description
5. Present Zoni ng "
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
6.2 tial
6. Lodge/ ndo V-
"
6. eve loped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) c.l t'J---q--c)
8. Improvements (Square Feet) /'/
~.'
/5/
C.
Description of Activity
Floor
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
Use
:;0
r')
d
r= ~~W(\'
~ City of Aspen
Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number =7::
2. Lot(s) It (16 t. 6tP.S~~.... '. iJ,t?
3. Str~et Addr.::ss/Building NallY" 1P./ tt ~AJ.A.....I~.u /~
4.' Name/Address of Owner T~~~
~ -A~.z;:~~-, Vhrwt"'_
,
/!/ca.~ /14..t..~<? i
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning}1(-M F
6. Development
6.1 Commerci a 1
6.2 Residential
6~);ondO ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet). f tf!-t70 ~ .
8. Improvements (Square Feet) /.:> /~ c) 0- (t.
.
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay'
I
I
i
I
~
~
,
i
I'
,
~s
''-1
,
1""\
<:,i
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number --L1-~~
2. Lot(s)' '-V' r;L ~I
3. Street Address/Building Narr4 ,
4.' Name/Address of Owner ~~JqA-.-J &;,~
-Z)ct.-~"-d. r:.k<).~J-"u-/.,"'II J
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
6.2 Residential
6.3~ondo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
r:: ~-() 71
/tf,. </2'.7 -;f
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
.'-'
t""',
'/
~o
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
. A.
Parcel Identification. ..
1. Block Numbe~ _ 9~/.RJ~ /,7~
2. Lot(s)~..M.. A.<o''/' . T?ad i? / /, J /J -f- p
3. Street Address/Building Nam.;;bICJ u)e.d:&nl/,<>:~. ~ '(,:7#W
4.' Name/Address of Owner / U
v!;J ~ e,O-Ld&lo
:-Vd"'-i.-~.,je<.~ acfln.e--L-4../ Au u/V,k
--
=-
i:
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning !Z..-16
6. Development
6.1 Commerci21
6.2 Residential
6.3 LOd9~;~
6.4 Undeve oped- vdk"'> '~R7$
J~ r. iJe..-(.. t.::>>:,vJVI$
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) ,z "fl.? & -rmh. fJ' I -
8. Improvements (Square Feet) ~L d/I-s t f2.;, l3'u~*, 170. tf 'I z, 4r (f\\?"~
Description of Activity .
C.
Fl oor
Use
Square Feet
Nunioer of
Emp l.QYees
Length of
Stay
l.'
t
*
,
r
t.
,
!
i
f
r-..
f)
o.
f1
., ." ~
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number L"B
2. Lot(s) \)\G\~, (...\~\'S
3. Street Address/Building Nama
4. Name/Address of Owner
\)/t..,~.",..t C....."-~~ lo--9.,,>
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoni ng _
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
6.2 Residential ~
6.3 Lodge/Condo "
6.4 Undeveloped
Lot Area (Square Feet)
Improvements (Square Feet)
tA ---L, ~
7.
8.
\'i!:"c"
\,"\,'"14--"';)
.
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Nurriber of
Employees
Length of
Stay
\1
I
,
f~
r1
City of Aspen. Commercial Land Use Survey
-.
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number __iL cr . ,
2. Lot(s) _(J.,"I LV Y:z.. t7j tP . A ,
3. Street Address/Building N= !!'{ t;~~ JX:111j 4.{#--' Jk~~
(); II v/ L2 . /f /L. '
4. Name/Address of Owner f~-J.-ry, f).., / /!/. l&Ut-.ke.<k./P_
~--I -zk.-d-th;;7 ~~
// f( f'4.d &-;';~./--I uJ~
ae.dh.~ (I.R/h //
, .. ,
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning ,J<'-M"F
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
6.~_~tial
6~ondo
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) -:f'-CJ--d 7P
8. Improvements (Square Feet) s: .:?./?
C. Description of Activity
,,;(,-
,7
Floor
Nunib'e r of
Employees
Use
Square Feet
,
Length of
5ta.z
b.
\4
f\
^
;}
'.
City of Aspen. Commerci a 1 land Use Survey
, A.
Parcel Identification
1. Block Number ~____ .
2. lot(s) ~ I r< \ c: ' ! I ~
3. Street Address/Building Nam:.o I:;:~~ t?~/~..
4. Name/Address of Owner ~~____ ~L::::-~/",,~, ~'c .
/3':/ .7;"'1'--,Y ~,~, .
. . tJ--orL,../ ~A Of P /0
J.. .f
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
6.2~e 'dential
6.3 lodge Condo
6.4 n eveloped
7. lot Area (Square Feet)
8. Improvements (Square Feet)
1<- /J1F
71'-& d ?P
/'
y.;( V~
"1P
"
C. Description of Activity
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
length of
Stay
Floor
Use
~
1'*"1
I"")
.,
City of Aspen Commercial land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number 5,
2, Lot(s) ~ f> \-\:;i:
3. Street Address/Bui1ding N=
4. Name/Address of Owner
~~ C,\L.~ l..~
B. Parce 1 Description
5. Present Zoning 0
6. Development
6.1 Commerci21
6.2 Residential
6.3 Lodge/Condo ~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) \ ':>0<:. '"
8. Improvements (Square Feet) ,......, '''is
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Nurrioer of
Employees
Length of
Stay
I
51
~
1"""'\
""
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
, A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number 12.. ,
2. Lot(s) f)!" .:l.2/lIf J . ;J
3. Street AddresS/Bui.lding Name '66/ uJ,~. ~.uJ.#./)1) ~ _
4. Name/Address of Owner &..~~ \? ~~..e-/
~;,;::~~~~~;/
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning .R-NlP:
6. Development
6.1 Commercial
7.
8.
6.2 Residential
6.~dO
6.4 Undeveloped
Lot Area (Square Feet) / ,F'h1 5f
Improvements (Square Feet) f/9717
-<;7'
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
Use
Square Feet
~<6
,"')
,~
j
.".~
City of Aspen Commerci al land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number 3\
2. Lot (s) _.A.=:.s..,
3. Street Address/Building Narre ~/ &..- aJ, Md;c.y-:"",
4. Name/Address of Owner lSl<"'ty-'~, ' ,;(~
.;) d--ci aJ~ ~K1/,6..,~~./
a...r'-?:, (fA-~ Y}6 / /
.
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning If- ~
6. Deve 1 opment
6.1 Commercial
6.2 Residential
6.3 LodgerCondo \~
6.4 Undeveloped
7. lot Area (Square Feet) ;2 '/ tJ+-t:J 7"7
8. Improvements (Square Feet) . .:'.8( ,,:j' %Y-f?
C. Description of Activity
Floor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
'I
I;
,
I
I
i
()
~
.,'
--'-~----.,.
~
City of Aspen Commercial Land Use Survey
A. Parcel Identification
1. Block Number ..._.c:f.____ (-C;)
2. Lot(s) ct'h.zLf/dah'tfj'~ Iv. .
3. Street Address/~uilding N= I$; f, ~Ji, /.~le~+'t *-
4. Name/Address of Owner .'. / / j-
B. Parcel Description
5. Present Zoning 1\- M F
6. Development
6. 1 Commercial
6.~El'4tial
6~ondo
6.4 Undeveloped
7. Lot Area (Square Feet) 1/ ~- ~" 7f
8. Improvements (Square Feet) /-.:,- 3~ 7ft
C. Description of Activity
Fl oor
Use
Square Feet
Number of
Employees
Length of
Stay
I
i
i
<I
;
i
i
r
i
,
f
,
I
I
I
I
,
!
l
o
,.-...
, 1
Aspen/Pitk.
130 s
'anning .Office
\,Street
o}?81611
Letter of Transmittal
TO: Aspen City Council
Pitkin County Board of Commissioners
Aspen and Pitkin County Planning Commissions
City and County Managers
Media and Interested Public
FROM: Aspen/pitkin Planning Office
RE: Aspen-Pitkin County Short-term Accommodations Report
DATE: April 9, 1982
This letter transmits to you .a .copyof th:eAS.pen~Pitkin
County Short-term Accommodations Report. We have produced
this report under a very tight time frame far the purpose
of initiating a public discussion of the data and conclusions
we have developed. Please recognize that this report is
simply a first draft for review and discussion purpOses and
does not represent our final statement on this matter. We
fully anticipate that as part of the public review of this
document we will be supplementing it with additional material
as it becomes available or as it may be required by decision
makers.
Despite the time constraint, a great deal of effort and
thought has gone into the production of this report. We
hope that you will review its contents carefully, as befits
an issue which is of such primary importance to this resort
community. We are also providing you with an executive
summary, consisting of the major conclusions we have gleaned
from the total study. We expect to concentrate on this
summary at the joint meeting of the Commissioners and Council
on April 12 and the joint Planning Commission meeting on
April 13. At subsequent meetings we would anticipate taking
you through more of the detailed information as you have had
a better opportunity to fully review this draft.
Incidentally, the Planning Office would like to thank Tom Wells
for designing our cover sheet and pointing out to us that the
word 'accommodations' really is spelled with two m's!
.,
~ " -,. -,
("'\
v }
..
"
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
.'
.J
June 18, 1982
Heinz Coordes
Chairman, Aspen Lodging Association
Innsbruck Inn
233 West Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Heinz,
. The Planning Office would like to thank the Aspen Lodging
Association for their comments on the draft Sh9rt-Term
Accomodations Report. The ALA's comments will be taken into
consideration when the Report is revised. We have found the
dialogue between the Planning Office and the ALA to be very
worthwhile and hope to maintain a continuing dialogue in the
future. The ALA's comments have been very useful to us in
developing an approach to resolve the problems of non-conform-
ing lodges.
Prior to addressing the contents of the ALA's June 1, 1982
memorandum, I would like to review the schedule of public
meetings that has been established to resolve the non-con-
forming lodge issue. At their regularly schedUled 5: 00 PM
.meeting on. .June 22, the Planning and Zoning Coll!1llission will
discuss alternative proposed solutions to the non-conforming
lodge issue. At the meeting, the Pl~nning Office will present
alternative methods for addressing the issue and discuss
relationship between the expansion of non-conforming lodges
and the Growth Management Policy Plan (GMPP). Hopefully, at
the June 22 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the Planning
and Zoning CO@ffiission will provide the staff with clear direction
'ie')',>;, as to how the non-conforming lodge issue should be resolved and
"'~"'>by what method the expansion of non-conforming lodges should
.~. be ;':treated under the GHPP. Based upon the direction provided
A'~"7~:"by :;the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Planning Office will
.M,~j,,(pre.Pare for adoption legislative amendments which address the
i ';""';'p,non---a:m:forming lodge issue. The proposed legislation will be
7(. cO-='~"d by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their
re~~y~cheduled meeting on Ju~y 6. The legislation will
thenp....flI'l .to a public hearing before City Council at their
Augusi:::g':meeting.
The ~,~aer of this ~etter addresses the major'points raised
in your June 1 memOrand~ to th~ Planning Office. .
i
'/
r
I
I
I
t"')
I
.t'
"'..
.
t
:;i
1. Two-Season Destination Resort ~ We concur with your
point that planI:lingfor short-term accommodations should
recognize the importance of Aspen being a "two-season
resort". However, the original intent of the Short-Term
Accommodations Report was to address the quantity of
short-term accommodations that will be needed to maintain
the proper balance during the winter peak season between
skiing area utilization and skiing area capacity. The
draft Short-Term AccOnID10dations Report was never intended
to be a comprehensive plan to guide the City and County
,in all policy decisions affecting the short-term accommo-
dations indu5try.
.J
'Based upon the input from the ALA we understand the
deslreability of reducing the disparity between the
winter and summer peaks. We will expand the scope of
the revised Report to address the two-season destination
resort; however, the Planning Office'still believes that
the appropriate quotas .for the expansion of our short-
term accommodations are largely a function of the rela-
tionship between peak day skiing area utilization and
skiing capacity. In a City Council Work Session that
was held to discuss the Short-Term Accommodations Report,
the City Council supported this concept.
On the other hand, with regard to the appropriate location
of short-term accommodations, we believe that the "two-
season destination resort" plays a much more important
role. ~ve que5tion past land use planning which sought to
orient all of Aspen's short-term accommodations around
. the base of Aspen Mountain. ~ve recognize that some winter
tourists may prefer more quiet locations away from the
mountain and that the summer tourist is more concerned
with the proximity to trails, shopping, the arts and the
transportation system than pr.aximity to skiing areas.
2. European Ski-Village Immage - We agree with your contention
that a large part of Aspen's charm and uniqueness, as
compared to competing resorts, is based upon offering a
wide range of short-term ac~ommodat+onchoices. Large
hotels, small family-run lodges, condominiums and single-
family houses in varying locations and prices are all
important components of A~pen's lodging mix. As we men-
tioned at several public meetings and alluded to in the
preceding section, the original scope of the Report pur-
.posely was designed to be very quantitative in natu~e. We
now feel that when. the Report is revised,. the quantitative
information should; be complimented with a discussion of
qualitative factP+s that influence the Aspen resortexperi~
ence. , ocr'
3. 'DefinitIon ofSh~~t-Term.q:~cco~odations >- p~rhaps the most
difficult task identified in your memorandum is developing
a definition of short-te~ accommodations and implementing
a new pro'gram which prqtects short-term accommodation bus-
inesses from competing with individual property owners who
.
,~
t
.'
!
rent their properties on a short-term basis. We recognize
the need to develop a new definition of short-term accommo-
dations; however, we feel that if the issue is directly
confronted during the next month it may tend to complicate
the issue and detJ:"act. from the 11\ajor issue. under considera-
tion which is the non-conforrrdpg lodge issue. Rather than
'sidetrack the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
from addressing the non-conforming lodge issue this month,
we would prefer to address the problem of defining short-
term accommodations. in tl1erevised Report. Inherent in
addressing this issue are the problems of short-term accCJmmo-
dations in single-family neighborhoods and business licensing.
The resolution of these problems will require considerable
research and background work. Rather than delay the process,
we prefer to propose a legislative answer to the definitional
problem at a future time.
4. : Proposed Methods to make Non-Conforming Lodqes Conforminq -
'The three al ternatiye. met.hods that the. . ALA proposes tOlllake
non-conforming lodges conforming will be'discussed at the
June 22 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The
Planning Office will analyze each alternative at the meeting.
Our preliminary analysis of the alternat~ves indicates that
the overlay zone may not necessarily be inappropriate.
The major problem with an overlay zone is that. overlay zones
are generally used to impose additional restrictions upon
an underlying zone. The problem of non-conforming lodges
requires a solution which decreases, tl"le .restrictiveness of
the underlying zoning rather than imposing additional regu-
lations. We consider amending Code Section 24-13.10 to
exclude "lodge and hotel" from the definition to bea .round-
about solution to a problem that needs to be confronted in
a straight forward and direct manner. We believe that
rezoning the non-conforming lodges to a conforming .zone is
the best and most (greet approach in achieving the desired end.
Our review of land use case law suggests that rezoning exist-
ing non-conforming lodges to use is legally defensible and
not considered to be spot zoning. "'e will be. prepared to
comment extensively on all the proposed alternatives at
the Planning and Zoning Commission meetinqon Tuesday.
1
I
I
I
I
;!
.
Expansion Issue - We have already completed a survey o'f all
non-conforming lodges in order to estimate the potential for
lodge expansion" The forthcoming Planning Office memorandum
will address the expansion of non-conforming lodges. In
your memorandum you suggest that perhaps expansion should be
experimented with on a "first-come, first-serve" basis.
Such a system would be complicated by many legal issues
:ci;~
:'"which, could possibly jeapordize the entire GJJlPP system. ~7e
";believe that there are oth~r alternatives which should be
.d::Onsidered and we will addre'ss them.
5.
');j,
::Ix it is necessary to establish a quota designated specifi-
?~lly for existing lodges, we strongly disagree with the
, . . .', ..'
concept that the new quota should be comprised of those
units lost through attrition during the past decade. First
n
"-J"
"-
.
I
I
..'..
-. .,::
of all, we do not support the data contained in the "Blue
Book", finding it less than comprehensive and in some cases,
simply inaccurate. Rather than debating the accuracy of
the "Blue Book", a new survey was conducted this winter
to be used as a planning tool.
In our opinion, it is better to base future 19d~e quotas
on the relationsh,ip between short-term accommoqations and
the.Aspen Metro area's daily peak skiing capacity than on
J . the number of short-term accommodations. that comprised
our inventory ten years ago. The community should plan for
a relationship between skiing area capacity and peak day
utilization in which utilization is somewhat less than or
equal to peak day capacity and plan for the appropriate
number of short-term accommodations to realize that goal.
Once again, vle would like to thank the ALA for their comments
regarding the draft Short-Term Accommodations Report. I hope
that this letter provides additional insight into the Planning
Office position. Alan, Sunny and I would be happy to meet with
.you or any ALA representatives to further disc)lss our position.
We urge you and ALA representatives to attend Bnd participate
in the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings on June 22 and
July 6. We look forward' to working with you in the future.
S~_
Glenn Horn, Planner
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
.cc: Sunny.Vann, Planning Director
Alan Richman, Assistant Planning Director
:
.
.
.1,' ,
.
....,...~-
:'.,:,,:7 ""'~' ",,'~,.,;"::
Mr.. Jerry B1 ann
June 11, 1982
Page Four
Your comments and ours have been forwarded to the City and County Managers,
the Planning and Zoning Commissioners, City Council persons and the County
Commissioners. If you would like to meet with any of these people, we would
be more than willing to arrange a meeting.
.f
Sincerely,
~G\~
Glenn Horn
P1 anner
cc: Jack Bredlinger
Wayne Chapman
Curt Stewart
Aspen City Council .
Board of County Commissioners (please circulate)
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
GH/ans
.
.
""
.
_:,:~
-
r ."1
" f
June 1, 1982
.
"'
To: Planning Office
From: Aspen Lodging Association Task Force, Heinz Coordes, Olairman
(303) 925-2980
Re: Short Tenn "Accorrodations Report
In developing the necessary foundations upon v.hich to base growth priorities
arrong Aspen's various developrr.ent sectors, the Olamber of Ca:r:marce/ALA Task Force
has fonnulated a few specific recomrendations and clarifications designed to il-
lustrate our position as the "lo<;iging sector".
This corrmittee sees Aspen as a "tIro-season desti.'latiop. resort" and, it is
therefore, important that short-tenn rentals, their zoning, location and quotas
be considered in this dual season context . 'The lodging leadership has observed
that the softening of seasonal clispari ties in the local economy by strengthening
SUIlIlEr activity is vital to competitive activity in the winter. Ecanomic realities
have forced this industry to face this problem and address it. 'The 7Wo winter/3Wo
SUllirer ratio cannot support a healthy, competitive resort. Aspen 'strn.iquenessand
future success is base.dQn a "European ski village" irna."o-ean,d tradition \\nich is
obtained with a mixture of sizes, types, prices and location of lodging and services.
This mix is even rrore evident v.hen the sumner and winter guests and activities are
analyzed. The P & Z report must realize the importance of the "two-season" scenario
as it relates to all aspects of future growth in guaranteeing Aspen a healthy lodging
industry offering a full range of choices to visitors.
In order to effect this "mix", a definition of "shOIj;.,.terIll aCfOl11Oclations" needs
to be forged v.hich will: 1) establish a base from which tofornIUlate policy; and
2)'classify and clarify the various mixes of .accom:xlations and locations available
in the resort, and therefore facilitate quality and quantity improvements. The Task
Force recanrnends that short-tenn aCCOllDdations include all. short tenn rental units,
v.hether lodge rcollE, single family or multi-family units. These classifications
should be combined as one class, Short-Tenn ACCOllDdations. This action would corrbine
the survey figures of 50% hotel room and 5Wo apartment - - Aspen's accom:xlation in-
ventory. For further clarification, it should be noted that the Consolidation of
these classes \\Quld therefore allow kitchens in lodge units as the Task Force envisions
a rrore broad-based, simple definition of resort aCCOllDdations. As a single business
class, rrore unific-1.tion and accuracy can be obtained for planning, zoning and G.H.P.
considerations. 'These short-term rentals, a business use of land, could be zoned as
Mixed Residential providing other uses to insure the variety necessary for the resort
envirolJ.llBn t .
The TaskFbrce would also like to point out the pressures on a quality oriented
lodging corrrnunity when it is faced with direct competition from private homes and
apartrn::mts \\nich 'are rented privately on a short-tenn basis. Again, treating the
entire short-term accomodation industry in Aspen as one class in definition and in
practice is essential to collective, aggregate study of Aspen's future growth.
i
I
'I
I
.
.
,.
Page Two
Planning Office
Jtme 1, 1982
We propose the following changes to the AspenjPitkin O:Jtmty land Use O:xie
for consideration and discussion:
I. . N::ln__90nforming lodges lllUSt~ made confofurl.rig
A. HethoQ..<; by which this can be done:
1. 'Ibtal overlay with short-tenn aCC<:X1'Odation on West End, inappropriate
for residential areas
2. Rezoning individualJ6dges tOc()Ilforming zone (such as L-l, L-2, L-3)
inappropriate due to legalitites involved with spot zoning
3. All that is necessary-to accomplish conformance and start process of
upg:ciding nonconfonning lQdges is to ~nd Section 24-13.10, "lodge
and residential presl"f'vahon .cl.ause". (1' 1522)
a. Exclude 10dge,and hotel from definition in first paragraph and
have separate definition to include lodge and hotel as being
, confOrming uses with all rights therein.
B.' Should these existing nonconforming lodges be allowed to expand usage if
,. adjacent propertY~C()rrx;S!!:va.gab:l~ for purchase?
1. Incentive to upgii'tle"hingesgreatly on econOrtJ,ic incentives to expand
2. Ans.ver is "yes" but a..Jinlit to expansion nny be appropriate, varying
in maximum size in accordance with each zone.
..
II. Must 1cok very closely at de1'1iiitionof "Short-Tenn ACC<:X1'Odations"
A. Currently the entire West End, .Red Ibtmtain and llTIlch of 1buntain Valley
areas actively serve as short-temaccorrodations and Compete with existing
. conforming and nonconforming, lodges, but without the planning, review,
facilities and arrenities required from lodges. The parking, transportation,
health and safety measures required in eXisting lodges:
1. are not provided in these tmregu1ated single and multi-family residential
tmits. Also no GMP competition. Do we want this type and kind of intra-
carrnunity competition? Must evaluate these aCCOllDdations and their impact,
i.e, on the employee housing suppl".. . . . .
2. It is necessary to redefine short tenn acCCltrtXXlations with regard to
kitchens. (1' 1436) Section 24-3.1 (0) should eliminate all reference to
these tmitsnot containing kitchen facilities.
-- '~', ': '.
III. Must evaluate potential additional buildouts and expansion to conclude whether or
not a (GMP) quota system is appropriate.
A. Input from some 17 lOdge owners strongly indicatesrenbvationollt Very little,
if any, expanSion (and/or dorrolition)
B. Any expansion should therefore be allowed on a trial basis, perhaps on a first
COIlE-first served basis up to so many units.
1. Many lodges could only receive a few units and not. appropriate for
tiJreand expense of GMP competition.!l.rld quota.
C. If significant e),.'pansioll potential andsigrilficarif applications then
separate GMP competition 1lnd quota nnybe appropriate.
1. There are significanttuf.ferences and, different criteria necessary for
appropriate eValmrt:i""'l.(aI]Ploy~ housing, parking...}
'.
"
i
j
I
I
,
1
I
,
''',,~ .,~ """'!'>
r\
~
,
Page 'Three
Planning Office
June 1, 1982
III. D. If.....Gl>1P ~titionljl1dquota is necess;!l.rY, then units should COrte
from thOse lostduririg the pa.."lt 8-10 yearS through attrition.
1. Blue Book = 1041 pillOWS or 250 units
2. Condos and S.F. units should not serve as alternate short term
a.ccoum:>dations for lOdge' units lost
~
The lodging industry does not want a "quick fix" piecerreal approach such as
has been atterrpteid in the past, nor do we feel that a rrerechange in GMP allocation
will provide sufficient incentive for substantive change.
-Facing ins=untable odds, many lodge owners have long since given up the
idea of substantive improverrents and have laid alternate cou:rses; courses Which
may take years to change.
t1:>1'e than anything else, non-conforming lodges need to be'made fully conforming
and be allowed the creativity and freedan to deiteirndne thelr'QWh'best course.
~ ." . ." .... '.' ... .' . . . . . .... 'W" ". .", ,_ .. ..__'..,,^. ,,~..., ,,', ,...,....,
. We would like to compliment the Planning Office staff for its refreshingly
positive attitude and welcorre the opportunity to further discuss these and other
ideas in that Salre spirit.
-
~-
.'
'"
,
.
,>
,J
1"'"1' , ~
.
"
n
,
,
"
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
June 11, 1982
"
Mr. Jerry Bl ann
Vice-President/General
Aspen Skiing Company
Box 1248
Aspen, CO 81612
Dear Jerry:
Sunny and I would like to thank you and Jack for meeting with us last
week to discuss your comments regarding our draft Short-Term Accommodations
Beport. We appreciated the opportunity to further discuss the Aspen Skiing
Company's concerns about the Aspen tourist experience, specifically the relationShip
between our skiing mountains and short-term accommodations base. We look
forward to maintaining a continuing dialogue between the Skiing Company and
Planning Office. .
