The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.regular.20031215CITY COUNCIL AGENDA December i5, 2003 5:00 P.M. I) Call to Order II) Roll Call III) Scheduled Public Appearances IV) Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) v) Special Orders of the Day a) Mayor's Comments b) Councilmembers' Comments c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #116, 2003 - Support Continuation of Emissions Testing VII) First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #64, 2003 - 134 West Hopkins Historic Lot Split Public Hearings a) Resolution #98 b) Ordinance #61 c) Ordinance #62 d) Ordinance #63 e) Ordinance #22 f) Ordinance #21 2003 - Burlingame Ranch COWOP Recommedation 2003 - Little Red Ski Haus Timeshare 2003 - Supplemental Appropriations 2003 - 2004 Fees 2003 - Little Ajax Annexation - Discontinue Public Hearing 2003 - Little Ajax Subdivision/PUD - Discontinue Public Hearing Action Items a) Request for Funds- Winterskol Taste of Aspen b) Request for Funds - Aspen Valley Ski & Snowboard Club X) Adjournment Next Regular Meeting January 12, 2004 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. TO: FROM: THRU: THRU: DATE: RE: Mayor and Council Lee Cassin ~fttc( Julie Ann Woods Steve Barwick December 5, 2003 Council Position on Pitkin County's Discontinuing Auto Emissions Program SUMMARY: This memo provides information for Council on the County's vehicle emissions inspection program, which the Commissioners will discuss terminating at a December 17 public hearing. The attached resolution urges the Board of County Commissioners to continue the program and to determine ambient carbon monoxide levels before deciding whether any changes should be made to the program. Council requested a copy of the County staff paper on this issue. This Agenda Item Summary is still being revised and will not be available until 4 pm Thursday, at which time I will put a copy in Council members' boxes. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: When the Board of County Commissioners was considering adoption of the vehicle emissions inspection program in 1988. the City Council passed a resolution urging the BOCC to adopt the program. The Council viewed the program as a proactive way to protect Aspen's air quality and prevent a non-attainment designation for Aspen for carbon monoxide. (Since the County. not the City, registers vehicles, the County needed to run the program.) BACKGROUND: Carbon monoxide has been monitored in Aspen and Pitkin County for only a few months, in the late 1970's and early 1980s. In that brief time, carbon monoxide levels reached the federal health standard. Staff time to operate the monitor was the main limiting factor in continuing, although the equipment is also expensive, and finding a publicly owned Main Street location for a monitor is difficult. (There may be some mis-perception that long- term monitoring for carbon monoxide has been done and that standards were never close to being exceeded.) This section includes information about the effectiveness of the Automobile Inspection and Readjustment (AIR) Program for Council's consideration. The purpose of the program is to reduce motor vehicle related pollution through emissions-related repair of excessively polluting vehicles. · The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) estimates that 86% of Denver's carbon monoxide pollution comes from automobiles. The percentage is likely to be higher in Pitkin County because other minor sources do not exist here. · It is estimated that the dirtiest 20 % of vehicles cause 80 % of the carbon monoxide pollution from cars. The intent of the AIR program is to identify those vehicles and have them adjusted and/or repaired. · The average car that fails its initial test, then is adjusted or repaired to pass, has its carbon monoxide levels reduced 84 %. · The average car that fails its initial test, then is adjusted or repaired to pass, has its hydrocarbon emissions lowered 76 %. · 12 % of cars fail the initial {est. 88 % pass the initial test. This 12 % of failing vehicles are the badly out-of-adjustment vehicles responsible for most of the carbon monoxide pollution. · Tests are required every two years for 1982 and newer vehicles. Brand new vehicles are exempt for their first five years. · The State Health Department's best estimate is that a 16% improvement in carbon monoxide levels results from the AIR program. They believe the effectiveness would be very similar in Pitkin County. · RFTA voluntarily tests its buses with an opacity meter purchased for that purpose. There is an incorrect perception, even among some staff, that buses are not tested. · CDOT's origin and destination study showed that 74 % of the vehicle trips coming into Aspen originated within the inspection program. However, this survey did not determine the original start of that vehicle's travel for the day. This is the only such study that exists, so provides the best available information. (The perception that "most vehicles coming into Aspen are from far away where they don't have to get tested" is at least partly "perception". Much vehicle pollution and many trips are "locals" doing trips between the AABC and Aspen, Snowmass Village and Aspen, schools and town, hospital and town, etc.) This is the only large and accurate study staff is aware of that really determined, instead of surmising, where trips originate. · It would be possible to require out-of-area commuters to be tested as well, but the BOCC chose not to impose that requirement on commuters. So this feature of Pitkin County's program is not a fault of the emissions program, but an optional provision. However, there appears to be a perception that out-of-area commuters cannot be included. In any case, significant improvements in emissions from a large segment of the vehicle population have a beneficial air quality impact. · The City Transportation and Parking Department requires an emissions test of anyone seeking a residential parking permit. This adds an estimated 500-6Q0 vehicles each year that get emissions tests that are not required by the County. · When the County Clerk's Office receives complaints abOut the emissions test program, a survey form is available for citizens to note their complaints. While no one is considering this a scientific measure of the percentage of people who support the program because it is not a random survey, there may not be any other information about current support for the program. Surveys done previously to survey everyone who was tested showed the following: 87% 74% 70% 62% "The most common wait time for a test is 10 minutes, 76% feel the time needed for a test is good, feel customer service is good, feel convenience is good, were able to get quick, accurate answers to their questions, believe the program is effective in reducing carbon monoxide levels, and o 64 % believe the program should be continued." o When everyone was surveyed, the responses were very different depending on whether they obtained their survey in the Environmental Health Department, Clerk's Office, or an emissions test station! · While newer vehicles are cleaner than older ones, when their catalytic converters or other system components fail, they are still likely to become "gross polluters". The program identifies only grossly polluting cars for required adjustments or repairs. These vehicles still exist. Certainly today's cars are cleaner than cars were 15 years ago and this is a legitimate reason t.o consider ending emissions testing..On the other hand, whether that improvement is greater or less than the increase in vehicle miles traveled is not known. The balance can be known only by monitoring carbon monoxide levels. · It is likely that the average car driven in Pitkin County is newer than the average car driven statewide, which would reduce overall vehicle emissions in Pitkin County. On the other hand, at high altitude, vehicles pollute more than at lower altitudes. Which is the dominant factor is not known. · The County Clerk's Office receives funding for their time to administer the program. The County Environmental Health Department does not. · The Front Range may implement a combined program using the current vehicle inspection program for cars that are not identified as "clean" when driving by a remote sensing van. The remote system is prohibitively expensive for Pitkin County, although it may be possible to borrow one from the state periodically. The Denver area is not considering eliminating emissions inspections. · Issues discussed at the County level regarding this program are the fact that the County ]Environmental Health Department lost one position and believes it needs to focus its limited time on other issues such as revising the sewage disposal regulations (While the emissions program does not take a lot of their time, it does take some time) and the perception that buses and commuters are not tested. · Significant vehicle concentrations occur not just in Aspen, but also in Snowmass Village, Airport Business Center and Buttermilk areas. So requiring testing only of Aspen vehicles would not be appropriate. And emissions programs throughout the country are done only via vehicle registrations, since that provides the only practical method of ensuring emissions tests occur. In addition, the vehicle population in Aspen alone is not sufficient to allow enough emissions test stations to operate. DISCUSSION: Staff would recommend some alternatives for Commissioners' consideration: · It would be very useful for the County to know what carbon monoxide levels are before discontinuing the program. The County could, as it has done before, borrow a monitor from the CDPHE and operate it for one winter to determine whether carbon monoxide levels are above or close to federal standards. It would seem prudent to know that before discontinuing or modifying the program. This is especially important given the fact that the only very limited monitoring ever done showed the federal carbon monoxide standard had been reached. · The City Environmental Health Department would argue that the "hassle" of a test every two years (less for new cars) is a reasonable price for citizens to pay for the pollution vehicles cause, and that in order to protect Pitkin County's environment and air quality, this program should continue at least unless the County determines that carbon monoxide levels have dropped significantly. · As an alternative to dropping the program, the County could consider modifications to the program to make it less time-consuming for County Environmental Health to administer. These could include different inspection frequendies, simplifying issuance of waivers, extending the new car exemption, and/or eliminating equipment inspections, as examples. · If it desired to maintain the same air quality protection, the County could also achiev~ the same carbon monoxide reductions by other measures if it chose to replace the emissions program with equally effective air pollution reduction programs. Examples would include charging for parking in metro areas of the County, HOV incentives, increased bus service, etc. The County could choose the least costly and most acceptable method of maintaining lower carbon monoxide levels. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications to the City of Aspen. However, if Pitkin County and Aspen became a non-attainment area for carbon monoxide, significant costs would be incurred. RECOMMENDATION: The Aspen Environmental Health Department recommends the Aspen City Council urge the Board of County Commissioners to determine carbon monoxide levels before making a decision about changing the inspection program. Given the significant reduction in carbon monoxide pollution, the small cost and inconvenience to motorists, Aspen and Pitkin County's longstanding commitment to environmental excellence, and the small amount of time required to administer the program, the residents of Aspen would benefit if the County can find a way to continue the program. ALTERNATIVES: Council could take no action, ask the County to continue the program as is, ask the County to determine carbon monoxide levels before changing the program, or ask the County to consider modifications to the program. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. I } ~ Series of 2003, urging the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners to continue the vehicle emissions test program in Pitkin County. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RESOLUTION NO. 11{~ (Series of 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO URGING THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO CONTINUE THE COUNTY VEHICLE ]EMISSIONS INSPECTION PROGRAM. WHEREAS, Pitkin County and the City of Aspen have always taken a proactive approach to protecting the enwronment and air quality of our communities; WHEREAS, very limited monitoring of carbon monoxide levels in Pi(kin County and the City of Aspen showed carbon monoxide levels reaching the federal health standard; WHEREAS, carbon monoxide affects human health by depriving the body of oxygen, which can be life-threatening to people with heart or lung disease, and since the effects of carbon monoxide on human health may be exacerbated by high altitude; WHEREAS, the Colorado Deparunent o f Public Health and Enviroument estimates that at least 86% of Pitkin County and Aspen's carbon monoxide comes from automobiles; WHEREAS, it is estimated that 20% of the vehicles are responsible for 80% of the vehicle carbon monoxide pollution, and the vehicle emissions inspection program identifies those excessively polluting cars and requires them to be repaired or readjusted; WHEREAS, vehicles that fail their initial test and then are repaired to pass the re-test, their average carbon monoxide emissions are lowered 84%; WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment estimates that the vehicle inspection program on the Front Range results in a 16% ~mprovement in ambient carbon monoxide levels, an effectiveness that they consider would be similar to that achieved in Aspen and Pitkin County; WHEREAS, new vehicles, while less-polluting initially, also experience equipment failures and then become high-polluting vehicles, and Pitkin County has a very high number of vehicle miles traveled; WHEREAS, an emissions inspection program would be infeasible if not enforced through vehicle registrations and whereas an Aspen-oniy program would be too small to generate enough business to maintain enough testing stations, so and Aspen-only inspection program could not be implemented; WHEREAS, the burden on citizens is small and reasonable, and a small price for drivers to pay to reduce their vehicle emissions and for maintaining clean and healthy air; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado requests the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County continue the county vehicle emissions inspection program as a highly effective way to lower carbon monoxide levels and protect the public health of our citizens and visitors. The Aspen City Council further requests the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners consider modifications to improve or strengthen the program, and to implement a carbon monoxide monitoring program before making any changes that would reduce the scope of the program. RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15m day of December, 2003, by the City Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held December 15, 2003. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk TO: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: VI! MEMORANDUM Mayor Klanderud and City Council Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director Amy Guthri~, Historic Preservation Officer 134 and 134 ½ W. Hopkins Avenue- Historic Landmark Lot Split, First Reading of Ordinance # ~Ot{, Series of 2003 December 15, 2003 SUMMARY: This 6,000 square foot property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" and contains two miner's cottages. In 1989, the house located on Lot K was rehabbed and modestly expanded. The house on Lot L was moved onto the property from a s~te on Spring Street and expanded with a small addition. Ownership of the two homes was separated through a condominium plat. With the adoption of the nexv historic preservation ordinance, the owners of these properties now have the ability to apply for a Historic Landmark Lot Split. in order to change their circumstance to fee simple ownership. No development or alterations of any kind are planned as part of this project. Variances have been requested from HPC to legalize existing non-conforming conditions with regard to FAR and on-site parking, as well as to address side yard setback encroachments that result from the new lot line. Staff recommends that Council approve the lot split. HPC Action: HPC will review this case and make a recommendation on December l0th. The tally of their vote will be provided to Council in the memo for Second Reading. APPLICANT: James Marciano, owner of 134 W. Hopkins Avem;e, and Jesse Boyce, owner of 134 ½ W. Hopkins Avenue. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-19-002. ADDRESS: 134 and 134 ½ W. Hopkins Avenue, Units K and L, Wyckoff Carley Condominiums, Block 59, city and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.010(D:) 26.480.030(A)(2), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14,' 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin Count~ Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and Staff Finding: The property is part of the historic townsite and has not been previously subdivided. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). Staff Finding: This proposal will create two 3.000 square foot lots, which meet the 3,000 square foot minimum set for Historic Landmark Lot Splits. Council has recently adopted new benefits for historic properties, pursuant to Section 26.420 of the Municipal Code. which states that affordable housing mitigation will not be required for properties created tba-ough a historic landmark lot split. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and Staff Finding: The land has not been subdivided previously. ,4 subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. 2 Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be rewewed by the Community Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval. In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Staff Finding: No dwelling units will be demolished through this application. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff Finding: The parcel currently dontains two detached dwelling units, and no more may be added. 26.480.030(A)(4), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HXSTOmC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption if it meets the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or O zone district. Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 6,000 square feet and is located in the R-6 Zone District. b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for ~ach lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Staff Finding: The 'maximum floor area for the original parcel, contairdng a historical landmark in an R-6 z~ne, is 3,240 square feet. The applicant has calculated the existing floor area on the site and 3 determined it to be approximately 3,576 square feet. This overage has been caused by two factors; changes in the method of calculating floor area since the project was built in 1989, and the HPC approval that was granted last year for a new basement li~twell in the i34 ½ W. Hopkins unit. The lightwell was needed for egress and the board awarded an FAR bonus of up to 50 square feet to cover it at the time. HPC has been asked to grant 336 square feet of the possible 500 square foot FAR bonus available for landmarks, just to legalize the existing circumstance and to remove any issues of the property being considered non-conforming. The total FAR of 3,576 square feet is to be allocated as follows: 1,872 square feet to 134 W. Hopkins (Lot 1).and 1,704 square feet to 134 ½ W. Hopkins (Lot 2). If the FAR bonus is not approved, the lot split can still be accomplished, and the homes will be vie~ved as non-conforming, with no additional development potential. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will contain a historic structure. The FAR bonus will be added to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel. Staff Finding: Each new lot will contain a landmark structure and both are eligible for the FAR, setback, and parking variances that have been requested from HPC. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend that Council approve the request for a Historic Landmark Lot Split at 134 and i34 ½ W. Hopkins Avenue. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No.~ Series of 2003, for a Historic Landmark Lot Split at 134 and 134 ½ W. Hopkins Avenue, Units K and L, Wyckoff Carley Condominiums, Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, on First Reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance No.~, Series of 2003 A. Staff memo dated December 15, 2003 B. Application 4 'RdG-I$-2002 ?RI i1:17 ~ FAX NO, P, 07 Land Use Application ?ROJECT: Loca~ on: APPLICANT: Add, (Indicate street addresS, Ici &bloek number or me;es and bounds descrlptio= of p:: pert,/) _ Phon ~ ~: ..... Fax#: E-mail: ~LEPRigSEiNTATIVI: A.d& ~ss: Pb. or¢ #: ,,Fax#: E-maih T~E OF A~'PLXC2 .~ON: (please check ail that applT): [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Historic I ~¢signat/on C~¢ifical ~ of No Negative Effect. Certi.fica! ¢ of Appropriatenesa -Mira )r I-tistofio Development -.~gaj ~r Hi~toric Development Coaeeptual Historic Developmem Final I--Ii~tori¢ Development · 8ubs*a~fial Amendment [] Relocation (teanpormy, on or ~ff-site',, [] Demolition (t~tal demolition) Historic Landmark Lot Split The reason we're applying for this historic lot split is to take advantage of the rule allowing for us to simplify our ownership interest into two separate fee simple lots. In order to do this, there are several variances that we are requesting. one, we are requesting an easment between the two homes, allowing for the property lines on the submitted plat to remain, and in return agreeing not to build between the two homes in the future. Second, although 134 West' Hopkins' setbacks are within the required guidelines, 134 112 West ~opkins will require~ .<,;~ ~ setbackcc~¢'~ Third, we are requesting that'the requirement for.parking spaces for 134 West Hopkins be reduced to 1 parking space fro~ 3. The backyard has had only one paved space s~nce 1990. This does no( appear to have presented any parking problems for owners," neighbors, or tourists. The owner of 134 West Hopkins does not own a car - only a motorcycle. The current space is used during the summer for a table and an outdoor grill; it is not used at all in' the winter, spring, or fall. Also, both trees in the backyard would have to be sacrificed in order to SatisFy these additional parking spaces. We think it desireable that what little lawn is left in Block 59 be preserved. MEMORANDUM 'VItI TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: RE: Mayor Helen Klanderud and City~?,~?lI ',~ t,~' Julie Ann Woods, Community Dee l~bpment Director All ~ ' Joyce A. gazer, epmy Director October 27.2003 Burlingame Ranc~Recommendatio~n from COWOP Task Force Team, Resolution No. ~, Series of 200~. Public Hearing SUMMARY: The Burlingame Ranch COWOP Task Force Team (COWOP ~ has completed its work in developing the Budingame Ranch Affordable Housing Land Use and Development Plan (hereinafter, the "Plan")_ The Plan was originally drafted by the COWOP in 200I at which nme the City Council requested other studies ro be conducted prior ro the completion of the Plan and other actions having to do with Burlingame Ranch. This year the COWOP reconvened and completed their work in the form of an update ro the original Plan. T1~rough this memorandum, the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Land Use and DeYelopment Plan is formally forwarded to the City Cotmcil as a recommendation from the COWOP. The Plan is intended ro be used as a source of guidelines and recommendations from which a final design for the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing community would be created. The Plan represents the community's interests and preferred design elements for this important affordable housing development. Exhibit A contains the Plan and 2003 Update, therefore, comprising the complete recommendation of the COWOP. I~ is the intent of the COWOP group to have these recommendations inform the Council and be passed on ;o potential developers to assis; in the next planning and design stages of this proj eot. ISSUES: CO WOP'S General Direction for the Development: Since the 2001 efforts of the COWOP, fl~e group revisited the development scenario because of the addition of the AVLT land to the subject property and a changed pre-annexation agreement with the Bar/X Ranch allowi~tg for greater density. The major decisions made by the COWOP team (by an affirmative vote of 8-I5 include the following: a) Maximize density', strive to build 330 units, b) The affordable housing development should include a neighborhood center (day care, community room. bus stop, mailboxes) and park, c) Stacked flats are nor deslrable at this location, d) Plan for expandability of some units, i'.e. a one bedroom that is designed with the flexibilit) to become a t~vo bedroom, e/ The mix should generally include 1,2,3 bedrooms and single family detached housing, and f) 100% of the development should be for sale. l'he dissenting vote was based on the location of the site with a concern that the project would be too far from the downtown area and the potential for loss of agricultural/open space qualities. F~.is member felt that the site is nor appropriate for affordable housing, however if housing is gmng to be built, density should be maximized, Income Categories and Unit Mix: The COWOP discussed and formulated a recommendation regarding income categories and unit mix. The COWOP realized after reviewing the draft proforma created by the City Council in November 2002 and the EPS profor/~a, that the unit mix must include sale units in the higher categories, i.e. 5, 6, 7 and RO to make the budget work. The COWOP agreed that lower category m~its are still in demand and that the higher category sales should help ro subsidize the lower categories. INCOME CATEGORIES-the COWOP voted 6-I in favor of: Income Category: · 10% of the 330 units should be RO lots · 10% of the 330 units should be Categories 6 & - lot~ · 80% of the 330 units should be Categories 2-7 (to achieve an average of 3.5) U2qlT MIX-the COWOP voted 6-1 in favor of: Bedroom Mix: · 60% of the 330 units should be 2 and 3 bedromn units · 20% of the 330 units should be 1 bedrooms. Residential Structure Type: 60% of the constructed units should be designed tn a townhouse style - stacked flats are not desirable for this site. 20% of the consm;cted units should be designed as detached housing, i.e. single-famiIy detached, duplex, or carriage house The dissenting yore was because of a desire to provide for a greater number of and perceived need for de,ached housing and the proposed mix included too many one bedrooms. A member also felt that the target category should be higher than the average of 3.5 in that a broader range of categories are now available. CO ~VOP Ordinan ce Requirements: As required pursuant to Section 26.500.050 (D of the Aspen Municipal Code (COWOP Ordinance) this memo addresses the additional matters of l.