HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20081209MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tom McCabe, Housing Director
DATE OF MEMO: 12/03/08
MEETING DATE: 12/09/08
RE: New Housing Surveys
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: A synopsis of the four housing surveys conducted during 2008
presented by Chris Cares, Director of RRC Associates, and the Housing Director.
BACKGROUND: These studies are the most recent iteration of periodic studies that serve to
inform council with information useful in changing or formulating housing policy.
DISCUSSION: During the 2007 Aspen Housing Summit a variety of issues were discussed
about the existing conditions and continued need for workforce housing and the re-affirmation
that workforce housing is among the most important needs of our community. The challenges of
land acquisition, partnerships, funding, and the impending retirement in place of much of the
current workforce, were major topics of this discussion. The surveys also form an important
source of information for consideration in the update of the AACP.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS : The funding for the housing department portion of the
surveys was approved by council and the BOCC in June 2008.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: None
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The information presented could form the basis for changes in
policy or for direction to gather additional information to that end, at council's discretion.
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION: None needed.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit One: Housing surveys
FXI~/ljri ~'
City of Aspen
Housing Survey Summary
Resident
Employee
Homeowner
Employer
May 2008
Summary of Results
Prepared by:
RRC Associates, Inc
4950 Pearl East Cir., # 103
Boulder, CO 80301
(303) 449-6558
Rees Consulting, Inc.
P,O. Box 3848
Crested Butte, CO 81224
(970) 349-9845
Table of Contents
Study Overview ............................................................................................................... 3
Residents of Affordable Housing in Aspen .............................................................. 4
Introduction .......................................................
Key Findings ......................................................
............................................. 4
Section 1 -Demographics .................................................
Section 2 -Employment and Commuting ......................
Section 3 -Housing Problems ..........................................
Section 4 -Project Information .........................................
Section 5 -Retirement ........................................................
Section 6 -Miscellaneous .
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 23
Key Findings ............................................................................................................... 23
Section 1-Housing Problems .................................................................................. 26
Section 2 -Demographic Characteristics ................................................................ 30
Section 3 -Entry-Level Homeownership ................................................................ 32
Section 4 -Retirement ................................................................................................ 34
..................................... 4
..................................... 6
..................................... 8
...................................10
...................................14
...................................19
.............. 21
Employees Working in Aspen .................................................................................... 23
Aspen Homeowners ..................................................................................................... 35
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 35
Key Findings ............................................................................................................... 36
Section 1-Aspen Homeowner Survey 2008: Summary of Usage Patterns...... 40
Section 2 -Home Characteristics ............................................................................. 41
Section 2 -Homeowner Characteristics .................................................................. 43
Section 3 -Property Use ............................................................................................ 45
Section 4 -Dues and Services ................................................................................... 47
Section 5 -Employment and Home Size Relationships ....................................... 51
Aspen-Area Employers ................................................................................................ 53
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 53
Key Findings ............................................................................................................... 54
Section 1 -Housing-Related Employer Problems ................................................. 56
Section 2 -Employment and Commuting .............................................................. 58
Section 3 -Employee Housing ................................................................................. 60
Appendix A -Homeowner Project Profiles ............................................................. 61
Appendix B -Survey Forms ....................................................................................... 75
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 2
Study Overview
The City of Aspen and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority has
commissioned this survey-based housing study that provides a variety of data
concerning local residents, both their demographics and their evaluations of
different aspects of the community. Specifically, this study includes:
^ The Resident Housing Survey -May, 2008
^ The Employer Housing Survey -May, 2008
^ The Employee Housing Survey -May, 2008
^ The Owner Housing Survey - -September, 2008
This report provides a brief overview of the methodology and selected key
findings from the various surveys. In addition, the City and the Aspen/I'itkin
County Housing Authority have the full data bases that were obtained through
these studies. Requests for access to the underlying data should be directed to
the City or Housing Authority.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 3
Residents of Affordable Housing in Aspen
Introduction
A total of 1,390 surveys were distributed by door hanging to residents of the
following properties. A total of 471 responses were received, which equates to a
34% response rate.
Proi ects Surveyed
Ownership Rentals
Annie Mitchell Alpina Haus
Aspen Highlands Village Aspen Country Inn
Benedict Commons Beaumont (Hospital)
Burlingame Ranch Castle Ridge
Centennial Centennial
Common Ground Hunter Longhouse
Five Trees Maroon Creek Club"
Hunter Creek Mountain Oaks
Little Ajax Truscott Place
Lone Pine Truscott Place LLLP*
Midland Park Ullr Commons
Smuggler Subdivision Ute City Place (st. Regis)
Snyder
Stillwater
Williams Ranch
Williams Woods
Key Findings
• The majority of residents living in Aspen's affordable housing, both
owners and renters, work in Aspen's downtown.
• There is little difference in employment patterns between summer and
winter. The average number of jobs held, the location of employment,
and the average number of employees per household vary little.
• Most residents are satisfied with their housing - 51% are very satisfied.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 4
• Aspen's affordable housing residents have incomes much lower than
other residents with a median household income of $63,000, which
compares with a median family income for Pitkin County of $97,600.
• Only 10% of owners are under the age of 35.
• Most renters (80%) would like to move within the next 5 years, the desire
to move into ownership being the primary reason. Most owners would
like to stay in their current homes; of the 43% who want to move, most
want a larger home.
• Of 13 unit design variables that were tested, energy efficiency rated the
lowest in terms of satisfaction. Residents are generally very satisfied with
various aspects of the locations were they live.
• While Aspen's affordable housing is generally affordable, 28% of renters
spend more than 30% of their income on their rent payment. In contrast,
61% of homeowners have mortgage payments that equal less than 20% of
their household income.
• While the majority of affordable housing residents (63%) plan to live and
work in Aspen until they retire, there is a correlation with length of
residency; new arrivals are much less certain about their future plans.
• 15% of the employees living in Aspen's affordable housing plan to retire
within the next five years, and most of them want to stay in the homes
where they now live.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 5
Section 1-Demographics
Who Lives in Affordable Housing
Household Composition, Age and Children
Family members only
I live alone
Unmarried couple
Unrelated roommates
Family members and
unrelated roommates
Age 18 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 -74
75 or older
Presence of children unde
age 6 in your home
Presence of children age
- 18 in your home
20%
~~~:< ti' S7 0
57 °
u ~,.. 2
80
14%
~- 4%
0%
3%
4%
0
35%
31%
`` 34%
~ ~.~,
;~ . 2
~ ~~~ , ~
~%
6%
1%
1%
r 7°/
21%
~ ^ Rent
6 ~ ~, ~,
Own
9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 6
Respondent Ages by Own/Rent
Age of Respondent Overall Own Rent
18 - 24 2% 4%
25 - 34 20% 10% 35%
35-44 33% 34% 31%
45 - 54 22% 28% 15%
55 - 64 17% 21 % 12%
65 -74 4% 6% 2%
75 or older 1 % 1 % 1
100% 100% 100%
Average Age 44 48 40
Median Age 43 47 37
Length of Residency
Less than 1 year
How long have you lived in
the area? 1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
More than 10 years
Less than 1 year
How long have you lived in
your current residence? 1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
More than 10 years
o°ro
4%
1%
6%
' 3%
23%
8%
22%
88%
"/o
-'+ 1
30°
8%
28%
1 % ~ Own
24%
^ Rent
~ ' 26%
~r~
~,
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 7
Household Income -Overall Median: $63,012
$150,000 or more
$100,000 - $149,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$25,000 - $49,999
Under $25,000
1%
Rent Own
3° Median $46,000 Median $66,500
Average $51,425 Average $72,160
10%
7%
^ Rent
9% D Own
:-~:- 30%
42°/
~;; : ::;fir.' + ,~' .: - 4%
11%
2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Section 2 - Employment and Commuting
Where Residents Work by Season 40% 45%
Winter Summer
# % #
Aspen Downtown 407 60.9% 416 66.2%
Airport Business Park 55 8.2% 58 9.2%
Aspen Highlands area 50 7.5% 39 6.2%
Buttermilk area 24 3.6% 4 0.6%
Snowmass Village 44 6.6% 37 5.9%
Other 88 13.2% 74 11.8%
Total 668 100.0% 628 100.0%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 8
Where Residents Work by Own/Rent
Owners Renters
Aspen Downtown 61.0% 67.2%
Airport Business Park area 8.7% 8.8%
Aspen Highlands area 8.4% 4.6%
Buttermilk area 2.7% 1.3%
Snowmass Village 6.7% 5.5%
Other* 12.5% 12.6%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
More than 5 miles
2 to 5 miles
1 to 2 miles
1/2 to 1 mile
1/4 to 1/2 mile
Less than 1/4 mile
* includes variable job sites, like construction work
Distance Traveled to Work
8.1 /o
-. ~, :~ ::: 5.8%
22. /o
~,
4.2%
Y . ~ ;, ~ t_ 20.0°/O
12.
" ~~,~ "`~ 9.2%
12.
9.4% ^ Rent
,q .. 12.5 /o ~ Own
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
Vehicles Parked at Home
Number Cars/Trucks Percent
0 6.0%
1 54.1%
2 34.2%
3+ 5.7%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 9
Section 3 -Housing Problems
Satisfaction with Current Residence
Somewhat
37°i
Very Satisfied
51%
Satisfaction with Housing by Time Lived in Current Home
51.5%
Less than 1 year ° 30.9% p 1 -Very Satisfied
_ ~ --:;~ ,., a ;..;,,~ 15. /o ^ 2 -Somewhat Satisfied
2.1% ~ 3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied
39.8% p 4 -Very Dissatisfied
1 to 2 years _ 2% 9.0%
L 3.1%
L 49.4%
3 to 5 years ° 40.5%
~' .9 /o
~ 1.3%
E
~.
~ 56.
s
6 to 10 years ° 32.1%
a ,, .3 /o
3.6%
60.2%
More than 10 years 30.7%
5.7 0
3.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 10
Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied
9% 3%
Sat isfaction with Housing by Time Lived in the Area
50.0%
Less than 1 year 25.0 0 ^ 1 -Very Satisfied
°
;: ~ ~ ~:, 12.5 /o ^ 2 -Somewhat Satisfied
12.5% l 3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied
^ 4 -Very Dissatisfied
25.0 0
5 .3%
1 to 2 years
°
L
•° 31.1%
46.
3 to 5 years _
e °
f-,, ~. w 20.0%
.
,
y 2.2%
on
,~ 9.1%
4 .3%
6 to 10 years
3.6%
57 1
31.6%
More than 10 years
°
'' . 8 2 /o
3.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70°i
Affordability -- Percentage of Income Spent on Housing Payment
Owners Renters Overall.
Under 20% 60.9% 36.9% 50.2%
20-30% 23.1 % 35.2% 28.5%
30-35% 5.3% 11.7% 8.2%
35-40% 7.1 % 5.0% 6.2%
40-50% 1.8% 7.3% 4.2%
Over 50% 1.8% 3.9% 2.7%
Total 100.0% .100.0% 100.0%
Total Cost Burdened 16.0% 27.9% 21.3%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 11
Affordability -- Percentage of Income Spent on Housing Payment
Under 20%
20-30%
30-35%
35-40%
40-50%
Over 50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
~ t•7 ,~ .~~ ,. ~r'.d,- ;~,;,t. r r}'~~~~i,.. 50.2°/O
60.9%
3 .9%
+.k 8.5%
23.1 °/
35.
.2%
5.3 ° C st-burde ed
11.7%
6.2 /o
7.
5.0°
4.2°/
1.8%
7.
8 Overall ^ Owners ^ Renters
2.7%
1.8%
3.9%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 12
Desire to and Reason for Wanting to Move
Do you want to purchase No
a new or different home
within the next s years?
Yes
If yes, why?
Need/want larger home
Want to own -now rent
Other
Want newer home
Want to live in different
neighborhood
Want to live closer to
work
Need/want smaller, less
expensive home
s °ro
20% ^ Own
^ Rent
43°/
80%
6s o
44°
0% 1
82%
9%
11%
14°
1
13°/
7 /o
7 /o
7 /o
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% s0% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Would Like to Move within 5 Years by Satisfaction
1 -Very Satisfied
2 -Somewhat
Satisfied
~+
a
..
~ 3 -Somewhat
Dissatisfied
w
a
4 -Very Dissatisfied
69.6%
8.s%
24.
44.
s.0 0
12.3° ^ No
^ Yes
0.6%
4.4° o
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% s0% 60% 70% 80%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 13
Section 4 - Protect Information
Unit Design
Average Rating: l =Not at all satisfied; 5 =Very satisfied
TYPE OF UNIT
SUNLIGHT
SIZE OF UNIT
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
WINDOWS
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
KITCHEN
HEATING SYSTEM
CLOSET SPACE
STORAGE
INTERIOR FINISH
APPLIANCES
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
4.02
3.7
4.08
3.51
.9
3.6
3.81
3.7
3. 5
3 34
3.58
3.31
3.6
3.1
3.46
.41
.4
3.
3.21
.38
.42
3.06
.44 ^ Own
3.01
3.1 Rent
.9
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 14
Exterior and Common Areas
Average Rating: l =Not at all satisfied; 5 =Very satisfied
DUMPSTER/TRASH
REMOVAL
LAUNDRY
FACILITIES
EXTERIOR
LIGHTING
EXTERIOR
APPEARANCE
LANDSCAPING
PARKING
PETS
COMMON
AMENITIES
PLAY AREAS
.95
3.98
^ Own
^ Rent
3.53
3.06
3.55
3. 1
3.7
3.09
3.57
3.1
.42
3.12
3.6
2.63
3.47
.93
3. 3
3.01
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3,0 3.5 4.0 4.5
RRC Associates/12ees Consulting Page 15
Location
Average Rating: l =Not at all satisfied; 5 =Very satisfied
PROXIMITY TO BUS
STOPS
BIKE PATH/TRAIL
ACCESS
LOCATION
SENSE OF SAFETY
NEIGHBORHOOD
SURROUNDING
USES
SOUND LEVELS
4.6
4.57
4.6
4.52
4.
.37
4.
4. 8
4.57
4.1
4.52
4.11
3.6 0 Own
^ Rent
3. 4
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Profiles for each project or for groups of several of the smaller projects are
included in Appendix A to this report.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 16
Average Rating -Rental Properties
(scale of 1-Not at all satisfied to 5 -Very satisfied)
All
Renters
Grp.1
Grp.2 Centen-
nial Truscott
Place Castle
Ridge
Number of bathrooms 3.7 3.1 3.5 3.6 4.0 4.1
Type of unit 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.8
Size of unit 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.8 3.5 3.8
Sunlight 3.5 3.5 3.3 4.0 3.3 3.3
Storage 3.4 3.2 3.0 3.8 3.2 3.5
Heating systems 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.8 3.2
Size of bathrooms 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.8 3.4
Windows 3.3 3.7 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.0
Closet Space 3.2 3.0 2.9 3.5 3.2 3.2
Kitchen 3.2 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.6 3.1
Interior Finish 3.1 3.4 2.9 2.9 3.4 2.7
Appliances 3.0 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.1
Energy EfFciency 2.9 3.2 3.0 2.4 3.6 2.2
Dumpster/trash removal 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.1
Exterior lighting 3.3 3.9 2.9 3.3 3.3 2.8
Landscaping 3.2 3.7 3.0 3.0 3.3 2.8
Laundry facilities 3.1 3.3 2.4 2.8 3.5 3.1
Exterior appearance 3.1 3.9 2.9 2.7 3.0 3.0
Parking 3.1 3.8 3.5 2.6 3.0 3.0
Play areas 3.0 3.1 2.7 3.1 3.2 2.7
Common amenities 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.8 3.2 2.7
Pets 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.4
Proximity to bus stops 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.3 4.6
Bike path/trail access 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.6
Location 4.4 4.3 4.8 4.6 3.9 4.4
Sense of safety 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.0 4.4
Neighborhood 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.3 3.8 4.2
Surrounding uses 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.3 3.9 4.0
Sound levels 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.0 3.2 3.2
Group 1: Alpina Haus, Aspen Country Inn, Beaumont, Maroon Creek
Group 2: Mountain Oaks, Hunter Longhouse, Ute City, Ullr Commons
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 17
Average Rating -Ownership Properties
(scale of 1-Not at all satisfied to 5 -Very satisfied)
All
Owners
Grp.1
Grp.2
Grp.3
Centennial Burlingame Smuggler Aspen
Highlands
Sunlight 4.1 3.7 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 3.3
Type of unit 4.0 3.6 4.0 4.6 3.8 4.2 3.9 3.9
Size of unit 3.9 3.1 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.1 3.8
Number of
bathrooms
3.8
3.1
3.4
3.9
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.4
Windows 3.8 3.7 3.9 4.0 3.2 4.1 4.0 3.3
Kitchen 3.7 3.3 3.5 3.8 3.2 4.3 4.0 3.5
Size of bathrooms 3.6 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.0 4.3 4.0 4.1
Heating system 3.5 3.8 2.9 3.5 2.9 4.3 4.0 2.8
Closet space 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.8 2.7 4.0 3.7 3.2
Interior finish 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.6 3.1 4.1 3.7 3.1
Appliances 3.4 3.3 3.7 3.4 3.1 3.8 3.9 2.7
Storage 3.2 3.3 2.6 3.3 3.3 3.8 3.5 2.6
Energy efficiency 3.2 3.2 2.4 3.4 2.1 4.6 3.5 2.8
Trash removal 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.5 3.8
Laundry facilities 4.0 3.6 4.1 3.5 3.9 4.6 4.1 4.1
Exterior 3.7 3.2 4.1 4.1 3.1 3.8 3.8 3.8
Pets 3.7 3.4 3.5 4.5 3.9 3.2 4.1 2.9
Landscaping 3.6 3.5 4.2 3.8 3.4 2.7 4.1 3.4
Exterior lighting 3.6 4.0 3.4 3.8 3.6 3.2 3.8 3.1
Common amenities 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.2
Parking 3.4 4.1 3.5 3.5 3.4 2.2 4.1 3.5
Play areas 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.3 2.9 3.6 3.6
Proximity to bus 4.7 4.5 4.9 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.9
Location 4.7 4.5 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.9 4.6
Trail access 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.8 4.6
Sense of safety 4.7 4.4 4.8 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.7
Neighborhood 4.6 4.3 4.6 4.8 4.4 4.7 4.6 4.5
Surrounding uses 4.5 4.1 4.7 4.9 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.4
Sound levels 3.7 2.9 3.8 4.5 3.0 4.0 4.1 3.1
Group 1: Annie, Benedict, Hunter Creek
Group 2: Common Ground, Lone, Midland, Williams Woods
Group 3: Five, Ajax, Snyder, Stillwater, Williams Ranch
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 18
Section 5 -Retirement
Plans to Live and Work in Aspen until Retirement
Overall
Less than 1 year
~a
d
L
R
~ 1 to 2 yeazs
0
~, 3 to 5 years
s
eo
e
6 to 10 years
0
More than 10 years
~:~ ,r__ _, `.~.. 62.8°r°
9.8% -
2 .4%
Yes
O No, plan to move away
^ Don't know
14.3 0
8.6%
5 .1%
'. 16 7%
8.3%
.5%
45.~%
.9%
33.9°~0 '
:., ;i ', ~~ ~'.,. - 72.4%
5.0°
22.6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Time until Retirement by Age
Time Until
Retirement
25 - 34
35 - 44 Age
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 -74
Overall
Less than 1 year 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.6%
5 years 1.3% 1.8% 1.2% 39.0% 50.0% 9.9%
10 years 1.3% 0.9% 12.3% 40.7% 20.0% 11.1
20 years 10.7% 38.4% 77.8% 20.3% 10.0% 37.1
30 years 40.0% 51.8% 6.2% 0.0% 0.0% 27.2%
More than 30 years 46.7% 7.1 % 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 14.0%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 19
Other
Move out of the
Roaring Fork Valley
Move down valley
Downsize to smaller
home in Aspen
Stay in your current
residence
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
"Other" includes moving into ownership and moving into larger homes.