Manager
I would like to formally respond to the six major points made in your.
May 18 letter and to summarize our recollection of the meeting last week. .
1. As we discussed at the meeting, you may have misunderstood the skier
distribution data presented in the Report. With the exception of the
data for the Sno\'lmass Ski ing Area for Scenarios II, III, IV, V and VI
the Report does not portray 100 percent utilization of skiing area
capacities. Only in the case of the Snowmass Skiing Area (Scenarios
III-VI) has it been assumed that there will be an 100 percent utilization
of mountain capacity. This assumption is based upon the BMML Snowmass
Study and is footnoted accordingly. The BMML Study has been used
because we believe that it represents the most accurate and up-to-
date data for Snowmass Village. In the case of the other skiing
areas in Pitkin County, peak day utilization has been derived by
applying skier participation rates to the number of people staying in
short-term accommodations, residents and the out-of-county population.
Incidentally, you should note that the methodology that we have
utilized to derive our skier demand projections is largely based
upon Appendix C of the "Burnt Mountain Expansion Proposal" which was
prepared by your consultant Design Workshop Inc.
2. You are correct in stating that the Report develops scenarios in
which one skiing area expansion occurs 'and another does not. However,
the scenarios encompass all possible combinations of skiing area
expansions now proposed for Pitkin County with the exception of the
Aspen Highlands expansion. We indicated that when the Report '1.S
revised we w,i11 reference skiing area expan'sion in generi~ terms
.
I
r"\
Mr. Jerry Blann
June 11, 1982
.Page Two
.,
rather than ear-marking ski1ng area capacity increases for Burnt
Mountain, Little Annie or Aspen Highlands. Specifically, we will
reference expansion in terms of the Aspen Metro Area skiing complex
and the Snowmass skiing complex.
3. Only with respect to the short-term accommodations base are you
correct in your comment that the Report assumes that Burnt Mountain
is viewed as a growth generator and Little Annie is not. The Report
assumes that an increasing proportion of Snowmass skiers will stay
'overnight in Snowmass. Thus, Snowmass Village's overnight capture
rate will increase. Such'a redistribution of overnight guests will
necessitate the development of substantial additional lodging in
Snowmass and a redistribution of skiers in Pitkin County. With a
greater proportion of Snowmass skiers staying in Snowmass, more of
the existing.beds in the Asepn Metro Area will be available for
skiers who wish to ski within the Aspen ~letro Area.
Based upon this thinking, we believe that in the short-run, Little
Annie will not generate substantial growth in the Aspen Metro Area
short-term accommodations base. However, if the capture rate at
Snowmass does not increase and it becomes apparent that Little
Annie's utilization must be derived from increased visitation to the
Aspen Metro Area, it is prObable that in the long run Little Annie
will necessitate an expansion of the Aspen Metro Area's short-term
accommodations base over and above the expansion proposed under our
existing growth quotas. This issue is not addressed thoroughly in
the draft Report and we realize that when the Report is revised that
it should be addressed in further detail.
""You state in your letter that the Aspen Skiing Company "has demonstrated
that if the current scheduled and planned (GMP) growth becomes
reality, then skiing expansion will be a necessity if this resort is
to remain competitive." Our Report also indicates that if Pitkin
County continues to grow at the existing rate and. the community
wishes to maintain a relationship between skiing.mountain capacity
and skiing area utilization in which capacity is equal to or slightly
greater than peak day util i zati on, then a 1 imited increase in ski i ng
mountain capacity will be necessary by 1990. .
4. In your letter you question a statement in the Report which says
"Operati ng at a capacity ba lance wi 11 increase competiti on among
short-term accommodation 6n off-peak days and this competition will
encourage quality upgrading." You are quite correct, competition
among lodges will not be-fDstered if.the skiing mountains are operated
at full capacity. ~..y.ou have taken this statement slightly
out of context. The5i.a1t:lut:lJL:should be considered in relation to
the four potential -re1.afi:lmShi'll'S between ski ing capaci tyand ski i ng
area utilization thirt..il1"'e'~liIined on page 11.
The point, of the st~t"'in..qu5tion is that colTipetition among
lodges would be more interrseunder a potential scenario in which
there is a balance b;tween Ski~~g~fapacity and utilization as compared
1"""\
f")
<,. j
Mr. Jerry B1 ann
June 11, 1982
Page Three
..
to a future scenario in which skiing mountain utilization far exceeds
mountain capacity. In our revised Report we will qualify the statement
.to reduce the possibility that it can be misunderstood or be taken
out of context. .
-'
We fully understand your belief that the Report neglects to consider
, the effects of external competition upon Aspen's lodges and skiing
mountains. It was not within the original scope of the Report to
address the effects of the national and state skier market on Aspen;
however, we concur that the. revised Report should not overlook these
important variables which affect the Aspen resort.
5. As we discussed, we realize that Pitkin County's water, sewage and
transportation problems are potentially solvable. However, given
.the un1 ike1y reoccurrence of federal funding in the immedi ate future
or the ability and willingness of the community to incur major
debts, these pub1 ic facilities. specifically the sewage treatment
plant, are the major short-term constraints to growth. In the 10ng-
term these constraints upon growth could be alleviated if the community
is willing to allocate the resources to expand the sel-Iage treatment
p1 ant and upgrade our water .and transporta ti on systems.
,
6. We understand your view expressed at the meeting that the Aspen
winter' resort has lost its competitive advantage over other ski ing
resorts. As you said, for many years the Aspen Skiing experience
was superi or to our competi tion. The excellent ski i ng experi ence
tended to overshadow other aspects of the complete Aspen winter
resort experience. With the entrance into the skiing industry of
new skiing areas such as Keystone, Beaver Creek, and Deer Valley and
the modern support facil iti es associ ated with them, the excellent
skiing experience offered by Pitkin County's skiing areas is no
longer enough to offset the less desi rable aspects of the Aspen
winter resort experience. For Aspen to regain the competitive
advantage to which you have referenced, the Skiing areas must maintain
their excellence, and other components of the winter resort experience,
such as short-term accommodations, must be .upgraded.
Once again thank you for your comments regarding the draft Short-Term
Accommodations Report~ I hope that this letter accurately summarizes the
discussion that we had last week. If you feel that I have overlooked anything
or misrepresented your feelings please contact me.
.
.
r\.
~.'-.;!.~"'..
~~
"""
I 1
.
;.
@
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
-406 SOUTH MILL. BOX 1248 . ASPEN, COLORAOO 81612 . PHONE 303/925.12'20
~~..::-.~. ._-'.....~.....:.,.
(....,.. "-.. ,
I , ;~
. (.{ .....:.~;..;,\...~ .' "
I Ii, 'j'
, '~i /::ty 19 )(\q)i ,I
d~.. ... ' d. . __;;;';"...~:::~'/
J...-;;PElil ;' ?:Ti{iNCJ, .
iJL~Nt~::'jC 0:"f!t?i.'
) May 18, 1982
Mr. Sunny Vann
Director Aspen/Pitkin County
Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Draft Copy Aspen-Pitkin County Short Tenn Accommodations
Dear Sunny:
A draft copy of the Aspen-Pitkin County Short-Term Ac~ommodations
. Report issued April 9th by the joint Planning Office has been received
by the Aspen Skiing Company. The report's transmittal letter indicates
this preliminary draft's purpose was to encourage a review and
discussion.
While our company lauds the foresight of the City and County leaders
to question the GMP's effect on the quality resort experience, we a're
concerned that any report affecting Aspen's tourism be soundly based
on fact and that any assumptions first consider basic economic and
business criteria. In our opinion, the assumptions in this report have
ignored these important competitive criteria.
This company is not questioning the need to plan. Please remember that
in 1970 our president, D.R.C. Brown, was the first to warn the community
of the necessity for planning checks and balances. Our analysis of
Aspen's major economic market, the ski industry, indicate difficult
and highly competitive scenarios on the horizon, particularly in the
competitiveness of lodging facilities. Any accommodation or. ski
expansion assumptions must address this competitive atmosphere.
Aspen's hope for continued success depends totally on its ability
to sell itself as a valued quality vacation experience. If any
single experience element is conceived as less than top quality,
then the whole is in jeopardy.
;
I
I
. I
I
!
.
1i
II
f
n
l
r'
t
I'
l\;'
fY
,
,f.
~>1
f:
ASPEN MOUNTAIN . BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN . SNOWMASS . BRECKENRIOGE
~,~".~-~ .':'~..~~,,,:,'~
l'
r'\ .
,
j'
,
;
All our recent consumer surveys indicate that Aspen's quality skiing
has been favorably carrying the resort experience. The GMP and restric-
tive zoning, while valuable as balancing tools, have unfortunately also
restricted internal competition within the lodging community and therefore
much of the resort is now operating at less than a value with high prices
and low quality.
In the accommodations report, and without proper business or economic
background many erroneous assumptions have been made as follows:
1. That by mountain and by date there win be 100% equal
distribution of the capacity numbers. It cannot be
accomp 1 i shed.
2. One proposed ski expansion will be built and another not..
There are no guarantees either way.
3. That the Burnt Mountain expansion is 100% growth producing
while Little Annies has no impact. There are no facts
supporting this concept, only assumptions. In several public
hearings, our Company has demonstrated that if the current
scheduled and planned (GMP) growth becomes reality, than skiing
expansion will be a necessity if this resort is to remain
competitive:
4. Operating at a capacity balance will increase competition
among short-term accommodations on off peak days and this
competition will encourage upgrading quality. In practice
and in concept; this, assumption does not work. External
competition will be the determining factor not what a planners'
scenario determines is appropriate.
5. That water, sewage, and transportation problems are not
solvable.
I
i
"
,:,,"',
'. ," ~
:>..,..;.\~
6. That given the above, Aspen can maintain a quality image
that is now history. This implies that our competition
will rollover and play dead.
In our opinion, these assumptions can only lead to Aspen's demise.
Aspen's forte has been its quality competitive edge. Create any
scenario that reduces this balance and all of us can seek out a new
Cripple Creek. The community sHould be allowed to react to the real
world and not be ha~~y~y an artificial world determined by pUblic
officials basing t~c~~tions on political expediency.
.:'\',:: -'"f;"
. ~'~ ". ." .
',',',"
'--"",..,
. .'.
:,'-;
,.,
. "
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY 0 BOX 1248, ASPEN, COLORAOO 81612 0 PHONE 303/925.1220
.
-_...._,...;.;.;_.....,-..
f')
. 'j
T/,,,, y" 'ot yO" it" "" ,,,"' "", with 'h I, '''''hy "b,tt, I.
"",0, ,,'," I, ,]""y "","',' wl'h "",,,,, ""b'"". W,
""" ,,,'" , "''' th"ght ." "'''''' "',""'" " ''''',', ." "",,,
GMP. To this end, we look forward to sitting down with YOU in the
,," ,,'," " h'"""y b"'g , b'''d" """"'" " 'h, ""m",.
,
,j
; .,d
j ".1
, '-,
I Ii
, '
'~ '
I t
I
.}
0~~~
Jerr nn
Vice~President/General Manager
Aspen Skiing Company
lmf
cc: Mr. Wayne Chapman
Mr. Curt Stewart
Aspen City Council
Pitkin County Board of County CommisSioners
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Pitkin County Planning & Zonin~ Commission
:f
t
I
\
I
!
t
,i.
"
"
"" "'"'' 0 '0> "". "'''. ""'''' "," 0 '"'' '''''''''''"
('"'\
A
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sunny Vann
FROM:
Alan Richman
RE:
Lodging Inventory Analysis
DATE:
December 8, 1983
I have reviewed and updated the data included in our Short-Term
Accommodations Report (April, 1982) so as to respond to various
questions posed by the Planning Commission in recent weeks. Follow-
ing is a summary of my approach and findings.
I reviewed the entire list of short term accommodations in the Aspen
Metro Area from the prior survey and identified approximately 54
facilities which could be considered to be traditional lodging faci-
lities. The remaining accommodations include condominium complexes
and single-family or duplex houses.
I found that the 54 lodges contain approximately 1727 units, including
1380 lodge rooms (no kitchen), 259 lodge apartments (lor more rooms
with kitchen) and 88 dorm units. The condominium complexes and
houses contain 1041 units, for a total short term accommodations in-
ventory in the Aspen Metro Area of 2768 units. The total pillow
count in these units is approximately 10,750.
I focused on the 1727 units in lodges as being most pertinent to
any questions with respect to the Aspen Mountain Lodge. First, I
categorized these units as to whether they were rented at economy,
moerate or expensive rates. I based this analysis on information pro-
vided by ARA, supplemented by calls to individual lodges, when necessary.
I was able to obtain information from lodges accounting for 1684 total
units. Following is the breakdown among these facilities.
Economy = 291 units = 17%
Moderate = 773 units = 46%
Expensive = 620 units = 37%
The facilities within the Aspen Mountain Lodge project represent a
considerable proportion of the inventory. The Continental Inn includes
172 units, or almost 28% of all expensive units in the Aspen Metro
Area. The Aspen Inn includes 65 units, or about 8.5% of all the
moderately priced units in the inventory. The Alpina Haus, Blue
Spruce and Copper Horse collectively include 86 units, or almost 30%
of all economy units in the inventory.
The total lodge inventory includes only 88 dorm units. Of these,
14 are found in the Copper Horse and 7 in the Continental Inn for
a total of 21 dorm units within the project, almost 25% of the entire
inventory. Other lodges with dorm units are as follows:
Snowflake Lodge 2 dorms
Mountain Chalet 3 dorms
Holland House 8 dorms
Highlands Inn 9 dorms
Endeavor Lodge 8 dorms
St. Moritz 12 dorms
Little Red Ski Haus 5 dorms
Boomerang Lodge 1 dorm
Snow Queen Lodge 4 dorms
Heatherbed Lodge 15 dorms
All of the dorm units are located in lodges rated as economy or moderate.
1""\
t)
Another important question we can answer from our inventory is what
percentage 6f our lodge units have been or are about to be recon-
structed. I find that within the past 5 years, the following lodges
have been totally reconstructed:
Woodstone Inn
Red Roof Inn
Applejack Inn
Aspen Ski Lodge
Ullr Lodge
Prospector Lodge
Hotel Lenado
Coachlight Chalet
92 units
50 units
35 units
33 units
24 units
23 units
17 units
11 units
TOTAL
285 units
The 285 units which have already been upgraded represent 16.5% (1/6)
of the traditional lodge inventory or just over 10% of the total
short term accommodations inventory.
Projects currently under review would considerably augment the number
of units we have upgraded. These projects are as follows:
UNITS TO NEW
PROJECT BE REBUILT UNITS TOTAL
Aspen Mountain Lodge 269 211 480
Highlands Inn 37 132 169
Holiday Inn 120 -0- 120
Hotel Jerome 39 67 106
Carriage House 6 20 26
Endeavor Lodge 4 -0- 4
TOTAL 475 430 905
Should these projects be constructed, the 475 units which would be
upgraded would constitute an additional 27.5% of the traditional
lodge inventory. The total number of units which the community
would have upgraded in about a decade would be 760 units or 44%
of the lodge inventory. The 760 units also represent slightly
more than 1/4 of the total Metro Area short term accommodations
inventory.
We should also take into account the degree to which projects now
being considered would increase the inventory. The 430 new units
plus the 31 units allocated to the Lodge at Aspen in 1982 would
increase the inventory of lodge rooms by 33% (1/3) and the entire
accommodations inventory by 16.5% (1/6). At that point, 1190 of
our lodge rooms would be new or recently re~uilt fully 65% of the
1810 total lodge units and 37% of the total accommodations inventory.
Obviously, this analysis does not take into account any attrition of
facilities which may take place during this time, nor any other addi-
tions which may take place among lodges, condominiums and houses.
As a last point, it is worth noting that with the exception of the
Continental Inn and Holiday Inn, all of the units within projects
we are now considering fall in the economy or moderate price
ranges. I would expect that following the reconstruction of these
facilities, the total profile of Aspen's Lodging might shift more
toward the expensive end of the price spectrum. However, once again,
it is very difficult to estimate whether any existing units will drop
into the lower price categories as a result of the growth in the
lodge inventory.
k,' :', . '~'~
, \"\2 1>
,-y
,-"
.
'~A\~~r- '~S.
'?1t~.". L~
u> "\ 0 ~'J l'
V"\\ ei/'. ~'f~~
~,,-t. ~1',. tb
'fI'^ ~c,
\~.v ~Ct'\P~~ .
~ V
1t
;)
Aspen Lodgin~ ^ssot'iation
100 E. I-lyirilifi 925:'3520
Planning Offiec and P & Z
From: C of C/ALA Task Force
Subject: DRAFT SIIOJ{T TI:RH ACCO~HOIlATTONS RI:PORT
(A Critique of the first draft)
A. MEMBERSHIP.
The following members of the imLlstl'Y comprise the joint C Of C/ALA
Task' force to study the l'eport '"Id do the follow-up for the lodging
industry:
1. Heinz Coordes, Cha:innan, 92".,2980 (Innsbt'uck)
2. Steve Peer, 920-1511, 925-3.1 75 (Highlands Inn)
:i. Cery FOX, 9<'5-19'10 (eil'Hnbel') ,
:i. Irma Proclingel', 'l<'5-7(j'i2 (1Il',If'tilstone IIlluse)
5. Lee Miller, 9<,r)-22U1l (raschi,,:,; Haus)
G. Len Olinger, ')25-%22 (Brass lied)
7. Molly Campbell, 925- 5000 ('I'll Cant)
8. Ndll Bennett, 925-8!150 (Sn "f' Glo)
9. Charlie Patterson, 925-341G ,'lllolllerang)
10. Tom Blake, 923-5850, 923-35(1, (County)
11. Mark Danielson, 925-4384 (HI'I . Inc.)
12. David Jones, (Moll: Cibson)
\I. THE ASSIGNMENT.
The ALA and C of C have appointc', the above-named persons to the Task
Force. They have elected lIeinz I .ordes as their own Task-master and he
assigns the chores. The Task F''''"e is to speak for the ALA and C of C
before P & Z and the Ci ty Counei I. The Task Force will be disbanded
as soon as the following specifi,' tasks hav" been accomplished:
1. Existing non-conformin:J 'odges aI''' Cully legalized and allowed
to expand (stimulates (' ,Ipeti tion) .
2. The Aspen Area General i,an has been amended to allo\\> lodging
in other than the exist I'; lodge zones (reduce conditions of
, monopoly) .
3. The GNP,and zoning defil itions have been changed to include all
types of "short term reJ ills" as lodging.
4. The zone district regul, i ions have been changed to treat all types of
"short term rentals" e([1 Illy "as il class."
5. The GMP quota system hi! been chung('d to treat all types of
"short term rC,ntals" <:'lI"'llly "as a ('lass." I
The April 1982 Plann:ing Office I{, ,ort is a DRAFT, subject to further' I
study and revision. The Plannin Office gOdl is to have resulting new i
policies and specific regulation' ddopted in the June-August period, I
so that the Cantrup and Highland expansion" can be dealt with. The PO
and P & Z are therefore under a , ,ndline and inclined to take Sh~.t quts - ~~.... i
though they will deny it. ' "'..- o",,1t. '.\,,,,,- '':. '''''!'^ i
" \ >.\;- \.O-..J A~,- ..A,,- y~- ~ I
~'--..:\ It-~,- "b~ ,<;~ ,"-'" '-{ lA",,- '
The ALA and C of C have seen saCf, fast decisions before-and want permnnent "-0 WI l
decisions, or at least want :to'.d" , i" sure that the June-August decisions 1'" <t. ~
will fit into a longer range>~!ILtt:xi:- It is therefore vital that the ~''\''f.c-
Tusk force "see things wholfl::....,/;;i:)~;;9lanners \vant to handle the Cantrup \'V.{ i
and Highlands problems.i/.+neALi\~!l.:C of C W;lIIt lilsting solutions to ....:Q ~-,' I
lodging problems-and to ',Qflfini ld:y.~ot ge t hurt" again by some "quickee 0" .....-...'::_..11
C. CRITIQUE or DRAFT RCPORT (Apr'n 1982) ~~ I
The report is excellent-as far ;it goes. The problems relilte to \vhat !
it avoids or is silent about. h It follows is our critique, clone quickly i
after a first reading, to stimul ,te all COJ1\'C'l'lled to dig deep. Hopefully, I
I
I
I
I
~t I
1""'\
;}
i:
as things develop, the exeh'lIlge!; hl'tWl'l't1 all, of us will permit some
sharpening and impt'ovelllcnt Ill'tl1e cUrl'l,tiotls the lodging indus try is
taking.
1. Define Lod~:in!o!: Accura tely.
The su'rvey reveals that the Aspen short-term inventory has reached the
point where roughly 50% is in hotel rlloms and 50% is in apartlllcnts.
State law collects sales tax on buth types. Zoning, the GMP and tbe Aspen
Area General Plan treat tbe two as dJ I'l'erent despite the fact that the
Gant is every bit as much of a ho tel, gc!uerieally speaking, as is the
ContinentaL Zoning calls one "mill ti7 I'amily" and the other "lodge."
Both are a "business" and should be zlllled as such. The first "conclusion"
of the report should th(!refore acknowleuge that everything inventoried is
"lodging-a business" and should lJe clc' Li.m~d and treated as such in the
Plan, Zoning and the CMP.
(\
-'\~l S c-"" Wi thin tile' Ci ty, do :inven tor'y sub- tu t,ds by ?one, ancl then make the second
JOi1 e-, conclusion concern i tsel f wi tll silllul till\eously changing zone district
)'" e",'7ll~requirements to be consistent witll thl' new definitions, Le., in what
J,d1 ' zones should generic lodging be permi t-ted? And why?
2. Sub-Totat the Inventory by Zone.
3. Amend the Aspen Area Ceneral Plan.
The above two conclusions force an amendment to the 1966 Aspen Area
General Plan and 1973 Land' Use Plan to treat lodging (short term rentals)
in' a forthright manner. The 'plan is t'llrrently silent about apartments
and houses [IS lodging, yet they compri se 50% of all short term rentals!
Some varia tion of the original" touri>; t accommodations" area or zone is
probable. Co--<=,. f\"'~ \J qt...\~ ~,\\......v<.. ""~ ~~ ~,--L-\ll.- ,,~~ l-t~
4. Varie ty, Choice and Style in Aspen Lod~J;j ng.
"'
..>-
,,?S \
.,,\ d'
<"'l ~O'I"
,~ ' "
'1'%v:)'.
J" "~
}\::el' J
te~Y t(' >
~ I'D :>
Q-- VI, L,''',.v
(~
{)
..R y~
...~ ('
\.9..<' '-? .."-
. ,0- t .. ..'1
~ ,II l"J
J l' ,
(t I /~
J11', :I .
/l"'i
,~"""
The report has no "market" orientation. The burning issue at many lodge
meetings is "Why is Aspen' still "spec i ,11" in the face of the glitter,
newness and sameness of Snowmass, Vail and Steumboat?" The no-growth
movement was an attempt to preserve Aspen's uniqueness. Aspen's uniqueness
in lodging follows the Swiss/Austrian ski "village" tradition. SnO\>lmass,
Vail and Steamboat ape the French-Italian "new" resorts.
What shoulcl Aspen's "appeal" be in the future?
','.'
"''';:
Some think it should continue to be 0111' Swiss/Austrian "village" ambience,
both now and in the future, and for hlltll summer rind winter. Thus,
lodging wllld.d be more scattered, i.e., in a vlll'.iety of locations. The
report should support or repudiate tlwt choice, for current zoning
favors, instead, the concentration of lodging and large bulk, i.e., the
Snowmass/Vail/Steamboat trend to big hotels and big condo projects, ,
a deliberate governmental effort to furce the Village to become a big
city. The Performing Arts and Cantrup Hotel pl'ojects are both in that
direction.
The current report, its conclusions, trend in that direction, also.
Is there [In alternative? The fourth conclusion should identify the market_
alternatives. Village or town versus city? Mixture versus sameness?
High densi ty versus low density. Con",rete brick and asphalt versus trees
and flowers. We think we will b~ forced by the facts to consider a mix,
an,2, cJl.n make the mix work to our compC'titive advantage.
~<!,l,..,_.....~... <'1"-",.",..\",,- 'S"'l'f'O'* ~ ~,><..~.~ o~~\"\('t. t>j6\...d<A"
5. Locatiun, Proportions and Mix. ~I'-~....t........
"""
The 1966 Aspen Area Ceneral Plan and] 'lB Land Use Plan only C1 te proximi ty
to Ajax and Rubey Pal'l< as important lCh'ational criteria. Yet the majority
of guests do not ski ^j[IX and in the Slllll1ner everyone goes elsewhere.
No mention is maue of "peace and quiet" as important to lodging loe'ation.
"....,
,
r",
.
l"\
;'11
\.A.J <Z.
f"i ~cJ
j
\ ",.e, r-e(>""r"", ,.;:) Ioe.. '\c.::>= <'y'-"=-Yl'<-\."o..'I"";-><-_
",",,,,,J. s"I--""",.r,t, \.~Q \, I J
"-'1 ~ =.....' C<.."'''''