~ Whether the project should cominue in the COWOP process, and 2.) The standards of review from the Land Use Code for the project. In Staff's opinion, the COWOP process should be used in the continuation of'the planning and review process for B~rlingame Ranch. We find that this affordable housing deYelopmen~ continues to be worthy of eligibility as a COWOP project and that the 2 process thus far has been beneficial to the evolution ~)f a development plan for the site. 7'he interacnve nature of the COWOP process has lent itself well to the early identification of issues and iterative ~ite planning that identifies alternatives and ultimately yields the best plan. We feel that use of the COWOP process will be beneficial in the next steps of the development review process, allowing for flexibiliW and creativity while achieving a high quality development plan. Staff feels tha~ the various boards and commissions were well-representecI by their colleagues on the COWOP Task Force Team and that the interested public understands that the project will proceed to City Council. Furthermore_ by keeping the project a COWOP pro. iect, the process better accommodates the "developer model" approach. The Buflingame Ranch developmem will, at a minimum, be subject to the following sections of the Land Use Code as standards of review and analysis, tt ~s important that those parties responsible for both overseeing and taking te development tt~rough further plmming, design, and the entitlement process be aware of these code provisions. The pertinent code sections are as follows: (This list in not intended to be all inclusive.) I. Section 26.304. Common Development Review Procedures, 2. Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Piamted Unit Development, 3. Section 26.310_ Amendments to the Land Use Code and Oflicial Zone District Map, 4. Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards, 5. Section 26.425, Conditional Use, 6. Section 26.435, Development in Envirommentaily Sensitive Areas, 7. Section 26.470. Grou~ Management (To the extent determined necessary during project review. It is expected that affordable housing allotments will not require an additional review process beyond the COWOP review.), 8. Section 26.480, Subdivision and Subdivision Exemption, 9. Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary For the Convemence and Welfare of the Public ~'COWOP'~. 10. Section 26.515: Off-Street Parking, l I. Section 26.575. Miscellaneous Supplementary Regulations, 12. Section 26.580, En gineering Department Regulations, 13 Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee. [4. Section 26.630, Scho01 Lands Dedications, and 15. Section 26.710, Zone Districts. In addison, .provisions of the Asper~/Pitkln County Housing Guidelines and the "Affordable Housing Development Guidelines" of the Asset Management Division will apply. Similarly other prov~sions of the City of Aspen Municipal Code including, but not limited to~ Chapter 8, Building and Building Regulations and Chapter 21, Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places. PROCESS: Like Burlingame Lot 3 (Parcel D),'the City Council has directed Asset Management Staff re approach the development of Burlingame Ranch through a ':developer model" competifion, utilizing the services of a private sector desigr~'build firm or team tin'ough a contractual arrangement. Exhibit B shows the steps m such a process. The City Council isnow at Step 2, "Acceptance of the COWOP Recommendation". This would allow the Asset Management Deparn~ent to proceed with the preparation of and advertisement of an RFQ (request for qualifications from firms. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council accept the recommendations of the Burlingame Ranch COWOP Task Force Team as pm fmlh in the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Land Use and Developmen~ Plan, las~ revised July, 2003, and allow the project to proceed to the next phase of plarming and development utilizing the "developer design/build model". RECOMMENDED MOTION: :'I move to approve Resolution No. ~:>, Series of 2003, accepting the recommendations of the Burlingame Ranch COWOP Task Force Team as conta/ned within the Burlingam& Ranch Affordable Housing Land Use and Development Plan. dated July 2003." ATTACI-IMENTS: Exhibit A-Land Use and Development Plan of the Burlingame Ranch COWOP Task Force Team Exhibit B-Steps of the Developer Model for Burlingame Ranch Resolution No.~ (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN~ ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE' RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BURLINGAME RANCH COWOP TASK FORCE TEAM AS PUT FORTH IN THE "BURLINGAME RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN", DATED JULY, 2003 Parcel No. 2735-023-02-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Deparrmem received an application from the Asset Management Department for an affordable housing development on property located on the east side of Highway 82 and north of Stage Road, commonly referred to a~ Burlingame Ranch. to be reviewed and processed as a project "Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public" (COWOP'~ pursuant to Section 26.500.010 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(C) of the Aspen MunicipaI Code, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 120. Series of 2000, that found the Burlingame Ranch project re be eligible as a COWOP project and established the Burlingame Ranch COWOP Task Force team v4th specific responsibility m recommend a land use and development plan to the City Council; and. WHEREAS, the Burlingame Ranch COWOP Task Force Team conducted numerous legally noticed public meetings where deliberations regarding the preparation of the land use and development plan were conducted, recommendations were provided by technical staff of the c~ty, and the public was provided an opportunity ~o provide comment regarding the project; and, WHEREAS. the Butlingame Ranch COWOP Task Force Team c0nduded their deliberations on July I7, 2003, and, by a vote of six to one (6-1) approved the recommendations as contained within the documenl, "Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Land Use and Development Plan" (dated July, 2003); and, WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed, evaluated and found that the recommendations of the Burlirtgame Ranch Affordable Housing Land Use and Development Plan xvill be beneficial ~o and shall serve as a guide to the further planning and development of Burlingame Ranch for an affordable housing project: and, WHEREAS, during a public meeting on October 27, 2003. tlae City Council accepted the recommendations of the Burlingame Ranch COWOP Task Force Team by a vote of re ( -_~; and. D:\home\joyceo\BurlingameCOWOPReccomdCouncilReso.doc WHEREAS. the City Council finds that this Resolution furkhers and is necessm'y for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO} THAT: Section 1; The Aspen City Council does hereby accept and approve of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Land Use and Development Plan. dated July 2005, to be utilized as a guide in the further planning mad developmem of the Burlingame Ranch ,Affordable Housing project. Section 2: Tko Aspen City Council does hereby direct the Asset Management Deparrmem to take the next steps to acfi'v'ate a "developer model" competition for the required plarming, design and land use permit/entitlement processes necessary for the construction of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing project. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of an5' action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: tf any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional m a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and indepeadent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the City' Council at its meeting of October 27, 2003. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: John Worcester, City Attorney Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch. City Clerk D :\bom e~,j oyceoX,Burlin game COWOPRe¢¢omdCoun¢ilRcs o.doc MEMORANDUM ¥111b TO: THRU: FROM: RE: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director ~ James Lindt, Planner~[,~._ ~ Little Red Ski Hans Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision, and Timeshare- 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 61, Series of 2003 DATE: December 15, 2003 REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting the appropriate land use approvals to convert the existing Little Red Ski Hans Lodge into a timeshare lodge. PROPOSED ZONING: R/1VII~ with a Lodge Preservation (LP) and PUD Overlay LAND USE PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and Timeshare. REQUESTS: STAFF Staff recommends that City Council approve with conditions, the RECOMMENDATION: proposed requests. P & Z The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended that RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve the proposal as requested. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant, Little Red Ski Haus, LLC, represented by Gouger & Franzmarm, LLC, is requesting the appropriate land use approvals to convert the existing Little Red Ski Haus Lodge into a timeshare lodge. LAND USE ACTIONS REQUESTED: The Applicant is requesting the following land use actions for the proposed conversion to a timeshare lodge: PUD Amendment · Subdivision · Timeshare City Council shall approve, approve with Conditions, or deny the proposed requests after considering a reconunendation fi'om the Community Development Director and the Planning and Zoning Commission. -1- BACKGROUND: The Little Red Ski Haus Lodge located at 118 E. Cooper Avenue was renovated and expanded in 2001. In conjunction with the expansion of the structure, a PUD was approved to establish the site-specific development plan that currently exists: The property was also rezoned to include a Lodge Preservation and PUD Overlay as part of the development project. The renovated lodge now contains a total of thirteen (13) traditional lodge rooms, a manager's unit and an accessory dining facility. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The Applicant is proposing to convert the existing lodge into a timeshare lodge pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.590, Timeshare Development. Specifically, the Applicant is proposing to sell sixteen (16) fractional interests in twelve (12) of the units (the "Luxury Suite" is to be made up of two (2) existing lodge units). Therefore, the Applicant is proposing to create a total of 192 fractional interests. Of the total fractional interests that would be created, the Applicant is proposing to retain four (4) weeks in each unit for the purpose of renting them out on a short-term basis and for maintenance. The proposed fractional interest breakdown is illustrated in the chart below (please see floor plans attached as Exhibit "B" for location of room types): Number of Units Description Number of Fractional Number of Weeks Ownership Interests Allocated to Each Available per Unit Fractional Ownership Interest 1 Luxury Suite 16 3 Weeks (Combination of 2 Lodge Rooms) 3 Executive/Family 16 3 Weeks 3 Historic King 16 3 Weeks 3 Standard King 16 3 Weeks 2 Bunk Rooms 16 3 Weeks Additionally, the Applicant is not proposing any alterations to the structure itself in association with the proposed conversion to a timeshare lodge because the structure ~vas brought up to current building code standards as part of the recent renovation. Therefore, the units are not proposed to have kitchens in them as they currently exist. STAFF ANALYSIS OF TIMESHARE ASPECTS OF PROPOSAL: P~ysical Elements Staff believes that the Applicant has provided all of the mandatory physical elements for a timeshare development that are required by Land Use Code Section 26.590.060(A), Mandatory Physical Elements. The proposal includes a staffed, on-site ~ront desk that will be open during regular business hours and provide full-time registration and reservation services. And, according to the application, the desk wilI also make -2- arrangements for late check-ins and will accommodate walk-in rentals if a unit is available. Furthermore, staff believes that the existing lodge contains an adequate mount of recreational facilities and other amenities to serve its occupants given the relatively small size of the lodge. The lodge contains a Jacuzzi, an accessory dining room to serve guests, on-site laundry, and temporary ski storage facilities. Operational Characteristics The Applicant proposes to make the unit available to the general public as short-term accommodations when the owners of the unit are not using their time. It has been proposed by the Applicant that a fractional interest owner be required to alert the management company at least a month ahead of time if they plan on using a unit. Moreover, the application proposes to list the rooms for short-term rental with a central reservation system. Therefore, staff believes that the proposed operation plan will still allow for the property to accommodate short-term, walk-in business as is required in the mandatory timeshare regulations. Staff also feels that the proposai meets some of the optional operational characteristics that are set forth in the Land Use Code in addition to the mandatory operational characteristics as is outlined below. The Applicant has proposed to divide the units into more than ten (10) fractional ownership interests per unit as is consistent with the optional characteristics that are encouraged in the timeshare regulations. Additionally, the Applicant has proposed to retain four (4) weeks per year in each unit for the purpose of renting them on a short-term basis as is also encouraged by the timeshare regulations. Staff believes that the Applicant's compliance with the abovementioned optional characteristics is important in that it will allow for the proposed timeshare lodge units to operate more in the character of a traditional lodge than in the character of a residende, yet still attain the higher occupancy rates that are expected in conjunction with fractionalizing the ownership. GMQS IMPLICATIONS: The Applicant is only proposing to convert the existing lodge into a timeshare lodge, which under the current land use code regulations does not have any growth management implications. Staff is currently looking at the employee generation differences between lodges and fractional ownership lodges to enact possible code an~endments. However, under the current land use code, the Growth Management Quota System treats both the lodge use and the timeshare lodge use as equals. Therefore, the Applicant is not required to mitigate for employee housing in conjunction with the conversion. SUBDIVISION: In this case, the sole purpose of the subdivision request is to allow for the site to be condominiumized and placed in a fractional form of ownership. Staff believes that the proposal meets the review standards for subdivision. Staff also feels that the proposed fractional lodge use is appropriate for the site and is compatible with the surrounding lodge and multi-family residential uses. -3- ISSUES: Off-Street Parking The existing lodge currently has three (3) on-site parking spaces for the thirteen (13) lodge units and one manager's unit, which yields an off-street parking ratio of .21 parking spaces per bedroom. This parking ratio was established and was determined to be acceptable through the recent PUD review for the expansion of the lodge. When the PUD for the remodel and expansion of the lodge was reviewed, it was reviewed under the' premise that there would be occasions when the lodge would be at 100% occupancy. Staff does not believe that converting the lodge to a timeshare lodge will ever push the occupancy level at one time over the 100% occupancy level that was considered in the PUD review. Therefore, staff believes that the existing parking is sufficient to accommodate the proposed conversion. Additionally, the timeshare regulations do not allow for the storage of vehicles on the site when an owner is not staying at the lodge. Staff has proposed to reinforce this regulation by including the prohibition of vehicle storage as a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance. Tax Revenue Implications The Applicant originally provided staff with a fiscal impact analysis, which they felt warranted no mitigation fee. However, the City Finance Staff reviewed the fiscal impact analysis based on the required methodology in the land use code and felt that the Applicant should be required to pay a fee of approximately $83,000 to offset a loss in lodging tax revenues to the City over the life of the project. After discussions between the Applicant and staff related to the methodology of calculating the tax revenue impacts of the conversion, the Applicant subsequently reviewed the numbers they provided staff and supplied staff with different occupancy rates and prices that they believe to be more realistic than their initial submittal. This revised analysis indicated that a fee of approximately $38,000 should be warranted based on the City's methodology for calculating this fee. The City Finance Director is still reviewing this most recent impact analysis provided by the Applicant and will provide comments for City Council's review prior to the hearing. However, it should be noted that the Applicant has requested that the mitigation fee be waived because they feel that the estimated fee is based on expected revenue. That being the case, the Applicant feels that there is no assurance that the property will be a lodge in the future due to the ease in which the land use code would allow for the lodge to be converted into a single-family dwelling unit because it is a historic structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It has been generally accepted that timeshare projects such as this proposal provide increased occupancy rates in relation to regular lodge units. Therefore, staff has no indication that the proposal would not benefit the community by increasing the number of people in town during the off-season to economically support the town's businesses. Additionally, staff believes that the proposal meets the timeshare lodge review standards. Therefore, staff recommends that City'Council approve the proposed ordinance, thereby approving the proposed timeshare request with conditions. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed request and unanimously recommended that City Council approve the conversion of the Little Red Ski Haus to a timeshare lodge as proposed. Several members of the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed that they felt this application was positive in that the proposed product and price is very different from the other timeshare units that have been proposed thus far under the new timeshare regulations. Additionally, the Planning and Zoning Commission thought that the proposal contained a lot of the operational characteristics that are encouraged by the revised timeshare regulations. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 61, Series of' 2003, approving a PUD amendment, subdivision, and timeshare lodge development request to allow for the Little Red Ski Haus Lodge to convert to a timeshar¢ lodge with the conditions set forth therein." ATTACHMENTS EXHIBIT A - REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS EXHIBIT B - EXISTING FLOOR PLANS EXHIBIT C - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION EXHIBIT D - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES -5- ORDINANCE NO. 61 I SERIES OF 2003) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE LITTLE RED SKI HAUS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION. AND TIMESHARE APPLICATION ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT O AND THE WEST HALF OF LOT P. BLOCK 69, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2735-124-71-005 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Little Red Ski Haus LLC. owne~, represented by Gouger & Franzmann, LLC, requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development Amendment. Subdivision, and Timeshare to convert the existing Little Red Ski Haus Lodge to a timeshare lodge on the property described as Lot O and the West one-half of Lot P, Block 69, City and Townsite of Aspen: and. WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) Zone District with a Lodge Preservation ~ LP) and PUD Overlay; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.304.060(B), Combined Reviews. the Community Development Director in consultation with the applicant has concluded that a combined review of the land use requests associated with this application would reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense, and clarity; and, WHEREAS, phrsuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development; Section 26.480, Subdivision; and, Section 26.590, Timeshare, the City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land use requests made by the Applicant during a duly noticed public hearing .after taking and considering comments from the general public, and recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Corm~ission, Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the proposed PUD amendment, subdivision, and timeshare requests, with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 4, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 26, Series of 2003, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, recommending that City Council approve the requested PUD amendment, subdivision, and fimeshare request; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planrfing and Zoning Conmaission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development; Section 26.480, Subdivision: m~d Section 26.590, Timeshare, City Council hereby approves a PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and Timeshare request to allow for the Little Red Ski Harts Lodge located at 118 E. Cooper Avenue to convert to a timeshare lodge, with the following conditions: 1. The approved fractional interest breakdown is as follows: Number of Units Description Number of Fractional Number of Weeks Ownership Interests Allocated to Each Available per Unit Fractional Ownership Interest I Luxury Suite 16 3 Weeks (Consisting of 2 of the existing lodge rooms) 3 Executive/Family 16 3 Weeks 3 Historic King 16 3 Weeks 3 Standard King 16 3 Weeks 2 Bunk Rooms 16 3 Weeks The City of Aspen Finance Deparrmem shall conduct an annual audit of the sales tax revenues that the City collects fi'om the Little Red Ski Haus Lodge over its first five (5) years of operation as a timeshare lodge, to determine if the projected revenues are accurate. The Applicant shall cooperate with the Finance Department in its annual audit efforts. Final Condominium Declarations shall be submitted to the City concurrent with the submission of the Condominium Subdivision Plat and shall include the following language regarding timeshare: Timeshare estates, including the four (4) weeks per unit that are to be retained by the Applicant. shall be made available for short- term rental xvhen the estate is not in.use by the owner of the unit, the owner's guests, or persons occupying the unit under an exchange program. Units that m'e available for rental shall be listed at competitive rates in a central reservation system. The covenants of the homeowners association shall permit walk- in rental of units. The association shall not limit rental of units to such arrangements as only weekly rentals or Saturday-to- Saturday rentals: instead the association shall permit shorter stays, split-week rentals, and similar flexible arrangements. Owners of timeshare estates shall be required to reserve their unit/time sufficiently far enough in advance to enable the public to obtain access to those units that are not so reserved. The term "sufficiently" shall be specifically defined as a full month (30 days) prior to the first day of the intended stay. The owner of a timeshare estate shall not be permitted to occupy that estate for any period in excess of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. The owner of a timeshare estate shall be prohibited from storing a vehicle in a parking space on-site when that owner is not using the estate. The Applicant shall submit all timeshare documents and disclosure statements to the City Attorney for review prior to their recordation at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Each owner of an estate shall have an undivided interest in the common recreational areas within the facility. ]?he timeshare lodge units that remain in the developer's inventory shall be made available for rental to the public while the estates are being sold. except for models and other units that are needed for marketing or promotional purposes. Section 2: This Ord/nance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section_ subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepm~te, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 15th day of December, 2003, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 24~ day of November, 2003. Attest: Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved by a vote of __ day of December, 2003. to __ (~-~, this ISth Helen Kalin Klandemd, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester. City Attorney EXHIBIT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Review Criteria & Staff Findings In accordance with Section 26.445.030(B)(3) of the Land Use Code, due to the limited extent of the issues involved, a development application requesting approval as a Planned Unit Development on a parcel of land located in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District shall be processed pursuant to the terms and procedures of Minor Planned Unit Development review (Minor PUD). This two-step process does not reqUire approval of a conceptual development plan, but only review and approval of a final development plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, with public hearings occurring at both. Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Minor PUD Section 26.445.050 of the Regulations provides that development applications for Minor PUD must comply with the following standards and requirements. General Requirements'. 1. The proposed development shah be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed request ~s consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff does not feel that subdividing the proposed development for the purpose of allowing for the units to be owned under a fractional form of ownership is contrary to the goals of the AACP. The City has embraced the idea that timeshare development will help in maintaining a healthier year-round economy as a result of the higher occupancies that are predicted with timeshare development as is consistent with the goals of the Economic Sustainability portion of the AACP. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development shah be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed timeshare lodge use ~s consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area. The majority of the properties in the immediate vicinity are small lodging establishments or muki-family buildings consisting of three or more units. Staff believes that a lodge or a timeshare development is the appropriate land use for the subject parcel. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shah not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. -6- Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the conversion of the Little Red Ski Hans to a timeshare lodge will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Thus, staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding Under the current land use code requirements, the Growth Management Quota System treats lodge units and timeshare lodge units the same. And therefore, because the Applicant is not requesting to alter the number of bedrooms and is only requesting to convert the existing lodge units into timeshare lodge units, additional GMQS allotments are not required for the conversion. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Establishment of Dimensional ReqUirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural and man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and land forms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traf£tc, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding . The Applicant is not requesting to vary the allowable dimensional requirements from what was approved in City Council Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2002. Therefore, staff does not believe that this criterion is applicable to this application. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. -7- Staff Finding The Applicant is not requesting to vary the allowable dimensional requirements from what was approved in City Council Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2002. Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. o The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, wheneverjoint use of common parking is proposed c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding The existing lodge currently has three (3) on-site parking spaces for the thirteen (13) lodge units and one manager's units, which yields an off-street parking ratio of .21 parking spaces per lodging bedrOom. This parking ratio was established and was determined to be acceptable through the recent PUD review for the expansion of the lodge. When the PUD for the remodel and expansion of the lodge was reviewed, it was reviewed under the premise that there would be occasions when the lodge would have 100% occupancy. Staff does not believe that converting the lodge to a timeshare lodge will ever push the occupancy level at one time over the 100% occupancy level that was considered in the PUD review. Therefore, staff believes that the existing parking is sufficient to accommodate the proposed conversion. Additionally, the timeshare regulations do not allow for the storage of vehicles on the site when an owner is not staying at the lodge. Staff has proposed to reinforce this regulation by including the prohibition of vehicle storage as a condition of approval in the proposed resolution. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insu. fficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may'be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding The Applicant is not requesting that the maximum allowable density be reduced. Therefore, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. -8- The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density ora PUD may be reduced if.. a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding The Applicant is not requesting a reduction in the maximum allowable density established in the Little Red Ski Haus PUD. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density ora PUD may be increased a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the propert~ is subject. b) Thesite'sphysicalcapabilitiescanaccommodateadditionaldensityand there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Finding The Applicant is not requesting to increase the allowable density through the proposed PUD amendment. Staff finds that this criterion not to be applicable to this application. Site Design: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the ac(]acent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific' reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing any physical alterations to the Little Red Ski Haus structure or site. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing any physical alterations to the Little Red Ski Hans structure or site. Staff'finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing any physical alterations to the Little Red Ski Haus structure or sire. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access, Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing any physical alterations to the Little Red Ski Haus structure or site. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 5. Adequatepedestrian and handicapped access isprovided. Staff Finding Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access was provided through improvements made to the structure as part of the recent remodel and expansion. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding Site drainage was reviewed during the rewew of the initial PUD application and this request would not physically alter the structure. Therefore. staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. For non-residential land uses. spaces between buildings are appropriately de-signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the -10- Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter the existing structure. Therefore, there will not be a change in the programmatic functions associated with the site. Thus, staff finds that this criterion is not applicable to the proposal. C. Landscape Plan: The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding The Applicant is nor proposing to alter the existing landscaping that was approved through the original PUD. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter the existing site or structure as part of this amendment. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter the existing site or structure as parr of this amendment. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. Architectural Character: It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use. the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, -11 - represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter the existing structure in which the architecture was approved of in the original Little Red Ski Haus PUD. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter the existing structure. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter the existing structure. criterion not to be applicable to this application. Therefore, staff finds this E. Lighting: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public' safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: L All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site .features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding The Applicant is required to, and has consented to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code for any exterior lighting that is proposed. Staff believes that the Applicant's required compliance with the City Lighting Code ensures that the development Will be lighted in an appropriate manner. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited .for residential development. - 12- Staff Finding The Applicant is required to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code on the existing development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the.following criteria shall be met: L The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing any common park or open space on the site. that this criterion is not applicable to this proposal. Staff finds 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetui(v (not.for a number of years) to each lot or dwelh'ng unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing any common park or open space on the site. However. staff has proposed a condition of approval that reqmres each owner of an estate have access to the common recreation facilities within the development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facih'ties together with a deed restriction against future residential. commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding There ~s no proposed open space or common park on the site However, the recreation area (Jacuzzi Spa and deck) is m be maintained by the managemem company that manages the timeshare lodge. In addition, the future residential, commercial, or industrial development of the recreation area would be regulated by the dimensional requirements that are established were established in the final development plan. Therefore, any future development of the recreation area would require an amendment to the PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Utilities and Public Facilities: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does -13- not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public .facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter the existing structure. Stafffinds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. Z Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to alter the existing structure through this amendment and staff does not believe that the conversion of the units to a timeshare lodge will have a substantial adverse impact on the existing public infrastructure. Therefore. staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately.for the additional improvement. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing any alterations to the existing structure and the utility and public facility improvements were considered in rewew~ng the original PUD application. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. Access and Circulation (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to Minor PUD applications~: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easil) accessible. does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the .following criteria: L Each lot. structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public' street either directly or through and approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing any physical alteration to the existing structure or site. The access was contemplated and considered to be sufficient during the rewew of the original PUD application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or ~uch surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. - 14- Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing any physical alteration to the existing structure or site. The access and parking for the Little Red Ski Haus was contemplated and considered sufficient during the review' of the original PUD applications. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD developmentplan. Thephasingplan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. StaffFinding The Applicant is not proposing any physical alterations to the existing structure. Therefore, no phasing is proposed. Thus, staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. -15- Subdivision REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. Ao General Requirements: 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed request is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff does not feel that subdividing the proposed development for the purpose of allowing for the units to be owned under a fractional form of ownership is contrary to the goals of the AACP. The City has embraced the idea that timeshare development will help in maintaining a healthier year-round economy as a result of the higher occupancies that are predicted with timeshare development as is consistent with the goals of the Economic Sustainability portion of the AACP. Staff finds this criterion to be met. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed timeshare lodge use is consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding .area. The majority of the properties in the immediate vicinity are small lodging establishments or multi-family buildings consisting of three or more units. Staff believes that a lodge or a timeshare development is the appropriate land use for the subject parcel. Staff finds this criterion to be met. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. StaffFinding Staff does not believe that the proposed conversion of the Little Red Ski Hans Lodge to a timeshare lodge will have an adverse affect on the future development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed subdivision to allow for timeshare of the existing lodge in itself is in compliance with all the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code. -16- B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shah not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding The subject site is currently developed and is not located in an area of geological hazard that would put the inhabitants in of the proposed development at risk. In addition, staff does not believe that the proposal will require duplication or extension of public facilities. Staff finds these standards not to be applicable. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shah be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shah specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to physically alter ihe existing structure and the site improvements were made and accepted during the original PUD approval. Staff believes that sub-standardsl and 2 are not applicable. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Prograna A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota Systena -17- Staff Finding ]?he conversion of the existing lodge to a timeshare lodge does not currently require employee-housing mitigation if the Applicant is nol doing a physical expansion to the number of bedrooms. It should be noted that staff is currently looking at the employee generation rates between a lodge and a timeshare lodge with a consultant and a conversion of this nature in the future may require mitigation. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding ]?he Applicant is proposing a conversion to a timeshare lodge and there are no residential units being created in the proposed development. The school land dedication requirement is only applicable to subdivisions that add residential units. Therefore. staff finds this review standard not to be applicable to this application. F. Growth Management Approval Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, ~ 2) Staff Finding A conversion from a lodge to a timeshare lodge thal does not add bedrooms does not require a GMQS allotment or exemption Please see staff's response to review standard "D" above. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. -18- Timeshare REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.590 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Timeshare Lodge Development must comply with the following standards and requirements. Ao Fiscal Impact Analysis and Mitigation. Any applicant propostng to convert an existing lodge to a tim.share lodge development shall be required to demonstrate that the proposed converston will not have a negative tax consequence for the City. In order to demonstrate the tax consequences of the proposed conversion, the applicant shall prepare a detailed fiscal impact study as part of the final PUD application. Th. fiscal impact study shall contain at least the following comparisons between the existing lodge operation and the proposed timeshare lodge development: A summary, of the sales taxes paid to the City for rental of lodge rooms during the prior five years of its operation. If the lodge has stopped renting rooms prior to the time of submission of the application, then the summary shall reflect the final five years the lodge was in operation. The summary of past taxes paid shall be compared to a projection of the sales taxes the proposed timeshare lodge development will pay to the City over the first five years of its operation. As part of this projection, the applicant shall specify the number of nights the applicant anticipates each timeshare lodge unit will be available for daily rental to visitors (that is, the annual number of nights when the unit will not be occupied by' the owner or the owner's guests), the expected visitor occupancy rate for these units, the expected average daily cost to rent the unit, and the resulting amount of sales tax that will be pald to the City. An estimation of the real estate transfer taxes that would be paid to the City if the existing lodge were to be sold. If an actual sale of the property has occurred within the last 12 months, then the real estate taxes paid for that sale shall be used. This estimation shall be compared to a projection of the real estate transfer taxes the proposed timeshare lodge development will pay' to the City over the first five years of its operation. This projection shall include a statement of the expected sales prices for the timeshare estates, and the applicable tax rate that will be applied to each sale. A summary of the City-portion of the property taxes paid for the lodge for the prior five years of its operation, and a projection of the property taxes the proposed timeshare lodge development will pay to the City over the first five years of its operation. This projection shall include a statement of the expected value that will be assigned to the property by the Tax Assessor, and the applicable tax rate. -19- The fiscal impact study may also contain such other information that the applicant believes is relevant to understanding the tax consequences of the proposed development. For example, the applicant may provide information demonstrating there will be "secondary", or "indirect" tax' benefits to the City from the occupancy of the timeshare units, in terms of increased retail sales and other economic activity in the community as compared to the existing lodge development. The applicant shall be expected to prove definitively why the timeshare units would cause such economic advantages that would not be achieved by a traditional lodge development. Any such additional information provided shall compare the taxes paid during the prior five years of the lodge's operation to the first five years of the proposed timeshare lodge's opbration. If the fiscal impact study demonstrates there will be an annual tax loss to the City from the conversion of an existing lodge to a timeshare lodge, then the applicant shall be required to propose a mitigation program that resolves the problem, to the satisfaction of the Aspen City Council The accepted mitigation program shall be documented in the PUD Agreement for the project that is entered into between the applicant and the Aspen City Counci£ Staff Findings The City Finance Director is still reviewing the tax implications and will provide City Council with comments regarding the tax implications prior to the hearing as was detailed earlier in the memo. Upgrading of Existing Projects. Any existing project that is proposed to be converted to a timeshare lodge development shall be physically upgraded and modernized. The extent of the upgrading that is to be accomplished shall be determined as part of the PUD review, considering the condition of the existing facilities, with the intent being to make the development compatible in character with surrounding properties and to extend the useful life of the building. To the extent that it would be practical and reasonable, existing structures shall be brought into compliance with the City's adopted fire, health, and building codes. No sale of any interest in a timeshare lodge development shall be closed until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the upgrading. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to further upgrade the structure because the structure was brought into compliance with the applicable fire, health, and building codes as part of the lodge's remodel and expansion just about a year ago. Additionally, the lodge has already - 20 - completed their remodel and has a certificate of occupancy. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Preservation of Existing Lodging Inventory. An express purpose of these regulations is to preserve and enhance Aspen's existing lodging inventory. Therefore, any proposal to convert an existing lodge or other property that provides short term accommodations to a timeshare lodge should, at a minimum, replace the existing number of units on the property in the planned timeshare lodge. If the applicant is unable to replace the existing number of units, then the timeshare lodge development shall replace, the existing number of bedrooms on the property, or the applicant shall demonstrate hoTM the proposal complies with the purposes of these regulations, even though the planned timeshare lodge will not replace either the existing number of units or bedrooms. Staff Finding The Applicant is proposing to convert the existing lodge rooms to fimeshare lodge rooms. Additionally, the Applicant is not proposing to reduce the number of accommodation bedrooms. Therefore, staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Affordable Housing Requirements. Whenever a timeshare lodge development is required to provide affordable housing, mitigation for the development shall be calculated by applying the standards of the City's housing designee for lodge uses. The affordable housing requirement shall be calculated based on the maximum number of proposed lock out rooms in the development, and shall also take into account any retail, restaurant, conference, or other functions proposed in the lodge. The conversion of any multi-family dwelling unit that meets the definition of residential multi-family housing to timesharing shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 26.530, Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program, even when there is no demolition of the existing multi-family dwelling unit Staff Finding The current land use code standards do not require a conversion from a lodge to a timeshare lodge to'mitigate for employee housing if an expansion is not talcing place. Moreover, the existing growth management requirements treat the lodge and timeshare lodge uses as being equal in regards to employee generation. However, it should be noted that staff is working w/th a consultant to look into how timeshare lodge units compare with lodge units in relation to employee generation. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. E. Parking Requirements. -21 - The parking requirement for timeshare lodge development shall be calculated by applying the parking standard for the underlying zone district for lodge uses. The parking requirement shah be calculated based on the maximum number of proposed lock out rooms in the development. The timeshare lodge development shah also provide an appropriate level of guest transportation services, such as vans or other shuttle vehicles, to offer an alternative to having owners and guests using their own vehicles in Aspen. The owner of a timeshare estate shall be prohibited from storing a vehicle in a parking space on-site when the owner is not using that estate. Staff Finding The existing lodge currently has three (3) on-site parking spaces for a total of fourteen (14) lodge rooms. This provides a parking ratio of .21 parking spaces per lodging bedroom, which was established as acceptable tl~rough the recent PUD approval. When the PUD for the remodel and expansion of the lodge was reviewed, it was reviewed under the premise that there would be occasions when the lodge would reach 100% occupancy. Staff does not believe that converting the lodge to a timeshare lodge will ever push the occupancy level at one time over the 100% occupancy level that was considered in the PUD review. Therefore, staff believes that the existing parking is sufficient to accommodate the proposed conversion. Additionally, staff has proposed a condition of approval that does .not allow for a timeshare owner to store their vehicle on-site when they are not staying at the lodge. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Appropriateness of Marketing and Sales Practices. The marketing and sale of timeshare estates shah be governed by the real estate laws set forth in Title 12, Article 61, C.R.S., as may be amended from time to time. The applicant and licensed marketing entity shah present to the City a plan for marketing the timeshare development. The following marketing and sales practices for a timeshare development shah not be permitted: The solicitation of prospective purchasers of timeshare units on any street, mall, or other public property or facility; and b. Any unethical sales and marketing practices which would tend to mislead potential purchasers. ' Staff Finding The Applicant has represented in their application that they will not solicit purchasers on public property. In addition, the Applicant has consented to comply with the timeshare marketing regulations that are set forth in the Colorado Revised Statues. Therefore, staff finds this criterion to be met. - 22 - Giving of gifts to encourage potential purchasers to attend a sales presentation or to visit a timeshare development is permitted, provided the gift reflects the local Aspen economy. For example, gifts for travel to or accommodations in Aspen, restaurants in Aspen, and local attractions (ski passes, concert tickets, rafting trips, etc.) are permitted. Gifts that have no relationship to the local Aspen economy are not permitted. The following gifts are also not permitted: a. Any gift for which an accurate description is not given; b. Any gift package for which notice is not given to the prospective purchaser that the purchaser will be required to attend a sales presentation as a condition of receiving the gifts; and Any gift package for which the printed announcement of the requirement to attend a sales presentation is in smaller typeface than the information on the gift being offered. Staff Finding The Applicant has consented to meeting this criterion in their marketing plan that is included in the application, including giving only gifts that are locally serving and oriented. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Adequacy of Maintenance and Management Plan. The applicant shall provide documentation and guarantees that the timeshare lodge development will be appropriately managed and maintained in an manner that will be both stable and continuous. This shall include an identification of when and how maintenance will be provided, and shall also address the following requirements: A fair procedure shall be established for the estate owners to review and approve any fee increases which may be made throughout the life of the timeshare development, to provide assurance and protection to timeshare owners that management/assessment fees will be applied and used appropriately. The applicant shall also demonstrate that there will be a reserve fund to ensure that the proposed timeshare development will be properly maintained throughout its lifetime. Staff Finding The annual budget for the units is to be reviewed and approved by a majority of the owners or the board of directors of the o~vner's association who are to be elected by a majority vote of the owners. A capital reserve fund will also be set up and ~vii1 be shown in the budget to be submitted prior to the City Council hear'mg regarding this issue. The amount of this - 23 - capital reserve fund is to be studied on a yearly basis to determine if it is adequate. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Compliance with State Statutes. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed timeshare lodge development will comply with all applicable requirements of Title 12, Article 61, C.R.S.; Title 38, Article 33, C.R.S.; and Title 38, Article 33.3, C.R.S.; including the requirements concerning the five (5) day period for rescission of a sales contract, and the procedures for holding deposits or down payments in escrow. Staff Finding The Applicant has consented to complying with all of the statutory requirements that govern timeshare development. The Applicant will be required to submit instruments for review by the City Attorney's Office and recordation at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Staff finds this criterion to be met. /. Approval By Condominium Owners. If the development that is proposed to be timeshared is a condominium, the applicant shall submit written proof that the condominium declaration allows timesharing, that one hundred (100) percent of the owners of the condominium units have approved the timeshare development, including any improvements to the common elements that the applicant may propose, that all mortgagees of the condominium have approved the proposed timeshare development, and that all condominium units in the timeshare development will be included in the same sales and marketing prograna Staff Finding The proposed development does not involve conversion of an existing condominium into a timeshare. Therefore, staffdoes not find this criterion applicable to this project. Prohibited Practices and Uses. Without in any way limiting any requirement contained in this Chapter, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly engage in any of the following practices: The creation, operation or sale of a right-to-use interest or any other timeshare concept which is not specifically allowed and approved pursuant to the requirements of this section. Right-to-use timeshare concepts (e.g. lease-holds and vacation clubs) are considered inappropriate in Aspen and are not permitted. Misrepresentation of the facts contained in any application for timeshare approval, timeshare development instruments, or disclosure statement. Failure to comply with any representations contained in any application for timesharing or misrepresenting the substance of any such application to another who may be a prospective purchaser of a timeshare interest. Manage, operate, use, offer for sale or sell a timeshare estate or interest therein in violation of any requirement of this Chapter or any approval granted pursuant hereto, or cause or aid and abet another to violate any requirement of this Chapter, or an approval granted pursuant to this Chapter. Staff Finding The Applicant has consented in the proposed application to meeting the requirements of the timeshare section of the City of Aspen Land Use Code in addition to the statutory requirements for operating timeshare development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. - 25 - 'ON ~¥0. O~ ~00;' 'ON £~6'0N RESOLUTION NO. 26 (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIO ~N RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE LITTLE RED SKI HAUS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND TIMESHARE APPLICATION ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT O AND THE WEST HALF OF LOT P. BLOCK 69, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel No. 2735-124-71-005 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Little Red Ski Haus LLC, owner, represented by Gouger & Franzmaun, LLC, requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision, and Timeshare to convert the existing Little Red Ski Lodge to a timeshare lodge on the property described as Lot O and the West one-half of Lot P. Block 69, City and Townsite of Aspen: and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the Residential Multi-Family R/MF) Zone District with a Lodge Preservation (LPI and PUD Overlay; and, WHEREAS, pursuant m Land Use Code Section 26.304.060(B), Combined Reviews, the Conununity Developmem Director xn consultation with the applicant has concluded that a combined review of the land use requests associated with this application would reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense, and clarity; and. WHEREAS, pursuant xo Land Use Code Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development; Section 26.480, Subdivision; and, Section 26.590, Timeshare, the City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land use requests made by the Applicant during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and considering comments from the general public, and recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS. during a duly noticed public hearing on November 4, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein and approved this resolution, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote: approving the proposed requests with the conditions of approval contained herein; and. WHEREAS. the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan: and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development; Section 26.480, Subdivision; and Section 26.590, Timeshare, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council approve a PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and Timeshare request to allow for the Little Red Ski Haus Lodge located at 118 E. Cooper Avenue to convert to a timeshare lodge, with the following conditions: 1. The approved fractional interest breakdow~ is as follows: Number of Units Description i Number of Fractional Number of Weeks Ownership Interests Allocated to Each Available per Unit Fractional Ownership Interest 1 Luxury Suite 16 3 Weeks (Consisting of 2 of the existing lodge rooms) 3 Executive/Family 16 3 Weeks 3 Historic King 16 3 Weeks 3 Standard King 16 3 Weeks 2 Bunk Rooms 16 3 Weeks The City of Aspen Finance Department shall conduct an annual audit of the sales tax revenues that the City collects from the Little Red Ski Haus Lodge over its first five (5) years of operation as a timeshare lodge, to determine if the projected revenues are accurate. The Applicant shall cooperate with the Finance Department in its annual audit efforts. Final Condominium Declarations shall be submitted to the City concurrent with the submission of the Condominium Subdivision Plat and shall include the following language regarding timeshare: Timeshare estates, including the four (4) weeks per unit that are to be retained by the Applicant, shall be made available for short-term rental when the estate is not in use by the owner of the unit, the owner's guests, or persons occupying the unit under an exchange program. Units that are available for rental shall be listed at competitive rates in a central reservation system. The covenants of the homeowners association shall permit walk-in rental of units. The association shall not limit rental of units to such arrangements as only weekly rentals or Saturday-to-Saturday rentals; instead the association shall permit shorter stays, split-week rentals, and similar flexible arrangements. Owners of timeshare estates shall be required to reserve their unit/time sufficiently far enough in advance to enable the public to obtain access to those traits that are not so reserved. The term "sufficiently" shall be specifically defined as full month (30 days) prior to the first day of the intended stay. The owner of a timeshare estate shall not be permitted to occupy that estate for any period in excess of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. The owner of a timeshare estate shall be prohibited from storing a vehicle in a parldng space on-site xvhen that owner is not using the estate. The Applicant shall submit all timeshare documents and disclosure statements to the City Attorney for review prior to their recordation at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 5. Each owner of an estate shall have an undivided interest in the common recreational areas within the facility. The timeshare lodge units that remain in the developer's inventory shall be made available for rental to the public while the estates are being sold, except for models and other ar~its that are needed for marketing or promotional purposes. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein p[ovided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitUtional in a court of competent jurisdiction, 'such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 4th day of November, 2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian. Deputy City Clerk ASPEN PLANNIN~'~& ZONING COMMissioN ~in~te~ NoVember 04~ 2003 David Hoefer said that the approval or denial should not be based upon speculation. Hoe£er said that variances and appeals as on this situation were not designed to be something that is easy to do. A regular variance should rarely be granted but only in unusual circumstances. Hoefer said that there was no precedence allowed in land use. Roger Haneman noted that just because house was built with non-orthogonal windows doesn't allow this particular situation to be accepted. Eric Cohen stated that this was not the place to decide whether you agree with the rules but stick with what the rules are. Jasmine Tygre agreed with Eric's comment. John Rowland said that it clearly doesn't conform with the rules and he did not think the success of this building would be hampered by orthogonal windows at all. Rowland said it was an attractive house and other elements would make it juist as successful David Hoefer noted that Steve Skadron would be voting and John Rowland would be the non-voting member. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #25, series 2003. for a variance to the residential design standards to allow for more than one non- orthogonal window on each fagade for the residence at 253 SilverLode Drive, Lot 11. SilverLode Subdivision. Roger Haneman seconded. Roll cal vote: Johns. yes; Skadron. yes; Haneman. no; Cohen. no; Johnson. yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, no. Approved 4-3. PUBLIC HEARING: LITTLE RED SKI HAUS PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION~ TIMESHARE Jasmine qTygre opened the public heanng for the Little Red Ski Haus PUD Amendment, Subdivision and Timeshare located at 118 East Cooper. David Hoefer stated that three affidavits were provided. Steve Skadron would be the alternate on this for voting purposes. Joyce Allgmer provided the comnnssion with the timeshare changes that took place at the end of 2002 (Ordinance #21-02) addressing fractional ownership. Allgaier said the Planning Commission had a good position that these could be good for Aspen so the regulations were worded the way they are so that fractional ownerships or timeshares to replicate what the lodges were like with desk people, staff in the lobby with a reception desk, concierge with amenities, as many beds as ASPEN PLANNINg,, & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes NOvember 04, 2003 the lodges had as well as units. The rooms/units should not be exclusive but open and put into an available rental pool for the general public. Allgaier said they would not regulate the ownership but would regulate the use. James Lindt commented that Little Red Ski Hans came through with the PUD a year and a half ago to expand the lodge. It currently has 13 lodge units and a proposal to fractionalize to one-sixteenth (1/16); the applicant will rent to the public 4 weeks of each year for each unit during the higher occupancy times. The City Council will review the tax implications of the fractional ownership. P&Z will discuss the operational characteristics of the proposed timeshare. Staff believed it met the requirements with amenities sufficient to the lodge with on-site dining facilities conditioned that the restaurant couldn't advertise separately. There were laundry facilities, a Jacuzzi and front desk on site. Mike Franzmann introduced Bill Gouger representing the Little Red Ski Haus applicant and Beverly Fiore, one of the lodge owners. Franzmann explained that it was very difficult to operate a small bed and breakfast at a profit; the fractional ownership proposal meets both criteria because it allows a high turn over of rooms and preserves the lodge. Bill Gouger mentioned that the lodge received an award for the remodel and the current issue of SKI Magazine has an article on the Little Red, which confirms that this ~s a unique property and a viable way to preserve this property as a lodge. Beverly Fiore said that the day-to-day operations would remmn the same with a live-on site host and she said that she was there daily; the lodge was run very personal Ruth Kruger asked how long have they been open and operating. Beverly Fiore replied that it will be 2 years in December that they have owned it but it was closed that next spring and reopened last December after extensive remodeling. Kruger asked what kind of reservation system would they be tied into. Fiore answered they work with Stay Aspen, Aspen Ski Tours, 3 Australian Tour Groups and on- line booking. Kruger asked why the timeshare element was not brought through the first time. Lindt replied that it wasn't part of the original application because the applicant didn't think about timeshare at that time. Franzmann said that just getting through the renovation was enough and after it was finished they thought about the timeshare. Jasmine Tygre said that the prior minutes and resolution were helpful. Steve Skadron asked how the occupancy percentages were since the remOdel and prior to. Fiore replied that she did not have them in hand but said that last February was good but March and April were down. Fiore said she has seen growth. Gouger said that the lodge had been closed for almost a year for 6 ASPEN PLANNI~ ~& ZONING COMMISSION Minutes NOvembEr 04, 2003 renovation. Skadron asked how the timeshare will increase the numbers for the lodge. Franzmann stated that they prepared research to compare traditional occupancy rates based upon fractional ownership versus lodging. Gouger said the fractional ownership owners on an average use their properties 85% of the time with the combination of keeping some high season available for non-ownership rentals. John Rowland asked the process for getting one of the rooms into the rental pool; how much lead-time does the owner need for notification. Franzmann replied the weeks will float from year to year and be one to two years in advance; there would be an incentive for the owner to rent the units when not being used. Lin& noted that the timeshare ordinance required sufficient notice but doesn't define what sufficient notice is or as to what a lead-time should be. Lindt said the applicant proposed a month prior to not using the unit. Eric Cohen asked what happens when a certain number of fractions sell but not enough to make a difference. Gouger responded that if not more than 10% of the fractional units sell, then they would not go to a fractional ownership and change the ownership of the property. Cohen asked how many bunks were in the bunk rooms and how would they be fractionalized. Franzmann replied that the 2 rooms were fractionalized and not the beds. Jack Johnson asked how the lead-time would be policed. Lindt said that there was a month lead-time in the resolution and staffwould follow-up. Franzmann said that they wanted to have the rooms available for the X-Games, Comedy Fest, Food and Wine and Christmas. Johnson asked if there was discussion of lodges of this size becoming fractional. Joyce Allgaier said it wasn't something that was overlooked; ~t was contemplated that there could be all kinds of varieties of time- shares. Cohen asked when the time for maintenance of the property would be reserved. Gouger replied that 25 of the 192 possible fractional interests would not be sold to the public but the various owners of the LLC would retain ownership and the maintenance would be included in that time frame. Tygre asked how the operations plan was enforced and what happens if it doesn't function the way it was approved. Lindt responded that if it was operating differently than the approved P&Z or Council operations plan then staff would have to do enforcement. Allgaier stated that there would be a PUD agreement for enforcement and the condominium declarations and covenants. David Hoefer said that the practical matter was that enforcement was extremely difficult; if it 7 ASPEN PLANNIN 2003 concerned the city it would be addressed but the individual landowner covenants were not enforceable by the city. Tygre asked if the PUD agreement would contain the operations plan. Lindt replied that it would. Kruger asked if there was a GMQS exemption. Lindt responded that there was a growth management exemption for lodge preservation originally for the expansion. Kruger asked if the affordable housing requirements were any different in this process than the previous one. Lindt answered the existing lodge gained growth management exemption during the first PUD; at that time growth management treated a lodge the same as a timeshare. Lindt said that they were not expanding therefore there would be no increase in employee generation; there was an increase in square footage but a decrease in bedrooms. Lindt said that there was a stipulation in the final council ordinance that was approved that would require an addition to the lodge become a deed-restricted unit if the lodge reverted back to a single-family house through a change m use process. Kruger asked how big the project was. Lindt said that there were about 6000 square feet above grade. Public Comments: Heddy Longworth stated that she was a realtor with Mason and Morse. Longworth said that people were making plans with less lead-time from current research with just a month or two in advance. Ruth Kruger said that she was conflicted with the issue but the previous time shares that the commission reviewed were larger time-share lodge with many more hotbeds and systems for the marketing and management. Kruger said she knew the lead-time was less in this market but voiced concern for this to be successful in the neighborhood and community. Steve Skadron stated that this made sense for the lodge and the commumty; there were ~ssues of accessibility, diversity and commumty balance that come into play here. Skadron sees it as an important point of entry with the price point for the units for ownership, which was a portion of the buying public previously excluded. Skadron said this was a full step on local owners to address a significant need and complimented the applicant. Eric Cohen said that part of the original PUD granted additional floor area based on the needs of a lodge, now the property is being condominiumized and selling off the additional FAR that was granted for lodge use. Cohen voiced concern over the additional FAR being sold off, the loss of another room (now 12 rooms from the original 22), which was an ongoing problem. 8 Roger Haneman said that the arguments that Eric just made seem to be the same arguments Roger used against the St. Regis Time Share. Haneman stated that he was in favor of this project; he suggested a one bedroom have a one-month lead- time, the two-bedroom a two-month lead-time. Haneman said this applicant was the closest to what P&Z proposed for the time-share ordinance guidelines. Jack Johnson said that he was concerned about other lodges in town coming forward with time-share proposals but would not answer to the arbitrarily or artificially high rates therefore leading to lower occupancy rates. Johnson noted that was not the criteria by which he was to judge this project therefore he did not have an issue with the specific proposal. Jasmine Tygre stated that the commissioners made good comments because the commission was unsure what time shares would do for the community down the road; assumptions were made on time share applications and fractional ownerships based upon the occupancy rate given by thee developers or owners. Tygre said it was not just this application but all of the fractional/time share applications out there were unknown as to what it will do to the hotbed base. Tygre noted the criteria that the commission had to judge the project were fulfilled. John Rowland asked if this had to always remain a lodge. Lindt replied that they could apply for a change in use application for a single-family dwelling and it is on the historic inventory. Rowland said that he was in favor of it and felt it was a step in the right direction. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #26. series 2003, recommending City Council approve a PUD amendment, subdivision and timeshare lodge development request to allow for the Little Red Ski Haus, 118 East Cooper to convert to a timeshare lodge with the conditions set forth. Roger Haneman seconded. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Johnson. yes; Johns. yes; Cohen, yes: Haneman. yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0. Mike Franzmann thanked the commission for their thoughtful questions, professionalism, fairness and consideration. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to request City Council direct staff to re-evaluate the Residential Design Review Standards because many of standards were inappropriate for many of the reviews that come before the Planning & Zoning Commission. Seconded by Jack dohnson. APPROVED 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 9 THE CITY OF ASPEN Memorandum Thru: From: Date: Aspen City Council Members Steve Barwick, City Manager Paul Menter, Director of Finance and Administrative 12/10/03 Cc' James L'mdt, City Planner Scott Newman, Financial Analyst (Temporary) Little Red Ski Haus, Timeshare mitigation fee staff recommendation Summary: Attached please find an analysis and recommendation for a timeshare mitigation fee for the proposed Little Red Ski House timeshare conversion project. Staff recommends a fee of $82,471 (see Attachment A). This fee was calculated in a manner consistent with the provisions of Aspen Municipal Code Section 265,590.070 and its associated code interpretation approved and made effective March 17, 2003 (see Attachment B). Analysis: While the applicant and the City utilized the same methodology for calculating the timeshare mitigation fee, the applicant arrived at a lower fee amount. This is because the applicant utilized actual data from the past year's operations to estimate the lodge's average room rate of $130 and average annual occupancy rate of 40% (rounded up from 35%) in future years as the basis for calculating the future value of lost tax collections. By using these factors and the City's methodology, the applicant calculated a fee of $38,732 (see Attachment C). By comparison, City staff utilized the applicants' initial estimate of an average future room rate of $200, and an average annual occupancy rate of 53% to calculate the future value of lost tax collections to the City. Because the applicants' initial estimate is higher for both average room rate and occupancy rate, the result is a higher estimate of lost tax revenue due to the DecemberlO, 2003 conversion to timeshare, resulting in a higher fee of $82,471. Staffbelieves that the use of the estimated future occupancy rate and room rate is a better indicator of future tax impact to the City of Aspen of lost lodge rooms than an historic average, particularly in the case ora newly opened lodge that with only a single year of activity for purposes of analysis. Staff's us of future projections is consistent with the methodology utilized to estimate the fee owed in the two most recently approved applications, those for the St. Regis, and for the Dancing Bear Lodge (Council will recall that in the case 0fthe Dancing Bear, no fee was owed). Additionally, as the Council is aware from James Lindt's memorandum, the applicant is requesting that the timeshare mitigation fee be waived in its entirety with respect to their application. Staff recommend against waiving the fee in its entirety. Council has not previously waived a timeshare mitigation fee. On a per week basis oftimeshare units sold, the proposed fee calculates to $143 per week (12 units x 48 weeks = 576 weekly units, divided into a fee of $82,471 = $143). By comparison, the fee calculated for the timeshare impact of the recently approved St. Regis Hotel application came to $425 per week oftimeshare sold (20 units x 44 weeks = 1,056 weeks divided into a fee of $449,000 = $425 per week). As in all cases, the unique characteristics of this particular lodge, its size, estimated room and occupancy rates, generate a fee unique to the impact of this proposed development. In this case, the smaller lodge and rooms of the Little Red Ski Hans result in a fee that is substantially lower than that in the case of the St. Regis. Findings and ReCommendation: Staff recommends application of a timeshare mitigation fee of $82,471. This fee is calculated in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code, and with prior timeshare fee calculations for previously approved projects. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions regarding staff's recommendation, or other issues regarding this analysis. 2 Memorandum To: Paul Mentor, Director of Finance From: Scott Newman. CFA Date: November 7, 2003 RE: Little Red Ski Haus Timeshare Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary David Fiore of the Little Red Ski Haus~ LLC (LRSH) is requesting a PUD Amendmem in order to create a Fractional Ownership Development (FOD) of the Little Red Ski Hans. Mr. Fiore has retained the services of Gouger & Franzmann, LLC Attorneys at Law (G&F) ro aid in him in his efforts to that effect. The City of Aspen's Community Development Deparrrnent has asked the Finance Department to opine on the accuracy of the analysis put forth in Fiscal Impact Analysis for Fractional Ownership Development. After reviewing this document. I conclude that the analysis put forth by the LRSH goup is not consistent with the methodology required by the Aspen Municipal Code Section 26-590-070 and the City of Aspen Community Development Department Land Use Code Interpretation of Section 26.590.070 (A) effective March 17. 