HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.435 W, Main - L'Auberge.A30-97 C tv.,LOAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITT' „ ASPEN
DATE RECEIVED: 4/28/97 CASE # A30 -97
DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Julie Ann Woods PARCEL ID # 2735- 124 -50 -053 •
PROJECT NAME: L'Auberge Insubstantial Amendment
Project Address: 435 W. Main St.
APPLICANT: L'Auberge Lodge
Address/Phone: 435 W. Main St. Aspen, Co. 81611 925 -8297
OWNER: same
Address/Phone:
REPRESENTATIVE: Gibson -Reno Architects, L.L.C. P' -t 6-i L tz
Address/Phone: 210 E. Hyman #202, Aspen 925 -5968
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name /Address:
FEES DUE FEES RECEIVED
PLANNING $450 PLANNING $450. # APPS RECEIVED 1
ENGINEER $0 tic ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 1
HOUSING $0 TO HOUSING $ GIS DISK RECEIVED:
ENV HEALTH $0 ENV HEALTH $
CLERK $ CLERK $ TYPE OF APPLICATION
TOTAL $450. TOTAL RCVD $450. Staff Approval
Review Body M1leeting Date Public Hearing ?
•
P &Z — ['Yes /No •
CC ❑Yes [No
CC (2 ' -ling) ❑Yes ❑No
REFERRALS: -
❑ City Attorney t Aspen Fire Marshal ❑ CDOT
;II. City Engineer (DRC) ] City Water ACSD
❑ Zoning $lj City Electric ❑ Holy Cross Electric
Housing ❑ Clean Air Board ❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
❑ Environmental Health ❑ Open Space Board ❑ Aspen School District
f[/ Parks ❑ Other: ❑ Other:
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DATE DUE:
APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution # Date:
Ac royal ruPto Date: tltw lien:.
Plat Recorded: Book , Page
CLOSED /FILED DATE: INITIALS:
ROUTE TO:
(M gr c [ <, 011-
2
M( or( 4v VV10t1� i(ts
A cove 4t&4- othrpl umput
1:14. tteitwitutv:—
oca. 2 Sinai dam., aetruALA SiiimmaeJ
)e.4 GIS iS uivAix voice W inektvk
�u�Ll 114: el-sufai
s 1(44 tiviciz
k1.
tt ott a ,Wes.
a jp i11 mot f 1 faitAL KI L 4 R %Urania,
w... ._...._..._. _._. .._........._.. ..., - _._ ---- -. — ...:._ -. - - - - - �
I / 4 • d tik4 2 \ I I -J J
I I x11 'ID -I 1
itt AI 3 511 A ' J
I 1 _
1 vi
� � ' " - _ 1 1 �d3 � I
0
g x ,__, i 1 I
'----- I t i zr 0 9r a ea 347r17
+e.s r r r[ ,o
I 01
y h N.
1 �' d • • 55 1 U1 SS 1
I ( r _ r it I I 1 .1 b x i
W !� o SOW I 1 1
l Diu; 1 N� u 2v r i i li 4 01 �
1 I o rn �gf' I-- -- a I, ti 14 0 , I I- - - __ L- - r - --L- r- .-r_ -_J I 1 I I ii".„1 f i
I - -I . I I L _, h
I I 1 3 1 r
4 w
` i1► 0 .1 si ; r i �'. V
s
:11 — 1 O t z 1 O m I� I .,- - - -J I I 11 R a
1%g. rt id. 1 � !„
IN CI
—ss o h 1 wl 6 I d
• I s 1
L__ _J
1 I � K t. ` 1 J '1
l I ,E I R I
r l � � I 1 1 V I '' I, i § 111
- 1 T t $ r„
I if r _ _ _ + _I,1 _ 1: d� ,R
I _ti [" r .w— —�
1 1 1...r_ j_... a %`' i
— Of o ss 1 \
W
(y - 11
J1 C
h W i ^ • l . . pose • oos . !7 ar'o► t t1
~i I .0 2 11 I HSVHd , 1
� 1 ci I I .E 1 '1
II ti ,r, 1
' --
1
--- -VIM -- r \ I 1 1
1
j 1 3 � I �y , ` I '�i
ro • yo �4 o v, r P r. i • I R4 r s MI5 � 't
,p L g 11 4111 `} r ..... - - -. 1 N f . 1 ■V
'� I I I
k.. 0-,, 1 1
II I -___J I I
11 li atgt ''' .. . 1
�
I
r
'1 I I a q- ss 1 1
II I I M� ' r -1
' SII ,�_immi 4 i L_ J
1 I _ —. a . L- -- _ "1
2
gg
1 , r. i i R
{ i.,1
� o N' 0 ` i ryg IFP23:1
1 -11-1-1 Q xg
1 1 I t I II
— 1 j I I OM 11 —` — .9 1 . e,1/naNa0 S� 1-__ l a N r 0
W 1 ; 1 J kd...; • ' ` !Tars 3� terms — Iv �� o'Q
UWe I / Ian a 1 r J 1 ' �' >
�I L I I 1 _
Pi 1 b 1
1 111
U 1
11 1 1 i r i i VI J L/1 iv:.
1 ! 11
I L J II 1 b >�
i ill ! I I J ' .1
Ir
.....,
4.4 41
' I o
; '
1 l ;I
1,
L,,, \ „---- i j /
iiiiiildii■iiWiiiii / Jill_
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director ` fG
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director � �O V V
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner �
RE: L'Auberge Lodge Insubstantial Amendment for a Phased IJ&Velopment k+
DATE: June 4, 1997 MM \1N\CI of P
SUMMARY:
The applicant, L'Auberge Lodge, has requested an insubstantial amendment to the
development order to allow a phased development plan.
Ordinance No. 29 , series of 1995, approved the development of twelve (12) new lodge
units, with conditions, and vested the growth management allotments until June 12,
1998. This development plan did not include any phasing of construction. No part of
this development has taken place.
Staff recommends approval of the insubstantial amendment to allow construction
phasing, with conditions.
APPLICANT:
L'Auberge Lodge. Tracy Haysfield, owner. David Gibson, Architect.
LOCATION:
435 West Main Street, Aspen
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Pursuant to Section 26.100.090(A)(2), any insubstantial modification to a development
order limited to technical or engineering considerations that could not reasonably be
anticipated during the review process, or any other change that the Community
Development Director finds has no effect on the conditions and representations made
during the original project review, may be approved by the Community Development
Director.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 29, series 1995, approved the development of 12 lodge units, the housing
mitigation plan, and vested the growth management allotment until June 12, 1998. For
reasons that have surfaced since approval, the applicant would like to develop the
property in two phases. With this phasing plan, total development will be the same as
approved and will be constructed within the same time period.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff's primary concerns are centered around a hypothetical situation where Phase One is
constructed and Phase Two is not. The City should be assured the required and
necessary improvements for this development are still obtained if only Phase One is
realized.
Housing Authority: According to the original approval, the applicant must provide a
one bedroom, Category 2 unit on -site for employee mitigation. Due to current
obligations of the unit to be deed restricted, the applicant has proposed providing the unit
during Phase Two of construction. The Housing Authority would like this unit to be
provided during phase one of the project. During the review process, the applicant
agreed to record a deed restriction on the unit during phase one that would take effect
April 1, 1998, and agreed to provide a similar unit during the interim.
The Housing Authority suggested the deed restriction for the on -site unit be recorded
prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase One and the interim unit be provided
before issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Phase One units.
Planning: The Planning Department is suggesting the deed restriction for the on -site
unit be recorded and the interim mitigation plan be approved by the Housing Authority
prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase One. The interim plan should provide a
Category 2 studio or one - bedroom unit from September 1, 1997, until the deed
restriction for the on -site unit takes effect. This time frame will assure the housing
mitigation is concurrent with the impacts of development.
The Phase One building permit should not allow development of Phase Two
construction. The applicant must apply for a building permit for Phase Two
construction.
Approval of this construction phasing plan should only affect the timing of construction
and should not change any other conditions of approval, except as noted.
Vesting of the growth management allotments should not be altered. Failure to apply for
a building permit on or prior to June 12, 1998, should result in a forfeiture of the
development allotments. This should be the case for both phases. In other words, if the
applicant applies for a Phase One building permit within the vesting period but fails to
apply for a Phase Two building permit within the vesting period, the remaining growth
management allotments will no longer be valid. All other approvals would still stand,
without allotments, but would not be protected against changes in the land use code.
Engineering: The Engineering Department has combined many of the comments from
the Development Review Committee which largely duplicate the requirements in the
original approval. In addition to the approved conditions, the applicant must include
both phases for upgrading the electric transformer, and must complete a Line Extension
Request and a Collection System Agreement with the Sanitation District.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the insubstantial amendment to allow a phased
development plan, with the following conditions.
I. The owner may develop the property in two phases. Phase One shall consist of
five (5) new cabins, associated landscape improvements, improvements to the
Manager's Residence; installation of all new utilities and utility upgrades
required for both phases; recordation of a Category 2 deed restricted housing
unit on -site; and, provision of a Category 2 studio or one - bedroom "interim"
housing unit. Phase Two shall consist of seven (7) new cabins and associated
landscape improvements.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase One, the owner shall provide
written verification that the buildings on the property will remain lodge units
under single ownership and will not be sold to individual owners, and shall
complete a Line Extension Request and a Collection System Agreement with the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase One, the owner shall deed
restrict to Category 2 price and income guidelines an existing cabin on -site.
This deed restriction shall take effect no later than April 1, 1998. The Housing
Authority shall inspect this unit and the owner shall upgrade the unit, if
necessary, to Housing Authority specifications prior to the deed restriction
taking effect.
4. The owner shall provide an "interim" studio or one - bedroom Category 2 unit
from no later than September 1, 1997, until the deed restriction for the on -site
unit takes effect. This "interim" unit shall meet Housing Authority
specifications.
5. The owner shall utilize City Engineering detail drawings for the curb cut and
driveway within the public right -of -way.
6. All sections of City Council Ordinance 29, series of 1995, Ordinance 31, series
of 1995, and Resolution 35, series of 1995, and Planning and Zoning
Commission Resolution #95 -41 shall remain unchanged except as amended
herein. Building permit application(s) received subsequent to June 12, 1998, for
either or both phases will be subject to all applicable Municipal Code Sections,
as amended.
7. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during
meetings with City Staff shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval,
unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
APPROVAL:
I hereby approve this insubstantial amendment to the development order for L'Auberge
Lodge, 435 West Main Street, with the conditions listed 1 -7 above.
• :� 5 ,, k
St meson, - o munity Development . Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Application
Exhibit B - Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C - Ordinance #29 of 1995; P &Z Resolution #95 -41
t Wilk\011- . " •1?2
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon, Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engine
From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer &&.
Date: May 21, 1997
Re: L'Auberge Insubstantial Amendment //l,,
(Parcel ID No. 2735- 124 -00 -053)
I have reviewed the above referenced submittal, and I have the following comments:
J 1. Encroac - The encroachment license requires valid insurance certificates submitted to the
City Engineer on renewal dates of insurance policies.
ti 2. Driveway - City Engineering Department detail drawings must be utilized for the curb cut and
the portion of the driveway located within the public right -of -way.
3. Irrigation Ditch Culverts - The culverts must be sized according to calculated water flow
quantities.
4. Fire Marrshal - Sprinkling of buildings is not required. The Fire Marshal will examine the final
driveway plans to confirm fire engine access.
J 5. Parks Department - The applicant still needs to finalize the tree permit and landscape plan.
Any work requiring that the irrigation ditch be shut off must be accomplished in less than 48 hours.
6. City Electric Department - The applicant must include both phases of the project in the load
n calculations for up- sizing the transformer. The City Electric Department will not upgrade the
transformer twice.
✓ 7. Environmental Health Depa - The proposed phasing changes do not affect their
concerns.
1
8. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District The applicant must complete a line extension
agreement. The project phasing, landscaping and drainage and runoff plans will affect the sewer
line work.
9. Work in the Publi • - - - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
r development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920 -5080) for design of
improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks department (920 -5120)
for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance, and streets department (920 -5130) for
mailboxes , street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including
landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the city community development department.
•
M97.92
2
MAY 16 '97 03 :36PM r'WN HOUSING OFC P.1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Bendon, Community Development Department
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: May 18, 1997
RE: L'Auberge Insubstantial Amendment
Parcel ID No. 2737- 12450453
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting to do this project in two phases. Phase 1 Is to include fwe
new cabins, improvements to the Manager's residence, and installation of new utilities' main
services lines. Phase 11 is to Include seven new cabins and the employee cabin conversion.
BACKGROUND: According to Ordinance 29 (Series of 1995), L'Auberge must provide a one -
bedroom, Category 2 unit for employee mitigation. The applicant does not plan on converting the
cabin designated as the employee unit until April. Phase 1 includes completion of five new cabins,
which wifl contribute to additional employees.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the applicant provide another studio or one -
bedroom, Category 2 unit, during the interim. This unit shall be provided beginning at the time of
Certificate of Occupancy on the five cabins proposed to be completed in Phase 1, until the
employee cabin is available. The deed restriction for the employee cabin, however, needs to be
recorded prior to building permit approval in Phase 1, with the stipulation that this specific cabin
will become the employee cabin beginning a date specific. The replacement unit shall be
approved by the Housing Office prior to occupancy.
.aspen GonsolilafedcSanifafron Dis nel
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (970) 925 -3601 FAX #(970) 925 -2537
Sy Kelly • Chairman Michael Kelly
Albert Bishop . Treas. Frank Loushin
Louis Popish • Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
0 April 10, 1997 RECEIVED
Chris Bendon, Planner MAY 2 Q 199/
Community Development
City of Aspen ASPEN , L' IT KIN
130 S. Galena St. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: L'Auberge Admendment
Dear Chris,
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient collection and
treatment capacity to serve this project. The District will continue to work with the
applicant's representatives throughout the application process to ensure that service to
this property adheres to the District's Rules, Regulations, and Specifications which are
on file at the District office.
The applicant will have to provide a schedule for the phased construction schedule,
which must be approved by the District. The replacement of the existing sewer
services must be completed before the District will allow additional connections to the
public sewer system.
A "Line Extension Request" will have to be submitted to the District for action by our
Board of Directors at their next regular meeting. A "Collection System Agreement" will
subsequently have to be executed with the District. Only District qualified contractors
are allowed to install sewer systems to be granted the District for future ownership and
maintenance. Funds for the plan review and construction observation must be placed
in escrow with the District for the line extension.
Shared service line agreements will have to executed for the sewer service lines
connecting the individual buildings. The District will have to review the surface
drainage plans to ensure that clear water connections are not connected to the
sanitary sewer system.
Since the sewer service configuration was approved as a variance to our rules and
regulations by our Board of Directors, the applicant must provide the District with
written verification that the buildings within the property will remain lodge units under
one ownership and will not be sold to individual owners.
New easements on standard District form must be granted the District for the main
sanitary sewer line that runs along the east property line. An encroachment license
will be required for any improvements made to the site that are placed in the District's
easement.
EPA Awards of Excellence
1976 • 1986 • 1990
Regional and National
A tap permit must be completed at our office when detailed plans become available.
Fees will be estimated at that time. The total connection charges due the District
must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The applicant is encouraged to contact our office for information concerning main
sanitary sewer line and service line requirements and the location of the subsequent
connection to the public system.
Thomas R. Bracewell
Collection Systems Superintendent
cc Chuck Roth, City of Aspen Engineering
p 123, 1997
DAVID
Ms. Susanne Wolf, Planner GIBBON
AIA
Aspen/Pitkin Development Department
130 South Galena Street AUGUST
.J A
Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 RENO
If el AIA
RE: L'AUBERGE, 435 W. Main Street
4
Aspen, Colorado d coo 1 `1(Ar` scDrF
q SMITH
AIA
Dear Susanne: �
The L'Auberge Lodge wishes to proceed with Dev opment the
property, as approved in May 1995 (Ordinances #29 and 3 ,and to do �`_ ICI'; "jl'
a phased construction plan as follows: h j 95 4I y�,( St- ' I ' I IiI 1 ,IIlU
Wiwi:
0 -A
Phase L The western portion of the project, including five (5) GIBBON • RENO
new cabins, improvements to the Manger's Residence, 'ARCHITECTS, L.L.C. •
• an installation of new utilities' main service lines. 111
•
•
Phase IL The eastern portion of the project, including seven
210 E. HYMAN
(7) new cabins and the employee cabin conversion. N" 202
We believe this phased approach will permit the Lodge to stay in As PEN
constant operation. The limits of the proposed Phase I work are COLORADO
indicated on the enclosed Site Drawings. 81611
970.925.5968
Please let me know under what condition such an application will be
acceptable to the City so that we may submit our plans for Plan Check FACSIMILE
and Building Permit. 970.925.5993
Respectfully sub . . , • • ,
,4t / , , ` 4dr___• PO. BOX 278
�j�i(/� /'/ 117 N. WI �� 1 N ,. 2
David F. Gibson, AIA
TELLURIDE
COLORADO
encl: Review fee check for $450.00
81435
"11 x 17" Site Plan Drawings
970.728.6607
•
FACSIMILE
970.728.6658
1
' }) 1 Z
x \�� v
P s N - O avHoioo ` N 3dSV a r
N . m ... d Al 133!!15 NIVW IS3M 4Eti . ,- 1 Z -_ Y . h ig i l
w 1 s 1 3Ju8nd��
1-4 .i.Nadie adc NI r
• 3 ■ s•
o
. ,
L .,_,
1 ....,:........... ------_,_ _.... — _
.___ . --2
IL 4
1 : _ ' . _ N -A i ill y —� •
ill t . ili _ _ o --�- - " o - 9 III III , • a . � _ ;,. — II IiIi
t� {y •. 2 ull " ' .' --ZYL ' i ....:,''. :'..... .
. 0 <
• `.J ^
W � ,� : . ,
o , r • - _ ‘o, Z
iii 11 I
Z • • z
d hi r li I Q J N _�
_ — � Jt. W "
= r � O-
r
3
__ • t� F Vv . r
.v.; . 1 m 0 B t t
W ' _. _ 1 ► 0
1—
w - ; ': I - z — 0 •
CI
4 I-
• 3 . m
— •
77
;,..iiii . . iiimo
E 4 __ :__ L
_--;kf , 1 i
• c qy�I�I��< y
4
H
II
2 115 ;N .0- - - - O o
'
W +go ' ; , : p `� o •
� � r r j ° Ap ° a A - w W "
•�
• • r , -=_ ' _ :I . � x ^ ,, � 9 3 g� D—• _ •�� r y � _ 9 S O 1 F
mr=mmi 0 ' • a 1 . 0 66 0 Ci a s LL. 'v- a te
3 te _ •
Z � 0 = ���. , as •
V i" �
1\ , o
.r_ ...: r - - 41 v) •
CC
Z 8 1 II y S S U � � W Vl N eA
U l -- -- l .a ••-1 0 - al •
■
T N m . 's1 a; N
1
Q ' i - -- 7 1_1 I — • - -� X 1 Q
I
i i w Z = jj e 1 ii
�' i v _ a o
•
1 _
- - -- -- — -- — th
1 a � �°S wLL a� 1
� v I
i��
3836i3,5 B -788 P -4 07/24/95 03:34P P9 1 Or 4 REC DOC Ni
'S.ILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 21.00
ORDINANCE NO. 29
(Series of 1995)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE HOUSING MITIGATION PROPOSAL AND VESTED RIGHTS
FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FOR THE 1994
LODGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT
FOR THE L'AUBERGE LODGE, 435 W. MAIN STREET,
_ r Lurs A -I, BLOCK 38, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Commission reviewed the
= L'AatrieYye in conjunction with growth management scoring;' and
WHEREAS, the city's Planning and Zoning Commission also
reviewed a proposed text amendment and contitional use review for
the proposal; and
WHEREAS, on June 12, 1995 the City Council of the City of
Aspen awarded a lodge development allotment of eleven units from
--__ rthe 199 - giiota and "'one unit form-the-1995 1995 quota pursuan - C
Resolution No. (Series 1995) under the growth management quota
system as set forth in Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the expansion of the lodge requires the mitigation
of .4 employees; and
WHEREAS, the applicants originally requested that the City
Council approve an affordable housing mitigation package in which
it would pay cash -in -lieu for approximately 100% of the employees
generated and a deed restriction on the manager's unit that would
be enforced if the unit is ever sold or rented to a non - manager of
the lodge; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Office reviewed the
proposed mitigation package on April 10, 1994 and forwarded the
1
•
383635 8-788 P -44 J7/24/95 03:34P PG 2 OF
•
Housing Board's preference to first provide on -site housing,
secondly provide off -site housing, and lastly provide cash -in -lieu
for affordable housing mitigation; and
WHEREAS, based on typical incomes of general lodge employees,
-_•" -c2so- recommendsthat any on -s housin -b
restricted as a Category 2 unit; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Commission was split as to
whether the applicant should provide on -site housing or cash -in-
lieu and acknowledges that Council is required to accept the method
of mitigation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the L'Auberge Lodge
should mitigate required employee housing by the conversion of an
e-xistrng -cabin on -site to a category 2 deed restrieted°slt 3 ins_
unit; and
WHEREAS, a request for Vested Rights for the development was
submitted to the Planning Office within the growth management
application; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Aspen Municipal
Code the City Council may grant Vesting of Development Rights for
a site specific development plan for a period of three years from
the date of final development plan approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: In accordance with Section 24 -8 -111 of the Aspen
Municipal Code, City Council does hereby accept the employee
housing mitigation plan for .4 employees as required by the
2
383635 B -788 P- 07/24/95 03:34P PG 3 ur 4
L'Auberge Lodge project to be as follows:
1) The applicant shall deed restrict an existing cabin on the
parcel to category 2 price and income guidelines.
2) The applicant shall record a deed restriction that has been
reviewed and approved by the Housing Office.
--��• •• g °Office shall inspect the deed restricted unit and
the applicant shall upgrade the unit, if necessary, to Housing
Office specifications.
4) The above housing mitigation conditions shall be accomplished
prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project.
Section 2: Pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Municipal Code,
City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the
435 W. Main Street, L'Auberge Lodge, site specific development plan
as follows:
1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
-- approved by Resolution No. , Series of 1995, shall
remain vested until June 12, 1998. However, any failure
to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested
property rights. Failure to timely and properly record
all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in
the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture
of said vested rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all
rights of referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance or
Resolution No. Series of 1995, shall exempt the site
specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or
approvals required by this Ordinance, Resolution No. ,
Series of 1995, or the general rules, regulations or
ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or
approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted
and vested herein.
4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall
not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations
which are general in nature anu are applicable to all
property subject to land use regulation by the City of
Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire,
plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this
regard, as a condition of this site development approval,
3
383635 .B -788 P -46 L 24/95 O3:34P PG 4 OF 4
the developer shall abide by any and all such building,
fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless
an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 3: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City
of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 4: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
/:L day of , 1995
?,...4(.4
at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior
to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published
in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of / ,
19• u e 15
•• �� s, John nnett, Mayor
o t cei....1�� . 2' e* /
" ; ' / IFoch, City Clerk • x p" Fz adopted, passed and approved this /3 day of
\i /, 1995.
/ - •.JUG (5_
W io.....
���i • .,, John nnett, Mayor
. 9r. :1 •. a,
d$i �s 4.: . och, City Clerk
s 4
111:0;,,,
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE FOR A LODGE IN THE OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT
FOR L'AUBERGE LODGE LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREET (LOTS A -I, BLOCK
38) CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
Resolution No. 95 -41
WHEREAS, the applicants proposed a code amendment to allow a
lodge in the office zone district in order to legitimize the
current use of the lodge and to allow an expansion of the lodge;
and
WHEREAS, the Commission approved the proposed code amendment
at a public hearing on April 18, 1995, but tabled the associated
conditional use review to May 9, 1995, in order to allow staff and
the applicant to continue work on the conditional use application;
and
WHEREAS, the lodge proposal was reviewed by the Engineering
Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Aspen Fire
Marshal, Parks Department, and the Environmental Health Department,
and referral comments were sent to the Planning Office; and
WHEREAS, Planning staff reviewed the request and referral
comments and recommended approval for a conditional use for the
proposed lodge, with conditions, pursuant to Section 24 -7 -304; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission
continued the public hearing, reviewed the proposal and staff
recommendations, and voted unanimously to approve the request with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the conditional use approval, the
Commission voted unanimously to recommend to City Council the
addition of a parking requirement for lodges in the Office zone
district as stated in staff's May 9, 1995 memorandum and amended
on the same date.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby
approve a conditional use for the L'Auberge Lodge with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to the lodge GMQS allocation by the City Council, the
applicant shall submit a revised service utility plan that has been
reviewed and approved by the ACSD, and the water, electric, and
engineering departments.
2. Any costs for new public services that must be installed or
upgraded shall be borne by the applicant on a partial or full basis
depending upon the specific agency's requirements.
3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall file restrictions against future installation of fireplaces
and woodstoves with the Environmental Health Department.
4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall submit a fugitive dust control plan, to be reviewed and
approved by the Environmental Health Department.
5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall submit a revised site plan that includes:
a. all transformer and utility easements;
b. a detailed drawing of the area for all service /trash and
recycling areas;
c. proposed and city specified sidewalks on 3rd and 4th
streets between Main Street and the alley;
d. a revised parking plan to be reviewed and approved by the
engineering and planning staff;
e. elimination of the curb cut adjacent to the manager's
residence.
6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall submit a detailed landscape plan approved by the Parks
Department.
7. Prior to the issuance of any building permits:
a. tree removal permits and a mitigation plan for
removing or relocating any trees 6" in caliper or greater
shall be required from the Parks Department and any trees
proposed to be saved shall be protected during
construction, including no digging or over digging within
the drip line;
b. the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
Engineering Department to construct curb and gutter in
the future; -
c. the applicant shall pay all applicable water and
sewer tap fees; and
d. the applicant shall file the appropriate deed
restrictions with the Housing Office for the deed
restricted dwelling unit if required by Council.
8. Any irrigation system that is installed shall be incompliance
with the Water Conservation Code.
9. As required in Section 24 -7 -1004 C.4.f, the applicant shall
maintain the historic runoff patterns that are found on the
site and shall correct any runoff or erosion problems that
2
currently exist on the site.
10. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvements
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right -of -way.
11. All lighting fixtures will face downward and be shielded to
eliminate the potential for glare or nuisance to neighboring -
properties. Lighting along the walkways will be low to the
ground (approximately 3' in height) and shielded.
12. All work in the alley and public right -of -way shall require
a permit from the Streets Department.
13. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible
sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except
between the hours of 7 am. and 10 p.m.
14. Early warning devices and fire extinguishers shall be provided
in all cabins and the manager's residence.
15. If the applicants intend to use the ditch for irrigation, a
utilization plan must be reviewed by the Parks and Water
Departments which may include a raw water agreement. The
agreement must be signed prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
16. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall apply for an encroachment license.
17. This conditional use approval is conditioned upon successful
completion of the variance request process or PUD review,
Council approval of the text amendment, and Council allocation
of the lodge allotments.
18. The applicant acknowledges Municipal Code sidewalk maintenance
requirements for all sidewalks abutting the applicant's
property. These property owner obligations include timely
snow removal as provided for in Section 19, Article VIII, and
sweeping and maintenance against hazardous conditions as
provided for in Section 19, Article IV.
19. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and joint GMQS Commission meeting shall be
adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless
otherwise amended by other conditions.