'-"-..J I r-'-'
("'""f....",~-.;oe.. .~,",^,,"""'(cJ. '~r--(.-,c... C ss~"'~ ~
.'
"
l I" '"u.-~ r.;e
el\~c:...,.,""""'SS.(-:lI"" ~F
Scale is not mentioned. Proximi ty to a 1'1 vel', forcs t or gol f coursc are
not mentioned. Yet zoning controls both locatIon alld scale, with the
report silent about both. Rus and traffic routing also determinc peace
and quiet, access to activitics and proximity to shops and bars.
Does the. report have il "conclusion" on things as important as noise,
dust, water, trees. neighborhood and access as they affect the guest?
Should there not be a mix of locntiop;;, nnd of what types and in what
proportions? Does the da to lIe,lp ('l)nvcrt our zoning to include such
considerations? These are consiuerations of primary importance to the
summer operation of a winter skI lodge.
In lodging, some say winter pays the bills. and SU1lll11er provides the
profi t or 'los,s. for the las t two years there hns been NO profit because
winter couldn't pay all the bi 11s. Both Zoning and the, GNP should
acknowledge summer locations and circumstanges as important to lodging.
The report is silent-with no data or conclusions about good summer
locations, GMP points for summer ambience, etc.
How many good tourist beds Or' pIllows do we have in stllluner? The beds
of the Holland House, Mountuin Chalct, Snowflake and Deep Powder are only
winter beds, since all foul' properties are rented as ~li\A student dorms
in summel'. They are all in the lodge zone, showing that a location there
is often poor for the summer visitor, i.e., that our current lodge zoning
is workable in winter but may bc inappropriate in summer. Pete Stone
'abandonecl the Prospector for the "noise" his guests complained about,
especially in summer when the windows had to be opened. The same problem
existed at the Gasthol Eberli and is reported by f0r111el' gues ts of Aspen
Square, the Continental, etc. A small but important difference between
a good summer and a good winter location.
Can the noisy buses be rerouted in some areas to be at~ay from the lodging
areas and still serve them? Should zoning allow any lodging in the downtown
with its 5 am trash trucks anu.street sweepers? Is sleeping downtown
the Aspen exp.erience? ~ <2.- ..,"': '" \-<. \,,",~'l" ,,,, ",f.'t" r~-"'" -Q.."'f ICY" ,->,-,,-<.'" -- "> ~,^d.
S\....Co<J-\4 lo~ o\('\~ "-.:>"f: L. "'o~C-E':;."=>:, "'"::.~m<C.... 'f'..e...::-<1l-<:... \.?.,--C.-t-*-r c:l.~.....: "rc.:.:-.'-^
A..Oc.....(..._:t"'\..:>V\.~ ~'v.......\- c~.e.."'''::. o:,,<Z........_.~"'(. o...;:;.---"t'" c.:-\\.ft--E;.~""'~Y'''''' \..::~c:...:.-:-"\'""'''''''''$.
In summer the gues-r wants to walk or bicycle for pleasure or between
his lodging and activity. Thus Main Stree t lodges are popul<:fr \"i th those
whose activIty includes the tent or GIven. But, again, there's that
damn noise with the windows open on a cool summer night.
In short, the report should model summer and do a few alternative scenarIos
on summer. \~.e..:.. S"-"-..........VV'\"e..< '""'.~~ be_e....V"\ ,:snu("e.d C-"--y....,GJ.. ~-a-eJ....~y-<.?-<a--ri..-Cl..--r
~~:..,-..e- ~__"="T \.:;:,.~ _........ C'-...,",~\.....\~,"::. c+ ,he s.............v--..........~r ~':>\"'>e('"c'.cI'1.c.::..,..
A resort is Activities and Lodging and the locnl Transportation between.
Aspen is two different' resorts', the winter resor't and and summer resort.
Since the activities vary drastically, so must the lodging and transpor-
tation.
It is fallacious to only plan for the winter peak when winter is a
success and summer is the problem, i.e., the period of economic'LOSS.
You plan to sol~ your problem. In one sense winter success and peaks
~ the problem, i.e., they establish the lows of summer and the off-
season. For example, lodging does 70% of its annual gross income in the
four months of winter and only 30% in the othe1' e:ight months. Thus,
sumner lives off the profits of wIn ter-,and forces winte,r prices to an
ungoclly height. The economist refers to this as "seasonal disparities
in the local economy," and wha t we feel is Aspen's most serious problem.
It is thel'efore important that short term rentals, their zoning, location.
and quotas, not be tied just to wInter, but that sununer heeds ami realities
also be considered. The plan should be to help make summer stronger.
The report makes no effort in that direction and forgets that locational
val'ietyis critical to sUllunc't' success., \
~'-'O-,--r' \~ "'C"""\-..e <:"-~r?~O_'^~'-'-S
Ot- ,\-.< \Oc\ji'''J L, ":::>v--'l.",~_~",,q--\ .('<?_<-\"-"-<"'^' "'\ <<;'.v-vY'Il"V',..,(".l->
L-~", ('->,., lIce ~~,<......~. "'.) ~..:.>( 0-- ~'';~<'''j 09 \<"A'J" ~",,<?""$-
l.A.>-"--- h..-.pe \= f=', "'~ IL-.,." c:>v---t:' ~ "'~Jh' h ''So
f( ,-",-<,_.>S' \..:"..)~ cx.c-~("-_"-- lh~~ S,-^-"---,,,",,,-~j' V'-'-~c;. T'""
\.::> <:. c-c~,A '(','- .~ S ,-~O '
,-."
I ~ ·
A
:j
6. Comfortable Capi1cl ty.
Just as skiing should have a "comfortabh~ capacity," so should lodging
and SUMMI:R ACTIVITY. More importan t, the tllree "capacities" should be
equal, Le., the summcr and wintet' resor'ts shoultl. both produce the samc
demancl for pillows aml the same dollar 1'" tUI'O to t hc community. Thcorc ticCllly,
to reac'h that point, no new lodging should be built until summer' activity
capacity and demand equals skier capacity and clemand. Practically, however,
that would be a hard pill to swallllw. Yet, the report should develop
the numbers on summer (activity oppot,t\ll\:ity ratio) so the two seasons
can both be modeled to produce "Olllp"r'ative information, Do u o~ \-<:'.---0=>'-'-'
D~"'- 1'".\ \, ....e-,.~..,.J...c-.... u--l,-^- 'C'" .).., So ,,"^-" So <-<> ""-<;- l
,} 7. Conclus-1on. 5-..........Y"" ...,,,,e.r" O-<-""-""'-j" 0 ff'-'-rT"'-'-,,",",j f'v-T\.o=,.
// ~ The repo~t uses ski SCClson Sel'l1arios tll w,neI'a tc conclusions abou t pea]_
e)(~ ,J lodging capaci t~, ~,?ca tion, size, typc, eXjl[.'nsion, transportation and
Y.('" (.9- other characterJ.stJ.cs to be governed by zornng and the GMP. It must do
,<?(J/ r"'/~ the same for summer, or it is " method oJ Dgil'al bust. It mus t also compare
-7.1' y. fY'o the 1982 numbers, in time sed I'.." with the 1977 GNPP numbers and the 1973
Y" (r >(' Ii: V' ]~and Use Plan and Downzoning lllllnbers. The nature of our ~ttri tion and
:f' .{ vJ 9c'shifts from small lotl.ges trea l "u CIS comnll'rcial and non-conforming to condos
.:/{""o/:, and houses in outlying h'Uest a I'cas treatcd as residential must be fully
'(}cYJO/ ,I'? 'documented before any intelligent decision-making can begin.
"IY~.$I e.,
;rO.(V'.("" Aspen lodging, its location, mix and ambience are serious matters not to
'\<'\.r Q/ be taken lightly. Existing zoning and the (;~lP are destroying Aspen's
,) ,(' ,y'7 <' lodging ambience and reputation for excellcncc. They ape Vail. To now
,? j fP ('change the zoning and GMP based on incomplete and misleading data and
\~~j~O analysis is just as bad and incorrect as were the initial downzoning and
( )- p./, eMP? efforts.
,\ ," ",'" j"'>
if <, <:' {' Is the goal to obtain a bettcr lodgIng experience, or is it only to
/",~('/.p reinforce the current trend toward a congested, lodging ghetto? One
,~e. rJ should not be to the exclusion of the other if we are to preserve and
,,1v~' enhance Aspen's unique lodging mix.
/<v-
I
I
1
!
i
,
,
D.
SCENARIO or THE BEST LODGING Sn'UATION
1. Introduct:ion.
After trying other approaches, we concluded that the specific conclusions
of the draft report and the directions they suggest cannot be evaluated
except against the best possible lodging concept. This scenario provides
that concept. It has been developed as a description of what the existing
lodging inclustl'Y leadership thinks the lodging industry should become
.r t~ver the next L'ew years.
.J A"
~.?,-,\,;)\/we have already said that ther~sqr:t~!Se]rmllstbec()mea TWO SEASON
,}. ,<' DESTJNATION RI:SORT and that this mean.., tha l skier capaci ty and summer
(h ..? (' activity capae ity should both equal lods.;in'c; cGpaci tv. \oJe have said
./Ir) J ~ that all three capacities should. be "comfortable e~pacities," for "peak"
, , ,,'" p, means" overcrowded" and "unpleasant." \oJe also observe that the lodging
I'v.}J-' grosS is roughly 70% from the four months of winter and 30010 from the
l{ ( 52- JV other eight months'. This is an admission' that we overcharge the winter
:,,'J~ <\/' (' visi tor to cover off-season losses, and tha t our goal is to do better
, 'PJ' .5",( in summer so \'\'e can charge more competitively in winter.' In short,
...c./) we are very sedous about the Summer Destination Resort Goal. Without
" e./ r , b: its achievemcn t, lodging will continue- to be n very marginal business,
\(J f.cr,0>,(' and any upgracling will only be minimal and not truly significant. Thus"
<;> ",./!'..u our scenario assumes we will reduce the seasolwl clispari ties in the local
)' (\ economy by strl'ngthening the Summer Destinil tion Resort.
.r;:J ,
1./
2.
Define tlll' Term.
\oJe think the existing 50-50 split between lIotol rooms and apartments
should 'be reco:c;nizccl as fact. We consIder both to be lodging, and a
business use 0 I' land. The zonIng ordin(ll1l'e nnd GNP do not define them
~
.
f
~. ,
i
that way, and should. OUI' scenar'hl sees all short term rentals in a
large low density "tourist ?OIK'," pcrhGps eullcd "Nixed Rcsiclellti;}l,"
wi thother uses mixed in for a special kind of vadety in Aspen lodging
choiees. We' refer you to the original I'lG5 Land Usc 1'1<111 as BeTTER
and more realistic than the l'lB L,md lisp Plan in that regard. We
refer you to the original "AcconulIodat.i.ons Zone" as BE:TTI:R than the
lodge non-conformance and Visitor Ghetto concepts of the 1975 flownzoning.
,
~
r
L
.
I
*
Our scenario sees a marriage of the two sets of objectives from the 1965
and 1973 planning-zoning-G~lP efforts. We think the alley north of Nain
Street should be the north bouIldary of a new "Tourist Zone," ,and the
Tourist Zone should bl! ~,9D,!dt.oc:~j:>Hng use with specific criteria for
change of use. The goal' woul.i'!" b~imcourage JUdicf6ifs'mixfUres-afnr--
variations in lodging neighbol'hood ambience,.. W,!,! note th<}t Herb Bartel
macle this proposal :i~ISt prior to the flO\"nzoning. His proposal wns
rejected as "too radical," and thereafter lodging suffered at the hands
of the non-creative, traditional ".ci ty" zoning app1'oach incorporated
in the Downzonirtg of 1975. Very simply, it screwed up on the "definitions,"
in haste.,
,.
I
i
,
,
I
I
~
"
i:
[
t)
3. Variety in Lod"ing.
J
~
I
l:'
~,
?
o"{.."'
)(Y .(<'. (J/~
~~~;/
vd-''\' ,
We generally ,favor the smaller, owner-operated lodge (Hearthstone House)
or resident-manager typt' condo complex (l;unt) where the guest is assured
attention by his hosts. We are clearly sour' on those places ,,,here no
host services and attenUon are evident. We also see the need for a big
conference hotel (Cantrup) and a small elegant hotel (Jerome). \~e
also want and need some new lodges with innovations that will challenge
old-t:imer complacency (Lodge at Aspen?). We visualize a healthy lodging
industry as offering a full range of prices and choices as to degree
of luxury, specialization as to market segmen t (jumping versus quiet),
10caUonal convenience to specific fadlities (Coachlight to Ice Palace,
Meadows to Tent, T-Lazy-7 to the Forest, etc.). In short, we reject
any proposal to over-standardize lodging, create a lodging ghetto,
force all lodging to be only luxurious and expensive, or in any other
way to destroy Aspen's reputation for a wide range of variety and choice
in lodging.
Our guests are not on a business trip seeking the 'advertised reliabilty
of a Holiday Inn. They Gre on a vacation-hoping for a surprise-
an invigorating change from what they left back home. \~e ask only that
all lodging provide a pleas" It experience for each and every guest, i.e.,
that we can match the right ;uest with the right facility. We see
each guest as an individual. Resort lodging serves individuals. Roadside
motels serve the undiffcrcnl ilted mass. ench property must therefore
have rights to flexibiLi ty " III variation as to style and ambience.
I
I
4. The Repeat Visitol'.
During bad years Aspen gene!' ,Ily does better th,m its competition because
about 50% of our guests are 'cpeat visitors. Thcy occasionally shift
to new lodging, having chel'k 'd it out the year before. Some alternate
every other year between ASl' 'n and Snowmass or Al ta, etc.
The point is that at anyon, time about 50% of the visitors in town have
been here before, and make I, iowledgable choices about their lodging.
For the other 50'/0, Aspen Cell t'al Reservations helps newcomers find
"exactly" what they say they \"ant, and most lodge reservationists
"tell it the way it is" bec.1 ,se no lodge wants a guest disgruntled by
"false expectations." No 11, Ige wants a "sour apple" to infect the
whole house.
We are in the. vncation busiJI"ss, and help our guests to get to know
and enjoy one another. We C1,i,st them in the enjoyment of their stay
in Aspen. They are our "gUl' ls"...not "just" customers. For that reason
we avcrage 50% repeat visi t" i 9ns. We believc that, one reason they
repeat is because they found thc particular choice in lodging that best
~
b
.
~I
suits them, ie.e that the right guest was matched with loclging that
was right for him!
5. Summer/Winter I'lexibi,lity.
The ideal ski raek woulcl double as a bicycle raek in summer. Instead,
bikes. are chained to trees and fences, ancl this situation is symbolic
of Aspen IS ina t ten tion to Sl1mrnet'. Only the St. ~lori tz really honors
the bicycle as important, and there the bikes ,are stored off the
alley. The sw:imming poul and garden are equally fantastic at the St.
Moritz. One senses that sununer thcre is very important.
The scenario visualizes ev",ry luclge having a fantastic summer garden.
Yet the winter zoning and G~lP cd teria see lodging as covering the
ground with buildings. Land cnsts alsD conspire against lodge gardl,ns.
Such excessive density and bulk are winter-oriented. Summer requires
low density and low bulk so that'large gardens are possible. Sununer in
the mountains should inclucle time in the garden, by the pool, with birdS
singing;
Lodging definitely neecls easy access to a well marked, paved bicycle
trail system and a nearhy bus stop. PlE,asant s:idc\"alks in all directions.
A lodging neighborhood that radiates a love of nature, with a rich
landscape and the power ful (~olor 0 f flowe !'S everywhe re, As Ii t tle
dirt, gravel or asphalt as possible. rantastic air-because everything
is "so green." Quiet. Pleasant. Convenience in a setting-desirable
ffspace..fT
We are talking about "space" in the EST sense of "where one's coming
from," in this case a w,,'b of open spaces that envelopes the guest
experience absolutely everywhere in Aspen. It is so complete, extensive
and all pervasive as to constitute thE' anti-city, a space that is
clearly for the "inner" person.
Ideally, each lodging property, which is "ihside space" in winter,
tired skiers gathered about the firepluee, would be designed to convert
to "outside space" as the sl,lmmer feiltUlce. AI;d, importantly, when th:is
is so the street in front and the neighborllOod are automatieCilly "E.
part of" that outside space. If power lines above mar the sky, the
lodge experience has also been marred. If the neighbor's flowers are
fantastic, the lodge experience has been brightened. If a noisy bus
shifts gears, the lodge experience goes sour, just a little bit, but
every little bit counts.
Thus, while zoning and the G~IP can be ehCinged to provide locational
ehoices to loclging, and require significant SLlmnl"" open space in lodg:ing
areas, they cannot by themselves assLlre tllat a 10Jging neighbo1'hood is
good 01' excellent in terms of the summer "spacc" it provides. Missing
are the positive components of an in-town environment: :irrigation
di tches, grass, trees, flowers, less asphalt, more green, fewer cars,
more trails, no power lines, no trush, cleanliness and beauty everywhere.
These are the stuff called improvements and maintenance and gardening.
They cost time, work and money. If good they are the product of talent
and caring, not laws.
6. Accessibility to Summer Activity.
Our scenario sees the winter ski buses stopping at five or six bus stops
convenient to all lodging, not just at Rubey Park. The lodging survey
shows where the lodging is. 'rhe map shows ~)st visitors are forced to
walk an, ungodly distance to get to Rubey Park on foot. The concept of
only one bus station'is a bad hangover from,the train. Buses were
selected for their flexibility, yet are now used as thuugh an inflexible
train.
In summer, bus flexibili ty is important, also. Our sc'pnario sees the
five or six bus stations p,,,'h located convenient to (l lodging cluster.
'1'""\
7
.
^
Perhaps four' would be along tlw downtown loop, with one or two out Main.
All buses would clo the loop. [""h would then go.to its activity (destin-
ation) and r:eturn'to tile loop.
The town woulcl be looped by a !J i c,ycle trail along its open space eclge.
A trail extension frc~n the IUD I: l'"nde to the ~l^^Up Castle Creek '"ould
access the AIHS, Physics and till' Tent. Another would extend from the
hospital across Castle Cceek <11 1<[ along the base of ShadOlv Mt. to the Core,
skirt on a highUne to Lift lA ,md across Lit tle Nell to the Ute Trail.
The third new segment would It,,,ve the Ute at the Little Annie base,
and follow the river to HerroIl I'ark and the Rio Grand~, trrlil. Spoke
trails inward would connect to l.'very lodging and residential neighborhood,
and all in-town activity 10catil1l1s and major bus stops. Spoke trails
outward would connect to the tl'<Iils of the National Forest, and to
major'outlying activIty locations likeMAA' the hospital, the high school,
golf course, Highlands, the niqlOrt, Difficult, etc. The summer visitor
would be well served by trail",. and in winter x-country skiing would be
very popular.
Our scenario sees all i.ntc".;rCltl'd svstem of bus/trail routes that serve
the visitor by gettillg him beL-ween lodging and each activity, without
the need for a pri.v,' te automoj,:ile. We see him using the buses most in
winter, and the trails most in .~ummer. Our scenario sees buses as having
gotten ten or more 1II,111ions,' already. We see the time as ripe for, putting
four or five m:illiull into tra ils and sidewalks for the summer pedestrian.
Finally, we see new summer faeilities, activities and events located
along the trail/bus system. r:ach new facility should be pleasantly
accessible to people without 'I car. The local drives; the visitor
prefers not to,
7. Lodging.
Our' scenario sees tile above as pre-conditions and determ:inants of lodge
upgrading. To spend big money on new lodging or to do a major upgrading
requires a positive concept of lodging's future. This expecta tion mus t
be real :if investme'Jlts are to be, major. The expected "l'"turn" must
justify the investnl,'nt. The political climate and repuL-C1tion of the
city as against lod",ing and the CAUSE of unnecessary delays and unneeded
expenses canno t eon Linue if lodge upg1'ading is to occur. Lodging needs
a RELIABLE context. It has been "roughed up" for the last several years.
It is'cautious and dubious. Any next move is a city responsibility.
Otherwise, the clownllill spiral can only continue. '
In eaeh owner or mallager's mind is the silent fear that Reagan will
soon require the THS to eUmi nate the second home for "Wl'He off"
purposes. Thus, we' fear an Aspen 10clging ca tas trophe. Our bankers <:Ire
not giving comfort. Aspen properties have ahvays been ealled "high
risk." The words hilve new meaning today.
Our third problem is the expectation that Little Annie and Burnt Mounta:in
will stimulate Aspcn/Snowmass lodging expansion, and that summer business
will not come along. This, ill turn, will require lodges to again do
80% to 90% of their gross in the winter four months. Thus, ski industry
expansion mi:.;ht only increase the seasonal disparities in the economy,
and make the lodging industry more difficult than it is at present.
In short, the scena do faces three problems, only one of which can be
handled by the city. The other two are in hands beyond d ty control.
Ikspi te, all three pl'oblems, most lodging prOIJCrties will upgrade, but not
as significantly as the rhetoric seems to wqnt. Each property,wi1l
respond as it spes I':L t. Improvements to zoning and the C~lP \ViIi cause
some upgrading, and that makes the effort worthwhile. Our competitive
position is uniquc. and each lodging property is fully awat'e thnt the
competition is movillg. Improving the physical plant :is only part of the
upgrntling proce'ss. c;t>rvi "es and nmbimwe arc equ<:Illy importan t. They
('*'\
8
.
f'"""\'
. "1
.-
are the product of [l tti tude. Improvements to zoning and the G~lP will also
improve lodging's attitude.
E. RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS IN THE DRAFT REPORT.
1. Introduction.
We will take each of the report conclusions and discuss them in the
context of our preferred scenario. We, of course, appear to be jun~ing
to a conclusion without prior research. The fact is that each of us is
the ultimate expert on lodging and guest preferences for lodging. We
get both the congratulations and the complaints. We know the returning
guf!st, personally. We know the cost of each service component. We
keep the "real" books to which the planning office researchers have no
access. In short, our research bnse, while private, is'in most respects
superior to the research base available to the report authors. We are,
therefore, not jumping to conclusions without prior research. We know
our business. The conclusions from the report and our conunents follow:
2. Manage the' RATE at Which We Grow.
We agree generally, but believe that there are significant shifts within
the housing-lodging industry, i.e., condos converted from short te~n
to long term. We also see changes and attrition as lodges are torn
down or beds removed to make units seem larger. The big shift appears
to be in the form of individu(l.l hou,l3~s joining the short term inventory,
a fully legal way to get into the lodging business without facing the
type of restrictions and problems that confront traditional lodging
(is this unfair competition?). Our conclusion is that the above should
be components of the RATE, i.e., that the rate requires a complex
formula and a proper data base (business license for each unit?).
3. Little Annie Will Not Require More Lodging.
We do not believe this is entirely true. We believe most skiers will
want to ski all 4, 5, or 6 mountains, and that transportation for that
purpose is integral to the sk~ experience. The related conclusion,
that Burnt Mountain will require Enst Village is equally faulted.
There are several workable alternatives fojust East Village, if most
skiers will still want to ski all ~, 5, or 6 mountains. Our main problem
with the ski scenarios is the" absence of 13U1~m~I' sc;eJ1arips. ,We\;'ant more
information on the seasonal dispari ties in the loc,al economy, both now
and as affected by each future scenario.
~. Skiing Area-Tourist Accommodations Balance.
We repeat our insistance that summer be modeled. What is tile summer
activity opportunity ratio, now and projected? We think winter and sununer
should be in balance. We trace almost every local "problem" to the
existing imbalance between winter and summer.
5. Confine Lodging to Existing Locations.
We doubt that it is good zoning practice to continue allowing homes
in the West End to be used for slID,.'!: term, aCCOmmodations (a business
use). We also seei'1: ''as unfairDm>lpeti tion that ~ubtracts from the
quota for traditiattal:~ing.iFur:ther, it withdraws real homes from
the employee m=ket:. ' ,
We request a re:-exam.n",D.m1::3ii~':~;'91d "accommodations zone" idea and
Bartel's notion about ""zoll'i30!f!.''';to"use.'' We suspee t the existing zone
district map is what~s wrorig;"'3iill.that this in turn is due to the
definitions in the Code which exclude 50% of the short term acconunoda-
tions from the definition of "lodging."
,
9
t""'\
,
.
,~
6. Incentives for the SmalL Non-eolll'"rminp; Lodge.
We believe they should be
adjacent land and expand.
should give preference to
maue fullylc,gal and given the right to buy
We believe the GMP Quota and Scoring System
such expansiuns.
7. The City Loclp;e Ouota shO\lld be II\\'l'cased.
We agr~e, bu tit should be a "ShortT" t'm Accommodat~ons" Quota. The
Residential Quota should only apply t" long term. Any shift from
Residential to Lodging or vice versa cillOUld be accorrunodated in the quota
formulae (see 2 above).
8. City Parking Structure Absence C\>I.lstrains Lodginp; Growth.
"" .,'. ".......k,,<
This conclusion is totally without dth'umentation. The trail/bus
recorrunendations of our scenario make IlIis conclusion even less defens:ible.