Type of Neighborhood Desired Upon Retirement
n Retirement neiQhhorhood ^ Mixed-aee neiehborhood O Don't
Move out of the
Roaring Fork Valley
Move down valley
Downsize to smaller
home in Aspen
Stay in your current
residence
~f:Z
~<
58.0%
64.3%
47.1%
~i
u
28.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 20
Where Want to Live upon Retirement
Section 6 -Miscellaneous
Would Prefer Home with Stairs
Own Rent Overall
Yes 47.0% 56.3% 53.1
No 53.0% 43.8% 46.9%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Would Prefer a Home with Stairs by Age
45%
40%
35%
~.
w 30%
L
d
d 25%
it
a
'b 20%
O
3 15%
e
10%
5%
0%
8.4%
3.2%
18 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64
Age of Respondent
Trade Offs 65 -74 75 or older
1st 2nd 3rd
Price -the rent or purchase amount 29.4% 21.8% 8.4%
Location -the community in which you want to live 29.8% 31.5% .19.2%
Unit size -square feet; number of bedrooms 20.2% 25.9% 29.9%
Unit type -condo, townhome, house 15.6% 12.0% 36.0%
Ownership -ability to own your own unit 5.0% 8.8% 6.5%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 21
Utilization of Day Care -Now and In Future
Own Rent Overall
Yes 24.7% 28.3% 26.2%
No 75.3% 71.7% 73.8%
100% 100% 100%
Day Care Preferences
~o.oo°io
so.oo°i°
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
Median Number of Vehicles at Home
Own Rent Overall
CarslTrucks 1.57 1.17 1.40
Recreational Vehicles 0.47 0.38 0.43
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 22
Employees Working in Aspen
Introduction
Surveys were distributed to employees working in Aspen through place of work,
while commuting on RFTA buses and at bus stops. Specifically:
• All members of the Aspen Resort and Chamber Association were sent an
email with a link to an on-line version of the employee survey and asked
to forward it to their employees.
• The 101argest employers were given both paper versions of the survey
and the link to the on-line version depending upon their preference for
distribution to their employees.
• Paper versions in both English and Spanish were distributed on buses and
at bus stops.
• Paper- surveys were also given to restaurants, retailers and other
employers in the downtown area for distribution to their employees.
A drawing for $50 grocery store certificates and one-month passes to the Aspen
Recreation Center was offered as an incentive. A total of 575 surveys were
received from employees who work in Aspen.
Key Findings
• Of the 575 employees surveyed, 261 or 45% now live in Aspen.
Commuters typically have lower response rates than other employees, at
least in part due to the time they must spend commuting. The percentage
of employees who commute is thus likely higher than 55%.
Many of the employees commuting into Aspen for work do so because
they are unable to live in Aspen. Over half of the employees commuting
from the Basalt/El Jebel area would rather live in Aspen as would 42% of
the employees living in Carbondale and 48% of those who now live in
Glenwood Springs or in the towns along the I-70 corridor.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 23
• Most of Aspen's employees have found housing that is affordable given
their incomes (housing payment does not exceed 30% of their income).
Approximately 21%, however, live in housing that is not affordable.
There is a direct correlation with income. Over 80% of households with
extremely low incomes (<_ 30% AMI) and 55% of those with very low
incomes (31% - 50%AMI) are cost burdened by high housing payments.
• The median payment for housing occupied by Aspen employees living
both in town and down valley is $1,500 for owners and $1,025 for renters.
• While nearly three-fourths of employees are satisfied with their housing,
satisfaction levels vary by current place of residence, income and the type
of unit in which they now live. Of no surprise, those living in single
family homes are the most likely and mobile home residents are the least
likely to be "very satisfied". Employees living in subsidized housing tend
to be slightly more satisfied with their housing than employees living in
free-market housing. Employees living in housing provided by their
employers are less satisfied than other employees.
• The average age of employees is nearly 44. Renters are younger than
owners but. still average over 37 years of age.
• Most of the homeowners working in Aspen are families but nearly 30% of
renters live with unrelated roommates.
• The median household income of Aspen employees is $79,000. Renters
make considerably less with a median of $60,000 compared to a median of
$100,000 for owners.
• Nearly one-third of employees surveyed live in housing provided by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The majority of employees
(59%), however, reside in free-market housing.
• Price and location far outweigh unit size and type in terms of priorities
when choosing a place to live.
• Of renters who would like to buy a condominium or townhome, about
one-fourth are families, about 70% have incomes of $50,000 or greater, and
most would like to live where dogs are allowed.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 24
• Nearly 12% of employees who own their homes plan to retire within the
next five years and most of them (57%) plan to stay in their homes. About
7% would like to move down valley and 20% would like to move out of
the valley. Interest in down sizing within the same town is small but
exists. Renters are most interested in moving out of the Roaring Fork
Valley upon retirement
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 25
Section 1-Housing Problems
Monthly Housing Payment by Own/Rent
Overall Own Rent
None, do not pay rent or mortgage 3.7 4.2 3.3
Under $250 0.6 1.0
$250 - $499 2.2 0.8 3.3
$500 - $749 11.5 7.2 14.9
$750 - $999 16.5 11.4 20.5
$1000 - $1249 19.4 16.5 21.8
$1250 - $1499 7.8 7.2 8.3
$1500 - $1749 12.4 12.2 12.5
$1750 - $1999 5.7 8.4 3.6
$2000 - $2499 7.8 10.5 5.6
$2500 - $2999 5.2 8.4 2.6
$3000 - $3499 2.4 3.4 1.7
$3500 - $3999 2.2 4.2 0.7
$4000 - $4499 1.1 2.5
$4500 - $4999 ~ 0.4 0.8
$5000 - $5999 0.4 0.8
$6000 - $6999 0.6 0.8 0.3
$8000 - $8999 0.2 0.4
100% 100% 100%
Average $1,437 $1,762 $1,183
Median $1,200 $1,500 $1,025
Affordability by Own/Rent
Shading denotes cost burden.
Income Spent on Housing Pmt. Overall Own Rent
Under 20% 49.3 51.4 47.6
21-30% 29.6 30.7 28.7
31-35%0
i ~.=~ _
; 4.9 3.7 5.8
364(3% : ~'"' ~
~
~ 5.3 6.4 4.4
41-55~t}% 4:9 4.1 5.5
th~r 50% ' ~~~~ 6. T 3.7 8.0
100% 100% 100%
Total Cost Burdened 21.1 % 17.9% 23.6%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 26
Affordability by AMI
Shading denotes cost burden.
Income Spent on
Housing
530% Area Median Income (AMI)
31-50% 51-80% 81-100% 101-120%
121-140% Over 140%
Under 20% 16.7 18.4 23.1 46.5 58.0 62.3 70.7
21-30% 26.3 42.3 34.0 30.9 34.0 20.2
31-35% 5.6 15.8 7.7 5.6 2.5 1.0
36-40% 5.6 15.8 4.9 6.2 1.9 6.1
41-50% 10.5 11.5 6.9 1.2 1.9 2.0
Over 50% 72.2 13.2 15.4 2.1 1.2
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total Cost Burdened 83.3% 55.3% 34.6% 19.4% 11.1 % 3.8% 9.1
Where Live Compared to Where Want to Live
here Want to Live
Aspen Where Now Live
Other Basalt/EI
Pitkin Jebel
Co
Carbondale
Glenwood
Sprs.l-70
Towns, Other
Snowmass Village 0.8% 23.2% 2.5% 6.8% 4.8%
Aspen 94.fi% 62.596 54.2% 4;°~ 48.4%0
Woody Creek, Old Snowmass 0.8% 8.9% 1.7% 3.4% 4.8%
Basalt, EI Jebel 1.5% 3.6% 39.0% 6.8% 12.9%
Carbondale 1.5% 1.8% 1.7% 37.3% 6.5%
Glenwood Springs 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.4%
I-70 Towns 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 1.6%
Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 1.6%
N = 261 56 118 59 62
13t Choice Location -Where Commuters into Aspen Want to Live
1st C hoice R esidence
Location
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 27
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Satisfaction with Housing
Very Dissatisfied
Somewhat 7%
Dissatisfii
20%
~~~ry Satisfied
33%
Somewhat Satisfied
40%
Satisfaction with Housing by Own/Rent
Overall Own Rent
1 -Very Satisfied 33.2 50.4 19.8
2 -Somewhat Satisfied 39.5 36.9 41.5
3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied 20.3 9.9 28.5
4 -Very Dissatisfied 7.0 2.8 10.2
100% 100% 100%
Reasons for Dissatisfaction
Overcrowded/no privacy/too small 43.0 37.8 45.6
Too expensive 51.4 31.7 60.9
Too far from work 40.6 56.1 33.1
Not in desirable location 13.1 8.5 15.4
Unavailable year-round 5.6 8.3
Disturbance from nearby short-term rentals 10.8 12.2 10.1
Unit in poor condition 4.0 5.9
Too far from transit 1.6 2.4
Other 3.2 1.2 4.1
Total* 173.3% 147.6% 185.8%
* Multiple response question; total exceeds 100%.
Satisfaction Levels by Median Household Income
$ioo,ooo
$90,000
$80,000
$~o,ooo
E
~ $60,000
c
~ $50,000
A
~ $40,000
y
2
$30,000
$zo,ooo
S1o,oo0
So
4 -Very 3-Somewhat 2-Somewhat 1- Ve ry S atisfied
Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 28
Satisfaction Levels by Where Now Live
S nowmass Village
c
° Aspen
.o
u
O
~ Woody C reek or Old S nowmass
a
v
c
a, Basalt or el J ebel
~_
,N
°C Carbondale
..
c
a
L
3 G lenwood S prings
U
New castle, S ilt, R ifle, or Parachute
0%
Satisfaction Levels -Subsidized and Free-Market Housing Compared
~ S nowmass Village
~ Housing Office
N
=a
•
N
3
Aspen/Pitkin
`~ County Housing
~
-o Authority
d
..
u
~ Your employer
-o
d
d
D
-a
«' None of the above
c
~+ -free market
50%
33%
43
9%
5%
21%
^ 1 - Very S atisfied
32%
32% ^ 2 - S omewhat S atisfied
D3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied
^4 -Very Dissatisfied
33%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 29
10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Satisfaction by Type of Current Residence
Apartment
C ondominium/townhouse/duplex
Mobile home
°,
a
Dormitory/room without kitchen
S Ingle-family house
C aretaker unit
^ 1 - Very S atisfied ^4 -Ve ry Dissatisfied
24
12%
33%
3%
19%
3%
25°
8%
6%
40
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Section 2 - Demographic Characteristics
Age and Gender by Own/Rent
Age of Respondent Overall Own Rent
18 - 24 6.2 0.4 10.6
25 - 34 30.3 13.2 43.5
35 - 44 23.9 26.9 21.6
45 - 54 23.0 33.3 15.0
55 - 64 13.6 22.2 7.0
65 - 74 1.9 2.1 1.7
75 or older 1.1 1.7 0.7
100% 100% 100%
Average Age 43.6 51.6 37.4
Median Age 40 48 33
Gender
Male 44.9 45.0 44.9
Female 55.1 55.0 55.1
100% 100% 100%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 30
Household Composition by Own/Rent
Overall Own Rent
Live alone 21.1 13.7 26.7
Family members only 46.5 71.0 27.6
Family members & unrelated roommates 3.9 5.2 2.8
Unrelated roommates 16.7 3.6 26.7
Unmarried couple 10.9 6.5 14.3
Unmarried couple & unrelated roommates 1.1 1.9
100% 100% 100%
Household Income by Own/Rent
Overall Own Rent
Under $25,000 4.1 2.3 5.6
$25,000 - $49,999 16.3 5.0 25.0
$50,000 - $74,999 26.1 22.5 28.8
$75,000 - $99,999 18.6 18.0 19.1
$100,000 - $149,999 25.3 36.5 16.7
$150,000 - $199,999 6.9 10.4 4.2
$200,000 - $249,999 1.8 3.6 0.3
$250,000 - $299,999 0.4 0.9
$300,000 - $349,999 0.6 0.9 0.3
100% 100% 100%
Average $84,265 $103,213 $69,675
Median $79,000 $100,000 $60,000
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 31
Type of Housing Occupied, by Own/Rent
Subsidized or Free Market Overall Own Rent
Snowmass Village Housing Office 2.1 1.2 2.9
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority 31.0 37.6 25.7
Your employer 6.2 0.8 10.5
Your spouse's/roommate's employer 1.4 2.5
Other government/Section 8/tax credits 0.7 0.4 1.0
None of the above -free market 58.6 60.0 57.5
100% 100% 100%
Unit Type
Apartment 28.2 2.4 48.3
Condominium/townhouse/duplex 30.0 44.6 18.6
Mobile home 5.4 5.6 5.3
Dormitory/room without kitchen 1.4 2.5
Single-family house 30.3 47.0 17.3
Caretaker unit 1.7 3.1
Other 3.0 0.4 5.0
100% 100% 100%
Section 3 -Entry-Level Homeownership
Priorities and Trade Offs
Overall Own Rent
Price -the rent or purchase amount 35.1 21.2 45.4
Location -the community in which you live 29.0 25.1 31.9
Unit size -Square feet, number of bedrooms 5.1 8.2 2.9
Unit type -condo, townhome, house 2.0 1.7 2.2
Ownership -ability to own your own unit 28.7 43.7 17.6
100% 100% 100%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 32
Household Composition -- Renters who Want to Buy Condo or Townhome
Unrelated roommates
I live alone
Family members only
Unmarried couple
Family members and unrelated
roommates
Unmarried couple and unrelated
roommates
Income Distribution -Renters who Want to Buy Condo or Townhome
Income Range % Households
Under $25,000 4.1%
$25,000 - $49,999 26.6%
$50,000 - $74,999 28.9%
$75,000 - $99,999 19.7%
$100,000 - $149,999 17.4%
$150,000 - $199,999 2.3%
$200,000 - $249,999 0.5%
$300,000 - $349,999 0.5%
Total 100.0%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 33
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Opinions about Living Where Dogs are Allowed
Renters who Want to Buy Condo or Townhome
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0
5.0%
0.0
Section 4 -Retirement
Plans to Retire in Next 5 Years
Overaff Own Rent
No 92.1 88.0 95.3
Yes 7.9 12.0 4.7
100% 100% 100%
Stay in your current residence 53.3 56.7 46.7
Downsize to smaller home in the same town 4.4 6.7
Move down valley 6.7 6.7 6.7
Move out of the Roaring Fork Valley 20.0 16.7 26.7
Other 15.6 13.3 20.0
100% 100% 100%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 34
Would prefer to Neutral, not Desirable but not Yes, absolutely
live where dogs important required necessary
are not a Ilowed
Aspen Homeowners
Introduction
In total, a sample of 3,000 homeowner surveys was mailed to homeowners with
properties located in the Aspen zipcodes (81611, 81612). Households were
selected for inclusion in the sample based on residential parcel information that
was obtained from the Pitkin County Assessor's website. All residences with
finished square footage of more than 3,000 square feet were mailed a survey
form (1,459). The remaining 1,541 surveys were randomly mailed to residences
with less than 3,000 finished square feet.
Additionally, 400 surveys were hung on doors of units in excess of 3,000 square
feet. (These homes were also intended to receive the survey in the mail.) The
additional door hanging was to insure adequate representation of larger homes
within the City of Aspen. This representation of larger homes was done to best
examine the relationship between employment and home square footage across
the full spectrum of home sizes, including very large homes. Therefore, when
evaluating responses to survey questions, the results should be understood in the
context of the particular sampling. It should be noted, however, that regression
analysis is used to analyze these data and this statistical technique is not
influenced by the oversampling of larger homes. A total of 381 surveys were
returned out of 3,000 households contacted, for a response rate of 12.7%.
The survey included responses from owners of a variety of different types of
housing including condos/townhomes, duplexes and single family homes.
Respondents reported on residences that ranged in size from less than 999 square
feet to greater than 10,000 square feet. The sample included 45 homes (14% of
valid sample) over 6,000 square feet, of which 8 homes were over 10,000 square
feet.
The survey included homes distributed throughout Aspen with the West End
most represented (27% of the total), followed by East of Aspen and the
Downtown (13% each).
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 35
The primary purpose of the 2008 City of Aspen Homeowner Survey was to
gather data on the employment associated with the residences in the City of
Aspen. The survey also gathered extensive data about selected operational and
maintenance characteristics of homes, as well as the use patterns and
demographics of homeowners, which maybe of interest for other policy,
planning and research purposes. The City of Aspen is interested in
understanding the link between residences and job generation, particularly the
lower-paying service jobs, to be able to anticipate and plan for the housing needs
of residential service employees in the area.
This surveying effort was designed to provide information for a variety of
purposes. It complements several of the other surveys conducted by the City of
Aspen and the Aspen/ Pitkin County Housing Authority, including surveys of
residents of City-assisted housing, commuters and employers. This Owners
Survey was intended to specifically address employment generated by homes of
various sizes in the City of Aspen. The resulting data maybe used to inform and
support housing-related code requirements as maybe considered by the City in
the future.
Key Findings
• The survey examined the hours per week and weeks per year spent
working as an "employer or an employee producing goods and services
for residents and/or visitors to Aspen." About 28% of respondents report
they spent some hours per week producing goods and services for
residents/visitors, with an average of 37 hours per week. These owners
work an average of 45 weeks per year producing these services.
Combining these measures, the data suggest that each Aspen homeowner
works the equivalent of approximately 23percent of a "full time
equivalent" worker producing goods and services for Aspen
residents/visitors. Put another way, three out of four residences are
owned/occupied by persons not contributing to the production of goods
and services. Note that these work patterns reflect owners of
predominantly larger units, and include a combination of working-age
locals as well as retirees and second home owners.
(Explanation: 28% spend time x 37 hours x 45 weeks = 466 hours per year
per responding household. Using the measure of 2,020 hours available
per worker per year, 466/2020 = .23 or 23%.)
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 36
• While 25% of the sample was made up of homes constructed since 2000, a
large share of homes represented in the study were built in 1979 or earlier
(43%). The average year of construction was 1981, and the median year of
construction was 1987.
• Owner household demographics were profiled. The median annual
household income of respondents was $250,000 but the average income
was $1.3 million. About 43% of respondents reported incomes over
$300,000 annually. The median and average age of respondents were both
60 years, with 40% reporting they were 65 years or older.
• Remodeling is an activity impacting a large percentage of Aspen homes.
About 26% of respondents report they remodeled recently and 10% have
plans to remodel. Of those that have remodeled recently, 78% have done
so since 2005. About 32% had spent more than $500,000 on their
remodels, with an average expenditure of $543,000. Of those with plans to
remodel (10% overall) most will do so within the next two years (92%).
• About 17percent of respondents report that they have accessory units.
The use of these units was measured. About 38% were rented long-term
to local residents, 24percent were used as caretaker residences, 19percent
were used for guests of the household, and 16percent were used by
household members. Only 8percent were reported to be vacant and
3percent were rented short-term. (Note -responses on this question sum
to greater than 100percent because of multiple types of use reported.)
• The future use of properties was evaluated through the survey and results
indicate that most respondents. will maintain their current use (68percent)
followed by increased personal use (25percent). About 7percent reported
that they will retire to Aspen and use the residence as a retirement
residence and an additional 4percent expect to become a full time resident
of Aspen. In other words, by this measure, about 1lpercent of all
respondents, or 23% of current non-resident respondents, indicate that
they will become residents of Aspen, either through retirement or moving
as a full time resident. While probably overstated, this is a substantial
percentage that indicates potentially significant shifts in the usage of
second homes over time.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 37
A primary purpose of the survey was to determine employment
associated with Aspen residences and the related costs of maintenance,
association fees, etc. These findings are reported in greater detail in the
next section of the report. Selected observations include:
About half (45percent) of respondents use or belong to a
homeowners association. Fifty-two percent hire contractors and
employees to provide services, 27percent hire a property
management company and 10percent report an on-site
caretaker. About 18percent indicate they do not use outside
services for their home.
^ Of the group that pays dues to a homeowners association
(45percent), snow removal, trash removal and lawn and
landscape services are the most identified services that are
received. Dues average about $5,400 annually.
^ Similar breakdowns were observed for other types of services
used by households including contractors/employees, property
management companies, and caretakers.
^ In addition, the survey looked at other services obtained locally
or that were brought to Aspen by second homeowners/part-
time residents. These services included chefs/kitchen helpers,
personal trainers, child care/nannyies, etc.
^ The total responses to these questions were analyzed and they
became a part of the calculations for Residential Employment
summarized below and presented in more detail in the
attachments.
Employment and Home Size Relationships were analyzed through the
survey. The Residential Study probed four primary categories of
employers/employees that are hired to assist in the operation and
maintenance of residential units. They include:
^ Direct hires by homeowners (including caretakers);
^ Property management firms retained by homeowners to operate
and maintain residential properties;
^ Homeowners associations responsible for operating and
maintaining residential properties; and
^ Other contracted services.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 38
For each type of home service owners were asked to report how much they
spend per year on each service. Annual spending amounts were converted into
direct FTE employment using a combination of wage data and assumptions
regarding non-labor costs.