2003 (Code Interpretation), on several counts. this memo outlines my analysis of Fiscal Impact Analysis for Fractional Ownership Development and recommends a mitigation fee of $82,471. Analysis The Little Red Ski Haus is a historic award-winning ski lodge located at 118 East Cooper Avenue between South Aspen Street and South Garmisch Street in the City of Aspen. The original structure was built in 1888 and underwent an extensive renovation in 2002. This renovation resulted in the reduction of available guest rooms from 23 to 13 and an addition of a 1000 square foot food and beverage facility. This renovation was undertaken "to meet the expectations of today's Aspen visitors." In Fiscal Impact Analysis for Fractional Ownership Development LRSH bases its conclusions on a comparison of historical information to projected financial results of the FOD. Unfortunately, actual sales and lodging tax collections data for the five-year period ending 2002 are unavailable from either the prior owner or the City. G&F provided an estimate of sales and lodging tax revenues based upon information provided by the current owners. This estimate assumes an occupancy rate of 53% and a room rate of $50 per night. This appears to be a reasonable historical estimate of the lodge in its prior design. However, the renovation of 2002 reduced the number of available guest rooms from 23 to 13 in order to increase the size of most rooms. Therefore, the Little Red Ski House is no longer a 23 room budget lodge and, as such, the historical tax receipts no longer accurately represent the physisal plant and character of the structure. The City of Aspen Community Development Department Land Use Code Interpretation of Section 26.590.070 (A) effective March 17, 2003 states: The code requires that projects should be evaluated by comparzng the tax impact of existing facilities plus existing approvals tin combination, the "total project") to the total project plus the proposed timeshare. The existing facilities are a 13 room upscale lodge. Therefore, it would be reasonable and proper to compare the FOD proposal to the continuing operations of the existing structure and not the operations of the original structure. Using G&F's methodology and the occupancy and rate assumptions of the FOD proposal, I created a pro forma (heretofore kno~vn as Exhibit 2a) for the lodge for the comparison period of 2004-2008. The LRSH assumes a historical occupancy rate of 53% (per ACRA) but also assumes a 100% occupancy rate during four peak weeks. Exhibit 2a adopts this assumption. Section III of the Fractional Ownership Development Proposal (for) Little Red Ski Haus. LLC states that the Lodge will operate in a manner similar to a traditional lodging establishment when the Owners are nor using their Fractional Ownership Interests. As outlined in Fiscal Impact Analysis for Fractional Ownership Development, LRSH will offer unsold units for rent to the public and intends to reserve 4 weeks per year out of the fractional ownership calendar in order to rent out the entire lodge to groups during peak weeks. LRSH has indicated that the average daily rate will be $200 per night and average $275 per night during peak weeks. IfLRSH believes that the market will bear average non-peak and peak daily rates for the FOD rooms of $200 and 5275, it is reasonable to use these as the average non-peak and peak market rates for the continued operations of the lodge. Going forward I assumed 3.1% growth for both the average non-peak and peak daily rates. During the renovation, a 1000 square foot food and beverage facility was built. It is reasonable to believe that, in the continued operation of the lodge, this facility would be operational. LRSH estimates revenues of $150 per day and of direct tax revenues of $1210~ armually. Going for~vard, I assumed 3.1% growth of direct tax revenues generated from the food and beverage operations. In determining indirect sales tax for the lodge, G&F assumes 2 people per room per mght and average spending per day of $137 per person. Exhibit 2a adopts this assumption and applies a 3.1% growth component to it. 2 Exhibit 2b is the pro forma for the FOD proposal. I made several adjustments First, I broke out direct sales tax and lodging tax to comply with the Code Interpretation. Secondly, I was unable to determine G&Fs methodology for calculating initial room nights available to rent. Therefore, I used the FOD proposal assumptions of 12 units and 48 weeks, which results in 4,032 room nights available for rent. This adjustment provides an additional 154 ava/lable room nights and increased revenues for the FOD. The G&F analysis of indirect sales tax was presented as an average. I expanded this analysis in order to include a growth component to the average spending per day and to differentiate between the impact of owner occupancy and renter occupancy. One of the key selling points of fractional ownership to destination resorts is the potential for increased indirect sales taxes, due to an increased number of occupants per room and due to the propensity of FOD owners to purchase goods and services ~n town at a higher rate than traditional lodging guests Therefore, it is not appropriate to apply a single group size and daily spending rate per person. The FOD proposal assumes an average party size of the 3 and a daily spending rate ors 137 for both owner and renter occupancy. I adjusted the owner daily spending rate up to $152 and adjusted the rental average party size down to 2 to reflect the differences beV,veen the two types ofoccupams. Exhibit 4 o£ Fiscal Impact Analysis for Fractional Ownership Development ~s the Real Property Tax Summary. In it historic property tax is compared to the FOD forecast of real property tax. Following any renovation or improvement, it is reasonable to believe that the value of the subject property will increase. By the same logic, absent of any extraordinary circumstances, the property tax will also increase. Exhibit 4a is a comparison of property tax forecasts for the FOD and the continued operations of property as a lodging facility for the comparison period of 2004-2008. Due to the extensive renovation that was completed in December 2002, historical property tax collected is nor an appropriate measure of comparison to the FOD forecast. Regardless of the form of ownership or operation, the physical plant will be the same. Therefore. at time zero (year 2004), the tax basis should be the same. In both the lodging operation and FOD property tax forecasts, I assumed that the property will be reassessed in 2007 and that the assessed value of the land, improvements and commercial improvements will increase by 3.1%. It is customary that when real estate is transacted that a new assessment be done on the subject property. It is reasonable to assume that each owner resale would be subject ro a new assessment. In the FOD property tax forecast, I assumed 3.1% growth to each resale share. Conclusions After reviewing both the Fractional Ownership Development Proposal (forl Little Red Ski Haus, LLC and the Fiscal Impact Analysis for Fractional Ownership Development and I conclude that the analysis put forth by the LRSH group is not consistent with the methodology required by Aspen Municipal Code Section 26-590-070 (A), on several COun[S. The Code Interpretation of Section 26.590.070 (A) states: The code requires that projects should be evaluated by comparing the tax impact of existing.£acilities plus existing approvals (in combination, the "total project"j to the total project plus the proposed timeshare. Due to the extensive renovations completed in December 2002. the existing facilities are not accurately represented by the historical information. The Code Interpretation of Section 26.590.070 (A) states: The code requires that the applicant compile a tax impactJbr sales and lodging taxes, property taxes and real estate transfer taxes. This tax impact analysis should be completed on a tax-to-tax basis, as opposed to an overall basis The mitigation program authorized by this section should be calculated for each individual tax. not as a whole of the taxes identified in this section. The reason for segregating the fee calculation is because the taxing sources are not interchangeable in terms of their applicability to providing City services. Based upon the following statement from the Fiscal Impact Analysis for Fractional Ownership Development, it appears that LRSH's conclusions were drawn from aggregate tax effects and not on a tax-to-tax basis. "City of Aspen tax revenue generated from the proposed fractional ownership development will exceed existing lodge revenues by approximately $15,000 (adjusted to 2003 dollars) annually, or $76,000 over the five year comparative period." After having analyzed the tax collections and trends thereof. I contend that the comparison period does not accurately represent the expected operations of the FOD. All of thc taxes under consideration are driven by number of FOD shares sold. Room nights rented drives both Sales Taxes-Direct and Lodging Tax. As more shares are sold, the number of available room nights for rent decreases, resulting in fewer Sales and Lodging Tax collections. Sales Taxes-Indirect are driven by owner occupancy. As more shares are sold, owners, who travel in larger group sizes and spend more in town per person than do traditional lodging guests, occupy more room nights. Therefore resulting in increased collections of Sales Taxes-indirect. By definition, Real Estate Transfer Taxes increase as shares are sold and decrease when sales activity slows. It is not until all shares are sold, that the City can get an accurate picture of anticipated revenues from the FOD. The City can expect a Sales Taxes-Direct and Lodging Tax collections to decrease until all shares are absorbed and then to remain some~vhat stable. By the same token, Sales Taxes-Indirect can be expected to increase until full absorption and then to remain relatively stable. Once all the shares are absorbed, the FOD proposal estimates that five percent of the shares will sell annually. Therefore, annual Real Estate Transfer Tax collections can be expected to decrease significantly from the levels experienced dut/ng the comparative period. The FOD proposal anticipates that all shares wii1 be sold by year-end 2008. It is for this mason that I believe that the level of taxes collected in 2008 is more representative of what can be expected for the life of the project than will an average of the taxes collected for years 2003-2008. In determining a mitigation fee, I discounted the 2008 collections to represent 2003 price levels and calculated any negative annual effect to the City. I then treated this negative annual effect as a constant stream of cash flows for the life of the project and calculated the present value of this annuity to determine the mitigation fee. Recommendations The Fiscal Impact Analysis for Fractional Ownership Development concludes "a Fractional Ownership Development of the Little Red Ski Haus will be positive fiscally for the City of Aspen and Pitkin County for every one of the tax categories considered in this analysis." My analysis, utilizing the methodology and assumptions Iisted above find otherwise. Both Projected Sales Tax-Direct and the City Portion of the County Sales Tax-Direct fall significantly. The annual Sales Tax-Direct projected from existing operations is $13,156 while the annual Sales Tax-Direct projected from the FOD is $3,255. The annual City Portion of County Sales Tax-Direct projected from existing operations is $4,904 while the annual City Portion of County Sales Tax-Direct projected from the FOD is $854. The negative annual effect on the City is $13,950. On the other hand, the projected collections of Sales Tax-Indirect and the City Portion of County Sales Tax-Indirect increase dramatically. The annual Sales Tax-Indirect projected from existing operations is $i5.629 and increases to $34,857 under the FOD proposal. The annual City Portion of County Sales Tax-Indirect projected from existing operations is $6,394 and increases to $14,260 under the FOD proposal. The annual effect for both taxes is an increase of $28,094~ Projected Lodging Tax collections suffer in much the same way as Sales Tax-Direct. The Lodging Taxes projected from existing operations is $5,449 while the annual Lodging Tax projected from the FOD is $949. The negative annual effect to the City is $4,500. Over the five year comparative period, projected Real Estate Transfer Tax collections are expected to increase significantly. It is not reasonable to anticipate a sale of the existing operation during this period. The average annual Real Estate Transfer Tax collections are projected to be $17,981. Projected Property Tax collections are expected to ~ncrease ever so slightly. The annual Sales Tax-Direct projected from existing operations is $2.229 while the annual Sales Tax- Direct projected from the FOD is $2,237. I agee with LRSH, that the Fractional Ownership Development of the Little Red Ski Haus will be beneficial the City. Direct Sales Tax collections will suffer due to the change in ownership structure and revenue composition of the Little Red Ski Hans. However. due to additional visitors that the FOD will attract and their increased propensity ro spend in town, the increase in Indirect Sales Tax collections should offsel these decreases. Given the large number of real estate transactions, the collection of Real Estate Transfer Taxes will significantly increase for the absorption period. The increase to property tax collections will be minimal. Where the City will be negatively impacted is Lodging Tax collections. To mitigate for the decrease in Lodging Tax Collections, I recommend a fee of $82,471. Mitigation Fee Calculation Application of AMC 26-590-070 to Little Red Ski Haus Application Annual Negative Expected Life Adjustment 2008 2008 Annual Effect of Fractional for Furore .'ax Descripnon Existing Proposed to City Improvement Value TOTAL FEE Sales Tax -Direct Sales Tax - Indirecl County Sales Tax - Direct County Sales Tax - Indirect $13,156 $3,255 $9,900 $15,629 $34,857 $4,904 $854 $4,050 $6.394 $14,260 Total Sales Tax $40,082 $53,226 {0 Lodging Tax $5,449 $949 $4,500. Real Estate Transfer Tax $0 $17.981 $0 Property Tax $2,229 $2,237 $0 27.50 3.10% SC 27.50 3.10% $82,471 27.50 3.10% $0 27.50 3.10% $0 Total Recommended Fee: $82,471 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: EFFECTIVE DATE: APPLICANT: WRITTEN BY: APPROVED BY: COPIES TO: Section 26.590.070 (A) {Timeshare] Fiscal Impact Analysis and Mitigation March 17. 2003 Paul Menter. Finance Director Joyce Aligaier OhIson_ DepuTy Director Adie Ann Woods. 2ommunit} Development Director Jolm Worcester. Steve Bat'wick SUMMARY This zoa= inrerlr ['erar~on sets forth statements as ro how the City of Aspen will approach and evamare fisca! mpact studief thal are submit'ted as part o£ a timeshare developme~}~ proposa~ The specific statements are ±'ound below. PURPOSE The purpose of this code inTerpretaTion 1s [o further clarif~ the language in Land Use Code S¢crion 26.590.070 ,A), rTimes'hc~re] Fiscal Impact Anal} sis m~d Mitigation ±bT the purposes o±' analyzing mxd objectively'evalnating the finat~cial m:alysis required of the apl-'licant, and applying a recommencied mitigation program as provided by me :ode. based up )n the provisions of this section BACKGROUND Section 26.590.070 ~ }f the Lan{[ Use Code requires that any :[evelcoer proposing to convert ma existing lodge :o a timeshare lodge :levelo[_menr shall be reqmren ro demonsTraTe rn~r tl:e proposed conversion will not have a negative tax conse_luence for the City. In c:der ro :lemonstrate me tax consequences of the proposed com/ers~on, the apl: licant snail prepare a :[etaiied fiscal impact stud} as part of the final PUD application if tl~e an~xlysts aemonsrrares a negative fa: impact to the City of Aspen, then the applicant shal cc rec atrea rc propose a mitigation progrma: Such mitigatiota programs must meet w/th the apprc va~ ¢±' the Aspen City Council. I£ the fiscal impact study :lemonstrates a posture mxpacr ro the City o±'Aspen, then nc mirigat:on program is required. [n order ro clari~'y the subminal reqmremems ana the intent >f The fiscal impact study so as ro fairly and ob. ectivel) evaluate fiscal m~pacts caused by lodge ro umeshare conversions, the following, statements will serve as guidelines in this process. 1 The code requires that the applicant compile a tax analysis that compares the prior 5- year and projected 5-year tax collections for the project These 5-ye~ totals should be :onverted to current day dollar value for compmison. The average annual difference bet~veea the previous 5-5 em's and the furore 5 } ears is the amaual amount that needs to be paid ~br the Ii~'e o±' the project This calculation becomes the basis for determining the appropn ire i'ee clue from the apl [icant if any 2 The code requires that the applicant compile a tax impact analysis ±'or sales and lodging taxes, property taxes and real estate transfer taxes. This tax m~pacr ann4, sis should be comp~etec~ on a tax-to-tax basis, as opposed to an overall basis. In other words, dramatic increases i~ Real Estate Transfer taxes in comparison to prior year collections dc not serve roc fi'set ~ reduction in sales tax collecti ~ns ~br purposes of calculating any fee that m~ht ce owed The mitigation program authorized by this section should be calculated ~br eack individua[ tax. not as a who~e ol'the identified taxes identified in the secuon. The reason ['or segreganng the fee calcnlation is because the taxing sources are not lmerchangeable in terms of their applicability to provkting City services. 3 ]'he code requires that projects should be evaluated by comparing the tax impact of exism~g }hcilities plus existins apj~rovals lin combination, the ~kotaI project") to me tota~ 7['oject plus rue proposed timeshare. Where any previous approvals have been granted but nor yet developed, the "exisun~ facilities" should include what has ,oeen approved thus far So ~br example, m the case of an application, which has an existing ap~ rovaI ±bt 20 new hotel rooms that is independent of their new timeshare proposal, the comparison wouM be between what exists plus what is approved but nor yet built and the ne[ number of' mxits after nmeshse conversion. 4. The 5-year comparison most recent prevtous 5 } ears v projected ±]rst 5 years oF operauon with the timeshare >r }l'actionaI ownership element cperar~ona~ cequired by this secuon or' the coue is ~br detenx~inin'g an average annual tax nrapact ~±' the project. aact ~s tbr :omparison purposes on% tc lXOVkIe a basis ~br determining an apprcpnate r'ee. which shall oe based upon the esumated life of the project, .md is nx intended to mean rna~, me total tax impact provided by the ordinance is limited to 5 years APPEAL OF DECISION As with any m:erpretation o£the land use code 1: y the Communi% Development Director an applicant has the ability tc appeal this decision to the Aspen City Council. This can be clone m col! unction w~m 2 land use request before Chy Council or as a separate agenda 26.316.030~ A} APPEAL PROCEDURES Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall m~uare an appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a ~bl~n prescribed by the Commtmi% Derek proem Director. The ~%orice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Develc ~ menr Director and with the City of±lee or deparm~ent rendering the tecis~on or detenmination within fo~-teen (14~ ct~ys ~fthe date ofti:e decision or determination being appealed. FaiRtre to ±lie such notice of appeal ~vithin the prescribed time shall e ~nstitute a ~vaiver o±' an7 rights ~tnder this Title to a?peztl any decision or determm~ion. i2/08/2083 i7:14 720-266-1841 GOUGER & FRANZMANN rOUg6r & anzmann, n,.c. Attorneys & Counse,ors at Law RAGE TO: James L/edt FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET C&y o£Azpen 12/8/2003 (970; 920-5439 4 266-11540 01 LRSH Mitigation Fee (720) 266-1041 [] URGENT [] FOR RE'VIeW [] PLEASE COMMENT [] PLEASE REPLY [] PLEASE RECYCLE Jmes/Paul/Scott: I'hank you for the time you spent in discussion with us this afternoon. Attached please find the background information supporting the revised occupancy and average mom rate figures provided in the spreadsheet £or~arded earlier today. Please note that we are proposing a rounding increase in occupancy from 35.19% to 40%, which should take into account additional business growth in LRSH's operations. We believe this addresses the City's concern that 2003 data may be unreasonably Iow ba~ed upon the first year ofoperatSons. To move any further beyond the results of the actual data indicates to Goug6r & Franzmanm LLC that we are negotiating a fee rather than calculating one, I have requested that Dave provide in?ut to us about stmcmnng a payment arrangement along the hnes that you have suggested - i.¢. within the first half of the sales period and on a cliff basin once a certain number of tm/ts are sold. As I mentioned, a key factor w/II be retirement of debt on the property. Once that ia aCcomplished, I beEeve we will be able to reach agreement on terms. 400 INV'F-P,-NESS PARKWAY · SUIT2~ 250 · ENGLEW©OD, CO 80112 · e ~pI~ee ~s~n~ m d~ k to ~ ~d ~pi~t), you ~e h=~y no.ed ~ my ~o~ &~udo~ or co~ of tbs ~ ~ pro.Cite& If you ~ve ~&d ~s ~on m ~ ~ ~ us by co~ ~ho~ md ~m ~e o~ m¢ss~c m us ar ~e ~ ~m ~ aI o~ ~ 12/08/2003 17:14 720-256-1041 GOUGER & FRANZH~NN PAGE 02 We appreciate your willingness to mention in thc report to Council that the applicant intends to seek a waiver of the mitigation fee, as well as outlining how we have reached thc po/n: we are at now (i.e. or/sinai Gouger & Franzmatm, LLC study using estimates showed $-0- fee, upon learning the approved method £or calculating the feb in City regulations, a revision based upon actual data indicated a fee of $38,732). Paul, I will be/n all week, please call rne onc,~ you have I~ualized your recommendation after discussion with the City Manager. S/nce~Iy= William R, Goag~r F~om:PROSPERITY L::~OKk'~PING 9709450828 12/05/200~ 15:]2 ~g54 L~le R~ Ski Haus,kkC R~m Oc~pancy ~aN~s R~onni Nlqhts GU~ N]~h~ R~venum Room Booked Otc % ADR-- Number ADR I~3,36 108 B8 37 84 71 41 35.89 40 ~? 137.94 40B.44 100 98 39 ~ ~ ~ ~ 70 tl /~.B55.98 ~4 32D.5 ~ ~2e~a 1 72 4~ 1~ ~.B~?~B t 112 85 74 §'802.58 ~,§8% 2~3 ~ 17321 14 137 ~04 7¢ .q4 ~o~ 8.3035 108 96.7g 10,4~3.27 ~23 ~3 96 ~ 47~.04 ._~% 17A 8~ I~ ~4RnB47 8 57% 30,2.97 as-. iq % 12/88/2883 17:14 728-268-1041 GOUGER & FRANZMANN PAGE 84 From:PROSPERITY BOOKKEEPING 9709450828 12/05/2008 I5:12 .¢/054 P.004/004 t;:~ ~=~ Little Red Ski Hau~ ,oor~l~ Sales by Item Summary Januar~ through Febma~, ~003 Intomu~en Gmeratad from dm1, Feb 0~ 8.00 ~,O0 6.223.58 ~7. tt 5,00 499.~ 1.137.00 A~lrage 0 c c~i~ C'~ ~ rooms - 767 posthole Ss) Mitigation Fee Calculation Application of AMC 26-590-070 to Little Red Ski Haus Application Annual Negative Expected Life Adjustment 2008 2008 AzmualEffect of Fractionai for Future Tax Description Existing Projected to City Improvement Value TOTAL FEE Sates Tax -Direct $8.132 $3,482 $4.650 Sales Tax- Indirect $12,315 $32,000 Co~mty Sates Tax - Direct $2.849 $947 $1,902 County Sates Tax- Indirect $6,038 $13,0Sl Total Sates Tax $28.333 $49,519 $0 Lodging Tax $3.165 $%052 $2.114 Real Estate Transfer Tax S0 $17,981 S0 Property Tax $2.229 $2,237 S0 27.50 3.10% SO 27.50 3,10% $38,732 27.50 3.10% $0 27.50 3,10% $0 Total Recommended Fee: $38,732 V|! lc. MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: RE: Adoption of Budget Supplemental- Ordinance No. 62 (Series 2003) SUMMARY: Staff is requesting an amendment to the City's amended 2003 budget that increases the citywide total expenditure appropriation from $89.3 million to $100.6 million, an increase of $11.3 million. This expenditure increase is offset by adjustments netting to a $9.3 million estimated revenue increase. The exhibit below outlines the supplemental request's impact on the City's financial outlook. The figures below do not adjust for inter-fund transfers and departmental health insurance fund payments. Original Amended (Amts in Millions) 2003 Supplemental Ord. 2003 Budget #62 Request Budget Revenues $77.3 $9.3 $86.6 Expenditures $89.3 $11.3 $100.6 Revenues minus Expenses $(12.0) ($2.0) ($14.0) The City's funds are impacted by a negative $14 million difference between incoming 2003 estimated revenues and 2003 amended expenditures, of which are to be funded from prior cash balances in the respective funds. The Finance Department has determined that the respective funds have sufficient prior year cash balances to support the supplemental request. Further, this supplemental request maintains the financial integrity of the long-range plans of each of the funds out to 2013. General Citvwide Description This supplemental request is driven primarily by the general obligation bond refunding completed in October ($10.3 million in three separate funds), additional requests for recreation funding due to greater than anticipated special event activities ($161,000), the Aspen early childhood education initiative managed through Kids First ($77,000), self-funded engineering projects related to development applications ($94,000), Parks fund appropriations for various projects, and other miscellaneous appropriation requests, all detailed below and in Attachment A to the proposed ordinance. Recreation Activities- $161,623 of supplemental funding is requested. The $161,623 supplemental includes $115,623 for expenses incurred in 2003, (for new programs), that are consequently bringing in new revenues; and $46,000 for six additional special events. Due to these events, special events revenues will also exceed projections by $60,000. No negative impact on the General fund as a result of this request. Engineering - $94,000 of supplemental funding is requested. The $94,000 supplemental includes $69,000 for the Aspen Mountain Drainage Escrow Pedestrian Plan project; and $25,000 to be put into the Pedestrian Plan Main & Galena Traffic Signals project, funded from Fire department and CDOT contributions. No negative impact on the General fund as a result of this request. GIS- The reason for the supplemental of $68,926 is due to accounting changes where negative expenditures, (County reimbursements- refund of expenditures), have now been reclassified as revenues. The change in accounting practice has resulted in total expenditures being stated in compliance with accounting rules, instead of net expenditures for GIS operations. IS- The reason for the supplemental of $7,038 is due to IS payroll costs associated with the transition of records position to the Police Department. Affordable Housing Fund- The $60,000 request, results from additional subsidy needed for the 620 Housing Authority Fund. The reason for the increase in subsidy is due to revenues coming in lower than anticipated. Housing expenses are within original budget authority. Debt Service Fund- Increase of $1.6 million for 2003 refunding of Red Brick bonds. Truscott Place Housing Fund- Of the $6.57 million in one-time supplemental requests, $6.53 million results from the refunding of the 1992 A bonds, 1993 A bonds, and' 1993 B bonds; and $35,000 more for maintenance costs, which will be offset by $35,000 in additional income expected. Marolt Housing Fund- The $2~2 million supplemental request, results from the refinancing of the 1992 A bonds, 1993 A bonds, and 1993 B bonds. Health Plan Internal Service- The reason for the supplemental of $261,716 is due health care costs and number Of claims being higher than anticipated. Funds exist to cover these costs from city and employee contributions. Police- The Police Department has requested $ I4,000 for overtime spent on DUI enforcement offset by a state LEAF grant. Community Development- The Community Development Department, has requested $12,000 that City Council approved for the recently completed Fractional Fee Employee Generation Study. Parks Fund-The Parks department has requested $103,652. Of the $103,652, $16,000 is for Islen landscaping, offset by the sale of 2 pickup trucks to housing. The remaining $87,665 provides budget authority for the Nordic Trails program, $58,937, and budget authority for the recently completed Wagner Park Project $28,718 (both items were approved by Council but not appropriated due to an administrative oversight). (See attached memo) Day Care Fund- Ail of the Day Care Funds $24,600 in expenditure increases are related to specific grant funding. $5,000 is frOm the Aspen Valley CommUnity FOundation, $10,000 is from the Aspen Valley medical foundation, $8,000 is from the Elks club grant, and $1,600 is from a CORRA grant. Kids First Fund- Of the $77,826 in expenditure increases $63,267 is from a grant from The Aspen Valley Early childhood education initiative that become effective on July 1, 2003, $10,595 is from a CORRA grant, and $4,000 is from Garfield CoUnty funding. Transportation and Parking Control Fund- $15,000 in supplemental budget authority is requested for the SH 82 Access Management and Traffic Study. Recommended Action: Adoption of Ordinance No. 62 (Series 2003) will approve this 2003 Supplemental Budget. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ORDINANCE NO. 62 (Series of 2003) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES OF $357,588, An INCREASE IN THE PARKS FUND EXPENDITURES OF $103,652, AN INCREASE IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND EXPENDITURES OF $60,000, AN INCREASE IN THE/DAY CARE FUND EXPENDITURES OF $24,600, AN INCREASE IN THE KIDS FIRST FUND OF $77,862, AN INCREASE IN THE DEBT SERVICE FUND OF $1,606,630, AN INCREASE IN THE TRUSCOTT I FUND OF $2,249,197, AN INCREASE IN THE MAROLT FUND OF $6,578,119, An INCREASE IN THE HEALTH PLAN EXPENDITURES OF $261,716, AND INCREASE TO THE TRANSPORTATION FUND OF $15,000. WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the Home Rule Charter, the City Council may make supplemental appropriations; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified that the City has unappropriated current year revenues and/or unappropriated prior year fired balance available for appropriations in the following funds: General Fund, Parks Fund, Affordable Housing Fund, Day Care Fund, Kids First Fund, Parks Fund, Debt Service Fund, Tmscott I Fund, Marolt Fund, Transportation Fund. WHEREAS, the City Council is advised that certain expenditures, revenue and transfers must be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 Upon the City Manager's certification that there are current year revenues and/or prior year fund balances available for appropriation in the General Fund, Parks Fund, Affordable Housing Fund, Day Care Fund, Kids First Fund, Parks Fund, Debt Service Fund, Truscott I Fund, Marolt Fund, Transportation Fund: the City Council hereby makes supplemental appropriations as itemized in the Attachment A. Section 2 If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof. Section 3 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held December 8, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting held November 24th, 2003. HELEN KALIN KLANDERUD, Mayor ATTEST: KATHRYN KOCH, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved on December 8, 2003. HELEN KALIN KLANDERUD, Mayor A Total City of Aspen 2003 Expenditures Account Number Fund Name _ 2003 Bu 003 Supplemental 2003 Amendended ..... ~___ -- ---- ~rdinance #62 ___ --Budget 000 AMP $ 3,743,105 = $ - $ 3,743,105 001 GENERAL FUND $ 15,307,407 $ 357,588 $ 15,664,995 100 PARKS & OPEN SPACE FUND $ 7,526,384 $ 103,652 $ 7,630,036 12~ WHEELER TRANSFER TAX FUN~- ...... $ 2,439,648 $ $ 2,439,648 130 Lodging-~ax $ 717,858 $ $ 717,858 140 pARKING IMPROVEMENT FUND $ 1,549,929 $ $ 1,549,929 150.23 AFFO_RD~ HOUSING $ _ 16,133,819 $ __ 60,000 $ 16,193,87_ 150.24 Kids First FUND $ 991,930 ; $ 24,600 $ 1,016,530 151 Kids First ~- $ 77,862 200 Debt Service Funds $ 5,842,413 $ 1,606,630 $ 7,449,043 340 BRIDGE AND TRAILS CAP PRO3 FUND $ 3,127,000 $ $ 3,127,000 363 Capital Fund $ 7,658,349 i $ $ 7,658,349 42__1 WATER TTD FUND $ 5__,80~9,10~_~ $ $ 5,809,101 431 ELECTRIC TTD FUND $ 4,668,074 i $ $ 4,668,074 444 RUEDI FUND $ 376,796 $ $ 376,796 450 TRANSPORTATION/PARKING FUND ~$--"-' "-:~,2-~1,--~' $ 15,000 $ 3,306,62~' 471 GOLF COURSE FUND $ 1,344,700 $ $ 1,344,700 491 TRUSCOTT PLACE HOUSING FUND $ 4,923,452 $ 6,578,119$ 11,501,571 492 MAROLT HOUSING FUND $ 709,957 $ 2,249,197$ 2,959,154 501 HEALTH PLAN INTERNAL SERVICE $ 1,995,636 $ 261,716 $ 2,257,352 --620 HOUSING AUTHORITY $ 1,~0_0_2.,5_15. _$~ ......... - $ 1,002,516 622 SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN FUND ............ ~ 112,982 $ $ 112,982 Grand Total City $ 89,272,878.00 $ 11,334,363.72 l$ 100,907,241.72 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor & Council Thru: Steve Barwick, City Manager Paul Menter, Finance Director Jeff Woods, Parks & Recreation Manager Tim Anderson, Recreation Director,/- From: Susan Arenella, Operations Mgr, Recreation Date: October 14, 2003 ]Re: Supplemental Request - 2003 Recreation Budget Summary: The Recreation Department, through six additional special events, will exceed it's 2003 expenditure projections by $46,000. Thanks to these new events, revenues will also exceed projections in the amount of $60,000. Staffis requesting a supplement of $46,000 in additional expenditures, to be offset by $60,000 in additional revenues. This will result in a net reduction to the general fund subsidy of $14,000. These new events brought approximately 550 participants to town, along with their families, to spend approximately $98,000 while here. Manager's Comments: TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: City Manager's Office CC: Finance Office FROM: Jim Considine. Information Systems RE: 2003 Supplemental Budget Request DATE: 11/19/2003 Summary: Coincidental with the resignation of Cathy Close, Iongtime City/County Records Custodian, the responsibility for the Records position is being transferred to the City Police Department. I believe that the City and County are best served if this transition is managed by providing considerable overlap for the new employee with Cathy Close. I am recommending that the new person begin on November 24, 2003 and that Cathy Close be employed on a part-time temporary basis until the end of 2003. This request is for $7,038 to cover the costs associated with this recommendation. Background and Discussion: There are no anticipated savings in the Records budget that could be used to fund this recommendation. This position is critical for the timely and accurate dissemination of law enforcement records. Mistakes could be very costly from public safety and liability points of view. Cathy Close has considerable proprietary experience and knowledge that is crucial to start the new person on the right foot. This one-time request is for $7,038. to cover the 5 weeks of pay for the new person ($3,870} and part-time employment of Cathy Close for the Month of December at her current pay rate ($3,1681. There are no on-going associated with this request. Alternatives: IS and Police believe this is the only alternative to providing an effective and risk minimizing transition. One alternative is to monitor progress and reduce Cathy's employment period if the transition is proceeding better than anticipated. MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: RE: Paul Menter, Finance Director Michael Phillips, Budget Analyst Stephen Ellsperman, Deputy Parks Director Karma Borgquist, Administrative Assistant November 18, 2003 2003 Supplemental Requests The Parks Department is requesting the following funds be carried forward to the 2003 budget. These requests were missed in the first supplemental for 2003. GENERAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES NORDIC TRAILS (10055-555523-xxxxx) $58,937 Please carry forward the remaining balance in this account. This program is governed by an IGA between the City, County and Snowmass Village for operating the nordic program. The savings in this program need to be rolled over for either future needs for the program or refunded equally between each government in the IGA. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES WAGNER PARK EDGE (363.94.56009.86740) We are requesting these funds in order to finish the project that was started in 2002 and completed in 2003. $28,718 Fur~s for~t~s program have been apprlpr~,ed but were posted on Edel into CCLC insteal ~f into / ~ theJEnviron~tal Ranger program. W~ are r'e~uesting a tran~fer as follo~: $13,'5"00--~..~ ..1~0,55.04330,82900 ~~'~ 00 ,"780~030 $15,000. ..... ~u"' ~ ' - 0~-55':e45~30,82900~ 100.55,25600.83900 ISELIN LAN DSCAPING{100.94.83020.86000) This request is offset by the sale of two pickup trucks to the Housing Department. $16,000 TO: THRU: THRU: FROM: DATE: RE: Mayor and City Council Steve Bar*vick, City Manager Tim Anderson, Jeff Woods, and Paul Menter Shirley Ritter, Director, Kids First . 003 2003 ~d_~irst supplemental request SUMMARY: In 2003 Kids First has had unanticipated revenues and formed the partnership with the Aspen Valley Community Foundation resrtlting in new funding. '2003 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUES~'S ACCOUNTS 150.24.* K/ds First is requesting $24,600 as a supplemental request to reflect revenues generated in the 150.24.* accounts, directly benefiting the city. The first listed on the template below is for payment to Kids First for administrative and oversight costs in the amount of $5,000. Our hope is to hire a temporary part time employee to assist with some of those administrative duties so that existing staffwill not be impacted more than they already have been. 5The second source of revenue is the A, spen Valley Medical Foundation. We were awarded a grant for 3 years to fund reimbursement of nurse and mental consultation visits to childcare programs and for education in these areas. A small amount of this grant is for administrative costs as well. Total grant is $10,000 per year, 2003 is the second year we have received this funding. Kids First is the beneficiary of the Elks Club gold tournament held in September. We are told to expect revenues in the $8,000 area. They are interested in funding professional development and scholarships for childcare staffto increase skills and pr6mote higher education levels. tin 2003, part of the Colorado Office i~f Resource and Referral Agencies (CORRA) grant came to Kids First to help fund referral services in Pitkin County. This is for the first 6 months of the year, the second 6 months is being combined with the Aspen Valley Community Foundation initiative funds for the three county region. This amount is 1,600. TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST $24,600 ACCOUNT 150.24.* D:LHomeLKids First\budgetsL2003\supplemental 2003.doc 1 DEPT Name: Kids First DEPT Num.: 150.24. Fund Number: 24000 RESP: Shirley Ritter Supplemental Request #1: CITY OF ASPEN 2003 Supplemental Request Form Aspen Valley Community Foundation ECEI Gram Justification: Partnershi o with the foundation to provide Resource and Referral site-coaching, community outreach and oata collection from Ascen to Parachute. They raise the money, Kids First is paid for oversight, training and supervision of staff Estimated Cost: 80*** Payroll and Benefits TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: Supplemental Request #2 Aspen Valley Medical Foundation Grant Amount $5.00C $5,00C Justification: 'J'his is the second year of a three year grant - $10.000 each year to reimburse ch Idcare providers for nurse consultations and mental health consultations, also for child develc pment and mental health education of providers and families who use childcare as a means to improve quality for children. Estimated Cost: 80*** Payroll and Benefits 81.*** Training, Travel & Education TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: Supplemental Request #3 Elks Club Grant Amount $900 9.100 $10,000 Justification: Elks golf tournament proceeds to benefit Kids First - to provide professional development / scholarshi us for early childhood education staff. This event happens in September. so estimated $8,000. with the opportunity to re-apply next year. Estimated Cost: 80*** Payroll and Benefits 81'** Training, Travel & Education TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: Supplemental Request #4 CORRA Grant Amount $800 7.200 $8.000 Justification: Grant funds to provide Resource and Referral services in Pitkin. Eagle. and Garfield Estimated Cost: 80*** Payroll and Benefits 81'** Training, Travel & Education 83*** Materials and Supplies TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: Amount 6OO 1.000 $1,600 TOTAL OF 2003 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS D:kHomekK. ids First\budgetsk2003\supplemental 2003.doc $24.600 2003 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS ACCOUNTS 151.24.24300.* Because the Aspen Valley Community Foundation Early childhood education initiative (ECEI) happened during 2003 and became effective on July 1, 2003, it is necessary to request supplemental funding to spend those funds as they are intended. The total amount for 2003 for operations, staff, and programming is $76,773. New account numbers have been assigned and accounts are being setup. Below is the budget detail based on 6 months of operations in 2003. DEPT Name: DEPT Num.: Fund Number: RESP: CITY OF ASPEN 2003 Supplemental Request Form Kids First (Aspen Valley Community Foundation ECEI) 151.24 24300 Shirley Ritter Supplemental Request #1: Aspen Valley Community Foundation ECEI Grant Justification: (6 months of 2003 funding) Partnership with the foundation to provide Resource and Referral, site-coaching, community outreach and data collection from Aspen to Parachute. They raise the money, Kids First supervises staff and helps develop programs. Estimated Cost: 80*** Payroll and Benefits 81'** Training, Travel & Education 82*** Professional Fees 83*** Materials and Supplies 85*** Equipment and Furniture <$5k 86*** Fixed Asset Expenditures (RENT) Amount $47,58 2,600 8,100 1,000 720 3,267 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $63,26' Supplemental Request ~4 Justification: Grant funds to (Colorado Office of Resource and Referal Agencies) CORRA Grant provide Resource and Referral services in Pitkin, Eagle, and Garfield Estimated Cost: 80*** Payroll and Benefits 81'** Training, Travel & Education TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: Amount $9,99! 600 $10,595 Supplemental Request #5 Garfield County Funding Justification: Grant funds to provide Resource and Referral services in Garfield Counties Estimated Cost: 80*** Payroll and Benefits TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: Amount $4,00G $4,000 TOTAL OF 2003 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS $77,862 D:kHomeLKids First\budgetsk2003\supplemental 2003.doc 3 TO: THRU: CC: FROM: RE: DATE: Mayor and City Council Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager Finance Office lohn D. Krueger, Transportation Manager 2003 Supplemental Budget Request $15.000 November 10, 2003 In July of 2003, City Council authorized the formation of the S-Curves Task Force. The mission of the S-Curves Task Force was to develop a range of feasible short and mid term alternatives as improvements to the transportation capacity, safety, and appearance of the S-Curves. A 2003 Budget Supplemental Request in the amount of $15,000 is solicited to pay for the professional facilitator and traffic engineering consultant hired to assist the Task Force. The $15.000 Supplemental Request is being requested from the General Fund to be transferred to the Transportation & Parking Department Professional Fees account # 450.32.32100.82000 Background and Discussion: The City Council previously authorized $10,000 for the hiring of a traffic-engineering consultant to assist the S-Curves Task Force. The additional $5,000 in this request is to cover the cost of the facilitator that was added to the team before the task force began work. The facilitator chaired the Task Force through some difficult issues and meetings. The traffic-engineering consultant assisted the Task Force with analyzing S-Curve alternatives and preparing the final report for City Council. The Task Force originally scheduled 5 meetings to complete the analysis of the S-Curves. But. due to the difficult technical and political nature of the S-Curves the Task Force had to add 3 more meetings and much more technical analysis. This resulted in additional facilitator and consultant time. Staff is asking for an additional ~5.000 to pay these additional expenses. The total supplemental funds needed are $10,000 + $5,000 for a total of $15.000. The final report will be presented to City Council at a work session on November 25, 2003. Alternatives: None. City Council approved the spending of funds at the formation of the S-Curves task Force. A facilitator and consultant were hired as directed by City Council. Their professional services were used during the S-Curves Task Force process. MEMORANDUM Vttl& TO: FROM: THRU: THRU: DATE: RE: Mayor and Council John Worcester, Esq. Steve Barwick, City Manager Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Lee Cassin, City Environmental Health Director Mary Lackner, GIS Manager Nida Tautvydas, Wheeler Executive Director Christine Hipp, Wheeler Finance Manager Steve Aitken, Director of Golf Tim Anderson, Recreation Director Jeff Woods, Parks and Recreation Manager StePhen Kanipe, Chief Building Official Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Loren Ryerson, Chief of Police Michael Phillips, Budget Analyst December 3, 2003 Proposed Fee Ordinance changes for 2004 SLrMMARY: Enclosed are the proposed Fee Ordinance changes for 2004. Staff recommends that City Council approve the requested amendments to the Fee Ordinance and approve Ordinance 63. DISCUSSION: Each department (that has proposed changes) has enclosed a cover memorandum. Ordinance 63, also enclosed, specifies the section of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen each particular department is proposing to amend.- Finance has provided a spreadsheet depicting the 2003 current fee, 2004 proposed fee, and percentage increase if applicable. The City must maintain its policy of requiring consumers and users of its programs and services to pay fees that are deemed fair and appropriate for the costs of providing such programs and services. In order to raise adequate revenues to pay for the costs of providing costs and services, City Council shall consider the 2004 Fee Ordinance proposals enclosed herein. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Please refer to the 2004 Fee Ordinance Template spreadsheet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the requested amendments to the Fee Ordinance ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance # 63 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ~Yf~ ~ c~/.~f.~ ~ CITY OF ASPEN - 2004 Fee Ordinance Template city Clerk [ 12/9/03 2003 2004 Percent Current __Fee Title Fe~ ~ ~ Justification One day Business License $15.0( _ New Fee Two day Business License $20.0( New Fee Community Development t2/9103 12:01 2003 2004 ' Percent I Current FeeTitle F,,e.~e Prop. Fee Chan~le I Justification Aspen Land Use - Deposit $2,520.0( $2,620.0( 4.0% Round up of basic 4 % increase Aspen Land Use - Deposit $1,260.0( $1,310.0( 4.0% Round up of basic 4 % increase ~,spen Land Use - Deposit $525.0( $546.0( 4.0% Round up of basic 4 % increase ~.spen Land Use - Deposit $2t0.01 $220.01 4.8% Round up of basic 4 % increase ~,spen Land Use - Flat Fee $290.0{ $302.01 4.1% General fee increase Aspen Land Use - HPC $525,0( $546.01 4.0% General fee increase Aspen Land Use - HPC $1,260.0~( $1,310.0( 4.0% General fee increase kspen Land Use -HPC _ $2,520.0(7 $2,620.01 4.0% Gederal fee increase Aspen Land Use - HPC $2,520.00 $2,620.00 ___4.0% General fee increase Aspen Land Use - HPC $525.00 $546.00 ' 4,8% Round up of basic 4 % increase Aspen Land Use - HPC $210.00 _ $220.00 4.8% Round up of basic 4 % increase Aspen Zoning P~an Check $105.00 $110,00 __ 4.8% Round up of basic 4 % increase Aspen Zoning Plan Check $105.00 $110.00 4.0% Round up of basic 4 % increase Aspen Zoning Plan Check $50.00 __ $52.00 4.0% General fee increase As~pe n Zoning Plan Check $105.00 $110.00 4.8% Round up of basic 4 % increase Aspen Zoning Pldn Check $105.00 $110.00 Round up of basic 4 % increase Aspen Zoning Plan Check $495.00 _$530.00 __ General fee increase _. Aspen Zoning Plan Check $2,510.0g $2,610.00 General fee increase Aspen Zoning Plan Check $105.00 $110.00 4.8°/( General fee increase Aspen Zoning Plan_Check $105.00 $110,00 4.80/~ General fee increase Aspen Zoning P~an Check $105.00 $110.00 General fee increase Aspen Zoning Plan Check $1,500.0C $1,550.00 General fee increase Aspen Zoning Plan Check ~$4,600.0C $4,750,0C General fee increase As_~pe n Zoning Plan Check $670.0¢ $695.0~ 3.7°/< General fee increase Aspen Zoning Plan Check $125.0C $130.0¢ 4.0°/< General fee ldcmase Aspen Zoning Plan Check $170.0¢ $177.0¢ 4.1o/< General fee increase Aspen Zoning Pldn Check $25.0¢ $26.0¢ __ 4.0°/< General fee increase Aspen Zoning Plan Check $25.0¢ $28.0C 4.0o~ General fee increase Revenue $0.5[ $0.5[ 0.0 o/~ No increase Buildin.q ............... 12/9!03 12:01 2003 2004 Percent Current FeeTitle Fee . p~(~p~_F~ Chanqe .......... .Justification Building Permit F~ees $25.0( $50,0( 100.0o/ ........ p~er~lit types Building PeenS_Fees ___ fee~ fee~ _4% i_ncrv_e.a_se _ matdx o matrix o matrix o matrix o Building Permit Fees fee~ fee~ 4% increase matrix o matrix o Building Permit Fees fee= fee= .__ 4% increase Building Permit Fee~s fee= fee= 4% increase matrb< o matrix o Building Permit Fees fee~ , fee~ 4% increase Page I of 5 Building Permit Fees fee., fee.~ 4% increase Building Permit Fees houl $120.0( ..... Changed fee to show the actual minimum 2 hours building time Building Permit Fees $55.0( $60.0( 9.1 o/ Changed fee to reflect one hour building time ~harge Building Permit Fees $55.0( $60.0( 9.1o/ Changed fee for consistency _ Energy Code Fee 10% BPF 10% BPF 0.0% No increase in percentage Building Mechanical Permit Fee $24.7~ $25.7~ 4.0% 4% increase ~uilding Mechanical Perrait Fe~ -- $15.5~ $16.1; 4.0% 4% increase~ ~uiiding Mechanical Permit Fee $15.5~ $16.1; 4.0% 4% increase ~uilding Mechanica[ Permit Fee $15.00 $16.17 7.8% 4% increase ~uilding Mechanical Permit Fee $7.65 $7,95 3.9% Basic increase ~uilding Mechanical Permit Fee $14,40 $t5.00 4.2% Basic increase guildtng Mechanical Permit Fee $15.45 $16.07 4.0% 4% increase Building Mechanical Permit Fee $28.50 - $29.64 4.0% 4% increase Building Mechanical Permit Fee $39.15 $40,71 4,0% 4% increase Building Mechanical Permit Fee __ $58.25 $60.58 4.0% 4% increase Building Mechanical Permit Fee $97.30 $101,20 4,0~ 4% increase Building Mechanical Permit Fee $11.20 $11.65 4.00/< 4% increase Building Mechanical Perm fl Fee $19.0C $19,76 4.0~ Building Mechanical Permit Fee $11.2£ $11.6`" 4.00/< 4% increase Building Mechanical Permit Fee $7.6." $7.9`" 3.90/< General fee increase Building Mechanical Permit Fee $11.2( $11.6." 4.0~ 4% increase Building Mechanical Permit Fee $11.2( $t 1.6.= 4.0 o/, 4% increase Building Mechanical Permit Fee $15.2.~ $15,8{ 4.00/ 4% increase Building Mechanical Permit FeE $11.2( $11.6.= 4,0~/ 4% increase Building Mechanical Permit Fee $55.0( $110.0( 0.0~/ minimum) Building Mechanical Permit Fee $55.0( $60.0( 9.1 ~ Fee increase Building Mechanical Fees $55.0( $60.0( 9.1% Fee increase B~ui~ding Mechanical Fees $60.0( $60.0( 0.0% NO change 65% o 65% e Bui[dir pe ~d n( NO change; permit fees changed but the percentage for plan check remains ~uilding Plan Check Fees Permit Fee= permit fee: 0.0% the same flui[ding City Plumbing Permit $25,0( $26.0( 4.0% 4% fee increase ~uilding City Plumbing Permit $7.65 $7.95 3.9% Fee increase ~uilding City Plumbing Permit $10.30 $10.71 4.0% Fee increase ~uildin0 City Plumbing Permit $5,00 $5,20 4.0% Fee increase guilding City Plumbing Permit $25.90 $26,94 4,0% Fee increase 6uildi~g City Plumbing Permit $39.t 5 $40,72 4.0% Fee increase Building City Plumbing Permit $78,25 $81,38 4.0% Fee increase Buitding City Plumbing Permit $20.90 $21.74 4.0% Fee increase Building City Plumbing Permit $10.30 $10,71 4.0~ Fee increase Building City Plumbing Permit $5.00 $5,2g 4.0°/< Fee increase Building City Plumbing Permit $12.95 $13.47 4.0_~ Fee increase Building City Plumbing Permit $6.45 $6.71 4.0°/< Fee increase Building City Plumbing Permit $1,15 $1.2( 4.3 ~/< Fee increase Building City Plumbing'Permit $15.5`" $16.17 4.0./< Fee increase Building City Plumbing Permit $12.9`" $13.4`" 3,9o/< Fee increase Building City Plumbing Permit -- $2.4( $2.5( 4.2o~ Fee increase Building City Plumbing Permit $12.9[ $13.4( 3.9"~ Fee increase Building City Plumbing Permit $25.9( $26.9~ 4.0~ Fee i~crease Building City Plumbing Permit $95.8.~ $99,6~ 4,0°/ Fee increase Building City Plumbing Permit $63.8( $66.3." 4.00/ Fee increase Building City Plumbing Permit $63.8( $66,3,= 4.0o/ Fee increase Building City Plumbing Permit $~1.8( $33.0; 4.0°/ Fee increase Building City Plumbing Permit $10.3( $10.7! 4.0~/ Enter Basis for fee increase here Building City Plumbing Permit $55.0( $110.0( 0,0c/ outside of normal hours for other permit types Page 2 of 5 Building City Plumbing Permit $55,00 $60.00 9.1%_ Changed to be consistent 9uilding City Plumbing Permit $55.00 $60.00 9.1% Changed to match mechanical, building and electrical permit charges Building City Plumbing Permit $60.00 $60.00 0.0% Changed minimum charge to one hour County Collected Building Revenues $22,000.00 $20,000.00 -9.1% Building Electrical Permit Fees $0.00 0.0% Enter Basis for fee increase here Environmental Health '12/9/03 12:01 2003 2004 Percent Current Fee Title _~_ _pro_p. Fee Chanqe Justification Raising #ees 4% results in an odci~'mbered fee of $36.40, so we Special or Temporary Event ecommend rounding up to the nearest even amount. Fee was not raised a Food Pla9 Review $35.0C __ $40.0C 14.3t/ all in 2003. Raising Fees 4% results in an odd-numbered fee of $36.4-0, so we Special or Temporary Event ~commend rounding up to the nearest even amounb Fee was not raised a Food Inspection Fee $35.0( $40.0( 14.3o/ ail in 2003. Raising Fees 4% results in an odd-numbered fee of $36.40, so we ~ecommend rounding up te the nearest even amount. Fee was not raised a Construction Noise Variance $35.0( $40,0( 14.3o/ all in 2003. Swimming Pool Plan Review or inspection Fee $67.0( $70.0( 4.59 Raised 4% rounded to the nearest do[lat. Fee was not raised at all in 2003. Restaurant Site inspection fee $67.0( $70.0( 4.59 ~aised 4% rounded to the nearest dollar. Fee was not raised at ali in 2003. Food Safety Training $67.0( $70.0( 4.5%' Raised 4% rounded to the nearest dolldr. Fee was not raised at all in 2003. Fee is set by state statute and cannot be raised. This foe does not come ~esteurant Plan Review $355.0( $355.0( 0.0% close to covedng our costs. vades fron vades fron $154 t( $154 lz Fee is set by state statute and cannot be raised, This fee does not cover -'nod Service License $38: $38: 0.0% our costs. Fee varies by size of restaurant. $248.5( $248.5( Average restaurant license cost Average Fees each year -$113.6! $116.6! 2.6% overall increase in fees we charge '12/9/03 12:01 .... Police Department 2003 2004 Percent Current Fee Ttfi~ Fe_ e ~r~p~. Fee _~ ....... ~J~sstification Annual Alarm Permit Fees $69.00 $71.00 2.9% Non-Cour~ Dog Licens_ e $13.00 $13.50 3.8% Non-court issued dog licenses Federal Assistance $0.00 $0,00 0.0% Reimbursement of funds spent on federal assistance a~s_ n_e_e _de~d __ Federal COPS Universal Grant $0.00 $0.00 __ 0.0% Currently we do not have a Universal Grant School District SRO Off, Share $23,604.00 --~29,585.00 25.5o/~ Schools contribution per Cops in the Schools Grant Federal Bulletproof Vest Program $2,260.00 $1,500.00 -33.6% Grant Program as applied for and approved ;rate Grante - Police $13,622.84 $11,235.0ti ~-17.5% LEAF Grant for DUFDUAI enforcement Vehicle [nspectldn Feeds $15.00 $15.5fi 3.3% Cost to inspect/mn Vehicle Identifications ' Certified VINs * Inspection Fees $20,00 $20.0(] 0.0% Stetp madatas revenue C~r[y Share of DUI's $0.00 $0.0(3 0.0% Fines are determined by the Judge Court Tow Fee - City $0.0C $0.0C ____ 0,0 °/~ Tow foes retumed due to Muni Court Hearing City Towing Fines $77.0C $80.0C 3.9~ Tow fines for cars that are towed by the city C_!ty Towing Fines $93.0C $96.0C 3,2~ Tow fines for cars towed to the dump County Court Fines $0.0¢ $0.0C 0.0°/~ Fines charged by County Court Police Parking Tickets $0.0C __ $0,0C 0.0~ Revenue for Police Parking Tickets False Alarm Fines $71,0C .__ $73,0C 2,8o~ __ First folse alarm fine Fals Ala~ Fines (2nd One) $105:0( $109.0£ 3,8o~ Second false alarm fine False Alarm Fines (3rd+) $148.0( $153.0( __ 3.4t/ Third and up false alarms False Alarm Fines (Banks) $291.0( $302.0( 3.8t/ False alarm for banks Non-Court Dog Fines $0.0( $0.0( . ._ 0.0t/ Determined by the court Refund of Expenditure $0.0( $0.0( 0.0t/ Misc. refunds for expenditures Other Misc. Revenues $0.0( $0.0( 0.0t/ Misc. Revenues Auction Revenue $0.0( $0,0( 0,0t/ Auction revenue for cars, bikes and misc properly Sale of Fixed Assets $0.0( $0.0( 0.0t/ Sales of fixed assets Page 3 of 5 Recreation ' 12/9103 12:0 I 2003 2004 Percent Current Fee'rifle_ Fe.,,.~e _Prop. Fee Chan.qe .... _J~stiflcation _ Gymnastics-Gymfanta $27,0( $28,0( 3,70/ Gymnast/cs-Mommy & Me $37.0( $38.0( 2.70/ Gymnat/cs-Tots $37.0( $38.0( 2.7%= _ Gymnastics-Beginner 1 day~k $45.0( $46,0( 2,2% .~ymnastics-Beginer 2daysANk $80.01 $82.0{ 2,5% ~ymnat/cs-lnt, tday~vk $50.0( $51,01 2.0% 3ymnast/cs-lnt 2days~k $90,0( $93.0( ___3.3% ~ymnastics-Advanced $90.00 $93.00 _3.3% Symnastics-Pre-Team $125.00 $129.00 3.2% G~ymnasfics-Team 3x~vk $t50,00 $160,00 6.7% -~i~i;e~-f~s-@ other gym~ Averages to $4 16 per hr Gy~mnastics-Team 4x/wE $160.00 $170.00 ~-'6.3~ ...... --Com~; ~i~fees~ ~t~er ~y~s ~,verages to $4 33 pe~ hr Symnastics-Team 5~Jwk $170.00 $180.00 5.9% ' ~_o-~_ti~ive ~i[_h_~ees~_oth~r_gym~: A~_era~es to $2.63 per h r Gy?nast/cs-Opt/o~al Team $200.00 $220,00 10.0% Adult Basketball-Drop in $3.00 $3.00 0.0°~ M~n's League $450.00 $463.00 Trapeze $50.0(~ $51.00 2.0~ Pdvate lessons ...... Aerobics-Drop th Passholder $0.0C $0.0C 0.0 o/< Included in Fun Pass Aerobics-Drop In Non- Passholder $10.5¢ $10.5¢ 0.0°~ Gymnasium Rental-1 hour $52,0( $53.5( 2,9°~ Gymnasium Rental-2-5 hours $180.0( $185.0( Gymnasium Rental-6-10 hours $335,0( $345.0( 3,0e/ Gymnasium Rental t0+ hours $515.0( $530.0( 2.9°/ Youth Baseball $88.0( $90.0( 2.3°/ Youth Baseball-2nd child $85.0( $87.0( 2.4°/ T-~all $47.0( $48.0( 2.10/ T-~B all- 2nd Child $45.0( $46,0( 2.2% Gids Softball $88.0( $90,0( 2.3% __ .