9. The Airport Constrains Lodging CI:".lvth.
Night flights and less Saturday to Sit ll'uday booking have greatly in-
creased the number of visitors the a i I'lJOrt is handling. The per day and
per hour capacities have remained uncl"lI1ged. The current trend is to
4, 5 and 5 day ski vacations. This IV ill help to further sprcad the
airport load to non-peak days and houl 'S.
10. Moderate Rate of Growth for Lod'" illg.
We generally agree, but not just for thc reasons given. We want to see
summer business improve to the point "l1creitpays its own way. At that
point we can lower or hold winter 10li:",I.ng rates to be more cornpe ti ti vc
in winter. We see moderate growth ill lodging as furthering that essentiid
strategy toward winter/summer balancl'. '
F. CONCLUSION.
The Planning Office staff is to be C!,llllended. They are well into a
frontal attack on the lodging problcl', The need is to see lodging as
a business.. .as the host to the Aspel! Cuest. The need is to see Aspen
evolving as a better Two Season Destilliltion Resort, with lodging capacity
equaling both ski capacity and SUllUnel' activity capacity.
.. .-
In short, the lodging plan must be sl','n as part of two larger plans,
the Winter Destination Resort Plan Will the Summer Destination Resort Plan.
They must be integral with the Aspen /\,:\';1 Gencl'<\lPlan, and implemented,
by the Zoning, GMP, Subdivision, PlllJ, capital program, transportation,
public facility and other city implt'IIf"lltation devices. The Open Spacc
Plan and Trail Plan need the entire ;''1,000,000 approved recently by the
voters, and that is only the beginnil"~, The performing arts center is
a must, MAA needs student housing. Tile rivers should be a positive
summer asset. The resort has real nt't'lls if the seasonal disparities in
the economy are to be reduced and Willlcr/summer BALANCE achieved.
~
Af\.J1... QU~
~ ~,^,j>o,\,~A,\,~ ~
o~ ~ """f. S
\J),,~ ,.... """,,"~L"'\.. ......~,\-..~ -\... A....... \.<,c,~
~.3.:- <--.I ,^-, 1... ...., IL '" \,\ ""'~vc '\ '- '"\- "-........\ c "^i c" W ('..
'-"\\.. c,o>;-~ ~ ^"-YO~ ~~ ~ ~~ &~,.{
r.,~ '--""'\ '^'>-\ ~-\-\\\ c::.,..6,.\1<'~1 '-\""'- L-I.,~rl\
\fl--t- <;.~~ c~\-., ~ \",..lL'-'-'-t. (i>\"'''''''',-\
-.....J '-. ,-,v"'-- \..J' \ \. I\-l \.000 v.. \. -\-.0 ., \'-V>.-~ \....,.\. "'-A J s
, '
~'''''''''''',:",<., ,....,~_\....A).~ ...Jt o~ ~o (.~-\.'c.o",-,"Q (S.~.l"
\'^-
'\~
~
,\0'-'
c,~,>S\~
\.c"S",-,,> ~~
-J M +-0
1\ \-
Q'^-j!.", ,
,......."""\\~.\....>Q .......
Q. x:.~>~ """,\,..3-
""Q..
"
\ \
" ""'"'
'.~' ~'.I:.~'~
;
I
,
"
" ,.
I
, ASPEN ~ PITKIN COUNTyi
" .,j
SHORT TERMACCOMMOOA-TrONS~:-R'EPORT I
"""_",-_,,--,"__,_~"_^~"".""."-"""_..'U ,...__..__._..._.__.......
"..,..-c~~.,.,."._,.-...,'"''
.....,..,:.:-:...:.,:.:;....;;.'",.........,.....,,-..",.,
.. .. '~-.,,",:';: '
~,:::';' ^":.,,,,;.;,',',.,
/
~~
ASPEN - PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
APRIL 1982
LIS T 0 F TAB L E S
TABLE
PAGE
I. IDeational Distribution of Existing Short-tem
Accomm:Jdations ............................................. 5
II. Jurisdictional Distribution of Existing Short-tem
Accornrrodations .......................................................................................... 5
III. A Comparison: Confo:r:ming and Non-oonfo:r:ming Short-
term [Melling units and Pillows by Geographic Area......... 9
I", Scenario I: Existing Ski Area utilization and Skier
Distribution ..............................................................................................., 12
V.
Summary of Soenarios: Assumptions and Effects .............
16
VI. Scenario II: 1984-85 No Burnt Mountain/No Little
Arlnie ................................................................OO'.......................................... 20
VII. Scenario III: 1989-90 No Burnt Mountain/No Little
Annie ............................................................................................................ 22
VIII. Soenario IV: 1984-85 Existing Skiing Capacity with
the Addition of Little Annie phase I....................... 24
IX. Scenario V: 1989-90 Existing Skiing Capacity with the
Addition of Phases I, II, III of Burnt Mountain ............ 26
X. Scenario VI: 1989-90 Existing Skiing Capacity with the
Addition of Phase I of Little Annie ........................ 28
XI. Scenario VII: 1989-90 Existing Skiing Capacity with the
Addition of Burnt Mountain phases I, II, III and Little
Arulie ............................................................................................................ 30
"
T AB LEO F CON TEN T S
SECTION PAGE
Introduction
...............................................
1
I.
A.
B.
C.
II.
A.
B.
C.
III.
IV.
A.
B.
C.
D.
V.
.lA.
B.
C.
VI.
Community Planning Context ............................... 1
Historical Planning ,Policy and Legislation ............... 1
Summary of Tourist AccommodationS Policies-............... 2
Short-term Accommodations and the Relationship
to Skiing Capacity......................................... 4
Results of February 1982 Short-term Accomodations
St1r\7ey ......................................................................................................
4
The Existing Relationship Between Short-term
Accommodations and Skiing Capacity........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Determining the Balance Between Short-term
Accol'l1l1'Odations and Skiing Capacity.......................
/ ~'"':'...,,.......,~'~..,.,.- ,",':'-'-"""_.-
8
D. Potential Ski Capacity Increases ......................... 14
~-
The Future Relationship Between Short-term
Accommodations and Skiing Capacity ......................... 15
Service Constraints Attecting Tourist Accornrrodations
and Skiing Capaci ty ........................................ 19
Introduction .......................................................................................... 19
Transportation Constraints and plans ..................... 32
Water and Sewer Constraints and plans .................... 35
Summary .................... .... .......................................... 36.
The Inplications of Skiing Scenarios and Service
Constraints Upon OUr Short-term Acoommodations ............. 37
Introduction .................... '. .. .. .. .. .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ...... 37
A Growth Management Oriented Scenario .................... 37
Actions to Maintain a Skiing Area-Tourist
Accol'l1l1'Odations Balance ................................... 37
Conclusions .............................................................................................. 38
----~---,j
~
,
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
PAGE
I. Short-tem Accomrrodations and the Number of
Reported Short-temJ?i11ciws .....:.:..................... 7
II. A Comparison Between Short-tem Conforming and
Non-conforming pillows by Geographic Area ............... 10
III. Existing Aspen Metropolitan Area Transportation
Net:vJc>rk ........................................................................................... 33
IV. proposed Aspen Metropolitan Area Transportation
Net:vJork ............................................................................................... 34
I. Introduction
A. Community Planning Context
OVer the past ten years there have been several studies perfonned by various
public and private groups, to assess the status of short term aCCC>lllll'Odations in
Aspen and pitkin County. Sortie of the more notable studies include the
sumner of 1973 survey done by Gerry Fox for the Chamber of Corrmerce, the 1975
survey done by Joe Wells as part of the data gathering for the initial Growth
Management Plan, and a 1980 survey of lodges done by Mark Danielson and Hans
Cantrup to document the attrition of traditional lodge units in Aspen.
While the previous studies provide a useful indication of our ability to
~COIIll1Odate touristsi,n the community, each has limitations in giving us a
clear picture of today I s short term aCccmrlJdations si tuation. The 1973 and
1975 studies are somewhat dated while the 1980 study ooncentrated only on
lodges, ignoring the single family/duplex house and multi-family condominium
component of our tourist acCCllliIi::ldations inventory.
The Planning Office reoognized that having accurate data available at this
time was essential if all of the important questions being posed throughout
the community ooncerning our touristaccomnodationsinventory are to be resolved.
Similarly, the Chamber of Canmerce and Aspen Central Reservations realized
that to be an effective force in lobbying for the resolution of these issues,
they too would need an up-to-date and oorrprehensive survey of existing oonditions.
Therefore, the three entities ,banded together for the purposes of distributing
a survey to all lodges, condominiums and management companies. The response to
this survey was virtually 100 percent of those to whom it was mailed and forms
the backbone of this report.
The importance of this report to Aspen and pitkin County stems from several
con=rent planning efforts =rently underway in the Planning Office. First,
we have been involved in an update of the GrONth Management Plan since June of
1981. This effort has provided an update on grONth rates since the establish-
ment of the quota system, assessed the impact of this grONth upon the community
and is moving tcMards a series of recolllIll8ndations for future grONth rates and
policies to guide comnunity development decisions. It is anticipated that this
report on short term aCCC>lllll'Odations will provide a frarrework for estpblishing the
grONth priori ties among our ",,;rious development sectors.
A seoond important planning effort related to this report is the recently
initiated update of our physical plans for Aspen and Pitkin County. This re"'"
port will serve as one basis to evaluate various transportation, zoning and
land use alternatives which pertain to the existing and future locations of
tourist acCO!1InOdations in the corrrnuni ty. An important aspect of this effort is
the need to re-examine the implications of previous decisions which made many of
our lodges non-oonforming and whether a need exists to revise these existing
policies. This report therefore represents the definitive planning study long
promised by the Planning Office as the basis for evaluating existing policies
and oondi tions and planning for the future needs of our tourist acCOIlll1Odations
sector. In this respect, we believe that the following are the major questions
which we IlUlSt resolve in deriving a new set of policies:
1. What decisions have we made related to touristaocornmodations which have re-
sulted in the current conditions, size and locations of our inventory?
What are the perceived problems due to these decisions?
2. Is it appropriate to plan for the mnnber of touristaccanrrDda:tions in our
oorrmunity as a function of our existing and proposed ski capacity? If so,
what is the proper balance for which we should plan?
3. Is there a need for additional touristacccmnodations in the metro area?
If so, where should they be located?
4. What role should our non-conforming lodges and single family/duplex houses
playas part of our overall mix of touristacccmoodations?
5. What actions should be taken so that our transportation system better
serves our existing and future tourist acoorrnnodati,ops?
6. What actions should be taken regarding lodge development quotas, tourist
zoning designations and non-conforming lodge preservation regulations?
.
1
,
The methodology that we have taken to provide the decision makers with a
sound basis for actions includes the following planning steps:
1. Establish the historical context for touristacQ<:lrrlm:xjationsplanning by
providing a synopsis of plans, poliCies, decisions and legislative actions
that have guided touris.t development.
2. Develop a comprehensive inventory of existing short termacccmnodations and
compare this total to ski area capacity and utilization reports.
3. Define the existing relationship between touristaccarmrodations and ski
area capacity and formulate the relationship which is desirable for
future growth purposes.
4. Identify the constraints to achieving the desirable balance between
tourist acccmnodations and ski area capacity, including service limitations
affecting the airport, sewage treat:rrent system and water supply system, as
well as impacts on the quality of life for residents and visitors.
5. Formulate a variet;y of Short termaccanmodations development scenarios
based on the known development plans in the Aspen metro area and Snowmass,
various alternative ski 'area ~ansion proposals, alternative visitation
forecasts, known transportation plans and the ultimate development of
areas =rently or potentially zoned for tourist aCcorrm::5dations.
6. Prepare recorrmendations as to the need for additional tourist aCcanmodations
units and the desired location of these units, the appropriate rate at
which these should be developed and any necessary revisions to our existing
regulations, including lodge GMP quotas, non-conforming lodge preservation
provisions, zoning designations and any other provision which may need to
be developed to implement the new touristaccanmodatiops policies.
B. Historical Planning, Policy and Legislation'
In order to gain insight into the current situation regarding short term accarmo-
dations in Aspen and pitkin County, it is first necessary to provide a historical
perspective on the decisions that brought us to this point in time. It is our
intention to review adopted plans, plans, policies and legislation only in so
far as they have affected the tourist facili ties in the corrrnuni ty. The Planning
Office has also produced a oorrprehensive review of all land use actions we have
taken in the form of a series of historical perspective memos which are available
upon request. '
Though planning and regulation of li1;nd use began in pitkin County in 1954 and in
Aspen in 1956, a clear policy regarding tourist acc0rrm:x'0..tions developrnentcannot
be identified until the mid-1960's. This era was the beginning of the building
boom in the area and was also a time when we were facing applications for the
Sncmmass and Little Annie ski areas. These pressures resulted in the hiring of
a consultant and the development of the Aspen Area General Plan of 1966. The
basic philosophy of this plan can be sum:narized as "hw can the corrrnuni ty best plan
for and aCCCll1llDOda:te the grwth we can expect to realize, rather than what techniques
are available to control the rate at which groWth occurs".
The 1966 plan proposed that Aspen and Snowmass would be primary visitor acoommo-
dations centers, that Highlands, Little Annie and Buttermilk would also provide
accanrnodationsand that the Castle-Maroon Creek vicinity would house a lesser
number of tourists. Of particular importance was that the plan shwed the
aCccmnodationS/recreationdesignation in Aspen stretching from the Castle Creek
bridge into town along Main Street and all lands south of Main Street, to the
base of Aspen M:>untain, into the east side of Aspen as far north as the Roaring
Fork River and to the east if town along Ute AVE'mue and toward the North Star Ranch.
.-. .-.'
The primary legislation which resulted from this plan was a zoning pattern which
permitted lodge and multi-family apart:rrent style development in those areas
designated AR by the plan. The era which followed these actions witnessed much of
the development of our =rent short termacccmnodations inventory.
Planning in the 1970's took a distinctly different approach than the 1966 plan,
due in part to the level of growth the corrrnuni ty was experiencing. The 1972
Goals Task Force ~ressed concerns with the impacts of continued groWth and
recommended a program of managed growth based on the availability of services
and the desire for a high quality of life. The outgrwth of this effort was a
series of plan arrendments adopted in 1973 and 1974, followed by a series of
downzoning actions.
2
.
The 1973 Aspen Land Use plan and the 1974 Buttermilk/Roaring Fork East plans
both substantially reduced the amount of land proposed for use as tourist
aCcammodations. In the City all aCCCl1l!OCJdationswere ooncentrated at the base of
Aspen Mountain. New touristacccmnodationswere reoomnended to be built at
this location and expansions were permitted only in locations viliere such
facilities already existed (i.e., east and west Aspen neighborhoods). In the
uninoorporated areas cluster C!Ccaumodations locations were sham at the base
of Buttermilk ski area and in the vicinity of what is now the Aspen Club. In
general, both areas were recommended to take on more of an open space character,
with developI1Ent in oonoentrated nodes.
The legislation which resulted from this plan was the downzoning of 1974 and
1975. In the City of Aspen this action took the form of zoning Main Street
to office use and the east and west Aspen neighborhoods to residential use,
making many of the existing lodges non-conforming uses. In the uninoorporated
areas the downzonings resulted in the elimination of all tourist zoning in the
Highway 82-Buttermilk vicinity and in the Roaring Fbrk East area and the re-
duction in the extent of tourist zoning at the Highlands base area. These actions
made all tourist developrrents in the uninoorporated area non-oonforming uses,
with the exception of the Highlands Inn and Maroon Creek Lodge.
The next major action ooncerning lodge developI1Ent was the developI1Ent of the
Aspen/pitkin County Gravth Management Policy Plan (GMPP) (Third Draft, November
1976) . This plan made the assunption that "skiing capacity and lodging capacity
are roughly in balance". (p.19) The GMPP indicated that with a skiing capacity
of 3,000 on Aspen Mountain anq. a peak day skier generation of almost 9,000 persons
in the City of Aspen proper, this balance only exists across the County and
irrplies that our major transportation problems result from the geographical
bed base/ski capaci ty imbalance.
In response to the assurred balance, the plan called for a phased rate of
gravth in the areas of the City zoned for lodge developrrent which are not fully
built out. This potential buildout was calculated at 342 units, which was
phased at 18 units per year for 15 years, to result in 80 percent of the total
potential, or 270 units.
In the ~yearssince the irrplerrentation of ,the GHPP, the City has not experienced
any of the lodge development it anticipated. Three, lodge projects have been
approved under the GMP with one, Mountain Chalet, having allaved its allocation
to expire; a second, Aspen Inn, still being under oonstruction; and a third, The
Lodge at Aspen, only having received its allocation earlier this year. In fact,
the only major additions to the short term aCCXll11l1lOdations inventory since the
1975 survey include the 54 units added to the Glory Hole Lodge (known as the
Woods tone) and the developI1Ent of the Gant.
An issue which has become of increasing inportance over the last five years has
been that of non-conforming lodge preservation. The implications of the down-
zoning of many of our lodges has been that for the most part it has become il1-"
feasible, irrpractical or uneconomical to continue many of the smaller lodge
operations under the existing regulatory constraints. The City and County have
both provided a waiver from the abatement provisions of the non-oonforming lodges.
The City has developed lodge preservation and lodge oondorniniumization regulations
which permit non-oonforming lodges to be rebuilt as long as no expansion of rooms
or square footage is requested and as long as the previous level of services
is maintained. Lodges which have taken advantage of one or the other of these
provisions include the Ullr, Coachlight Chalet, Aspen Ski Lodge and Woodstone.
Havever, while each of these facili ties has wi tnessed a noticeable irrprovement
in quality, the hoped-for overall irrprovement in the quality of our lodges has
not been experienced.
A last area of recent policy developI1Ent has ooncerned the short term usage of
single family and duplex units in our residential neighborhoods. The City of
Aspen has placed a restriction that units in the R-MF, 0 and C-l zone districts
may not be rented for a period of less than six months, with the exception of
two short term periods during anyone year. This restriction also applies to all
uni ts which have been oondominiumized, regardless of the zone district.
Q
3
,
C. Sumnary of Tourist Acc:qll[!lC)(:lations Policies
Over the past twenty five years the attitude of the community toward its
tourist aCcc:mIl3Clations has shifted from passive monitoring, to active regulation
but with a development orientation, to tigJi:ttrestrictions on this entire sector
of the economy. Our early policies influenoed the development of a land use
configuration whereby lodges and condominiums have been located throughout the
rretropoli tan area, including the bases of our ski areas and in areas where we have
tried to develop more of a long term residential flavor. The policies of
downzoning and ,Q1P quotas have, in effect, frozen our inventory, in terms of
both quality and quantity, at their mid-1970's leveL,;. We have witnessed the
attrition of many of the smaller lodges to other grOW'th pressures (Le., Agate
Lodge, Holiday House and Norway Lodge to errployee housing, Gasthof Eberlf-,
Floradora and Paragon to other uses). Reoent policies regarding non-conforming
lodges have had only marginal positive irrpacts upon the overall quality of our
facilities, while a lodge quota of 18 units per year has been questioned as
being too small to permit proper phasing of lodge development.
We believe that the =rent status of our touristacccmnodations requires a
oornprehensi ve assess~l1t of ovr, interdependent adopted policies conoerning (1)
the appropriate, magrii tude and, ~<JC:a,1::ions "for 'DS(I lodg", development, (2) the appro-
priate zoninq and/or associ<?,~, regulatio!1.S for exisj:ing lodges and (3) the appro-
priate, guotafor new'lodge dev"lopment. ,The following sections of thi,s report
seek to respond to tpeseissuei'by'assessing our existing inventory as compared to a
variety of soenarios of future growth in the cornnuni ty.'
II. Short-termACccmnodationsand the Relationship to Skiing Capacity
A. Results of the February 1982 Short-term,/\ccq:pm:XtationsSurvey
As stated in a preoeeding section the response rate to the short-term acCClIllfl1ClCli'tiCll:lS
survey was virtually 100 peroerit of those polled. The survey provides the community
with an accurate inventory of Aspen and pitkin County's reported short-term
acccmnodations. This section briefly highlights the characteristics of the reported
short-termacconmx1ations. It should be noted that the data cited reflects only
reported short-term aCccmnodations operated through management companies or by
lodge operators.
The survey indicates that the~ ,are approximately 10,670 pillows located in
2,740 dwelling units in the Aspen Metro area. Apartment type units (units with
kitchens) comprise 48 peroent 'of the total unit count, follOW'ed by traditional
lodge rocms which account for 46 peroent of the total units and dorms and single-
family houses which oornprise the remainder of the total (6 peroent).
The Planning Offioe has aggregated the short-term aCCOlllllOC1cltionsdata into 10
separate geographic areas. Fi,gure I, which depicts the 10 geographic areas,
and Table I, which shows the numerical distribution by type of the short-term
aCCbIl1rocx1aHoris, are useful aids in understanding the locational distribution of the
OOITrnunity's tourist pillcws. The data in Table I indicate that the Core, East
End and Shadcw Mountain areas account for 79 peroent of the total short-term
pillows. The Core area has a fairly even balanoe between lodge rooms and apart-
rrent tourist units. Fifty-four peroent of the tourist ~ ts in the Core area
are apartments and 45 percent are traditional lodge r()6rrl~' In the East End,
apax:ttnents account for 74 percent of the total tourlstHUriits and lodge rocms
oornprise 24 percent. By contrast, in the Shadow Mountain area, lodge rooms
account for 72 peroent of the total short-term units and apartments comprise
only 20 percent. In the three areas cited above, dorm units account for the
remaining aCcommodations..
Although the Planning Offioe views the lodge issue as one that should be studied
without an errphasis upon local goverl'lIlental jurisdictional boundaries, it is
interesting to compare the number of aCccmnodatiOIlS located wi thin the City of
Aspen with the Metropolitan area totals. Table II shOW's the distribution of the
short-term ac:carmnodations between the City and unincorporated Pitkin County.
Not surprisingly, Table II shows that 87 percent of the short-term ocCOlI11lCXJ.<3.tions
pillows are located in the City of Aspen with the remaining 13 peroent located
in the County.
4
hj ",'
I-' f-'.
0 I-' '" ... 1-'0
0 '"' w I-' I-' ... ... I-' w 1-''''''
. . . . . . . . . ~
0 -.J "" 0 -.J 0 00 w I-' '" 0:> (jl
0 Ul
6f
I-'
d)
i
p, ~
~ 8
o 0
; ~
16 til
:J @'
P,
'0
f-'.
~
f-"
:J
g
.
~
f-"
CIl
ii
(l
p-,
g
f
'"
i
&i
"'Jtfl
Bi f-'.
p-,E
~fD
5'
~
1;;'>-3
iitil
'i5ii
>0 p-.
~~
C>-3
~-~
&if-'
f-' '0>-3
0 '" f-'
, , , f-"O
'" '" "" ~fil'
-.J "" '"
0 -.J W ~ f-'
CIl
f-'
,
W
f-'
o
f-'
,
f-' f-'
"" '"
"" '"
co
o
'" f-'
f-' '"
co
o
U1 '"
'" ""
f-'
,
f-'
,
o '"
U1 f-'
f-' '"
'"
-.J
o
'"
,
'"
,
w ""
f-' '"
'" co
-.J
""
o
'0 ""
f-"
f-' f-'O
0 CXJ f-' ~:
0 -.J W
Ul 0
fil'
f-'
t>J
p,c.,
CIl Fi
p-. f-'-
:J CIl
lQii
tfl(l
5" p-,
'" 0
'i" 8 >-3
@' f-' ~
g p'. fD
CIl H
5" rr H
ig
p-,
g
[!.o
Om
ill
CIl
~ "5 --......
fit .
"l- oll
0 of'.
-i *
.-\
0
Ul
n
)>
r III
rn c
..j
-i ~
,- en
,1J g
~ ~ .
r 7i
~
^ 0 '"
0 '"
* 7' 0
:f ~ ' J
f-"
Ul ~~~
Ul "if: ~-
~ r b
~~ w '~oo:V ' :r.
7'lz:'" ~ ~
m 0 ~~",,' -<
ITI"- ~ Rp,
" CAsiL-g c.i<:l=t=.1<. r<D, (b -
- N
r
rn
. f>o"'~ >s
~:<;,,..~'"' \..0 f-' 2m
<..~r 0 Ill)!
- 0 ~
.: :s <l' -
U1 :i ~
'.' 0 8
f-'
Z "i
AspeN STI<'EE:T m
... ;;
U1 /II
...
7-
I \J
...
- ~
'"
-.I (\ f'II\l-L. ..-r
'" ()
~
m
.
SPRING S. REET
f-'
0
0
N i1\I\\
-
N Z~
'"
f-' 0'
-\
- <I'~
~<
f-' (. MI
f-' "Co Y:S: '" ()'.~
f-' ~.., 0 {\ 1~
-.I rn [11 r .1 ~R<
f" '
n\ fJ
..(
s
)-
/
/
~/
'<
~
p.
S
rt
f-'
8
}:;'
ft
-.Ii
Ul
Ul
~
f-'
f-'
~
(0
(,-..")
"'J?!