The employment estimates resulting from this analysis are similar to, although
not quite precisely the same as, "full-time equivalents" (FTE's). Rather, the
employment estimates represent "employee equivalents" for the respective
service occupations, i.e. the number of full-time workers that would typically be
employed to complete the work, based on existing employment patterns in the
respective industries, which presumably includes a blended hybrid of full-time
and part-time employees.
The job generation rates were found to vary by square footage according to the
following exponential function:
Equation of Residential Employee Generation by Home Size
Total FTE = 0.0976 '~ e('~03)(Square Footage)
A table in the attachments summarizes the FTE employee generation rates that
were calculated by applying the above formula.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 39
Section 1-Aspen Homeowner Survey 2008: Summary of Usage Patterns
1. Predominant use of home*:
Valid Percent
Local resident occupied (owner-occupied or long-term rental) 58.5%
Other: second home Ishort-term rental /other 41.5%
Total 100.0%
*Note: A home is classified as "local resident occupied" if it is used as a primary residence
of the owner andlor as along-term rental to local resident at least 26 weeks per year. ~
Local resident
occupied [owner-
occupied or long-
Olher: second
term rental)
home # shor4
58.596
term rental r
other
41.596
2. Annual average weeks of use of home, by predominant use:
of Use:
A. Local resident occupied
(owner-occupied or long-
term rental)
# of Weeksl % of
B. Other: second home I
short-term rental /other
# of Weeksl % of
ary residence of owner
I term rental to local resident
~tion home for owner or guest of owner
t-term vacation rental -occupied by visitors
Hess or corporate function
total
52.01 100.
Observations regarding usage of "local resident occupied" homes (comprising 58.5% of respondent sample):
- On average, such homes are occupied by the owner or by a long-term renter for fully 50 weeks per year.
These homes are predominantly vacant the remaining 2 weeks per year.
Observations regarding usage of "other: second home /short term rental /other" homes (comprising 41.5% of respondent sample):
- On average, these homes are vacant 65% of the time (33.7 of 52 weeks per year).
-When in use, these homes are most commonly used by the owner as a vacation home or primary residence of owner (26% of weeks),
and to a lesser extent, as short-term vacation rentals (8% of weeks), or are used for other purposes (2% of weeks).
8.5 93.2% 3.7 7.1
1.6 3.1 % 0.2 0.3
0.0 0.1% 9.7 18.7
0.1 0.3% 4.0 7.7
0.0 0.0% 0.1 0.1
0.0 0.1 % 0.6 1.2
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 40
Section 2 -Home Characteristics
Location of Property
Other
West End
Downtown
East of Aspen
Smuggler Mountain
Maroon Creek
Highlands
Shadow Mountain
Cemetery Cove (Truscott)
Castle Creek
2a°i
27%
13°/
13°/
5%
5%
3%
2%
2%
2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Type of Ownership
Free-market housing 89%
Deed-restricted affordable housing 11
Residence Type and Average Number of Bedrooms
Average #
Bedrooms
Single-family house 67% 4.17
Duplex g% 3.71
Condominium or townhome 23% 2.62
Mobile/modular home 1% 2.60
Total 100% 3.72
Other 1 % 0.5
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 41
Lot Size
Small residential lot (less 420/
than 1/3 acre)
Large residential lot (1/3 - 28 /o
1 acre)
Small acreage (1 to 5 11%
acres)
Not applicable: 19%
condo/townhome
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Finished S uare Feet b Unit T e
Condominium
Single-family house Duplex or Townhome Other Total
1 - 999 20 3 23
1000 - 1999 11 1 28 2 42
2000 - 2999 25 11 7 43
3000 - 3999 49 9 5 1 64
4000 - 4999 48 4 6 58
5000 - 5999 28 3 5 36
6000 - 6999 19 2 21
7000 - 7999 8 8
8000 - 8999 5 5
9000 - 9999 3 3
10,000 or more 8 8
Total 204 28 73 2 311
Average
Square Feet
4,575
3,164
2,014
1,655 3,782
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 42
Section 2 -Homeowner Characteristics
What Year Did You Move to Aspen and When Did You
Purchase Your Current Residence
su"/o
®Moved to Aspen
^ Purchased current residence
25%
5";
20%
;; 7
15% -
77r
1.. ;~:.
10% ,
l '~ y~
~.
r,
5% ?g4'
.s.£ ~.~ 3
0%
Before 1960 1960 - 1969 1970 - 1979 1980 - 1989 1990 - 1999 2000 - 2004 2005 or later
How many HOURS PER WEEK do you work as an employer or employee producing goods and
services for residents and/or visitors to Aspen?
None 1%
1 - 5 hours 2%
6 - 10 hours 7%
16 - 20 hours 7%
21 - 25 hours 7%
26 - 30 hours 6%
31 - 35 hours 2%
36 - 40 hours 43%
41 or more hours 26%
Total 100%
Average 36.9
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 43
How many WEEKS PER YEAR do you work as an employer or employee
producing goods and services for residents and/or visitors to Aspen?
None 1%
1 - 5 weeks 1
6 - 10 weeks 4%
11 - 15 weeks 1
16 - 20 weeks 3%
21 - 25 weeks 1
26 - 30 weeks 1
31 - 35 weeks 1
36 - 40 weeks 8%
41 - 45 weeks 3%
46 - 50 weeks 33%
51 - 52 weeks 42%
Total 100%
Average 44.6
Age of Respondent
75 or older
65-74
55 - 64
45 - 54
35-44
25 - 34
Under 18
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting
Page 44
What is your total annual household income?
Local Resident 2"d H ome Owner Overall
$1 - $24,999 1.2% 1
$25,000 - $49,999 7.9% 5%
$50,000 - $74,999 9.1% 6%
$75,000 - $99,999 5.5% 3.2% 5%
$100,000 - $124,999 14.6% 8.4% 12%
' $125,000 - $149,999 4.3% 3%
$150,000 - $174,999 9.1 % 5.3% 7%
$175,000 - $199,999 2.4% 1.1% 2%
$200,000 - $249,999 6.1% 10.5% 8%
$250,000 - $299,999 9.1% 4.2% 7%
$300,000 - $399,999 4.9% 8.4% 6%
$400,000 - $499,999 3.0% 3.2% 4%
$500,000 - $999,999 13.4% 23.2% 16%
$1,000,000 or more 9.1% 32.6% 17%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Average $506,643 $3,062,263 $1,384,060
Median $150,000 $500,000 $250,000
Section 3 -Property Use
Property Used at Least Once During the Season as a:
ouzo
^Summer
70% ° ° ^ Winter
1 % ~ Spring/Fall
60%
50%
42%43°/
40%
30% o 0
~,.
20%
10% 9% 9%
3% 2% 2% 2% ° 0 0 0 0
~~w 1 /0 1 /0 0% 1 /0 1 /0 1 /o
0%
Primary Vacation home Short-term Long-term rental Business or Other purposes Vacant-not
residence for for owner or vacation rental to a local corporate occupied
owner guest of owner occupied by resident
visitors
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 45
How are the accessory units on your property used?
17% of restiondents have accessoru units
Rented long-term to local resident(s) 38%
Caretaker residence 24%
Used by visiting guests of owner/household 19%
Household/family member use 16%
Vacant -not used 8%
Rented short-term to visitors 3%
Total 108%
Who Typically Occupies Your Aspen Home?
Self
Spouse/partner
Children
Friends
Relatives/other family
members
Other 5%
Housemate(s) to whom
you rent a room
Business associates
3%
2%
23%
22%
51%
80%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Which statements most accurately reflect your
intended future use of your residence?
Maintain current personal use 68%
Increase my personal use of the residence 25%
Increase use by friends and family 15%
Use the residence as a vacation/short-term rental unit 7%
Sell the residence 7%
Retire to Aspen and use as retirement residence 7%
Become afull-time resident of Aspen 4%
Decrease current personal use 2%
Rent the residence long-term to local residents 2%
Other 1
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 46
How much did you, or do you plan to, s pend on remodeling?
Recently Plan to
remodeled remodel
(26°h) (10%)
$1 - $49,999 16% 52%
$50,000 - $99,999 15% 4%
$100,000 - $199,999 18% 20%
$200,000 - $299,999 10% 0%
$300,000 - $399,999 6% 0%
$400,000 - $499,999 3% 4%
$500,000 or more 32% 20%
Total 100% 100%
Average $543,899 $225,480
Section 4 -Dues and Services
Services Used by Owner
Hire
contractors/employees
Use or belong to a
homeowners association
Hire a property
managerrlent company
52%
45%
Hire an on-site caretaker
None
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
10%
1
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting
Page 47
What services does your HOA provide?
45% of households na1~ dues to an HOA
Snow removal 75%
Trash removal 61
Lawn/landscape maintenance 53%
Building maintenance (interior and/or exterior) 50%
Insurance 47%
Operation and maintenance of community amenities 33%
Cable television 31
Security 21
Rental management 17%
Housekeeping/cleaning 12%
Swimming pool maintenance -private pool 11
Other 10%
HOA dues per year
$10,000 or more
$9000 - $9999
$8000 - $8999
$7000 - $7999
$6000 - $6999
$5000 - $5999
$4500 - $4999
$4000 - $4499
$3500 - $3999
$3000 - $3499
$2500 - $2999
$2000 - $2499
$1500 - $1999
$1000 - $1499
$500 - $999
$1 - $499
17°
1%
5%
3%
4%
10%
1%
5%
6%
6%
3%
5%
4%
9%
7%
16%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 48
What services do your contractors/employees provide?
52% of households hire contractors/emplouees
Trash removal 75%
Cable television 75%
Lawn/landscape maintenance 69%
Snow removal 67%
Insurance 65%
Housekeeping/cleaning 64%
Security 50%
Building maintenance (interior and/or exterior) 48%
Swimming pool maintenance -private pool 15%
Rental management 6%
Other 3%
What services does your property management company provide?
27% of households hire a property management company
Building maintenance (interior and/or exterior) 74%
Housekeeping/cleaning 47%
Snow removal 44%
Lawn/landscape maintenance 32%
Rental management 30%
Security 30%
Trash removal 24%
Insurance 12%
Cable television 11%
Swimming pool maintenance -private pool 2%
Other 2%
What services does your onsite caretaker provide?
10% of households hire an onsite caretaker
Housekeeping/cleaning 67%
Building maintenance (interior and/or exterior) 62%
Lawn/landscape maintenance 51%
Snow removal 46%
Security 41
Trash removal 33%
Swimming pool maintenance -private pool 15%
Rental management 13%
Cable television 13%
Insurance 10%
Other 5%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 49
How much do you spend each year on the following?
Property
Management
Company
On-Site Contractors/
Caretaker employees
$1-$1999 11% 17% 11%
$2000-$3999 19% 10% 16%
$4000-$5999 14% 13% 13%
$6000 - $7999 8% 0% 5%
$8000 - $9999 3% 0% 4%
$10,000-$11,999 7% 13% 11%
$12,000 - $13,999 12% 0% 2%
$14,000 - $15,999 5% 7% 7%
$16,000 or more 21% 40% 30%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Average $14,517 $29,417 $20,898
Median $6,000 $10,000 $10,000
What other services do you obtain?
Locally Travels with
Household
Chef/kitchen help/caterer 65% 43%
Personal trainer 24% 5%
Child care provider/nanny 17% 57%
Other 15% 10%
Personal assistant 9% 10%
Driver/pilot 7% 33%
Concierge/butler 4% 14%
Total 140% 171
How much do you spend each year on the following?
Average Median
Chef/Kitchen Help/Catering $13,874 $5,000
Child care provider/Nanny $15,586 $2,000
Concierge/Butler $78,333 $80,000
Personal Assistant $41,750 $42,000
Personal Trailer $5,288 $5,000
Driver, Pilot $68,900 $38,500
Other $6,815 $6,000
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 50
Section 5 -Employment and Home Size Relationships
The City of Aspen homeowner survey gathered information on the employment
associated with the operations and maintenance of residential units in Aspen.
The Residential Study probed four primary categories of employees that are
hired to assist in the operation and maintenance of residential units. They
include:
^ Direct hires by homeowners;
^ Hires by property management firms retained by homeowners to
operate and maintain residential properties;
^ Hires by homeowners associations responsible for operating and
maintaining residential properties; and
^ Other contracted services.
For each type of home service the owner uses (homeowners associations,
property management companies, independent contractors, on-site caretakers
and other directly hired employees), owners were asked to report how much
they spend per year on each service. Annual spending amounts were converted
into direct FTE employment using a combination of wage data and assumptions
regarding non-labor costs. Wage data was based on annualized wage rates for
Pitkin County for specified industry sectors, as extrapolated from 2007 QCEW
data.
The employment estimates resulting from this analysis are similar to, although
not quite precisely the same as, "full-time equivalents" (FTE's). Rather, the
employment estimates represent "employee equivalents" for the respective
service occupations, i.e. the number of full-time workers that would typically be
employed to complete the work, based on existing employment patterns in the
respective industries, which presumably includes a blended hybrid of full-time
and part-time employees.
The job generation rates were found to vary by square footage according to the
following exponential function:
Equation of Residential Employee Generation by Home Size
Total FTE = 0.0976 * e~.ooos~~syuare Footage)
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 51
The following table of FTE employee generation rates was calculated by
applying the above formula to the mid-point of each of the residential square-
footage categories shown in the first column.
Residential Job Generation -All unit types
Square Foot
Range FTE
500 0.11
1,000 0.13
1,500 0.15
2,000 0.18
2,500 0.21
3,000 0.24
3,500 0.28
4,000 0.32
4,500 0.38
5,000 0.44
5,500 0.51
6,000 0.59
6,500 0.69
7,000 0.80
7,500 0.93
8,000 1.08
8,500 1.25
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 52
Aspen-Area Employers
Introduction
Employers within Aspen and its urban growth boundary were asked to complete
a 23-question survey concerning how they feel about the availability of
affordable workforce housing, how it is impacting their operations, how their
employment levels and the resulting demand for housing may change in the
future, and about their provision of housing for their employees. The survey
was distributed through a combination of methods aimed at maximizing
responses and intended to allow all employers to participate. These methods
included:
• Via an email from the Aspen Resort and Chamber Association that
included a link to an on-line version of the survey and a .pdf version as an
attachment that employers could print and fax if desired.
• Through direct face-to-face and telephone contact with the 101argest
employers;
• By issuance of a press release that provided the addresses for the on-line
version of the survey, which resulted in their publication;
• By dropping in on employers in the downtown area during their business
hours; and,
• Through phone calls to approximately 15 of the larger employers (ranked
11 through 25 in terms of number of employees).
A total of 98 responses were received from a board representative mix of
employers including the 101argest. Combined, these employers provided jobs to
5,334 employees during the winter and 4,939 during the summer, which equates
to approximately 32% of the average of 16,185 jobs in the Aspen area (Aspen zip
codes).
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 53
Key Findings
86% of employers surveyed feel that the availability of workforce housing
in Aspen is the most critical or one of the more serious problems facing
the community.
The majority (56%) feel that housing for year-round employees should be
the top priority but 38% feel that the housing needs of both year-round
and seasonal employees should be considered equally. They perceive that
the lowest-wage workers have the greatest difficulty finding housing.
Nearly 3/4 of the employers reported that their ability to recruit and retain
employees has gotten harder over the past three years. Survey results
applied to total employment suggest that 3,475 jobs were difficult to fill
and 925 remained unfilled this past year. The numbers were slightly
lower during the summer season - 3,000 jobs were hard to fill and 690
remained unfilled.
It does not appear that visa and immigration regulations are impacting
employers to the extent that housing is; 55% of employers surveyed
reported that visa/immigration limitations have not influenced their
ability to hire employees although 16% indicate the regulations have been
a major limitation.
• Employers report that only 23% of their year-round employees and 34% of
their seasonal workers live in Aspen, which is lower than the 47% found
from the survey of 575 employees.
• About half of the employers surveyed feel that their employment levels
will stay about the same during the next five years while 37% anticipate
growth in the number of jobs they offer. Only five of the employers
surveyed indicated they anticipate a reduction in jobs.
• Most employers anticipate the need to replace retiring employees. They
estimate that 2.8% of their year-round employees will retire within the
next five years.
• Although not all employers responded to the question, 58% of the
employees working for responding employers live in free-market housing,
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 54
28% live in housing provided by the employer and 14% live in other
employee housing.
• The employers surveyed provide a total of 768 employee housing units
during the winter, with a total of 1,897 bedrooms. Slightly fewer units are
provided during the summer months - 644 units with 1,392 bedrooms.
Many employers indicated they might be willing to provide more housing
assistance than they now offer. Only 27% indicated they would not
consider offering any of the six types of housing assistance tested.
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 55
Section 1-Housing-Related Employer Problems
Employer Perceptions about Workforce Housing and Hiring Employees
Not a problem
One of the Town's lesser problems
A moderate problem
One of the more serious problems
The most critical problem in the Town
59%
The ability to recruit and retain employees over the past three years has:
Improved/gotten easier 2%
Stayed about the same « ~? 'S%
Declined/gottenharder ~",-'''" 72%
Don't know/not applicable 1%
Which segment of the workforce should be TOP priortiy for affordable housing?
Year-round employees 56%
Seasonal employees 6%
Both are equal 38%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Difficult to Fill and Unfilled Jobs
Summer Winter
Total Jobs (See State of Aspen report) 15,431 16,938
Jobs -- Employers Surveyed 4,939 5,334
Percent of Total 32.0% 31.5%
Unfilled Jobs -- Employers Surveyed 221 291
Percent of Total 32.0% 31.5%
Estimate of Total Unfilled Jobs 690 924
Difficult to Fill Jobs --Employers Surveyed 960 1,094
Percent of Total 32.0% 31.5%
Estimate of Total Difficult to Fill Jobs 2,999 3,474
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 56
The availability of workforce housing in the City of Aspen is:
Emnlovees who Left or Reiected Emnlovment
Primary Reason # Employees Estimate of
(survey = Total
32% of total) Employees
Lacked housing 495 1,547
Lacked transportation 84 263
Lacked day care 84 263
Found cost of living in the area was too high 618 1,931
TOTAL 1,281 4,003.
Extent to Which Employees Have Difficulty Locating Housing
1= No Difficulty; 5 =Major Difficulty
Seasonal workers
RetaiUService clerks
General labor/service
Entry level professionals
Mid-Management
Office support staff
Upper Management
Other
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4
How Visa/Immigration Limitations have Influenced
Ability to Hire Employees
A major limitation
16%
Not at all
55%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 57
Section 2 - Emvlovment and Commutin
Number of Employees in the Next 5 Years
Don't know
11% Increase your number
of employees
37%
Stay about°the : iceauce your number
49 /o
of employees
3%
Where Aspen Workers Live
Where Live ~ % Year Round % Seasonal
Snowmass Village 6.1% 16.7%
Aspen 23.3% 33.9%
Woody Creek 1.2% 2.6%
Old Snowmass 1.4% 1.8%
Basalt 14.3% 14.7%
EI Jebel 13.4% 9.8%
Carbondale 20.3% 12.9%
Glenwood Springs 13.8% 4.3%
New Castle/Silt/Rifle/Parachute 5.5% 3.3%
Other 0.7% 0.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 58
Commuting Options
Bus/shuttle service (operated by your business)
Bus passes/coupons
Car pooling/van pooling
On-site company vehicle for employee errands
Travel stipend
Telecommutin~
Provided by Employers
13.