~ids Softball-2nd child $85.0( $87.0( 2,4% .ate Fee $75.01 $75.0( 0.0% 5,dull Softball-Mens League $585.01 $600.0( 2.6% ~dult Softball-Coed League $465.00 $479,01 3.0% 3ay Camp $26,00 $27.00 3.8% I'ennis Lessons MAN/F $65.00 $67,00 3.1% Yen~nis Lessons Tu/Th $44,00 $45.00 2.3% Tennis Team $320.00 $330.00 3.1% Climbing Wall Class tx/wk- Passholder $60.00 $62.00 Climbing Wall Class-Non Passholder $68.00 $74.00 8.8¥~ _~._ $3lclass additional for non-passholders Climbing Wa~l Class 2x/wk- Passholder $100.0(3 $103,0(} Youth Intramurals $30.0C $3t .0C Youth Soccer $75.0C $77.0C 2.7°~ Youth Soccer- 2nd child $73.0¢ $75,0¢ Youth Soccer-Kindecgarten $35.0£ $36.0C Youth Basekthall $55.0¢ $56.0¢ 1.8~ Youth BasketbaI[-Kinderga~en $26.0~ $27,0¢ AduSScccer $450.0£ $463.0C 2.9°/ ARC '12/9/03 ~12:0~ 2003 2004 Percent Current Fee Title Fe...~e pr~p. Fee _Chan~Le ~J ustiflcation Pass Sa~es Daily (Guest Youth) $10.5( $13.0( 23.80/ Direction From Council to meet 2004 budget Pass Sales Daily (Guest Adult) $t2.0( $t5.0( 25.0~ Direction From Council to meet 2004 budget Group Swim Lessons (Pass ~older) $43.0( $48.0( 11,6% Comprable fee te other Rec Centar and Front Range Group Swim Lessons (No~- >ass Holder) $55.0( $6t.5( 1 t .8% Comprable fee te~ther Rec Center and Front Range ~.quacise/Water Fitness $3.51 ADk __ Decrease to the price of Admission Nater Polo N# ADM+$3,0{ New Program Page 4 of 5 vlaster Swim N/~ ADM+$3.01 _ New Program ='venin_g Child Cato --NIT $15.00/hl New program =-vening Child Care (Each ~ddi~onal Sibling) N/A $12.00/hr. New Program Junior Hockey Fees (Youth Non New Facility/PalM.g, bus route, lockers & locker reams, proximity to ~fz:)fit $140.00 $155.00 10,7% schools. ~dult Hockey Fees (Adult Non- Profit) $150.00 $170.00 13.3% New Facility/Parking, bus route, lockers & locker rooms. General Ice Rentals $180.00 $200.00 11.1°/c New Facility/Parking, bus route, Iockars & locker rooms. For Profit Ice $200.0g $300.00 50.0% P6vate Hockey Schools and New Facility with amenities Figure Skating Classes (Pass $t .00 increase per class. Fees have not increaed in 2 years and are below Holders) $10.00 $11.00 10.004 average for dnk lessons. Figure Skating Classes (Non- $1.00 increase per crass. Fees have not [ncreaed in 2 years and are below Pa~SS holders) $13.0C $14.0(~ 7.7o~ average for rink lessons. Wheeler Opera House 2003 2004 Percent Current Fee Title . Fee~ Prop. Fee Chanqe Regular Season For prof~ Rehearsal Rate $60.0~ $63.0( 5.0_ 0/ Regular Season Private Rehearsal Rate $175.0( $180.0( 2.90/ High Season For Profit Rehearsal Rate $75,0( $78.0( 4.00/ High Season Private Rehearsal Rate $190.0( $195.0( 2.6% Regular Season For Profit Neekday Performance Day ~ate $950.0( $985.0( 3.7% ~egular Season For Pro(it Neekand Pen~ormance Day ~.ate $1,000.0( $1,040.0( 4.0% :~egular Season Pdvate ,,Veekday Performance Day :~ate $1,400,00 $1,450.00 3.6% ~egular Season, Pdvate ¢]eekend Performance Day ~ata $1,650.00 $1,710,00 __ 3,6% ~h Season For Profit Weekday Performance Day Rate $1,050,00 $1,090.00 ~h Season For Profit Weekend Performance Day Rate $1,100.00 $1,140.00 3,6¥~ High Seaso~ Pdvate Weekday Performance Day Rate $1,700.00 $1,765.0~0 High Season Pdvate Weekend Performance Day Rate $2,000.00 $2,080.0fi 4.0~ GOLF ........... ~ 2i~i03 12:01 2003 2004 Percent Curre~ Fee Title Fee Prop. Fee Change Justification 9 Hole Greens Fees $45,0( $45,0( 0.0°/ NO Fee I~crease reccommended J~e golf mad<et. The addigonal funds that are generated will be reserved fo 18 Hole Greens Fees $85.0( $90.0( 5,9~/ an irrigation improvement fund The additional revenue generated will be reserved for an irrigation 20 Punch Pass $360.0( $375.0( 4.20/ improvement fund, -- The addifional revenue generated will be reser,/ed for an irrigation Golf Season Pass $720.0( $780.0( 8,3°/ improvement fund. The'~'t~~'~-~-r~erved fo~ a~ J~atio~ ACF~. Season Pass $660.0( $720.0( 9.1~ improvement fund, -- The proposed no change represents an commitment to supporting junior Jr. Golf Pass $100.0( $100.0( 0.0% golf in the valley and growing the sport of golf. Page 5 of 5 Date: To; Through: Through: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM November 14, 2003 Mayor & Council John Worcester Loren Ryerson Kathy Tolle Revenue Increases for 2004 The anticipated revenue increases for the Police Department are at the recommended 4% inflationary increases in the following areas: Non-Court Doq Licenses, Municipal Code 5-28 The rate for 2004 will be changed to $13.50 per tag with a $3.00 replacement fee for lost tags. Vehicle Inspection Fees We charge for vehicle inspections performed by employees of the Police Department. The fee for VlN's in 2004 will be $15.50. Certified Yin Inspection Fees The State of Colorado regulates the fee for these inspections at $20.00 per inspection. This is a state mandated fee. Refund of Expenditure We have been charging an hourly rate for off-duty security by agreement. The fee has been per officer/per hour. The fee for 2004 will be $78.00/per hour per officer. Notary Public Fees Due to the large number of requests we get for notary public services we began charging $2.00 per acknowledgment. We will continue to collect this amount per State of Colorado Code 12-55-121. Central Al arm License Fees, Municipal Ordinance 8.5-2 This is the fee charged to the alarm companies who provide alarm security to Aspen residences and businesses. With the increase ir~ 2004 the rate would be $285.00 per company. October 26, 2001 MEMORANDUM 2 Annual Alarm Permit Fees, Municipal Ordinance 8.5 Fees charged for new alarm permits within the city limits and for renewal of those permits annually. The 2004 rate will be $71.00/permit. False Alarm Fines, Municipal Ordinance 8.5 Fines charged for false alarm response. The new fine structure for 2004 will be as follows: $73.00 for the first false alarm, $109.00 for the second, $153 for each additional false alarm response each calendar year. The banks will be charged at $302.00 for each false alarm responded to. Towinq of Vehicles, Municipal Ordinance 24.08.020 Vehicles that are obstructing snow removal will be towed at a rate of $80.00 per tow in 2004. A portion of the fee goes To pay the tow company and the rest is an administrative fee. Vehicles towed to the dum3 will be charged $96.00 in 2004. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Mayor and City Council Kathryn Koch, City Clerk November 24, 2003 Fee for special event business license The city clerk's office is proposing a new fee for one- and two-day special event business/sales tax licenses. Currently, vendors associated with special events pay the $150 business license fee - or pay nothing. This fee would be only for vendors with a special event and would be a way for finance to make sure they know about sales tax. We anticipate a small increase in revenue from this new fee. The fee is incorporated in.2.12.080 and is Special Event Business License one-day 15.00 Two-days 25.00 MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: The Mayor and City Council Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director John Worcester, City Attorney Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official Amendment to Building Division Fees December 8, 2003 SUMMARY: The City Manager has directed staff to propose an average of a four (4) percent on building division fees for 2004. The attached fee schedule reflects that The entire schedule is now included in the fee section of the Municipal Code, not in the body of the building regulations. This allows fee adjustments to be made independently of the building regulation amendments. The fee schedule titles have been modified to reflect the International Code adoption. Staff recommends that City Council approve the requested amendment to the Community Development Building Fees Schedule. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager THRU: John Worcester, City Attorney THRU: Jeff Woods, Parks and Recreation Manager THRU: Tim Anderson, Recreation Director FROM: Steve Aitken, Director of Golf DATE: November 12, 2003 RE: Aspen Golf Club Fee Changes SUMMARY: Golf Staff and the Golf Advisory Board are recommending increases to passes and greens fees, for the 2004 season. See Attachment "A'. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved the increases to the fee structure outlined in Attachment "A' during a work session earlier this month. DISCUSSION: The need to address a new irrigation system at the golf course was discussed at the budget Work session. Although the system is very functional at this time, City Council was informed that a fund should be set aside to address an inevitable renovation or replacement. The goal for the golf department was to produce an additional $50,000.00 per year. The additional revenue will be reserved in the Golf Long Range Plan for the future irrigation renovation/replacement project. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The rate increases for Golf Passes will produce an additional $50,000.00 in revenue for the Golf Fund based on the amount of rounds played and passes purchased in 2003. RECOMMENDATION: Golf Staff and the Golf Advisory Board recommend the attached increases to fees. See Attachment "A'. ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not approve the fee increases. The funding source for the irrigation renovation or replacement project will not be available. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance # CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ATTACHMENT "A" 2003 2003 2003 2004 Season Pass (No Restrictions) 2004 Season Pass (No Restrictions) Includes 2 vouchers valid for Discounted golf opening day to June 1 and October 1 to close ACRA Season Pass (No Restrictions) ACRA Season Pass (No Restrictions) Includes 2 vouchers valid for Discounted golf opening day to June l and October 1 to close 2003 Junior Pass 2004 Junior Pass 2003 20 Punch Pass (No Restrictions) 2004 20 Punch Pass (No Restrictions) $720.00 $780.00 $660.00 $720.00 $100.00 No Change $360.00 $375.00 2003 Pass Rate Comparisons Vail Golf Club $850.00 Season Pass (Restricted Friday thru Sunday and holidays until 2:30 PM) $350.00- $450.00 20 Punch Pass (Restricted Friday- Sunday and holidays until 2:30 PM) River Valley Ranch $600.00 10 Punch Pass with Cart (No restrictions) Snowmass Not Available 2003 18 Hole Green Fee $85.00 (6:30AM- 1:00 PM) $65.00 (I:00PM- 3:30 PM) $45.00 (3:30 PM- End of Day) 2OO4 Recommended 18Hole Green Fee $90 (6:30- 1:00 PM) $65 (1:00-3:30 PM) $45 (3:30-End of Day) 2OO3 Hole Green Fee Comparisons Vail Golf Club $90.00 Weekday $100.00 Weekend River Valley Ranch $75.00 Snowmass N/A 2003 2004 9 Hole Green Fee Recommended 9 Hole Green Fee $45.00 No Change 2003 2004 Jr. Green Fee- Recommended Jr. Green Fee $25.00 ( 9 or 18 Holes ) No Change 2003 2004 Off Season Green Fees 18 Holes Recommended Off Season Green Fees 18 Holes $45.00 (Opening Day until May 15 and Labor Day to close) No Change TO: Mayor Helen Kianderud and Council THROUGH: Steve Barwick, City Manager Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager FR: Nida Tautvydas, Wheeler Executive Director Christine Hipp, Wheeler Finance Manager DATE: November 13, 2003 RE: 2004 Fee Ordinance The Wheeler Opera House would like to increase our base venue rental fees for For Profit and Private user groups by a modest amount in order to keep pace with inflation. The local Non-Profit venue rental rates will not increase from 2003 rates. Since these For Profit and Private rates will affect only about 20 days per year, the increase ~n revenue will amount to less than $1'000 over the course of the year. Hourly rehearsal rates show an increase of $3/hour for For Profit user groups and $5/hour for Private user groups. Performance day rates show an increase of $35 - $40 for For Profit user groups and $50 - $80 for Private user groups over a potentially 16 hour use day (8:00AM - Midnight). This averages out across the 16 hours to an increase of $2 - $5 per hour. Some of the variation reflected in the percentage of increase over last year is an attempt to keep the rates at round, easy-to-use numbers. We would ike to implement annual adjustments in order to keep pace with current inflation' rates. Memorandum To: Thru: From: Re: Date: City Council John Worcester. City Attorney Mary Lackner. GIS Manager G lS Fees November 18, 2003 There are three changes we are requesting in the update of the Geographic Information SysTem fee structure; The current listing of fees in Section 2.12.053 is fairly complex and discusses a photography product that is no longer pertinent. The cnanges To th~s section are primarily a reformatting and s~mplification of the existing mumc~pa~ code [exT. The actual fees charged for services are not proposed to change, other than wna[ is mentioned in items 2 and 3. We have added a "Rush Fee" for mapping services, This is our on~y tem that is a new charge. We have eeen operaung w~tn this concept for several years ano have only used it in dire circumstances when a customer reeuests a large mapping project with an immediate turn around deadline for the product. Some customers don't realize mere are other customer redues~s, [nat occas~ona~ y we are not at 100% staffing due to holidays, vacations and sick time and sometimes other interna~ projects hold a higher priority then a customer redues[ More often than not, we can accommodate a quick turnaround but this "Rush Fee" is being added for the unusual circumstance. 3. We are clarifying a reduction in fees for maps that are 11" x 17" or less in s~ze to $5.00, The wording of the current fee structure indicates a~ maes are $25.00. TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Mayor and Council Steve Barwick, City Manager Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Lee Cassin, City Environ_mental Health Director November 7, 2003 Proposed Environmental Health Fees for 2004 SUMMARY: This memo lists the proposed changes in Environmental Health Department fees for the year 2004, to partially cover our increased costs of providing these servmes. BACKGROUND: Fees for food service licenses and fees for restaurant plan reviews are set by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Restaurant license fees were raised last year and are not being raised this year. DISCUSSION: The average increase for fees charged by Environmental Health is 1.6%. Last year fees did not increase at all. The two largest fees, for restaurant licenses and restaurant plan reviews, are not being increased for 2004. Other fees are increased by 4%, rounded up to the nearest whole dollar amount. This results in the following fees for 2004: Special or Temporary Event Plan Review Fee · Special or Temporary Event Inspection Fee (if needed) · Construction Noise Variance Fee · Swimming Pool Plan Review Fee · Restaurant Site Inspection Fee · Food Safe.ty Training · Restaurant Plan Review Fee · Food Service License $4O $4O $4O $70/hour (Similar to the state-set fee structure for restaurant plan reviews.) $70/hour $70/hour $355 $154-343 (set by state) FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Since our two largest fees carmot be raised, the increase in our revenues will be small. We estimate the revenue implications of these fee increases to be approximately $200, given the relatively small size of the fees to begin with and the small proposed increases. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends approval of these fee increases so the costs of providing these services can be more closely recovered from those requinng the services. ALTERNATIVES: Council could approve larger or smaller fee increases. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ORDINANCE NO. Series of 2003 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN. COLORADO. AMENDING THE IVILINICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO INCREASE CERTAIN MUNICIPAL FEES. WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring consumers and users of the miscellaneous City of Aspen programs and services to pay fees that fairly approximate the costs of providing such programs and services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect do not raise revenues sufficient to pay for the attendant costs of providing said programs and services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That Section 2.12.050 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth a Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2.12.050 Aspen Police Department Fees. (a) Law enforcement records: Accident reports, per search Per copied page Case reports and coroner reports, per search Per copied page Arrest history and background checks, per search Certification/notarization Microfilm copy, per search Per copied page Photograph copies, per 4" x 5" Per 5" x 7" Per 8" x 10" Communications logging, search per hour Per cassette tape $ 6.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 6.00 5.00 10.00 2.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 25.00 5.00 (b) Aspen Police Department: Alarm User permit fee 71.00 First false alarm per year Second false alarm per year Third & Fourth false alarm per year All bank alarms Late fees Central alarm license fee Vehicle inspection Certified VIN inspection Off-duty security, per officer, per hour Notary fees, per acknowledgement Towing fee (including processing fee) Towing fee (to impound lot) Public notary (Police Department) (d) Dog vaccination and license fees: Annual dog tag fees Transfer fee Replacement tag 73.00 109.00 153.00 302.00 11.00 271.00 15.50 20.00 78.00 2.00 80.00 96.00 2.00 13.50 13.50 3.00 Section 2 That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 2.12.052, which Section shall set forth certain fees of the Environmental Health Department and shall read as follows: 2.12.052 Environmental Health Department Fees. Special event plan review feeIl ............ ............ Special event inspection fee 11 ........... ........... Noise variance fee I[~ ......... ~'~,~ ...... plan review fee Swi_ mming pool :1[ 70.00/hr Site Inspection for Restaurants ................... j[__.~7~L0~Pnr ......... Food safety training Food Service Plan Review Food Service License (depending on size of restaurant) (set by state statute) 11___7.S.00 $355.00 Section 3 That the Municipal Code of the City Of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 2.12.053, which Section shall set forth certain fees of the Information Systems Department, and shall read as follows: 2.12.053 Information Systems Department Fees. Preprinted Standard Maps Large format (11" x 17") Small format (11" x 17" or less) Custom Mapping Services Mailing Lists Digital Data Rush fees $25.00 each 5.00 eaCh 125.00 hour 100.00 for each property, plus $1.00 per label sheet after first 60 names. 125.00 minimum Orders required within 48 hours of request will be assessed a 20% rash fee. Orders required within 24 hours will be assessed a 40% rush fee. Section 4: That Section 26.04.060 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section establishes land use application fees, is hereby amended to read as follows: 26.04.060 Land use application fees. (a) The categories of review processes and base fees for the processing of land use applications shall be as follows: Amendments to the existing fee ordinance are indicated in Bold and Italicized text. Base Fee Category Hours (Deposi0 1. All Major Applications 12 $2,620.00 2. All Minor Applications 6 1,310.00 3. Staff Approvals 2.5 546.00 4. Flat Fee 302.00 (c) 1. Referral Fees--Environmental Health, Housing, Engineering Community Development collects some fees for Land Use Application review as established by other City Departments. Each Department sets their own fees. Development Order Recordation Fee $35.00 The Commuuity Development Department staff shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of each land use application and additional billings shall be made commensurate with the additional costs incurred by the city when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time than is covered by the base fee. In the event the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes less time than provided for in subsection (a), the department shall refund the unused portion of the base fee. The following guidelines shall be used for the administration of the fee structure set forth above: Fees charged for the processing of applications which fall into more than one category shall be cumulative; while the fees charged for the processing of applications within the same category shall not be cumulative. In the event that the fees, which result from accumulation, are found by the Community Development Department to be excessive in relation to the number of hours it is anticipated to require to process the application, the Community Development Department may waive the accumulation requirement. Additional billings shall be based solely on processing time spent by members of the Community Development Department or its designee in the processing of an application. Additional billings shall be computed at the rate of two hundred and ten dollars ($210.00) per hour of additional Community Development Department staff time required. Refunds of unused hours shall be made at the rate of two hundred and ten dollars ($210.00) per hour of time. The Community Development Director shall establish appropriate guidelines for the collection of additional billings as required. This fee structure shall be reviewed annually as part of the City of Aspen's budget hearing process and should any adjustments be necessary, they shall be changed to become effective on January I. The Community Development Department shall identify, prior to or at the time of submission of a land use application, whether an application is to be referred to the Engineering, Housing, or Environmental Health Departments. The Community Development Department shall also identify whether an application constitutes a minor or a major referral, based on the number of hours that will be required to review the application, and charge the applicant for each referral accordingly. Additional billings and refunds shall not apply to the computation of referral fees. Land use review fees may be waived or reduced in the discretion of the Community Development Director for projects serving a public purpose, proposed by a non-profit organization, or in which the fee may be excessive for the work proposed. Section 5: That Section 26.04.070 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section establishes historic preservation application fees, is hereby amended to read as follows: 26.04.070 Historic preservation application fees. The types of applications and fees for the processing of historic preservation and applications shall be as follows (Historic preservation review fees may be waived or reduced in the discretion of the Community Development Director for projects serving a public purpose, proposed by a non-profit organization, or in which the fee may be excessive for the work proposed). All fees are deposit fees. Designation $ 0.00 Example: Listing of any property on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Sh~uctures. Exempt Development $0.00 Example: Interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similar to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, repair of window glazing or other such minimally intrusive work. Certificate of No Negative Effect $312 Work that qualifies includes replacement or repair of architectural features which creates no change to the exterior physical appearance of the building or structure; replacement or repair of architectural features that restores the building or structure to its historic appearance; installation of awnings, canopies or similar attachments provided no significant feature is damaged, removed or obscured by the installation; fencing; mechanical equipment or accessory features that have no impact on the character-defining features of the building or 4~ structure; signs which have no effect on the character-defining features of the historic property; alterations to non-contributing buildings within historic districts; and alteration to no more than two elements of non-primary fagades of a designated building. Minor Development- Certificate of Appropriateness $546 Work that qualifies includes the expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase of the floor area of the structure is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less; alterations to a building faqade, windows, doors, roof planes or material, exterior wall materials, dormer porch, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim when three (3) or fewer elements are affected and the work does not qualify for a Certificate of No Negative Effect; erection or installation in combination or in multiples of awning, canopies, mechanical equipment, fencing, signs, accessory features and other attachments to designated properties such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a Certificate of No Negative Effect; alterations that are made to non-historic portions of a designated historic property that do not qualify for a Certificate of No Negative Effect; the erection of street furniture, signs, public art and other visible improvements within designated historic districts of a magnitude or in numbers such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a Certificate of No Negative Effect. a. Significant Development (Under 1,000 sq. ft.)- Certificate of Appropriateness $1,310.00 Significant Development (Over 1,000 sq. ft.)- Certificate of Appropriateness $2,620.00 Work that qualifies includes the construction of a new structure within a historic district; alterations to more than three elements of a building fagade including its windows, doors, roof planes or materials, exterior wall material, dormers, porches, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim; the expansion of a building increasing the floor area by more than two hundred and fifty square feet; any new development that has not been determined to be Minor Development. Demolitions and Off-Site Relocations Only Full demolition and complete relocations off-site. $2,620 Insubstantial Amendment to an approved Certificate of Appropriateness: $0 Substantial Amendment to an approved Certificate of Appropriateness: $546 Appeals $546 Appeal to City Council of any decision of the Historic Preservation Commission. The examples listed for different types of applications are intended solely as a guide and are not binding upon the Community Development Department in assessing the proper fee for processing any particular historic preservation or landmark designation application. Section 6. That Section 26.104.072 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section establishes zoning fees, is hereby amended to read as follows: 26.104.072 Zoning Fees. Zoning shall be charged the following fees for the services listed: Building plan checks by zoning (a $105.00 deposit shall be collected at building permit application submittal): RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL, AND PUBLIC USES WITHIN THE PUBLIC ZONE DISTRICT 1. Bear Proof Trash Container (Zoning & Building) $52.00 2. Manufactured Housing without basement $110.00 3. Manufactured Housing with basement $110.00 4. New Work and Major Repair/Remodeling Change Orders Up To 500 s.f. $110.00 Flat Fee 501 - 3,500 s.f. 3,501 - 10,000 s.f. 10,000 + s.f. $110 plus $.14 per s.f. over 500 s.f. $530 plus $.32 per s.f. 3,501 s.f. over 3,500 s.f. $2610 plus $.36 per s.f. over 10,000 s.f. 5. Minor Repair/Remodel and Change Orders: $110~00 For Zoning reviews that do not add square footage but are not minor reviews, the charge will be hourly. The rate will be a $210.00 per hour with a minimum charge of one hour. (Note: Minor applications request no changes to floor area, use, height and/or footprint. Those applications which are not Minor are consider Major.) NON-RESIDENTIAL Bear Proof Trash Containers (Zoning and Building) New Work, Major Repair/Remodeling and Change Orders $52.00 Up To 500 s.f. 501 - 5,000 s.f. 5,001 - 10,000 s.f 10,001 + s.f $110.00 Flat Fee $110200 plus $.32 per s.fi over 500 s.f. $1,550 plus $.64 per s.f. over 5,000 s.f. $4,750 plus $.75 per s.f. over 10,000 s.fi Minor Remodel/Repair/Change Orders. $110.00 (Note: Minor applications request no changes to floor area, use, height and/or footprint. Those applications which are not Minor are consider Major.) C. ZONING ENFORCEMENT FEES 1. Projects constructed without permits, fees are doubled as a penalty. 