~!f
ro
~r
SR
USN 0:.'-
, R,"'E::k
R,""'D
'-rJ
j'
H
..
o (J)
H1::Y
o
iir"
'81
" ft
ft~
, p, ?l
~~
1~
ftw
~g.
'tJ::!
f-'.Ul
f-'~
[@
Ul lli
~
p,
;
I
, I
hi
o
~
c
Z
Z
'J-
More irrportant than the relationship between short-term aCCClllllrodations
located in the City and those located in the County is the relationship
between conforming and non-COnforming short-term <l.GCClllllrodations. Table III
and Figure II categorize short-term OICCCIIIJIrodations according to their
conforming or non-conforming use status. The data in Table III indicate
that approximately 27 percent of all the reported pillows available for
short-term QQcammodations are located in non-conforming uses and that 73
percent are located in conforming uses. The two areas which have the
rrost pillcws located ,in non-conforming uses are the ShadON Mountain area
which has 1,930 pillows located in non-conforming uses and the Highway 82
West Corridor in which there are 870 pillows located in non-conforming uses.
The effect that the large proportion of non-conforming short-term acconmoda-
tions has on the quality of theac~tions in the camnuni ty is a question
open to debate. However, the fact that the Ullr, Coachlight Chalet and
Aspen Ski Lodge are the only non-conforming lodges in the Metropolitan area
that have undergone major renovation in recent tiIres, indicates that despite
lodge preservation legislation the vast majority of the non-conforming lodge
operators are not willing or able to renovate their lodges without some
potential for limited expansion. Even if the short-termacccmnodations in
the corrmuni ty vlhich are non-conforming uses were zoned to conformi ty, it is
questionable hON much expansion potential would be possible because rrost
of the non-conforming uses are located in buildout areas where there is
very little vacant ground. The Planning Office has initiated a study of the
expansion potential of the short-term non-conforming uses to project the
amount of expansion that would be possible under various Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) Regulations. Unfortunately, the study of a buildout potential has not
been completed at this time. Preliminary findings show that without ex-
ceeding a 1:1 FAR, the expansion potential of most non-conforming short-
term facilities is very limited. There is also some question as to the
willingness of developers to 1ii1ller't.aKe major lodge renovation or expansion
projects at this time given existing economic conditions and the apparent
leveling off in the grONth of the" national skier market.
B. The Existinq Relationship Between Short-terml\.c~qons and Skiinq
Capaci ty
The relationship between the community's tourist pillows and the daily skier
capaci ty . of the skiing rrountains has been addressed in the Growth Management
Policy Plan and several other studies in the past. The Planning Office be-
lieves that the relationship between short-term pillows and daily skiing
capacity should be an irrportant consideration in determining the appropriate
number of short-term acCClllJIrodations in . the Aspen Metropoli tan area. In order
to pursue this relationship in rrore detail, the Planning Office has developed
a rrodel that is used to estimate the existing daily utilization of the ski-
ing mountains in the County and to project future utilization.
The rrodel is based upon the assumption that daily skiing ,demand is a function
of a proportion of tourists, permanent residents, :seasonal residents arid
non-County residents that are likely to ski on a peak day. The rrodel also
attempts to estimate the distribution of skiers between the skiing rrountains
in the Aspen Metropolitan area and the Snowmass ski area. Like any rrodel,
the rrodel developed for this study is only an approximation of actual condi-
tions and is useful to the extent that it estimates ski area utilization on
an order of magnitude basis. The results of the rrodel should be used only
as an input in the decision making process and not as the sole determinant.
of the appropriate number of short-tem pillONS in the County.
It is with these thoughts in mind that the inplications of Table IV "Existing
Ski Area Utilization and Skier Distribution" should be reviewed. The results
of the sport-tem adx:mnodatioris survey provide the base data for the esti-
mates of tourists lodged in reported short-tem aCCClllllrodatiol)sin the Aspen
Metropolitan area while the Briscoe, ,Maphis, Murray and LaMont (BMML) Burnt
Mountain Study prQvides ac=ate estimates of the number of tourists housed
in Sncwmass Village. Realizing that the short-term accarnm::x1atiQnssurvey
accounts for only "reported short-tem units", it was necessary to develop
an estimate of the non-reported short-tem units. The Planning Office estimates
that in addition to the 2,740 reported short-tem units there are approximately
an additional 780 short-tem uiUts that may be utilized on a peak day. These
8
~-,.'.~
Table III: A Ccrnparison Between
Confonning and Non-conforming Short-teJ::m IMelling Units and
Pillows by Geographic Area
"~:'-'--~-- _._--~-_.-
Total % of
c Dwelling Area Total % of
Geoqraphic Area Uni ts Total PillOWs Area Total
Core
Conforming 1,187 96 4,566 98
Non-conforming 48 4 110 2
Eas tEnd
Conforming 325 74 1,926 85
Non-conforming 116 26 335 15
Shadav Motmtain
Conforming 51 11 237 16
Non-conforming 407 89 1,264 84
Wes tEnd
Conforming 94 100 454 100
Riverside/Smuggler
Conforming 26 41 103 54
Non-conforming 37 59 87 46
Ute Ave/Mt Valley
Conforming 18 100 117 100
Maroon/Castle Creeks
Conforming 102 64 205 53
Non-conforming 58 36 185 47
82 Corridor West
Conforming 51 20 91 9
Non-conforming 208 80 869 91
Cerneta.ry Lane I
Conforming 7 100 44 100 I
t
Red Motmtain ,
~;
Conforming 9 100 73 100
Total Conforming 1,870 70 7,820 73
Total Non-COnfOrming 870 30 2,850 27
GRAND TOI'AL 2,740 100 10,670 100
--.------
9
z
~
::>
~
o
~
go
'~
o
4-<
8
~
o
z
'8
I1J
5' '
'~
<8
0:
8
e
$
J, I1J
.8~
III U
0: 'M
<lJ-&
~ ~
2&
5
,~ 1;<
~ Ul
~' 6
0.-1
u:;1
<P-i
..
H
H
~
OM
"'
tI.
)ll~
o
~.j
tU OJ
> 2
fl<ll
M
r--
'"
M r--
a co
.-I
~
~ilJ
iuZ
~5
tU
J
Do
-r.
ul
~
~
"'"
U')
"'"
"'"
'('I
Q)
)-
~
'I
'~
III
.,.1 uJ tV
\'0.1 1- ):
l~~ ":)~
\;;D
.(l
lUlU
r--
.-I
.-I
'"
\0 ~
~ M
,
.-I
'S 9Nl>ldS
J.;l32l~
UJ
t'.(.
'" 0
1..0 0 \J
\.D .-I
U') .-I
,
"'"
J.a3:=l'2l..l.S
~
8
1'"
.n z
Oc'>l
'<1;,,1
";\=:1,,"?:l::>
'"
U') U')
a co
N .-I
w.
'" 0 '!/. .'
.-1m 0 .J
m\.D ~ ~
co !t
fll
& 1:i0
III
&1 l-
I-
:>
to
-,-
~ >13:3;,,-, HSO:>!g
N;3':\'S:V
oj<
r-- "'"
M \.D
N N,
.-I
~
~I!J
<!}
'<I
$J
~d
,j>)
---.::
';J
"U1
Z~
~~
{.J
:E~
5
,
~ S
.-I
OM
P,
go
.~
o
't!
,8
~
Ul
2J
I1J
U
OM
'E
H
oj<
/
/
..-/'
/
uJ
.J
<f.
IJ
\fl
o
l-
I--
o
:l.
tI-
~
/,~
K_j
.",;:,:........-
uni ts include those which are only short-termed two times per year, as
permitted by City regulations, as well as those which either were not
reported to our surveyor are being short-termed illegally. Based upon
an estimate of 5.3 tourists per ron-reported units, we estimate that on
a peak day approximately 4,180 tourists are being housed in non-reported
short-term uni ts.
Table IV shows that on a peak day, when all of the pillows in the oornmuni ty
are utilized, approximately 17,100 persons are skiing on pitkin County's
skiing mountains. Based upon the United States Forest Service total
four mountain skiing capacity of 21,500 skiers, this represents a utiliza-
tion to capacity ratio of .80. M:::>re significant to the lodge issue is
the ratio between reported tourist pillOlls and total skiing capacity in
the metro area (10,670 pillows to a capacity of 11,500 skiers) is .93.
During the 1978-79 ski season, on the peak skiing day in Pitkin County,
approximately 17,300 people went skiing. On that day approximately 48
percent of the skiers were skiing in the Aspen Metropolitan area and 52
percent were skiing at the Snowmass ski area. The skier distribution of
the peak day of the 1978-79 season was used to estimate the skier distribu-
tion in 1982. This methodology assumes that skier preferences have not
changed since the 1978-79 season. Based upon this assumption, we estimate
that on a peak day approximately 83 percent of skiers staying in Snowrnass
ski the Snowmass ski area and that 17 percent of the skiers staying in
Snowmass ski in the Aspen Metropolitan area. By carrparison, on a peak day
given our existing tourist base approximately 37 percent of the tourist
skiers housed in the Aspen Metropoli tan area commute to SI1O'WlllaSS to ski and
the remaining 63 percent ski in the Aspen Metropolitan area. These per-
centages indicate that on a peak ski day, given our existing bed base 3,600
people comnute to Snowrnass to ski and approximately 1,000 people sleeping
in Snowmass commute to the Aspen Metropolitan area to ski.
C. Determining the Balance Between Short-term.,Accortln::xlatiqns and Ski Capacity
The preceeding section discussed skiing area utilization, on a peak ski day,
the location at which tourists are lodged and the skier distributional
relationships on a peak ski day. The preceeding discussion of the existing
relationships provides background infonnation that is helpful to determine
what the optimum relationship between short-term accommodations and ski
capacity should be. Once it is determined what type of relationship we are
trying to achieve, existing planning policies can be amended or new policies
can be developed to guide growth to achieve the agreed upon goal.
The Planning Office has identified four potential relationships that the
communi ty may wish to adopt as planning goals.
1. SkLrngcapacity is somewhat larger than skiing area utilization - This is
essentially the relationship that exists today in pitkin County. To
maintain this relationship there must be a limited expansion of skiing
capacity to compliment the projected growth of the comnunity.
2. Skiing capacity equal to skiing area utilization - This is the relation-
ship toward which the community is heading. Given projections of
future growth and no expansion of skiing capacity prior to 1990, it is
projected that there will be a balance betwenn ski area utilization
and skiing capacity.
3. Skiing capacity much greater than skiing area utilization - This is the
relationship that existed in Pitkin County in the 1960' s when the
Sno:NmaSS ski area was opened. This type of relationship leads to
significant growth pressure and possibly unmanagable growth such as
Aspen and Sno:NmaSS experienced prior to GMP.
4. Skiing area utilization much greater than skiing capacity - This is the
type of relationship that currently exists in Vail and several front
range ski areas which are i~acted by large day skier markets or very
high growth rates. This type of relationship leads to a decrease in
skiing quality or even forced cut-off points for lift ticket sales
such as have been implemented at Keystone and Copper Mountain.
It is the Planning Office position that we should strive to maintain or
achieve either option one or two. Ski area capacity in excess of utiliza-
tion insures high quality skiing and the best tourist experience. However,
option two, which proposes that skiing capacity be equal to ski area utili-
11
III
~.~
.m&J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0
0 N N ...-l "" r- M 11) M Lf) Lf) 0
00 0 0 00 eo '" ...-l r- LI) '" '" M
~ .~ - - - - - - - -
...-l ...-l M M '" '" ...-l eo
g~
N
0
Q~
tIl:;:: "" 0 M ,0 ' 0 0 0 N 0 N '" ""
r- .2f': . . . . . . . . . . .
r- ~ r- M M 0 0 LI) '" Lf) r- eo
:.m ...-l ...-l '" '" eo ' 00 '" LI) "" '" ""
III
! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M "" r-,' "" '" "" M 0 r- '" 00 ""
tIl r- ...-l eo N 0 N '" M 0 r- eo
a '" ~~ - - - - - - -
"" "" N ...-l M 00 eo
:.d ..-j
il g&J
..-j
lJ
III N
..-j QIll r- 0 0 0 0 eo 0 eo ...-l '"
0 '"
III ! . . . . . . . . .
~ N 0 N r- r- 0 0 "" ...-l "" N ...-l
LI) r eo '" 00 M M N N M "" L') M L') M
Q '"
.
tIl ""tIl II,
.' 'd .>,
S +J
..-j
a ~ 0
o III
-.-j eo~
t! -.-j ,;(3
~$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N :g M '" '" LI) M ...-l '" LI) 0 ...-l M ""
'.-j "" r- ...-l eo 0 '" ('oJ ...-l M '" r- "" ~< $$
...-l - - - - - - - - -
-.-j .:g:j LI) Lf) '" ('oJ ...-l 0 "" ('oJ r-
~ ...-l ...-l ...-l ~Q
o III
8ril b~
III
~ ,.-j (])
~~ ('oJ
...-l
'.-j 8 ~E
"'"
tIl :j ().
$ ~ tJ>,.-j
LI) <":...-l
5.N ('oJ '" M -.-j a
+J M . . . ..-j
o -.-j Lf) M r- 0 0 M M "" M ('oJ ...-l ...-l ~ 0
III P<~ M '" r- r- M M ---' r- r- M Ell
'~ 'Q r-
lI-< ~
0.2
o'P ~ f': ~
H j
0 Ill~
'.-j
~ N "
a ..-j III
:.d$ ...-l "" LI) '" r- '" 3~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tIl iB ('oJ ...-l M "" eo "" M C\ 0 "" eo ('oJ ::>...-l
('oJ '" ('oJ co' '" ...-l M ('oJ M LI) "" ('oJ r- '.-j
- - - - - - - - - - - - '~ P<
~ r- ...-l 00 eo "" '" ...-l M ('oJ 0 "" ""
o III N ('oJ ('oJ M L') -.-j +J
P<ril ~ III
Ul '.-j
OJ ~
...-l
~ 8~
~ ~ M ;;!J '" r- ;;!J '" ~ ~ ~ 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 'd
M ...-l r- "" M 0 LI) OJ
('oJ '" M N Lf) -+J
-.-j 0 - - - - - ...-l l-l
P<U ...-l 0 '" ...-l N ~~
...-l N
fl bill i
..-j OJ
-s +J f ~ ~ ,I
III Z ,.1
::> -.-j BE
f': +J g ~
~ III U
-.-j .8 H I' '" tJ>,.-j
tIl ti] ~ ] ~~ a ~ <":...-l
'.-j So
~ Z 8 '.-j ,
'" III ~~ Ul ~E
'? ,E~ l-l l'J >< ~ f:] ~
+J 2l 8, M ~+J
+J f':, 15. f': lS ~~ . ~
f': III III .gj ?'; aUJ CJ ...-l f': &? &? 01
0 III '.-j Ul U 8 l-l '0 0 ~o n:l OJ .
'.-j ! ~ '.-j a 6-S '.-j ill ::;Jfi >'d 0 Ii< ~
,p III ~ c: c: aJ '.-j ~ ~i~ r; R
~ 0 & 8,'s OJ 0::> ill ,....H s:: UJ ~I Ul
E-< ~ jY, z jY, tIl 8[:5 ~
, g& ts ", . :ii'
~::> UJ ::>
Ul E-<
~1 . . . . .
p:fj ...-l ('oJ M "" Lf) '"
Footnotes: Scenario I
1. BMML, Burnt MJuntain: Effects on the Town of Snowmass Village 1982
p. 3-11
2. BMML and Design Workshop Inc. Skier distribution and participation
rates from appendix of Burnt ~lountain Expansion Proposal adapted
for this study.
3. Aspen/pitkin County Planning Office and Aspen Chamber of Commerce
short term accorrodations survey February 1982
4. Aspen/pitkin County Planning Office, conversion factor of .81
tourists per double bed and .9 tourists per single bed
5. AspenjPitkin Planning Office estimate adapted from Truscot and
Eldert's "pitkin County Planning statistics" 1981. It is assumed
that the difference between Truscott and Eldert's total pitkin County
, visitors and visitors in reported tourist units is approximately
equal to the number of visitors in non-reported tourist units.
6. U.S. Census
, 7. Truscott and Eldert
13
zation, has the benefit of increasing the corrpeti tion among short-term
ilCccmnodat:ioJ:)sonoff-peak days. The increased competition between various
short-term acccmnodatiohS tnay lead to an overall increase in ac;ccmnodations
quality. Theoretically, the U.S.F.S skiing area capacities are based
upon skiing quality standards utilized by local ski area operators and
safety standards. Therefore, if pitkin County's ski areas are utilized at
capaci ty on peak days the quality of the skiing experience should not be
diminished below local ski area quality standards.
D. Potential Ski Capacity Increases
Essential to determining the relationship between short-tem acoommodations
and skiing capacity is the proposed daily skiing capacity that may be
added to the existing inventory. Although no additional ski capacity has
been approved at this time, the Little Annie ski area and the Burnt
Mountain expansion are presently in different stages of the review process.
phase I of Little Annie would create an additional 4,500 person daily
ski capacity and Phases I, II, III of the Burnt Mountain expansion would
create an additional 4,200 person daily ski capacity. If both Little
Annie and the Burnt Mountain expansion Phases I, II and III beoome opera-
tional, Pitkin County's daily skiing capacity would increase to 30,200
skiers.
The next section of this report atterrpts to analyze the possible implications
maintaining the existing skiing capacity and adding increments of skiing
capaci ty upon the Aspen Metropolitan area short-term acca:nrn::xiJations. Potential
future scenarios are proposed for a variety of different skiing capacity al-
ternatives. In total, the following six scenarios are analyzed:
1. Scenario II/Table IV, 1984-85 - Existing skiing capacity with No
Burnt MountainjNo Little Annie
2. Scenario IIIITable VI, 1989-90 - Existing skiing capacity with No
Burnt Mountain,INo Li ttle Annie
3. Scenario IV/Table vn, 1984-85 - Existing skiing with the addition of
Little Annie Phase I (4,500 daily capacity)
4. Scenario V/Table VIII, 1989-90 - Existing skiing capacity with the
addition of Burnt Mountain phases I, II, III (4,200 daily capacity)
5. Scenario VI/Table IX, 1989-90 - Existing skiing capacity with the
addition of Little Annie Phase I (4,500 daily capacity)
6. Scenario VII/Table X - Existing skiing capacity with the addition of
Burnt Mountain Phases I, II, III (4,200 daily capacity) and Little
Annie Phase I (4,500 daily capacity)
In order to oonduct a detailed analysis of the six development scenarios
identified above, it was necessary to generate many major ass11I1'ptions about
future conditions in the Aspen Metropolitan area and Snowmass Village. In
developing ass11I1'ptions concerning the growth in Snowmass Village, we have
relied heavily upon the BMML Study of Burnt Mountain. Wi thin the BMML
Study, detailed projections of future growth are made for two alternatives:
with Burnt Mountain and without Burnt Mountain. We made use of both sets
of development projections. It should be clear that the growth projections
used in the scenarios are based upon a future, development program developed
by BMML that meets the ass11I1'ption that in the future 70 percent of the
total skiers skiing at SnCMlllaSS on a peak skiing day are lodged in Snowmass
Village and in addition, 15% of the total SnCMlllaSS overnight visitors ski
elsewhere.
Development projections for the Aspen Metropolitan area are based upon
Planning Office projections derived from a combination of approved, but not
as yet constructed, lodges and forecasts of lodge and residential development
permitted under existing growth quotas.
Perhaps the ass11I1'ptions most open to debate concern the changes in the skier
distribution pattern that will occur when Little Annie comes on line. The
14
Planning Office has assumed that when Little Annie is opened the percentage
of Aspen based tourists who ski in the Metropolitan area will increase from
approximately 76 percent to 85 percent. We also project that Little Annie
will increase the rate of Sn=nass based skiers who are skiing in the Aspen
Metropolitan area from approximately 17 percent to 30 percent and that these
percentages are based upon the assurrption that the County will not attract
significant new visitation as a result of the operation of Little Annie, as
suggested by the proponents of that development. The Sno-Engineering
Preliminary Physical and Economic Feasibili ty Study of the Li ttle Annie Ski
Area indicates that Little Annies weighted market share will be 13.5 percent.
Since Li ttle Annie offers a similar skiing experience to the Snowmass ski
area in terms of terrain mix, our Little Annie scenarios assume that Little
Annie will attract many skiers who would be skiing at Snowmass if Little
Annie was not open.
When Burnt Mountain and Li ttle Annie are both added to the available skiing
market we assume that the skier distribution within the Aspen Metropolitan
area will remain the same as with just Little Annie. In other words, the
utilization of Burnt Mountain will have to be derived from additional skier
visi ts to Pitkin County, not a redistribution of existing skiers already
visiting the area.
III. The Future Relationship Between Short-Tenn Acccmnodations and Skiing
Capacity
In this section six potential future develop:nent scenarios are proposed and
analyzed. The model developed to analyze the existing peak day relationship
between short-teJ::m acccmnodations skiing capacity and skiing utilization has
been used to analyze alternative future scenarios. In order to employ the
model for future scenarios, it was necessary to make many assumptions and pro-
jections relating to future conditions. The footnotes that follow each
scenario I s table identify the assurrptions that have been made.
To make it easier to canpare the potential impacts of each alteITIative scenario
we have developed Table V which displays the assurrptions and impacts of each
scenario in a matrix form. We have also included the narrative below that
briefly summarizes the scenarios in a written format. It should be remembered
that all of the scenarios are based upon peak skiing day projectiO)1S.
Scenario II/Table VI1984-85 No Burnt Mountain/No Little Annie
The major assurrptions of this scenario include:
1. No skiing capacity increases will oc=.
2. Develop:nent in Snowmass Village will follow the scenario proposed under
no Burnt Mountain 70 per cent overnight skier guest ,rate identified by
BMML.
3. The approved but not as yet constructed lodges in the Aspen Metropolitan
Area will be constructed, as will those lodge units which win quota allo-
cations between now and 1985.
Given the assurrptions indicated above and in the footnotes which follow Table VI
the results of this scenario show that:
1. The skier utilization to skiing capacity rate is projected to be . 99,
meaning that virtually all of the County's existing skiing capacity will
be utilized.
2. The l;lX~ss"'~ty cammuting of tourist skiers between Snowmass and the
Aspen Metropolitan Area is projected to decline considerably by canparison
with the existing commuting. Approximately 2,400 tourists lodged in the
Aspen Metropolitan Area will cammute to Snowmass to ski and 1,400 tourists
lodged in Snowmass will ccmnute to the Aspen Metropolitan Area to ski.
3. The ratio between reported Metropolitan Area tourist pillows to Skiing
capacity in the Metro Area will increase from the existing .93 to 1. 01.
15
01<::
Vl Vl <:: w
>> (/) 4-"''- a. 0 0 0 0 0 0 C>
~ CO,(/) +.> Vl 0 M N "- M en 0
..;- .~ 2',-~<c C> ..;- ..;- ..;- C> ..;- en
<tS 3:s...E
0 O:::::lEo ~ N N N M
<:: 0 o -l-'
V) I-U
Vl
U') tn ~
..,<:: C>
>, <:: 0, .~ Ijij 0 0 C> 0 0 0
r-(lJs...,tn~ M ..;- N N M ~ ~
M .r- o.+.>"(::s g M ..;- M en en en en
Vl CO U') Q) :::) ~ (/)
-l-' 0<:(:;:0 M N N ~ M ~
U ~OO
W , U-l-'
'+-
'+- .~
W -l-' .. -'" >,
>,<:: 0 Vl 3: V) -l-'
~ W s......... 0 .~ W M ..;- M ..;- en en
N .~ o.-l-' S-~ 0 U-l-' Q) 0 0 "- 0 "- "-
<tS Vl'W " ~ S- <tS <tS
O<::C:2: 0'"" +.> 0.0:: ~ ~ ~
I-a..W <tS
:;:U
>,
-l-'
>, I <:: .~
~.~ O~ 00) 0 Q) N N Q) ..;- ..;-
or- r- ....... .::.t. <tS-l-' 00 Q) 0 00 Q) 00 00
rtS:r- +-J (J') 0.<tS
0-l-'<tS <tS0::
=>, N U
, GJ ~1-4
en >>r- :E......
C t:n+.J+.:l...... """0
..... s:::: 'r- +.J +-> 0
<.0 +->.,.., U''- (]) !::~N X
oj< (f).....ro-J...-s... ...
oj< ',....,,:::,,:::o.UlC::sI--lO ~
Vl Xv) <tS " <::CO .M
-l-' W C) r- c::r:: ....... 0.",
U
W a. "" .~
S--'"
'+- <tS <tS
'+- <:: W
LL! W a.
.", ~ u
<:: 01 >, ~ V) <tS
<tS <:: 01-l-' '~O W <::
.~ <::.~ (1')+->........0 .s:: 0
Vl en -l-"~ U ,,:;: "- X -l-' a.