.2%
12.0 0
11.5 0
0.0%
5.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Employer Estimates of Retiring Employees
# Employees In In In 5 Years
Retiring 1 Year 2 Years
0 73.8 57.1 23.8
1 11.9 21.4 28.6
2 4.8 14.3 21.4
3 4.8 4.8 7.1
5 2.4 2.4 11.9
8 2.4 2.4
13 2.4
18 2.4
100% 100% 100%
Employer Estimates of Number of Retiring Employees
# Will Retire % of Year Round Employees
In 1 Year 28 .8%
In 2 Years 32 .9%
In 5 Years 103 2.8%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 59
Section 3 -Employee Housing
How Employees Are Housed
In Aspen Elsewhere in
Region Total °k of
Totai
Housing provided by employer 380 422 802 28.1%
Other employee housing 261 137 398 14.0%
Free market housing 357 1,293 1,650 57.9%
Provision of Employee Housing
Year Round Total Summer Total Winter
Total Units Provided 319 644 768
Total Bedrooms Provided 557 1,392 1,897
Avg Bedrooms per Unit 1.7 2.6 2.4
Type of Assistance Now Provided or Would Consider Providing
Assist employees with housing search 5 0~
52%
Purchase and own units that you rent to 30%
employees 50%
Master lease units rented to employees 24% o
45
Provide rent subsidies 20%
41%
None of the above 15°
2
other assistance %
1
6°/ ^ Currently Provide
Down payment assistance 3% ^ Would Consider
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 60
Appendix A -Homeowner Project Profiles
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 61
Project Information -Overall
Which best describes your household
I live alone
Family members only
Family members and unrelated roommates
Unrelated roommates
Unmarried couple
Average Household Size
Do you have children at home under age 6
No
Yes
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
No
Yes
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No
Yes
What is the total monthly rent or mortgage
payment for your residence
None, do not pay rent or mortgage
$250 - $499
$500 - $749
$750 - $999
$1000 - $1249
$1250 - $1499
$1500 - $1749
$1750 - $1999
$2000 or more
Median
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 or more
Median
How far do you travel to work one way
40% Less than 1/4 mile 15%
41% 1/4 to 1/2 mile 13%
2% 1/2 to 1 mile 16%
8% 1 to 2 miles 22%
9% 2 to 5 miles 27%
More than 5 miles 7%
2.1
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
85% 1 -Very Satisfied 51
15% 2 -Somewhat Satisfied 37%
3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied 9%
4 -Very Dissatisfied 3%
81 % Rate the following for where you live
19% Average 1-Not at all Satisfied to 5 -Very Satisfied
TYPE OF UNIT
SIZE OF UNIT
SUNLIGHT
41 % NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
59% wlNDOws
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
KITCHEN
HEATING SYSTEM
5% CLOSET SPACE
G% INTERIOR FINISH
21 % APPLIANCES
24% STORAGE
20% ENERGY EFFICIENCY
8%
6% DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
4%
LAUNDRY FACILITIES
6%
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
$929
LANDSCAPING
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
PARKING
COMMON AMENITIES
6%
32% PLAY AREAS
30% PETS
16%
14% LOCATION
1 p/0 PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
$63, 012 BIKE PATH/TRAIL ACCESS
SENSE OF SAFETY
NEIGHBORHOOD
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
3
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.1 9
.8
.8
8
8
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
4.6
4.
4.5
. r- %- - 4.3
<<., . _
~.~
0 1 2 3 4 5
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 62
Rental Group 1: Alpina Haus, Aspen Country Inn, Beaumont (Hospital), Maroon Creek Club
Which best describes your household
I live alone
Family members only
Family members and unrelated roommates
Unrelated roommates
Unmarried couple
Average Household Size
Do you have children at home under age 6
No
Yes
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
No 86%
Yes 14%
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 31%
Yes 69%
What is the total monthly rent for your
residence
None, do not pay rent 3%
$250 - $499 23%
$500 - $749 11
$750 - $999 60%
$1000 - $1249 0%
$1250 - $1499 3%
$1500 - $1749 0%
$1750 - $1999 0%
$2000 or more 0%
Median $761
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000 24%
$25,000 - $49,999 58%
$50,000 - $74,999 12%
$75,000 - $99,999 3%
$100,000 - $149,999 3%
$150,000 or more 0%
Median $30,000
TYPE OF UNTT
SIZE OF UNiT
WINDOWS
SUNLIGHT
INTERIOR FINISH
HEATING SYSTEM
STORAGE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
CLOSET SPACE
APPLIANCES
KITCHEN
DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
PARKING
LANDSCAPING
LAUNDRY FACILITIES
PLAY AREAS
COMMON AMENITIES
PETS
PROXIMTTY TO BUS STOPS
LOCATION
BIKE PATH/I'RAIL ACCESS
NEIGHBORHOOD
SENSE OFSAFETY
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
3
3.
3.
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
.9 8
4.0
9
9
s
3.
3.3
3.1
3.0
s
a ~r rr ~ -t'~ 4.5
4.3
4.3
- 4.3
,~,. 5r, 4.2
yr 4.1
3.4
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
How far do you travel to work one way
67% Less than 1/4 mile 16%
22% 1/4 to 1/2 mile 6%
0% . 1/2 to 1 mile 9%
3% 1 to 2 miles 22%
8% 2 to 5 miles 31
More than 5 miles 16%
1.7
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
1 -Very Satisfied 57%
2 -Somewhat Satisfied 31
3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied 6%
4 -Very Dissatisfied 6%
Rate the following for where you live
Average 7 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 -Very Satisfied
89%
11%
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 63
Rental Group 2: Mountain Oaks, Hunter Longhouse, Ute City Place, Ullr Commons
Which best describes your household
I live alone 43%
Family members only 21
Family members and unrelated roommates 0%
Unrelated roommates 29%
Unmarried couple 7%
Average Household Size
Do you have children at home under age 6
No
Yes
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
No
Yes
How far do you travel to work one way
Less than 1/4 mile 54%
1/4 to 1/2 mile 12%
1/2 to 1 mile 12%
1 to 2 miles 15%
2 to 5 miles 8%
More than 5 miles 0%
1.6
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
93% 1 -Very Satisfied 32%
7% 2 -Somewhat Satisfied 43%
3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied 25%
4 -Very Dissatisfied 0%
96% Rate the following for where you live
4% Average 7 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 -Very Satisfied
TYPE OF UNTF
Within the next five years would you like to sizEOFUNrr
move into another home in the Aspen area wINDOws
No 26% sUNLiGHT
YeS 74% INTERIOR FINISH
HEATING SYSTEM
What is the total monthly rent for your STORAGE
residence ENERGY EFFICIENCY
None, do not pay rent 4% NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
$250 - $499 $% SIZE OF BATHROOMS
$500 - $749 8% CLOSET SPACE
$750 - $999 50% APPL~cEs
$1000 - $1249 19% xrrcHEN
$1250 - $1499 8%
$1500 - $1740 DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
$1750 - $1999 EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
$2000 or more 4% EXTERIOR LIGHTING
Median $901 PARxING
LANDSCAPING
What is the total annual income of all LAUNDRYFACIl,IT~S
household members combined PLAYAREAs
Under $25,000 12% COMMONAMENITIES
$25,000 - $49,999 27% PETs
$50,000 - $74,999 42%
$75,000 - $99,999 4% PROXIM[TYTOBUS STOPS
$100,000 - $149,999 12% LocAT10N
$150,000 or more 4°/U BII{EPATH/TRAII,ACCESS
Median $ 52, 000 NEIGI-IBORHOOD
SENSE OF SAFETY
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
3
3.
3.
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
9 8
4.0
9
9
3 8
3.
3.3
3.1
3.0
s
~4e.', .., 4.5
4.3
;, ., ice.: .'.. 4.3
v-;xf- 4.3
4.2
4.1
3.4
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 64
Centennial Rental Units
Which best describes your household
I live alone 50%
Family members only 16%
Family members and unrelated roommates 0%
Unrelated roommates 22%
Unmarried couple 12%
Average Household Size
Do you have children at home under age 6
No
Yes
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
No
Yes
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 10%
Yes 90%
What is the total monthly rent for your
residence
None, do not pay rent
$250 - $499
$500 - $749
$750 - $999
$1000 - $1249
$1250 - $1499
$1500 - $1749
$1750 - $1999
$2000 or more
Median
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 or more
Median
How far do you travel to work one way
Less than 1/4 mile 24%
1/4 to 1/2 mile 29%
1/2 to 1 mile 18%
1 to 2 miles 6%
2 to 5 miles 14%
More than 5 miles 8%
1.7
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
96% 1 -Very Satisfied 40%
4% 2 -Somewhat Satisfied 44%
3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied 16%
4 -Very Dissatisfied 0%
98% Rate the following for where you live
2% Average 1-Not at all Satisfied to 5 -Very Satisfied
0%
0%
0%
27%
20%
24%
16%
8%
4%
$1,313
4%
24%
47%
11%
13%
0%
$55,000
SUNLIGHT
SIZE OF UNIT
STORAGE
TYPE OF UNIT
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
CLOSET SPACE
WINDOWS
KTTCHEN
HEATING SYSTEM
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
APPLIANCES
INTERIOR FINLSH
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
PLAY AREAS
LANDSCAPING
LAUNDRY FACII.ITIES
COMMON AMENITIES
PETS
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
PARKING
PROXIMTTY TO BUS STOPS
BIKE PATH/TRAR. ACCESS
LOCATION
SENSE OF SAFETY
NEIGHBORHOOD
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
4.0
.8
.s
3 7
3.
3.5
3.3
32
3.1
3.0
3.0
9
2.a
3.5
3.3
3.1
3.0
s
8
8
z7
2.
8
4.
,., 3
1.
- .;~; 4.3
3.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 65
Truscott Place
Which best describes your household
I live alone
Family members only
Family members and unrelated roommates
Unrelated roommates
Unmarried couple
Average Household Size
Do you have children at home under age 6
No
Yes
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
No
Yes
How far do you travel to work one way
75% Less than 1/4 mile 2%
15% 1/4 to 1/2 mile 6%
1/2 to 1 mile 10%
6% 1 to 2 miles 36%
4% 2 to 5 miles 36%
More than 5 miles 10%
1.3
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
96% 1 -Very Satisfied 41
4% 2 -Somewhat Satisfied 43%
3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied 10%
4 -Very Dissatisfied 6%
98% Rate the following for where you live
2% Average 1-Not at all Satisfied to 5 -Very Satisfied
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
Within the next five years would you like to HEATING SYSTEM
move into another home in the Aspen area slzEOFBATFmooMS
NO 29% TYPE OF UNIT
Yes 71 % xITCI-iFN
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
What is the total monthly rent for your slzEOFUNrr
residence wINDOws
None, do not pay rent O% INTERIOR FINISH
$250 - $499 2% suNLIGHT
$500 - $749 56% sroRAGE
$750 - $999 21 % CLOSET SPACE
$1000 - $1249 19% APPLIANCES
$1250 - $1499 0%
$1500 - $1749 0% DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
$1750 - $1999 2% LAUNDRYFACII,ITIES
$2000 or more 0% EXTERIOR LIGHTING
Median $719 LANDSCAPING
PLAY AREAS
What is the total annual income of all coMMGNAMENrrtEs
household members combined ExTERIORAPPEARANCE
Under $25,000 10% PARKING
$25,000 - $49,999 54% PETs
$50,000 - $74,999 23%
$75,000 - $99,999 6% BIICEP^TIIn'RAn,ACCESs
$100,000 - $149,999 6% PROXIMTTYTOBUSSTOPS
$150,000 or more 0% SENSE OF SAFETY
Median $40 000 LOCATION
SURROUNDING USES
NEIGHBORHOOD
SOUND LEVELS
3
3
6 4.0
.8
8
.
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.0
3.0
2.5
a.s
4.3
4.0
9
9
3 .8
3.2
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 66
Castle Ridge
Which best describes your household
I live alone 37%
Family members only 33%
Family members and unrelated roommates 0%
Unrelated roommates 13%
Unmarried. couple 17%
Average Household Size
Do you have children at home under age 6
No
Yes
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
No
Yes
How far do you travel to work one way
Less than 1/4 mile 14%
1/4 to 1/2 mile 7%
1/2 to 1 mile 14%
1 to 2 miles 45%
2 to 5 miles 17%
More than 5 miles 3%
1.9
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
87% 1 -Very Satisfied 14%
13% 2 -Somewhat Satisfied 64%
3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied 14%
4 -Very Dissatisfied 7%
93% Rate the following for where you live
7% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 -Very Satisfied
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
TYPE OF UNTO
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area sIZEOFUNrr
NO 7% STORAGE
Yes 93% SIZE OF BATHROOMS
SUNLIGHT
HEATING SYSTEM
What is the total monthly rent for your
residence CLOSET SPACE
None, do not pay rent
0% KTCCHEN
$250 - $499 3% APPLIANCES
$500 - $749 30% wINDOws
$750 - $999 10% INTERIORFINIBH
$1000 - $1249 4O% ENERGY EFFICIENCY
$1250-$1499 13%
$1500 - $1749 3% DUMPSTER/TRASHREMOVAL
$1750 - $1999 O% LAUNDRYFACB.ITIES
$2000 or more O% EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
Median $1,152 PARKING
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
What is the total annual income of all LANDSCAPING
household members combined PLAY AREAs
Under $25,000 7% COMMONAMENTTIES
$25,000 - $49,999 43% PETS
$50,000 - $74,999 21%
$75,000 - $99,999 110,(° BncEPATi-vTRAn.ACCESs
$100,000 - $149, 999 1 g% PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
$150,000 or more ~% SENSE OF SAFETY
Median $46,096 LOCATION
NEIGHBORHOOD
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
4.1
3 8
s
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.0
2.
z.z
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
s
8
2.
2.
2.4
_.:;. i .t: ~.. : 4.
a.
a r. 4.4
r:~~ a.a
,.au~ s' :ia.' 4.2
4.0
3.2
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 67
Ownership Group 1: Annie Mitchell, Benedict Commons, Hunter Creek
Which best describes your household
I live alone 44%
Family members only 29%
Family members and unrelated roommates 0%
Unrelated roommates 15%
Unmarried couple 12%
Average Household Size
Do you have children at home under age 6
No
Yes
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
No
Yes
How far do you travel to work one way
Less than 1/4 mile 21%
1/4 to 1/2 mile 15%
1/2 to 1 mile g%
1 to 2 miles 21%
2 to 5 miles 30%
More than 5 miles 3%
1.7
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
94% 1 -Very Satisfied 50%
6% 2 -Somewhat Satisfied 38%
3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied 9%
4 -Very Dissatisfied 3%
91 % Rate the following for where you live
9% Average 1-Not at all Satisfied to 5 -Very Satisfied
HEATING SYSTEM
Within the next five years would you like to suNLIGHT
move into another home in the Aspen area `SOWS
NO 32% TYPE OF UNIT
Y@S 68% CLOSET SPACE
STORAGE
What is the total monthly mortgage xrrcHEN
payment for your residence APPLIANCES
None, do not pay mortgage 15% ENERGY EFFICIENCY
$250 - $499 21 % NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
$500 - $749 47% SIZE of uNrr
$750 - $999 g% SIZE OF BATHROOMS
$1000 - $1249 g°/p INTERIOR FINISH
$1250 - $1499 p%
$1500 - $1749 0% PARxING
$1750 - $1999 Q°/p DUMPSTERlI'RASHREMOVAL
$2000 or more Q% EXTERIOR LIGHTING
Median $600 COMMON AMENITIES
LAUNDRY FACILTTIES
What is the total annual income of all LANDSCAPING
household members combined
PETs
Under $25
000 6%
, EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
$25,000 - $49
999 31%
,
$50,000 - $74,999
28% PLAY AREAS
$75,000 - $99
999 25% '
,
$100,000 - $149,999
6% BIKEPATHlI
RAILACCESS
$150,000 or more
3% PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
Median
$60
000 LOCATION
, SENSE OF SAFETY
- NEIGHBORHOOD
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
3
3
3.
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.1
3. I 8
7
7
4.1
4.0
4.0
3 7
3.
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.1
8
4.5
` 4.5
4.4
. 4.3
4.1
^.4
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 68
Ownership Group 2: Common Ground, Lone Pine, Midland Park, Williams Woods
Which best describes your household
I live alone 40%
Family members only 55%
Family members and unrelated roommates 0%
Unrelated roommates ~ 0%
Unmarried couple 5%
Average Household Size
Do you have children at home under age 6
No
Yes
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
No
Yes
How far do you travel to work one way
Less than 1/4 mile 19%
1/4 to 1/2 mile 19%
1/2 to 1 mile 31%
1 to 2 miles 6%
2 to 5 miles 19%
More than 5 miles 6%
2.1
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
83% 1 -Very Satisfied 62%
17% 2 -Somewhat Satisfied 33%
3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied 3%
4 -Very Dissatisfied 3%
73% Rate the following for where you live
27% Average 7 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 -Very Satisfied
suNLIGxT
Within the next five years would you like to TYPE of uxrr
move into another home in the Aspen area Ws1DOWS
No 64% APPLIANCES
Yes 36% SIZE of uNrr
KTTCHEN
What is the total monthly mortgage NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
payment for your residence CLOSET SPACE
None, do not pay mortgage 14% SIZE OF BATHROOMS
$250 - $499 11% INTERIORFwISx
$500 - $749 22% HEATING SYSTEM
$750 - $999 14% STORAGE
$1000 - $1249 17% ENERGY EFFICIENCY
$1250 - $1499 17%
$1500 - $1749 g% LANDSCAPING
$1750 - $1999 0% LAUNDRY FACILITIES
$2000 or more O% EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
Median $793 DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
COMMON AMENITIES
What is the total annual income of all PARxING
household members combined PETS
Under $25,000 3% EXTERIOR LIGHTING
$25,000 - $49,999 22% PLAYAREAs
$50,000 - $74,999 25%
$75,000 - $99,999 25% BncEPATxrrRnn.ACCESs
$100,000 - $149,999 25% PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
$150,000 or more 0% LOCATION
Median $72,500 SENSE OF SAFETY
SURROUNDING USES
NEIGHBORHOOD
SOUND LEVELS
3
3
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.2
9
2.
2.4 4.3
a.o
.9
7
7
a.z
a.I
a.I
8
3.
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
9
.s
4 7
'ice 4.
~. .8
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 69
Ownership Group 3: Five Trees, Little Ajax, Snyder, Stillwater, Williams Ranch
Which best describes your household
I live alone 14%
Family members only 81%
Family members and unrelated roommates 2%
Unrelated roommates 0%
Unmarried couple 2%
Average Household Size
Do you have children at home under age 6
No
Yes
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
No
Yes
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 80%
Yes 20%
What is the total monthly mortgage
payment for your residence
None, do not pay mortgage
$250 - $499
$500 - $749
$750 - $999
$1000 - $1249
$1250 - $1499
$1500 - $1749
$1750 - $1999
$2000 or more
Median
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 or more
Median
How far do you travel to work one way
Less than 1/4 mile 17%
1/4 to 1/2 mile 10%
1/2 to 1 mile 22%
1 to 2 miles 24%
2 to 5 miles 24%
More than 5 miles 2%
3.1
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
74% 1 -Very Satisfied 88%
26% 2 -Somewhat Satisfied 9%
3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied 2%
4 -Very Dissatisfied 0%
42% Rate the following for where you live
58% Average 1-Not at all Satisfied to 5 -Very Satisfied
0%
0%
5%
16%
16%
13%
8%
16%
27%
$1,450
0%
17%
14%
29%
31%
9%
$90,000
TYPE OF UNTO
SUNLIGHT
SIZE OF UNIT
wlNDOws
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
KITCHEN
CLOSET SPACE
INTERIOR FINISH
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
HEATING SYSTEM
APPLIANCES
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
STORAGE
PETS
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
DUMPSTER/CRASH REMOVAL
LANDSCAPING
COMMON AMENTCIES
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
LAUNDRY FACB.TTIES
PARKING
PLAY~AREAS
LOCATION
SENSE OF SAFETY
SURROUNDING USES
NEIGHBORHOOD
BIICE PATH/TRAII, ACCESS
SOUND LEVELS
PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
4.
4.4
4.4
a.o
9
.8
8
3.
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.3 .
4.5
4.1
9
s
8
8
3.5
3.5
3.5
9
9
~ ::. 0' .9
s
~' '~ a.
H ~~'rac- 4.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 70
Centennial Ownership
Which best describes your household
I live alone 40%
Family members only 38%
Family members and unrelated roommates 0%
Unrelated roommates 2%
Unmarried couple 19%
Average Household Size
Do you have children at home under age 6
No
Yes
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
No
Yes
How far do you travel to work one way
Less than 1/4 mile 8%
1/4 to 1/2 mile 15%
1/2 to 1 mile 25%
1 to 2 miles 15%
2 to 5 miles 30%
More than 5 miles 8%
1.8
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
98% 1 -Very Satisfied 44%
2% 2 -Somewhat Satisfied 41
3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied 7%
4 -Very Dissatisfied 7%
88% Rate the following for where you live
12% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 -Very Satisfied
SUNLIGHT
Within the next five years would you like to TYPE OF UNIT
move into another home in the Aspen area ~~EROFaATI-,ROOMS
No 54% slzE of uxrr
YeS 46% STORAGE
WINDOWS
What is the total monthly mortgage I~TCI->EN
payment for your residence INTERIORFINISH
None, do not pay mortgage 11 % APPLIANCES
$250 - $499 3% SIZE OF BATHROOMS
$500 - $749 26% HEATING SYSTEM
$750 - $999 2G% CLOSET SPACE
$1000 - $1249 32% ENERGY EFFICIENCY
$1250 - $1499 0%
$1500 - $1749 p% PETS
$1750 - $1999 3% DUMPSTER/I'RASHREMOVAL
$2000 or more 0% LAUNDRYFACIl,ITIEs
Median $800 EXTERIOR LIGHTING
LANDSCAPING
What is the total annual income of all PARKING
household members combined PLAY AREAS
Under $25,000 O% EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
$25,000 - $49,999 21% conavloNAMENrr>Es
$50,000 - $74,999 51
$75,000 - $99,999 23% LocATION
$100,000 - $149,999 3% BncEPATHn'RAU,ACCESs
$150,000 or more 3% SENSE OF SAFETY
Median $60 OQQ PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
SURROUNDING USES
NEIGHBORHOOD
SOUND LEVELS
3
3.