2. PENALTY PROVISION A penalty fee for enforcement actions requiring a land use approval $670.00 .3. Sign permits: Processing and code compliance for all sign permits $130.00 4. Board of Adjustment fees: $177.00 Processing and application fee for all Board of Adjustment appeals 5. Special Event Signage Plan Review $26.00 Processing and application fee for all signage associated with Special Events that are not required to be reviewed by Special Events Committee. 6. Banner Installation Fee $26.00 D. Zoning review fees may be waived or reduced in the discretion of the Community Development Director for projects serving a public purpose, proposed by a non- profit organization, or in which the fee may be excessive for the work proposed. Section 7. That certain subsections of Section 2.12.100 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain fees for the International Building and Residential Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2.12.100 (a) International Building and Residential Code Permit Fees Total Valuation Fee $1.00 to $500.00 $50.00 $501.00 to $50.00 for the first $500.00 plus $3.17 for each additional $100.00, or $2,000.00 fraCtiOn ther~0f, to and including $2,000.00 $2,000.00 to $97.55 for the first $2,000.00 plus $15.29 for each additional $1,000.00, or $25,000.00 fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $449.22 for the first $25,000.00 plus $11.08 for each additional $50,000.00 $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $726.22 for the first $50,000.00 plus $7.65 for each additional $100,000.00 $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $100,001.00 to $1144.72 for the first $100,000.00 plus $6.14 for each additional $500,000.00 $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00 $500,001.00 to $3600.72 for the first $500,000.00 plus $5.20 for each additional $1,000,000.00 $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000 and up $6200.72 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal hours minimum $120.00 or a per hour charge of $60.00 (minimum charge - two hours) 2. Reinspection fees $60.00 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $60.00 4.toAdditi°nalplans (minimumPlan revieWchargerequired_ one-half hour)bY changes, additions or revisions $60.00 per hour Plan Check Fees 1. Plan check fees are based on the building permit fee and equal 65% of the total building permit fee. Energy Code Fees 1. Energy code review fees are based on the building permit fee and equal 10% of the total building permit fee, with a minimum charge of $25.00. 9 Fire Sprinkler Fees Fire sprinkler fees are based on the valuation of the fire sprinkler system and calculated according to the Building Permit Fee schedule. The total Fire Sprinkler Permit fee is the total of the permit and the plan check fees. Excavation/Foundation Fees 1. The Excavation/Foundation permit fee is 35% of the building permit fee. Note: Contractor Licensing Fees are collected by Pitkin County and established by an Intergovernmental Agreement. International Mechanical Code Permit Fees (b) Mechanical Permit Fees Permit Issuance and Heaters 1. For the issuance of each mechanical permit $25.75 2. For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original has not 7.95 expired, been canceled or finaled Unit Fee Schedule (Note: the following does not include permitqssuing fee) Fumaces For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type $16.17 furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance up to and including I00,000 Btu/h (29.3 kW) For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type $19.92 furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance over 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kW) For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace, including vent $16.17 For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed $16.17 wall heater or floor-mounted unit heater 2. Appliance Vents For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit $7.95 3. Repairs and Additions For the repair of, alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance, $15.00 refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by the Mechanical Code 10 4. Boilers, Compressors and Absorption Systems For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and $16.07 including 3 horsepower (10.6 kW), or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kW) For the installation or relocation of each boiler or comPressor over $29.64 3 horsepower (10.6 kW) to and including 15 horsepower (52.7 kW), or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kW) to and including 500,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW) For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over $40.71 15 horsepower (52.7 kW) to and including 30 horsepower (105.5 kW), or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h (146.6 kW) to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW) For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over $60.58 30 horsepower (105.5 kW) to and including 50 horsepower (176 kW), or each absorption system over 1,00,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW) to and including 1,750,000 Bm/h (512.9 kW) For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over $101.20 50 horsepower (176 kW) or each absorption system over 1,750,000 BtMa (512.9 kW) Air Handlers $11.65 For each air-handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) (4719 L/s), including ducts attached thereto Note: This fee does not apply to an air-handling unit which is a portion of a factory-assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in the Mechanical Code. For each air-handling trait over 10,000 cfm (4719 L/s) $19.76 6. Evaporative Coolers For each evaporative cooler other than portable type $11.65 Ventilation and Exhaust For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct $7.95 For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating $11.65 or air-conditioning system authorized by a permit For the installation of each hood which is served by the mechanical $11.65 exhaust, including the ducts for such hood Incinerators For the installation or relocation of each domestic-type incinerator For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial- type incinerator $19.92 $15.86 Miscellaneous 11 For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Mechanical $11.65 Code but not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in the table. Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours, per hour (minimum $t 10.00 charge - two hours) 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305.8, per $60.00 Inspection 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated, per hour $60.00 (minimum charge one hour) 4. Additional plan review required by charges, additions or revisions to $60.00 plans or plans for which an initial review has been completed (minimum charge-one-half hour) International Plumbing Code Permit Fees (c) Plumbing Permit Fees Permit Issuance 1. For the issuance of each plumbing permit $26.00 2. For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original has $7.95 not expires, been canceled or finaled Unit Fee Schedule (Note: The following do not include permit-issuing fee) 1. Fixtures and Vents For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap $10.71 (including water, drainage piping and backflow protection thereof) For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture $5.20 2. Sewers, Disposal Systems and Intemeptors For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer $26.94 For each cesspool $40.72 For each private sewage disposal system $81.38 For each industrial waste pretreamaent interceptor, including $21.74 its trap and vent, excepting kitchen-type gr6ase interceptors functioning as traps Rainwater systems-per drain (inside buildings) $10.71 3. Water Piping and Water Heaters For installation, alteration, or repair of water piping or water- $5.20 treating equipment, or both, each For each water heater including vent $13.47 12 '4. Gas Piping Systems For each gas piping system of one to five outlets $6.71 For each additional outlet over five, each $1.20 5. Law Sprinklers, Vacuum Breakers and Backflow Protection Devices For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including $16.17 backflow protection devices thereof For atmospheric-type vacuum breakers or backflow protection devices not included in Item 1: 1 to 5 devices $13.46 Over 5 devices, each $2.50 For each backflow-protection device other than atmospheric-type vacuum breakers: 2 inches (50.88 mm) and smaller $13.46 Over 2 inches (50.8 mm) $26.94 6. Swimming Pools For each swimming pool or spa: Public pool $99.68 Public spa $66.35 Private pool $66.35 Private spa $33.07 7. Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the $10.71 Plumbing Code but not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this code Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours, minimum $110.00 2. Inspections outside of normal business hours, per hour $60.00 3. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305.8 $60.00 per inspection 4. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated, per hour $60.00 5. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or rewsions to $60.00 plans or to plans for which an initial review has been completed - (minimum charge-one half hour) (d} International Fuel Gas Code Note: Fees as applicable from the International Plumbing and/or International Mechanical Code Permit Fee schedules. (e) National Electric Code Permit Fees Note: Electric. Permit Fees are established by C.R.S. 1973, Section 12-23-117 and are subject to change by the State Electric Board. The most current schedule is published by the State Electric Board and modified as allowed. 13 Section 8. That Section 2.12.010 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for the Aspen Municipal golf Course, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.12.010 Aspen Municipal Golf Course User Fees. Season Pass (County Resident - living or working) (No Restrictions) Includes 2 vouchers valid for discounted golf opening day to June I and October 1 to close $ 780.00 ACRA Season Pass (County Resident - living or working) (No Restrictions) Includes 2 vouchers valid for discounted golf opening day to June 1 and October 1 to close 720.00 20 Punch Pass (County Resident - living or working) (No Restrictions) 375.00 18 Hole Green Fee $90.00 (6:30- I:00 PM) $65.00 (1:00-3:30 PM) $45.00 (3:30-End of Day) Section 9 Section 2.12.015 Aspen Recreation Center That Section 2.12.015 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for Aspen Recreation Center, is hereby amended to read as follows: Pass Sales Daily/(Guest Youth) $13.00 Pass Sales Daily/(Guest Adult) $15.00 Evening Child Care Evening Child Care (each additional sibling) $15.00/hour $12.00/hour Section 10 2.12.020 Lewis Ice Arena and Aspen Ice Garden Type of Ice 2004 Rate/Pass Holder Non-Pass Holder 14 For Profit/Entire Facility General Rental Adult Non-Profit Youth Non-Profit Figure Skating Classes Sunior Hockey Fees (Youth Non-profit) $300.00/hour $200.00/hour $170.00/hour $11.00/hour $155.00 $13.0 O/hour Section 11. 2.12.030 James E. Moore Pool That Section 2.12.030 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for the James E. Moore Pool, is hereby amended to read as follows Group Swim Lessons Aquacise / Water Fitness Water Polo Master Swim Figure Skating Classes 2004 Rate/Pass Holder $48.00 Admission Admission plus $3.00 Admission plus $3.00 $11.00/hour Non/pass Holder $61.50 $13.00/hour Section 12. 2,12.040 Miscellaneous leisure and recreation fees That Section 2.12.040 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for recreation and leisure activities, is hereby amended to read as t'ollows: 15 Gymnastics Gymfants Mommy and Me Tots Beginner(1 day/week) Beginner (2 days / week) Intermediate(1 day/week) Intermediate (2 days/week) Advanced Pre-team 3 times per week 4 times per week 5 times per week Optional Team $28.00/session $38.00/session $38.00/session $46.00/sess~on $82.00/session $51.00/session $93.00/session $93.00/session $129.00/session $160.00/sessmn $170.00/session $180.00/session $220.00/session Basketball Drop in Basketball Men' s league Trapeze 1 day/week Aerobics Drop in fee $3.00/evening $463.00/team $51.00/hr privates Pass Holder N/A Non Passholder $10.50 Gymnasium Rental 1 hour 2 to 5 hours 6 to 10 hours 10 hours or more $53.50/in $185.00 $345.0O $530.00 16 Youth baseball (8-15 yr. olds) (Second child) T-ball (6-8 yr. olds) (Second child) Girl's softball (8-14 yr. olds) (Second child) Youth late fee Adult Men' s softball Co-ed softball Day Camp 7:30 am - 5:30 pm $90.O0/summer $87.00/summer $48.00/sttrnmer $46.00/summer $90.00/summer $87.00/summer $75.00 $600.00/team $479.00/team $27.00/day Tennis Monday/Wed/Friday Tuesday/Thursday Team Climbing Wall Climbing Classes 1 day/week 2 day/week Youth Intramurals Youth Soccer Youth Soccer 2na child Youth Soccer kindergarten Youth Basketball Kindergarten Adult Soccer $67.00/session $45.00/session $330.00/summer PassHolder $62 session $103/session 31.00/session $77.00 $75.00 $36.00 $56.00 $27.00 $463.00 NonPassholder $74/session $115/session I7 Section 13. That Section 2.12.045 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets the applicable fees for Wheeler Opera House, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.12.045 Wheeler Opera House In House Box Office Sales: Either a) 5% of gross ticket sales or (b) a flat fee per week as outlined below: GENERAL ADMISSION or RESERVED SEATING No. of Performances Weekly Rate 1 $300.00 2-5 350.00 6-10 400.00 11-20 450.00 21 or more 500.00 Under either option a $0.25 per ticket comp/conSignment fee shall apply and the renter shall be responsible for credit card fees. Additionally, a $3.50 fee shall be added to the price of each phone order. Out-of-House Box Office Sales: Box office fees shall consist ora 6% of the gross ticket sales fee, $0.25 per ticket comp/consignment fee, and any credit card fees. Additionally, a $3.50 fee shall be added to the price of each phone order. Theater Rental Rates: Rehearsal Rates Regular Season Non-Profit For-Profit Phvate Sun-Thurs. Fri-Sat. Sun-Thurs. Fri.-Sat. Sun.-Thurs. Fri.-Sat. $30/hour $30/hour $60/hour $60/hour $175/hour $I75/hour $63/hour $63/hour $180/hour $180/hour High Season Non-Profit For-Profit Private Sun.-Thurs. Fri.-Sat. Sun.-Thurs. Fri.-Sat. Sun.-Thurs. Fri.-Sat. $30/hour $30/hour $75/hour $75/hour $190/hour $190/hour $78/hour $78/hour $195/hour $195/hour Regular Season Non-Profit For-Profit Daily Rental Rates (Performance Days) Private 18 Sun-Thurs. Fri-Sat. Sun-Thurs. Fri.-Sat. Sun.-Thurs. Fri.-Sat. $425/day $500/day $950/day $1000/day $1400/day $1650/day $985/day $1040/day $1450/day $1710/day High Season Non-Profit For-Profit Private Sun-Thurs. Fri-Sat. Sun-ThurS. Fri.-Sat. Sun.-Thurs. Fri.-Sat. $525/day $600/day $1050/day $1100/day $1700/day $2000/day $1090/day $1140/day $1765/day $2080/day * HIGH SEASON RATES APPLY TO THE FOLLOWING DATES: December - March and June - August The following rates apply to any programs/event that will be recorded in any way. Listed below are the daily rates (other fees may apply as outlined in the rental Packet). Audio Recording Film/Video Recording $2,000* $2,500* AnyRecordingforLive/Re-BroadcasffCD/DVD $3,000 *Some fee considerations may be made in cases where a local non-profit is recording the performance for the express/sole propose of archival documentation and no reproduction, broadcast or sales of the recording of any kind will be made. Disclosure statements are required and must be signed 3 days in advance of the performance. Endowment Fund Contribution: Private events and any event where audio/film/television recording is involved for the purpose of broadcast or reproduction shall be assessed an additional $1,000.00 per day or performance whichever is greater. This fee shall be in lieu of item XXI, Section D of the Theater Use Agreement. Additional Rental Charges include: Multiple performances in one day shall be charged an additional fee of $250.00 ($150.00 for non- profit organizations) per performance; charges for minimum personnel, specialized equipment, materials, and other incidentals. (A house manager shall be included in the rent for local non-profit organizations. Other labor and equipment shall be subsidized for non-profit groups) See Wheeler Rental Packet for detailed information. Section 14 That certain subsections of Section 2.12.080 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain fees for the Parks Department, is hereby amended to read as follows: Special Event Business License: One day: $15.00 19 Two days; 25.00 Section 15. The effective date of this ordinance shall be January 1, 2004. Section 16. This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 17. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. day of ,2003, in the City Council INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of ,2003. ATTEST: Helen Kalin Klandemd, Mayor Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this ATTEST: day of ,2003. Helen Kalin Klandemd, Mayor Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Jpw- 12/9/03-G:\john\word\ords\fees04.dec 21 MEMORANDUM · TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Mayor and Council Kathryn Koch, City Clerk December 10, 2003 Request for Funds - Taste of Winterskol SUMMARY: Attached is a memorandum from Rob Ittner, President Colorado Restaurant Association and Andrew Kole - CCLC, requesting $5,000 from Council contingency to put on a "Taste of WinterSkol". This is a new event to be part of Saturday's Winterskol celebration. The hope is to also do this in the summer. DISCUSSION: The ACRA and Rob Ittner went to CCLC and re~eiyed ~ end0rsement from them. They also came to Special Events Committee to get permission to close of the 300 block of East Hopkins. The Special Events Committee has given tentative approval for the location and approval for the concept. The fire department generally uses this block for staging the fire trucks after the parade and is going to meet further with representatives to see if the logistics can be worked out. The reason to locate on the 300 block of East Hopkins is the number of restaurants on that block. The food vendors will be able to use the kitchens of these restaurants. They also propose a band at the west end of the block and a beer garden to include tables and heat lamps. The idea of an expanded Winterskol celebration is to try and keep people in town between the parade and the fireworks. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Council has $12,200 left in their 2003 contingency fund and granting this would leave $7,200. ALTERNATIVES: Council can fund the entire request, fund a portion of the budget or deny the request. PROPOSED MOTION: If Council wants to fund all or a portion of this, the proper motion would be, "I move to appropriate SXXXX from Council contingency for the Taste of Winterskol" CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Taste of Winterskol What is "Taste of Winterskol? Taste of Winterskol is an event that will be organized by the Colorado Restaurant Association with the help of the ACRA. It is to take place on the Saturday, January 17, 2004 in conjunction with Winterskol on Hopkins St. between Monarch and Mill. Taste of Winterskol will offer samples of food from local restaurants. Food will be served from 11:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. There will also be a large area fenced off for serving alcohol. Request The budget for the Taste of Winterskol was set at $8,500. (see below) and we are asking for $5,000 from the City. The balance of the budget will come from private sponsorship. Budget Tents $2,000. Music 1,500. Permits 700. Signs 500. Fencing 500. Heaters 300. Tables 400. Chairs 300. Advertising 1.000. Give aways 500. Decorations 300. Mis. Cost 500. TOTAL $8,500. Future Events All profits of the event will go to a summer "CRA Taste of Aspen". We hope to hold a similar event on the l0th of July 2004 in the same location. The CRA plans for this bi- annual event to be self-sufficient by this smm~er. Colorado Restaurant Association "Roaring Fork Chapter" The Colorade Restaurant Association (CRA), is a non-profit membership trade group founded in 1933 serving as the advocate for Colorado's food service industry. The CRA represents more than 1,700 member firms which over 4,000 restaurants and over 200 allied trade companies that provide products, equipment and services to the hospitality industry. The CRA maintains a dual membersh/p~.agreement with the National Restaurant Association CNRS) for independently owned restaurant members. Contacts Rob Ittner - President, Colorado Restaurant Association (948-7976 Andrew Kole - CCLC Representative Taste of Wintersk61 Time 11:30 to 3:00 pm · Saturday January 17th 2004 · Colorado Restaurant Association · Hopkins Street Between Monarch and Mill · Close of Street and Serve Alcohol in roped off area · Bank Booths · Tickets for food. · %backtoCRA · Live Music · Kick off for Summer Taste of Aspen Restaurants that might participate Elevation Steak Pit The Colony Merlin's Matsahitsa Hickory House Range Pinions Kenichi Rustique Hotel Jerome Main St Bakery Jimmy's Willow Creek Mezzaluna Campo Toppers Olives Cache Cache Takah Sushi Sage Genera Pacifica Syzygy La Cocina Asie Mother Lode Boogies Big Rap AJAX's Tavern Golden Horn Mogador Wide Fig Beer and Tables TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Randy L. Ready~,~ November 24, 2003 Aspen Valley Ski Club Funding Request SUMMARY: During the 2004 budget discussion, Council members requested additional information about the nature and scope of in-kind services provided by City departments to the Aspen Valley Ski Club. You received a letter from AVSC Executive Director Mark Cole (attached) requesting assistance with grounds maintenance and winter snow removal in the club's parking lot and sidewalks. This memo is to outline the services currently being provided and to seek your direction on the additional funding being requested. DISCUSSION: In-kind services that have been, or are currently being provided by the City to the club include the following: · Waiver of the $15,563 tap fees during constmcti°n of the new Clubhouse in 1999- 2000. · Nordic grooming for the entire AVSC Nordic Operation. · Grooming of the ski jump and adjacent areas. · Weed control on one large portion of the AVSC property. · Irrigation consultation on AVSC property. · Chip Christmas trees and provide material for ski races. · Groom additional Upper Moore Field for the special Junior Olympic events. It is difficult for the Parks Department to put a precise value on these services, since each service is provided in-kind, as needed, depending 6n weather, level of facility use, etc. Parks staff estimates the annual average value of the services rendered at approximately $30,000. CURRENT ISSUES: Themost recent requests for in'kind services from AVSC include summer grounds maintenance (mowing, weed control and irrigation). As noted above, Parks is already assisting with weed control on a large portion of the property that is immediately adjacent to City land. The inclusion of mowing, irrigation and weed control on the remainder of the property would be an incremental increase to the level of service already being provided. Parks Department staff members are on- site performing the high level of maintenance required at the Moore Playing Fields. At council's direction, the additional summer services could be provided. The request for in-kind snow removal service is more complicated. The Street Dept. clears the snow from Maroon Creek Road and the ARC parking lot with a motor grader. The Parks Dept. is also in the vicinity, but with small pieces of equipment intended for use on trails. Unfortunately, the type and size of snow removal required in the AVSC parking lot is not available in the City fleet. A pickup or Jeep with a plow attached is much more appropriate for the AVSC lot. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: If Council wishes to contribute all or part of the co~t of the AVSC snow removal contract, sufficient funds ($11,800) are in the Council Contingency account to do so this year. Council may wish to commit similar funding from the contingency account in 2004, or may request that AVSC add this amount to its grant request going into the 2005 budget year. RECOMMENDATION: If City Council wishes to assist AVSC with its snowplowing needs, staff recommends a contribution to help with the approximately $2,500 snow removal contract payment. Use of the City's equipment at that location would not be efficient or timely, and would pull equipment offof the newly annexed areas of Maroon and Castle Creek Roads. Staff further recommends that AVSC include this request for funding in its non-profit grant request beginning with the 2005 budget cycle. Please let us know if you would .like additional information, or if you would like to give staff further direction on how to respond to this request for an additional contribution. November 6, 2003 Board of Directors Beth Hoff Blackmer Penney Carruth Cind, 3alard~ Julian Gregory AncJy Karlinsk~ Curtis Kau fman Lee Schurnac0er Fred Wilson National Council Susan R Beckman Archer & Sandi Bishop lulie Denkers Bishop) John & Linda Bodenmanr John & Jac¢ yn Bucksoaura Doug & Pegg} Carlson Dennis & Penne~ Carrum Lester & Brenda Crmn David & Hglly D~eman - Leo & Marc~, Edelstem Mark & Sara Finkle lorn &Cind: Gatarcl~ Gerry & Chris Goldstem Drew Harman Boo & Donna Harper Frederick B. Henry g ~vid & Ruth Hoff Kent & Beth Hoff Blackmer Gerald Hosier John & Jane-Jellinek Mike & Laura KaDlan Andy & Suzy Karlinski Curtis & Jill Kaufmar John & Heather Kirby Grog Miller John & Carrie Morgndge Stewart & Lynda Restock Peter Rls~oli & Donna Di I~nm Marcos& Sonya.Roddguez Patrick & Mary Scanlon Jack & MalSsa Silverman Lizzie Talon fold & Scott Edmonson Lenny Wemglass Joe & Carrie Wells Corporate Sponsors Team Doctors ORTHOPAEDIC q/'Aspen and Glenwood Mayor Helen Klanderud City of Aspen t3.0 S. Galena Street Aspen. CC 81611 . Dear Helen: I am writing to formally request an in-kind donation of services from the Cily of Aspen. Spe~ifically, I ask the City to consider maintaining our grounds and taking care of snow removal at our clubhouse location at 0300 AVSC Drive. Maintenance of our grounds would includ~ mowing, Weed control and irrigation Snow removal would include our parking lot and sidewalks. During our most r~cent fiscal, year - from August 1, 2002 through July 31.2003 - we spent approximately $2.500 for these servmes. As yot~ know, the City' already supports AVSC thi-ough the non-profit grant process and through its share of maintenance of the Nordic trail system. Expansion of support to include these services would be a gre~.t benefit to AVSC and would help us continue providing outstanding programs to more than 1,500 kids each' year. Thank you for considering this request Sincerely, Mark A. Cole . Executive Director cc: Jeff Woods Steve Barwick Aspen Valley Ski/Snowboard Club. Inc. P.O. Box c-3 Aspen. CO 81612 (970) 925-2720 (970) 925-5290 fax