<:: tn.,...: <tS~ "
0 ......:::.t. 0. o.+-> I-l L.(') S-
.~ XV) <tS <::~N 0.",
-l-' W U S- '+- W
E " Vl
CO .", <tS
" W.o
Vl Vl
Vl " W
'" W S-
~ <:: <tS
01 >,-l-'~ W
<:: 01-l-'-l-' 0 W 0
Vl .~ C.......r- WO .0 .~
0 ..;- -l-"~ U....J.,....O X X S- \0
.~ Vl'~ <tS <:: Vl <tS .--i
S- .~-'" a. Vl <::<.0 <tS <::
<tS oj< X; I./) rtS :::::Ie:( N .s:: W
<:: Vl w U~ U
w <:: a. <::V)
<.> 0 0
V) .~ '~.s::
-l-' -l-' U
'+- 0.<tS
0 E E w
" "
Vl 01 >, Vl'+-
S- Vl s:: O"H-'O Vl 0
<tS '" .~ c...... a <:(
E M -l-"~ uen X X X Vl
E Vl'~ <tS .", -l-'
" .~-'" o.~ w u
V) XV) <tSN -l-' W
W U <tS'+-
U'+-
'~w
>- .",
w <::.",
.~ <::
....J Vl <tS
CO <:: w
<:( ~o -l-' .s:: Vl
I- 0.,..... :;: "" <::
"--l-'.s:: -l-' 0
N U-l-'-l-' X X <tS.~
....J w.~ <:: .s:: -l-'
:;:.., 3: S- -l-' a.
:;: 0 " Vl E
CO S- a:> "
a.. 'a.;, Vl
+-J!
d U)
5~
Vl -0:-,=
<::-l-' X I-
"" 0:;: c,i: -)(
o.~ oj<
"--l-'-l-'
,... U <:: X X X X
....J W S-
~.,....,::s
::E: o a:>
a:> S-
a.. 0
z: ~
~ ~
..... ~..... OJ ~ w ....... or- OJ I--l
~ ~.~ .~
~-l-' >--l-' .......:::.t..,.... -",'~ >< ...::.:::.,.... I--l
>- VI >-::E: :;: ><n2 X -l-' XU') 2 V)<::~
~ <:: w 01'" ~ :;: W 01'" CIJ ~ ...
0 W-l-' ~-l-' W 01 :a ~C1J""'"
Vl w.~ ~ <:: .0 <:: ~ <:: W W <::-l-' ~<:: W
W ~-l-' .0 s- W <tS s- W ..Q.r- r- ~ 'r- <:: ..0 .r-.r- m.r-r-I-l
~ ..0''- <tS ".~ I- ".~ <tS-l-'-l-' .0 -l-' s- <tS-l-'-l-' I--l-'-l-'
.0 <tS.", I-a:> <:: ..... CO <:: I- Vl-l-' <tS Vl :::> I- Vl-l-' .......... V) +.J I-l
'" I- <:: ..... <:: ~ <:: ....................... ~.j- .co ....................... I--l.r-......
I- .....0 ~ 0<:( ~ 0<:( >- X....J .....x ~ X....J ~ X....J
..... ~u ~ z: ~ z: I-llfo<::i :>Woe:l >~~ >l.1J~+'>
Vl 1 W 1 W , 1 :;:
0 0 01 0 I ~ 0 I ~ 01>, 0'>, 01>, 01>,
.~ ,~ <::M 'I"""'\..!")+J ......o+-> ..-lO +-> .,....O+->I-I ......a+.> .....O+.J+.J
s- s........ co s- 00 -l-' S-Q)-l-' So- ro...... s- O'l ...... ...... s-rn'r-' s... O"l',..... C
<tS <tS-l-' 1 <tS , .~ <tS 1 .~ <tS I U <tS I u~ <tS 1 U <tS I us-
<:: <:: Vl N <::..;-....J <::Q)....J <::..;- '" <::Q) <tS <:: Q) '" C (j) ro ::s
W OJ 'r- co aJOO aJOO woo a. OJ coo. . W 00 a. 0) co 0.00
u u X 0'> uO'> 0 uO'> 0 u Q) '" uO'> "'~ U Q) <tS UO'>",
V) V)W~ V)~z: V)~z: U').--L) (J') r-u........ V)~u (/)r-Uo<S
Soenario III/Table VII 1989-90 No Burnt Mountain/No Little Annie
The major assmnptions of this soenario are the same as Soenario II.
Given the identified assmnptions and the footnotes which follow Table VII this
soenario shows that:
1. The skier utilization to capacity rate is projected to be 1. 02 meaning
that on a peak day there will be a slight excess demand for skiing in the
County.
2. The cross ccmnuting of tourist skiers between Snowmass and the Aspen
Metropolitan Area is projected to de=ease oonsiderably by carparison
with the present amount of cOrrmuting, however there will not be a
significant decrease as carpared with Scenario II (1984-85 No Burnt
MJuntain/No Little Annie).
3. The ratio between reported Metropolitan Area tourist pillows to skiing
capacity will in=ease fram the existing .93 to 1.04.
Soenario IV/Table VIII': 1984-85 Existing Skiing Capacity with the Addition
of Little Annie
The major assmnptions of this scenario include:
1. With the addition of Little Annie Phase I total skiing capacity will
in=ease to 26,000 and the Aspen Metropolitan Area's skiing capacity
will in=ease from 11,500 to 16,000 skiers per day.
2. Development in Snowmass Village will follow the soenario projected under
no Burnt MJuntain 70 per cent overnight skier guest rate identified
by BMML.
3. The approved but as not yet constructed lodges in the Aspen Metropolitan
Area will be oonstructed, as will those lodge units which win quota
allocations, between now and 1985.
4. Little Annie will not generate additional skier visitation to Pitkin
County. Little Annie's utilization will be derived fram a distribution
of skiers who are already in the County.
Given the assmnptions indicated al::ove and in the footnotes which follow Table
VIII this soenario shows that:
1. The skier utilization to capacity rate is projected to be .82, meaning
that on a peak day there will be a utilization rate that is similar
to the existing utilization rate in the County during 1981-82.
2. Little Annie will attract approximately 1,000 more Snownass-lodged
skiers to the Aspen Metropolitan Area skiing mountains than the area
would attract without Little Annie during 1984-85.
3. As a result of Little Annie the number of Aspen-based tourists ccmnuting
to Snowmass will de=ease fran approximately 2,400 skiers to approximately
1,500 skiers. This projection is based upon a comparison between
Soenario II (1984-85 existing skiing capacity) and Scenario IV (existing
skiing capacity with Little Annie I).
4. The ratio between reported Metropolitan Area tourist pillows and Metro-
politan Area capacity will de=ease from the existing rate of .93 to .73.
By carparison the projected 1984-85 Metropolitan Area reported tourist
pillows to Metropolitan Area Ski Capacity without Little Annie would be
1.01. '
Scenario V/Table IX: 1989-90 Existing Skiing Capacity with the Addition of
Burnt Mountain Phases I, II, III '
The major assmnptions of this scenario include:
1. with the addition of Burnt Mountain Phases I, II, III the daily skiing
capacity in Pitkin County will in=ease by 4,200 skiers from 21,500
skiers per day to 25,700 skiers per day. The daily skiing capacity of
the Aspen Metropolitan Area will remain at 11,500 skiers.
17
2. The develot:ment in Snowmass Village in this sCenario is based upon the
develq:ment assunptions of BMML under the Burnt Mountain 70 per oent of
Snowmass skiers staying overnight scenario.
3. In oontrast with Little Annie, Burnt Mountain will derive its utilization
from increased skier visitation. The additional visitors attracted to
the County w::>uld be acccmnodated by the substantial amount of develot:ment
projected by BMML for Snowmass Village that w::>uld be associated with Burnt
Mountain.
4. The approved but as not yet oonstructed lodges in the Aspen Metropolitan
Area will be oonstructed as will those lodge units which win quota alloca-
tions between now and 1990.
Given the assunptions indicated above and in the footnotes which follow Table IX
this soenario shows that:
1. The County skier utilization to capacity rate is projected to be .99
meaning that on a peak day there will be utilization that is slightly
less than County-wide daily skiing capacity. It should be noted that the
high utilization rate results fran a very ambitious developnent rate pro-
jected for Snowmass Village under the BMML Burnt Mountain "70 overnight
guest assunption."
2. The reported tourist bed base in the Aspen Metropolitan Area will remain
the same as under the other 1989-90 no Little Annie scenario. As a
result of holding the reported tourist bed base and the Metropolitan
Area skiing capacity constant the ratio between the Aspen Metropolitan
Area tourist pillows and the Metropolitan Area daily skiing capacity will
be 1.04.
3. The increased daily skiing capacity available in Snowmass will result in
a large increase in the number of Aspen-based tourists canmuting to'
Snowmass to ski. Approximately 3,500 Aspen-baSed tourists will ccmnute
to Snowmass. By corrparison under Soenario III (no Burnt Mountain/no
Little Annie) only approximately 2,300 Aspen-based tourists are projected
to ccmnute to Snowmass to ski and under Scenario VI (1989-90 existing
skiing capacity with Little Annie phase I) approximately 1,500 Aspen_
based tourists are projected to ccmnute to Snowmass to ski.
4. The increased lodging at Snowmass will result in an increase in SnOllnlass-
based tourists ccmnuting to the Aspen Metropolitan Area to ski. It is
projected that approximately 2,000 skiers daily will ccmnute from SnOllnlass
to the Aspen area. HCMever; even :rrcre SnOllnlass-lodged tourists w::>uld
be ccmnuting to the Aspen Metropolitan Area if both Little Annie and
Burnt Mountain were operational in 1989-90.
Scenario VI/Table X: 1989-90 Existing Skiing Capacity with the Addition of
Little Annie Phase I
The major assunptions of this scenario include:
1. with the addition of Little Annie Phase I the daily skiing capacity in
Pitkin County will increasefrom 21,500 skiers to 26,000. The daily
Aspen Metropolitan Area skiing capacity will increase fran 11,500 skiers
to 16,000.
2. Under this scenario the develot:ment in Snowmass Village is based upon
the develot:ment assurrptions of BMML under the no Burnt Mountain 70 per
cent of Snov.m3.ss skiers staying overnight scenario.
3. It has been assmned that Little Annie will not attract additional visita-
tion to the County, but instead will derive its utilization from a
redistribution of existing skiers.
4. The approved but not as yet constructed lodges in the Aspen Metropolitan
Area will be constructed as will those lodge units which win quota alloca-
tions between now and 1990.
Given the assurrptions indicated above and in the footnotes which follow Table X
this soenario shows that:
1. The County skier utilization to skiing capacity rate is projected to be
.84 meaning that on a peak ski day there is exoess skiing capacity.
18
2. The ratio between reported Aspen Metropolitan Area tourist pillows and
the Aspen Metropolitan Area sking capacity is projected to be .75.
3. As is the case with&---enario IV (1984-85 with Little Annie phase I) Little
Annie will attract a oonsiderable number of SnOMTJass-lodged tourists to
the Aspen Metropolitan Area to ski. It is projected that approximately
2,500 Snowrnass-lodged skiers will ccmnute daily to the Aspen Metropolitan
Area.
4. The attraction of Little Annie will reduce the number of Aspen-based
tourists who 'travel to SnOMTJass to ski. It is projected that approximately
1,500 tourists will carmute to SnOMTJaSS to ski on a peak ski day.
Scenario VII/Table Xl: 1989-90 EXisting Skiing Capacity with the Addition of
Little Annie Phase I and Burnt Mountain Phases I, II, III
The major assurrptions of this scenario include:
1. with the addition of Little Annie Phase 1 and Burnt Mountain Phases I,
II, III the daily skiing capacity in Pitkin County will increase from
21,500 to 30,200 skiers. The Aspen Metropolitan Area daily skiing
capacity will increase from 11,500 to 16,000 skiers.
2. Under this scenario the develorment in SnOMTJaSS Village is based upon
the development assurrptions of BMML \ll1der the Burnt Mountain 70 per cent
of SnOMTJaSS skiers staying overnight in SnOMTJaSS scenario.
3. It is assumed that Little Annie will not attract additional visitation
to the County, but instead will derive its utilization from a redistribu-
tion of existing skiers. By oontrast it is assumed that Burnt Mountain
and the associated development in Snowmass Village will attract a significant
number of additional visitors to the County.
4. The approved but not as yet oonstructed lodges in the Aspen Metropolitan
Area will be oonstructed as will the lodge units which win quota alloca-
tions between now and 1990.
Given the assurrptions indicated above and in the footnotes which follow Table XI
this scenario shows that:
1. The County skier utilization to skiing capacity rate is projected to be
. 84, meaning that on a peak day there will be a utilization of skiing
capacity less than the County skiing capacity. The daily utilization
rate of the skiing capacity in the Aspen Metropolitan Area is projected
to be .94.
2. The ratio between reported tourist pillows in the Aspen Metropolitan Area
and the daily skiing capacity of the Metropolitan Area will be .75 which
is the same as Scenario VI (1989-90 existing skiing capacity plus Little
Annie I).
3. The number of Sncwnass-based tourists ccmnuting to the Aspen Metropolitan
Area to ski will be higher than \ll1der any scenario. It is projected that
approximately 3,500 tourists lodged in Sncwnass will carmute to the Aspen
Metropolitan Area on a peak ski day.
4. It is projected that on a peak ski dayapprox:imately 1,500 Aspen-based
tourists will carmrute to SnOMTJaSS to ski.
IV." Service Constraints Affecting Tourist Ac=nodations
A. Introduction
Since 1973 when the City of Aspen adopted a policy that public facilities should
be expanded in a manner consistent with the controlled growth policies of the
Land Use Plan and basedon a "pay as the community grows" philosophy, the issue
of service contraints to development has been a thoroughly studied area. The ,/
purpose of this section of the report is to summarize the =rent infrastructure
constraints to the expansion of our tourist acccrnmodations base and the adopted
or proposed plans to alleviate these constraints.
19
,\
;,Jj
/'/"
~
+J
+J
_,.jo
H
.Q
~
]
@
~
~
~
I'Q
o
Z
If'l
co
I
""
co
C>
.-<
..
H
H
o
,,.j
~
CIl
..
!;!
~
'fa
E-<
~ ~
Q.-,.j
~@
co
~B
g~
'"
o
;g~
CIl:::;
I'- ..8 l::
;~
,/
i
CIl
\!)
'"
l~
g@
'"
j
;g'"
If'l ~!
dPCIl
~
o,.j
@$
"" ~]
gt3
M
8
:rJ
.:'1
['"
g:Q
ro
l!-l
oE
dP :::
l::
o
:rJ$
N ~~J
gt3
6+J
.-I ~ @
~8
8
o,.j
g
."'.~1
000
M N If'l
"" ""
- -
.-< .-I
"" 0 N
. . .
I'- 0 r--
.-1.-1.-1
'"
'"
~
~
CIl
.
M
o
.-I
co
-
\!)
o
.
N
co
o
""
N
-
co
N
.
If'l
r--
.-<
o
\!)
'"
-
o
.-<
~
+J
'"
,,.j
~
o
I'-
.-I
o
.
o
'"
o
'"
.-I
M
.-I
N
o
co
""
-
.-I
o
co
""
-
.-I
+J
C
(j)
'0'
',.j
'"
(j)
0::
I
~
Z
tIl
~
~,
o
co'
C>
-
\!)
co
.
N
co
o
M
""
-
co
co
\!)
o
""
""
-
N
.-I
~
l::
o,.j
:P
~]
<<l III
.,
E~
u 8
c c
(j) -'1
Q.I r....
~ ~)
.
N
M
o
N
'"
-
.-<
.-I
~
o
o 0
M M
r-- .-I
- -
N .-<
-
If'l
o
.
o 0
. .
\!) 0
I'- co
\!)
r--
o
co
If'l
.-<-
o
\!)
co
o
.
o 0
. .
"" 0
N N
""
N
o
C>
If'l
-
\!)
o 0
'" .-<
If'l ""
- -
M .-<
o
I'-
o M
f"'-'o r-l
""
o
.-<
""
-
C>
If'l \!)
o 0
N r--
.-< co
- -
If'l 0
.-<
If'l
~ R
co
-
~
fl
oS
o
+J
'"
o,.j
~
g
+J
'"
-,.j
~
]
.,
ifl
~'S
po
;z;
]
.,
i
o
co
N
J'l
l::
(j)
'0
o,.j
DO
(j)
po;
o
M
.-<
o
.
o
co
o
""
o
.
o
N
o
r--
.-<
M
.-<
I'-
o
\!)
M
-
.-<
r--
o
'"
M
-
.-<
.-<
~
o
~
(j)
tIl
~
H
iJ"O
<<l~
ffi~
"'80:
~O
~~
~t5
o
o
o
-
'"
If'l
.
\!)
,I'-
o
'"
I'-
-
N
If'l
.
M
N
o
'"
r--
.-<
.-<
""
<l'
o
\!)
r--
'"
N
co
o
o
If'l
-
o
M
~
co
o
o
If'l
f
u
~
ar
.-<+J
.-< r::
~~
-,.j
~ g)
Oei;
.
M
o
""
'"
o
co
r--
o
\!)
N
o
.
N
N
o
o
N
-
.-<
If'l
'"
.
M
-
o
M
o
r--
.-<
-
'"
o
.
'"
""
o
If'l
N
'"
N
o
If'l
o
N
""
-
co
.-<
M
.
N
I'-
o
C>
""
-
If'l
N
~
<<l
E-<
tIl
~
b
E~
ffi
S
Ul::ii
gJZ
o
g~
E~
~
~
.
""
.
If'l
o
N
N
-
N
r--
.
""
r--
o
If'l
I'-
M
.
If'l
N
o
r--
'"
-
N
I'-
.
'"
~
N
-
""
""
~
o
'"
M
-
.-<
.-<
N
M
If'l
o
o
o
-
o
.-<
co
.
.-<
o
'"
<l'
.
.-<
II
.iJ
o,.j
~ ~
II U
$ 8'
&l :::1
-'<:
.iJUl
o,.j rtJ
~ ~ 0
o,>'l;N
~-~
.r-i r-I
,,.j 8,
-'<: 0
Ul lJ
-8 ~
j J
.r-i ..
.-< '"
:rJ 6
o ;::j
., -,.j
(j) iJ"
:Q +J
tIl ,~
~
o '0
5l$
c;j ~
II &]
.iJ rtJ
-,.j (j)
u ~
~~
01',.j
o~ (j
,,.j Q.,
@ B
cr.i ~
~ '~
::iJil
~I
,I
:1
'.".!
o
'"
M
-
.-<
N
I'-
.
o
M
o
o
r--
-
'"
'"
~
~
~
t-1
~
.
'"
Footnotes: Scenario II
*
The amount of development in Snawmass Village p=posed in this
scenario is based upon the BMML assurrption that 70% of Snawmass
skiers stay overnight in Snowmass Village and that 15% of Snawmass
Village's total overnight visitors ski elsewhere.
1.
BMML Table 3.1-B Winter peek 7040 skier overnight guest rate
2.
Ibid.
3.
Projection based upon 10,670 pillows in 1982 (survey) + 660 approved
tourist pillows. + p=jection of
285 additional pillows during the next four years. Based upon 1982
survey it is estimated that there are 3.97 pillows per new tourist
unit.
4.
Aspen/Pi tkin County Planning Office oonversion factor .81 tourists
per pillcw.
''''''~'-'"'.''''~~'''~~-.'.","'.~.--"...........:.",~
5. AspenjPitkin Planning Offioe estimate adapted f=m Truscot and
Eldert's "pitkin County Planning Statistics" 1981. It is assumed
that the difference between ,Truscott and Eldert's total Pitkin County
, visitors and visitors in reported tourist units is app=ximately
equal to the number of visitors ir:..non-reported tou.ris,~~~~Lc~c.
6. Population projection by AspenjPitkin Planning Offioe based upon
annual growth rate of 115 new dwelling units per year, vacancy rate
of .05 and average household size of 3.5. ~
7. Trusoott and Eldert
8. Colorado State Division of Local Affairs medium g=vlth projection
9. BMML and Design Workshop Inc., skier distribution and participation
rates from appendix of Burnt Mountain Expansion Proposal adapted for
this study using BMML's 70% assurrption.
21
,/
///
~
.jJ
'M
H
~
'M
~
~
~
IYl
o
Z
o
'"
I
'"
CO
'"
.-l
..
H
H
H
o
'M
~
flj
CI)
H
~
.!!l
~
Ul
fii ~
P.'M
~i;]
CO
~B
g~
o
~~
CI):E;
r-- .8 s::
~
,,0 ~
/
!
CI)
\0
Ul
l~
gi;]
'"
j
:QUl
~ ~.~
dl'CI)
~
'M
irljiJ
~ ~]
OUl
E-l~
g
:jj
m
.-l
I"') ii.....
g~
'0
4-<
0.8
dI' ~
g
:jjjiJ
N ~~J
o Ul
P-l~
6.jJ
.-l ;::j ~
&8
s::
o
'M
]
'@
'IQ
Ul
Ul
~
8
CI)
.
.-l
.-l
o
co
co
-
o
N
~
-
.-l
~
r--
.-l
o
\0
r--
\0
\0
.
N
co
o
co
.-l
-
co
'"
.
~
r--
o
.-l
~
.jJ
Ul
'M
~
g
o
N
o
.
o
rl
o at'
N co
N ''''
-
\0
o
.
o
'"
o
~
N
I"')
.-l
N
o
\0
co
-
.-l
N
o
\0
co
-
.-l
.jJ
g
'0
'M
&
CI)
~
~
:;ij
~
o
~
~
-
.-l
.-l
.
r--
.-l
'"
.
N
co
o
N
~
-
co
o
.
\0
'"'
o
~
r--
-
N
.-l
~
s::
'M
:P
'& $
'" tU
l-l
,~ fr
u 8
0: 0:
~;8
~D
'"
.
N
~
o
o
r--
-
'"
I"')
o
r--
'"
-
.-l
.-l
o
I"')
N
-
~
o
.
r--
r--
o
'"'
~
-
.-l
o
.
I"')
N
o
'"
r--
-
'"'
o
r--
~
o
.-l
r--
-
~
11
'2
D
.jJ
Ul
'M
~
$
l-l
a
&11
1'2
8::0
z
.jJ
Ul
'M
~
$
l-l
8<
&
o
I"')
~
-
N
o
.
r--
I"-
o
'"'
r--
o
M
N
o
'"
N
-
I"')
o
r--
'"'
o
co
I"-
-
N
.-l
~
'"'
o
co
I"-
o
I"')
I"')
-
.-l
o
.
o
co
o
I"')
M
o
.
o
N
o
'"'
\0
-
.-l
I"')
.-l
-
N
.-l
r--
o
I"-
~
-
.-l
~
(j)
'(j
'M
Ul
&
o
~
o
.
o
co
o
~
o
.
o
N
o
o
N
I"')
.-l
I"-
o
r--
~
-
.-l
.-l
@
Ul
tU
(j)
CI)
~
H
P-lt:l
"'~
~9
~~
~~
~~
o
~
N
-
'"
o
.
l"-
I"-
o
'"
'"'
-
N
o
.
I"')
N
o
~
'"
-
.-l
.-l
~
.
.-l
~
o
'"'
I"-
co
o
o
~
-
l"-
I"')
-
co
N
~
co
o
o
~
-
1"-'
M
~
o
~
o
z
6i
rl.jJ
.-l s::
~.gj
'M
~ 8J
6~
.
'"
o
~
rl
-
.-l
o
.
co
I"-
o
I"')
'"
o
.
N
N
o
co
~
-
.-l
~
'"
.
I"')
. .
~ Ln
o
co
.-l
-
'"
I"')
.
o
~
o
co
o
-
'"
l"-
.
'"
~
o
'"'
N
-
co
.-l
N
.
N
I"-
o
'"
N
-
L"l
N
~
'"
E-l
CI)
~
~
~
~
~~
o
~~
t)CI)
E-l
o
'"'
'"'
-
N
I"')
.
~
I"-
o
N
'"
I"-
~
N
o
co
~
-
'"
r--
.
'"'
o
.-l
'"'
-
I"')
~
~
o
~
co
-
.-l
.-l
N
.
~
~
o
o
o
-
o
.-l
00
~
,~
~
o
.-l
II
b'
'M
NO
om
~a
II Q)
2l ,~
&~
-P'm
'M Q)
~~~
a~
8';:1
:~ a
irlB
B~
s:: s::
]1J.
gJ~
;:1 f!!
:jj~
::O.-l
'M
l-lP-l
Q)
'M .jJ
..'< Ul
CI)'M
~
o
0'0
U:~
.-l l-l
N a
II &
-P'm
'M (j)
~~
a~
Q)'M
S::rl
~J
. Q),
~:a:
~~
::i~
j
o
'"
co
-
.-l
N
r--
l"-
N
o
o
'"
-
co
I"-
~
I
I
:1
'I
,I
';'j
.
~
~
~
~
.
'"'
Footnotes: Scenario III
* The amount of development in Snowmass Village proposed in this
sCenario is based upon the BMML assUllption that 70% of Snowmass I
skiers stay overnight in Snawmass Village and that 15% of SIlOtl-
mass Village's total overnight visitors ski elsewhere.
1. BMML Table 3.1-B Winter peak 70% skier overnight guest rate
/.. Ibid.
3. Projection based upon 10,670 pillONs in 1982 (survey) + 660 approved
tourist pillONs _ ' '_ + projection of 640 pillows
during the next 9 years. Based upon the 1982 survey it is estimated
that there are approximately 3.97 pillows per tourist unit.