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.0
.9
2.
z.l 4.1
8
8
' 9
9
9
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.1
3.0
4.
~~~ ~ a.
~.~~ a.
,..... a.
a ' 4.4
4.4
3.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 71
Burlingame Ranch
Which best describes your household
I live alone 13%
Family members only 80%
Family members and unrelated roommates 3%
Unrelated roommates 0%
Unmarried couple 5%
Average Household Size
Do you have children at home under age 6
No
Yes
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
No
Yes
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 46%
Yes 54%
What is the total monthly mortgage
payment for your residence
None, do not pay mortgage
$250 - $499
$500 - $749
$750 - $999
$1000 - $1249
$1250 - $1499
$1500 - $1749
$1750 - $1999
$2000 or more
Median
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 or more
Median
How far do you travel to work one way
Less than 1/4 mile 0%
1/4 to 1/2 mile 5%
1/2 to 1 mile 8%
1 to 2 miles 34%
2 to 5 miles 47%
More than 5 miles 5%
2.9
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
41 % 1 -Very Satisfied 54%
59% 2 -Somewhat Satisfied 39%
3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied 7%
4 -Very Dissatisfied 0%
80% Rate the following for where you live
20% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 -Very Satisfied
0%
3%
8%
24%
24%
8%
8%
5%
22%
$1, 200
0%
29%
39%
18%
11%
3%
$60,000
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
SIZE OF UNIT
KTTCHEN
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
HEATING SYSTEM
SUNLIGHT
TYPE OF UNIT
wlNDOws
INTERIOR FINISH
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
CLOSET SPACE
STORAGE
APPLIANCES
LAUNDRY FACIl,ITO=.S
DUMPSTER/I'RASHRFMOVAL
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
COMMON AMENITIES
PETS
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
PLAY AREAS
LANDSCAPING
PARKING
SENSE OF SAFETY
NEIGHBORHOOD
PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
LOCATION
BIKE PATH/TRAII. ACCESS
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
a.
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
8
8
a.
.9
s
3.4
3.2
3.2
9
2.
2.2
4.
~~~„': 4.
4.
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 72
Smuggler Subdivision
Which best describes your household
I live alone 26%
Family members only 39%
Family members and unrelated roommates 13%
Unrelated roommates 13%
Unmarried couple 10%
Average Household Size
Do you have children at home under age 6
No
Yes
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
No
Yes
How far do you travel to work one way
Less than 1/4 mile 11%
1/4 to 1/2 mile 25%
1/2 to 1 mile 32%
1 to 2 miles 11%
2 to 5 miles 21%
More than 5 miles 0%
2.5
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
97% 1 -Very Satisfied 77%
3% 2 -Somewhat Satisfied 16%
3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied 6%
4 -Very Dissatisfied 0%
84% Rate the following for where you live
16% Average 7 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 -Very Satisfied
Within the next five years would you like to
move into another home in the Aspen area
No 77%
Yes 23%
What is the total monthly mortgage
payment for your residence
None, do not pay mortgage 15%
$250 - $499 4%
$500 - $749 7%
$750 - $999 19%
$1000-$1249 19%
$1250 - $1499 4%
$1500 - $1749 0%
$1750 - $1999 15%
$2000 or more 18%
Median $1,140
What is the total annual income of all
household members combined
Under $25,000 4%
$25,000 - $49,999 23%
$50,000 - $74,999 19%
$75,000 - $99,999 19%
$100,000 - $149,999 27%
$150,000 or more 8%
Median $77,500
SUNLIGHT
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
SIZE OF UNIT
KITCHEN
SIZE OF BATHROOMS
HEATING SYSTEM
WINDOWS
TYPE OF UNIT
APPLIANCES
INTERIOR FINISH
CLOSET SPACE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
STORAGE
DUMPSTER/TRASH REMOVAL
LAUNDRY FACILITIES
PETS
LANDSCAPING
PARKING
EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
COMMON AMENI'T'IES
PLAY AREAS
LOCATION
SENSE OF SAFETY
PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
BIKE PATH/I'RAII, ACCESS
NEIGHBORHOOD
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
4.3
4.3
a. t
4.0
a.o
4.0
4.0
.9
.9
37
37
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.1
a.l
a.l
a.l
8
s
3.
3.
~,~, „ ~.1, . ~..-~ „~< s
.• x._ .8
.:,~ , a
4.
4.
4.1
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 73
Aspen Highlands Village
Which best describes your household
I live alone 14%
Family members only 75%
Family members and unrelated roommates 7%
Unrelated roommates 0%
Unmarried couple 4%
Average Household Size
Do you have children at home under age 6
No
Yes
Do you have children at home between age
6 and 18
No
Yes
How far do you travel to work one way
Less than 1/4 mile 13%
1/4 to 1/2 mile 0%
1/2 to 1 mile 4%
1 to 2 miles 29%
2 to 5 miles 33%
More than 5 miles 21%
2.9
Which best describes your satisfaction with
your current residence
69% 1 -Very Satisfied 43%
31 % 2 -Somewhat Satisfied 46%
3 -Somewhat Dissatisfied 11%
4 -Very Dissatisfied 0%
33% Rate the following for where you live
67% Average 1 -Not at all Satisfied to 5 -Very Satisfied
NUMBER OF BATHROOMS
Within the next five years would you like to SIZE OF BATHROOMS
move into another home in the Aspen area TYPE OFUNrr
No 44% sIZE of IrNrr
Yes 56% KrrcHEN
SUNLIGHT
What is the total monthly mortgage WOWS
payment for your residence CLOSET SPACE
None, do not pay mortgage 0% INTERIOR FINISH
$250 - $499 0% HEATING SYSTEM
$500 - $749 12% ENERGY EFFICIENCY
$750 - $999 16% APPLIANCES
$1000 - $1249 28% sTORAGE
$1250 - $1499 8%
$1500 - $1749 28% LAUNDRY FACILITIES
$1750 - $1999 O% DUMPSTERlTRASHREMOVAL
$2000 or more 8% EXTERIOR APPEARANCE
Median $1,200 PLAY AREAS
PARKING
What is the total annual income of all LANDSCAPING
household members combined coMMONAMENrrIEs
Under $25,000 4% EXTERIOR LIGHTING
$25,000 - $49,999 27% PETS
$50,000 - $74,999 23%
$75,000 - $99,999 27% PROXIMITY TO BUS STOPS
$100,000 - $149,999 1g% SENSE OF SAFETY
$150,000 or more p% LocATION
Median $70 000 BIlCEPATHlI'RAQ,ACCESS
NEIGHBORHOOD
SURROUNDING USES
SOUND LEVELS
4.3
4.0
9
a.l
a.o
4.3
4.0
37
37
a.o
3.5
9
3.5
a.I
4.5
a
3.
4.1
4.1
3.
s
a.l
8
v:_ 8
9
.u~'. 8
4.
-' 4.
4.1
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 74
Appendix B -Survey Forms
RRC Associates/Rees Consulting Page 75
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Historic Preservation Task Force Update
DATE: December 9, 2008
SUMMARY: This worksession is an update to City Council on the progress of the Historic
Preservation Task Force. The Task Force welcomes input from Council on the work undertaken
to date.
Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 called for the establishment of a
Historic Preservation Task Force. Council appointed 24 members in
February 2008, two of whom later resigned due to other
commitments. The full Task Force has met 14 times. After a
community forum in June generated almost 180 issues, ideas, or
topics for the group to address, the following committees were
formed; Philosophy of Historic Preservation, Criteria for Designation,
Voluntary vs. Involuntary Designation, Historic Districts, Economics
and Incentives, Architecture, and Public Outreach. The entire group
took on the philosophical discussion of "why" and "what" to preserve
on August 14`", after which the committees began their efforts to
become experts on specific aspects of preservation that are important
to the future of our program.
Each Task Force member has volunteered for committees, some
joining one and others participating in all five. Almost 50 committee
meetings have been held and of late there have been as many as four
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
TASK FORCE
per week. The commitment made by these volunteers is tremendous.
In November the committees presented preliminary reports to the larger group. These reports,
and examples of work products to date will be presented to Council by the Chair and Vice-Chair
of the Historic Preservation Task Force; Bill Stirling and Tom Todd.
The following page is a summary of the budget required for this project. We are currently
comfortably within the funds approved by Council. The Task Force should discuss any
additional assistance that will be needed in working towards a final presentation of their
recommendations.
1
Aspen Historic Preservation Task Force Budget Summary
$77,000 Allocated by City Council
Projected
Budget
Expenditure to date
General support
Food 9000.00 6100.00
Creation of website 6000.00 3550.00
Newspaper ads 6000.00 3810.00
Taping and broadcasting by Grassroots 5500.00 3250.00
Creation of logo 2310.00 2310.00
Misc. meeting venue rentals 500.00 400.00
Learnine opportunities and expert input
Leslie Lamont- Facilitation 15000.00 8425.00
Aspen Institute presentation by 3 national preservation experts 7250.00 7250.00
(Venue, food, speaker hotels, fees, and airfare)
Preservation ordinance consultant for Criteria Committee 2500.00 0.00
(Fees, hotel, airfare)
Given Institute presentation by National Trust Directors 2500.00 2500.00
( Venue, food, speaker hotels, etc.)
Case studies, impact of designation for Economics Committee 1625.00 1350.00
Misc. speaker fees 2000.00 1000.00
Bus tour 1300.00 1300.00
(Bus, lunch, printed guide)
TOTAL 61485.00 41245.00
0 0 ~
o
N ~_
E
N O M N R N ~ N N N ~- -~ M N d ' N N ~ M N N N ~ M
~
ti U
~ 4
O r
C
O
~+
CC
'u
i
c~a X ~ >C ' >S ~
a
u i
L~,
a>
L
U
L
Q
~
L
+.+
.
y
O
+ ~
`~
N
r
m U
O
N
~..
tr
• ~
O
L
r''.
U >C ~C ~C yC ~C X >C >C ryC >C >C >C ~C M o
.~
~ ~
ti
N . ~
L ~.,~''
~'
C
O ~ O
U
~
~ ~
C >C >C X 5C X X ~ ?C ~G yC
L
R ~
O
+
+
C
~ ~
y
G ""
~
~ •~ O
~ 3
w
~ y o
E ~ o
~
O >C >C >C >C >C DC yC >C yC 5C >G 7C >C M
~" ~ .~
~
W O `~
U ~
3 °~
W
~ ~
~
W ~ ;~
~
~ ~ `~
U
~
~
~
~ as ~,
~
a
~ Y ro
~
~ ~ ~ - d ~ ~ ~ ~
~ o. ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ o~
o °~ ~ `~ ~
d a~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ *
~ , a~ ~ : F-~
1. criteria committee update
members: Marsha Cook, Gilbert San-
chez, Michael Behrendt, Penny Evans Car-
ruth, Yasmine dePagter, Michael Hoffman,
Junee Kirk, Lisa Markalunas, Ann Mullins, Joe
Myers, Suzannah Reid, Bill Wiener & Jack
Wilke
concepts under discussion:
1. There is a feeling among many that while
Rustic Architecture should be preserved, it
may not be as important as Victorians and
Chalets and a hierarchy with these styles
may be needed.
goals:
Criteria should be "Understandable,
Predictable and Defendable"
Tasks include but are not be limited to:
1. Determine what has happened since
WWII that justifies preservation
2. Determine appropriate categories to
preserve
3. Create criteria for each category
i 4. Evaluate buildings/structures/etc.
based on criteria
work product to date:
Issues reviewed by the committee:
1. Aspen's history - is it a story worthy
of preserving?
2. Building styles since WWII
3. Identification of miscellaneous poten-
tial resources
see reverse side for
straw poll results and
discussion updates
attachments:
a. aspen historical timeline
b. chalet timeline
c, rustic timeline
d, modern timeline
e, collage of photographs representing
body of work for each style- to be pre
sented at meeting
2. Some believe that the threshold for desig
nation of Wrightian and Modern should be
higher than some of the other styles previ
ously reviewed. One suggestion is to have
two categories: Structures that should abso
lutely be preserved and one for structures
that are eligible or can be considered.
3. It has been suggested that we consider a
tiered policy, some styles being involuntary
and others voluntary. It was further sug
Bested that WWII be the cut off for involun
tart'. No resolution.
outstanding topics:
1. Identification of other potential historic
resources
2. Presentation of case laws by Michael Hoff
man on December 3
3. Work plan for developing criteria with
review by the subcommittee
4. Evaluate buildings/structures attached to
Ordinance 48
5. Recommend process for evaluating other
appropriate structures based on criteria
next steps:
1. Discuss/formulate recommendation for
items identified under "Concepts under
discussion/consideration"
2. Task Force to provide direction (an outline
of criteria topics for each building style) for
a consultant based on item #1 in this sec
tion.
3. Retain a consultant to prepare detailed
criteria.
4. Review criteria.
5. Prepare majority and minority position
reports.
1. criteria committee update
straw results/discussion updates:
1. The Criteria Committee will not address Item #1 on the Criteria for Designation: 26.415.030.6 of the Aspen
Municipal Code. All 100-year-old properties in Aspen have been designated.
2. The Criteria Committee supports the recommendation by the Voluntary/Involuntary Committee that we
will not review/address properties that have already been designated.
3. The architectural and cultural influences that were significant in Aspen in the 40's, 50's and 60' and
how they translated into the bui/dings of the period is a story worth telling.
~~~ ~ ~ 11 YES
~ 1 NO
4. Chalets represent Aspen's history and are worth preserving.
- ~,u. 10 YES
MONO
5. Rustic style architecture, which includes simple log cabins and Pan Abodes, was separated into two categories.
Log homes represent Aspen's history and are worth preserving.
-t 7 YES
10 NO
Pan Abodes represent Aspen's history and are worth preserving.
=~ 6 YES
0 NO
6. Modern structures represent Aspen's history and are worth preserving.
7 YES
0 NO
Wrightian structures represent Aspen's history and are worth preserving.
4 YES
2 NO
7. Modern Chalets represent Aspen's history and are worth preserving.
..w... 8 YES
2 NO
8. The committee recommends the addition of the Wienerstube to any list of potential
historic resources.
7 YES
3 ABSTAIN
9. The committee recommends that the current ownership structure should have no bear
ing on determining historical significance.
----- ~ 7 YES
2 ABSTAIN
W
W
r TI
~j~~~ ~Y.
^ Z~' ~°~...
r.
i af
Y ~ ~
~ ,~~_ __~
y S
. ~ ; F
00
O
N
c
~ {
C ~ ; y
a
~ _ II `
_- ~
~ i
3
i ,
T
s
'~
U
O I ~L E
1
J-~
E~
- E
r-----------
1
_ __
1
L
~S
4 iAi '
R
4
i c
L
i}ii} ~ ? £
I ~s
( cc' £
~y =~
I:. ~~
': :[ 1
~!
x
~,
._-----
~---
'3 $~.s
a E .
' 4 ~
s i
a ~ ~ ~
ti
'U
R
:~ Q
+; C
y
5..
i
4Lh( 1 aslag a+(.U anuanY a7,9 ONZI
(,yu!p)!ng la.P
` ZC 61 al><ltf+w/ uan7J aril
a
~i
~
M°IP/rng mrnrl.n/(1 ,,wavy rmuuf(/1mg OF9
y;
Y 6951
90h7 axP'r7 lrytly;) u!°IUnoyS ~+yl
'~'. stW51 70D4'ti 7'!'p'wol/?I 'XL
d a°/iafuaJ ux1rY
w4
~ 2967 ra!
7
y
X61 ¢ 0951 ~~ °+4!T dlunn,) ulYt!Q1 u'n{~' Ian-{ O2f
9Sh7 aanoH Pu°(7nH'4.[
! fhl >•nJdrn~ rrnPraayS' uadlay
OiM l+rl'n°N .iaurrll a41! laa./g °!r yy h'•!H Of.!
r>i.l
x651 anualy Imrwl// rm3 (XI!
hn71alro7.)/
!th! aaIllNnlug Iar,M 6t5
r9t5r 7'u'v'51.n~g pay .ate
1nEi
_ ~. ~
-"__ ~~_
y~ ` _ 'i Y ~ .~ ~v
1•Wl ~ ~ `. ~ ~: ~ 3 i
! ~~ , F
__ _ _. _.. ;. .` _ _' a ,. 6
~ - F'
_~ ~ =x~
_ s ' -~~ ~
-. s
- ~~
~'7 p.41
~ .
~AA
~ s ~' ~` E }7~l \'
~` x~~ f~a~3 ~ W
s ~ ~
x+~ ~~i
-__---
'O N
O a
~ E ~
°
~
m d
_ E
~
3 ~ ~ v
y ;,
~p v
E n
~ ~ :
c c° v o
-~ ~ '~
'
.
~ m o
o c v
' c
° E c 3
> ..
~ rn ~ ~ -
=
Y ~ ~ o
O m
l ~ ~
c «
v
a a rn vi
a ~ = j
~ u c
v ~s01 ~
E '_^ a
,
ao m< `w v LL L~
a o E a ¢ o o°
:: m ~ ~ Z ~ t `w
~
L Y ,
^
U d
~
-
C] 01 q '~ LL C
d -O C
E
¢3A
_ t~ -
~~
- o
m e ~ ~ 3
w u V -
- e"
Q
~ ~ v
~ a
E o
3
o
~ ~
c
o+ -
~ "> c
~ ~
v 'o
rn= N~
L ~ G
V o O.
'~ ^ G
d
L ~
~ « >
c n
y a
n n m - Q
~ .n
'" c
,°°oE~v
D.. ~ ~ U °i
E c o ~
o a, o v o
~ ~ n .. a 3 a -
rn
c
E'
0
cL rn
a a°ca
~~y'X ~ ~..
oo '^o
oc
o c
v
~ ,om c`m
'^°v °
d
~ _
- n
o
c ^~, - _ b
a
E ~
°E y
x° ~ a r~ d w
SmAa°„ ~ a' A
" ~~
m &~_
-"'.a
~ -
wQ v- _
~ L
'- v _ _
a a _ -
c = _
~ v m~ c? c y c .~ 'c ~ c
T ~ y
rn v c a.~ ~
c
L E
Q'S o °t ~ ,` r c
_ - ~ ~ v C
,~ u y ._
i ~ fl_ ~
>. V u ~ -
S E v`i y ~ C 2
~~_ ~ L °` C C A i~ V o _~
V v a .N y a .°i. ~ C i N ~i
c v ;'- c E ~ - a ~ ~
°, o y~~ ~,im _- y -_s~
- c _
`e E
~ o _.~ R£6L
v ~
- Q !j
_ ~ rn
rv ~.~:
ELL o o r ~v'c .. oz rn
= y y o E« ., y 'v -, 8`47+ m e
~ m q A ~ c
- w` vNom OZE
C ~ C ~ L ~
o ~n O ~ ~ ~ .
~'~ o c Z
a o z
'nom Yta °
H E ~' ~ c v
.. y A ~ ~ ~ ~ C
g° ~ ° E ~ c v o ~ E ~ -° ~ v
n '.. ~~ ?'" ~~ .. y c
.n a z c Y o c ~' 'o N ,c c ~° ~ ~, ., c
E o~ ~ ~.. v ~~ r o ~ c w ° q°
T o E rn.~ ~ v°L~, -o vi rn=, o :°• y 3 c v 2
Q ~ q V N N v0 N W `° V C O
o s£ W E E ~ w E L E ~;,
v.~- -¢ v a ¢ ..