20. Any substantial change in the use of this conditional use
as a lodge shall require an amendment to the conditional
use review and other applicable requirements of the code.
3
APPROVED by the Commission at their regular meeting on May 9, 1995.
ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSIOO
RJ � JA/ i (� ( 94.
Jan _ VCS
Jan Ca ey, Deputy City Clerk Bruce Kerr, Chairman
4
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon, Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engine
From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer el &
Date: May 21, 1997
Re: L'Auberge Insubstantial Amendment
(Parcel ID No. 2735- 124 -00 -053)
I have reviewed the above referenced submittal, and I have the following comments:
1. Encroachment - The encroachment license requires valid insurance certificates submitted to the
City Engineer on renewal dates of insurance policies.
2. Driveway - City Engineering Department detail drawings must be utilized for the curb cut and
the portion of the driveway located within the public right -of -way.
3. Irrigation Ditch Culverts - The culverts must be sized according to calculated water flow
quantities.
4. Fire Marshal - Sprinkling of buildings is not required. The Fire Marshal will examine the final
driveway plans to confirm fire engine access.
5. Parks Department - The applicant still needs to finalize the tree permit and landscape plan.
Any work requiring that the irrigation ditch be shut off must be accomplished in less than 48 hours.
6. Uty Electric De ment - The applicant must include both phases of the project in the load
calculations for up- sizing the transformer. The City Electric Department will not upgrade the
transformer twice.
7. Environmental Health Department - The proposed phasing changes do not affect their
concerns.
1
8. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District- The applicant must complete a line extension
agreement. The project phasing, landscaping and drainage and runoff plans will affect the sewer
line work.
9. Work in the Public Right -of -way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920 -5080) for design of
improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks department (920 -5120)
for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance, and streets department (920 -5130) for
mailboxes , street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including
landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the city community development department.
•
M97.92
2
,
...1
,
"1
I
!
~d
'I
;.j
:tJ
~
,".j
0;9
:~..
.-",
;\~-:-,
rf,'~
~,;;i
i.,;
- ~...
~:'~J
:)
"',
-'."1
\W
~,~
"',;"1
',",;1
::\:'~
t....l
!" ~
i
-;~d
'J;)
'","-'.
.~,-;~J
J)i..,
;!f1;{
~.
is ,~..
'1":...
.c:-
..=:e..,4N j/z;;Li
~""',m",,:,,,
,. '. ''m~--'''''
; "r:~~l~~
~; ~~1"
,~D~~r-~
'...,...-~ '-'"
~k':;4C:iJ Economi~ 6-
'A Plannmg Systems
, _,5{J.z..). A flii'r'~&f? /--k-ls>1'!-~' I'ultti,' Fillfllln'
~,frf) :'" :.'/ "',', ,..; RI't1II:'tlll.'I',-u,,,,,,,;,;
. !'-'. /. fQ i? _ ;:.-){Y7
~ '-- /lq:iUlwi HUlI,,,,.,i,-,
,..IIl"I'_,.../'"i;,-y
--
FINAL REPORT
ASPEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING SlRATEGIC PLAN
Prepared for:
City of Aspen
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
In association with:
Civitas Inc.
Coburn Development
Shaw Construction
March 19, 2002
EPS # 11826
DIN V I II
;" Jo Sl.......:nt.:~nth Str.:.:r. Suit.: 6)0
n~ll\"'lr. co 80~[l2-3311
. I! II K I L I Y
phon.:: 5111.841.':I1':l1l
fJ.x: 5\(l.tl-tI-9.:.tl~.
SACRAMI!NTO
phun.:: ')lo.i\~'.I.l'()lll
t~:..: <l! t'I_('-1'-l_~I(',)
phonl::: 30J.613-335i
tax: .luJ-n2J.':lIl-lQ
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY ....................................................................................1
BACKGROUND ,..............................................................................................................................1
STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT ...............................................................................................III
POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS.................................................................................... XI
I. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ...................................................................~.1
BACKGROUND ................,..................,.......................................................................................... 1
METHODOLOGY .......................,................................................................................................... 2
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND ................................................................................................ 3
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY ..................................................................................................6
DISTRIBUTION BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME.................................................................................... 10
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 12
II. HOUSING SITES AND PROTOTYPES .......................................................... 14
SELECTION OF HOUSING SITES ..................................................................................................14
SITE AsSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................... 16
m. FINANCING SOURCES AND USES............................................................... 46
ESTABLISHED FUND SOURCES .......................................,...........................................................46
ESTABLISHED FUND USES..........................................................................................................48
AI. TERNATlVE FUNDING SOURCES ............................................................................................ 51
IV. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION .............................................. 57
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................57
PROJECT Ev ALUA TlON AND RANKING....................................................................................... 70
V. HOUSING PRODUCTION AND FINANCING .............................................. 77
PRN ATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT ..............................................................................................77
PUBLIC SECTOR DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................-.............80
HOUSING PRODUcnON BY INCOME LEVEL ............................................................................... 88
FUNDING PROGRAM ...................................................................................................................89
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan _-'~
Final Report
March 19, 2002
STRATEGIC PLAN SUIvllv1ARY
This Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan provides the City of Aspen with housing
development priorities, policies, and implementing actions that maximize affordable
housing development in Aspen within the framework of broader City plans and
policies. The Strategic Plan;
. Identifies existing community housing needs by type.
. Determines the development potential of affordable sites located within the Aspen
Area Community Plan area.
'-"...
. Evaluates the economic performance of the City's affordable housing sites and
prototype projects and compares their relative costs and benefits
li:?j
I:.;
""
. Specifies an affordable housing development program and a phasing schedule that
best meets program objectives consistent with available funding sources and levels.
. Recommends strategies and actions that implement the housing development
program.
...
BACKGROUND
g..~
.. '
. .
.':'1
,'f
. ,
.
The City of Aspen has a long-standing affordable housing program that has resulted in
an inventory of nearly 2,000 affordable units. Affordable housing is provided through
incentive zoning, mitigation requirements, and public investment in the construction of
affordable housing on City-owned sites. The program provides both ownership and
rental housing for households at specified income levels. The program provides
housing for Aspen area employees priced out of the private real estate market in order
to retain a critical local workforce, and to maintain a sense of community with a core
population who both live and work in Aspen.
Y'J
(:\
V". ,I
~{...'
. ,;
r .1
.:"'"
The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) recognized the need for a critical mass of
local working residents to sustain the community. It set a goal of between 800 and 1,300
additional affordable housing units to be provided within the Aspen Community
Growth Boundary. It identified a list of 22 sites (or sites to be acquired) with the
potential to build affordable housing. The AACP indicated that these pub1ic-owned
sites represented only part of the solution. Other means, including public-private
partnerships, infill housing within the Aspen town site, and "buy-downs" of existing
lodge or condominium properties were also identified as <j. potential means for
providing some of the housing need.
\.;.:.j
";_/
';',,1
...'
,::j
The City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and the private development community have been
successful at providing affordable housing in recent years. Since the list of housing
-i-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
.--.'.-'
STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARy
This Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan provides the City of Aspen with housing
development priorities, policies, and implementing actions that maximize affordable
housing development in Aspen within the framework of broader City plans and
policies. The Strategic Plan:
. Identifies existing community housing needs by type.
. Determines the development potential of affordable sites located within the Aspen
Area Community Plan area.
. Evaluates the economic performance of the City's affordable housing sites and
prototype projects and compares their relative costs and benefits
. specifies an affordable housing development program and a phasing schedule that
best meets program objectives consistent with available funding sources and levels.
. Recommends strategies and actions that implement the housing development
program.
BACKGROUND
The Oty of Aspen has a long-standing affordable housing program that has resulted in
an inventory of nearly 2,000 affordable units. Affordable housing is provided through
incentive zoning, mitigation requirements, and public investment in the CQr15truction of
affordable housing on City-owned sites. The program provides both ownership and
rental housing for households at specified income levels. The program provides
housing for Aspen area employees priced out of the private real estate market in order
to retain a critical local workforce, and to maintain a sense of community with a core
population who both live and work in Aspen.
The Aspen Area community Plan (AACP) recognized the need for a critical mass of
local working residents to sustain the community. It set a goal of between 800 and 1,300
additional affordable housing units to be provided within the Aspen Community
Growth Boundary, It identified a list of 22 sites (or sites to be acquired) with the
potential to build affordable housing. The AACP indicated that these public-owned
sites represented only part of the solution. Other meaIlS, including public-private
partnerships, infill housing within the Aspen town site, and "buy-downs" of existing
lodge or condominium properties were also identified as a potential meaIIS for
providing some of the housing need.
The Oty of Aspen, Pitkin County, and the private development community have been
successful at providing affordable housing in recent years. Since the list of housing
-1-
'<
<",,\;~
L"!1~
"1""
,::~
.,
,
'""
Aspen Affordaole Housing Strategic plan
. Final Report
March 19, 2002
-....-.
options identified in the AACP were initially identified in the lnteriIn Aspen Nea
Citizen Housing Plan, a total of 457 housing units have been built on nine of the
identified sites. Of this total, 243 units were built by the Housing Office as shown in
Table 1 below,
Table 1
Completed Affordable Housing Projects
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Units Developer
Stillwaler'
7th and Main
Snyder
Truscott expansion'
Hines/Highlands
Moore PUD/Five Trees
MM Seasonal Housing
North 40
Aspen Country Inn
Total
17 County/Housing Office
12 CitylHousing Office
15 City/Housing Office
99 City/Housing OfficeIT ax Credit
71 Mitigation
31 Mitigation
100 CitylPrivate Non Profit
72 Private Sector
~ Tax Credit
457
1Under Development
Source: Economic & p\aMlng systems
However, the AACP did not specifically address hoW to implement the housing
development program. And after an initial level of success, the housing program has
become bogged down becau..<e of a lack of clarity on a number of implementation issues
including the following:
Although 800 to 1,300 housing units were identified as a housing goal, does the goal
remain the same today or has it increased or decreased?
.
,-
. Within the housing goal, what type of housing, and at what income level is most
needed?
. Which of the remaining housing sites identified in the AACP renuUn economically
feasible for affordable housing?
. Which of the sites provide the community with the greatest value?
. What portion of the housing need can feasibly be provided by infill housing and buy
downs?
,~.::\
;:/1
.:::'J
s;:.\
.;~
- ii-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
. Are additional housing sites needed to meet the estimated housing need?
. How can the dedicated housing revenues be most effectively leveraged?
. Can additional cost savings be achieved through adjustments to the City's affordable
housing development process?
STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT
The Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan is intended to address these questions and
provide strategic direction for affordable housing development over the next 10 years.
The Plan is not a static document, but rather a guide that can be adjusted periodically to
respond to changes circumstance including changes in need, availability of additional
sites, and/ or development opportunities presented by other parties.
The Plan is based on comprehensive analysis of the a.vailable resources and projected
costs. It is grounded in an evaluation of the community's need for housing and
identifies a target housing production goal for the City. The Plan accounts for costs and
revenues that are project specific and provides a comparison of the subsidies required
for different options. It accounts for all dedicated revenue sources and recommends
ways to leverage these resources for optimal performance. Finally, it provides a
recommended sequence for development based on these factors that will enable the City
to reach its housing goals in a financially sound method with the use of existing revenue
sources and viable revenue enhancements.
STRATEGIC PLAN OBTEcrIVES
The Affordable Housing Strategic Plan builds upon existing City plans and policies
including the AACP. It is intended to provide additional clarification and direction
regarding the implementation of community housing goals. Over 35 community leaders
were interviewed at the beginning of the planning process to confirm the project goals
and to identify issues to be addressed. Based on this input, the folloWing Plan objectives
were identified:
. Quantify current affordable housing needs considering affordable housing already
developed as well as recent employment growth.
. Identify the portion of housing need by income category.
. Evaluate the development feasibility of the six remaining affordable housing sites
identified in the AACP.
. Calculate the economic viability of infill housing and buy down housing and
estimate how much of the housing need could be provided through each option.
. Prioritize the housing development options based on cost effectiveness, ease of
development, and conformance with other City goals and policies.
- iii-
"
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
. Develop a financing and phasing plan for housing development that optimizes the
use of available funds.
. Identify the appropriate Housing Office roles and responsibilities for implementing
. the recommended program.
STRATEGIC PLAN ELEMENTS
The initial work task involved personal confidential interViews with community
stakeholders including all members of City Council, Board of County Commissioners,
and the Housing Board. In addition, representatives of the Historic Preservation
Commission, City Planning and Zoning Commission, County Planning and Zoning
Commission, Infill Committee and Civic Center Master Plan Committee were
interviewed. Professional staff involved with the housing program were consulted
including the Housing Office and City, and County planning staffs. Initial planning
efforts also involved an analysis of previous plans and documents including the AACP,
the Draft Infill Report. and preliminarY plans and financial analyses of the porential
housing sites.
The Plan is SUJIUlllll'ized in the five sections outlined below. There are also
implementation strategies and actionS that follow. The technical analysis follows in the
remaining sections of the report.
. Housing Needs Assessment _ The AACJ! identifies a goal of providing 800 to 1,300
affordable units. The Plan includes a current estimate ofhouSmg need by housing
income category that is consisrent with the AACP goal. The assessment provides a
more detailed methodology for estimating housing need including detail on the
percentage of units to be targeted at each income Category (1 through 4) and thus
links the overall community need to specific income levels.
. Housing Site and Prototype Analysis - Reconunended development programs are
developed for the six remaining housing sites in the AACP based on physical
economic and planning policy opportunities and constraints. Development
programs are constructed for three prototypical infill housing sites and for a non-site
specific "buy-down option". The infill and buy down options test the economic
feasibility of these options, as well as to provide a point of ~e on the overall
viability of each housing development approach as compared to the public-owned
and developed sites.
. Financing Sources and Uses _ There are two primary funding sources for affordable
housing, a real estate transfer tax and a portion of the City's sales tax. In addition
there are other revenue sources that make up the resources available to develop
housing projects, some of which can be uniquely leveraged to increase the funds
available for housing, Annual revenues by source and use are estintated for the
2002-2011 time period, including assumptions about ways to leverage resources.
1
I
:~,1
;1
,
:)
:"'\
.,;.'
- iv-
Aspen Affordu.ble Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
.
Project Financial Analysis and Evaluation - This section includes a detailed
financial analysis of the proposed development program for each site. Overall
development costs and revenues are estimated along with estimates of the project
subsidies required to develop the recommended program. Because the development
programs differ and a direct cost comparison is not possible, the sites were also
compared assuming a relatively uniform Category 3 ownership program on each
site. The projects are also evaluated against other evaluation criteria to prioritize the
available housing development options.
.
Housing Production and Phasing Program - Based on housing need, available
resources, and the evaluation of development options, a potential housing
development program and phasing schedule is detailed. This section also includes
recommendations on housing development options and partnerships to leverage the
most cost effective housing production.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The major findings and conclusions in each plan element are summarized below. TIlis
analysis provides the basis for the implementation strategies and actions that follow.
1. Housing Needs Analysis
Current housing needs were estimated based on the goal of housing 60 percent of the
Aspen area workforce. Based on 2000 total Pitkin County estimated employment of
21,472 and accounting for an average of 1.3 jobs per person, 1.8 employees per
household and allowances for down-valley employment and out-commuting, there are
an estimated 7,800 employee households and a target of 4,680 households to be
provided in Aspen. Based on an existing supply of 3,684 units, there is an existing
shortfall of 995 units.
Based on an analysis of the existing workforce by job category, the income distribution
of housing units was then estimated. The existing affordable unit mix by category was
subtracted from the overall demand figures to determine the distribution of current
need as shown in Table 2 below. 1be estimated need is conservative in that it does not
account for the portion of the existing free-market housing stock that is not restricted
and is likely to be lost when employees retire or sell their residence.
-v-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan --'
Final Report
March 19, 2002
Table 2
Distribution of Need
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Percent
Number
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Res. Occ.
Above RO
18%
28%
21%
30%
3%
Q%.
179
278
209
299
30
Q
Total
100%
995
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
(
2. Housing Site and Prototype Analysis
The conceptual designs completed for the six public-held sites and three prototypes
have an aggregate development potential of 624 units and 42 units, respectively, as
shown in Table 3 below. Because the infill sites are prototypes (designed to be a
representative example of a project that could be replicated on a numbet of sites), the
number of units ultimately produced by these project types could exceed the 42 units
shown.
The development potential of the public sites is well below the AACP housing goals and
the identified need. The City must create other vehicles to produce affordable housing,
such as infill projects, and rely on other players, such as the private sector, to reach its
goal Moreover, the production figures show that each of the sites identified below is
critical and that each is needed for the City to make progress towards its goal
"
-.vi -
..
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
, Final Report
March 19, 2002
Table 3
Estimated Development Potential
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Site/Prototype
#of
Afford.
Units
# of
Free
Market
Units
Total
Public-Held Sites
Aspen Mass 120 0 120
Burlingame Ranch 330 0 330
Parcel 0 40 0 40
Rio Grande 17 6 23
Truscott 66 0 66
U.S. Forest Service ~ 21 li
Subtotal 624 27 651
Infill Sites 1
East End (Schlumberger) 6 4 10
Commercial (The Gap) 20 6 26
Lodge (Aspen Manor) .12 ~ 20
Subtotal 42 14 56
Total 666 41 707
1 Figures represent a single Inll1l project.
Source: Economic & Plannlng Systems
3. Financing Sources and Uses
The City's established housing revenue sources are projected to generate $66.3 million
over the next ten years. Housing is primarily funded through two sources, the 1 percent
Real Estate Transfer Tax (REIT) which is expected generate two-thirds of the revenue at
$41.4 million, and a portion of the 0.45 percent dedicated sales tax, which is expected to
generate $9.9 million during the 10-year forecast. The balance of $15.0 million is
expected to come from seven smaller revenue sources. Proposed expenditures include
$25.4 million for housing operations and debt service from previous bond commitments,
which provides a balance of $40.9 million for development.
Additional funding sources are needed to complete the recommended housing program.
The Plan identifies five additional sources that leverage existing assets, incorporate local
resources, and use outside capital as needed. These sources include land sales, buy-in
-vii -
\
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
revenue, tax credit equity, free-market and commercial revenue, and a Farmie Mae
backed revolving loan fund. They are listed separately from the dedicated revenue
sources as none are guaranteed. The market demand and competitive nature can
increase or decrease the potential of each source. Of the five identified, four provide
equity to the City and one is a loan fund that would require full repayment, plus
interest While the list of sources is not exhaustive, the level of subsidy shown in Table
4, which ranges from $13.2 to $25.0 million, is sufficient to cover the projected shortfall.
Table 4
Addltlonal Revenue Sources
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Source
Low Est.
High Est.
Land Sale
Buy In Program
Tax Credit Equity 1
Revolving Loan Fund
Total
$1,000,000
2,200,000
10,000,000
Q
$13,200,000
$1,000,000
4,000,000
10,000,000
10.000.000
$25,000,000
, See appendix for additional detail
Source: Economic & Plamlng Systems
4. Financial Analysis and Site Evaluation
The estimated cost to develop the six public-held sites is $190.8 million. Revenues from
the sale or rental of these projects an! estimated at $134.3 million based on the maximum
allowed sales and rental revenue stipulated by the APHCA Guidelines. The public
subsidy required, given current proposals for the mix of affordability categories, is in the
range of $56.5 million.
The economic performance of each site has been evaluated, including those that the City
would initiate, as well as the infill sites that the private sector would develop. Table 5
shows the financial ranking of the options, based on the per bedroom subsidy required.
,."
.... ~
-viii -
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
Table 5
Surplus/(Subsidy) per Bedroom
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Rank
Site
Subsidy/Surplus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Rio Grande 1
Schlumberger '
Gap'
Burlingame
USFS 1
Aspen Mass
Parcel D
Truscott
Aspen Manor 1
Buy Down
63,201
35,224
(10,455)
(36,695)
(50.060)
(53,208)
(84,986)
(117,402)
(150,515)
(206,600)
1 Project Includes fre&-lT1arket units
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
(
A number of other non-financial factors were considered in the evaluation including the
net gain of employees housed, readiness of the site for development, conformance
adopted plans, neighborhood compatibility, and linkages to other policy objectives.
These factors will influence the ultimate development program as well as the order in
which the housing projects occur. Based on this broader evaluation, including both
financial and qualitative factors, the ranking of the development options is shown in
Table 6.
-u-
----
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
Table 6
Summary Ranking
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Rank Project
Total Score
1 Rio Grande 75
2 Burlingame Ranch 73
,:, 3 The Gap 61
, 4 US Forest Service 59
'I
> 5 Aspen Mass 59
:1 6 Parcel D 52
j 7 Truscott, Phase III 51
8 Schlumberger 49
9 Aspen Manor 48
Source: Economic &Plannlng.Systems
I
,)
~
~..,
~~
5. Housing Financing and Phasing
To meet its housing production goals, the City will need to expand upon existing
development approaches. The housing production program estimates that 350 units, or
over one-third of the housing need, can be directly provided by the private sector
through infill development, the affordable housing zone district, and mitigation
requirements.
:~r
The City is expected to initiate development of approximately two-thirds of the
production goal, or 624 units. The methods of production should include initiating
development of the six public-held sites in the sequence previously described and land
banking parcels for future development The buy down option is not recommended due
to its high cost '
J
The housing production program relies on the collective effort of the public and private
sectors to reach the target with projects that represent the full range of income
categories. The aggregate production reflects the community's distribution of
household income, as shown in Table 7.
.'<-
",.1
;'i
-x-
Aspen Affordable HOUSing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
Table 7
Total Estimated Production, by Category
Aspen Affordable Housing StrategIc Plan
Category Total
1 2 3 4 RO
Total Recommended Production 142 257 235 240 100 974 I:,:
Percentage 15% 26% 24% 25% 10% 100%
cl'
"
Identified Need 179 278 209 299 30 995
Percentage 18% 28% 21% 30% 3% 100% ;i'::
~,
Difference -3% -1% 3% -5% 7%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
The policies listed below comprise the major policy recommendations of the Plan. For
each policy, the rationale is provided along with a listing of speci1ic actions needed to
implement the policy.
1. Adopt the hOusing needs assessment methodology
The current housing needs assessment is based on the previously adopted goal of
hOusing 60 percent of the local workforce. This goal is a reasonable target absent any
compelling reason for its adjustment If for any reason, an adjustment up or down is
warranted, it can easily be made with the appropriate adjustments in the demand
calculations based on it There are however, no reasonable comparable communily
standards applicable to Aspen's unique geographic setting that provide guidance on this
figure. Qearly, housing a majority of the local workforce is essential to COmmunity
sustainability and 60 percent represents a reasonable goal.
'-'
More importantly, USe of a quantifiable target allows for estimating need by income
category. The estimates of housing need by income category then provide a basis for
programming the hOusing mix on affordable housing sites based on the community's
profile.
The estimates of housing need are not static. They will increase or decrease based on
three factors; 1) employment growth, 2) supply of existing housing, and 3) construction
of new affordable housing units. The needs analysis shOuld therefore be updated on a
-xi -
Aspen Afferdable Housing Strategic Plan -'
Final Report
March 19, 2002
regular basis to account for changing conditions in these categories and to monitor
progress.
Actions
1.1 The City should re-confirm the 60 percent employment target It can be modified
in the future should policy direction change.
1.2 Housing needs should be recalculated annually to account for changes in local
employment, the number of local employee-households, and additions to the
affordable housing inventory.
1.3 The city should continue to conduct a comprehensive housing needs analysis
every five years, incorporating new annual trend data. In addition to addressing
aggregate need, the assessment should also address market preferences by unit
type.
2. Increase housing production by the private sector
)
The 70-30 housing program has been an important component of the overall housing
program. With the incentive of exemption from the Growth Management Quota System
(GMQS), it allowed the private sector to build 30 percent market rate units and 70
percent affordable units with 30 percent R-O housing and 40 percent averaging
Category 2 to 3. In addition to the Category units, the R-O housing filled an important
gap in the local housing spectrum above the Category 4 price ceiling of just under
$300,000, but well below free market units priced over $1.0 million. Over the 1994 to
2000 time period, a total of eight 70-30 projects produced a total of 119 housing units in
the City.
,
"
The 70-30 program has been effectively eliminated by recent adjustments to the
guidelines. TIrls has resulted in no new 70-30 projects from being proposed for several
years. The 70-30 program should therefore be revised to reinstate economic incentives
for private developers to build these projects in the City.
'.-:
Mitigation has also been a contributor to affordable housing accounting for 105 rental
and ownership units between 1992 and 2000. Mitigation should only be waived if there
are compelling public benefits to doing so. The Draft Infill Report provides such a
compelling reason for waiving the requirements on infill development projects
containing affordable housing. The Infill Report analysis clearly shows that relief of the
mitigation requirements is necessary to make these projects feasible. The revised project
pro formas included in this Plan also illustrate the impact of waiving these requirements
on the project's bottom line. While these new recommendations are still under review,
their intent is clearly desirable.
,)
- xii-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
Actions
2.1 Revise the 70-30 guidelines to restore the economic incentive to private
developers.
2.2 Adopt the Infil1 Report recommendations regarding affordable housing.
3. Expand and diversify affordable housing re1lenue sources
Aspen's two primary revenue sources, the one percent real estate transfer tax and the
0.45 cent sales tax, will generate the bulk of revenues to build affordable housing.
However, there are a number of ways the City can supplement these primary revenue
sources. Three sources, a proposed buy-in program, low-income housing tax credits
(LIHTC), and City lending through Fannie Mae, show the most promise.
The LIHTC program allows the developers of eligible low-income rental projects
(generally rented to households with incomes below 60 percent of AMI) to sell tax
credits equal to four percent or nine percent of the eligible project expenses on the equity
market This program is generally used by private and non-profit developers, but public
agencies are also eligible. The City could then use the generated revenue for specific
projects on the sites evaluated in the strategic pIan.
The City as lender concept would involve the City borrowing low interest funds from
Fannie Mae, establishing a Revolving Loan Fund (RLF), and lend funds to developers
for eligible housing projects. Unlike City-backed revenue bonds (which could be used
for the same purpose), these funds would be exempt from TABOR restrictions on voter
approval of long-term debt
The buy-in program would allow employers to purchase an affordable housing unit for
the cost of the subsidy and then rent it to one of their eligible employees. This would
allow employers to control these units to meet their employee housing and retention
needs. Because the overall demand for housing in City projects is so strong, this
, approach would only make sense for a small percentage of units in a large project such
as Burlingame
The LIHTC and Fannie Mae lending programs are proven methods for housing finance.
The Buy-In program is untested, at least in the Aspen market It should nevertheless be
tried to see if it is cost effective.
Actions
3.1 Approve the buy-in program concept on a temporary basis and test it in a large
project.
- xiii-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
3.2 Utilize LIHTC in low-income rental projects including potentially Truscott III
and Parcel D.
3.3 Evaluate the benefits of establishing a RLF funded by low interest funds
borrowed from Fannie Mae to provide additional funds for affordable housing
projects developed by the private sector.
4. Create future opportunities for affordable housing
The City is quickly running out of potential sites for affordable housing. Of the 22 sites
listed in the AACP, nine are built, five have been eliminated from further consideration
and three are highly speculative. The remaining five sites (US Forest Service,
Burlingame Ranch, Parcel D, Aspen Mass and Truscott III) plus Rio Grande can
accommodate an estimated total of 624 affordable units.
In all1ikelihood, the need for affordable housing will increase over the next decade. The
existing sites do not provide the City with enough options and flexibility to meet
expected future demand. The City should therefore allocate a portion of its revenues for '
acquiring additional sites as they become available.