.81 tourists per
4.
Aspen/Pi tkin Planning Office conversion factor of
pillON. _ _ _ __.~ "___
5.
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office estimate adapted from Truscot and
Eldert's "Pitkin County Planning Statistics" 1981. It is assumed
that the difference between Truscott and Eldert's total Pitkin County
visitors and visitors in reported tourist units is approximately
equal to the number of visitors in non-reported tourist units.
.~.~-,.,...._._. . . ,', . P"-"'------.." ~_c.",__.:;.
6. Population projection' by Aspen/pi tkin County Planning Office based
upon annual grONth rate of 115 new dwelling units per year, vacancy
rate of .05 and an average household size of 3.5.
7. Truscott and Eldert
8. Colorado State Division of Local Affairs rredium grONth projection
9. BMML and Design Workshop Inc., skier distribution and participation
rates adapted for this study.
23
~.~
ro .?2&5
.-/0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J'll:J r- N '"' 0 '" r- II)' 00 00 M N II)
'" '" '" 0 N rl 0 0 rl II) '"
eS~ - - - " - - - - - - -
N N II) M rl ;=) rl rl N M
rl rl
0
rl
0
11~
CI):<; II) ,0 ' 0 0 0 r- 0 '" 00 00
r- OS:: . . . . . .' . . .
i 0 0 '"' II) II) 0 0 II) 0 0 '" M
M rl N 00 00 '"' '"' 00 '" '" 00 '"
0.0 .?2
III
/ ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r- r- .... '"' M '" N 00 N '"' II) '"
,,//'" CI) r- rl '" '"' II) rl '" rl N '" r-
'" III
~ ~ - - - - -
.. II) II) rl r- r-
H .~
OJ eS&5
III
ra
€ 0
OJ ;;;Irl
, III
j ~i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 '" N N
. . . . . . . . . . . .
II) 0 0 0 II) II) ;=) 0 '" 0 '"' :::J '"
r- '" r- rl rl rl rl rl M M M
i r-
~ t::
0.0 CI) II
+J
,,., l'
H, .,.,
4-< ~ U
0 Nra
oop.
s:: .~ 'B
0 &5$
:;:J '" ~] II
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tJ>
;g '" '"' M '"' '" rl r- '" 0 N r- '" j1J,~
N rl '" II) II) '" rl r- N '" '"' M
~ - - - - - - - - - - 8111
o 'Ill 00 00 '" M rl rl rl 00 N rl
8J:i1 rl .-/ N CI)
~ 1'ra
-,., OJ
~ U.!i! '"
6 ra N
l' :;:J BE-
.,., ~
~ II) tl>,.,
S::.-/
g,,,, N 0 0 o. 0 0 0 0 '" M r- r- "'8.,'
M . r0 . d d M M . . . . . .,., ,
U O-rl II) 00 '" M N rl 0 &5~
P-l~ r- .-/ '" r- r- .-/ .-/ '" r- M
8' 4-< B~
,,., 00
,,., oIOi 6$
~
Ul
8' ~~
:;:J 6 N"
,,., III
III rl N '" II) '" r- oo rl:>:
'>I :;:J$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :;:J.s1
'" 00 '" rl N r- '" '" 0 '"' rl 0
J:iI N ~] '" '" '" '" rl 00 M r- II) '" N r- ::>.-/
- - - - - - - - - - - - .,.,
0 rl N '" II) ;=) rl r- 0 II) '" '"' ~P-l
II) 8'00 rl rl N M N '" '" OJ
co ,,., +J
/ P-lJ:il ~1Il
'" CI).,.,
co ~
~
8~ ~ ~ M ~ '" r- ~ co ~ ~ ~ 0
~ .-/ 0 0 0 0 0 gal
00 N r- '" 0
'" '" 00 M c" -+J
,,., 0 - - - - - "'~
0 P-lU rl rl 0 rl 0 ~i
,,., rl rl M
~ ,;1
gj
~ .f'l 1'ra
.,., OJ
CI) '8 +J ~ [~
III 01
::> .~ ~
s:: +J g BE H
H .,., 8
H :ti III
~ ,,., .8 H /. '" 1J:1-,.,
.~ $ ~ P-lQ s:: t::rl H
CI) P-l, $ ",f:; ;2 ~ ',.,~'
~ ~ ra 8 ,,.,
'" ffi~ CI) ~
4J; ~ ~ .f'l :>. ~ SI ~ Ull:J
,~@, $ ~ .-/ ~+J
s:: +J t:: Q $ gj ~~ ~~ ui~
III III ~ z ~.f'l rl r.:
0 ! .,., Ul u 8 ~ '0 0 ~~ ~~
:;:J ~ ,,., 8. "2 'rl ffi ~~ ~~
en ~ s:: s:: t:: . & 'rl ~ ~
~ 0 & ~, '2 & 0::> ,H [: en
E-I Z 01 ~gs ~ (J) ~ t)~ ::;i,)@
Ul ,)@p gP:: 8
~ . . . . . .
rl N M "" II) '"
Footnotes: Scenario .:t\tc
*
The anount of developrrent in Sno.vrnass Village proposed in this
scenario is based upon the 13MHL asstlltption that 70% of SDCMmaSS
skiers stay overnight in Snowmass Village and that 15% of SnCMmaSs
Village's total overnight visitors ski elsewhere.
1.
BM/1L Table 3.l-B Winter pee.k 7040 skier overnight guest rate
Ibid.
2.
3.
Projection based upon 10,670 pillows in 1982 (survey) + 660 approved
tourist pillows ", .~c-"=U$'-3 + projection of
285 additional pilloWs"dUrIng tIle next four years. Based upon 1982
survey it is estimated that there are 3.97 pillows per.reN tourist
unit.
.
4.
Aspen,IPi tkin County Planning Office conversion factor .81 tourists
IJer pillal.
,,,,---.,,-,-.....,-,..:,,,'"
5.
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office estimate adapted f=n Truscot and
Eldert's "pitkin County Planning Statistics" 1981. It is asswred
that the difference between Truscott and Eldert's total Pitkin County
visitors and visitors in reported tourist units is approximately
equal to the number of visitors in non-reported tourist, units. _~C~___.
"- '~'"<c"~~"~~'''''=~'. . '. . , ._.~~_~--.-,.""...,."
6. Population projection by Aspen,IPitkin Planning Office based upon
annual growth rate of 115 new dwelling units per year, vacancy rate
of .05 and average household size of 3.5..
7. Truscott and Eldert
'8. Colorado State Division of Local Affairs medium grovlth projection
9. BMML and Design Workshop Inc., skier distribution and participation
rates from appendix of Burnt !buntain Expansion Proposal adapted for
this study using J3Mt.1L' s 70% asstlltption.
10. Aspen/Pi tkin County Planning Office assurres that when Little Annie
COrtes on line the percentage of S!lCJ<NIllaSs skiers who ski in the Aspen
Hetro area will increas from 17.3 percent to 30 percent and that the
percentage of Aspen Metro skiers Who ski in the Aspen Hetro area will
increase to 85.7 percent.
25
Ul
~5)
.rl
J2&1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 M M 1.0 .-< "'" "'" r-- 1.0 1.0 '" 0 '"
'-<0 0 0 "'" .-< "'" .-<, .-< '" If) '0 .-<
19lJ , , , , , , , , ,
N N "'" N .-< 00 CO N .-<
g~ .-<
0
:ri-B
Ul~ "'" 0 N 0 0 0 0 M 0 If) "'" .-<
r-- .8e . . . . . . . . . .
r-- 0 r-- If) If) r-- r-- CO If) '" .-< "'"
~J2 .-< .-< .-< 1.0 1.0 CO CO ,1.0 1.0 M r-- "'"
Ul
! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
"'" r-- 00 If) N M 00 N 1.0 "'" 0
Ul 1.0 N '" M .-< N r-- If) .-< 0 N
1.0 ~ , , , , , , , ,
~,~ '" '" N .-< M M .-< "'"
.-< .-<
g&l
.rl
'H '><:Ul
0 Ul! '0 a 00 0 0 0 0 r-- 0 L") 1.0 '"
Lf') . . . . . . . ..:; . . . . "'"
6 ~ N 0 N If) L") M M If) 0 00 If) 0
co '" 00 M M .-< .-< M M 1.0 N 'If) .-<
+J
;tJ dPUl II
~ ~
-rl
~ 5) ~
~ .rl ~B
&lJJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.. "'" l~ r-- 0 r-- '" '" 1.0 0 "'" co If) "'" C'\ Ii ~
~-s 1.0 M '" r-- N 1.0 N '" "'" r-- 1.0 M
, , , , , , , , , ,
'S 19 .-< .-< 1.0 M .-< .-< .-< .-< M L") .8-
.-< .-< .-< C", N 'rl
ill 9 Oul &&1
@<O 8M
U~ ~~
01.j.J 'rl JijI.O
e e a U N
'rl ~ ill
.rl @<n
~CQ +J
"" ill U_rl
'H
8'.0 .-< Lf') 01'-<
[ N 0 M 0 0 0 0 If) m r-- r-- N 'S &
+Ji=j M . C"f . 0 0 M M . . . . .
o .rl L") m .-< M N 1.0 0 'rl 0
U1H p.,T,j r-- .-< 1.0 r-- r-- .-< .-< "'" r-- M .><:lJ
'R 'H Ul Q)
i:i1,'~ 0.8 B:2::
H 0\0 ::=
H 6~
0'
O'l ' ~
I H +JJ2
C'\ ,I
co ul a ill u
mQ) N ul
.-< Ul .-< N "'" If) 1.0 r-- co ;::j ~
~ +JJ3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
.'QB N 0 co 0 .-< co r-- '0 0 M If) co +J;::j
up., N In M N r-- r-- r-- L") r-- "'" '" 0 '" i
:> ") :;1. , , , , , , , , , , , , D'rl
If) C"J r-- C'\ "'" N .-< 00 r-- '" "'" M p.,
0 8'ul .-< .-< .-< N M N If) co 5)..., "~
'rl P'<M
!-< 'rl Ul
8 ,><:'rl
Q) Ul ~
U g
'" ~@
;€ N ;€ M ;€ 1.0 r-- ;€ co ;€ ;€ ;€ 0'0
0 0 0 0 0
rl 0 r-- co r-- 0 ~J3
~ M C'\ r-- L") "'"
'rl 0 , , , , , ~&
H p.,U r" .-< N .-< r--
~ .-< .-< M
II &
~ .':3 ~ill
'rl Q)
'2 .j.J ~ ~.lt!
ul
D .rl ~ @ BB
e ~
.rl .j.J
:l:J ul Y
'rl H "' O1'rl
.~] ~ p.,a >.: e.-<
Ul ] "'~ ~ ~ 'rl 8-
~ g ti; .rl
"' III ~, 0
.j.J '" !-< ~ .':3 ~~ iiJ' ~ ~' ~ UllJ
~ -~ @' ] .-1
e .j.J e e C'l .-< <J "'':;1 P ui~
Ul ul Q) 'rl &.':3 Q) r., .-< C ~ ~ ~I
0 Ul -rl '0 Cll U 8 !-< '0 0 ;Qo ~,gj '"' ~w
'rl ~ ~ 'rl 8, 6'2 'rl ;(l ':;1~
.j.J ul ~l ;;::: ~ Ul .rl ! g~1 r:J
g & ,,' ~,'2 & ~D & Q) oJ;H ~ Ul Ulo..
9 g! G~ r7 & ;'C ;:i J2".
,gl::'> '-" <Z
~)
Ul " Q ~, tD
Jj . . . . . .
i'l "" N M "'" If) 1.0
Footnotes: Scenario V
* The amount of development in Snowmass Village proposed in this
scenario is based upon the BMML assumption that 70% of Snowrnass
skiers stay overnight in Sn=nass Village and that 15% of Snow-
mass Village's total overnight visitors ski elsewhere.
1. BMML Table 4.1-B \'linter peak 70% skier overnight guest rate with
Burnt Mountain
2. Ibid.
3. Projection based upon 10,670 pillows in 1982 (survey) + 660 approved
tourist pillows " + projection of 640
pillows during the next 9 years. Based upon the 1982 survey it is
estimated that there are approximately 3.97 pillows per tourist unit.
4. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office conversion factor of .91 tourists per
pillow. Aspen/pitkin Planning Office estimate.
5. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office estimate adapted from Truscot and
Eldert's "Pitkin Coun~ Planning Statistics" 1981. It is assumed
that the difference between Truscott and Eldert's total Pitkin Coun~
visitors and visitors in reported tourist units is approximately
equal to the number of visitors in non-reported tourist units.
6. Population projection by Aspen/Pi tkin Coun~ Planning Office based upon
annual growth rate of 115 new dwelling units per year, vacancy rate
of .05 and an average household size of 3.5.
7. Truscott and Eldert
8. Colorado State Division of Local Affairs medi1.U1l growth projection.
27
00
~.~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~iil If) N r- r- 0 '" 00 ... M N N ...
... ... r- OO ... r-1 N M 0 0 0
00 - - - - - - - - - -
~ 4~ N N If) N r-1 ~ r-1 r-1 M ...
r-1 r-1
g~
01
"; 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 r- 0 ... ... M
Ul:>: . . . . . . . . . . . .
r- o so: 0 0 '" If) If) 0 0 If) 0 0 ... ...
~ M r-1 N 00 00 '" '" 00 '" \.D 00 \.D
o\O~
00
.. ! .
(j) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0
:~ M N If) N '" r- N 0 If) ... \.D 0
r- N "'~ 0 ... r-1 r- .-j N U) 00
Ul - , If)- - - - -
\.D 00 If) r-1 r-1 N r-
(j) ~~
r-1 'M
+J giil
+J
''OJ
h
0
4-4 'Mr-1
0 ,><: 00
H "'j 0 0 r- 0 0 0 0 M 0 \.D \.D """
If) . . . . . . . . .
(j) ~ 0 0 0 L') If) 0 0 """ 0 '" If) \.D If)
00 r- '" r- r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 M r-1 'M r-
21 .
c:'""i o\OUl II
4-4 .iJ'
0 'M
so: ~ 0
0 ... ItS
:;::J :R(j) ~B
'M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'"Cl Ul+J 00 ... N '" '" \.D 0 """ 00 \.D 00 ... II tJ>
~, ... ~~ r-1 N ... r- '" \.D N '" ... '" If) 00
- - - - - - - - - - $.~
00 00 \.D M r-1 r-1 r-1 CO M .-j
& 000 r-1 r-1 '" &l:R
E-<~ Ul
i . E~
b o;,j 00
6 ~~ '"
'M
~ :;::J
~ ~ If) tJ>'M
U 5.'" so:r-1
M N 0 r-1 0 0 0 0 0 '" '" r- r- 'M a
2' . cvI . d d err M . . . . 'M 0
01;1 If) \.D '" M '" \.D r-
'M Ai rfl r- r-1 \.D r- r- r-1 r-1 ... r- N iillJ
'M
-'< 4-4 .8~
Ul OB
2' ,,"0 " ]~
:;::J
00 1tS,g]
'M 6 N ..
X ;::j~
~ r-1 '" """ L') \.D r- oo
:;::J$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :;::Jr-1
~~ 00 \.D ... 0 r-1 00 r- \.D 0 '" r-1 0
0 N 00 00 r- r- r- r- If) r- ... '" \.D '" pr-1
'" - - - - - - - - - - - - 'M
I 0 r-1 N '" ... '" r-1 eo r- ... M eo ",p;
'" 0..00 r-1 r-1 r-1 '" M N L') r- (j)
00 gfil 'M +J
'" ,><:00
r-1 Ul'M
~
,.. g
~ 8~ ~ '" ~ M ~ \.D r- ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ gal
r-1 0 0 0 0 0
0 \.D r- eo r- 0 O...-i-J
'M eo '" r- If) ...
'" 'M 0 - - - - -' ~~
~ p;u r-1 r-1 '" r-1 r-
r-1 r-1 M
f:l 112M
(~ 2l bItS
.. 's ./J .iJ' 'M (j)
:x: 00 ~;,j
'(j) so: P 'M ~ g B~
r-1 'M ./J 3
~' :is 00 b
'M E-< ." tJ>'M
E-< 'M '"Cl ~ p;o c:r-1
Ul P; (j) JJ .,,~ ;2 ! 'Ma
i .j.J g E-< 'M
." ItS Ul ci3~
-g '" '" ~ 1;10 ~ ~ ~
bg, '"Cl a .-j
so: .j.J ~ 2J ~ [ij~ r-1.j.J ~~ ~ u)~
00 00 (j) 'M &fl .-j so: ~
0 ~ 'M ; ~d Ul U 0 '" '"Cl 0 ~o ~~ ~~
'M ~ 'M 0 a ~'2 'M l{J ~~ ~~
+J co ~ !:: Co & 'M ~ 2
~ & 8, '2 & f)P (j) ~ ~
8 ~ :z; C~ ~'" ~ ~e1 ~ ~~
Ul ~p );::> ""
~I . . . . .
r-1 '" M ... If) \.D
Footnotes: Scenario VI
*
The aIDO\mt of development in Snowmass Village is based upon the
BMML assunption that 70% of Sl1OtIl1laSS skiers stay overnight in
Snowrnass Village and that 15% of Snowrnass Village's total over-
night visitors ski elsewhere. With the addition of Little Annie
these percentages are not reflected in the table, hONever, BMML's
development projections have been used.
1.
BMML Table 3.l-B Winter peak 70% skier overnight guest rate
2.
Ibid.
3.
Projection based upon 10,670 pillONS in 1982 (survey) + 660 approved
tourist pillONS ' + projection of 640 pillows
during the next 9 years. Based upon the 1982 survey it is estimated
that there are approximately 3.97 pillows per tourist unit.
4.
AspenjPitkin Planning Office conVersion factor of .81 tourists per
pinON.
5. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office estimate adapted from Truscott and Eldert' s
"Pitkin Connty Planning Statistics" 1981.. It is assumed that the
difference between Truscott and Eldert' s total Pitkin Connty visitors
and visitors in reported tourist units is approximately equal to the
number of visitors in non-reported tourist units.
6. Population projection by Aspen/Pitkin Connty Planning Office based
upon annual grONt:h rate of 115 new dwelling units per year, vacancy
rate of .05 and an average household size of 3.5.
~,_~,~."....,~~~~_~__-'-'"__'_'.,e
I
I-
I
I
i
,
I
,
,
i
,
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
,I
I
I
I
,
,
,
I
!
I
I
7. Truscott and Eldert
8. Colorado State Division of Local Affairs mediu:n grONth projection
9. BMML and Design workshop Inc., skier distribution and participation
rates adapted for this study.
,10. Aspen/Pitkin Connty Planning Office assumes that 'When Little Annie
comes on line the percentage of Snowmass skiers who ski in the
Aspen Hetro area will increase and the percentage of Aspen Metro skiers
who ski Snowmass will decrease.
29
-."i
,
Ul
~~
.r!
~<i3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 (V) (V) r- 0 0'0 OJ '" (V) r- (V) 0
.-10 If'l If'l r- OJ '" .-! N (V) 0 0 .-I
.s Jj - - - - - - - - - -
(V) (V) If'l {'oJ .-I 0 .-I N (V) If'l
o Q) .-I .-I .-I
8:;:
0
:R~
00:;: 0 0 If'l ,0 ' 0 0 0 r- 0 If'l N If'l
I' Be . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 0'0 If'l If'l 0 0 If'l 0 If'l (V) 0'0
o. (V) .-I N OJ 00 0'0, 0'0 00 0'0 If'l 00 cn
H ;,~
H
H
- Ul
H
H !
-
H
."" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13/ r- r- ,",' N 0'0 r- N 0 If'l 00 .-I 0'0
00' .-I N '" 0 '" .-I r- .-I '" '" N
..../.....rn '" Ul - - - - - -
/ ro ~.~ OJ 00 .-I .-I '" 0
~ .-I,
e gtil
.r!
.s
~ :R Ul
Ul ! 0 0 If'l 0 0 0 0 (V) 0 cn co If'l
If'l 0 . . . . . . . . . . . .
-g 0 0 0 If'l If'l ~ 0 '" 0 '" (0 0 If'l
i r- 0'0 r- .-I .-I .-I .-I .-I '" .-I '" r-
~
;'0 00 II
'H b'
0 -0-1
(3 U
~ '" ro
-j -0-1 ~a'
;g til$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r- 0 I' '" '" '" 0 '" 00 If'l '" '" II 0:>
'tl-l< '" ~] '" (V) '" I' N '" N '" '" r- '" (V)
-<: - - - - - - - - - - $-~
.-I .-I '" (V) .-I .-I .-I .-I (V) If'l
Q)H .-I .-I .-I N N &:R
:SQ) 0Ul
8f.<1 00
~~ bro
.c .0-1 Q)
b"" UJijO
(3 ro (V)
.0-1 Q) a'~
U]
11 U
ro ~ If'l 0:>.0-1
U e.-l
o:>~ 5. N 0 (V) 0 0 0 0 cn '" r- I' N '0-1 a
(V) . M . 0 0 M M . . . . . ."
e-l-' o "d If'l 0'0 .-I (V) N '" 0 til~
.0-1-1-' ""~ r- .-I '" I' I' .-I .-I '" r- M
!Q
.0-1 'j 'H .8~
~ OB
Ul
0:>'8 0\0 .~ e @
e ro 0
U .j Q.,
Ul ro,gj
'Q e N ..
riI 0 .-I N '" cn '" r- oo ~ ~
U$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :;:1.-1
N 0 00 0 .-I 00 r- '" 0 M en 00
0 N ~] If'l M N r- I' I' If'l I' '" '" 0 '" ::>.-1
'" - - - - - - - - - - - - '0-1
I If'l N I' 0'0 '" N .-I 00 r- '" '" (V) '~ ""
0'0 Q.,Ul .-I .-I .-I N (V) N If'l 00 Q)
OJ Rf.<1 ." -I-'
'" ~ Ul
.-I Ul -0-1
~
..
H
t;; ~-I-' ~ N ~ M ~ '" r- ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ o'tl
0 0 0 0 0 I
.-I ;:1~ 0 r- oo I' 0 ~$
0 (V) '" I' If'l '"
.0-1 ~8 - - - - - g~
8 N .-I N .-I r- ,
.-I .-I (V) II &l I
~ J!l blli ,I
Ul :1
'" Q) ''I
'2 -I-' b' ~,~
.. Ul i
H ::> .0-1 ; ~ a'~ i
~ e g
.0-1 -I-' I
'Q) :P Ul
.-I .0-1 ,8 I' '" 8';:1
~ is] ~ ] ,,"0 ~ ~
00 "'~ 8 -0-1 a ' ~
~ .0-1
'" (:( Ul tilE
~ J!l >< ~ ~
-I-' (;I ,~~ ] ~~ J!l ,-/ ~~ ~-I-' ~
-I-' C ~ @ ~ U)~ L~ ~
e Ul Ul .gj ~o .-I e gj~
0 Ul .0-1 Ul U 8 ;< 'tl 0 ro Q)
'" ~ ~ '0-1 8< 1 '2 '" ~ f.,! :>'tl d ~~
-I-' '" ~ e e c Ul ~~ '" ~ ~~ SJ
ro 0 &] ~.2 &] ~::> &] Q) 8 Ul
S ~ Eo-< ~ Ul g~ < Q) tlUl ~ ' ::i,gj,
,gj::> t5P':
Ul 0 Eo-<
'S . . . . .
p:n .-I N (V) '" If'l '"
"
..~.~,,"~,.), ",.,.".,",.,. .,
Footnotes: Scenario VI I
*
The arrount of developrrent in SJ1CM1ll1aSS Village is based upon the
BMML asswllption that 70%' of SI1ONI1\asS skiers stay overnight in
S~ss Village and_ that 15% of Sncwmass Village's total over-
night visitors ski elsewhel:'e.' With the addition of Little Annie
these percentages arc not reflected in the table, hcwever, B/o1ML's
developrrent projections have been used.
1.
BMML Table 3.1-B Winter :peak 70% skier overnight guest rate
Ibid.
2.
3.
Projection based upon 10,670 pillcws in 1982(surveY) + 660 approved
tourist pillcws '". ,..' ",,-:<-k,+ projection of 640 pillows
during the next 9 years.!3asea.--i.illOn' the 1982 survey it is estimated
that there are approximately .3.97 pillows per tourist unit.
Aspen/pitkin Planning Office conVersion factor of .81 tourists per
pillcw .
Aspen/Pi tkin P1iUIDing Office estimate adapted franTruscott and, Eldert ' s
"Pitkin COunty Planning Statistics" 1981.. It is assumed that the
difference between Trusoott and Eldert's total Pitkin COlIDty visitors
and visitors in reported tourist units is approximately equal to the
number of visitors in non-reported tourist lIDits.
4.
5.
6.
Population projection by Aspen/pi tkin COlIDty Planning Office based
upon annual grcwth rate of 115 new dwelling units per year, vacancy
rate of .05 am an average household size of 3.5.
7. Trusoott and Eldert
I
i
I
I
!
i
i
;
I
I
,I
I
i
I
!
I
B. COlorado State Division of Local Affa,irs rrediwn grcwth projection
9. BMML and Design Workshop Inc., skier distribution and participation
rates adapted for this study.