~ ~ s ° 'S '~ y ~ ~~
rn ~ v~L ~-, o
w a
~ L y O N C
mi.°o w ~a
~av
~_
2
Y
N
z
Q
W
J
}
N
W
J
Q
V
LL
X
~.~..~
Z
J
Q
Z
Q
z
5 ~'
c'~ a
k ~~ yz
~ x
q~r EZ
4' z3
3 v` ~ S 2
z a~ 3"~
t~~~ a; Y¢
o'
EAS
£ ~
~ ESE ~, sSg~
~ p g 5a
qq ~o~ ~,4.§p __yy~
3. ~ Y Y ~ .y ~ ~ ~ _ $ ~ S ~ a v c ~ ~
~~ 4~ ~~ ~~`r Qi~' ~ a.qa $Ea
~' ~E go
l x =~ ~ 3~ R ~ ~~€
S~ °'Q
x ~~ ~ ° ~
E gF. ~ X ~ °' N E bc' ~ `~ ~ 'a 3 "~ g d d '^. ~Y' ~`
v 3 ~ 2 °m
x4~~ vgx> ig^ a~~~ a
s~g~. ~~o-~w YS ~<
°+> ~ 5g~ ~m°$p ~E
ys dig ~'~ ..n
v ~
s~ g m ~ `s ~s
E ~`' ~ ~ E °cq $
a ""
~ 9Xrc~tsa ~~ ~
~a ~ ~
~r
z sP v
~~~ A §g c ~
~~~ ~~ s X ~
~< d` ~ s ~ ~
E ~
a^ ~ s
4'
~ ~s-~ ~~
a a~~~ ~ ~~~~P
a~~~ ~~
I.V
J
N
Q
`L
Z
a
Q
l7
Z
Q
0
u..
X
~.u
Z
0
~6~ a
Z
f 5 :a ~ fi a d
a £ & ;
~m re 3£ o. y wo 9~ ~2,£r~~
53 ;s ~~ ~ '~ eg4~" s~~ ~
u~ ~~, ~r ~ ~~ ~
~' ~ ~ y=~~
~~ ~~ a~~
n$ s fO `"gt~o ~^V
3 r"dg~ ~
Ij ~ ~ g
a ;,
.~ ~
,.
~~
+1
P
20
~ 1
y
~ .
~•~ r ',x
~~~3 ~,
a
:~ gY~
~8 r~~
"
'°
a
~
°'
n$ E c m~ o q
m«cE ° d ~'~
m m ~
Q
gB 3 ~$
`i
g
4 m;o~U
64
~n
~
~ pa
99{{
u ~Y~~
°0
''
~2~
9 °4r ~
Q'b
'~ ~ S
2. voluntary/ involuntary committee update
members: Mike Maple, Michael Beh-
rendt, Penny Evans Carruth, Marsha Cook,
Yasmine dePagter, John Kelly, Lisa Markalu-
nas, Joe Myers, Suzannah Reid, Bill Wiener
goals:
Prepare a policy recommendation on
involuntary versus voluntary
designation of historical structures/
properties in Aspen.
concepts under discussion:
1. Are the needs of the community more im
ports nt than the individua I? Can they be
compatible?
2. S hould the City des ignate a property with
out owner consent?
3. At what cost should we have involuntary
designation?
1. A presentation of the recommenda-
tions, including majority and minority
opinions, will be given to the full Historic
Preservation Task Force for review and
',approval.
2. Minority and Majority opinions will be
~~ included in the Task Force recommenda-
tions to City Council.
work product to date:
]oe Myers produced a continuum of
Involuntary/Voluntary HP policies.
While there are likely many variations
of the 13 identified Involuntary/ Volun-
ta ry H P policies, this continuum is a n
appropriate place to-start any review of
Involuntary versus Voluntary HP poli-
cies.
We have had lively discussion about a
broad variety of voluntary/ involuntary
considerations, psychological and eco-
nomic impacts and unintended conse-
quences of Historic Preservation Poli-
cies.
attachments:
a. Joe Meyers' continuum
4. S hould there be involuntary designation
for post WW II structures?
5. How can we incentivize owners to volun
tarily participate in historic designation?
next steps:
While we have not settled on or crafted a
policy on voluntary/involuntary designation of
Post World War II properties, no change is
proposed to involuntary designation of previ-
ously dedicated and Victorian/100 year old
plus properties.
The Committee has indicated the pro-
cess must be fair in process and in
economic implication.
In some cases, HP policies~ncentives have
likely encouraged development. New
policies/incentive such as outright purchase
and non development benefits should be
considered.
see reverse side for
straw poll results and
discussion updates
2. voluntary/ involuntary. committee update
straw results/ discussion updates
1. Future policy regarding voluntary/involuntary will apply only to undesignated properties. Existing landmarked property status
is not subject to change. 7 YES
0 NO
1 ABSTAIN
2, No property should be designated without pub/ic process and appeal process.
,..,.: ~ 9 YES
0 NO
3. Should the economic impact of Historic Designation of a property be considered in involuntary/voluntary designation (reference
2000 AACP - "....reason, ba/ante, predictability and economic fairness...")?
,. ~~ 5 YES
0 NO~
2 ABSTAIN
4. Would you support a Voluntary HP program for Post WW II properties with appropriate incentives?
=.~V ~. ~! 4 YES
1 ABSTAIN
5. Does being on list such Ordinance #48 create at /east short to intermediate term (6 - 12 month) psychological and financial
burdens for Post WW II property owners? _ 3 ^'~'"j 7 YES
~°
0 NO
2 ABSTAIN
6. Shou/d HP Incentives be awarded to maintain approximate economic parity for an HP Designated property versus the same
property unencumbered by HP Designation?
~~"' 9 YES
,1,N0
7. Shou/d HP Incentives awarded in an Involuntary and Voluntary HP Program be approximately the same?
9 YES
1 NO
8. In some cases, have HP Incentive awards created deve/opment opportunity and incentives versus non HP properties?
=:1~ ,x ~, . ,.1 , 10 YES
9. As a precondition to consideration of an Invo/untary HP program for Post WW II properties, should the City of Aspen first HP
designate all City of Aspen owned, Ordinance #48 listed properties?
9 YES
1 NO`
10. If an Involuntary HP program for Post WW II properties is considered, the Historic Criteria Standard should be set high, greatly
reducing the list of Post WW IZ properties.
a.. ,e:,~~ 4 YES
0 NO
5 ABSTAIN
11. Is the Aspen Community as we perceive It concerned with HP of Post WW IZ properties?
4 YES
6 NO
12. Is the Aspen Community as we perceive it concerned with a high level of construction/development activity?
. , . ~. ~ - 10 YES
0 NO
13. Any Involuntary HP program for Post WW II properties Shou/d have demonstrated broad community support,
(~' - _ 7 YES
3 NO
14. Should the City of Aspen consider creating a fund whereby targeted HP properties are purchased, designated and resold (or
converted to Affordable Housing)? 9 YES
1 NO
15. Should the City ofAspen consider creating economic incentives such as property tax relief, grants, life estates, etc. to encour
age property owners to maintain properties in the short/intermediate term without major re-development?
~. ,_ -~ ;-:,,r 9 YES
1 ABSTAIN
16. Does current City of Aspen Zoning create incentives for development?
,v ~, . ~-~ 0 NO
5 ABSTAIN
17. Should current City of Aspen Zoning (versus HP) be considered to mitigate incentives for development?
2 YES
3 NO
5 ABSTAIN
Voluntary Involuntary Committee: Continuum
1. Involuntary Designation
-no hearings
-no incentives
-no compensation
2. Involuntary Designation
-no hearings
-no incentives
-no compensation
-only lasts 10 years
1
3. Involuntary Designation
-hearings
-restoration incentives
for residents to fix up
and live there
-no "speculative"
development
-loans
-cash grants
-tax incentives
-no lot splits, additions,
or TDRs
4. Involuntary Designation
-hearings
-compensation equal to
loss in value due to
designation
-no "speculative"
development
-cash
-TDRs
5. Involuntary Designation
-create a single historic
district and evaluate and
designate properties
- no demolition and
replacement or renovation
without HPC review and
approval
(Bill Stirling's Proposal)
10. Voluntary Designation
-same as #9 but City has
right of first refusal to buy
the properties and authority
to exercise eminent domain
so as not to lose very
important properties
-Buy, designate with
restrictions, and sell subject
to designation
9. Voluntary Designation
-Ordinance 48
-hearings required
-current incentives
available
-cannot stop demolition or
renovation (demolition
delay)
-retain for affordable
housing
8. Involuntary Designation
-Supermajority vote by
City Council required for
designation
7. Combination of
Voluntary/Involuntary
Designation
-hearings
-current incentives
-allows spec development
-some properties can be
involuntary (based on style
or integrity), others cannot,
higher voting requirements
for involuntary.
6. Involuntary Designation
(Current for 19 Century)
-hearings
-current incentives
-allows spec
development, but
compensates fairly
1.1. Voluntary Designation
_~ -same as #10 but public
referendum to set up
revolving bond fund to
buy properties,
designate and sell
subject to designation
12. Voluntary Designation
-Create overlay (superior
to zoning requirements) with
neighborhood or block
determination of maximum
height, mass, and scale -
similar to CC&R's in
residential subdivisions.
Voluntarily self-imposed by
residents.
(Bill Wiener's proposal)
13. Voluntary Designation
Achieve preservation by
downzoning in order to
discourage scrape and
replace (Michael Behrendt's
proposal)
14. VoluntaN Designation
-No preservation program
-No incentives
-No designation
3. historic districts committee update
members: Lisa Markalunas, Yasmine
dePagter, LJ Erspamer, Junee Kirk, Su Lum,
Joe Myers, Bill Stiling, Bill Wiener
goals:
1. Determine if existing historic districts
should be expanded to cover other areas
of the City of Aspen.
2. Determine if one or more historic dis-
tricts are the appropriate preservation
tool to address concerns about mass or
scale or if there are other more
appropriate methods.
3. Determine the legal requirements of
historic districts.
4. Determine the impacts on the review
process of expanding the historic
districts.
see reverse side for
discussion updates
and straw poll results
outstanding topics:
1. Review legal requirements and owner con-
sent issues of historic districts.
2. Recommend public outreach subcommittee
move forward. Continue discussion of the
impacts of new historic districts on review
i, process.
5. Make a specific recommendation to
the Historic Preservation Task Force
regarding the possible expansion of
historic districts within the City of Aspei
3. Identify possible historic or conservation dis-
tricts and formulate a recommendation to
the task force
work product to date:
Issues reviewed by the committee:
1. Reviewed possible historic districts within
the City of Aspen.
2. Mapped possible historic districts, 19th
Century and Post-WWII designated and
potentially designated buildings.
next steps:
1. Continue with weekly meetings to include
presentations from city staff on legal issues
and review requirements.
2. Projected completion: December, 2008.
3. Conducted discussions related to mass
and scale in the context of a historic dis
trict.
4. Reviewed historic district information
from Crested Butte and Telluride.
5. Met with Nore Winter, a historic preserva-
tion consultant responsible for develop-
ing historic preservation guidelines and
standards from the City of Apsen and
other municipalities.
attachments:
a. Map of existing historic districts and
existing zone districts within City of
Aspen- to be presented at meeting
b. Bulls eye graphic.
3 historic districts committee update
discussion topics
1. Discussion of the history of existing districts and design standards.
2. Discussion of whether Residential Design Standards are sufficient to control building type and scale
or if historic districts are a better way to go.
3. Discussion of whether historic districts are appropriate, and if they are not, if the Main Street and
Commercial Core Districts should be continued.
4. Discussion of the equal treatment of all properties within an historic district vs. singling out desig-
nated properties.
5. Discussion of Crested Butte program; similarities and differences.
6. Discussion of the possible need to expand deifintion of "contributing" to Post-WWII properties.
7. Discussion of context and compatibility of new construction.
8. Discussion of proposed historic district covering the original townsite.
9. Discussion of how to increase value of TDR so it is a more attractive option than maximum build-out.
Suggestion of developing a central TDR clearinghouse.
10. Discussion to recommend Public Outreach sub-committee begin work to facilitate outreach between
the Task Force, the Task Force subcommittees and the public.
straw polls
10. Discussion of a proposed historic district from river to river to base of mountain.
,p ~_ 0 NO
11. Discussion of a proposed historic district covering the entire city limits.
3 NO
12. Discussion of landing TDRs outside of a possib/e historic district covering the original
townsite.
5 YES
0 NO
13. Discussion and motion by Bill Stirling to consider a new hsitoric district from river to river
to the base of Aspen Mountain with a newly appointed commission to review new con-
struction and remodels based on modified design guidelines with the opportunity for final
review and/or appeal to the City Council. Seconded by Su Lum.
4 YES
1 NO
1 ABSTAIN
H~ 'f
Outlying neighborhoods, discuss~a ~ s e '
'
to rema~ri :based oncheck xfiv.q ` ~~,
,~.,.
admiriistered bystafE. Standardsm
-q a yc ~,,,~ ~
amendment. _ - Corpmerc~af~ad`ge; ~~ ~ ~
-~"~
,re ~.
4-~
essentially unchanged from updatie~p ces ,
as
~
~~ c ~
2007. ~~ I ~',
~r
`xw~,
,~
~,.:
;~
1.
e
I
'~ ~
_~ fonservation District or Historic District "Cite " rive to ~1 t,
~-~'~~• river, mountain to river. Discussion: Commercial/Lodge . ~
~
as ~'°` -yk~
review to remain essentially unchanged from updated-.. ~ , ,,
process adopted in 2007. New guidelines and design review ;; -
process to be created for-all other. uses (i.e. residential,.
~~ ~, - i, institutional, etc.) Need to determine what board would it ``'~
,;,: conduct the reviews and how workload would be managed.
s; }
-. ,~
Diminishing fntensityof review f ~~
y
Existing Historic ~ u
~
n
Districts, Commerctai ,
~ ~=
Core and Main Street ~. ~ `'~ .
Discussion: review i
~:,
process to remain
.~. ~ essentially ~ '.;i3
' unchanged. Should -
'
State or National ~§' ~'.
Register listing. be ,, ,
sought?)
, ~.
.ve
~
- ~` .;
r'`
4 .
r;k`.
.
~ ,Y,.
~.'
4
::x
s _,.
4. economics & incentives committee update
members: Michael Behrendt, Su Lum, Joe
Myers, Lisa Markalunas, Ann Mullins, Yasmine
dePaegter, Junee Kirk, Bill Weiner, Jack Wilke,
Marsha Cook, Bill Sterling, Pam Cunningham,
Mike Maple, Les Holst
work product to date:
work product continued:
3. Derek Skalko was engaged to analyze 6 post
WWII properties to determine which presently
available inventives would be valued at and
would be appropriate for their historic preserva
tion redevelopment. Two of these have been
presented to the full task force:
1. We had public presentations from 9 experts
on the economic impact of historic designs
tion on properties. Presenters were local
appraisers, assessors, real estate agents and
planners. A video copy is available on loan
from the historic preservation office.
2. A heroic subcommittee of Mullins, Maple and
Sterling analyzed the incentives applied to 5
previously developed historic properties:
629 West Smuggler Street (Victorian)
304/320 West Hallam Street (Pan Abode/ Vic.)
631/635 West Bleeker Street (Vic. lot split)
308/310 Park Avenue (Rustic cabin lot split)
1295 Riverside Drive (Chalet lot split)
The Mullins, Maple and Sterling, subcommit-
tee concluded there were no apparent eco-
nomic hardships on the owner/developers of
the properties listed above; that the avail-
able incentives were at least, if not more
than, adequate.
see reverse side .for
straw poll results and
discussion updates
attachments:
a. List of existing incentives for historic
properties
b. 2 examples of analysis by subcommittee of
Mullins, Maple and Sterling- to be handed
out at meeting
c. 2 examples (drafts) from Skalko's project
211 West Hopkins Avenue
301 Lake Avenue
Four more are nearly ready for presentation and
evaluation:
624/626 West Francis Street
95 Westview
434 Pearl Court
219 South Third Street
outstanding topics:
1. A subcommittee has formed and is in prog-'~
ress at developing a questionnaire and soliciting
feedback from neighboring properties to evalu-
ate any negative impact.
2. A subcommittee formed to develop a ques-
tionnaire and solicit feedback from neighboring
properties to evaluate any negative impacts.
Possibility of hiring a fee appraiser to analyze
the analysis completed by the subcommittee
and consultant (Derek Skalko.)
3. Draw conclusions regarding the applicability
of incentives to Post-World War II properties.
tangential questions:
1. The foremost question might be the negative
role the existing generous zoning and building
codes play to preserving the historic town, its
buildings, old-timers, scale and density.
2. What about the gap in benefits to people who
do nothing?
3. Do the existing incentives harm authenticity?
4. Are the incentives just another driver of devel
opment -which is harmful to authentic historic
preservation?
4. economics & incentives committee update
1. Historic preservation of Victorians has been economically beneficial to Aspen
and the property owners in most cases.
~"'= ~ 9 YES
0 NO
1 ABSTAIN
2. Protecting post WWII properties will be economically beneficial to Aspen and
the property owners in most cases.
°. -i • '; 4 YES
2 NO
4 ABSTAIN
3. If a historic district is instituted, demolition review should apply to all prop
ernes within the district (city?).
f w -'~ ~ 7 YES
3 NO
4. Demolition review should be limited only to those on the .Ordinance 48 list.
YE
7 NO
3 ABSTAIN
5. We should continue the same incentives for post WWII residences as we
have for Victorians.
'~.` '~;~:~ _~; 6 YES
2 ABSTAIN
6. Incentives should be site-specific rather than general- i.e. if FAR has already
been reached on a post WWII residence, this should be considered.
., t ,.,~, 9 YES
0 NO
1 ABSTAIN
7. Other issues, such as green building, scale of replacement building, and
rewards for renovating rather than scaping or enlarging should be consid
ered,
10 YES
0 NO
8. Development codes for the downtown core should not allow huge, high, lot
line to lot line expansions to preserve our small town flavor.
~.~-~w ~ .. ,,> ~F~;.:. ~f~ 8 YES
O NO
2 ABSTAIN
BENEFITS (INCENTIVES) FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATED PROPERTIES
(DRAFT DTD 11/10/08, NOT FINAL)
CURRENTLY IN ASPEN
Rehabilitation Loan Fund-interest free loan up to $2SK for rehab of neglected
properties
Conservation Easement Program ---owner grants easement to city giving up additional
square footage development rights in return for a federal income tax deduction
Dimensional Variances---yard setbacks, distance between buildings, exceed floor area
by S00 SF, exceed site coverage up to S%, parking waivers, open space variances
Historic Landmark Lot Split
Waiver of Fees---Park Development Impact Fee (waived for new bedrooms),
Affordable Housing Cash-in-lieu Fee (waived in certain circumstances)
Conditional Uses---uses allowed in certain zone districts, only for landmarks, through
Special Review
Exemptions from the Growth Management Quota System for affordable housing
Technical Assistance with tax credit applications, community initiated development
and building codes
Promotional Efforts in cultural heritage tourism, preservation honor awards, and
historic markers
Flexibility to lift building or otherwise accommodate construction of a basement, as
well as a new addition. Flexibility in some cases to relocate a building on-site, and in
much rarer instances, to relocate a building off' site.
Transferable Development Rights (TDRs)-aright to sell unused FAR to another
property.
ADDITIONAL BENEFITS IN OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES IN
COLORADO
Sales Tax Waiver on construction materials (Boulder)
Solar Access and height limitation exceptions for restoration of landmarks (Boulder)
Rehabilitation Grants for Landmarks (Boulder County)
Flexibility re permitted uses not otherwise permitted by zoning (Boulder County)
Rebate of city portion of property tax (C`astle Rock and others)
Design Assistance Program (Fort Collins)
Matching Funds for streetscaping (Greely)
Rebate of city use taxes (Manitou Springs)
Flexible zoning requirements (Frisco)
Waiver of real estate transfer tax (Frisco)
Waiver of water tap fees (Frisco)
Waiver of building permit fees (Frisco)
Partial waiver of bulk plan requirements (Frisco)
COLORADO REHABILITATION TAX CREDITS
A credit against Colorado income taxes may be available equal to 20% of the
qualifying cost (up to $SOK) of rehabilitation work on qualifying historic commercial
and residential properties. Property must be at least 50 years old.
COLORADO STATE HISTORICAL FUND
A percentage of funds received by the state from gaming activities is allocated to
preservation and grants are made by the Colorado Historic Society. In 2007, 166 grants
totaling approximately $17M were made.
ADDITIONAL BENEFITS AVAILABLE ACROSS NATION
FEDERAL REHABILITATION TAX CREDITS
A credit against US income taxes may be available equal to 20% of the qualifying cost
of rehabilitation work on qualifying historic properties for commercial, industrial,
agricultural or rental residential purposes (not available for an owner's private
residence).