The affordable housing problem extends beyond Aspen's borders. Although the City is
progressing toward meeting the goal of housing 60 percent of the local workforce, a
portion of the remaining 40 percent also have affordable housing needs. They are either
living in overcrowded conditions or needing to commute unreasonable distanceS to
work in Aspen. These conditions impact the community sustainability goals. Based on
an analysis of Basalt busineSs license data, a significant number of professional services
firms with higher paid jobs have moved out of Aspen to the Mid-Valley due priroarilY to
employee retention and attraction issues. It is therefore in the City's interest to be a
participant in larger regional housing discusSions and initiatives.
Actions
4.1 Allocate a portion of available housing revenues to land banking - the purchase
of housing sites for future development The financing element of the Plan
allocates $500,000 per year for the strategic acquisition of available sites.
4.2 Establish a regional housing task force for the Roaring Fork Valley to begin to
address larger housing issues.
-xiv-
--"
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
5. Expand the Tole of the private sectoT in development and construction of
City-owned housing sites
The current housing development process is inefficient and costly. This is largely
inherent in public development and not specific to Aspen's process. The development
of public-owned sites for any type of development is more efficiently implemented with
greater private sector participation. The development process should have clearly
defined roles and responsibilities for both the private and public sectors. The public
sector would still retain an important role.
The City's responsibility should be to acquire land and to entitle the property with basic
zoning including the allowable affordable housing levels. The City would then issue a
request for proposals (RFP) for developers to complete the project design and build each
project. this will allow the City to take advantage of the competitive process to attract
the most creative and cost efficient proposals. The City may also want to utilize a
request for qualifications (RFQ) process to pre-qualify developers eligible to bid on up-
coming projects.
The City entitlements should include allowable levels of affordable housing, allowable
levels of other land uses, designation of developable land, open space requirements,
height limits, and setbacks. Some overall design guidance can be included, but the
project should allow for creative and cost-effective developmenf solutions.
The RFP should specify the project objectives and terms and conditions including
zoning, land price, city participation, and criteria for project evaluation. The developer
would be responsible for final site plan approvals including design, and subdivision
regulations.
Actions
5.1 Design and implement the recommended two-step development approval
process that involves the selected developer prior to final project approval.
5.2 Issue a RFQ to pre-qualify developers interested in bidding on upcoming
projects.
5.3 Reorganize the Housing Office to adjust for changes in responsibility under the
new process (as outlined in Policy 7 below).
5.4 Create specifications for affordable housing projects to be used by selected
development teams.
f,.
-:x:o -
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
~~,~
6. Modify City regulations to be consistent with the Housing Action Plan
The recommendations of the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan raises some
inconsistencies with other City policies. This is not unusual. Cities often discover that
they have conflicting public objectives. It is however, important to identify and address
these inconsistencies. The Plan identified the following issues to be addressed:
. The GMQS does not allow enough units to accommodate the housing goals. As of
2001, the separate categories of GMQS allocations totaled 376 for Category 1-4 units
and 683 for units of all other types remaining in the system.
. The infill project recommendations are not feasible unless the recommendations of
the Draft Infill Report are adopted. In particular the economic feasibility of the
projects is dependent on waiver of mitigation requirements.
. The current COWOP process is inconsistent with the recommendations to contract
with developers sooner in the housing development process.
There may be other regulatory issues that need to be addressed. It is important for the
City to address these policy inconsistencies head-on and make reasoned decisions on
what is most important
"
Actions
6.1
, 6.2
;"
6.3
Modify the GMQS to allow for adequate housing to address the affordable
housing goals.
Adopt the Draft Infil1 Report recommendations concerning affordable housing.
Modify the COWOP process to conform to the recommended two-step RFP
development process.
-.1
Reorganize the Housing Authority Board and Housing Office
The current Housing Authority Board is representative of the City, County, and larger
community interests. The predominant funding source is the City, and in its fiduciary
role the City has found itself in conflict with the Authority Board on a number of issues.
The current organizational structure requires staff to respond to multiple and sometimes
conflicting directions. Project costs are too high. community priorities are not clear, and
the time required to make decisions is excessive. A new organization is recommended
to set a unified direction and to establish clear lines of authority between stakeholders
that align the initial goals, ,the funding, and final project approval.
7.
- ;rul -
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
In the recommended organization, the Housing Office would become an internal City
department with the director reporting to the Oty Manager. The recommended
structure is designed to align roles and responsibilities based on future need. Nearly all
the identified future housing projects are located within the city limits. Therefore, the
Oty Council will provide final approval for most, if not all, of the affordable housing
projects over the course of the next ten years.
It is recognized that the County has been active in the past with numerous successful
housing developments and remains bighly committed to affordable housing issues. As
opportunities arise, the Board of County Commissioners can contract with the staff to
provide the same services provided to the Oty for projects located in the County. It is
intended that the newly created Housing Advisory Board would provide assistance to
either the City Council or the Board of County Commissioners, depending on the
location and funding of the project
The department's work program should be set by the Oty Manager and Oty Council as
part of the annual budget process. The Housing Advisory Board should function like a
P!arming Commission, providing policy direction to the Oty Council. The Council
would establish overall parameters for the Board. The proposed structure is shown
below.
City Council --
j
City Manager Housing
Advisory Board
T
Housing Department
Director ---
T
Housing Department
Staff
------
Board of County
Commissioners
(
-----------..1
Actions
7.1 The City Council should restructure the current Housing Board to become a
Housing Advisory Board under its direction.
7.2 The Housing Office should become an internal Oty department
- xvii -
Aspen Affordilble Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
7.3 The County should contract with the City for housing staff services, as housing
funds and sites become available.
8. Initiate housing development under the revised housing plan
The primary focus of the Strategic Plan was to identify the highest priority housing sites
and to determine how to best develop them. Based on an evaluation of the relative
subsidies and other criteria, the highest priority sites are Rio Grande and Burlingame;
they are therefore recommended for development first To meet the stated housing
production goal, other lower priority sites will also need to be developed. To provide
Category 1 and 2 rental housing, Burlingame Parcel D is also recommended to be
developed in a first phase consistent with Table 45 of the Strategic Plan showing a
generalized sequencing of projects.
The three projects represent distinctly different development opportunities and fill
different housing needs. Rio Grande was determined to be the best of a range of infill
housing opportunities in and around the downtown core. Burlingame is a larger site
that provides a larger number of units at lower densities with a greater range of housing
types. Burlingame Parcel D is a smaller site, but with a cost structure and location that
makes it the best site for lower income rental housing.
Each site, for differing reasons, will take several years to develop, Rio Grande is owned
by the City but has only recently been considered for housing development. The
Burlingame development program has undergone a number of changes (even since the
completion of the Strategic Plan) and will therefore require additional site planning
revisions prior to development. Parcel D requires the acquisition of a small parcel of
land from Qwest in order to complete the development program as proposed.
All of the development sites have various levels of predevelopment activity that need to
take place before construction. The actions required to initiate development on the
three high priority sites are listed below.
Actions
8.1 Initiate planning process on Rio Grande site to determine a building program
and site concept.
8.2 Rezone Rio Grande site for proposed development project and proceed with the
RFP process to form a development team.
8.3 Complete the annexation process on the Barl X property to acquire the necessary
land to implement the project concept Zone the land for development consistent
with conceptual plans that have been completed for the site.
- xviii -
8.4
8.5
~'."
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
Assemble a development team for the Burlingame Village.
Acquire the Qwest parcel to complete the Parcel D site.
8.6
The City should proceed to rezone the combined Parcel D property consistent
with the development concept recommended in this plan.
-XlX-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
1. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This Chapter of the report estimates existing affordable housing needs for the Aspen
community. Housing need is quantified by income level and affordable housing
category. The information is presented in six sections:
. Background
. Methodology
. Housing Demand
. Housing Supply
. Household Income Distribution
. Conclusions
BACKGROUND
The City of Aspen has historically provided a target for housing production. The
current affordable housing goal, as stated in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan
(AACP), is to provide 800 to 1,300 additional units within the Aspen Community
Growth Boundary. In addition to listing this target for production, the plan identifies
22 sites as potential housing developments with an estimated range of density for most
of these sites. If all the sites are considered in aggregate, the potential development
approximates the stated goal.
The current goal reflects a departure from the previous goal of housing 60 percent of the
local area employment Because a community's need for housing is primarily driven by
employment, the previous goal more accurately reflected the actual need, rather than
opportunities to address the need. In soliciting community perspectives, many elected
and appointed officials expressed concern that the current goal is too broad, does not
allow the community to effectively monitor its progress towards meeting the goal, and
does not accurately gauge need. The benefit of the current goal is that it caps affordable
housing development and does not allow unlimited growth based on a percentage of
local employment
The Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (plan) addresses both concerns. The need
is quantified, based on employment, which is then linked to local household income.
Additionally, the concern about growth is addressed as an approximate upper limit of
additional development has been documented for the sites identified in the AACJ>.
With conceptual site-specific architectural plans, densities have been provided for each
potential housing site.
The housing production goal for the Plan is based on a target of housing 60 percent of
, local area employment Although not adopted policy at this point, the historic target
provides a basis for the needs assessment that is grounded in past policy. The forecast
-1 -
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
need is then translated into the number of units required by income level. The
recommendation is based on the current income and asset limits for Categories 1
through 4 and Resident Occupied (R-O) units, as determined by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority (APCHA). The needs assessment has been used to set the
appropriate development programs for individual housing sites.
METHODOLOGY
The needs assessment was completed using the following methodology:
. Quantify the number of jobs and employees located in Pitkin County.
. Estimate the percentage of employees living in Pitkin County and the percent
commuting in from down valley.
. Convert employees to households based on estimated employees per household.
. Segment Aspen area employment from SnoWffia5S and Basalt area employment
. Compare the number of households with an Aspen employee that live locally to the
total number that live elsewhere.
. Establish a target number of employee households to be housed in the community.
. Estimate the affordable housing deficit by comparing the target number of
households to existing number of local employee households.
. Identify gaps in supply by income level by accounting for the current supply of
affordable housing. .
. Project the number of units needed by category to address current deficits, based on
the gap analysis. '
('
The methodology listed above should be used annually to identify the trends affecting
the housing deficit The more comprehensive five-year needs assessment conducted by
the Housing Office should be used to probe the trends identified in the annual updates
and to calibrate state data with locally generated data. Some of the assumptions used in
the following housing needs assessment were derived from three local surveys. The
merged data set includes 706 households with at least one employee working in Pitkin
County. The three surveys (and the sponsoring organizations) include:
. 1999 Roaring Fork Valley Housing Suroey (Aspen!Pitkin County Housing Authority).
More than 3,500 surveys were distributed to residents of Pitkin, Eagle (Basalt/El
Jebel area), and Garfield Counties with a response rate of 20 percent Of the returned
surveys, 279 were from households which contained one or more Pitkin County
workers.
. 1998 Roaring Fork Vaney Housing Suroey (Aspen Valley Impravement Association).
Approximately 3,000 surveys were distributed to residents in the Roaring Fork and
Colorado River valleys (as listed above). The response rate of 19 percent included
241 households with one or more Pitkin County workers.
. 1998 Survey of Travel Patterns in the Roaringfork Valley (Healthy Mountain
Communities). This survey was distributed to local employees through a sample of
-2-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
employers in Pitkin, Eagle (BasaltjEl Jebel area), and Garfield Counties. The 17
percent response rate included 186 households with one or more Pitkin County
workers.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND
Table 1 shows the number of jobs in Pitkin County for each year since 1995. Total jobs
increased by 7.6 percent or 1,477 jobs from 1995 to 1999. Most of the employment
growth occurred in 1996 and 1997 with an increase of 1,401 jobs. In 1998 and 1999
employment growth was flat with a net increase of 76 jobs. Based on the percent
increase in state ES-202 wage and salary data, total employment is estimated to have
increased by an additional 421 jobs in 2000 as shown. The relatively flat job growth in
Pitkin County reflects the migration of businesses to down valley locations, documented
by an analysis of Basalt business license data.
Table 1 also shows the number of employed persons living in Pitkin County. Over the
last two years, the number of employees living in the county has dropped by 370
persons. Given that the unemployment rate has decreased (4.4 percent in 1998 versus
2.6 percent in 2000), these employees have either been pri<:ed out of the county or have
chosen to live down valley for other reasons.
Table 1
pitkin County Employment Characteristics, 1995 to 2000
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 est 1995.2000
-I. change
Wage & Salary Jobs 15,463 15,935 16,570 16,858 16,620 16,952 9.6%
Est proprietors 4,111 4,293 4,405 4,246 4,431 4,520 9.9%
t Estimated T olal Jobs 19,574 20,228 20,975 21,104 21,051 21,472 9.7%
, Employed Persons Residing
in Pitkin County 8,496 8,489 8,788 8,897 8,656 8,527 0.4%
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis and Colorado Dept. of Labor and Employment
~
"~~,;
"
*
-'
-3-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
Based on the Roaring Fork Valley survey data, employees have an average of 1.3 jobs
each. Thus the 21,472 jobs in Pitkin County represent an estimated 16,517 employees.
In 2000, there were 7,802 employed persons living and working within Pitkin County.
Based on 8,527 resident employees, of which 8.5 percent commute out of the county, 47.2
percent of the total number of employees work in the county. The balance of 52.8
percent commute into the county from down-valley locations, as shown in Table 2.
Since 1995, the percentage of local employees has declined from 51.6 percent to 47.2
percent. This trend of down-valley migration is growing, as Pitkin County employees
choose to live in other communities for a variety of reasons, housing affordability being
the most significant factor.
Table 2
Pitkin County Commuting Patterns
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999 2000 est
Total Jobs in County 19,574 20,228 20,975 21,104 21,051 21,472
Jobs per Empioyee 1.3 1.3 1,3 1.3 1,3 1.3
Total Employees in County 15,057 15,560 16,135 16,234 16,193 16,517 (
Employed Persons Residing in County 8,496 8,489 8,788 8,897 8,656 8,527
Out-commuters (8.5%) 1 722 722 747 756 736 725
Locai Residents employed in County 7,774 7,767 8,041 8,141 7,920 7,802
Commuters employed In County 7,283 7,793 8,094 8,093 8,273 8,715
% of emp. who live iocally 51.6% 49.9% 49.8% 50.1% 48.9% 47.2%
% of emp. who commute into County 48.4% 50.1% 50.2% 49.9% 51.1% 52.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
I 1990 US Census Data
-4-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
Based on an estimated 15 percent of county employment being located in Snowma5S,
Basalt, and other outlying locations, 14,039 employees worked in Aspen in 2000. This
estimate is based on an evaluation of ES-202 data for the County at peak season, that has
been adjusted to reflect year-round employment conditions. As survey data has shown
that there are approximately 1.8 employees per household, a total of 7,800 households
are located throughout the Roaring Fork region with at least one member employed in
Aspen. Assuming 47.2 percent of employees live locally within Aspen, there were 6,632
employees that both live and work in Aspen, which translates to 3,684 households.
The Aspen area employment figures include jobs located in and around the city limits,
including the Aspen Airport Business Center. The percentage of employees working
elsewhere was estimated by evaluating ES202 data by jurisdiction for all of Pitkin
County. The data were based on 1996 employment figures and can be applied to current
figures, based on the assumption that the ratio of employment locations within the
County has not changed significantly.
Table 3
Households with an Aspen Employee
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999 2000 est
Talal Employees In Pitkin County 15,057 15,560 16,135 16,234 16,193 16,517
Percent employees outside Aspen 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0%
Employees working elsewhere in County 2,259 2,334 2,420 2,435 2,429 2,478
Employees Working in Aspen 12,798 13,226 13,714 13,799 13,764 14,039
Households with an Emp. In Aspen 1 7,110 7,348 7,619 7,666 7,647 7,800
Employees Uving and Working in Aspen 6,608 6,602 6,835 6,920 6,732 6,632
Households in Aspen with a local employee 1 3,671 3,668 3,797 3,844 3,740 3,684
Source: BureaU at Economic AnalySis and Economic & Planning Systems
1 Assumes 1.8 employees per household
~,
-5-
Aspen Affordabk Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
The current Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) sets forth a goal of 800 to 1,300
affordable housing units. Although the goal is not currently based on a percentage of
employees, using a target percentage is a useful tool that provides a framework for
evaluating the need. The percentage can be adjusted up or down based on policy
considerations. The previous established target of housing 60 percent of the workforce
has been considered a starting point As there were 7,800 households in the region that
had at least one employee working in Aspen in 2000, a target of 60 petcent is 4,680
households, as shown in Table 4. If the target were adjusted up by 5 percent, there
would be a need for 389 more units for a total of 1,386. If it were adjusted down to 55%,
the need would be decreased by 389 units to 606.
Based on this target, there is an unmet 995-unit deficit in affordable housing for the
community for the year 2000. This figure is derived by subtracting the number of Aspen
households with at least one employee working in Aspen, 3,684, from the target of 4,680.
Because the need is not static, it is important for the City to measure need annually to
identify recent trends. Annual information is critical to be able to compare supply and
demand at specific points in time. With consistent, complete annual measurements of
both the need and the housing inventory, the City can increase its accuracy in gauging
the level of unmet need.
Based on Housing Office records, there are 1,937 restricted units in the community.
Assuming that there are a total of 3,684 employee-households, 52.6 percent reside in
deed-restricted homes and the balance of 47.4 percent live in free-market housing. It
should be emphasized that the portion of the housing stock that is not restricted is not
likely to be resold at affordable rates in the future. Thus, the City should monitor the
number of local employee-households residing in restricted as well as market-rate
homes to ensure that both types of housing are accounted for in evaluating the City's
total need for housing.
Table 4
Determlnatlon of Need
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Factor
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 est.
Employee Households 7,110 7,348 7,619 7,666 7,647 7,800
Local Housing Target 60,," 4,266 4,409 4,571 4,600 4,588 4,680
Current Resident Households 3,671 ~ 3797 3.844 3,740 3.684
Deficit 595 741 774 755 848 995
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY
APCHA records show a total of 1,937 units in the affordable housing inventory. As
shown in Table 5 on the following page, 59 percent are ownership units and 41 percent
-6-
" ,.'~
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan a'_ .
Final Report
March 19, 2002
are rental units. Approximately one-quarter of the units are single-family homes and
the balance are attached townhomes, condominiums, and aparhnents. Mobile homes
are included as single-family homes. Approximately four percent of the inventory are
Category 1 units; ten percent are Category 2; 35 percent are Category 3; and the balance
are nearly evenly divided among Category 4 (24 percent) and R-O (25 percent). The
inventory represents the principle ownership and rental properties and does not include
units such as Accessory Dwelling Units that mayor may not be occupied. It should be .
noted that 41 units are not defined by category, and the pool of category units (1,896) is
what is used to compare supply and demand.
Table 5
Unit Type by Category
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Category Dorm Studio 1 Bed 2.Bed 3 Bed4Bed SF Total Percent
Ownership
Category 1 0 2 8 7 1 0 1 19 1%
Category 2 0 7 36 39 10 4 0 96 5%
Category 3 0 13 33 30 47 1 77 201 10%
Category 4 0 17 74 198 75 30 62 456 24%
Resident Occupied Q Q Q 1 M .2 ~ ill m
Sub Total 0 39 151 275 167 41 471 1,144 59%
Rental
Category 1 0 26 24 7 4 0 0 61 3%
Category 2 0 16 43 33 11 0 0 103 5%
Category 3 96 96 112 150 21 0 0 475 2.5%
Category 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Resident Occupied 57 50 0 2 4 0 0 113 6%
Undefined Q 12 10 1!! 1 Q Q ~ ~
Sub Total 153 200 189 2.10 41 0 0 793 41%
,
Total
Category 1 0 2.8 32 14 5 0 1 80 4%
Category 2 0 23 79 72 21 4 0 199 10%
Category 3 96 109 145 180 68 1 77 676 35%
Category 4 0 17 74 198 75 30 62 456 24%
Resident Occupied 57 50 0 3 38 6 331 485 25%
Undefined Q 12 .1Q 1!! 1 Q Q 41 ~
Total 153 239 340 485 208 41 471 1,937 100%
Percent 8% 12.% 18% 25% 11% 2% 24% 100%
Sources: APCHA. EconomIc & Planning Systems, Inc.
- 7-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002 r-
I
Table 6 shows the historical production of units since 1960. Nearly 60 percent of the
inventory, or 1,200 units, has been constructed since 1990. The period covering 2000 to
2001 shows units that are under construction or recently completed, including the rental
units located at Truscott and the R-O units located at North 40. It is estimated that 457
units have been completed since the AACP goal of 800 to 1,300 units was first discussed.
These units have been constructed at some point between 1996 and 2001. (Specific
project names and densities are shown in Table 1 of the executive summary.)
Table 6
Year of Construction by Category
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Category 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-95 1996-99 2000-01 Total Percent
Ownership
Category 1 0 0 10 0 1 8 19 1%
Category 2 11 0 1 45 23 15 95 5%
Category 3 5 0 21 23 90 64 203 10%
Category 4 0 37 227 113 24 56 457 24%
Resident Occupied Q JlI 1I iJl. ill B nQ ~
Sub Total 16 124 276 200 311 217 1,144 59%
Rental
Category 1 0 0 16 11 34 0 61 3%
Category 2 0 0 0 11 48 44 103 5%
Category 3 0 187 80 107 0 101 475 25%
Category 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Resident Occupied 0 0 1 112 0 0 113 6%
Data Unavailable Q Q 41 II II II II fi
Sub Total 0 187 138 241 82 145 793 41%
Total
Category 1 0 0_ 26 11 35 8 80 4%
Category 2 11 0 1 56 71 59 198 10%
Category 3 5 187 101 130 90 165 678 35%
Category 4 0 37 227 113 24 56 457 24%
Resident Occupied 0 87 18 131 173 74 483 25%
Data Unavailable II !l 41 !l !l !l II ~
Total 16 311 414 441 393 362 1,937 100%
Percent 0.8% 16.1% 21.4% 22.8% 20.3% 18.7% 100.0%
Sources: APCHA. Economic & Plannina Svstems. loc.
-8-
,Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
Based on interviews with the current and former housing staff, the origin of housing by
program has been shown in Table 7. The Housing Office has developed 481 units, or 25
percent of the total. Mitigation programs have created 473 units, or 24 percent of the
total. Two specific programs, tax credit projects and the affordable housing zone district
(shown as 70/30 in the table), have generated 9 percent and 6 percent of the total,
respectively.
Table 7
Method of Development by Category
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Hous. Cltyl Nan Mit- Tax 'loaf
Category Off. Cnty Prof. Igallon 70/30' Cred.' Other Total Total
Ownership
Categcry 1 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 19 1%
Category 2 28 21 17 15 15 0 0 96 5%
Category 3 89 8 11 57 36 0 0 201 10%
'i,
Category 4 140 8 0 176 40 0 92 456 24% !
Res. Occ. l!i. 2 ~ 89 ~ Q. 84 ill m
Sub Tolal 272 43 178 356 119 0 176 1144 59'10
Rental
Category 1 0 0 0 27 0 34 0 61 3%
Category 2 0 0 0 11 0 92 ,0 103 5%
Category 3 154 228 33 17 0 43 0 475 25%
Category 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Res. Gce. 55 0 0 58 0 0 0 113 6%
Undefined II Q. 21 1 Q. II jg 11 ~
Sub Tolal 209 228 54 117 0 169 16 793 41%
Total
Category 1 0 0 0 46 0 34 0 80 4%
Category 2 28 21 17 26 15 92 0 199 10%
Category 3 243 236 44 92 18 43 0 676 35%
Category 4 140 8 0 187 29 0 92 456 24%
Res. Gce. 70 6 150 149 26 0 84 485 25%
Undefined Q. Q. II 1 Q. Q. 16 11 ~
Total 481 271 232 473 119 169 192 1937 100%
% of Total 25% 14% 12% 24% 60/. 9% 10% 100%
1 Affordable Housing Zone District
a A portion of tax credit units are prioritized for senior tenants.
Sources: APCHA, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
'-:,'
-9-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
DISTRIBUTION BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME
The Plan compares the distribution of the existing affordable housing inventory by
category to the distribution of employee households by income range to determine the
existing gaps in supply. The purpose of estimating the supply by income range is to
provide inputs into future housing project programs.
The distribution of income was derived from the survey data generated through the
three recent surveys of area residents and workers. The household income distribution
reflects the merged data set of 706 households with at least one employee working in
Pitkin County. Incomes from 1998 were adjusted by the percentage increase in ES202
wage levels to be consistent with the 1999 incomes. The category subgroups have been
based on 1999 APCHA standards for annual income, household size, and assets (when
data were available). It was assumed that the percentage of households that correlate to
each category level has remained constant for the past two years.
As shown in Table 8, the current inventory generally matches the income distribution of
the community, as most of the gaps are single-digit differences. The exception is the R-
,0 category, in which there is an estimated 20 percent surplus. Because 50 percent of R-
o units are mobile homes and 25 percent are rental studio units, the gap is overstated, as
most local households that are likely to purchase an R-O unit are interested in a large
townhouse or single-family home.
Table 8
Idenllflcatlon of Gaps
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Existing
Inventory
Household
Income
Gap In
Supply
category 1 4% 10% -6%
Category 2 ,10% 18% -8%
Category 3 36% 32% +4%
Category 4 24% 28% -4%
Res. Occ. 26% 6% +20%
Above RO Q!g. ~ -6%
Total 100% 100%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
:i
,!
-10 -
~
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
The percent of affordable units needed in each category has been estimated, based on
the distribution of household income. This distribution has been applied to an
aggregate number of affordable housing units, 2,891, assuming the existing deficit (995)
is built and added to the existing inventory (1,896). By subtracting the existing number
of units at each category level from the hypothetical buildout, the percent of units
needed at each category level have been identified that will balance the existing supply
with the community's need and ability to pay for housing.
The total of 995 units needed remains a constant throughout these calculations. For.
purposes of determining the distribution of units, the number of R-O units were
adjusted to include only single-family and townhome R-O units in the inventory of
existing housing. The recommended distribution also does not include units for the 6
percent of households with a local employee that exceed the R-O income and asset
limits. (Because of these modifications, the deficit shown in Table 9 below exceeds the
995 previously identified.)
Table 9
Distribution of Housing Need
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Recommended
Distribution
Percent Number
existing Difference Percentage
Inventory
Category 1 10% 289 80 209 18%
Category 2 18% 520 199 321 27%
, Category 3 32% 925 676 249 21%
,
i Category 4 28% 810 456 354 30%
Res. Oce. 6% 173 135 38 3%
'~I Above RO ~ 173 =
Total 100% 2,891 1,546' 1,172 2 100%
, Total il1V<lOlory of category unlls (1,896) less atypical R-O unlls (3SQ).
, A9ure greater than 99S due 10 reduction lor R-O units.
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
....1
))
"
1
-
-11-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
r?::
CONCLUSIONS
The housing needs analysis revealed the following major findings. The primary data
source for the analysis are the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Colorado
Deparbnent of Labor and Employment Data from local surveys fielded in the recent
past has also been used to evaluate local household income, jobs per person, and jobs
per household.
. Total employment in Pitkin County increased by 1,477 jobs from 19,574 in 1995 to
21,051 in 1999. Employment growth has markedly slowed with an increase of only
76 jobs between 1997 and 1999. Past predictions concerning job growth have called
for larger increases, which have not occurred. Thus, the estimated need provided in
this study is lower than previous estimates.
. Total employment is estimated at 21,472 in 2000, based on the BEA data and records
from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. Using local survey data
that shows there are 1.3 jobs per person, there is an estimated 16,517 employees in
the Pitkin County and 14,039 employees in the Aspen portion of the county.
. Employed persons living in the County has been decreasing while employment has
been growing. As a result, the number of employees commuting from down-valley
locations has increased from 48.4 percent in 1995 to 52.8 percent in 2000.
. Of the 14,039 persons employed in Aspen, 48.9 percent, or 6,632 live locally. Based
on 1.8 employees per household, there are 3,6S4local households with at least one
employee. Assuming a target to house 60 percent of the local employees, there is a
need for an additional 995 units of affordable housing.
. There are nearly 2,000 units of deed-restricted housing regulated by APCHA.
Approximately four percent are Category 1 units; 10 percent are Category 2; 35
percent are Category 3; and the balance are nearly evenly divided among Category 4
(24 percent) and R-O (25 percent).
. APCHA records show that nearly 26 percent of the inventory has been generated
through mitigation requirements. Another 25 percent has been developed though
the efforts of APCHA and the Housing Office staff. The remainder include non-
profits, tax credit programs, direct City and County efforts, and the Affordable
Housing Rezoning process.
Based on a comparison of the existing affordable housing inventory to the current
household income distribution, it is recommended that the additional 995 units be
developed in proportion to the need at each specific income level as follows: 18 percent
of the units be constructed for Category 1 households; 27 percent for Category 2; 21
-12 -
'i"',
!
Aspen AffrYrdable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
'.
percent for Category 3; 30 percent for Category 4; and 3 percent for R-O as shown below
in Table 10.
Table 10
Distribution of Need
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Percent
Number
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Res. Oce.
Above RO
180/.
28%
21%
30%
3%
0%
179
278
209
299
30
o
Total
100%
995
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
,}
,
It is advised that the City continue to monitor employment trends to forecast future
housing need. Changes in the rate of job growth directly affect the level of housing
need and recent years of low job growth may be an anomaly or may be part of a larger
trend. Although the existing deficit in housing is significant, as discussed previously,
future incremental increases to the level of need may not be as substantial as compared
to previous years, thus there is a need for on-going evaluation.
~~
Currently, the City conducts a needs assessment every five years. It is recommended
that an update be completed annually to account for changing conditions and to provide .
trend data on a more frequent basis. The information collected annually can be
calibrated to the data from the more comprehensive needs assessment. Market
preference by unit type should be a specific area of research. Other issues that warrant
documentation include the change in the number of free-market homes occupied by
employee-households. In addition to monitoring the aggregate need, the City should
evaluate housing targets by income level and establish an overall policy for providing
housing by category.
'.\;}
:)
-13 -
Aspen Affordable Housing 5 trategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
II. HOUSING SITES AND PROTOTYPES
This chapter describes the options and recommended housing programs available to the
City for housing development This includes both site-specific projects as well as
prototypes that could be developed in multiple locations. For the Plan, 10 development
options are evaluated including six site-specific development options and four
prototypes that could be applied to multiple sites. The six site-specific options include:
. Aspenmass
. Burlingame Ranch
. U.s. Forest Service Parcel
. Burlingame Parcel D
. Truscott Phase 1lI
. Rio Grande
Infill housing potential was evaluated through the analysis of four prototypical sites
identified as representative of multiple development opportunities. The four
prototypes include the following:
. Mixed-Use - The Gap
. Residential- Schlumberger
. Lodge Redevelopment - Aspen Manor
. Buy Downs
(0-,
.':'
The Gap is a large 9,000 square foot site located in the core, which could be developed as
a mixed-use project. The Schlumberger site is a standard two-lot width 6,000 square foot
site in the East End that could be developed as a higher density residential project It is
representative of other undeveloped sites in the East End. A former lodge, Aspen
Manor, is evaluated as a combination of affordable housing and interval ownership
urdts that would be consistent with the lodging district. A final option available to the
City, which is analyzed in further detail below, is the buy-down scenario, which could
be applied to any condominium or lodging property available in the commurdty.
SELECTION OF HOUSING SITES
The AACJ' identified 22 properties for potential affordable housing development Since
adoption of the plan, nine sites have been developed or are under development Five
additional sites have been removed from consideration as shown in Table U. The three
sites that are privately held represent future options, but have limited short-term
potential. The focus of the Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan is on the five
undeveloped public-held sites. A sixth public-held site was added, the Rio Grande
parking lot in downtown Aspen at the comer of Rio Grande Avenue and Mill Streets.
The Plan also considers the development potential and feasibility of the infill and OOy-
-14 -
Aspen Affordable Hot/sing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
down development options, both in terms of their overall development potential and as
a point of reference to the public sites.
Table11
Potential Housing Sites Identified In the AACP
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Completed Projects or Under Development
MAA Seasonal Housing
7" and Main
North 40
Hines/Highlands
Moore PUD/Five Trees
Aspen Country Inn
Snyder
Truscott Expansion (Phases I and II)
Stillwater
Public-Held Sites
U.S. Forest Service Site
Burlingame Ranch
Burlingame, Parcel D
Aspen Mass
Truscott, Phase III
Privately Held Sites
Moore Property
Buttermilk Base
AABC
Sites Removed from Consideration
Bass Parcell
Moore Open Space 2 '
City Golf Course 2
Private Property (7th and Hopkins) 3
Cozy Point 4
t Community voted site to be permanent open space
2 Requires a vole of the public to change designation to housing
3 Private purchase prevents Affordable Housing
4 Not viable for housing
Source: Me? and Economic & Planning Systems
-15 -
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
. Final Report
March 19, 2002
SITE ASSESSMENT
Each of the sites and prototypes are described and evaluated below. The discussion
includes a description of existing conditions and the proposed development program.
Other factors affecting the development are noted, such as the surrounding land uses,
proximity to transit, degree of partnership required to move forward, timing,
community benefits, and the net gain in affordable housing.
The estimated development potential for each of the sites is shown below in Table 12.
The total affordable unit count, 666, includes only a single project from each of the three
prototypes. The total affordable unit production will exceed that number, when
multiple prototypes and other methods of production are included. The infill projects
combine affordable units and free-market units, based on the recommendations of the
infill committee. For the purposes of detennining development potential, the Rio
Grande site and the U.S. Forest Service site have been programmed as infill sites.
Table 12
Estimated Development Potential
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Site/Prototype
# of
Afford.
Units
#of
Free
Market
Units
Total
Public-Held Sites
Aspen Mass 120 0 120
Burlingame Ranch 330 0 330
Parcel D 40 0 40
Rio Grande 17 6 23
Truscott 66 0 66
U.S. Forest Service 21 ~ 72
Subtotal 624 27 651
Infill Sites '
East End (Schlumberger) 6 4 10
Commercial (The Gap) 20 6 26
Lodge (Aspen Manor) .w. i 20
Subtotal 42 14 56
Total 666 41 707
I Rgures represent a single Infill project.
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
-16 -
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
o
The proposed densities are based on detailed design analysis by architects and site
planners and represent an optimal level of development Site plans of the conceptual
designs are included for each of the projects in the following section. Additional detail,
including footprints and building sections, are provided in Appendix A. The
conceptual plans are consistent with surrounding development, concerning mass, bulk,
and height The development programs for the two larger projects, Aspen Mass and
Burlingame, are consistent with previous work completed by the City.
The size of the affordable housing units are generally based on the APCHA Guidelines.
For most of the unit prototypes, the square footage is the minimum required by the
guidelines. The free-market units, when incorporated into a project, are prototypical
and have been applied consistently among the different development options. Table 13
lists the unit sizes used for each development program.
Table 13
Prototypical Unit Size
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Attached Units Single
Unit Type Studio 1-80 2-80 3-80 Family
Category 1 and 2 570 600 850 1,000 1,100
Category 3 and 4 570 700 950 1,200 1,200
Resident Occupied nJa 700 1,200 1,200 1,400
Free Market nJa 900 1,200 1,500 1,600
Source: Economic & PlalU1lng Systems
Each of the projects has been evaluated in terms of the net number of employees housed
in the development To determine the employees housed, the occupancy standards
from the APCHA Guidelines, shown in Table 14, have been applied to the unit mix. For
the projects involving commercial area or free-market units, the mitigation requirements
for these components have been subtracted from the inventory of new affordable units
to determine the net loss or increase in the number of employees housed.
Table 14
Ratios for Estimating Employees Housed
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Unit Type
Employees Housed
Studio
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-B edroom
1.25
1.75
2.25
3.00
Source: APCHA Guidelines
-17-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
ASPEN MASS
The 3D-acre parcel is located one half mile down valley from the intersection of Brush
Creek Road and Highway 82. The site is bordered by the Roaring Fork River to the east,
Highway 82 and other parcels to the west, the CDOT park and ride facility to the south,
and Smith Hill Road, leading to McLain Flats, on the north. A majority of the site is
made up of a large, relatively flat bench, although there are steep slopes extending down
to the river on the east and west sides of the site.
The land was purchased jointly by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County in 1997 for
$1,650,000. Based on discussions with the surrounding neighbors, the City and County
stipulated a maximum density of 120 units for a design competition held in 2000. The
selected design calls for a mix of single-family, duplex, and multi-family units linked by
pathways to clusters of open spaces. The building massing is expected to be one- and
two-stories. The financial analysis assumed that the development would include
approximately 20 percent one-bedroom units, 40 percent two-bedroom units, 25 percent
three-bedroom units in duplex and multi-family structures. The balance of 15 percent of
the units would be three-bedroom single-family homes. Based on the ratios listed in the
APCHA housing guidelines, the proposed development would provide a net increase in
housing for 235 employees.
The location of the site next to the park and ride makes transit readily available.
Although some commercial development could be accommodated adjacent to the park
and ride facility, it was not included in the economic analysis. Because the site is
located outside the urban growth boundary, water and sewer service is not available.
1be proposed development costs include a well and purification system and stor<lge
facility. An on-site wastewater treatment facility has also been included in the site plan
and cost estimates.
1be selected site design divided the proposed project into two development nodes. 1be
design allows flexibility, as the one node is to be located on land currently owned by the
City and County. The other can be located one of two other parcels - a parcel owned by
CDOT or another known as the Sanditen property. 1be current preferred design
requires the CDOT land. Key next steps for this project include acquiring the CDar
parcel, which has been budgeted for $1.0 million, and addressing the urban growth
boundary issue with the community.
-18 -
Table 15
Aspen Mass
Summary of Development Program
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
, Final Report
March 19, 2002
~
Development Program
Category Units
Free Market Units
Commercial Square Footage
Total
Units
120
o
120
Unit Type for Cat. Units
Studio
One-bedroom
Two-bedroom
Three-bedroom
Single-Family Home
Tolal
Number
o
25
45
30
20
120
Mix of Category levels
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Resident Occupied
Tolal
Number
25
35
35
25
Q
120
Bedrooms
265
o
265
Percent
0%
21%
38%
25%
1l%.
100%
Percent
21%
29%
29%
21%
0%
100%
Sq.Ft
113,250
o
o
113,250
Sq.Ft
570
700
950
1,200
1,400
Net Change In Housing Supply
Number of New Category Units
Number of Employees Housed In New Units
Mitigation Requirement for New Commercial Sq. Fl.
Mitigation Requirement for New Free Market Units
Net Gain/Deficit In Employees Housed
120
235
o
o
235
Source: EconomJc & Planning Systems
-19 -
" ..
Ii
I
,2
~ .
.....
~
;::
o
.....
-l->
~
~
+:l..
~
o
U
"t:
o
o
i:
o
..t:l
~
.....
Z
C'l
I
Vl
~
~
CJ')
~
J
I
01
o ,
i'l-,-
>.
~
"
::l
~
.0
<U
U.
1
.,',
"!
.;-1
J'
_,J
-,1
en
~
-
~
-
U
~
p::
~
.2!
..
J:j
'"
bO
.5
g
::r:
<IJ
{j
"Cl
-
o
:t::
<<:
r:
~
'"
<<:
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
-
.-.'
BURLINGAME RANCH
The Burlingame Ranch development area is located between the Maroon Creek Oub
and the Aspen Airport Business Center, one-quarter mile east of Highway 82. The area
is not visible from the highway as most of the development would be constructed
northeast of Deer Hill. The topography varies, as the land slopes up from the relatively
flat portion of the Bar-X Ranch to the steeper portions around Deer Hill. Access will be
provided via a newly constructed Old Stage Road and a new intersection with Highway
82.
The Burlingame Ranch development program has the potential to include four separate
abutting parcels of land. These include the 20-acre parcel from the Bar-X Ranch, a 4.5-
acre portion of the Oty-owned Burlingame Ranch, approximately 8 acres currently
owned by the Aspen Valley Land Trust, and the Deer Hill Bowl, which is part of the
Burlingame Ranch. Many of the parameters for the project were stipulated in the Pre-
annexation Agreement approved by voters in August of 2000.
The premise for the Pre-annexation Agreement was to rezone the 4.5-acre parcel and the
20-acre parcel to Affordable Housing (AH-PUD), construct 225 affordable units, and
allow the balance of the Bar-X Ranch to be developed as 12 free-market single-family
homes. The Pre-annexation Agreement was modified in December of 2001 to increase
the development potential to 330 affordable housing units and to expand the area for
housing development to include the A VLT parcel and/ or the Deer, Hill back bowl.
There are additional changes to the agreement involving access, small-parcel land
trades, and finished square footage limitation, which are stipulated in the revised Pre-
annexation Agreement
As part of a COWOP process (Convenience or Welfare of the Public), the Housing Office
and City completed preliminary designs for the site. These call for a mix of single-
family and multi-family homes. Generally, the emphasis has been on larger units in a
lower density setting to address needs of local Aspen households that cannot be met on
small, infill sites. The development program included in this Plan and shown on the
following page accommodates the 330 allowed units. Additional drawings are provided
in Appendix A, including previous work done for the Oty showing 225 units in the
original 24.5-acre Burlingame Village site. The site plan with 330 units reflects an
additional 55 units in the Back Bowl and 57 on the A VLT parcel. The design of the new
portions of the project is consistent with the design of the village site, developed as part
of the COWOP process. The unit mix that has been used for the economic analysis is
based on one of the COWOP recommendations and calls for 19 percent one-bedroom
units, 39 percent two-bedroom units, 26 petcent three-bedroom units, and 17 percent
single-family homes. This mix has been used for the evaluation of Aspen Mass as well,
in an effort to make the comparisons between the two as impartial as possible. The
proposed development would provide a net increase in housing for 650 employees,
based on the ratios listed in the APCHA housing guidelines.
- 21-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
As the City's largest development option, nearly half of the total future housing
development could be accommodated within this development Other benefits include
the location within the urban growth boundary and the community support for the
project, as documented in the 2000 election. Although it is not served by transit,
additional bus routes could be established at an annual cost of $573,000 to $910,000,
depending on the level of service provided. To be consistent in the analysis, none of the
sites considered include transit costs in the economic analysis. These costs are noted to
ensure the community understands the magnitude of the economic impact. Next steps
associated with this site are to determine how the A VLT and/ or the back bowl areas are
to be incorporated into the project
Table 16
Burlingame Ranch
Summary of Development Program
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Development Program Units Bedrooms Sq.Fl
Category Units 330 735 324,500
Free Market Untts 0 0 0
Commercial Square Footage
Total 330 735 324,500
Unit Type for Cat Units Number Percent Approx. SF
Studio 0 0% 570
One-bedroom 65 20% 700
Two-bedroom 125 38% 950
Three-bedroom 85 28% 1,200
Single-Family Home 55 17% 1,400
Total 330 100%
Mix of Category levels Number Percent
Category 1 65 20%
Category 2 80 24%
Category 3 40 12%
Category 4 75 23%
Resident Occupied 70 ~
Total 330 100%
Net Change In Housing Supply
Number of New Category Units
Number of Employees Housed In New Units
Mitigation Requirement for New Commercial Sq. Ft.
Mitigation Requirement for New Free Market Units
Net Gain/Deficit In Employees Housed
330
650
o
o
650
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
- 22-
o.l ( !
""
:>..
<~'.l ~ :0\:.
~
:t:
",-I '"
, >-..
':l: j..
; ,
! ~
\....1
,
"
~~~~~j
::::.:;:.,
,""
"
"
" ,
t..;.;
(;(
::'\j
()"
",
"
"
-+--
~
-+--
~
C
U
~
~
-
-
~
~
~
~
~
f}
~
I
t3
~
~
I
~
j
~
. "
" "-
'"-,
":'.ol
,X
->I.
''\:
'.n
l
.:::~ .
"
c,
g -~
or
>-
~
<'J
:l
~
~
"-<
"
:)
"ll
b
"
Dft
U)
~
~
-
u
a
a::
~
"
~
en
..,
,S
'"
"
o
:r:
"
:g
"E
o
~
@
0..
'"
-<
Aspen Affordable Hal/sing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
BURLINGAME PARCEL D
Parcel 0 is small triangular portion of the Burlingame Ranch located adjacent to the
Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC). The 2.79-acre parcel is located on the northwest
side of Deer Hill at the base of the slope. The surrounding uses in the AABC include
industrial, commercial, and some residential. Access to the site would be through the
AABC. As planned, a small portion of the adjacent Qwest site will be acquired, which
allows the site to be used much more efficiently.
The proposed development program calls for 40 one- and two-bedroom stacked flats.
The units would range in size from 600 to 850 square feet The plan calls for eight
buildings that are three stories in height. Most of the parking is covered and is located
below the lowest level in each building. The project is designed to step up the hillside
with the topography. The units could be sold as condominiums or rented as
aparlments. Because rental opporhmities in the valley are limited, it is recommended
that the site be used as a rental project. Based on the ratios listed in the APCHA housing
guidelines, the proposed development would provide a net increase in housing for 82
employees.
The project would appear to be part of the AABC and would have little impact on
surrounding land uses. The residents could use existing transit service that is provided
to the AABC. Next steps for this project include subdividing the portion of the adjacent
property, acquiring the newly subdivided parcel, and annexing it into the city.
-24 -
Table 17
Parcel D
Summary of Development Program
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
~
---"
,j
Development Program
Category Un"s
Free Market Units
Commercial Square Footage
Total
,I
'j
Unit Type for Category Units
Studio
One-bedroom
Two-bedroom
Three-bedroom
Single-Family Home
Total
~M
;l
~,I
;:~,
:'.~
:,>,;
:.,
Mix of Category Levels
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Resident Occupied
Total
\1
tool
~~';:l
Units Bedrooms
40 64
o 0
Number
o
16
24
o
o
40
Number
20
20
o
o
o
40
= =
40 64
Percent
0%
40%
60%
0%
0%
100%
Percent
50%
50%
0%
0%
0%
100%
Sq. Ft.
30,000
o
Q
30,000
Sq.Ft.
570
700
950
1,200
1,400
Net Change In Housing Supply
Numb~r 01 New Category Units
Number 01 Employees Housed In New Units
Mltlgation Requirement for New Commercial Sq. Fl
Mitigation Requirement for New Free Market Units
Net GainlDeflcit in Employees Housed
':~.,
~*
ij
':,'J
'I
'\
,,;1
40
82
o
o
82
,
i
:\
J,
,
:)
'7,
i;}
)j
:;)
:')
i
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
-25 -
/ / / )
// / I /
/ / /
/ /
/ /
/
I
/ /
/ I
I /
I
-
- ---...-..........
.~
/~}
. J
f
. I
, {
\.
'---
\
;------.., "-
/./ "-
': I \
, I
I.
I
I
\
-,'/
,
I,
I-
'0>
i
I
I
.
~
I
I:J.
!!
.
;::
~
......
~
I
Cl
....:l
tJ
~
~
~
~
....:l
~
lX:l
~I
o _ _
~. ..~.
>-
~
..
:l
~
~
'"
/
(
:~
Rlf.
en
~
~
-
U
c
..
p::
Sa
OJ
E
'"
1lO
'~
~
OJ
:g
1'!
o
:tl
..:
c
15-
'"
..:
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
, Final Report
March 19, 2002
RIO GRANDE SITE
The Rio Grande site is located at Rio Grande Avenue and Mill Street The area proposed
for housing is approximately 19,200 square feet of the totalll.5-acre site. The property
was purchased in 1973 and most of the area is currently used as a park. Rio Grande
Avenue has been constructed on the southern portion of the site and the proposed
development would be located south of the existing street The area is currently used
for surface parking. Adjacent uses to the south include a bank, the Aspen Public
Library, the City's parking garage, and other SO (Service Commercial/Industrial) and
NC (Neighborhood Commercial) uses.
,_'m,
The proposed development program calls for a single mixed-use building of four floors,
plus a level of below-grade parking. The first floor of the project would be NC or SO.
Most of the second and third floors would be constructed as affordable housing and the
fourth floor would be constructed as free market units. A level of underground parking
would accommodate 25 cars. The affordable units range from one- to three-bedrooms.
The free market units are each three bedroom and are approximately 1,500 square feet
The net gain in employee housing, 6.6 employees, is offset by the mitigation required by
the commercial space and the free-market units.
;;t'j
The parameters for this development program are based on the recommendations of the
City's Infill Committee. One of the main goals of the proposed code changes is to
encourage urban, socially vibrant, interesting development thatreinvigorates the core
with additional commercial and residential uses. The NC/SO space provided by this
program is a specific need in the downtown area. Because the land is held by the City,
no acquisition hurdles must be cleared and the City could move forward with program
definition, subdivision from the larger parcel, and the project approval process.
\~.~~~~,
fu~'l
'';:;'(1
-27-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
Table 18
Rio Grande
Summary of Development Program
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Development Program Units Bedrooms Sq.Fl
Category Units 17 28 14,050
Free Market Units 6 18 9,000
Commercial Square Footage = 9.420
Total 23 46 32,470
U nit Type for Cat. Units Number Percent Sq. Ft.
Studio 0 0% 570
One-bedroom 8 47% 700
Two-bedroom 7 41% /950
Three-bedroom 2 12% 1,200
Single-Family Home Q ~ 1 ,400
Total 17 100%
Mix of Category levels Number Percent
Category 1 0 0%
Category 2 6 35%
Category 3 8 47%
Category 4 3 18%
Resident Occupied Q ~
Total 17 100%
Net Change In Housing Supply
Number of New Category Units
Number of Employees Housed In New Units
Mitigation Requirement for New Commercial Sq. Ft.
Mitigation Requirement for New Free Market Units
Net Gain/Deficit in Employees Housed
17.0
35.8
13.0
16.2
6.6
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
-28 -
,10.1
',.' I
)
-)
-I
.:-.'>
:..,--1
r'i~'i I
.....'
"
1":
, i
",,'
'....>.
~;}
-~
':-',:.-:
'~
-l
~1
I
;:
~
.....
Po;
I
!
II,
I'
I
'i
J
<'
J
f
~
~
1:
Ii:
,I
.1.1
;1
!
I
I
o
~
*-~0
f . . ')
" I
I
"*
,
\
.L~<O""'o'I-l
(
\ I
<',
0-
0:..---
'"
>.
w
'"
;J
w
.0
'"
'"
"
;-,
II~
~
en
~
'-
~
-
U
;;
j;:;
~
2
'"
J;::
<Jl
be
"
'U;
:;l
:@
'"
:0
'"
"d
w
,g
-<
"
'"
0.
'"
-<
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
TRUSCOTI PHASE III
The Truscott, Phase III site is approximately 37,000 square feet, which encompasses the
land under the existing Red Roof Inn. It is located between Truscott, Phases I and II and
Highway 82 and borders the tenth hole of the golf course. The City anticipates building
the third phase ofTruscott by demolishing the existing building, which is currently
owned by the City and rented as 50 studio units. The goal of the project is to provide
additional bedrooms in units that are more livable than the former motel.
The proposed development program calls for 111 bedrooms, a net increase of 61,
distributed among 31 one-bedroom units, 25 two-bedroom units, and 10 three-bedroom
units. The development would be built with eight buildings, each three stories in
height. Based on the ratios listed in the APCHA housing guidelines, the proposed
development would provide housing for 140.5 employees; After subtracting the number
of employees currently housed in the project (62.5), there is a net increase in housing for
78.0 employees. A total of 66 surface parking spaces would be located between each of
the buildings, as well as on the north side of the project.
A development scenario including below grade parking has been evaluated; however,
the net increase in the number of units above the surface-parking scenario was minimal.
A study of this option provides 60 parking spaces accessed from a single-loaded below-
grade parking level. The 60 spaces allow for 60 units, which is less than the number of
units shown in the surface-parked version. A double-loaded parking garage could be
constructed, which would be a more efficient use of funds, would provide a more
efficient parking design, and would allow for nearly twice the number of dwelling units.
However, this type of design would directly impact the golf course. Because of the
significantly higher construction costs and the actual reduction in the number of units
with a single-loaded facility, the surface-parking scenario is recommended.
A unique feature of the site is the limited impacts to surrounding property. Because the
existing residential units in the vicinity are affordable housing, neighborhood concerns
may be lower. It will be important to minimize impacts to the golf course as well as
surrounding residential neighbors. Although an outlying site, transit is currently
available to the other Truscott residents. While the City controls the site, it is not likely
that redevelopm~t would occur prior to 2008. The revenue from the existing Red Roof
Inn has been pledged for bond servicing until 2008, when the bonds for are retired.
-30-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
o Final Report
March 19, 2002
Table 19
Truscott, Phase 111
Development Summary
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plal\
~
~:i
Development Program Units Bedrooms
Category Units 66 111
Free Market Units 0 0
Commercial Square Footage =
Total 66 111
Unit Type for Cat. Units Number Percent
Studio 0 0%
One-bedroom 31 47%
Two-bedroom 25 38%
Three-bedroom 10 15%
Single-Family Home Q ~
Total 66 100%
Mix of Category levels Number Percent
Category 1 32 48%
Category 2 34 52%
Category 3 0 0%
Category 4 0 0%
Resident Occupied Q 0%
Total 66 100%
.:.
:'i
"
Sq.FL
49,850
o
Q
49,850
Sq. Ft.
570
700
950
1,200
1,400
;;:\
Net Change In Housing Supply .
Number of New Category Units
Number of Employees Housed in New Units
Mitigation Requirement for New Commercial Sq. Fl
Mitigation Requirement for New Free Market Units
less currently housed employees
Net Gain/Deficit In Employees Housed
.I
66.0
140.5
0.0
0.0
62.5
78.0
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
....,
'"
- 31-
I
I ..
~i
I
I
I
,
I I
I
!l:'
.
"
$ !
,/'-...
, ,
(
i
~
i
,
i
t
!.
~ i i
- .
.
I
,
I
'I i
<( I .-!'"
"
l~
..,rX l~
-- -I ' ~
! --, .. rX
~
~
"
~ .~
;:
o
.....
-+-0
U
~
r.r:,
~
.....
r.r:,
~
.....
~
~
~
~
u
~
~
;::
r.r:,
I
~
t-.j
r.l.:l
r.r:,
~
~
o
u
gj
~
~
Sl
<',
o
o .
,"'r'-
o.,
~
'"
:i
~
.0
'"
u..
.",.
-11
~
.....
-
~
-
u
a
p::
io
1;j
~
~
'U;
:i
:ij
'"
:0
"
'tl
..
Jl
..:
"
'"
0.
<n
<(
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
U.S. FOREST SERVICE SITE
Located on the northwest corner of 7th and Hallam in Aspen's West End, this infill site is
in an established single-family residential neighborhood. The 3.06-acre site is currently
used as by the United States Forest Service, with five existing buildings of offices and
residential units. The parcel is flat and has many mature trees. There is an irrigation
ditch that crosses the site. Prior to development, ownership would have to be
transferred from the Federal government to the City, which requires an act of Congress.
While taking a significant amount of time, land trades with the Forest Service are not out
of the ordinary. Establishing fair market value is one of the more challenging elements
in the land trade process.
I
The proposed development program is based on the historic West End grid. Francis
Street would be extended across the site and alleys have been included to provide access
to detached garages and surface parking. The lot sizes are similar to historic
dimensions. Within this framework, the development program includes a mix of
single-family homes, duplexes, stacked flats, and studio units over garages. Single-
family homes and duplexes have been sited on the perimeter, facing the existing homes
in the neighborhood. The interior portion of the site has been designed with higher
density rowhouse-style construction with two- and three-bedroom stacked flats. For the
single-family and duplex units, detached garages will be constructed with access from
the alley. For the stacked flats, surface parking abutting the alley will be provided. To
maximize the density within this framework, studio units above garages have been
included for those garages sited on the comer of an alley and a street
, '
,.....;.l
,,-:1
The development program is based on the assumption that the site would be rezoned to
Affordable Housing (AH-PUD). Under this scenario, 30 percent of the units would be
sold at free-market rates. The inclusion of free-market units are necessary to offset the
high land costs assumed for the site. The balance of 70 percent are to be sold at Category
2 thi:ough 4 income levels. No R-O units are anticipated, but could be included to
increase project revenue. The net gain in the number of housed employees is 59.5,
which accounts for the mitigation required by the free market homes.
.;.'
-33 -
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
Table 20
U.S. Forest Service
Summary of Development Program
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Development Program Units Bedrooms Sq.Ft.
Category Units 51 92 43,240
Free Market Units 21 63 27,200
Commercial Sq. Ft. = .Q
Total 72 155 70,440
Unit Type for Cat. Units Units Percent Approx. SF
Studio 7 14% 570
One-bedroom 12 24% 700
Two-bedroom 23 45% 950
Three-bedroom 9 18% 1,200
Single-Family (3 bed) .Q ~ 1 ,400
Total 51 100%
Mix of Category Levels Units Percent
Category 1 0 0%
Category 2 19 37%
Category 3 18 35%
Category 4 14 27%
Resident Occupied .Q ~
Total 51 1DD%
Net Change In Housing Supply
Numher of New Category Units 51,0
Number of Employees Housed in New Units 108,5
Mitigation Requirement for New Commercial Sq. Fl 0.0
Mitigation Requirement for New Free Market Units 49.0
Net Gain/Deficit in Employees Housed 59.5
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
- 34-
~
I
~
..._-~----_.__._...._'--- ""----. --_.. -------....---....-....--
'- -
"-
-----,
(-
t..-..-'--'----.--' - ~
: F , " ,
I' / / /
l: / i... / \
~
; ,
.',':1 Iii l
V.::.] i
.. '"
~ f6\
:i z:
.J,.'QQlU..',~~^\.
---\ (
r-
3
<',
g,::..
<',
C
"
:l
~
..c
.,
""
'.1'
....
~,
::.
~.
.
~
~
;::
~
.....
~
I
~
~
~ IIi
~
h
~ lift
~ 1
0
~ en
~ ~
-
~
-
U
fa
~
~
.,
E
'"
""
,5
~
0
:r:
.,
:0
"
'tl
~
0
::t::
<(
"
.,
ll.
'"
<(
!
.
Aspen Affordable Hot/sing Strategic Plan
.- Final Report
March 19, 2002
THE GAP
Based on the level of interest from the City, a site in the commercial core has been
evaluated for its redevelopment potential based on the Infill Committee's recommended
standards. The site selected for analysis is The Gap, which works as prototype as the lot
area is 9,000 square feet and is a standard commercial lot size. It should be recognized
that other attributes of these sites vary, as no two existing projects are exactly the same.
The proposed building program assumes that the current single-story structure is razed
and is replaced with a four-story structure, with a level of underground parking. The
first floor would be entirely used for retail, consistent with the infill recommendations.
The second and third floors would be built as affordable housing. Each could
accommodate five one-bedroom and five two-bedroom units. The fourth floor would be
constructed as market rate penthouse condominiums. As currently planned, three two-
bedroom units and three three-bedroom units could be built. The underground parking
level accommodates 16 spaces.
The intent of the development program is to be consistent with the character and scale of
surrounding buildings within the commercial core context The community benefits of
an infill project such as this one include a revitalized core with additional retail and
additional residential units for both local employees and guests. Once the employee
mitigation standards are accounted for, the net gain in affordable housing is 7.7
employees.
The most challenging aspect of this type of opportunity to evaluate is the role the City
can play in creating affordable housing units on sites such as these. The intent of the
infill recommendations is to reduce the hurdles and costs facing a developer who would
consider this type of project On other commercial sites, the development costs and
revenues will fluctuate, based on existing structures and allowed development rights. It
will be important for the City to work closely with the development community to
ensure the new codes provide for adequate returns.
-36 -
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
" Final Report
March 19, 2002
'-.'
Table 21
Commerclallnfill - The Gap
Summary of Development Program
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
t:~'-1
Development Program Units Bedrooms
Category Units 20 30
Free Market Units 6 15
Commercial Square Footage =
Total 26 45
Unit Type for Cat. Units Number Percent
Studio 0 0%
One-bedroom 10 50%
Two-bedroom 10 50%
Three-bedroom 0 0%
Single-Family Home Q 0%
Total 20 100%
Mix of Category Levels Number Percent
Category 1 0 0%
Category 2 0 0%
Category 3 10 50%
Category 4 10 50%
Resident Occupied Q 0%
Total 20 100%
I;;"';
~'."..!
!';
Sq.Ft.
16,500
8,100
7.400
32,000
Sq.Ft.
570
700
950
1,200
1,400
~:\\'i
, I
i:,,',
Net Change In Housing Supply
Number of New Category Units
Number of Employees Housed in New Units
Mitigation Requirement for New Commercial Sq. Ft.
Mitigation Requirement for New Free Market Units
Net GalnlDeficit in Employees Housed
20
40.0
17.8
14.6
7.7
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
-37-
<',
0
I, ?l--
\-
.. C
I "'
I "
-
..a
OJ
"-
I-
I I: ..j
oJ,
! t
11 ~
,
I <
,
\
I '"
.. !
~ .
1 ,
0
-; ..J;
,~
,~ ..-"
-" ;:
t:i
.....
.l:;I~~..., P.t IIi
[ .
~
'\ ~ ~
,
U)
f' ~
-
~ l>
~
'.J -
, \ U
J ~ ra
.....I..f: ii:
~
'"
l:l
<J)
bO
.5
'"
g
:c:
..
:is
'"
'0
"':r ...
0
ll:
~ <<:
<::
..
'is ~
,
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
, Final Report
March 19, 2002
SCHLUMBERGER
To assess residential infill opportunities, the Schlumberger property located at West End
Street and Waters Avenue has been evaluated. The lot size of 6,000 square feet is a
standard size which makes the recommended development program transferable to
other properties. The program is based on the recommended Infill Conunittee
standards. There are a total of ten units, including four free-market and six affordable
units. It has been assumed that the units would be sold as condominiums. The
prototypical design calls for three stories, with porches, balconies, and walkways that
break up the building's massing. This site lends itself to six on-site parking spaces
accessed from the alley. The other four required spaces would not be constructed but
would be paid for through the City's fee-in-lieu program. The net gain in housing for
the proposed project is 5.5 employees.
A key benefit from this type of project is that 60 percent of the units must be constructed
as affordable housing. The community's housing inventory increases without any
investment of time or subsidy. The residential neighborhoods will also see
development, which may be perceived as positive or negative. The three-story design
prototype is consistent with the infill recommendations and is intended to be generally
consistent with the mass of surrounding structures that have been constructed in the
recent past.
As with the commercial infill prototype, the residential prototype is intended to be
developed by the private sector. While the City could take on developments such as
this, the program is intended to provide another avenue for increasing production by
leveraging funds, time, and expertise outside the City. It will be important for the City
to work closely with the development community to ensure that adequate returns are
available and that the program is effective.
- 39-
;.--~- .
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
Table 22
Residentiallnfill - Schlumberger
Summary of Development Program
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Development Program Units Bedrooms Sq.Ft
Category Units 6 10 5,200
Free Market Units 4 5 3,900
Commercial Square Footage = Q
Total 10 15 9,100
Unit Type for Cat Units Number Percent Sq.Ft.
Studio 0 0% 570
One-bedroom 0 0% 700
Two-bedroom 3 50% 950
Three-bedroom 3 50% 1,200
Single-Family Home Q 0% 1,400
Total 6 100%
Mix of Category levels Number Percent
Category 1 0 0%
Category 2 0 0%
Category 3 3 50%
Category 4 3 50%
Resident Occupied Q 0%
Total 6 100%
Net Change In Housing Supply
Number of New Category Units
Number of Employees Housed In New Units
Mitigation Requirement for New Commercial Sq. Ft.
Mitigation Requirement for New Free Market Units
Net Gain/Deficit In Employees Housed
6.0
12.5
0.0
7.0
5.5
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
-40-
I:
:'~'"
(.,
.I.."2'hUl;. ar>:! .1......_-0;,
~
oj
i'i
~
III
;:)
!i
<
i
r
h_
tL_-
"'-- .
I,
'.' ~;:
. ':.~
~'. ,
~'..'~
..l
~
~
t
~
~
t.
I:
G
!.
G
'"
!!
I G
, '
;::
I::t
....
R;
I
~
~
~
~
U
C/}
<",
o ~
0.'
<",
'"
~
'"
:l
~
.0
"
"-
;;.1
'"
:,U.,..
~l
b
~
'"
~
-
a>
-
u
lii
p::
6a
l!!
g
CJl
bO
<=
.0;
g
::r:
"
::c
'"
'E
o
tt:
-<
c
"
c.
~
-<
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
ASPEN MANOR
The third prototype considered is for lodge redevelopment The site used for the
analysis is Aspen Manor, located at Monarch Street and Durant A venue. Aspen Manor
was evaluated at the request of the City Council, even though the lot size (11,957 square
feet) is not standard. Nonetheless, the analysis is useful as it contrasts the economic
performance of this redevelopment to others.
The proposed development program calls for a three-story structure, with an additional
level of below grade parking. The first two levels would be built as affordable housing
with four one-bedroom units and four two-bedroom units constructed on each. The top
floor would be constructed as four free-market units. Based on the direction provided
from the infill guidelines, the intent would be to sell these condominiums in interval
shares, so that the occupancy levels would be higher than if the units were sold
conventionally. The parking level would accommodate 20 spaces and would be
accessed from the alley. The net gain of housed employees would be 22.3.
The community benefit for this site would be the redevelopment of an existing vacant
building, the provision of additional housing units, and the potential for increasing the
guest bed base, through the sale of interval-ownership units. The Gty faces the same
challenge with this type of infill redevelopment as with the mixed-use and residential
prototypes, as it must use incentives for the development to sufficiently motivate the
private sector.
-42 -
Aspen Affordable Hot/sing Strategic Plan
"" Final Report
March 19, 2002
='~. .
Table 23
Aspen Manor
Summary of Development Program
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Development Program Units Bedrooms Sq. Ft.
Category Units 16 24 12,400
Free Market Units 4 10 5,400
Commercial Square Footage Q
Total 20 34 17 ,800
Unit Type for Cat. Units Units Percent Sq.Ft.
Studio 0 0% 570
'''I One-bedroom 8 50% 700
"l:.\! Two-bedroom 8 50% 950
Three-bedroom 0 0% 1,200
".~.
;';.. Single-Family Home Q ~ 1,400
Total 16 100%
Mix of Category Levels Units Percent
Category 1 0 0%
Category 2 8 50%
Category 3 8 50%
Category 4 0 0%
Resident Occupied Q 0%
Total 16 100%
Net Change In Housing Supply
Number of New Category Units 16.0
L ',' Number of Employees Housed in New Units 32.0
c...'
Mitigation Requirement for New Commercial Sq. Fl 0.0
Mitigation Requirement for New Free Market Units 9.7
Net GalnlDeflclt In Employees Housed 22.3
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
"'..~"
-43-
I!
I
'"
o
0. -
N --
'"
~
ro
~
~
.D
'"
u..
J 1
!
~
I~
l~
.~
11
I
I
1
;
I Q
'",
"
:i.
~,
!!. ~
Q ~
=r-- '.1 ....
~ P.;
I
Ii ~
0
, i ~
I ~'
. , ~ . . 1
---~.'---' BJI
P.;
I C/}
~ en
'1~~~w'~ ~
-
~
I
, -
U
Iii
l':
!:a
.2l
< ~
bO
.5
'"
"
0
"- :r:
$ ..
-' :c
.. ro
..211 ~ -0
~
0
:t:
~ -<
<::
ul ..
. ' :> ~
I ~ -<
I
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
. Final Report
March 19, 2002
'.
BUYDOWN POTENTIAL
In a buydown scenario, the City converts existing free-market dwelling units into deed-
restricted affordable housing. In theory, it can be a relatively simple process as it
requires the initial purchase, a subsidy to lower the resale price, and a lottery to select a
buyer at the income level stipulated by the City. Among some community members, the
buydown solution rises above all other options as it increases the inventory of deed
restricted housing without adding density or sprawl. It should be noted that the market
of available housing units mayor may not meet certain standards for affordable
housing; most frequently the minimum square footage requirement is an issue.
Additionally, issues such as age, quality, condition, common area deferred maintenance,
anticipated homeowners association assessments, etc. can detract from the appeal of a
prospective buydown unit
-,
The primary community benefit of this program is that additional development is not
necessary. This diminishes concerns about neighborhood compatibility as well as
concerns about overall growth and development in the community. The net gain in
employee housing can be significant as the acquisition of the unit can reduce the
employment generated by a second home and simultaneously increase the supply of
locals' housing. A significant concern about a buydown program is cost As described
in greater detail in Chapter IV, the level of subsidy required to buydown a unit is greater
than other options under consideration, limiting the role this option can play in meeting
the community's goal to increase the inventory of affordable housing.
~:' ....
., ,
- 45-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
III. FINANCING SOURCES AND USES
This chapter addresses the sources and uses of funds. Detailed information is provided
on the funds that are established at this time that provide consistent revenue. In
addition, there are descriptions of alternative funding sources that mayor may not be
realized, depending on needs and priorities of the City. The funding sources and
revenue needs are projected for a 10-year time period, extending from 2002 to 2011.
The established funds are projected to generate $66.3 million, over the next ten years.
Growth in the different funds has been estimated at zero to one percent, to reflect actual
growth independent of inflation. For this Plan, both costs and revenues have been held
constant in current dollars. The alternative revenue sources are projected to provide
$13.2 million to $25.0 million over the ten-year forecast, depending on many factors
including the pace of development, the ability to compete successfully against other
housing providers, and market receptivity.
ESTABLISHED FUND SOURCES
SALES TAX REVENUE
The City of Aspen has imposed a 0.45 percent sales tax dedicated to affordable housing
and daycare. The revenues are divided between the two uses, with 55 percent of the
revenue dedicated to housing. This tax was instituted by the voters in January of 1990
for a ten year period. In May of 1999, the community extended the tax for another ten
years. In the recent past, this tax has accounted for approximately $950,000 of the
annual revenue to the Housing Fund. In the future, it is expected to generate slightly
more than this amount, as the growth factor has been assumed to be one percent Over
the next ten years, the sales tax is expected to generate $9.9 million.
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX
The Real Estate Transfer Tax accounts for the largest portion of revenue to the Housing
Fund. It was initially adopted in May of 1989 as the Graduated Real Estate Transfer Tax
(GREIT) and was repealed by an election in April of 1990 when the community adopted
the one percent Real Estate Transfer Tax (REIT) that exists today. The REIT was
recently renewed in May of 2001 by voters and extends through the year 2024. Real
estate transactions are taxed at a rate of one percent, which has generated an average of
$3.6 million per year since 1997. While'the fluctuations in revenue are relatively small
for sales tax, the real estate transfer tax has fluctuated from 30 percent to 80 percent
annually due to changes in market value as well as sales volume. Over the next ten
years, the revenue from this tax is expected to grow one percent annually, from $3.9
million in 2002 to $4.0 million in 2011, providing a total of $41.4 million, which is two-
thirds of the total revenue.
- 46-
HOUSING DEDICATION FEES
Aspen Affordable HOl/sing Strategic Plan
. - Final Report
March 19, 2002
-'
The City of Aspen and Pitkin County housing guidelines set forth standards for housing
dedication fees, also known as payment-in-lieu fees. The highest priority of mitigation
method is the construction of on-site housing, followed by off-site housing, with cash-in-
lieu or land-in-lieu listed as the lowest priority. The Housing Guidelines identify the
priority for both the City and County while the specific mitigation requirements for the
City and County are listed separately in their respective land use regulations. The codes
stipulate the number of employees generated by commercial and residential uses and
require a mitigation rate that is typically 60 percent of the total requirement.
The method used to fulfill the mitigation requirements is negotiated with the Housing
Board and the City or County. For some projects, developers construct a portion of the
requirement and "cash out" of a portion of the requirement by paying the fees. For
residential development, the fee-in-lieu is $61.11 per square foot of new residential floor
area. The fees for commercial development are calculated based on the number of
employees generated by type of use and the income level of employees to be housed.
The fee per employee ranges from $111,124 to $225,493. It should be noted that these
standards were adopted for 2002, which reflects a 75 percent increase over previous
years.
Because the highest priority of the City and County is to require the developer to
construct housing, the annual revenue associated with fees-in-lieu is relatively low.
Moreover, because the portion of mitigation allowed to be cashed-out is negotiated and
due to the variations in size and number of developments, projecting the revenue
associated with this source is difficult. The City's long-range financial forecast estimates
approximately $3.0 million over the next ten years.
HOUSING OPERATIONS
The Housing Office generates revenue from three divisions - property transactions,
rental management, and enforcement. Rental management generates approximately
$60,000 annually and enfor<:ement produces $15,000. The division that functions as a
realty office for buyers and sellers generates approximately $140,000 per year.
The staff provide a listing service for sellers which typically includes advertising the
unit, holding an open house, fielding questions from potential buyers, and determining
the maximum. sales price. The housing office charges a two percent fee for their
services, which is four points lower than conventional realtor fees. The lower fee is due
to the relative ease in finding an affordable housing buyer, as demand far exceeds
supply. Most of the listing service focuses on compliance, providing a credible lottery
process, and ensuring that each real estate transaction is complete and legal.
A fee of $30 is charged for the initial application'to verify all employment records. From
that point forward, the Housing Office charges a $5 fee for each lottery that the potential
buyer chooses to enter. Lotteries are held at noon each Monday when units are
-47-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
available. The number of applicants for a specific unit can range from ten or less to
nearly 100, as income limitations, size, location, and quality all affect the level of
demand for a given unit.
The combined revenue from the sales of units and the lottery operations fluctuates from
year to year, based on the number of new projects completed and the number of current
residents who choose to sell. For 2002, application fees are estimated to generate
$10,000 and sales are expected to produce $130,500. When actual fees exceed the
projected amounts, the surplus is transferred to general funds of the City and County,
with each entity receiving half of the total.
REVENUE FROM RENTAL HOUSING
The Aspen rental housing inventory includes 16 projects. Of these, four are owned and
operated by the City and Housing Office. Because a majority of rental units are owned
by other entities, annual rental revenue to the City is not a sizeable portion of the overall
housing budget. Past net rental revenue has totaled less than $40,000 annually. In the
recent construction of the Aspen County Inn and with the renovated units at Truscott,
the City and the developer structured the financing to provide the City with revenue
from both projects. The estimated revenue from these projects could be as high as
$140,000 annually, but because Truscott has not be completed or leased, no historical
information is available. For year 2002, it is estimated that rental revenue from all
projects will be $150,000. Over the next ten years, $1.6 million, or 2 percent of the total
revenues will come from this source.
CASH RESERVES AND INVESTMENT INTEREST
The City Finance Department shows a balance of $14.5 million at the end of 2001 in the
Housing/Daycare Fund dedicated for housing. The fund balance has been growing in
recent years as revenues have exceeded expenditures. A significant portion of this
revenue is attributed to investment interest, which has ranged from $350,000 to $850,000
and averaged $590,000 during this period. The future annual revenue is approximately
half this amount, as reserves are projected to be spent on development.
ESTABLISHED FUND USES
A significant portion of the revenue generated for housing is allocated to operations and
previous bond commibnents. The Housing Office requires approximately $500,000 for
annual operations. After accounting for the revenue generated by the housing office
(approximately $200,000) the required subsidy of $300,000 is divided evenly between the
City and the County. In addition to the subsidy for operations, the City allocates
$500,000 annually from the housing fund to cover general overhead. Previous bond
comrnibnents require $1.4 million annually, which is reduced to $1.2 inillion in 2008
when the Truscott bond series is retired. Table 24 below shows the sources and uses of
- 48 - '
1
.."
~.~.
:')
:,:.j
,'l'
:.,,1
,.;.
'..,
h'.P
T_'.'\I
q
,..~
~
'1
"..
...-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
funds from established revenues. The estimate is shown in constant dollars. Real
growth has been factored at zero to one percent, depending on the fund. The
information below provides a basis from which to build a comprehensive funding
analysis that includes additional revenue sources and proposed development expenses.
- 49-
r:,
t
""..;.
r",
,
,
"
,
r.-.;
t;.?:"
P
f ~
\ ,
( .\
"'.....
L
G
,
,
,
I
\.)
L'
("
(
!
,
I
I,
!,
~1:~
_00
Q... e-N
.~ ~ c)
~'C:i N
~.5 "5
r~~
"
'0;
5
::r:
"
::;s
-E
~
-.::
.:
~
-.::
c
..
]a:
~~
aa
c S
.. E
5 ;n
:I: a
.. .5
.c ..
- "
o~
: .!!
.. .c
:l ..
.,,'E
C Q
.. ll:
" .. <
'" .. c
CD ~ Q)
:E :I Co
.. Q ..
l- en <I
..
'0
l-
-
-
o
'"
o
-
o
'"
..
o
o
'"
...
o
o
'"
...
o
o
'"
'"
o
o
'"
'"
o
o
'"
"
o
o
'"
'<I'
o
'"
cD
<0
0>
ai
o
0>
'"
.;
'"
"l.
o
'"
'"
ai
...
o
_<'i
"
ON N
0'<1''''
O~'"
ai ri oi
""" '"
("') ("II LO.
N
'" '<I'
...0
0>'"
Oa)
"'0>
". '"
<'i
o
~
N
,.:
...
'"
N
tn,...C')O(OMlOO..-'Olt
...,.m("')OMlONome--.
cc."ltmcnLnor--.cocot-...
....c<ir-:lO-aO'V-N-";Lli...
;g_~~M~~~a>CO:;;
,.. ~ co"
gJ~~
10.. <0 Q)
..-cir-:
"''''0
qNM
-..
'"
-
"l.
(;
'"
.;
'"
N
-..
~
'"
q
;g~
N. '"
~cD
~O>
q-
-..
NO
0>0>
-...
..
'"
-
-..
-
o
q
C>>('f)Cf)O
......lOMO
C'!.comC)
(i)r--.-Ili
_0'"
-'"
..
-
0>
0>,
"',,'"
"'N'"
'I:f.. en 0).
.....N",...
......0
0>0'"
..
......
t!.. ~
~N
...'"
0>0
..
..
o
o
N
<0
~
N
<0
0>
O"lf'mMO
~~~N_g
uiriN"..-."f
C")tt)tOlOC)
N~_
("')o\Oococco
~~~~~~
"':LliciciaicrS
0('0')("')(0";-1""'"
C') N..........N
"'0
"'0
"'-0>
...<6
0'"
'"
0>
o
<0
ai
N
N
...,,'"
N"''''
NN"t
a) as co
"'"...
__N
MOCON
~~~~
r-:uicti...:
0('1')('\110
'" N_
'<I'
o
-
..
N
N
c;;
o
ai
'"
-
OCOlOVC:OO
occ...,.......co
c)aJ.IOCDC'!
t6.....-.iritD
MNll)'I:f.....
N.....,...N
MOCllOO
("')OCO.....ll)
mCJ)tOOoq-
...: Lri' en ri C\I-
~(f)N~::!:
-
...
'"
N
0>
0>
..;
"'0
"'0
0> '"
~~
'"
'<1'0
~O
"'''l.
,.:
-
N
U:;~
~ -
'"
o
o
'"
OOMOOOM
O:!C'10COOV
(O.--C)..O)cr:lOCO
C'ictiJ'-.llittiom
10 10 OM..... II) (")
cncnC") N..........
..;
"
o
tl
.
...
N
'"
'"
cD
'"
'"
"'0
"'..
"'0
Ili'ci'
"'"
"...
",'
'"
'"
...
ai
"
-
"''''
"''''
NN
ttSui
"'N
N
-
'"
-
N"
'"
'"
cD
0'"
'"
'"
0'
'"
N
cD
'"
;;;
<6
'<I'
-
'"
'"
N
cD
...
N
'"
'"
N
cD
...
N
"'..
"'0
c.o.f'1.
- -
C;;~
cD
,,'"
"'0
00
..; aJ-
"'-
'"
,.:
'"
'"
0,
'"
'"
N
ai
...
",
'"
'"
N
cD
...
N
"'...
"'-
No:.
aio>
"''''
......
cD
~ ..
, e
in ..
. .s
= ..
o '"
ai ~ - in
C)~ ~ G),,~
. l!! 1l "
g (I) Q) E .s
ug'e-~ 'E
uoo..> ~~
=ijt:: 0"'=0
Q) in g ~:n rn
~~~~5j~
~~~~~~~
~
.!!
..
c
~ ~
3 .!!:g
LL )( t'l:I Q)
.... ca 1ii u.
o:;w ~
= .92.. 1ii ::I
!:! (/) Q) E
" 0:
Q
en
'"
..
'"
..;
'"
'"
cD
'"
NO
0> 0
0'"
Lti '<t'~
... N
~ ~
<6
"'0
'" '"
0>'<1'
ON
,,~
'"
'"
'"
"
~
'"
cD
_0
"''''
"'"
aON
'" -
'"
o
...
":
-
'"
"
cD
...0
"''''
"'"
ON
'" -
'"
...0
...'"
0"
!lie-;
"'-
'"
'"
...
'"
.,;
:;;
_0
"''''
..."
-.:iN
:;;-
'"
-
...
..
..
-
cD
"
'"
'"
ai
o
'"
'"
'"
'"
..
o
'"
N
0>
'"
ai
0>
"
",0
,,'"
"'"
"";C'i
0> _
"
..:
'"
C)
1l E
.. IE Q
"'OU
C aU
~ .S; :0
'0 ~ ~
o "
: I a:l
..
::>
NN'"
"'0'"
C") "!. 'Of
":... ;.
"'...
'" '"
1.6 ~- ..n
~ N
"0
0>0
0>0
.:~
"''''
"'~
-
'"
"
..-
'"
'"
_N"
-'"
"''''
NN
cO~
...'"
"'-r:
~;;;
"'0
~;i
'" ~,
..."'..
..."''''
"'0"
~i:
lOcq,v
_N"
o
'"
"
N"
-
"
'"
N
.,;
'"
'"
"'...
"'...
~'"
..;
...
"
_N"
-
'"
"l.
... '" '"
,,"'..
""':. o. en
(")U')u)
"'...'"
"''''"
"':N'
o
'"
"
N
-
"
'"
N
ai
"
'"
"''''
NO
...-
r::i
"l."
_N"
o
'"
"
N
-
'"
'"
'"
N
~
'" ..
'" '"
0"
ui..
...'"
"'. "
_N"
"'..
'" '"
'" -
r::!;i
"l."
_N"
o
'"
'<I'
N"
-
-
"'
'<I'
,.:
'"
'"
0'"
,,'"
- '"
~~
"''''
N
~ !:
~
,
~ ~
.
.
u
'0
o c:
-"
i~ m
Q) e - '0
1:" ~
Q) c: Q) :0
> Q) -= :s
o Cl 0 en
-
'"
'"
.;
...
...
o
"
'"
-
'"
",'
'"
'"
..
...
...
'"
,.:
...
'"
N"
..
"
'"
cD
..
'"
..
..
'"
..
,.:
'"
'"
",'
-
'"
'"
.",'
'"
..
,,'
-
o
-
..
..
..
..;
'"
o
'"
..;
'"
~
..
::l:
'"
",'
'"
..
",-
..
'"
..
..
..
...
..;
..
-
...
cD
"
...
",'
o
...
'"
ai
-
o
,,'
'"
'"
..
-'
..
'"
..
,
o
'"
,
<D
-
o
,,;
'"
'"
",'
..
u
C
'"
ii
III
.
E
=-m
~~
'Co>
CDS
H
:=ClI
'C-
al~
,g.9
x E
-g
~8
c.w
c...
a
~ ~
lIlo
III
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
-,.-.'
ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES
A number of additional revenue sources can be used to supplement the City's existing
revenue sources. These include a revolving loan fund, land trades and sales, a buy-in
program, and tax credit funding as described below.
LAND SALES AND TRADES
~~
The inventory of land owned by the City and County can be seen as a source of revenue
for affordable housing. Understanding that the community values open space, many
parcels should not be considered for land trades or sales. For example, Bass Park was
recently designated as permanent open space by a vote of the public. However, not all
lands have the open space qualities that warrant preservation and one is recommended
for a land trade.
\
The 3.O-acre U.s. Forest Service site has been appraised for $14.0 million. By providing
an alternative site for the Forest Service facility, the Oty could reduce project costs by
the value of the alternative location. For the purpose of this Plan, it has been assumed
that the Forest Service facility be relocated to the Aspen Mass site, which could be done
independently of the proposed housing development. The value of the down valley
location has been estimated to be $1.0 million, which could reduce the cost of the
existing Forest Service site to $13.0 million.
A second sHe that has been evaluated is Cozy Point. The Oty purchased the 170-acre
site in 1994 for a net cost of $2.5 million, after a portion was sold to COOT for right-of-
way in the Highway 82 corridor. It has a working equestrian facility, run by a private
operator under contract with the Oty. In the past, it has been considered for limited
housing development but due to concern voiced during interviews with key
representatives from the community, it is not recommended for housing. Initially, is
was considered as a potential land trade site. Because open space funds have been used
for the acquistion, and initial housing fund expenditures have been fully repaid, revenue
from the sale or trade of this parcel can only be applied to other open space sites.
An alternative proposal has been made to the Oty Council to purchase the site, or lease
it for 99 years, and expand the equestrian facility. In return for this purchase or use of
the site, the operator is willing to develop the Burlingame project, without a profit.
This translates to charging a fee of five percent to cover any cost overruns or other
unforeseen expenses. The operator represents that he has a depth of experience in
development and is qualified to construct the Burlingame project. A fee of ten percent
has been built into the financial analysis of each project, which is $6.6 million. A
reduction of the fee to five percent represents a savings of $3.2 million. The financing
program provided for this Plan does not include any revenues related to Cozy Point.
"J
,..'
",\
"
I
"
.:i
;;\
~.'
-51-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
, Final Report
March 19, 2002
This information has been provided to document research and clarify the viable options
for the City.
BUY-IN PROGRAM
r\
i.
The Buy-In program has been proposed as part of the COWOP process on the
Burlingame site. The program generates revenue by selling units directly to employers
who would then sell or lease the units to their employees. The employer is required to
cover the subsidy for the unit, thus reducing the total contribution from the City.
Employees that purchase or lease units would have to meet all income, asset, and other
applicable standards for the sale, lease, and occupancy of the affordable housing units.
(1
C)
The large size of the some of the future projects, Burlingame and Aspen Mass in
particular, is key to the success of a buy-in program. In most previous housing projects,
the total number of units was insufficient to allow a portion to be set-aside for certain
employers. The level of interest in affordable housing units from members of the
community far exceeded the number of units produced, particularly as many of the
projects in the recent past have been small.
r'l
\ "
.i
Under the current scenario, the subsidy for the proposed Burlingame project is $36,700
per bedroom. The estimates discussed during the COWOP process projected that 25
percent of the bedrooms could be sold to interested employers. Under that assumption,
approximately $6.7 million subsidy could be generated through employers. To achieve
this figure, approximately 91 units (182 bedrooms) would have to be purchased by
employers. A more realistic figure would involve approximately 30 units, or 60
bedrooms, which would generate approximately $2.2 million. If demand from
community employers exceeded 30 units, additional funds could be produced. For
forecasting purposes, the anticipated revenue does not exceed the $2.2 million level.
("',
~j
X1
L
'\,)
{.-.
TAXCREDrrs
(,\
Developers can raise funds for rental projects through the sale of Low Income Housing
Tax Credits (LIlITC). The LIHTC program was created by Section 42 of the 1986 Tax
Reform Act to provide federal income tax credits to corporations or individuals, which
invest in the development of eligible low-income rental housing. Typically, the housing
must serve households with incomes less than 60 percent of the Area Median Income
(AMI); however that target may change depending on the competitive nature of the
allocation process. In general, the stipulated income limits translate to Category 1 and
Category 2 levels.
,\ ~
..:,;
,
! -~
, '
,-.
,
Developers can seek project equity through two different tax credit products, which are
known as four percent and nine percent. The four percent credits generate equity that
is approximately 35 percent of a project's qualified basis. Because they produce less
equity of the two programs, they are non-competitive and are linked with private
',/
-52 -
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
Marc1119, 2002
-~-- .
activity bonds, which provide financing at below market interest rates. The nine percent
credits are competitive, and generate approximately 85 percent of a project's qualified
basis. Proposed projects are evaluated regarding the targeted household income, long-
term commitment to affordability, project quality, and other attributes. The Colorado
Housing and Finance Authority (CHF A) administers the process and determines which
projects are awarded with credits.
":\
The amount of LIHTC is based on a project's eligible development costs. The equity is
determined based on the present value of the purchaser's tax credits, which are taken
over a ten-year period after the project is placed in service. Other factors can increase or
decrease the amount of equity. For example, the syndication fee (which must be
accounted for in all projects) reduces the funding by approximately 30 percent. Equity
can be increased if the site is located in a "Difficult Development Area," which includes
Pitkin County.
~
,!)
For this Plan, two projects are identified as potential tax credit rental projects, which
include Parcel D and Truscott Phase III. Assuming that a developer would be successful
in the nine percent competition, the syndication proceeds available for Parcel D would
be approximately $3.7 million. Total project costs are estimated to be $8.3 million, which
includes the future acquisition of a portion of the adjacent Qwest site. For Truscott
Phase III, syndication proceeds are estimated to be $6.3 million based on a total project
Cost of $11.9 million.
"
These estimates are based on industry standards in effect today for calculating equity
generated from the sale of tax credits. Additionally, they are based on the development
program and unit mix shown for each site, which may change. Other existing tax credit
projects in the community include the Aspen Country Inn (completed in 1999), Maroon
Creek Apartments (finished in 1997), and the renovation and expansion of the Truscott
Phase II development (slated to open in 2002).
"
;~:!
REVOLVING LOAN FUND
.~1
For affordable housing projects, the Gty could act as lender to developers of specific
projects or could facilitate the financing in conjunction with a local lender. The Gty
could establish a revolving loan fund for project development with funds provided from
an entity such as FannieMae. Because of the organization's mission and its ability
attract capital from large-scale institutional investors, FannieMae can provide funds to
the Gty at very low rates. As an example, the rate could be 150 basis points above the
Ubor Index, which is currently set at 2.3 percent. These funds could then be loaned to
developers as projects are approved and developers are selected to construct them. The
revolving loan fund would terminate after a set period of time, such as ten years, and all
initial proceeds and interest would be repaid to FannieMae.
~,.:
Another option is for FannieMae to partner with a local lender, in which funds would be
provided to developers at a blended rate based on the level of participation from
- 53-
r,
~. .:i
c...
("-'
,
t._",'
f-~:'
ro"
r: -
;;: -,
I'"~
(
\:.
t.
,
\,-.'
(".
't..,;
i
"
i
l.
to:.
,<-'
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
FannieMae and the local bank. The lending rate is typically close to prime, currently set
at 4.75 percent, but could be lowered with greater involvement from the City.
There are five primary benefits from this program.
.
The City can move forward with multiple projects simultaneously, without cash
flow constraints from the dedicated revenue sources.
.
Short-term debt can be provided without incurring the costs associated with a bond
issue. Due to the projected revenue attributed to sales tax and real estate transfer
tax, the City does not have a need for long-term financing. Revenues are projected to
exceed expenditures by several million dollars annually, near the end of the ten-year
forecast The need is for short-term debt that can be tailored to the City's projected
expenditures and revenues.
.
Bonds require public approval. Under this scenario, however, a vote of the public is
not required.
.
Total project costs can be reduced, as projects are funded with low-interest loans.
The cost of funds during the construction process can be sizeable, and the ultimate
rate made available to developers could be significantly less than market rates.
.
If properly administered, the revolving loan fund can become a revenue source for
the City. A small point-spread can generate revenue, while still making funds
available to developers at low rates.
REVENUE FROM FREE-MARKET AND COMMERCIAL LAND USES
Development costs can be offset by revenue from free-market units and commercial
floor area constructed as part of mixed-use infill projects. 1be current development
programs for the sites evaluated in the Plan include commercial area and free-market
units for the infill projects. Given the goal of the recommended infill guidelines to foster
vitality in the core areas, it has been assumed that commercial on the first floor and a
mix of category and free-market units helps achieve this purpose. If additional revenue
is needed from these sites, the City could consider increasing the amount of floor area in
the commercial and/ or free-market components.
It should be noted that the inclusion of R-O units has been limited to the Burlingame
Village site, although these units could be incorporated elsewhere. It has been assumed
that 21 percent of the project would be sold as R-O, which is somewhat less that the 25
percent level used for previous discussions with the community.
-54-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report .
March 19, 2002
FINANCING STRATEGY
In order to accomplish its housing goals, the Oty must utilize some or all of these
additional revenue sources. Although the options identified in the Plan are not
exhaustive, they represent revenues that leverage existing assets, incorporate local
resources, and use outside capital as needed. Of the five listed below, four provide
equity to the City and one is a loan fund that would require full repayment, plus
interest. While additional outside funding sources could be identified, the level of
subsidy provided by these sources should be sufficient to cover the projected shortfall.
Facilitate the Buy-in Program
Depending on market receptivity, the Oty could generate between $2.2 and $4.0 million
from this program. Because it has not been tested, the lower of the two values has been
used in the financial analysis of the Plan. Previous analysis by the Oty anticipated that
local employers would buy 20 percent of the Burlingame units. The current analysis
assumes demand for less than half of that figure. If the market embraces the program,
additional revenue is possible.
,,-.
Seek Tax Credits
The Oty's need for Category 1 and 2 housing units generally matches the household
income limits associated with tax credit equity. Particularly given the size of the
funding available through this source, the Oty should consider this a priority.
Establish a Revolving Loan Fund
The revolving loan fund will be critical if the City is moves forward with multiple sites
simultaneously. Because the funding source can be established with less effort than a
bond issue, the Oty can monitor its need for capital and work to create this fund if
opportunities arise that warrant it.
Land Sale of low priority sites
As stated previously, the Oty is advised to provide an alternative site for the u.s. Forest
Service to reduce the project cost. 1his could generate approximately $1.0 million.
,
~'
Maximize Project-Related Funding
The additional revenue from free-market or commercial floor area could significantly
lower net project costs. The Plan includes these elements that is consistent with the
recommended infill code changes, and are key to the economic performance of the infill
sites. Revenue from additional units has not been included in the comprehensive
funding analysis, as the community places a high priority on affordable housing and has
expressed concerns about growth. Nonetheless, the potential funding is significant and
may warrant consideration in the future.
-55 -
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
. Final Report
March 19, 2002
n
\ '
~ i
Table 25 identifies a range of funding for each of the potential sources. The single most
sigrrificant factor in the need for these funds is the rate of development the Gty chooses
to pursue. If development is extended beyond the ten-year horizon used as a basis for
the Plan, fewer of these sources will be needed. Similarly, a more aggressive approach
may require all of them.
r~-.
Table 25
Additional Revenue Sources
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Source
Low Est
High Est.
.' i
~ ";
~. .J
t;;
n
,
l.
Land Sale
Buy In Program
Tax Credit Equity 1
Revolving Loan Fund
Total
1,000,000
2,200,000
10,000,000
Q
13,200,000
1,000,000
4,000,000
10,000,000
10,000,000
25,000,000
(,
1 See appendix for additional detaD
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
,
;.
.' '.'
1.:':'
tJ;
, '
(i,";
V'J
" ,
,
L .~'
-.:..~
('"
,',,.
1..'
\'1
,
I.......
l.'
- 56-
;\
,0
",',
~,;
"
"
V
"
.-"
,)
.-!
.-'
").
',.-0
.~
'.;'
J
P
'.
::J
"';'1
,
"i<.~
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
IV. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
The chapter provides a detailed financial analysis of the ten development options
evaluated for the Plan, including six site-specific conceptual development plans, three
infill prototypes, and the buy-down option. The financial analysis utilizes two key
economic evaluation criteria for ranking and prioritizing the sites, 1) net subsidy per
bedroom with the recommended development program and 2) net subsidy per bedroom
with a Category 3 development program on each site. The sites are also evaluated
against a series of other evaluation criteria representing a broader spectrum of policy
and planning objectives.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
A static development pro forma with estimates of all project-related costs and revenues
is developed for each site. The detailed pro formas are included in Appendix B.
Construction and infrastructure costs wer~ estimated with the assistance of Shaw
Constniction, a firm with Aspen area experience. The revenue assumptions are largely
driven by the allowable sales and rental prices by Category established by the Housing
Authority.
FINANONG ASSUMPTIONS
There following development cost assumptions are consistent across the 10 projects
evaluated:
.
Hard construction costs are estimated at $160 per square foot for Category 1 through
4 units, $200 for R-O units, and $250 for free-market units. Infill projects involving
structured parking are estimated at $200 per square foot for affordable housing and
$250 per square foot for free market units due to the higher construction standards
required for that type of development
A developer fee has been incorporated into each project, representing 10 percent of
hard costs. (In reality this will be a negotiated item and will fluctuate on a project-
by-project basis.)
Project contingency is included at 10 percent of hard costs.
All cost items are in constant 2001 dollars.
.
.
.
.
For rental projects, an analysis of revenue shows that the present value of capitalized
rents is nearly the same as the revenue generated through unit sales, with a
difference of less than 1.5 percent. The present values of rental projects were
determined based on net operating income (NO!) equal to two-thirds gross revenue,
capitalized at eight percent
-57"
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
, Final Report
March 19, 2002
PRomer FINANCIAL EVALUATION
, ~.'~
.'" ;
For each project, project revenues and costs and the total project surplus or deficit is
calculated with 1) future land costs and 2) including sunk land costs. Where applicable
a third calculation is made adjusting project revenues to include revenue enhancements
such as tax credits, land trades, and the use of a potential buy in program. The subsidy
or surplus per unit and per bedroom are also calculated. These measures are used as
evaluation criteria to compare projects in the next section.
i.
Aspen Mass
Total project costs are estimated to be $31.7 million. The 120-unit development has been
designed with 265 bedrooms to be sold at Category 1 through 4 income levels.
Revenues are projected to be $17.6 million, resulting in a project subsidy of $14.1 million,
or $53,000 per bedroom as shown in Table 26. Adding in historical land costs (sunk
costs) increases the project subsidy by $1.6 million or $6,226 per bedroom.
The relatively high per bedroom subsidy for this project is largely due to the number of
Category 1 and 2 units, without the benefit of other revenue sources, such as tax credits
or R-O units. Approximately 20 percent of the project will be sold at the Category 1
level, 30 percent at both Category 2 and Category 3, and 20 percent at the Category 4
level. Significant project costs include an on-site water treabnent and sanitation system
estimated to cost $2.0 million. Future land acquisition from CDOT is budgeted at $1.0
million. The developer fee and the project contingency are estimated to be $2.2 million
each.
.'
\0"-'
..
,'-,-.
I
('
C. ~\
t'...;.
1",_:"
Table 26
Aspen Mass
Project Costs and Subsidies
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
c:
"
..
C'
(.
!.;
Project
Costs
Project with
Sunk Costs
(
Cash Flow
Net Revenues
Project Expenses
Surplus or Deficit
$17,591,980
$31,692,014
($14,100,034)
$17,591,980
$33,342,014
($15,750,034)
\,.:
i
L.
\,,'
Subsidy/Surplus
Units
Bedrooms
Sq.Ft.
($117,500)
($53,208)
($125)
($131,250)
($59,434)
($139)
(
\
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
~~.
-58 -
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
,~
.
Burlingame Ranch
The development program for Burlingame Ranch (most recently modified in December
2001) includes 330 units on approximately 33 acres. The program includes a mix of
multifamily and single-family units and has the same proportion of each unit type as
shown in the Aspen Mass development program. The similar unit mix provides the
City with a comparable evaluation of its two largest development sites. The unit mix is
based on one of the final recommendations of the Burlingame COWOP process,
identified as Version D. The $93.7 million project is estimated to create revenues that
cover 70 percent of the development cost, requiring a project subsidy of $27.0 million.
The per bedroom subsidy is estimated to be nearly $37,000, as shown in Table 27. The
inclusion of sunk land costs increases the project subsidy to $27.7 million or $973 per
bedroom as shown.
(
Concerning the income levels, approximately 20 percent of the project will be sold at the
Category 1 level, 24 percent at Category 2, 12 percent at Category 3, and 23 percent at
the Category 4 level. Resident Occupied (R-O) units make up 21 percent of the total.
There are a substantial number of Category 1 and 2 units, 145 as proposed, and a small
number of Category 3 units, 40. The distribution was developed based on the housing
needs of the community and the percentage of units constructed at each income level
reflects the local distribution of income. Each ptoject has been defined so that the
aggregate production matches the community need.
The community discussed ways to offset the total project costs as part of the COWOP
process with R-G units. Of the nine developments evaluated in this Plan, Burlingame is
the only ptoject with R-O units, although the concept could be applied elsewhere to
reduce project subsidies. The R-O units are expected to generate approximately $9.7
million in net revenue.
; .~
.;.;
:',
.'j
\
'. '~
-'
- 59-
ASl'en Affordilble Housing Strategic Plan
Final RepOli
March 19,2002
,~:
Table 27 also shows the financial impact of using buy-ins as a potential revenue
enhancement Assuming 30 units (7 percent) could be sold to an employer, the project
subsidy could be reduced by a total of $2.0 million and $2,721 per bedroom.
Significant project costs include $3.5 million for off-site infrastructure, $6.9 million for
on-site infrastructure, $7.4 million for construction interest, $6.6 million for a
contingency, and $6,6 million for developer fees. Significant savings are possible if
construction interest Can be reduced with a lower rate (currently assumed at 8 percent)
or if the contingency Can be reduced (currently assumed to be 10 percent).
i.:'\
,', )
l' .
t~ .:;
t:::.
Table 27
Burlingame Ranch
Project Costs and Subsidies
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
r~'
~ ".
"
Project
Costs
Project with
Sunk Costs
Project with
Buy-In Revenue
,-
,
Cash Flow
Net Revenues
Project Expenses
Surplus or Deficit
$66,756,620
$93,727,677
($26,971,057)
$66,756,620
$94,442,677
($27,686,057)
$68,756,620
$93,727,677
($24,971,057)
t..:
h:_~
'...':'
(\
~ ..~
€:I!
t;:'1
. :
~ .;
Subsidy/Surplus
Units
Bedrooms
Sq.Ft.
($81,730)
($36,695)
($83)
($83,897)
($37,668)
($85)
($75,670)
($33,974)
($77)
",
,. '
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
,
.
! .;
\."i
c
,
, '
, '
"'-.'
l I
i'
,
"
- 60-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
-~..
Parcel D
The Parcel D project is estimated to cost $8.2 million. The revenue from either Category
1 and 2 rent or sales is estimated to be $2.7 million resulting in a project subsidy of $5.5
million or $85,000 per bedroom, as shown in Table 28. With sunk land costs, the project
subsidy increases by $250,000 or $3,906 per bedroom. The relatively high per bedroom
subsidy for the project reflects the high concentration of Category 1 and 2 units, as the
40-unit ptoject is equally divided between the two categories.
Table 28
Parcel D
Project Costs and Subsidies
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Project Project with
Costs Sunk Costs
Project With
Tax Credit $
Cash Flow
Net Revenues
Project Expenses
Surplus or Deficit
$2,758.896
$8,197,999
($5,439,103)
$2,758,896
$8,447,999
($5,689,103)
$6,508,827
$8,197,999
($1,689,172)
Subsidy/Surplus
Units
Bedrooms
Sq, Ft.
($135,978)
($84.986)
($181)
($142,228)
($88,892)
($190)
($42,229)
($26,393)
($56)
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
As the project is geared towards Category 1 and 2, there is an opportunity for tax credit
equity to be applied to the project Based on the development program, this additional
revenue source could generate $3.7 million reducing the per bedroom subsidy by
$58,600 to $26,400. Tax credits are competitive and mayor may not be available.
- 61-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
- Final Report
March 19, 2002
r:
Rio Grande
The Rio Grande project is estimated to cost $10.8 million, with revenues of $12.5 million.
As the project generates a surplus of $1.7 million ($63,000 per bedroom), it performs
better than the other options available to the City. The primary factor is the absence of
future land costs. Even with sunk land costs, the project is only slightly more expensive,
reducing the surplus by $76,000 as shown in Table 29.
r"~
j:
\ '
b.;,
The significant revenue sources include the free-market units, estimated to generate a
net revenue of $5.4 million and the commercial space, which is valued at $1.2 million
(assuming Neighborhood Commercial zoning renting for $35 per square foot). The
development program calls for the current surface parking lot to be redeveloped as a
mixed-use project, including one floor of commercial, two floors of affordable
condominiums, and a top floor of free-market units. Of the 23 totaI units, 17 would be
affordable and six would be free-market Categories 2, 3, and 4 would be included at 35
percent, 47 percent, and 18 percent respectively. Significant project costs include
$750,000 for a developer fee and $625,000 for 25 underground parking spaces.
~::}
/-J:
,
~'i.'"
!::.)
. ,
,
Table 29
Rio Grande
Project Costs and Subsidies
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
(\
,
i;j
(':.
Project Project with
Costs Sunk Costs
/'-\)
(J
Cash Flow
Net Revenues
Project Expenses
Surplus or Deficit
$12,534,985
$10,765,344
$1,769,641
$12,534,985
$10,841,437
$1,693,548
--.~.
;";
",','\
I,
("I
,
,
Subsidy/Surplus
Units
Bedrooms
Sq. Ft.
$104,097
$63,201
$126
$99,620
$60,484
$121
~: j
'-~
,
( ,
~..Ji
"
\.:,'
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
,
,
,
(.:"
<..
- 62-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
Truscott Phase ITl
The Truscott development assumes 66 units and 111 bedrooms to be built where the
current Red Roof Inn is located. The proposed program would provide a net increase of
16 units and 61 bedrooms above the existing 50 studio units. 1his development is
estimated to cost $11.9 million with revenues of $4.7 million. The subsidy per bedroom
is expected to be $117,000 (based on the net increase of 61 bedrooms). The high subsidy
reflects the emphasis on the lower income households and the cost to replace the 50
existing studio units. The project is evenly divided between Category 1 and 2
households and the project revenues reflect the lower potential.
Potentially, the project could be subsidized with tax credit equity similar to Phase IT of
Truscott, slated for a 2002 completion. An equity infusion from the sale of tax credits
could provide approximately $6.3 million and reduce the Gty subsidy to $14,500 per
bedroom, as shown.
,
.",
.',
Table 30
Truscott
Project Costs and Subsidies
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Project
Costs
Project With
Tax Credit $
;}
Cash Flow
Net Revenues
Project Expenses
Surplus or Deficit
$4,693,024
$11,854,548
($7,161,524)
$10,971,979
$11,854,548
($882.569)
Subsidy/Surplus
Units (66)
Bedrooms (111)
Net Units (16)
Net Bedrooms (61)
($108,508)
($64,518)
($447,595)
($117 ,402)
($13,372)
($7,951)
($55.161)
($14,468)
,,-j
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
I ~
- 63-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
. Final Report
March 19, 2002
".~
U.S. Forest Service
The development program on the US. Forest Service site is estimated at $34.5 million
with revenues of $29.9 million. The $4.6 million project subsidy equates to $50,000 per
bedroom as shown in Table 31. The development program calls for 72 units, of which
51 would be affordable and 21 would be sold as free-market units. The inclusion of free-
market units is necessary to off-set a portion of the extraordinary land costs. If not
included, this project would have the largest subsidy. The affordable units include one-,
two-, and three-bedroom flats and townhouses as well as small studios located above
garages. The free-market units include single-family homes, duplexes, and a small
number of townhomes. The mix of income levels includes 37 percent Category 2, 35
percent Category 3, and 27 percent Category 4. R-O units have not been included.
f'
{--:;
\ .:.
t-'.~
\.:';
f:~
l.:,
C
Significant project costs include the land, $14.0 million, a developer fee, $1.0 million, and
construction interest of $1.5 million. The land value is based on an appraised value of
$14.0 million as ofJanuary 2001. If the City is successful in negotiating a land trade
with the Forest Service and can provide an alternative site, the cost of the land could
drop by the value of the new parcel. For planning purposes, this has been estimated at
$1.0 million. If successful, the City's provision of an alternative site would reduce the
per bedroom subsidy to $39,000.
~ ',,<
,:-,}j
"
.'
" .
~;; ,.~
(~ ,
r-".
\
,
(.
Table 31
U.S. Forest Service
Project Costs and Subsidies
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
,
,
LS
(,'
P
t.:i,
\,.:;
, '
\.-.,;
Project
Costs
Project With
Land Trade $
1,
~'::..
Cash Flow
Net Revenues
Project Expenses
Surplus or Deficit
$29,943,982
$34,549,474
($4,605,492)
$30,943,982
$34,549,474
($3,605,492)
f;
i ~
U
n
Subsidy/Surplus
Units
Bedrooms
Sq. Ft.
($90,304)
($50,060)
($107)
($70,696)
($39,190)
($83)
~.:...
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
- 64-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
"
.,.\
The Gap
The estimated project cost of The Gap redevelopment is $16.5 million. Total project
revenues at $16.2 million result in a project subsidy of approximately $300,000. As
designed, the per bedroom subsidy for the Category units would be $10,000, as shown in
Table 32. 1bis economic analysis is based on the assumption that the 20 affordable units
would be evenly divided between Category 3 and 4.
Significant development costs include the land, assumed to be $5.2 million, transfer of
approximately $1.0 million for development rights, a developer fee of $750,000, and a
contingency of $750,000. The analysis is based on free-market sales prices of $945 per
square foot and commercial floor area rents of $80 per square foot. Costs for demolition
of the existing building are included but costs for buying out current tenants are not, as
there is a single tenant in the building.
The current development program shows a deficit of only two percent of the total cost.
It is assumed that a developer could modify the prototype and increase revenue
sufficiently to make the project viable. For example, the lower level of parking could be
eliminated and covered through the fee-in-lieu program. Without the ramp to the lower
level, the first floor commercial area could be expanded, increasing project revenue
significantly. The purpose of the model to is provide an example based on the
proposed infill guidelines that shows how the different uses (commercial area, free-
market units, and affordable units) can be designed to be feasible.
li~
Table 32
Project Costs and Subsidies
Commerclallnfill - The Gap
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
';'.,'
"'"'
Project
Costs
Cash Flow
Net Revenues
Project Expenses
Surplus or Deficit
$16,161,220
$16,474,882
($313,662)
Subsidy/Surplus
Units
Bedrooms
Sq. Ft.
($15,683)
($10,455)
($19)
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
-65 -
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
. Final Report
March 19, 2002
r",
Aspen Manor
The Aspen Manor redevelopment is projected to cost $10.3 million. With net revenues
estimated at $6.7 million, the subsidy of $150,000 per bedroom is the most expensive
option considered (excluding the buy-down option). The 16 category units included in
the development program are assumed to be evenly divided between Category 2 and 3.
f-::~
r",
l'
. --~
, '
Significant costs include the land, estimated at $4.0 million and below-grade parking,
estimated at $500,000. The developer fee and contingency fee have a combined cost of
$1.0 million. Unlike the Rio Grande and Gap project, Aspen Manor does not have
commercial revenues to offset the higher land and construction costs. Although there
are four free-market units incorporated into the development program, the additional
revenue is insufficient to lower the project subsidy significantly.
(,
I'
t."
c:
(')
i..,
Table 33
Aspen Manor
Project Costs and Subsidies
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
1;';-
,~ _:;
, '
(;).
Project
Costs
('".
\ '
!
,
.L~
Cash Flow
Net Revenues
Project Expenses
Surplus or Deficit
$6,700,372
$10,312,727
($3,612,355)
l'
I;
C',
fi
\...-
Subsidy/Surplus
Units
Bedrooms
Sq.Ft.
($225,772)
($150,515)
($291)
l'
~)
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
.!'- ~
,.
i..
I'
t.:':~
[
,
" '
\"
- 66-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
Schlumberger
The Schlumberger prototype is estimated to cost $4.2 million with revenues of $4.6
million. The positive cash flow of $350,000 provides a per bedroom surplus of $35,000.
The prototypical development program has been based on the recommended infill
guidelines and includes six category units and four free-market units. The six affordable
units have been evenly divided between Category 3 and 4. The free-market units
provide net revenue to the project of $27 million, covering the $1.5 million land cost and
the affordable unit subsidy.
:,:'~
Table 34
Resldenllallnfill - Schlumberger
Project Costs and Subsidies
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Project
Costs
"'\ Cash Flow
Net Revenues $4,613,322
Project Expenses $4,261,080
Surplus or Deficit $352,242
:,'<,
',- SubsldylSurplus
Units $58,707
Bedrooms $35,224
"i Sq. Ft. $68
.,
"
.:{ Source: Economic & Planning Systems
~/
...,
;,;..
Buydown Program
One of the options available to the City for producing affordable housing units is to buy
down existing free market units and resell them as deed-restricted affordable housing.
This analysis provides a prototypical cost per bedroom, which is based on the aggregate
supply of lower-end multi-family condominium and townhouse units currently for sale
in Aspen. This cost is applied to an acquisition scenario to show the total subsidy
required, as well as the subsidy per unit and per bedroom.
.-.-
- 67-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
. Final Report
March 19, 2002
,
(
r :
\
~. .
\ :
"
After analyzing the current real estate listings in the Aspen for potential buy down
options, the pool of units was narrowed for further consideration based on the following
criteria:
(
i
,
"
L
fl
. Properties in Zone 1 were included, which covers the Oty of Aspen and
surrounding areas such as the Airport Business Park. This zone does not include the
Woody Creek area, Snowmass, or other parts of the Roaring Fork Valley.
. Single-family homes were excluded.
. Only product priced below $900,000 was considered, as units priced above that level
are targeted to a different market, typically buyers looking for newer, upscale
properties.
. A minimum price of $250,000 was set to eliminate partial shares and other
anomalies.
[
~ .
f."."
~' :~
I",
L
("
Based on these parameters, 105 available listings were found as of November 2001. The
potential supply was further segmented based on cost The price per square foot for the
data set ranged from $479 to $1,132. In order to eliminate outliers found in the upper
and lower ends of the spectrum, all listings falling outside one standard deviation of the
mean price per square foot were excluded from the overall analysis. For this housing
population, one standard deviation included approximately 78 percent of the properties.
It should be noted that some of the units used in the evaluation do not comply with
minimum size requirements. Before these units could be purchased and deed restricted,
a variance from APCHA would be required. Nonetheless, the purpose of the analysis is
to show the required subsidy per bedroom, which could be used to acquire units that
conformed to APCHA standards.
(
L
".~
{,
r,;
L'
(~j
\,
i
\,
The mean and median costs of the listings that met the evaluation criteria are
summarized in Table 35. These costs are based on an evaluation of unit characteristics
such as sales price, square footage, and number of bedrooms. The cost per bedroom is
one measure of the cost of buy down units that is easily transierable to a variety of unit
sizes. For the selected units, the median cost per bedroom was $337,500.
Ll,
,",.
Table 35
Cost of Potential Buydown Units
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
r-,
I
j:
U
Median Mean
i
'"
i
,I,
\
(:
i
!
t:'
Per Sq. Ft
Per Bed
Per Unit
Number of Cases
$682
$337,500
$568,000
79
$701
$343,744
$560,668
79
Source: Economic & F'lanning Systems
- 68-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
Mtzrch 19, 2002
Assuming that the negotiated contract price is 15 percent below list price, the median
price per bedroom would be $286,875. Based on this figure, the cost, revenue, and
subsidy for one-, two-, and three-bedroom units for Categories 2, 3, and 4 are shown in
Table 36 below. The revenue is based on the maximum sales price allowed by the
APCHA Guldelines, for each category and size of unit The subsidy figures have been
derived by subtracting the potential revenue from acquisition costs. To simplify the
analysis, studio units and Category 1 units have not been included.
Table 36
Cost, Revenue, and Subsidy by Category and Size
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
"
',J
,.,:.l
\:~'1
;~.y
J
"\'
Category
Two Three Four
Cost
One-Bed $286,875 $286,875 $286,875
Two Bed $573,750 $573,750 $573,750
Three Bed $860,625 . $860,625 $860,625
Sales Revenue
One Bed $84,600 $135,800 $222,000
Two Bed $104,700 $160,500 $246,800
Three Bed $128,600 $185,200 $271,500
Subsidy
One Bed $202,275 $151,075 $64,875
Two Bed $469,050 $413,250 $326,950
Three Bed $732,025 $675,425 $589,125
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
:.:/
..'i
~,\
B~
.,~
;
,.j
t;:~
';
~;
Assuming that the City provided buydown units at the Category 3 level, the total
subsidy would be approximately $124 million with an average subsidy per bedroom of
$206,625. This scenario would allow the City to produce 30 units with a total of 60
bedrooms, as shown in Table 37.
i'';.
- 69-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
, Final Report
March 19, 2002
r'
( ,
f-)
'.:,j
Table 37
Subsidy Required for Buydown Program
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
# of # of Subsidy Total Sub.
Units Beds per Unit
Unit Type
One Bed 10 10 $151,075 $1,510,750
Two Bed 10 20 $413,250 $4,132,500
Three Bed 10 30 $675,425 $6 754 250
Total 30 60 $12,397,500
Subsidy Per Bed $206,625
\.'
("\
, '
, '
~:- ~
\".~
'!",'"
"\.;'-"::.,
,.,
'if'"'
. -~
SoWCB: Economic & PlannIng Systems
I,
tJ
PROJECT EVALUATION AND RANKING
CRITERIA AND MEASURES
("
The 10 projects are ranked against two financial criteria and nine additional criteria
responding to larger plarming and policy issues. The criteria and measures are shown in
Table 38 below.
,
I.:
,
\': '.
~..~,
Table 38
Criteria, Measurements, and Source
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
t,
f :'.~
( (
t<
ro,
r',;
Criteria
Source/Methodology
MeasureNalue
\,
\
~)
1 Subsidy per Bedroom
2 Subsidy per Bedroom (Cat 3)
3 Contribution to Housing Goal
4 Employees
5 land Use Compatibility
6 Site Development Potential
7 Proximity to Transit
8 Degree of Autonomy
9 Community Benefit
10 Project Fiexibility
11 Timing
u
'"-,
Dollar Value
Dollar Value
Potential Number of Category Units
Number of Employees
Positive-Neutral-Negative
Positive-Neutral-Negative
On Route-Near Route-Not Served
Sole Discretion-Few Players-Many Players
Posltlve-Neutral-Negative
High-Medium-low
Minimum lead-time (Years)
Pro forma
Pro forma
Project Description
Per APCHA Guidelines
Informed Evaluation
Informed Evaluation
Informed Evaluation
Informed Evaluation
Informed Evaluation
Project Description
AnalysiS of Ind, Sites
i
.
.
,
\,.
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
,
r'
- 70-
~1
r,:>,
"',1
"
:"'1
l
\)
,
"
;
",'
.. ~
i
,,-.'
......
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
FINANCIAL RANKING
The 10 projects are ranked against two financial criteria:
Subsidy or surplus per bedroom based on recommended building program.
Subsidy or surplus per bedroom assuming uniform Category 3 building program.
1. Subsidy per Bedroom
The first criterion is the net subsidy per bedroom, which measures the cost effectiveness
of the proposed development program for each site. This is calculated by dividing the
total net project revenue for the proposed building program by the total number of
bed~ooms in Category units. Based on this calculation, Rio Grande is the most cost
efficient project followed by Schlumberger and the Gap as shown in Table 39. The high
ranking for these three infill projects in predicated on the recommended infill guidelines,
which alleviate these projects of the mitigation burden. With the mitigation
requirements, they would be significantly more expensive and ranked lower.
Burlingame is the highest ranked of the other sites evaluated as shown. Truscott ill and
Parcel D are ranked somewhat lower mainly because of the unit mix, which is more
heavily weighted toward Category 1 and 2 units, with larger subsidy requirements.
.
.
Table 39
Subsidy/Surplus per Bedroom
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Rank Site
Project Cost
1 Rio Grande
2 Schlumberger
3 Gap
4 Burlingame
5 USFS
6 Aspen Mass
7 Parcel 0
8 Truscott
9 Aspen Manor
10 Buy Down
63,201
35,224
(10,455)
(36,695)
(50,060)
(53,208)
(84,986)
(117,402)
(150,515)
(206,600)
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
2. Net Subsidy per Bedroom - Category 3
This criterion provides a fairer comparison of the relative cost efficiencies of the projects
because it assumes the development program for each site is 100 percent Category 3
- 71-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
. Final Report
March 19, 2002
units. Consequently Parcel D moves up the rankings from 7th to 5th and its per bedroom
subsidy drops from $84,986 to $49,308. Truscott remains ranked 8th but its subsidy per
bedroom drops from $117,402 to $59,234 as shown in Table 40. The U.S. Forest Service
site drops from 5th to 7th and its subsidy per bedroom increases because the number of
Category 4 units has been eliminated for comparison purposes.
Table 40
Surplus/Deficit per Bedroom - Assuming Category III Sales Revenue
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
(
Rank Site
Project Cost
,
~.;
to.
(j
(-:',
1 Rio Grande
2 Schlumberger
3 Gap
4 Burlingame
5 Parcel D
6 Aspen Mass
7 USFS
8 Truscott
9 Aspen Manor
10 Buy Down
59,464
9,862
(38,630)
(48,312)
(49,308)
(50,046)
(56,475)
(59,234)
(141,983)
(206,600)
,t:;
;
U
o
it
L
I')
1(,,'
(-;-',
r-.j
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
OTHER CRITERIA RANKING
, ,
~ .~
t)
rc,
,
I,
i
c_
(
,
3. Contribution to Housing Goal
TIlls criterion measures how many net new Category housing units are supplied in each
project The largest projects are therefore ranked the highest as shown in Table 41 on
the next page. Burlingame with 330 units is ranked the highest followed by Aspen Mass
with 120 units and U.S. Forest Service with 51 units. Truscott is ranked second lowest
with 11 units due to the fact that the 50 of the 61 units are replacing existing units in the
Red Roof Inn building.
~,
, '
l:'
4. Net Gain in Housed Employees
TIlls criterion estimates the number of employees that can be housed by the proposed
projects. The total bedroom count in each project is multiplied by the factors listed in
the APCHA Guidelines to determine the number of employees that will be housed.
Burlingame is the highest at 650 followed by Aspen Mass at 235, Parcel D at 82,. and
Truscott at 78.
"
,
/.
\,,'
- 72-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
5. Land Use Compatibility
This criterion evaluates the compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding land
uses. The measurement scale is positive, neutral, or negative. Most of the projects are
considered to have a neutral impact The Rio Grande and Truscott are the only projects
considered to have a positive land use impact Rio Grande is replacing a surface parking
lot with a mixed use building in downtown. Truscott is replacing a somewhat
deteriorated former motel building with a more attractive housing complex. The Aspen
Mass project is considered to have a negative impact because it would develop a
significant parcel of land to urban densities while the surrounding area is largely rural.
6. Site Development Potential
This criterion measures the utilization of the site for development on a scale of positive,
neutral, or negative. The projects are largely positive because the recommended
development program is designed to address this specifically. However, Parcel D is
downgraded to neutral because the location is considered subpar for residential
development. Aspen Mass is rated negative because the unit cap of 120 units imposed
on the site results in a density of four units per acre, below the norm for an affordable
housing project
7. Proximity to Transit
This criterion measures whether each project is served by transit service using a Yes or
No measurement. Only Burlingame, Parcel D, and Schlumberger are not on existing
transit routes.
8. Degree of Autonomy
This criterion measures the number of parties involved to implement proposed project
The measurement scale is Sole, Few, or Many. The simplest projects are Rio Grande and
Truscott as they are currently under the sole discretion of the City. Burlingame, Parcel
D, and Aspen Mass involve several parties and are somewhat more complicated. The
most difficult sites are Aspen Manor, The Gap, Schlumberger, and U.S. Forest Service
that involve more participants and complexity.
9. Community Benefit
This criterion seeks to quantify other community benefits arising from the proposed
development A scale of Positive, Neutral, or Negative is applied. The infill sites are all
ranked positive as they replace underutilized sites with mixed-use development The
remaining sites are neutral.
10. Project Flexibility
This criterion measures how well each site can respond to the overall housing need with
a variety of unit types on a scale of Low, Medium, or High. The larger sites are ranked
high (Burlingame, Aspen Mass, and U.S. Forest Service) with the remaining sites ranked
low.
. -~--
- 73-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
. Final Report
March 19, 2002
11. Timing
This criterion measures the estimated time it would take to make the site ready for
development. The scale of measurement is Short, Medium, and Long. The Short sites,
which can be ready for development within a year, include Burlingame, Parcel D, and
Rio Grande. The sites with the greatest lead-time are Truscott, which cannot be
developed until the bonds are retired in 2008, and U.S. Forest Service, which requires
congressional approval for a land swap.
c:
t ~
i ~
...-:'
(~
,
~ '-.~
\....
f
r-:
, ,
.'
,
f c'
I.,,',
f"'"
\ i
'~j
c
r'~
~ . .
I.
. '
ic)
( .
"..
i
(
'l,i
t~ "',\
i .
\ ..:
<.
t.:
{,
-74-
",,:,
",I
':;
~ '~i
,."~
t4'
.,'J
"
"""
1...:1
,,)
'"
~-N
.sse
~ ",-0
-"N
.~ ~ 0)"
~t:::H
- ~ -
.E~'E
CIl '"
O(l ~
:::
'10
'"
.,
:r:
"
:c
~
~
-.::
:::
<u
l}
-.::
""
c
Oi
"
o
X
Ol
:E
ca
'E
..~
S<C
Cii;
_ C C
o l>>.!!
C "'0.
0" U
- :;:<C-
.cu__CJ
GJ :I 0 G)
- ""-CQ
:g~:E'=
I- W (,) Ul
- Ol
Ul U
Ol-
a~
11."
UlU)
::l
liE
o Ol
U Ul
Ul ..
2.c
1-0.
...
E~
" ..
- "
ii.c
Ul
0"
.- ."
a:c
l!
Cl
::l
-
in
.....
.cca
I-Cl
...c
EU
caC
.~&!
-.:
"
m
c..
"..
...ca
Ul::;;
<C
C ..
" 0
...C
.. ca
<C:!i
~~~
g~lO
0..,.
e (!J~
tOtO
~~
~~~
~;;!;~
""N
r--:ai'
~ to
~ ~
tl:!~~~~~
cn_:;::;>-lQ~
an ::I en "0::::'"
Q) 0 ....:; Q)
Za. Z
'" Q) Q)
""~:Ei
en "Ci)
o 0
a. a.
<II "
Ol-
>-S
.qNtClOmQ)
~~ tci~~
LO a) Q) '00
[f) Z&..
o >. Q)
zffi~
::;:..
o
a.
~"'d't'--tCQ)~
~~~cC:E::+:I
M oi 'Uj'm
CDLD &..~
m..92 Q) :: t
>-,9.~oo
wUj..Jc55
o
a.
c
CD
l:!
ca
a..
~~o
~~..q-
Ol'"
.q- or
<Xl""
~~
~~o
:ggN
..,.'"
om
~'"
~~
~~o
tON",
ffi(;)[f)
crieD
!2::!.
~~o
"''''N
~(!;~
Me
!:9.!!1
~~'"
"''''~
~'"
tOOl
ci~
"'..,.
~ ~
~~
ca
1:
"
-
.;:
(,)
iii
o
l!l
::::;- ~tn
".~ .- Q)
m tn CD
o g ~
~:c-
EEa.~
o 0 u W
~ e <c .
Q)"O<("O
co ~ Q) m
Qi '- :5 g
0.8..s:c
~>-c:~
"Uj :2 .2 0
.c~ "5.5
::I ::I .0 ca
en en :s C)
mm6m
ZZUZ
"l"'"NM~
Oiii~O;:
N~_ZQ)
co :::J:::J U.
Ol Ol
ZZ
t'--aiQ)(I)>'CD
,...: '- '_~ CD C >
~ >-m:w
ij} o~ ::E'~
Za. a.
q~~ZO;::e
0_+:1 Q)_
LO ::I Om u.:::J
co Q) 0 Q)
Za. Z
o Q) Ol <II;: ~
Ldo~o~~Q)_
Mmm........l.L:::J
Nmcn Q)
Ol Q) Z
ZZ
"'gCDU)>,m
> Q) c: >
C\i-;:s>m;:s
N :::J Om ""== 1ii
Q) 0 .c 0
za. a.
.c 01
OlC
,- 0
:C..J
~ ;:: C)
"5.96
Ol ..J
Z
;: E
o ::l
..J -
."
Ol
::;
~;:t::
_ 0 0
::l--'.c
Q) 00
Z
;: E
o ::l
--' .-
."
Q)
::;:
.ct::
010
.- .c
:Coo
-a,E
"_ ::l
J:=C
Ol
::;:
;: E
o ::l
--' "-
."
..
::;:
iii
'E
.!l
,.,0 -
:50. "2
:0> >. ~
;:; CD - E i5 I
~~'~g~._~
E-Q)~.sQ)
O~-:Jm:S
0000<>.';:
--- Q)
~~~oo2U::
::ll:!"EOlE::l-Ol
"OE.-e ~c:
c: +:: Xo CI E o"",O-E
co 0. '- Q) 0 e
--,Oa.cua.i=
1l)U)t--c:oc>>~~
Ol
...
~
,
lQ
,
~
E
.!!
~
0>
C
'2
c
~
ii:
..
u
E
o
c
8
w
~
~
o
<J)
-,
~.. \
" .
,.'
C'
"
l" .
't'.;"
f.'"
n
L~
'''.
('.:
~~.
1.': '"
~. ":
.f .
t,)
i
, "
[l"-;
('
(",
, ,
'\.,
{,
'}
,
,
'~..:~
Qf:\\
...~
,-:::~
\- -:
(,;
(;)
c~
) '1
~:'
i-'
(;,\
f\
\J
(
I ~'
, '
,,'
i"."
I
\
,
. .,.-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
" Final Report
March 19, 2002
The non-numerical measurements were quantified on an ordinal scale in order to
develop an overall ranking. Based on the above eleven criteria, Rio Grande is the top
ranked site followed by Burlingame, The Gap, Aspen Mass and U.S. Forest Service as
shown in Table 42.
Table 42
Summary Ranking
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Rank Project
Total Score
1 Rio Grande
2 Burlingame Ranch
3 The Gap
4 US Forest Service
5 Aspen Mass
6 Parcel 0
7 Truscott, Phase III
8 Schlumberger
9 Aspen Manor
75
73
61
59
59
52
51
49
48
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
- 76-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
V. HOUSING PRODUCTION AND FINANCING
This Chapter addresses the methods available to the City for housing production. Based
on the analysis of each of the options available to the City, the Plan calls for the
construction of 974 units over the next ten years. Both the public and private sectors will
play key roles in achieving this target The Plan recommends that the private sector
provide one-third of the goal and the public sector provide the balance. For the
purposes of this chapter, the distinction between public and private primarily relates
primarily to project initiation. The development of affordable housing is, however, a
public-private venture with both sectors playing roles.
To meet its affordable housing goals, the City will need to expand the number of
development approaches utilized. The private sector is expected to generate 350 units
over the next ten years though infill development, the affordable housing zone district,
and mitigation requirements. The City is expected to initiate development of
approximately two-thirds of the production goal, or 624 units. The methods of
production should include developing the six publicly-held sites and land banking
parcels for future development.
PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISfRICT
The first project approved as an Affordable Housing Zone District (AHZD) was
completed in 1994, according to the Housing Office records. Since then, approximately
one project per year has been completed through the year 2000. The projects range in
size from two units to 35 units, with an average of 13 units per project Assuming a
developer spends two years from the beginning of the development review process until
occupancy, the last year in which an application was made for this type of project was
1999. The City planning department reports that there are no active projects under
review; therefore the "pipeline" is empty for this type of product
While the explanations for the drop in projects vary, one factor is particularly significant
The City modified the standards in 1999 requiring developers to include all affordable
housing sales prices in determining the average sales price for the project and capped
the maximum R-Q sales price. Prior to 1999, only Category units were used to calculate
the average sales price. This modification resulted in lower supportable R-O prices and
reduced project revenues. This reduction in allowable sales prices is thought to be
largely responsible for the lack of projects.
Notwithstanding the recent code changes, there is merit to the Affordable Housing Zone
District method of production as the City gains additional housing units without
investing time or funds. Given the high cost, in terms of time and money that the City
typically incurs in housing development, the value of these I>rojects should not be
- 77-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
. Final Report
March 19, 2002
,-
,.
underestimated. Projections for the next ten years are based on the average annual
production since 1994, which is 13 units per year. The City should therefore identify the
impediments that prevent developers from pursuing this option and e1irninate them.
~ "." ,~
A related concern about the AHZD projects is the limited number of GMQS allocations
for affordable housing. Some community members believe that each allocation awarded
to an R-O unit reduces the number of Category units that can be permitted in the future.
This concern in particular is not relevant, as GMQS has set aside a specific number of
allocations for R-O units that are separate .from Category units. However, the concern
about the limiting impact of GMQS is valid for other reasons. As shown in Table 43, the
376 permits remaining for Category units faIls significantly below the goals of the AACP
as well as the need identified in this Plan. The GMQS must therefore be modified if the
community is to address its housing need, as called for in the AACP.
r,
~~.
'.
( .
(
.-
('.:>
r -.
Table 43
Growth Management Quota System Awards, 1995 - 2018
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
,.
{ .1
r
Type of Use
Allocation
Remalnln~
Awards Units
t,.
, .
Category 1 - 4 989 613 376
Resident Occupied 184 80 104
Free Market 92 21 71
Free Market within
Affordable Housing Projects 184 52 132
Total 1,449 766 683
1 As of October, 2001
Source: Aspen City Planning Department
MITIGATION
I,.
,.
H
<C.!
f''-";
{'
t j
C'
r:;
t...,.
t..'
n
p
;. .
l...
Mitigation requirements generate fees-in-lieu as well as housing stock. Because
mitigation requirements are negotiated during the development review process (both in
terms of the number of units as well as the method of fulfilling the requirement), future
production is difficult to estimate. Based on the past ten years (1992 through 2001), a
total of 51 ownership units and 54 rental units were constructed, or an average of 10
units per year. This Plan assumes the same level of production for the next decade.
f
'.
(
,
i
,
The size of the ownership projects vary as most (ten out of eleven) are small (one to
three units). There are two rental projects, which were 22 units and 32 units in size.
(The 7l-unit Highlands mitigation project was excluded from this analysis because it is
- 78 -
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
dramatically different in scale from the majority of other mitigation projects and the
likelihood of an additional development of that magnitude being developed is low.)
-,
INFILL DEVELOPMENT
The draft infill report goal is to encourage soclally vibrant, interesting development that
creates memorable places and concentrates development within the existing urban form.
The guidelines are intended to allow development that will encourage economic
sustainability as well as create vitality through housing development The proposed
infill standards waive mitigation requirements as a means of improving project
feasibility.
':",,;
Of the infill prototypes evaluated, The Gap and Schlumberger, are generally
economically viable. The Aspen Manor evaluation indicates that the land cost and
construction cost are significantly higher than the potential revenue, and the subsidy
required is one of the highest of the options considered in the Plan. The specific
development program for projects like The Gap and Schlurnberger will vary by site,
which will affect the economic performance. The most significant factor affecting project
feasibility is site costs. The proposed infill projects will not work on every site,
particularly those priced at the upper-end of the market
-"
SUMMARY OF PRN ATE SECTOR ACTIVITY
, ~
The forecast private sector production is shown in Table 44. It is built on the
assumption that the private sector will provide mitigation units and develop Affordable
Housing Zone District projects at the historical rate over the past ten years. Regarding
infill projects, it is estimated that the private sector will initiate three mixed-use and 10
residential redevelopments, similar to The Gap and Schlurnberger prototypes. The
Aspen Manor prototype has not been included in future production estimates. It is
recognized that the recommended guidelines have not been approved and the concept
has not been tested; nonetheless, the Gty should be committed to facilitating
redevelopment as the infill sites are key to addressing the community's housing need.
r'
,"<1
,,,,
i.1
1-":/
- 79-
\
,.
(-
,
~' -';<
'~'f
't.:;
.,.-
","'."
n
I
t..;;
C..
t ~
'--'i
"'i.'
r
! ~
,
~ 'I'
t:;
"."
~Jl'
1'"
t,j
(.5
11-:,
hi
, ,
(...1
,
r . ~
(.
i .-
....:~l
('"
'-'
t
i '
,...,;
(
,.
,
,
.......'
(
I'
I
t,
...-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
- Final Report
March 19, 2002
Table 44
Private Sector Development Options
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Development Program
Ave. #
Of Units
Total
Units
# of
Sites
Infill Prototypes
East End (Schlumberger)
Commercial (The Gap)
Lodge (Aspen Manor)
Subtotal
6 10 60
20 3 60
16 0 Q
120
13 10 130
10 10 100
350
("
Affordable Housing Zone Dist.
Mitigation Requirements
Total
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
PUBLIC SECTOR DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
As summarized in Chapter II, the estimated development potential for the six public-
held sites is 624 units. Based on the evaluation of these sites, the City should proceed
with the development in the sequence recommended in Table 45.
The projects have been programmed based on their overall ranking, project readiness
and the planned unit mix. The developments are broken down into eight discrete steps.
The timing and costs for each step are estimated as follows:
.
Community Process and Preplanning
Site Acquisition
Entitlement
Developer Solicitation
Project Design and Engineering
Bidding and Funding
Construction
Marketing and Sales
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- 80-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
"
:)
Based on the ranking analysis, it is recommended that the Oty move forward on three
sites initially and delay development on the others for a period of time. The first sites on
which the Oty should focus its development efforts include Rio Grande, Burlingame
and Parcel D. The entitlement process should occur in the 2002 to 2003 time frame for
these projects. Rio Grande and Burlingame are the top ranked opportunities. Parcel D
is included in this top tier as it becomes much more viable once tax credit equity is
applied to the project It should be noted that when the alternative funding mechanisms
are applied to all sites, Truscott and Parcel D rise in the order due to the equity infusion
from tax credits. Others remain in the same order. Truscott differs from Parcel D
because the revenue from current rental units at Truscott is pledged for bond service
through 2008.
i
"
'"
"
The second tier projects include the U.s. Forest Service site, Aspen Mass, and Truscott
According to the analysis of this Plan, the Forest Service site and Aspen Mass are equally
ranked. The determining factor as to the order of development is the land acquisition
process. Both projects are scheduled for significant lead-time for this activity as well as
for community participation. Based on the assumption that the Oty can develop
consensus with the community to development each site, the project sequence will
depend on the readiness of each, specifically Oty ownership of the land. This Plan
schedules the Forest Service parcel prior to Aspen Mass as it enables the Oty to balance
the production of housing without creating spikes in inventory that may require longer
absorption periods. The spikes would result if the two largest projects were developed
simultaneously. Moreover, the Forest Service site is located within the urban growth
boundary while Aspen Mass is not The last public-held site to be developed is Truscott:,
which has been scheduled based on the bond commitments previously noted. The
assumptions regarding each project are summarized below.
~:)
'~.
!I
~;
::j
~
It1
,
.:1
~
\.{
Burlingame
The entitlement process is scheduled for 12 months, following the potential purchase of
the A VLT parcel. While the development process on other sites begins with a pre-
planning and community participation process, it is recommended that the Oty can
move forward with this project as much of that activity has already occurred. Developer
solicltation, project design, and bidding and funding are scheduled from 2003 though
2004 with the first phase of construction projected for 2005. Construction is assumed to
be phased and completed in 2008. While the project could be completed in a shorter
period, it is recommended to phase it to allow demand to keep pace with supply.
Although the current pool of lottery applicants is large, it is not recommended that the
Oty provide more than 120 units annually. The aggregate phasing plan disperses unit
production over the ten-year planning period with a relatively uniform rate of
production. Revenues are shown for years 2006 through 2008, with one-third of total
project revenue scheduled for each year.
...
~~,.
- 81 -
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
- Final Report
March 19, 2002
n
Rio Grande
Because of the location of this site in the core of downtown and the need for community
dialogue concerniIi.g development at this location, the first phase of development
provides an ample community participation period scheduled though the middle of
2003. It is recommended that the process begin early in 2002 The balance of the
development process includes 12 months for entitlements and 18 months for developer
solicitation, project design, and funding. Construction is scheduled for 2006 and is
expected to last 18 months. The scheduling of this project may be conservative and the
development may be constructed sooner, if the Oty makes it a priority.
~. .
'i.;\
t,:'
{ ~-
" ,
Parcel D
This project is one of the simplest of the six public-held sites. The time required to
purchase a portion of the adjacent site and completed the public approval process is
scheduled for one year. The time for developer solicitation, the tax credit application
process, project design and engineering, and funding is scheduled to be completed by
mid 2004 with construction taking another 12 months. The project could be completed
by mid 2005.
f".
l :'~
t.~''l'
~',:,i:
{?
f,'
~" ;
i
U.s. Forest Service
The first phase of this project is the land acquisition from the federal government and
community particlpation. It is estimated that both could be accomplished by the end of
2005, although this process is the most difficult to estimate. The 12-month entitlement
process is scheduled for 2006, followed by an 18- month period for developer selection,
project design and engineering, and bidding and funding. The project is estimated to be
constructed in 18 months, at the end of 2008.
\: ,
t,',';
(:
#.:'~
, .'
L
Aspen Mass
Because of its location outside the urban growth boundary, the project schedule has
incorporated a significant amount of time for additional community participation and
project requirements. Under current evaluation, this project is ranked low, but is still
projected to be needed to meet housing goals. If better sites become available, it can be
dropped or further delayed. The actual entitlement process is scheduled for 2007.
Development is assumed to be phased over 24 months, with half of the development
completed in 2010 and the balance finished in 2011.
,
'~'
\...'
!,,<
,,,,
(",
1,",-
; .
\ ,
L'::
.~- ,
t~.~i
Truscott, Phase ill
The Truscott project has a similar schedule as Parcel D, with the exception of the time
required for land acquisition. The entitlement process is scheduled for 2007 so that the
Oty can move forward with development in 2008 with the property is unencumbered.
Completion is anticipated for mid 2010.
; .
~-,..'
>.'
- 82-
"
l
.
..
. .
u
~:
~li
. .
i.
'J
".
"
....,~
;11
!~~
. . I ~ ~ ;: "
. i = ~ =- "
:: ~ ! a " ~
~ !l ~ .-
. ! S '"
. '1
ij ~
.
.
- ~ iI .
i .
i! !
. .
ij . .
~ , ~
.
- . . ~ . . . :
.
~ ,. ~ . ~ ~ :i
. " Ii . .
a ~ .
. ..
- . a ~ . .. iI
! ~ '" i ! -
~ . a
. '"
,
~ ~
~
r-- . ! il ii ;; ~ .
~
! ~ If ~ .- ~
'" :( ;
~ . ~
~ .
.
. ..
f-- ! . ii % . .
.
, :; ~ E
i :1 ii :;.
- . . of
~ !l il !l
! . .
il
- . a . .
~ :l
. .
:I ~ ~
~ . !l i i! ~
~ !1j ,R ~
. : ;;
f-- t . . . .
. i i
~ " -
\: ,
~ .
S
r-- . . . . . .
il i! i i
~
- " i . . il .
II ! i ~
~ :l
~ !l !l
~ !l
! a . . . . a
~
. J j . I. J ! I .
h .i .i j
I . ! t . ! 1
J 0 '" ) .J J 0 I J J
H I j if J 1
t eO . i 11 ~ i . .
, . . . .. .
, . ,
~l\
'\
,
.
.1.
,
1
.
.
i
.
~
.
.
~
. '!
f ~
f j
;: j'
fg, f)
: . 'lp
11 I ~zt
iq~ ili
"fHjj~!
l~toH!'
.id'l'll
"l"'ll.ii
hUHH
I~H'fip
i f~nH!1
i lipd~i
. h..!ij'.i
) HJh1ji
f f'UHil
~ ,.fiiPI1
~ .!i..it i
;; ~HH..
P -I'>;
if. ,~~
~ ~,
! f I J!
I
r L .!i'll ! ~
J
i flint!!
i
J I ! Iud
(Q"'c.a. III 0;::0
-.....................
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
The public sector development process managed by the Housing Office has been
criticized on a number of issues including the small economies of scale, low densities,
high subsidies per bedroom, high costs due to inefficient design, and a rate of
development that has not kept pace with need. On the positive side, the City developed
projects are generally of high quality, successfully integrated with surrounding
properties, and achieve highly livable residences.
"
"-',',
While it has strengths and weaknesses, the current housing development process is
generally inefficient and costly. This is inherent in any public development and is not
specific to Aspen's process. The development of public-owned sites for any type of
development is more efficlently implemented with greater private sector particlpation.
The development process should have clearly defined roles and responsibilities for both
the private and public sectors, retaining an important role for the publicsector.
.J
The City's responsibility should be to acquire land and to entitle property with basic
zoning including the allowable affordable levels. The City would then issue a request
for proposals (RFP) for developers to complete the project design and build each project
This will allow the City to take advantage of the competitive process to attract the most
creative and cost-efficient proposals. The City entitlements should include allowable
levels of affordable housing, allowable levels of other land uses, designation of
developable land, open space requirements, height limits, and setbacks. Some overall
design guidance can be included, but the project should allow for creative and cost-
effective development solutions.
.:-i
The key to success with this new model is to establish a shared risk and to allow for a
return on investment commensurate with the risk taken. Benefits from this process
include higher cost effectiveness, as the risk developers incur will motivate them to
deliver projects on schedule and on budget By shifting the tasks from the City and
Housing Office to a development team, the City will be able to focus its energy on
facilitating the production of housing rather than taking responsibility for development
,
Ii"
. .~
The revised process includes clearly delineated responsibilities for the public sector and
private sector. It will also require changes in existing development and zoning
procedures. It is recommended that the City modify its existing review process to allow
a developer (or development team) to be selected after zoning has been established to
design the project and secure final approvals. Consideration should be given to
amending the current COWOP process to allow for a sequence of approvals (similar to
other communities) for public-private partnership with a development team prior to
final approval.
"
. ~,
~
,.'
- 84-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
. Final Report
March 19, 2002
REORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSING BOARD AND STAFF
C'}
r ~
f:l
Cl
".
":.
.,~
Fl
d
\: ~
(",
Related to the issue of the City's development process, there is a need for a detailed
evaluation of the Housing Board and Office functions. The current Housing Authority
Board is representative of the City, County, and larger community interests. The
predominant funding source is the City and in its fiduciary role, the City has found itself
in conflict with the Authority Board on a number of issues. The current organizational -
structure requires staff to respond to multiple and sometimes conflicting directions.
Project costs are too high, community priorities are not clear, and the time required to
make decisions is excessive. A new organization is recommended to set a unified
direction and to establish clear lines of authority between stakeholders that align the
initial goals, the funding, and final project approval.
rl
\--.!
i..-j;
r7"'\
'(I
(
t
Organization Chart
The primary objective of the proposed reorganization is to clarify expectations, eliminate
conflicting goals, and increase accountability. The recommended organization chart is
shown in Figure 1 below.
,-,
.. ,
I;
(:\
(":
,
Figure 1
Recommended Organization Chart
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
~"
::....
'~;'!
i'
"'...
City Council ----
City Manager Housing
Advisory Board
T
Housing Department
Director -----
T
Housing Department
Staff
Board of County
Commissioners
,
~" ~
\:"
{,.
\"1
'\
u
-----------------------.
(
I,
o
P
I
L
c'
!
\:.
I'
(
In the recommended organization, the Housing Office would become anintemal City
department with the director reporting to the City Manager. The department's work
program should be set by the City Manager and City Council as part of the annual
budget process.
,
I'
\,:.'
f
i
L
- 85-
!
-~
_,i
)
~:~
,',
r'~f
,
:.)
~B'
:c"
;1
(~
~
,~.
'. .~::
,....~
,
:..:.;
.1
.:-
"
-'-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report .
March 19, 2002
The Housing Advisory Board should function like a Planning Commission, providing
policy direction to the City Council. The Council would therefore establish overall
parameters for the Board. The HAB would work in conjunction with the housing
director and staff to respond to the Council's goals. If the Council is clear regarding its
housing interests, the staff and board will not spend time on competing goals or projects
that ultimately do not have the support of the Council. If implemented
comprehensively, the City will save time and money on its housing projects.
Because nearly all future housing projects are located within the city limits, the City
Council will provide final approval for most housing projects over the course of the next
ten years. As opportunities arise, the Board of County Commissioners can contract with
the staff to provide the same services provided to the City for projects located in the
County. It is recognized that the County has been active in the past with numerous
successful housing developments and is highly committed to the affordable housing
issue. It is intended that the newly created Housing Advisory Board would provide
assistance to either the City Council or the Board of County Commissioners, depending
on the location and funding of the project. The primary roles of each entity are listed
below.
City Council
. Approve the annual housing program and budget with specific goals and actions.
. Direct staff regarding program and development priorities.
. Approve housing development projects.
. Select development teams for projects.
. Fund housing projects.
. Provide mid-course corrections to staff as necessary.
Board of County Commissioners
. As funds and opportunities allow, take on same responsibilities as listed above and
contract with the City for staff services.
Housing Advisory Board
. Review annual housing program and provide its recommendation to City CouncIl.
. Review specific development proposals initiated by Council and advanced by staff.
Key areas of review include density, unit mix, category mix, architectural character,
etc.
. Provide a full representation of community interests and insure that these are
represented in the review of projects. The following stakeholders should be
included on the board:
- Business/ employer interests;
- Development expertise;
Resident and neighborhood interests;
- Environmental interests.
. Advise Council (or BOCC) on the annual adoption of the housing guidelines.
- 86-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
.' Final Report
March 19, 2002
.
Interpret the guidelines and make final determinations concerning appeals to
guidelines.
f~
,:, '~
t)
, .
t,
i <
The HAB should reflect the larger community perspectives and translate the community
concerns into housing recommendations. The City Council (and BOCq should rely on
the advice provided by the Housing Board to improve development projects, acquire
sites, amend Housing Guidelines, and take other policy or development actions.
H
1:\
L~
(~
~?~
, .
f,.
~:J
"":-'
It is recommended that the advisory board be composed of five members. As a majority
of the development opportunities are located within the City, it is recommended that
three of the positions be appointed by the City and the other two be appointed by the
County. Based on the successful past partnership of the City and the County in the
housing arena, it is recommended that the advisory board continue to represent both
perspectives. The board should not overlap the elected and appointed roles, and each of
the five appointed members should be autonomous from the City Council or the Board
of County Commissioners.
C
I
;
The Housing Office responsibilities would also change under the recommendations of
the Plan. It will continue to be responsible for the operation of existing housing
programs, such as managing ownership transactions and existing rental housing
projects. The housing staff would take on the responsibilities of managing the
development process but would relinquish its role in the actual development of housing.
The modified responsibilities would include facllitating the development process by
issuing RFP's as needed and overseeing development team members to ensure that
City's interests are addressed.
i
,
t:",
t~_>
,
i
,.
L
,.,.
~i.~',II
f'.
[;
t-j:l
LAND BANKING
( ,
i
<
L..
(.;
~.
The opportunities for housing development have become limited and the list of
potential sites shown in the AACP has become shorter as parcels are developed or
removed from consideration, Because land availability is one of the greatest constraints,
there is a need to secure sites for future development When the seven sites evaluated in
this Plan have been developed, the City will continue to have significant levels of
funding to apply to others. It is recognized that when City monitors its need and at the
end of the ten-year planning period, the level of need may not warrant future
development Nonetheless, the City should act now to preserve its options to address
the need if it exists.
,':.;~,
.-....
t:
\,
, .
~ .
t.J
l,~
Based on a review of vacant parcels within and immediately surrounding the City, it
appears that most of the opportunities will be small sites for infill development The
unique characteristics, such as size, shape, topography, and ownership affect the
development potential and it is less likely that the private sector will have greater
interest in the prototypes than with these parcels. This Plan allocates $500,000 per year
to be accumulated for opportunity purchase(s). The funding level could be increased,
depending on the pace of development of the current public-held sites.
I'
,
i
,
'.
,
,
L
- 87-
~-\
>.\
,.,
":,,
"
~, '
~.;
l~.
.~
f
f'}
..--
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
The number of vacant or underdeveloped sites within Aspen is limited. Because of the
limited land supply, the City may need to consider addressing the problem regionally.
By working jointly with other jurisdictions in the Roaring Fork Valley, the City will have
additional opportunities to develop housing, but will have to create solutions that
address housing problems of the other communities as well. Given that this Plan
documents a level of financial resources that exceed the level required to develop the
local public-held sites, the City could provide significant financial resources to regional
solutions.
HOUSING PRODUCTION BY INCOME LEVEL
The number of units to be developed by both the public and private sectors are listed in
Table 46 by income level. The recommended distribution of units reflects the
distribution of household income in the community, as initially documented in the
Needs Assessment The differences by Category in the production and the level of need
range from one percent to six percent. Although the economic performance of
individual sites could improve by increasing the number of Category 3, 4 or R-O units,
the development programs are balanced so that the aggregate production addresses the
community need at each income level.
- 88-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
r! Table 46
\ Total Estimated Production, by Category
l.i, Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
r:,
Category Total
{. 1 2 3 4 RO
Private Sector Options
Infill Prototypes
" East End (Schlumberger) 0 0 30 30 0 60
,
I,. Commercial (The Gap) 0 0 30 30 0 60
t'
'..~ Lodge (Aspen Manor) 0 0 0 0 0 0
~;j
r~ Affordabie Housing Zone Dlst. 0 30 40 30 30 130
~> Mitigation Requirements Q 34 100
,~- .: 33 33 Q
~L:,
, Subtotal Private Sector 0 63 134 123 30 350
'.
l
t~'\ Public Sector Options
('1 Publicly Heid Land
r' Aspen Mass 25 35 35 25 0 120
, Burlingame Ranch 65 80 40 75 70 330
t: ". Parcel 0 20 20 0 0 0 40
, Rio Grande 0 6 8 3 0 17
L': .,' Truscott 32 34 0 0 0 66
r.....'_~
0 USFS 0 19 18 14 0 51
r
"
',-"1 Subtotal Public Sector 142 194 101 117 70 624
~
Wj Total Production 142 257 235 240 10.0 974
',"' Percentage 15% 26% 24% 25% 10% 100%
~., "i
\.j Needs Assessment 179 278 209 299 30 995
i Percentage 18% 28% 21% 30% 3% 100%
i'
,i! Difference ..3% -1% 3% ..5% 7%
(, Source: Economic & Plannina Svstems
, .
!,
L'
\-:..
I , FUNDING PROGRAM
, -
,.
I The City's established housing revenue sources are projected to generate $662 million
' .
toO
I.c", over the next ten years as shown in Table 46. Housing is primarily funded through two
f ;, sources, the one percent Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETr) which is expected generate
t two-thirds of the, revenue at $41.4 million, and a portion of the 0.45 percent dedicated
\;- sales tax, which is expected to generate $9.9 million during the 10-year forecast The net
t . ..-- - 89-
Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Final Report
March 19, 2002
':1
-',)
,
revenues available for development are projected to be $40.8 million for the ten-year
period, which reflects the $25.4 million budgeted for the housing operations and debt
service for previous bond commitments.
',:
Total costs to develop the six publicly held sites are estimated at $190.8 million.
Revenues from the sale or rental of these projects are estimated at $134.3 million and the
public subsidy required, given current proposals for the mix of affordability categories,
is in the range of $56.5 million. Funds for land banking increase project costs by another
$4.5 million.
.'!
".J
~;
Additional funding sources will be needed if the Oty is to accomplish its housing goals
over the next ten years. The Plan has identified five additional sources that leverage
existing assets, incorporate local resources, and use outside capital as needed. While the
list of sources is not exhaustive, the level of subsidy shown provides $13.2 million in
equity and $10.0 million in a short-term loan.
,
'}
The funding program enables the Oty to move forward with multiple projects
simultaneously. The need for additional funding sources, particularly the revolving
loan fund, is to allow the Oty to move aggressively. At the end of the ten-year forecast,
there is a projected surplus of $18.5 million, which accounts for the repayment of the
revolving loan fund. Interest on the loan would reduce this surplus by approximately
ten percent, depending on how the fund was structured.
...1
,:-~)
')
UJ
The City could choose to develop without the additional funding sources, if it moved
forward at a slower pace. For example, if the acquisition of the U.S. Forest Service site
were delayed, the estimated $13.0 million land cost could be covered if it occurred in
2010 or later. Similar adjustments to the priority and sequence of the sites affect the cash
flow and would allow the Oty to move forward, albeit more slowly, without the need
for additional revenue sources.
;:;i
,....
r;j;~
fY!
:;':'1
"f
t:..:I
"'\
- 90-
.. <0 '" ~ 0 '" '" 0 0 0 <C <0 '" 0>
"0 '" '" '" <C 0 '" '" 0 0 0 '" '" '" ....
'" ... .. '" 0 '" ., 0 0 0 '" '" ~ ....
~ - 2! .... <Xi ~ ..; ,: 0 .0 ",' 0 0 0 <Xi <Xi ..; 0
oS ... en ... '" .... 0 '" '" 0 0 0 '" '" '" '"
00 0 ... co '" '" ~ .. 0 O. N ., '" ... 0>
"" ~N o:i .0 0 o:i f ~ a'- 0 N 0 ",' o:i ..;
u <<: 0;- <0 '" ... '? ~ ., ~ ~ '" "! ~
'0<,-
" " N
- ;:: <:;
I " .~ ~ ... 10 '" '" 0 0 '" 0 ., 0 0 ., '" ~ ~
t .l:;t.<, ... ~ .... ~ co 0 ~ '" '" <0 '"
Vl ~ ., ..... ... '" '" ., ~ ~ ~ ~ '"
'" ~ ai N .0 0 o:i ai ai ..; .0
g,o .... '" '" ~ 0 0> ... ... '" ..
, '" '" co '" '" '" '" 0 '"
" '0; o:i N ~ . . , ~ .;
.,r " '"
\ :i: ., '" J:: '" .. 0 .... co 0 0 0 '" '" ~ '" .,
~ N ... '" 0 .... ~ '" '" ... ~ ....
~ ., ... '" '" ... 0 '" ., .. '" '" '" co
\ "'" '" ~ J;: o:i ai 0 <Xi "," <Xi <Xi o:i ..; N
~ '" '" 0 .... ... ... ... '" ~ co
co '" '" "'. '" '" "'. '" '" '" '" '"
... ui N ~ ~ , ~ <Xi o:i .: N ~
~ ~ '"
~
<<:: '" 0 '" '" 0 0 .... !O: 0 0 0 0 ., ... en ~
'. ;:: ., .... <0 ., .... 0 .... ... ;g on
1:t ., ~ '" '" "': 0 co '" '" '"
'" ~ ,: ..; Pi 0 ..; ... ... <Xi .;
'" <0 on 0 on '" ... '" ...
t . <<:: '" ~ '" '" ":. ~ ~ '" '"
~ ",;, ui N ... N , ..; ..; ,: N
U ~
'" 0 '" ~ en 0 ~ '" 0 0 <> <> <> '" .... '"
('~ ., '" <0 '" '" <> '" '" '" <C .,
"",Y <> 0 ... co '" <> .... ., ., ... N
f"'" '" ",' <Xi N o:i 0 ai .: .: ... 0
fS ... '" <C ~ 0 ... '" '" <> ~
'" ... '" .... '" '" '" '" '" .,
t ui N ... ~ , N af af .0 ",-
~ ,
U ,
... ~ J:: ; <> <> ~ ~ 0 <> 0 <> ., ~ '" ..
" ., '" ... 0 '" .... ... ~ '"
<> ~ '" '" '" 0 ... '" '" ~ '"
'" N ..; .; .0 0 N .; .; ,: ...
tj; '" .... '" '" <> '" ... ... 0 ~
'" ... '" ... '" "!. '" '" .... '"
o:i N ..; ... , '" '" ai 0
~
C\ '" '" '" '" '" <> <> '" <> 0 0 <> ., I:! <C on
., <0 en <0 '" <> ;;; ... en '"
., on '" '" '" <> ... ... <> on
N 0 "," ...- ai 0 ai ",- ai .0 ,..:
'" U'l '" .... <> '" .. '" <> ..
N ... ... en U'l ~ N N '" ..
.{", o:i N ..; f . N ..; ..;
. .
, '" U'l N '" N <> Pi ~ <> 0 <> Pi ~ ., .... ..
., ~ <> ~ '" <> .. <> <> <> '" '" ~ ..
~;.J" ., '" ~ .... '" 0 ... '" <> 0 <> '" '" ., "'. ...
(;> N i o:i o:i 0 0 N ,..: 0 ci g ai ai .; N N
; ... .... 0 .. ~ <> 0 ~ ... '"
~ .... '" '? "'. .. <> q ~ ... '" en
f< ui N ..; ..; N ci ..; ori' o:i N
" ~ ~ ~
""'" "I '" ~ ~ ~ ~
~-. ::,' . . ,
lj ,
tJ ... en '" ., '" 0 '" ., <> 0 0 <> ., ., ~ on N
., <> '" ... ;;; 0 ., ~ <> ., ~ ... ... CO>
., '" en '" <> ... ~ 0 ., ~ ... ....
f., N ui ... ..: ai 0 N ,..: 0 0 ,..: .0 ..;
c '" '" '" '" 0 '" ... 0 ., ... '" '"
'" '" ... '" en U'l N "!. ~ "':. ~ N '"
.. ui N ..; o' . 0 <Xi N
c: ~ ~ ~
t.. ~ ~ ~ , ~
C , . .
.!! '" '" en '" 0 0 0 ., 0 0 0 0 ., ., '" '"
OJ ., 0 <0 '" '" 0 '" on '" ~
\ ~ ., 0 ~ '" 0 0 ., ., .... '"
'E N ai ,.: ..: ui 0 ..; ..; ..; ai
h CD ~ N '" '" 0 '" on '" ....
.~ E '" ... '" 'I' '? "':. "': .... ~
CD ,: N .... ';' ';' ..; ai
f'~ 'a ~
.., .
c .E N .... ~ '" '" 0 0 '" 0 0 0 0 ., '" '" 0 E
t , ::I . oJ
II.. '" ., ~ 0 ~ '" '" '" .... '" l:g
., ~ ~ ., '" '" '" '" ...
'" C N ai i ",- ... ... ... 0 '" :~
.;.... ;;
C '" '" 0 <> ., '" ;
\ jjj ::I .... '" '" N '" "!. '" s""':.
< ~
::I Q ui ..; N ~ N '" '" < ;;;
Q :J: , , ~ .
0:
I ) :J: CD .. 8
:a ..,
CD - on c u '"
:5 .. c ~ " " ::I E -
,. , - "l! " CD .., l:! II.. j?;o 0"
~-" ..,
Q ~ c E a:: c " c E '5 B Il
::I " 0. ::I Q .. -
.. .., .., en II.. l!! C- '0 W ~
" 4( II.. C Q C C Ul Q W
.. '0 ::I ~ .. 32 '0 -' Ol - '" c :.
::l I .. II.. C - ,; '" " e 'C " .
.., u; .. .. c ~-
.., c c .. '0 " " .. on " c: "iii 0.. l!! :!~
, " " u C 0 !Xl 0 - a:: 'S: CIl "0 'iii
c 0. ::I U C U U Q '0 .5 u " " '5 0
.. on II.. ... " .. .., .., 15 .. .., 15 .~ w
... " 4( ::I " .. " u; c 'C c > c ,., )( ii. ~'O
... " '" 0 " .. .. ~ " .. &l .. '::1 " ... OJ u .
l:! - .5 CIl :;) !Xl Q W -' <( Ul ,g a:: -' .... Ul u " :; ]
.. Q ;; C ~
:;; " j?;o 0. 't; .. Ul E
Q ';( Q .. ~ ..
{! C3 ... .., " , w
Ul W 0.. <( al Z U 0
"'-