,10. AspenjPitkin County Planning Officeassurres that 'When Little Annie
corres on line the percentage of Sncwmass skiers who ski in the
Aspen Netro area will increase and the percentage of Aspen Metro skiers
who ski Snowmass will, decrease.
i,Oj
~
31
I
,
,
!
B. Transportation Constraints anCi Plans
The three most ~rtant caIp:)nents of our transportaHon system related to
our ability to bring tourists into the ccmuunity are the road network, our
parking and transit system, and the airport. Recent reports conoerning these
services indicate that during periods of peak usage various aspects of these
facilities are operating near or at capacity.
The key recent report regarding highway traffic is the "Traffic Forecasts Tech-
nical Memorandum" dated November 1981, produced by Centennial Engineering for
the Busway Feasibility Study. Two ~rtant conclusions of that study are as
follows:
1. The highest traffic volume on S.H. 82 will be experienCed along Castle
Creek Bridge and indicates the need to provide four traffic lanes on
this road to handle pre-1990 volumes.
2. The projected traffic volumes on Brush Creek Road indicate the need to
provide four traffic lanes on this road by the year 2000.
Clearly, the road segments identified represent those which are most heavily
impacted by oommutation among the bed base centers of Aspen and SnO\\tllass and the
four ski areas. The assl.mlptions of that traffic study do not co=espond to
those being used in this report (regarding ski capacities and utilization and
short term acCOlllIOCldations development). \ve are predicating our analysis on a
series of scenarios which, in certain cases, should reduce the peak traffic
volumes fran the worst case analysis of the busway study. In this respect, the
degree to which we are highway capacity constrained regarding future tourist
growth may actually be lessened by plarming for ,? ski areajbed base relation-
ship with an improved geographical balance Over what =rently exists. Never'":
theless, it should be recognized that there will always be a. certain, level of
migration among the ski areas which will have impacts upon our road network.
The busway report has provided the ccmuunity with the infonnation with which
to respond to the Carbondale-East Environmental Irrpact Statement, which is the
State Highway Department's most recent position concerning Highway 82. The
recommendations of the EIS, which was published in November, 1981, include the
following proposals: Improvement of S.H. 82 to a four lane from Carbondale
to Wingo J1.lllction; the development of a Basalt by-pass; the continuation of the
safety improvements program; and the delay on any decision regarding the road
fran Wingo J1.lllction to Aspen pending the results of the Busway Feasibility Study.
The Co1.lllty responded to the final EIS with the following comments:
1. Highway safety improvements from the terminus of the existing four lane
to Aspen should be the highest priority construction item for S.H. 82.
2. The four lane extension should not occur until after the safety improve-
ments are CCllr[)leted and should be prioritized based on where existing
capacities are highest, Le., from the Aspen area and then northward.
----.:....n__
3. The reconmended four lane alternative is premised on an incorrect assl.mlp-
lion regarding traffic volumes; if the correct assl.mlption, taken from
the Busway Feasibility Study, is errployed, the improved two lane is
adequate downvalley.
4. The no-build reconmendation from Wingo Junction to Aspen should be
re-evaluated in light of the findings of the Busway Feasibility Study.
The existing tr2lnSpbrtatiOI1 network and the 1tlaJoX transportation changes which
are currently under consideration are depicted on Figures 3 and 4. These
include the "one-way pair" option for highway-busway development fran Aspen to
Maroon Creek Bridge, the extension of the busway to the aiport, the relocation of
of Highway 82 in the vicinity of the :hii'iWay 'extension and the relocation of
Highway ~~_~st.o!i:he, airport. '
--<---..- ,~",,,,.,_,,,,'.'--~--'-_.
The airport constraint is of a very different nature than is the highway
limit. The 1981 Airport Master Plan Update, ,prepared by CHzM Hill indicates
that we are =rently quite limited in our ability to increase tourist visitation
without either (a) expanding the terminal capacity and extending and widening
the nmway, and/or (b) increasing the usage of the airflOrt during off peak
periods. sinoe the analysis of this t<:JlJI'ist as~;tio~s study is predieated
;, ..",~~,~---'--. "J~.,~~~~~~~_~~"~:'_?:~~ ~"-~~~-.~":,::c- ~~~::~~~'
32
~..,~o~
~ "'?
...~.'^"
c:i
z
>-
<(
s:
:r
(:l
:r
",,,,'f.-
~c,\'o
00
li'p.\'o
o
o
<:(
0:
o
-i
8
..~
^'.':~~';'''';,......~-~:
//
/
/
/
/
/
<(
\
\
WHITE
RIVER
NATIONAL
FOREST
@)
o 2000
I
SCALE IN FEET
\
\
Figure 3
\
\
\
Existing J<16tro Area Transportation
Ne~rk '
33
,
A
~..,~ 0",< ~~~
~~ A"
...~
,
,
/
,
,
/
/
/'
\'
@
o 2000
I
SCALE IN FEET
D14Q08.CO
WHITE
RIVER
NATIONAL
FOREST
\
\
\
\
Figure 4
-~~-~ ()r)e-Way "air Option
,j/...~'-! Runway Extension
.~~~~
.......
i":~j":-,::'~L\':C<t
Highway 82 lielocations
Busway-"Airport segment
34
.,jj,A
6n our peak conditions, it becanes clear that if we are to increase the per_
centage of our tourists who arrive by air in the winter fran the 28% level of
the 1970' s to the 40% level anticipated in the 1980' s we must increase the
capacity of our facilities.
Recently, the BoaJ;d of County Canmissioners J9entified the following as airport
oonstruction priorities:
1.. widen the nmway by 20 feet, extend it by 1000 feet to the south and
resurface it.
2. Develop a parallel taxiway, exit taxiway and general aviation ramp
expansion.
3. Relocate the nmway lights and add security fencing.
4. Study the design requirements to l110ve the road and bridge facilities to
the new bus .maintenance facility.
5. Study the need for terminal expansions.
6. Develop a general aviation tenninal and storage hangars with private filllds.
7. Study the expansion of the runway by 500 feet to the north, including the
appropriate approach to the relocation of the highway.
The timing attached to these priorities becanes critical in relation to the
anticipated increase in our ski capaci,ty and any increased visitation which
will result frcm therise in capacity. Due to current uncertainties regarding
the Federal ADAP grant status, it seems that the key improvements will be
delayed until at least 1983 or beyond which may constrain ow growth in tourist
visitation for the short tenn.
The last aspect of our transportation system which d.irectiy:r<=i';'t;;,~ to our
tourist acccmnodation is the transit and parking system. Our transit system
serving the major tourist centers includes Rubey Park, the hub of the sytem, aI1d
the Aspen free shuttle routes to Aspen Highlands, Snowmass and within the City
of Aspen. Aspen Highlands also runs buses out to its ski area which supplement
the City buses during the day. There are no major parking facilities in the
Aspen Metro Area other than those at the base of the Highlands and Butte:r:milk
Ski Areas and the Rio Grande parking lot. Most parking =nsists of on-street
spaces and those directly provided by major =ndaminium and lodge operations
for use by their guests.
"""""--~"""""""~"""~:..'."_':c..._..::..o::~~.;;
The major plan regarding parking facilities is the proposed Rio Grande parking
structure and the shuttle bus service which would oonnect this facility to
Rubey Park. Given the severe constraints for on-street parking and likelihood
that additional parking will probably only be provided as part of a major
lodge canplex, the need for this structure becaues a primaJ:y =nstraint to our
ultimate tourist acccmnoc1ations development. This constraint is particularly
evident in =nsidering any additional growth in the areas where non=nforming
lodges predaninate, since these neighborhoods are particularly sensitive to
parking pressures and yet have nO~:3pace available for providing additional
parking.
_'~""'~'~'e"___,"__ .". ._^"'_'__~_"__
C. Water and ~ Gonsti:aints, and, Plans
The ability of any camrunity to. provide water and Se>va' services to meet the
demands of new development can typically fOl:m the =merstone of a program to
manage the rate at which the carrmunity grows. In the case of Aspen and Pitkin
County these two basic services provide important inSights into the overall
rationale for growth management in the community.
Our capacity to meet the demand for new sewer service is the =nstraint IlOst
directly related to our ability to grow in the near future. The 1975 Aspen/
Snowmass 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan indicated that by providing 3.0 million
gallons per day (,MGDl in capacity at the Aspen Metro Sanitation District (AMSD)
plant, we should be able to accomm::x:1ate growth through 1990. This improvement
was made to the system during the 1970 's but has not proven to last anywhere near
as long as was anticipated. In fact, during the 1980-81 winter season, the AMSD
plant was running at a peak capacity of 2.9 MGO. The District anticipates
increasing the capacity of the plant to 3.2 MGD this spring and to 4.0 MGD by mid-
decade, at a =st estimated at ~2 million, to be bome totally by local users.
35
While the District has formulated plans to serve i:dgrowing population, it is
also hoping to be able to d",lay their :iraplementation as long as possible. This
desire results fran the fact that the expansion will have to be borne totally
by local mmies and due to the realization that this expansion may be the last
relatively s:iraple and inexpensive capacity increase available to the present
system. '[he basic alte:rnative$ ava.ilal:>~e to the District beyond the 4.0 MGD
capacity of the plant at th", Airport BUsiness Cen,~~~_as .!()l,l,ows:
1.. Re-open the Aspen sanitation District plant off Mill Street for use as a
flow equalization facility (i.e., a holding basin)pennitting the AMSD plant
to operate an an effective 24 ,hour per day capacity of 5.0 MGD. It is
anticipated that this alternative would not produce the same odor problems
as the operation of the prior facility at this location, but still may
be objectionable to resiclents in this vicinity.
2. Construct a new regional facility downstream from the existing plant to
treat the flows fran both the Aspen and Snowmass areas. This alternative
is expected to be very cbstly and would entail land purchase and an
uncertain environmental :irapact at a yet unknown location.
In surmnary, our lim:ited wastewater treatment capacity requires that we take a
conservative approach to this service, both in terms of conservation of water so
as to reduce our existing rate of wastewater generation , and a managed growth
policy to lim:it the rate at which we deplete available capacity. Therefore,
it becanes necessary to view the potential for increased tourist accorrm::x1ations
as just one of a number of growth sectors cc:rnpeting for a share of a limited
total pie. The community therefore must make choices as ,to which of its
priorities wHl receive what share of the total, ineludillg the need to meet our
errployee housing shortfall, the need for various institutional facilities (bus
maintenance, jail, performing arts etc.) and the desire to provide opportunities
for eoonornic develor:ment to sUJ?pOrt a year round tourist econCX'l\Y. If the cem-
munity's growth management policy is to be an effective tool, it must balance among
these cc:rnpeting needs, and establish appropriate rates of growth, acoording to
'priorities, which can be accanmodated within the sewage treatment lim:itationsand
which maintains the high quality of life to which the community is accustomed.
Our ability to provide water supply is not as directly related to growth oon-
straints as is the sewage treatment lim:itation. Our current water treatment
capacity is in the range of 7' to 8 MGD, while our peak usage last surrmer was
6.5 MGD. However, our Water Management Plan proposed the addition of capacity
to either 12.0 or 16.0 MGD. Adclitionally, we only have available at this time 5.0
MGD of raw water storage capacity and about 5.5 MGD of treated water storage
capacity. '[he Water Management Plan recc:mnends that 3.5 MGD in treated water
storage capacity be added in the near future.
since we have a run-of-the-riyer type of intake (rather than a lake or reser-
voir) this level of storage subjects us to the vagaries of nature regarding a
drought. In the most extreme recorded drought, only 1.. 95 MGD were available
at our intake. It can easily be seen that during drought conditions the com-
munity would, in just 3-4 days, deplete its available storage and be unable
to replenish that water. We would not only be subject to strict rationing
requirements in this event, but would also be extremely vulnerable to a fire
should one occur.
While the water storage capacity of the comnunity is not directly related to
our ability to accanmodate additional tourists, it is also reasonable to
believe that as we , grow, the gap between our peak water demand and the minimum
amount of water available during a drought will increase. Therefore, while
water conservation and, growth rate limitations do playa role in prolonging
our ability to supply treated water, neither technique will bring us within
our available capacities. This issue should be addressed independent of the
growth-related ooncerns, including planning for the need for impoundments.
D. S~ '
We believe that, a close, examination of the above discussion leads one to the oon-
. elusion that our ability to provide wast."water treatment capacity is the mJst
significant lim:it on our irrunediate growth Potential. We also find that the
capacity of the airport is currently limiting our ability to effectively trans-
port tourists into the ccmnunity, both due to operational lim:its (the weather,
a natural lim:it to flights which cannot at this time be superceded by availa-
ble teclmology and the SaturdaY;'Wednesday peak booKings which prevent optional
utilizat.;nn. Qf ,Qur facilities) and to facility constraintS.JJ:l1!lway ler'lgth and
36
width; terminal capacity). our road network, while no~ limiting the ~rival of
tourists into the ccmnunity, does impact t\POn the quahty of, the tOurlst
experience. Plans are being formulated to improve the capaclty of key road
segment~, while changes in the ccmnutation between Aspen and Snowmass ~ue to
buildQut of tourist units in these areas could fu:t:1:l:l~rE'rluoe tJ:1e magmtude
of this problelU:- Parking availabil~ty and transi~ service with~ ~pen also
impact t\POn the quality of our tourlst acccmnodations and oW; <;ililhty to ,
grow. Finally, we conclude that while we have an adquate ablhty to treat
our water supply, we do not have sufficient trea~~ and raw water sto:-age
capacity to effectively withstand a dr,?ughtoondlt;-a:. ~erefore, while we
can continue to grow in the faoe of this st,?rage lmtatlOn, we do so at the
risk of encountering a drought and a potential water shortage.
V. The Implications of Skiing Soenarios and Service Constraints Upon
the Future of Our Short-term Aceornrrodations
A.. Introduction
Previous sections of this report have identified a series of scenarios for
skiing capacity, skiing utilization and tourist commutation between Aspen
and Snowmass. Each of these scenarios have implications upon the future of
our short-term acoornrrodations, based on the relationship for which we
choose to plan among these variables. Furthennore, the section of this
report describing service oonstraints to growth described the rationale for
a continuing need to manage the rate at which we grow, based on water, sewer
and transportation limitations and the oommunity's quality of life goals.
The purpose of this section of the report is to identify the scenario or
scenarios which are most consistent with the comnunity's growth management
policies and to describe a series of actions the community should consider
which will help to achieve the adopted policies.
B. A Growth Management Oriented Scenario
The Growth Management policy Plan establishes the following as the priori ties
for ski area expansion in the communi ty:
1. to add capacity to existing areas without any demand on community servioes
2. to develop new areas which are accanpanied by minimal or no real estate
development
3. to develop ski areas which envision substantial support systems
As the previously described soenarios indicate, there are no ski expansions
=rently facing the community which fall under the top priority. Our
scenarios indicate that Little Annie will not be acoompanied by substantial
lodging and other support developmen'!; in the Aspen Metropolitan area to
achieve i;t$ neoessary visitation, and therefoJ;'e approximates the middle
priority for ski area expansions. Finally, our scenarios indicate that
Burnt Mountain will require substantial support development ( that is, BMML's
indication that development of Burnt Mountain neoessitates.an East Village)
to justify its visitation needs and will have a major impact on the community's
balance in skiing versus acoonm:Xlations, and therefore falls wi thin the lowest
priori ty for ski expansion in the communi ty .
On the basis of this analysis, a growth management oriented soenario for skiing
expansion based on our adopted GMP 'WOuld find alternatives involving no ski
expansion or Little Annie only ski expansion to be preferred to a Burnt Mountain
expansion due to the develq::ment impacts associated with Burnt Mountain. We
recognize that the Little Annie application has received a certain level of
politiCal approval at this point and now faces resolution of technical issues
prior to obtaining its final pennit. Therefore, we believe that the scenario
for which it is most appropriate to plan for the near term is number four,
which includes Phase I of Little Annie during this decade.
C. Actions to Maintain a Skiing Area-Tourist Ac=rnodations Balance
The analysis of existing conditions in the Aspen Metropolitan area and the
J31.1ML analysis of SnOtlIllass shew a current situation of balanoe between skiing
capacity, skiing utilization and tourist accommodations. , FurthECrmore",' we
-.-_~--_._. ,-,------. ,._---~-',..-,-.. -.'-,.-',-',"'---. ""-- .. .. ....." .....
37
believe that there is a comni tInent in the corrmuni ty to aquali ty of life
experience for residents and tourists, including ski quality and envir<;>nmental
quality based on adopted policies. Therefore, our con<;cpt of balance ~s
predicated on the need for a moder<;>te leve~ <;>f growth ~n short-term, accol1'llO-
dations which will keep the oorrmmnty's ab~lity to accommodate ~ur~sts,
somewhat belav or nearly equal to our skiing capacity. Appropnate actions
consistent with this concept include the follaving:
Future short-term accorrmodations in the metro area should be confin~ to
the existing locations of these facilities and are~ zoned for to:rr7s~
accommodations which are vacant or not yet fully bmlt out. The ~mtial
GMP indicated that in the Ci ty' s lodging zones, this buildout potential
approximates 325 units. We can expect additional buildout at va::-ious
other locations which will also add to our short-term accommodations
base, including a buildout potential at the Highlarids base area for an
additional 800 units, the expansion of the Hotel Jerome and the proposed
use of the Aspen Institute. We do not believe that a need exists
for a substantial rezoning to meet the short-term accornrodation
needs of the corrmuni ty .
VI.
1.
2.
The existing mix of short-term accorrmodations, including multi-family
condominiums, large hotels, small lodges and single family and duplex
houses should be supported so as to provide a variety of quality, cost
and locational opportunities for the visitor. Since the component of
this mix which is most threatened by oompeting development pressures
is the small non-conforming lodge, it is essential that incentives be
provided to preserve and improve these facilities. In so far as
previous efforts to attain this objective have not been successful
since they have provided no expansion potential to these facilities,
this position must be rethought. We propose to analyze the existing
buildout and future potential of these facilities and to formulate a
program to encourage rehabilitation of these facilities, including
permitting small increases in the size of these lodges which are
compatible with their neighborhood.
3.
The City lodge quota should be revised to a level which is corrmensurate
with the ability of the private sector to justify incremental expansions
of existing lodges and developrrent of entirely new lodges. The quota
should not be excessive since we do not have an extreme need for new
units at this tirre. The quota system should provide incentives for
the redevelopment of existing units to improve their quality and
locational status. The County should adoji>t a lodge quota system due
to the potential buildout of 800 units at the base of the Highlands
ski area which would seriously imbalance the metropolitan area skiing
capacity-bed base situation.
Conclusions
1.
The Aspen and pitkin County Short-term Acconm::>dations Report is the
first study since 1975 that is based uPon a comprehensive inventory
of the Aspen Metropolitan area's short-term accommodations.
2.
The major findings of the short-term accornrodations survey include:
- 2,740 dwelling units and 10,670 pillows are reported available for short-
tem accornrodations in the Aspen Metropolitan area.
- The Core, East End arid Shadow M:>untain areas account for 79 percent
of the reported short-term pillows.
- Eighty-seven percent of the short-term pillows are located wi thin
the Aspen City, limits with the remainder in unincorporated Pi tkin
County .
- Twenty-seven percent of all the reported pillows in the Aspen Metro-
politan area are located in non-conforming uses. The Highway 82
oorridor and Shadow M:>untain neighborhood have the greatest number
of non-conforming pillows of the ten designated short-tem accomro-
dations areas.
3. ']'he Planning Office developed a !lOdel for this study that develops re-
lationships between daily skiing capacity and short-tem acoommodations.
The major results of the model include:
38
--_."~~.---_. ~-~----,--~
- Based upon the U.S.F.S. rated daily capacity of Pitkin County's
four skiing mountains of 21,500 skiers and a peak skiing day
utilization of approximately 17,100, the existing peak day
utilization to capacity ratio of pitkin County's skiing mountains
is .80. This indicates that at this time the Pitkin County
skiing capacity is sorrewhat larger than skiing area utilization.
- The existing ratio between reported tourist pillows in the Aspen
Metropolitan area and the Aspen Metropolitan area's U.S.F.S.
skiing capacity is .93 (10,670 : 71,500).
- Presently, on a peak day, approximately 3,300 tourists lodged in
Aspen commute to Snowmass to ski and approximately 1,000 tourists
lodged in Smwmass commute to the Aspen Metropolitan area to ski.
4. The Report oonsiders six future development scenarios. The scenarios
consider the relationship between short-term accorrrrodations in the
1984-85 and 1989-90 ski seasons based upon the following alternatives:
- Skiing capacity does not increase
- Little Annie Phase I adds an additional 4,500 skiing capacity to
total capacity
- Burnt r-buntain adds an additional 4,200 skiing capacity to total
capacity
The combination of Burnt r-buntain and Little Annie increases
County skiing capaci ty by 8, 700
5. Each of the future development soenarios has different implications
for the Aspen Metropolitan area's short-term accomrrodations base.
6. The transportation network, parking and the water and sewer systems
are the major services which oonstrain the growth of the short-term
acoormodations base. The following oonclusions relating to these
servioes can be made:
- Although the volurre of traffic generated by our short-term accormo--
dapons may eventually be oonstrained by the capacity of Highway 82
and Brush Creek Road, planning for geographical balanoe between
short-term accommodations in the Aspen Metropolitan area and Snow-
mass Village could alleviate pressure on Highway 82 and Brush Creek
Road.
- The need for a parking structure in the City of Aspen will become
a primary oonstraint to our ultimate amount of short-term tourist
accorrrrodations. This constraint is particularly evident in oon-
sidering any addi tional grCM'th in areas in which non-oonforming
lodges predominate.
- pitkin County is limited in its ability to increase tourist visita-
tion via the airport without (a) expanding the terminal capacity
and extending and widening the runway and/or (b) increasing the
usage of the airport during off-peak periods.
The ability to provide wastewater treatment capacity is the most
significant limit on our immediate grCM'th potential. The City and
County must carefully manage growth and oonserve water to reduoe
our existing rate of wastewater generation so we do not deplete
the very limited excess capacity that the Aspen Metropolitan
Wastewater :Plant presently has available.
- The City and County has the ability to treat raw water; hONever,
there is not a sufficient raw and treated water storage capacity
to effectively withstand a prolonged drought. Although the short-
term ac=nmodations sector can oontinue to grON in the face of
this storage limitation, it will docso atthe'risk',oD thecorrmunity
encountering a drought and a potential water shortage.
39
'i(
, "
7. Based upon an analysis of the effects of the six proposed future develop-
ment scenarios and the adopted Growth Management Policy Plan's priori ties
for ski area expansion. The Planning Office has concluded that the alterna-
tives which are nost oonsistent with our adopted policies would be those
that expand ski capacitY without mpacting the canmunty's development
pattern. Therefore, the scenarios indicating no ski expansion or Little
Annie expansion only are preferable to those inCluding a Burnt Mountain
expansion.
Our analysis ~hows an existing bal<;mce between skiing capac~ty <;md skiing
utilization and tourist accoum:xl.ations. In an effort to mamtain the
present existing balance the Planning Office perceives a need f,?r ~ rrod~':lte
level of growth in short-term accc:mnodations to keep the <;x?ITmumty :;> ablhty
to aCcarmodate tourists scmewhat below or equal to our sklmg capaclty.
Appropriate actions consistent with this ooncept may include the following:
8.
- Future short-term ae<;:ormodations in the metro area should be confined to
the existing locations of these facilities and areas zoned for tourist
acoomrodations which are vacant or not yet fully built out. The initial
GMP indicated that in the Ci ty' s lodging zones, this buildout potential
approxinates 325 units. We can expect additional buildout at va7'ious
other locations which will also add to our short-tem accornrrodations
base, including a btp,ldout potential at the Highlands base area for an
additional 800 units, the expansion of the Hotel Jerome and the proposed
w;;e of the Aspen Institute. We do not believe that a. need exists
for a substantial rezoning to rreet the short-term accomnodation
needs of the Communi ty .
- The existing mix of short-term aCCOrnrrodations, including multi-family
condominiums, large hotels, small lodges and single family and duplex
houses should be supported so as to provide a variety of quality, cost
and locational opportunities for the visitor. Since the COnponent of
this mix which is most threatened by =<pating development press\Jres
is the small non-conforming lodge, it is essential that incentives be
provided to preserve and irrprove these facili ties. In so far as
previous efforts to attain this objective have not been successful
since they have provided no expansion potential to these faci li ties,
this position must be rethought. He propose to analyze the existing
buildout and future potential of these facilities and to fomulate a
program to encourage rehabili tation of these facilities, including
permitting small increases in the size of these lodges which are
oonpatible with their neighborhood.
II - The City lodge quota should be revised to a level which is OOm:rensurate
with the ability of the private sector to justify increrrental expansions
of existing lodges and development of entirely new lodges. The quota
should not be excessive since we do not have an extrerre need for new
uni ts at this tiTre. The quota system should provide incentives for
the redevelopment of existing units to inprove their quality and
locational status. The County should adopt a lodge quota system due
to the potential buildout of ,,800 units at the base of the Highlands
ski area which would seriously imbalance the metropolitan area skiing
capacity-bed base situation.
40