POSSIBLE FEDERAL AND COLORADO DEDUCTIONS FOR PRESERVATION
EASEMENTS
The donation of a Preservation Easement may be treated as a tax deductible charitable
contribution equal to the fair market value of the easement granted for both state and
federal income tax purposes.
STATE TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAMS
Many different permutations---some abate only the increased valuation from
restoration, others all state, city and county taxes but not all applicable taxing districts.
STATE TAX CREDIT PROGRAMS
Credits against Connecticut state taxes are allocated to rehabilitated historic structures
and syndicated by the state. The cash proceeds of syndication are disbursed to the
homeowner in cash.
TASK FORCE BRAINSTORMING
For non-profits (and maybe others) possible financial and/or other environmental
construction incentives from sources such as CORE, for energy upgrades.
Assistance with securing reasonably priced property insurance (sometimes a difficult
issue for designated properties.)
Assistance with conventional bank loans.
Assistance in securing loans or grants from Charitable Foundations.
~.~
,_..
Conceptual Lot Overview - 301 Lake Avenue
PARCEL I.D. NUMBER: 2735 -124 - 16 - 003
OWNER'S NAME: Victor Alfred Lundy Trust
ADDRESS: 301 Lake Avenue, Aspen LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Hallam Subdivision, Lots 5, 6, & 7 (East '/: of
Lot 5), Block 40
ZONE DISTRICT: Zoned R-6 Residential
301 Lake Avenue is a 9,820 sq ft, wedge-shaped lot with a 2 bedroom single family residence situated on the property. The architectural
style is a well preserved example of the Modernist movement. The first,area following is intended to conceptually break down existing
and possible conditions for the property per The City of Aspen Land Use Code. The narrative following is an attempt to assess
conceptually what incentives might best be used for the said property. Site and Property images are also included for reference.
PERMITTED USES UNDER R-6 DEFINITION:
1) Detached Residential Dwelling 6000 sq ft / 3000 sq ft for Historically Designated Properties
2) Duplex 4500 sq ft / 3000 sq ft for Historic Landmark Properties,
3) Two Detached Residential Dwellings 4500 each / 3000 min per Historic Landmark
4) Home Occupations
5) Accessory buildings & Uses
6) Accessory Dwelling Units & Carriage Houses meeting provisions of Chapter 26.520
Determining Lot Size Vs. Lot Area: Please refer to the City of Aspen Land Use Code, Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations;
Section 26.575.020; Calculations and Measurements to verify specific. allowances per definition.
LOT SIZE PER CERTIFIED
SURVEY AREA REDUCTIONS (SLOPE/ EASEMENTS, ETC.) FINAL LOT AREA
9,820 Assumed /Survey NA/ No Survey Provided, but seems to be NA 9,820 sq ft (assumed),
Minimum 6000 sq ft typical or 3.000 By pure definition, capable in theory
sq ft for Historic Landmark of 2 approx. 4500 sq ft lots or 1 6000
& 1 approx 3000 sq ft lots -separate
`L structures could possibly be
i„
condominiumized er 26.520 as well
ZONE DISTRICT:
Determining Required Zoning District Allowances: Please refer to the City of Aspen Land Use Code, Section 26.710; Zone Districts
to verify specific allowances per district definition.
SETBACKS EXISTING ALLOWED ALLOWED POSSIBLE POSSIBLE
Princi al Accesso Princi al Accesso
Front TBD 10' 15' Capable on single lot Capable on single
parcel, if split, lot parcel, if split,
potential difficulties potential
difficulties
Rear TBD 10' / 5' for garage 5'
ortions
Combined Front/ Rear NA NA NA TBD TBD
Side TBD 10' 10' Side yards could be Side yards could
reduced to 5' if lot be reduced to 5' if
• slit enacted lots lit enacted
Combined Side TBD NA currently NA currently ]0' separation would 10' separation
be required between would be required
2 structures between 2
City of Aspen Historical Preservation Task Force ~ 301 Lake Avenue Residence
structures
Distance Between Buildings NA 5' S' 10' Min if separate 10' Min if
structures se arate structures
Lot Width Requirements UNLIKELY 60 ft typical / 30ft 60 ft typical / 30ft If lot split proposed, If lot split
for historic for historic enough area in sq ft, proposed, enough
landmark landmark but dimensions of area in sq ft, but
fathering parcel dimensions of
would likely not fathering parcel
,
allow for a lot split
would likely not
per code definition allow for a lot
split per code
definition
HEIGHT: Please refer to the City of Aspen Land Use Code, Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations; Section 26.710 Zone Districts
pertaining to height specifications for each said area. Note all plan reviews require a roof plan over existing topographical survey
information with specific benchmarks tied into the existing grade for all proposed changes to a given lot.
ELEVATION EXISTING ALLOWED
Princi al ALLOWED
Accesso PROPOSED
Princi al PROPOSED
Accesso CONSIDERATIONS
MAIN Approx 23 25' ' 25' NA NA Benefit of existing
STRUCTURE to 25' structure is 2 story
massing /may allow
flexibility with future
development from scale
context
FAR CALCULATIONS:
Determining Square Footage vs. Floor Area: Please refer to the City of Aspen Land Use Code, Miscellaneous Supplemental
Regulations; Section 26.575.020 - A. Floor Area; Calculations and Measurements to verify specific allowances per definition. It will be
required to demonstrate in both mathematical and scalable graphical documientation all below grade wall elevations and exposed vs.
unexposed conditions (existing and proposed).
EXISTING FAR CALCULATIONS ALLOWABLE FAR CONSIDERATIONS TO UTILIZE
FAR
1,834 main / 406 Upper = 2,240 sq ft FAR Approx 3,708 for SFR/ Approx 4,120 for 2 Uniqueness of existing Massing, Non-
likely Detached dwellings or Duplex traditional lot shape and sizes resulting,
sitin considerations of existin structure
EXEMPT SPACE (SQ FT) GROSS SQ FT FAR SQ FT'CALCULATION POTENTIAL ISSUES WITH
HISTORIC REDEVELOPMENT
Sub grade Areas (Basements, 1268 Assumed as NA Uniqueness of existing massing would
Partially Exposed Lower need to be examined to determine if
Levels, Etc.) traditional lifting and excavating for
basement would be feasible
Garage Area` NA NA Redevelopment would likely encourage on
site ara a or arkin abili
Deck Area NA NA TBD
ADU NA NA Additional massing strategies may conflict
with historic long term goals/ benefit is
home would likely be exempt from the
ADU fee / buildin re uirements
SUPPLEMENTAL BREAKDOWN
INFO EXISTING POTENTIAL ISSUES WITH
HISTORIC REDELOPMENT
NET LEASABLE/ COMM S FT NA NA
OPEN SPACE % No Requirement Is the home's siting important to the
historical context of the property/ Does
this become an issue with HPC
BEDROOMS 2
SITE COVERAGE A rox 42% maximum covera a currentl / Smaller lots would increase the site
City of Aspen Historical Preservation Task Force 301 Lake Avenue Residence
0-5,999 q ft lots have no limitations coverage considerably, does this conflict
with HPC desires for said ro e
ON -SITE PARKING 2 spots for exterior car parking available Garage development would be probable/
how would this be addressed/ if a lot split
occurred, parks & engineering
considerations also become prevalent/
does have benefit of alle access
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS:
Determining Applicable Residential Design Standards: Please refer to the City of Aspen Land Use Code, Part 400, Residential
Design Standards, Chapter 26.410 -Residential Design Standards to verify specific allowances per definition.
SITE DESIGN - 26.410.040 A If A licable -Com liance Descri lion Potential Considerations for Redevelo merit
Building Orientation Currently Complies on Access New development might require deviations
from this due to site shape and size/
potential benefits could be provided from a
.landmark review rocess
Build-To-Lines Non compliant currently Noted as above
Fence NA TBD
PARKING, GARAGES & CARPORTS - If Applicable -Compliance-Description Potential Considerations for Redevelopment
26.410.040 C
Access (For Example, Alley) Not compliant currently-Access not off alley Historic land marking could incentivize this
potential and enable front of home to
become more revalent
Gara e Width NA TBD
Garage Location NA If proposed, would likely be encourages off
of alle access
Driveway Cut Approx 9' - NaturatI)rect Access to Home TBD
From Lake current)
Entrance Width NA TBD
Sin le Stall Doors NA ~'BD
BUILDING ELEMENTS - 26.410.040 D If A licable -Com liance Descri lion Potential Considerations for Redevelo merit
Windows Home is very unique in design; potential
benefit of landmark designation is it could
assist the homeowner in adapting the home
more appropriately for site with flexibility
from RDS of As en
Door Does not comply per code currently Noted as above
Porch Does not comply per code currently Noted as above
Princi al Window Does not comply per code currently Noted as above
One Sto Element Does not comply per code currently Noted as above
Li ht wells NA (assumed) Noted as above
CONTEXT - 26.410.040E If A licable -Com lian~c Descri lion Potential Considerations for Redevelo merit
Materials Currently complies TBD
Inflection NA TBD
Assessed Land Value _$3,038,800 per Assessor Information Provided 2008
City of Aspen Historical Preservation Task Force 301 Lake Avenue Residence
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (continued):
Possible Landmark Incentives Summary /Overview
Interest Free Loan up to $25,000:
NA -Would require a demolition by neglect condition: the structure at 301 Lake is essentially intact and has been maintained
from its original 1970's construction
Park Fee Waiver ($4,429 per new bedroom waived):
~l.
Possible: -Development on site could enact stated benefits
Air Quality Fee Waiver ($498 per new bedroom waived):
Possible: - Develpoment on site could enact stated benefit
20% State Income Tax Credit up to $50,000
NA -Building must be over 50 years old to qualify
20% Federal tax Credit (Unlimited)
NA -Building must be Income Producing Property or on National Register
Variances (Setbacks, Distances between Buildings, Parking Waivers)
Possibilities: In the event more development is intended/,granted for the parcel (s), variances would likely be instrumental to
successful addressing of the historical resource in relation to any. potential new construction that could occur due to the existing
site dimensions and current relationship to the site. The structure is=a rather site specific architecture and it is possible the
contextual relationship between site and building is something of consideration as well. An example explaining this concept is
the eastern facade of the massing (visible from Lake Avenue and North Second Street) ,which is predominantly a glazing
curtain wall, integrating interior and exterior architecture with the surrounding landscape -this is a well preserved and well
executed design example of Lundy's Modernist principles within the fabric of Aspen's West End District. The Aspen
residence hints at elements found in several .notable architectural; works of his. The Unitarian Church in Westport (1959-1960/
1965) and the Unitarian Meetinghouse in Hartford (1962-1964) would be likely inspirations in application of exposed structural
concept, detailing, and building material choices and application. Wher- once asked, Lundy was quoted as saying, "I revere the
structure and I like to reveal. it," as is much the case in his 301 Lake Avenue residence.
Exceed Site Coverage /Increased Density
Possibilities: While increased density is possible on a standard lot of comparable size currently within the Aspen West end with
R-6 designation,. exceedigg ite coverage would only be feasible through a lot split procedure. It is not known at the present
time, due: to the dimensional irregularities ofthe property, if a lot split would even be a feasible opportunity due to the minimum
requirement of a historical lot needing to maintain a 30' minimum lot width. Per the information made available, it is unlikely
this minimum requirement could be achieved: The possibility of two separate structures or a significant addition on the 9800 sq
ft parcel is a more likely option from the standpoint of theoretical feasibility.
Waiver of ADU ($71.62 per Square Foot of New Construction Waived)
Possibilities: If new construction were to occur on site, waiving the ADU would be a possible benefit to the property by having a
significant fee reduction for any potential work that could possibly be implemented in the future. Through past reference to
seven historical projects completed in the city by selected firms, the average square footage increases tended to range from 1500
to 2100 square feet, resulting in fee savings of approximately $106,000 to $150,000 on average. It is potentially likely (if
utilized) a permit cost reduction range could be comparative for a property such as 301 Lake Avenue.
City of Aspen Historical Preservation Task Force 301 Lake Avenue Residence
FAR Increase of 500 sq ft:
Possibilities: In looking at the economic incentive of a 500 sq ft bonus, it is reasonable to assume under current market
conditions 1 sq ft of developed architecture essentially translates to approximately $1400/ sq ft in return value (this includes land
value, which is on average 550 to 600 per sq ft can entiy); therefore assessing a value of approximately $700 to 750,000 to a 500
sq ft bonus, It is also reasonable to assume from the standpoint of preservation (and taking items like restoration, home lifting/
mobilization, reworking, etc...) 1 sq ft of redeveloped architecture costs approximately 640 to 700 per sq ft to execute currently,
in comparison to an average new construction cost of roughly 525 per sq ft in the city of Aspen. The redevelopment of
Landmark architecture can also require longer construction times, which increase costs, due to the procedures and methods of
construction often required, as would likely be the case in a rework/ addition to the 301 Lake Avenue property. Essentially, a
500 sq ft bonus for the 301 property would likely produce a financial incentive for Historic Land marking. The 500 sq ft bonus
would likely be most beneficial to a lot maintained at a size of 9820 sq ft due to the irregular dimensions of the property as
existing.
+~,
Considerations; In dealing with this form of architecture, it is believed the general understanding that has been developed and
utilized for the predominantly Victorian architectural traditions of the Historical program will need be reviewed and
reinterpreted. Issues of massing and scale will likely be most important in dealing with a structure like 301 Lake. It is unclear if
and how the site would be considered in relation to the architecture as well at this time.
Lot Split:
Possibilities: From a numerical standpoint, two lots of approximately 4500 sq ft each or onelot of approximately 6000 sq ft and
a secondary lot of 3000 sq ft would be allowable by code in theory, What is unclear and unlikely at this time is due to the
irregular dimensions and siting of the existing structure, would a lot split even be permissible by code from dimensional required
minimums. Professional survey information and further study would be required to elaborate on this point.
Considerations: As stated earlier, the structure is site specific architecture and it is possible the contextual relationship between
site and building is something of consideration as well. An example explaining this concept is the eastern facade of the massing
(visible from Lake Avenue and the alley) ,which is predominantly a glazing curtain wall, integrating interior and exterior
architecture with the surrounding landscape -this is a well preserved and well executed design example of Lundy's Modernist
principles within the fabric of Aspen's West End District. The Aspen residence<hints at elements found in several notable
architectural works of his. The Unitarian Church in Westport!(1959-.1960/ 1965) and the Unitarian Meetinghouse in Hartford
(1962-1964) would be likely inspirations in application of exposed'structurat concept, detailing, and building material choices
and application, When once asked, Lundy was quoted as saying, "I revere the structure and l like to reveal it," as is much the
case in his 301 Lake Avenue residence.
TDR (West End ResidentiaLGenerally for 250 sq ft off siterighYto sale):
Possibilities; Transferable Development Rights .would be apossibility-for this parcel, but it should be noted the site is 9,820 sq ft
with developable room should it`be a property desire. Economical comparatives, when looking at the possibility of allowable
site FAR at 3708, and current FAR at 2,240 sq ft approximately, essentially leaves 1468 sq ft of undeveloped FAR on the table
currently with the opportunity of 500 sq ft in Landmark bonus potential, thus bringing the total FAR undeveloped potential to
around 1968 sq ft. In theory if alt developable FAR was to be sold to receiving parcels at approximately $250,000 per 250/ sq ft
of developable right, you could potentially be looking at $1,750,000 in sellable TDR potential. In all reality, it is unlikely this
would`be'allowable or feasible. Potentially, a hybrid of development on site in addition to TDR possibility would be a viable
option for the 301 Lake property if build out becomes an overall concern. Research into how the FAR bonus if received can be
applied is required for further. assessment. FAR valuation estimated around 1000sq ft in regards to current property value
approximation.
About the Architect: Victor Alfred Lundy
An American architect,. he trained under Walter Gropius at Harvard University and worked with Marcel Breuer, both prominent
figures in the Modernism architectural movement. He set up his practice in New York City in 1953. His best known work was
the I. Miller Shoe Salon, Fifth Avenue, NYC (1961), where timber ribs and many mirrors were liberally employed. His various
churches, such as the Westminster Unitarian, East Greenwich, RI (1964), relied on bold and simple elements. The US Tax
Court, Washington, DC (1976), has a huge block cantilevered out to an uneasy extent.
City of Aspen Historical Preservation Task Force 301 Lake Avenue Residence
1: r,.
301 Residence -Lake Avenue & North 2"d Street Facade
City of Aspen Historical Preservation Task Force 301 Lake Avenue Residence
301 Lake Avenue Aerial Perspective
301 Residence -Lake Avenue Main Facade (Entry)
Conceptual Lot Overview - 434 Pearl Court
PARCEL I.D. NUMBER: 2735 -121 - 09 - 002
OWNER'S NAME: _Aspen Family Investments, LLC
ADDRESS: 434 Pearl Court, Aspen LEGAL DESCRIPTION: City & Townsite of Aspen, Hallam Addition
Subdivision, Block 100, Lots 3 & South '/: of Lot 2
ZONE DISTRICT: Zoned R-6 Residential
434 Pearl Court is situated on a 5,000 sq ft, approximately 50' x 100' lot with moderate to significant existing vegetation. A 4 bedroom
single story, single family residence is situated on the property. The architectural style would likely be defined asmodern /chalet
infused construction from the late 1950's. The first area following is' intended to conceptually break down existing ;and possible
conditions for the property per The City of Aspen Land Use Code. The narrative following is an attempt to assess conceptually what
incentives might best be used for the said property. Site and Property images are also included £or reference.
PERMITTED USES UNDER R-6 DEFINITION:
I) Detached Residential Dwelling 4500 min. sq ft / 3000 sq ft for Historically Designated Properties
2) Duplex 4,500 min. / 3000 sq ft for Historic Landmark Properties
3) Two Detached Residential Dwellings 3000 min per Historic Landmark
4) Home Occupations
5) Accessory buildings & Uses
6) Accessory Dwelling Units & Carriage Houses meeting provisions of Chapter 26.520
Determining Lot Size Vs. Lot Area: Please refer to the City of Aspen Land Use Code, Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations;
Section 26.575.020; Calculations and Measurements to verify specific allowances per definition.
LOT SIZE PER CERTIFIED
SURVEY .AREA REDUCTIONS (SLOPE/ EASEMENTS, ETC.j FINAL LOT AREA
5,000 sq ft Assumed per assessor No Survey Provided, but seems to be NA 5,000 sq ft (assumed),
information/ Survey NA/ Minimum By pure definition, capable in theory 1
4500 sq ft typical or 3000 sq ft for of single lot with either a single
Historic Landmark ,,. family residence, two detached
dwellin s, or a du lex unit
ZONE DISTRICT:
Determining Required Zoning District Allowances: Please refer to the City of Aspen Land Use Code, Section 26.710; Zone Districts
to verify specific allowances per drstrict definition.
SETBACKS EXISTING ALLOWED ALLOWED POSSIBLE POSSIBLE
Princi a! Accesso Princi al Accesso
Front (Pearl) 12' Approx. 10' 15' Capable on single lot Capable on single
parcel of being lot parcel of being
maintained in all maintained in all
scenarios scenarios
Rear (Needs to be defined: 6' approx. 10' / 5' for garage 5' Variances would Variances could
assumed as interior side-yard portions likely be required assist in massing
opposite of Pearl for report and could assist in relief and site ~
purpose) massing relief & lack access limitations i
of access to an alle
Combined Front/ Rear NA NA NA TBD TBD
Side (assumption made that 15' & 35' S' S' if lots split Side yards per code Side yards likely
lot was annexed before approx. achievable in all maintained at 5' in
Janua 1, 1989 likes scenarios all scenarios
City of Aspen Historical Preservation Task Force 434 Pearl Court Residence
Combined Side 50' approx. NA currently NA currently 10' separation would 10' separation
be required between would be required
2 structures, believed between 2
to be possible even structures,
without variance believed to be
procedure, additional possible even
massing should have without variance
minimal im act rocedures
Distance Between Buildings NA 5' S' 10' Min if separate 10' Min if
structures, otherwise separate
NA structures,
otherwise NA
Lot Width Requirements 30' 60 ft typical / 30ft 60 ft typical / 30ft Lot split would not Lot split would
Minimum for for historic for historic be feasible per code not be feasible per
historic lot landmark landmark definition, single lot code definition,
split ! 45' of 5,000 would single lot of 5,000
minimum for likely have to be would likely have
typical R-6 maintained for 434 to be maintained
Pearl property for 434 Pearl
ro e
HEIGHT: Please refer to the City of Aspen Land Use Code, Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations; Section 26.710 Zone Districts
pertaining to height specifications for each said area. Note all plan reviews require a roof plan over existing topographical survey
information with specific benchmarks tied into the existing grade for all proposed changes to.'a given lot.
ELEVATION EXISTING ALLOWED
Princi al ALLOWED
Accesso PROPOSED
Princi al PROPOSED
Accesso CONSIDERATIONS
MAIN Approx 16 25' 2S NA NA Potential negative of
STRUCTURE to 18' existing structure is 1
story massing /flexibility
with future development
from scale context may be
impacted by l story
massing with semi- garden
` level conditions- FAR
restrictions could result
FAR CALCULATIONS:
Determining Square Footage vs. Floor Area: Please refer to the City of Aspen Land Use Code, Miscellaneous Supplemental
Regulations; Section 26.575.020 - A. Floor Area; Calculations and Measurements to verify specific allowances per definition. It will be
required to demonstrate in both mathematical and scalable graphical documentation all below grade wall elevations and exposed vs.
unexposed conditions (existing and proposed).
EXISTING FAR CALCULATIONS ALLOWABLE FAR CONSIDERATIONS TO UTILIZE
FAR
812 First Floor / 812 Garden Leve! Approx. 2,960 for SFR for lot of 5,000 sq ft Uniqueness of existing Single Story
Basement = 1,OSS.b sq ft FAR likely 3,300 for Duplex -Could be increased up by Massing, siting considerations of existing
(Assuming 30%-FAR Calculation for 500 sq ft in total with FAR bonus potentially structure, Non traditional structure per the
Garden Level = 243:6 FAR) standard design guidelines -FAR bonus
beneficial
EXEMPT SPACE (SQ FT) GROSS SQ FT FAR SQ FT CALCULATION POTENTIAL ISSUES WITH
HISTORIC REDEVELOPMENT
Sub grade Areas (Basements, 812 Garden Level Estimate at 243.6 Sq Ft FAR Possible opportunity to create lower level
Partially Exposed Lower assumed at 30% ex area that currently does not exist. FAR
Levels, Etc.) bonus could assist. FAR bonus may help
with Existin Garden Level restrictions
Garage Area NAl Believed to 2 Spaces Required! currently non Redevelopment would likely have
have street access compliant diff-culty complying with residential
parking only at standards and zoning requirements,
resent time Historic rocess review/ incentives could
City of Aspen Historical Preservation Task Force 434 Pearl Court Residence
benefit ossible future redevelo ment
Deck Area 40 sq ft open porch OK Possibility of porch and balcony areas
/ 144 wood - being required to maintain original
balcony architectural configurations may be
re uired.
ADU NA NA Additional massing strategies may conflict
with historic long term goals/ benefit is
home would likely be exempt from the
• ADU fee / buildin re uirements
SUPPLEMENTAL BREAKDOWN EXISTING POTENTIAL ISSUES WITH
INFO HISTORIC REDELOPMENT
NET LEASABLE/ COMM S FT NA NA
OPEN SPACE % No Requirement Possible benefit is primary fagade would
likely not be' affected/ low impact to
historical frontage potentials of Pearl and
40i Streets
BEDROOMS 4 Possible addition of bedrooms with
additional square footage/ increased
massin
SITE COVERAGE 0-5,999 q ft lots have no limitations, 'Smaller lots would increase the site
therefore lot would likely have a 0 limitation coverage considerably, but could have
for site coverage lower impact from HPC standpoint due to
corner street frontage location off Pearl &
4`h
ON -SITE PARKING No garage or parking currently/ non 2 vehicles on site required for SFR/ 4 for a
conforming property duplex or multi dwelling scenario.
Incentives could result in additional street
parking concerns unless parking
incentivized through variances.
Residential desi n standard concerns?
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS:
Determining Applicable Residential Design Standards: Please refer to the City of Aspen Land Use Code, Part 400, Residential
Design Standards, Chapter 26.410.- Residential Design Standards. to verify specific allowances per definition.
SITE DESIGN - 26.410.040 A If A licable -Com liance Descri tion Potential Considerations for Redevelo ment
Buildin Orientation Currently Complies on Access Redevelopment would likely not affect this
Build-To-Lines Possibly in compliance currently Noted as above
Fence NA TBD
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. (continued):
BUILDING FORM - 2.6.410.040 B If Applicable -Com Iiance Descri tion Potential Considerations for Redevelo ment
Secondary Mass NA I Secondary mass considerations
PARKING, GARAGES & CARPORTS - If Applicable -Compliance Description Potential Considerations for Redevelopment
26.410.040 C
Access (For Example, Alley) Not compliant currently - No parking Historic land marking could incentivize this
current) available on site otential
Gara e Width NA TBD
Garage Location NA Any HPC potential variances could be in
RDS conflict/ variances would likely be
re uired or arkin waivers a roved
City of Aspen Historical Preservation Task Force 434 Pearl Court Residence
Drivewa Cut NA TBD
Entrance Width NA TBD
Sin le Stall Doors NA TBD
BUILDING ELEMENTS - 26.410.040 D If A licable -Com liance Descri lion Potential Considerations for Redevelo ment
Windows Does not comply per code currently Home is very unique in design; potential
benefit of landmark designation is it could
assist the homeowner in adapting the home
more appropriately for site with flexibility
from RDS of As en
Door Does not comply per code currently Noted as above
Porch Does not comply per code currently Noted as above
Princi al Window Does not comply per code currently Noted as above
One Sto Element Complies -Entire home is single story Noted as above
Li ht wells NA (assumed) Notedas'above
CONTEXT - 26.410.040E If A licable -Com liance Descri lion Potential Considerations for Redevelo ment
Materials Currently complies TBD
Inflection NA TBD
Assessed Land Value _$1,389,200 per Assessor Information Provided 2008
Possible Landmark Incentives Summary /Overview
Interest Free Loan up to $25,000:
NA -Would require a demolition by neglect condition: the structure at 434 -Pearl Court is essentially intact and has been
maintained from its original 1950's effective year built construction.
Park Fee Waiver ($4,429 per new bedroom waived): ~~ , .
Possible: -Development on site could enact stated benefit.
Air Quality Fee Waiver ($498 per new bedroom waived):
Possible: -Development on site could enact stated benefit.
20% State Income Ta$: Credit up to $50,000
Possible -- Would require further research as building must be over 50 years old to qualify. Building has an actual build year of
1957 and an effective build year of 1970 per Pitkin County Assessor /Treasurer Records currently.
20% Federal tax Credit (Unlimited)
NA -Building must be Income Producing Property or on National Register
Variances (Setbacks, Distances between Buildings, Parking Waivers)
Possibilities: In the event more development is intended/ granted for the parcel, the structure would likely benefit in variance
approvals for ease of massing and scale potential issues that may be created by further development. Currently, the existing
structure's facades (4~' & Pearl), in relation to the context of the block, likely has ability to remain relatively in its historical
location should the HPC process deem such a proposal beneficial. This likelihood is also supported by the fact neighboring
property setback dimensions are currently similar in nature. It should also be noted the existing structure is essentially a single
story construction with a lower garden level that is approximately thirty percent exposed in comparison to the existing grade,
and possible development in the form of carriage housing, detached single family, or additions will need to address this aspect.
Due to the existing vegetation of 434 Pearl Court, variances /parks negotiations would likely become more critical to future
development.
City of Aspen Historical Preservation Task Force 434 Pearl Court Residence
Exceed Site Coverage /Increased Density
Possible: Technically, the lot would remain at 5,000 sq ft as it would become too small to enact a lot split. Any lot sized
between 0-5,999 sq ft in areas zoned as R-6 has no limitation for maximum site coverage.
Waiver of ADU ($71.62 per Square Foot of New Construction Waived)
Possibilities: If new construction were to occur on site, waiving the ADU fees would be a possible benefit to the property by
having a significant fee reduction for any potential work possibly implemented in the future. Through past reference to seven
historical projects completed in the city by selected firms, the average square footage increases tended to range from 1500 to
2100 square feet, resulting in fee savings of approximately $106,000 to $150,000 on average. 1t is potentially likely (if utilized)
a permit cost reduction range could be, although perhaps slightly less in total square footage, similar when compared against the
FAR ratio for a property such as 434 Pearl Court,
FAR Increase of 500 sq ft;
Possibilities: In looking at the economic incentive of a 500 sq ft bonus, it is reasonable to assume under current market
conditions 1 sq ft of developed architecture essentially translates to approximately $1400/ sq ft in return value (this includes land
value, which is on average 550 to 600 per sq ft currently); therefore assessing a value of approximately $700 to 750,000 to a 500
sq ft bonus. It is also reasonable to assume from the standpoint of preservation (and taking items like restoration, home lifting/
mobilization, reworking, etc...) 1 sq ft of redeveloped architecture costs, approximately 640 to 700 per sq ft to execute currently,
in comparison to an average new construction cost of roughly 525 per, sq ft in the city of Aspen. The redevelopment of
Landmark architecture can also require longer construction times, which increase costs, due to the procedures and methods of
construction often required, as might be the case in a rework/ addition to the 434 Pearl Court property. It should also be noted
due to the size and construction method of the home, lifting and re-engineering strategies may be less costly and more efficient
than comparative projects with large scale Victorian structures for example. This assumption is taking into consideration the
garden level (if lifted or moved) would be rebuilt accordingly, as this area would likely be unfeasible to maintain in a major
development scenario requiring foundational work. All being said, a 500 sq ft bonus for 434 Pearl would likely produce a
financial incentive for Historic Land marking. The S00 sq'$ bonus would be capable of being utilized fully as the lot is a 5,000
sq ft lot and there would essentially be no FAR reductions for areas such as garages (if proposed) due to access limitations.
Considerations: In dealing with this typology and massing of architecture, it is believed the general understanding that has been
developed and utilized for the predominantly Victorian architectural traditions of the Historical program will need to be
reviewed and reinterpreted accordingly.. Issues of massing and scale will likely be most important in dealing with a structure
like 434 Pearl It is unclear if and'how the existing Garden Level Massing would be considered in relation to the architecture as
well at this time. Is this an area of the home, if deemed important architecturally, that could be allowed to be reconstructed
should a lower level/ foundation: rework be proposed? It is unclear at this time how the home would be lifted if required or
requested without allowing'-for some level of rebuild to the Garden Leve( of the home. Significant discussions with parks and
engineering city entities would likely be necessary,' as vegetation could be considered significant in proposed future
development. Parking considerations will also become major potential areas of discussion.
Lot Split:
Not Feasible with the current total lot size of 5,000 sq ft per the current land use code in areas zoned R-6.
TDR (West End Residential Generally for 250 sq ft off site right to sale):
Possibilities:`Although highly unlikely, Transferable Development Rights would be a possibility for this parcel, but it should be
noted the site is ;5,000 sq ft with ample developable room should it be a property desire. Economical comparatives, when
looking at the possibility'of allowable site FAR at 2960 in a single family residence scenario and 3,300 for a duplex lot, are as
follows. Current assumed FAR calculations at 1,055 sq ft essentially leaves 1905 sq ft of undeveloped FAR on the table
currently with the opportunity of 500 sq ft in Landmark bonus potential, thus bringing the total FAR undeveloped potential to
around 2405 sq ft. In theory, if all developable FAR was to be sold to receiving parcels at approximately $250,000 per 250/ sq
ft of developable right, you could potentially be looking at approximately $2,200,000 in sellable TDR potential, In all reality, it
is unlikely this would be allowable or feasible. Realistically, all FAR would be likely achievable on the existing property in
either a single family residence or duplex lot scenario, so the possibility of a sell off would be doubtful, even with consideration
of existing street fagade and interior yard vegetation.
City of Aspen Historical Preservation Task Force 434 Pearl Court Residence
,,
_ IP
Z 6P V 1
~P ~ 'y ~$PA { 'R' Y ~.
PuD ~PVD 6PA y ~ g
~ PUB ALP.^~ _.__.
7 _ ...
durcnrn
City of Aspen Historical Preservation Task Force 434 Pearl Court Residence
434 Pearl Court Aerial View Showing Adjacencies & Vegetation
434 Pearl Court -Entry Facade (Pearl Court)
City of Aspen Historic TDRs Last Updated: November 21, 2008
Certificate Former Issuance Certificate Sending Site Landing Site or Landing Site
Number Cart. No. TDR Number Date Owner Sending Site _ parcel ID # New CeR. No. Parcel ID #
1 N/A FC Lot 5 TDR 1 Fax Crossing Fox Crossing 273707392005 Fox Crossing Lot 11 273707392011
Partners LLC Subdivision Loi 5
2 NIA FC Lot 5 TDR 2 Fox Crossing Fox Crossing 273707392005 Fox Grassing Lot 13 273707382013
Partners, LLC Subdivision Lot 5
3 WA FC Meadow TDR 1 Foz Crossing Fox Crossing 273707392014 Fox Crossing Lot 9 273707382009
Partners LLC Subdivision Meadow
4 WA FC Meatlow TOR 2 Fox Crossing Fox Crossing 273707392014 Fox Crossing Lof 9 273707392009
Partners, LLC Subdivision Meadow
5 WA FC Meadow TDR 3 Fox Crossing Fox Crossing 273707392014 Fox Crossing Lot 10 273707392010
Partners, LLC Subdivision Meadow
6 N/A FC Meadow TDR 4 Fox Crossing Fox Crossing 273707392014 Fox Crossing Lot 10 273707392010
Partners, LLC Subdivision Meadow
7 WA FC Meadow TDR 5 Fox Crossing Fox Crossing 273707392014 Fox Crossing Lot 13 273707392013
Partners LLC Subdivision Meadow
$ N/A FC Lot 6 TDR 1 Fox Crossing Fox Crossing 273707392008 Fox Crossing Lot 1 273707392001
Partners, LLC Subtlivision Lot 8
9 WA FC Lot 8 TDR 2 Fox Crossing Fox Crossing 273707392008 Fox Crossing Lot 1 273707392001
Partners, LLC Subdivision Lat fi
10 WA FC Lot 8 TDR 3 Fox Crossing Fox Crossing 473707382008 Fox Crossing Lot 2 273707392002
Partners. LLC Subdivision Lot 6
11 N/A FC Lot 6 TDR 4 Fax Crossing Fox Crossing 273707392008 Fox Crossing Lot 2 273707392002
Partners LLC Subdivision Lot 6
12 N/A TS•B65-LK-1 1/212007 Nancy Spears 100 East Sleeker
5 273512437005 850 Moore Drive 273814111109
Street, Lot k Block 6
13 WA TS-865-LK-2 1/2/2007 Nancy Spears 100 East Sleeker 473512437005 850 Moore Drive 273514111109
Street, Lot k Block 65
Mary Janss 403 West Hallam
14 WA TS-838-LIH-1 9/132007 1992 Revocable Street, Lot I and East 273512433005
Livng Trust 12 of Lot H, Block 38
Mary Janss 403 West Hallam
15 WA TS-B38-LIH-2 11!12007 1992 Revocable Street, Lot 1 and East 273512433005
Living Trusl 1/2 of Lol H. Block 36
Frost Bam 208 East Hallam
16 NIA TS•B71-LDE-1 12/20/2007 Street, Lots D and E, 273707314003
property, LLC Block 71
Frost Bam 208 Easl Hallam
17 N/A TS-671-LDE-2 1220/2007 property
LLC Street, Lots D and E, 273707314003
, Block 71
Frost Bam 208 East Hallam
18 N/A TS•B71-LDE-3 1220/2007 property
LLC Street, Lots D and E, 273707314003
, Brock 71
Frost Bam 208 East Hallam
19 N/A TS-67i•LDE-4 12202007 property
LLC Street, Lots D antl E, 273707314003
, Block 71
Frosl Bam 208 East Hallam
20 N/A TS-B7I-LDE-S 12202007 Street, Lats D and E, 273707314003
property, LLC Blcck 71
21 N/A TS-825-LB-1 4/182007 Douglas Kelso 827 West Main Street, 473512448010
Lot B, Block 25
22 NIA TS-8713-LPQ-1 5/302008 Nyia White 827 Dean Street, Lots 473718258004
P and ~, Block 113
Notes: The Certificates are prenumbered.
I(a Certificate is vcided due to a mistake in issuance, please rewrd it here as "voidetl '
Upon re-issuance, please record new certificate number, former number, and new owner.
To extinguish, assign fhe certificate to the City of Aspen for eMinguishment'
The TDR number U detertninetl as follows: original townsae/ subdivision name- block- lot- number of ttlr for the property
for example: a property that is part of Ne original townsite, block 85, lot k wkh only 1 ttlr being established would be:
TSB65LK1
another example: a property that is part of the fox crossing subdivision, lot 8, the sewnd ttlr being established on the lot would be:
FC82
APPROVED TDRs
Property number o T Rs
approved
Ordinance #
Year
Fox Crossing Lot 5 2 50 2004
Fox Crossing Meadow 5 50 2004
Fox Crossing Lot 6 4 50 2004
100 East 6leeker 2 31 2006
403 West Hallam 2 32 2006
208 East Hallam 5 42 2007
627 Dean Street 1 2 2008
827 Dean Street 4 6 2008
612 West Main Street 6 12 2008
total number of approved TDRs 31
5. architecture committee update
members: 7unee Kirk, Bill Wiener, Joe
Meyers, Tom Todd, LJ Erspamer, Suzannah
Reid, Pam Cunningham, Jack Wilke,
expanded to include: Michael Behrendt, Su
Lum, Lisa Markalunas, Marsha Cook.
goal: To address, discuss and recom-
mend ways of preserving our small
scale and character through architec-
tural styles and context in the blocks
and neighborhoods of the Commercial
Core/Historic Districts as it relates to
Guidelines and Code.
work product to date:
1. Presentation by Bifl Wiener on °Threats
to Preservation" through incentives for
demolition:
work produce to date continued:
4. Presentation by Alan Richmond, planner,
answering the following questions:
1) Do PUD's contribute to demolition and
allow a way for a developer to go beyond
the normal development process by
increasing FAR and height?
Answer: Yes, it has gone beyond its original inten-
tions of "give and take" within the land use stan-
dards and it has become a way to exceed the limi-
tations of the land use code.
2) Do you think that Free Market housing
belongs in the Commercial Core and His-
toric Districts?
Answer: No, the driving force for land use in the
CC should be commercial uses and land, and what
has happened is "residential" has become a driving
force.
a) Allowance of 3 and 4 story build
ings with free market housing, ~~pent
houses"
b) "Cash-in-lieu" for off site afford
able housing
c)building lot line to lot line with
"hard edges"
2. Presentation by Pam Cunningham, &
Suzannah Reid on examples of pleasing
building with "hard edges"
3. Presentation by Junee Kirk on historical
time line of'~open space" from Quiet
years through the 90's translated
through codes of 25%open space on
ground level, pedestrian amenities and
climaxing in the 'signature open spaces
of plazas, courtyards, sunken patios"
etc.
attachments:
a. Initial Statement of Concern Regarding
the Goal
3) Review Process: Has P&Z had limita-
tions placed on their land use decisions?
Answer: HPC, as a board that makes land use
decision in the historic districts, but essentially in a
board of architects and their scope is limited on
land-use decisions. While P&Z should make land
use decisions their purview has been limited. We
need both boards.
see reverse side for
straw poll results and
discussion updates
outstanding topics:
1. Height, Mass and Scale
2. Open Space
3. Setbacks
4. Interiors
5. Additions to Victorians.
.. $'
5. architecture committee .u~ ~~ date.
a~
straw poll results/discussion updates
1. "Can we look at the elements of the code that influence positive/y or
negatively historic preservation?"
i 4 YES
2 NO
2, "Do we want Aspen's future to look like what we see along Monarch
Street or in the Design Guideline book with 3&4 stories?"
'''; 1 YES
6 NO
3, "Shou/d historic interiors be preserved?" (no discussion)
~.~ r ~ ~ Y, 5 YES
4 NO
Initial Statement of Concern Re,~ardin,~ the Architecture Committee Goal:
No matter how many historic buildings are saved, if our city chooses to permit the
construction of taller buildings with greater mass and volume, fewer setbacks and less
open space, then the glorious historic, character of Aspen will decline and in time
disappear. While we support the construction of some small affordable housing units in
the central core, the construction of large, frequently vacant free market units does not
contribute to the human vitality of our town and should be discouraged. Smaller
buildings in the future will ensure a height, mass and scale consistent with the small town
atmosphere which our citizens love and the relaxed quality of life that brought so many
of us here in the first place.
•~: