The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.worksession.20100615TO: FROM: THRU: DATE: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: C� THE CITY of ASPEN MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Steve Barwick, City Manager Shirley Ritter, Director Kids First Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager June 11, 2010 June 15, 2010 Early Childcare Capacity Planning Committee Final Report and Recommendations SUMMARY: The purpose of this memo is to provide information and make recommendations to the city council and city manager about the childcare capacity planning committee. BACKGROUND: In 2009 the City of Aspen, using the Kids First department, approved funding to develop a long range plan that addresses childcare capacity using community representation and fostering partnerships among several employers/businesses to address the childcare capacity needs. Kids First staff contacted representatives from approximately 30 local entities; the members that have committed to this work include: Name Affiliation Sue Way George Newman Aspen Skiing Company, Childcare Program Pitkin County BOCC Mick Ireland Mayor, City of Aspen Heather Compton ACRA, Parent Amy Guthrie Parent, Planning Nan Sundeen Pitkin County DHS Alicia Miller Aspen valley Hospital Tim Anderson City of Aspen Recreation Director Diana Sirko Aspen School District, Superintendant Rabbi Mendel Mintz Jewish Community Center Julie Markalunas Hall Kids First Advisory Board member, Aspen School District Speech Therapist Sara Burrows Childcare Program — Early Learning Center Kim Hilderbrand Pitkin County DHS Beth Cashdan Kids First Advisory Board Denise Tomaskovic Town of Basalt, Planning department Julie Kieffer Parent, City of Aspen Housing Department This group is supported by city staff: Barry Crook, Sally Spaulding, and Shirley Ritter. Since beginning to meet in May 2009, this group has identified its vision, mission and goals; it has created a survey, contacted employers to distribute the survey, and formed 3 sub -committees to focus on specific work. VISION: Increase the availability of quality and sustainable childcare capacity for kids with parents who live/work in Pitkin County MISSION: Increase the capacity of childcare, primarily infant and toddler spaces MEASURABLE GOALS FOR OUR 10 YEAR PLAN: • Increase infant and toddler care availability • Increase support for existing childcare centers to expand • Increase seasonal childcare and time when it is needed • Attract additional funding to increase capacity • Increase our understanding of our community's needs for seasonal and after hours care • Increase number of partnerships to support childcare The childcare capacity survey was distributed in August and September 2009, primarily through employers, with both online and hard copies available in English and Spanish. Over 350 completed surveys were returned! These surveys have been used by the subcommittees; was analyzed with a report and press to the community on the findings. DISCUSSION: The childcare capacity planning committee has a final report with recommendations for review and approval by the Aspen City Council. Subcommittees developed and prioritized strategies, activities and tasks that support the goals in their area. The subcommittees are planning and land use (as it pertains to childcare programs), business participation, and cooperative efforts among existing childcare programs. Planning and Land Use Committee Findings/Recommendations Please see the attachments and Power Point slides for more detail on the work. Recommendations: Kids First be provided with land for a childcare facility at the entrance of Burlingame Kids First fund pay for the construction of a facility there to be built as part of the construction contract for Phase 2 development. Residents of Burlingame should be afforded a "first priority" status in gaining a space for childcare at this facility both as a way of minimizing traffic into and out of Harmony Road and Burlingame and as an incentive for ownership in Burlingame. Business Partnership Committee Findings/Recommendations The Business Partnership Committee found that, unfortunately, not only is press interest low on childcare issues but also general interest across the Aspen community. Currently in Aspen, childcare is not a driving employment problem, and the City of Aspen has largely helped shoulder this burden with Kids First and all the associated childcare programs and financial aid for working families. The committee was able to do some limited press outreach, local television production and community polling but has plans to continue outreach following publication of this task force's recommendations. The committee will work with local businesses to determine "buy in" for future projects and will work with employers to make them aware of any upcoming opportunities for increasing childcare capacity for their employees. The committee will also continue to raise awareness of childcare capacity issues within the Aspen community. Cooperative efforts among existing childcare programs Committee Findings/Recommendations This group created a list of criteria for assessing physical space (new or existing) for childcare and has been working with the land -use group to evaluate various locations. Based on survey information, there is no available space in existing childcare programs. There is however land possibly available at the Yellow Brick Building in Aspen and at the Little Red Schoolhouse in Snowmass Village. It was determined that some existing space could be (and has been) converted for use as infant / toddler space without significant cost. The main barrier is the cost of providing infant / toddler care, with reduced ratios, and therefore an unwillingness to change a preschool room that is at least breaking even to an infant / toddler room that does not. Should capital improvements be necessary in the future, there are identified grant sources available for at least part of that cost. Recommendations: / Kids First will continue to discuss capacity issues and needs with existing childcare programs ► Kids First will continue to work in collaboration with the Western Colorado Preschool Cooperative (COOP) to seek grants and efficiencies in existing childcare programs. / Kids First will work with city staff and the land use and planning committee in the development of physical space for new childcare capacity The Kids First Advisory Board has been involved as this committee worked; they have not met however since the final reports have been completed. Kids First Advisory Board members have been completely supportive of this work and will be briefed on the final outcomes by email and at the next Kids First Advisory Board meeting. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The budget approved for 2009 to do this work was $20,000. The total spent in 2009 and 2010 on this project was 14,550.62. ALTERNATIVES: Aspen City Council could recommend changes to the final report and recommendations; further capacity planning work by the committee; or could not approve the final report and recommendations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the final report with recommendations with consideration of childcare needs in future council decisions. Attachment 1: Power Point Presentation Attachment 2: Executive Summary of the Community survey Attachment 3: Report from the Land Use committee Attachment 4: Land Use Sub Report appendices 0 6/11/2010 Childcare Capacity Planning Kids First Aspen Community Representatives Why are we planning for childcare capacity now? . Survey indicators e Long rang planning Costs are relatively low y Trends point to increased need in the future What did we learn? How family—fr rdly is your employer? What did we learn? -- fm.r.e.w. ....... moM o s�.me.ymwn Lei .,... What did we learn? What factors would most influence your decision to leave the valley} What did we do? e Planning committee Business Partnership committee r Existing childcare program capacity committee 6/11/2010 2 6/11/2010 Existing Childcare Programs Goal: Determine if a space, land, or existing building will work for new childcare program space = Pursued grants for capital projects = Using existing programs to cooperatively determine and meet the need for extended hours/days • Using shared services to maintain existing programs, reduce costs and increase efficiencies. Existing Childcare Programs o Goal: Determine if a space, land, or existing building will work for new childcare program space • Assessing physical space In existing childcare programs • Listing criteria for additional physical space • Support the land use / planning committee by reviewing any proposed space to ensure it is appropriate space foryoung children. Recommendations o Kids First will continue to discuss capacity issues and needs with existing childcare programs t Kids First will continue to work in collaboration with the Western Colorado Preschool Cooperative (COOP) to seek grants and efficiencies in existing childcare programs. r Kids First will work with city staff and the land use and planning committee in the development of physical space for new .childcare capacity 6/11/solo Land Use and Planning Goal: Increase Infant and toddler space by understanding what childcare providers need In terms of their facility space requirements r compare those requirements to available spaces (zoning, etc.) . space that could be made available If Incentives were Introduced potential space associated with affordable housing development r provide some recommendations about where childcare capacity could be located. Land Use and Planning r Take inventory of space/land to build upon s Review survey results to ascertain where demand for childcare is best met - Aspen, Snowmass, or Basalt o Based on the initial inventory, Investigate possible 'high priority' locations for child care . Incentives to developers for community benefits within their land use plans investigate the Idea of Including childcare in affordable housing developments - existing and planned Land Use and Planning 6/11/2010 Land Use and Planning . 29 possible locations Identified for analysis . Cont Dev staff did a Pro/Con analysis on all 29 locations . Reduced list to 6 high priority locations . Identified 2 locations as worth pursuing Burlingame Ranch Ph.? Buttermilk Land Use and Planning Burlingame ➢Pros: Location on the way Into town. Could be good for people commuting into Aspen. Located In a housing development with many families, so It could meet a need In - the Immediate area ➢Cons: AChild Care Facllhywas part of the approved PUD and was mentioned as being located in the Commons Building. This she does not seem to be as appropriate as a she nearer the entrance to the development and the map Indicates that as a potential location. It will require an amendment to the original PUD. Burlingame Ranch Ph. 2 6/11/2010 Land Use and Planning Y Buttermilk ➢ Pros: Location on the way Into town. Couldbegoodfor people commuting Into Aspen. Mightworkwlth a new park and ride/Barr f they go In the ama. SklCo needs to update theirealsting child care facilities, so they maybe open to an expansion ),Cons: Might run Into similar Issues as the Treehouse at Snowmass (Le. doesn't have slots year-round because they serve skiers) Buttermilk Land Use and Planning . BG Residents Survey Results w.—. e a 4 e Y fo u u u a P✓IU WYYG�IAumi �1_ ... in ®YOIwYIWW1J4YfeaLL' IIWIN! � f Land Use and Planning . BG Residents Survey Results 6/11/2010 Land Use and Planning . BG Residents Survey Results new 0 1 e e m e w�<m I3lr mngm ttiv Do you eve any o t e following special needs for childcare?.... Land Use and Planning . BG Residents Survey Results TmeFrpma... loftM T."m vowilem TmI sp�> Now 10 3 6 19 5 Years 7 8 8 23 from Now Space needs for childcare veere identified by the 8 respondents... . Land Use and Planning . BG Residents Survey Results TmeFram.:' InMb ', Ttktll�rs . ;Ywmeo m TOWSpear: Full Build Out 47 20 41 108 258 units Space needs for childcare extrapolated to a full build out population of 258 units... CAUTION! What do you mean when you say "family friendly"? When asked specifically what would make the work/life/childcare situation better people identified the ability to adjust work hours and financial assistance as the top choices; followed closely by "a guaranteed space for my child in childcare" and "on -site childcare provided at my work place." 54%favored having childcare close to work or on -site; 30% favored childcare closer to home; less than 3%favored childcare close to a bus stop or park & ride. We have a growing population that is expecting to have babies. When asked about the number of people currently in the household, compared with their estimate of the number of people they expect to be in their household in the next five years, the number of people who reported one dropped from 27 to 19. At the same time the number who reported two people in their household dropped from 92 to 46. The number who reported three people also decreased slightly from 106 to 101, while the number reporting four increased from 106 to 156. Overall these changes indicate an anticipated growth in household number indicative of more children being born. This is note -worthy also compared to the type of housing people reported living in — 223 people owned or rented a free-market unit, while 115 owned or rented a deed -restricted unit. There is a public good to be had by providing the infrastructure that childcare provides. People responded both to questions and by their comments about the ability to stay in the community, to work and to enjoy family life with a high importance of the value of quality childcare. 59%stated that the lack of childcare could affect their ability to work and stay in the valley. When asked which factors would most influence their decision to leave the valley, 53% cited the ability to buy a home; 55% cited the availability of childcare or the cost of childcare. (Other factors received fewer answers. Respondents could choose up to three answers to this question.) Childcare has become an expectation for families in much the same way that public schools and other publicly funded infrastructure is. Childcare is seen as a child development issue, but also as a workforce and economic issue in the community. This is the first step in the process of the development of the Childcare Capacity Planning Committee. The end result will be a long range plan presented to Aspen City Council, other government and businesses for adoption. Committee members are dedicated to making this a meaningful and active document that will serve the community by serving our families and children. For more information or to find out ways to participate in solving this community need please contact: Shirley Ritter, Director Kids First, Childcare Resource and Referral shirlev.ritter@ci.aspen.co.us 970-920-5370 G Report from Land Use Subcommittee The charge of the Land Use Subcommittee was: "Increase infant and toddler space by understanding what child care providers need in terms of their facility space requirements, compare those requirements to available spaces (zoning, etc.), space that could be made available if incentives were introduced, potential space associated with affordable housing development, and provide some recommendations about where new childcare capacity could be located." Land Use Subcommittee Membershi Barry Crook Julie Keiffer Amy Guthrie Jessica Garrow Denise Tomaskovic Leslie Compagnone Subcommittee Tasks: 1. Take inventory of space/land to build upon. ✓ Reviewed land use maps of Aspen Snowmass and Basalt See maps in appendix for possible locations. 2. Review survey results to ascertain where demand for childcare is best met — Aspen, Snowmass, or Basalt. ✓ Look over cross -tab information from survey to see where people live, work and their preferences for where they want childcare located 0 3. Based on the initial inventory, investigate possible "high priority" locations for child care. ✓ Conduct a SWOT Analysis on potential sites City Community Development staff met to discuss potential locations for child care facilities in the Aspen Area. In general, child care facilities can be located anywhere in town either "by right" or through a conditional use approval. We tried to focus on parcels that are near existing parks or would have yards for kids to play outside, as well as areas accessible by car and near transit routes. Most of the parcels identified are City -owned or have city involvement. In certain cases staff identified privately held parcels that may provide opportunities for child care in the future. We have outlined pros and cons for each parcel from a planning/land use perspective. The following list is of locations that are primarily in a commercial zone district. If a facility were to go into a residential area, staff recommends locating in the West End or Shadow Mountain neighborhoods because of ease of drop off, proximity to transit, and walkability, and recommends against the Cemetery Lane Neighborhood. 1. ' Airport a. Pros: Location in the way into town. Could be good for people commuting into Aspen. Might work with a new park and ride/BRT if they go in the area. b. Cons: Airport noise could be a problem 2. AABC a. Pros: Location on the way into town. Could be good for people commuting into Aspen. There are potentially a number of opportunities in the AABC Area — the vacant parcel near the fire station, BMC West if it is redeveloped, etc. b. Cons: Airport or Fire Station noise could be an issue. There aren't very many outdoor opportunities for kids out there, and there are not sidewalks throughout, so safety could be a concern. 3. Burlingame a. Pros: Location on the way into town. Could be good for people commuting into Aspen. Located in a housing development with many families, so it could meet a need in the immediate area b. Cons: A Child Care Facility was part of the approved PUD and was mentioned as being located in the Commons Building. This site does not seem to be as appropriate as a site nearer the entrance to the development and the map in the appended documents indicates that as a potential location. It will require an amendment to the original PUD. if 4. Buttermilk a. Pros: Location on the way into town. Could be good for people commuting into Aspen. Might work with a new park and ride/BRT if they go in the area. SkiCo needs to update their existing child care facilities, so they may be open to an expansion. b. Cons: Might run into similar issues as the Treehouse at Snowmass (i.e. doesn't have slots year-round because they serve skiers) 5. COA Golf Course a. Pros: Location on the way into town. Could be good for people commuting into Aspen. Located near trails, open space, and recreation areas (golf, tennis). b. Cons: Not sure there is enough room with the golf/Nordic facility needs. Would require a PUD Amendment. 6. Truscott a. Pros: Location in the way into town. Could be good for people commuting into Aspen. Located near trails, open space, and recreation areas (golf, tennis). b. Cons: Would require a PUD Amendment. Staff is not certain if there is existing space in the building for this kind of use. Adding child care in this location may result in other uses being displaced and/or housing options being foreclosed. 7. Single Family Home by Roundabout a. Pros: Location in the way into town. Could be good for people commuting into Aspen. Located near trails and open space. b. Cons: Is located in the County with Single Family Zoning — would probably need to rezone/go through a land use review. There is no existing traffic light, so left hand turns onto Highway 82 may be a problem. Additional screening along the Highway 82 frontage would be needed to help ensure the safety for kids that might play in that area. 8. ARC a. Pros: Located near trails and recreation facilities and near the schools. Very easy transit access to town via the Castle/Maroon bus. Could work in conjunction with child care provided to ARC users. b. Cons: Will require a PUD Amendment. There is currently a high amount of traffic on Maroon Creek during likely child care drop off and pick up times because of the schools, so the traffic impacts of various facility sizes would need to be determined. 9. Highlands a. Pros: Located near outdoor facilities and near the schools. There is lots of vacant commercial space there, so could be done relatively quickly. Very easy transit access to town via the Castle/Maroon bus. S b. Cons: Will require a PUD Amendment. Would probably need to be a small facility due to traffic issues at schools and the size of commercial spaces there. There is currently a high amount of traffic on Maroon Creek during likely child care drop off and pick up times because of the schools, so the traffic impacts of various facility sizes would need to be determined. 10. Health & Human Services Building a. Pros: Child care facilities used to be there, so the building can presumably accommodate new facilities. Located near housing and offices, so it might meet a need in the immediate vicinity. Very easy transit access to town via the Castle/Maroon bus. b. Cons: Might not be ideal due to other social services there (AA, etc), so parents might not be so eager to leave kids there. There is no vacant space there now, so it would mean displacing another organization. 11. Hospital a. Pros: Could be part of comprehensive services in the area. Located near housing and offices, so it might meet a heed in the immediate vicinity. Very easy transit access to town via the Castle/Maroon bus. b. Cons: They are in the middle of a major land use review, and it might be difficult to add anything else to the proposal. 12. Forest Service Property a. Pros: Located on all major bus lines. It is a large piece of property so a larger facility might be accommodated there. b. Cons: Would require extensive work on a land trade/act of congress. Policy makers have discussed a long term goal of having affordable housing in this location, so child care facilities could compete with potential affordable housing. 13. Poppies a. Pros: Located on all major bus lines. Property is for sale, so could be purchased now. Would be a new use for a historic property. b. Cons: Would not be able to accommodate much on -site parking. Some upgrading and maintenance would be required. Not located near a park/existing outdoor facilities. Requires spending money for land. 14. Mountain Rescue Building a. Pros: Located on all major bus lines. Is a City owned property, and has some redevelopment potential. b. Cons: Would require Mountain Rescue to move or to share facilities with Mountain Rescue. Not located near a park/existing outdoor facilities. 0 15. Green/White Single Family a. Pros: Located on all major bus lines. It is a large piece of property so a larger facility might be accommodated there. The property is historic and is eligible for a historic lot split; or the property could remain as one parcel and be used for a large outdoor play area. b. Cons: Not located near a park/existing outdoor facilities. Requires spending money for land. The property was recently purchased and the new owner's development intentions are not known. If the city is interested in a child care facility in this location, city staff should contact the new owner. 16. Boomerang Lodge a. Pros: Located near all major bus lines. Located in a quiet neighborhood. b. Cons: Will require a land use review. 17. Boomerang Vacant Parcel a. Pros: Located in a quiet neighborhood. Property is for sale, so could be purchased now. It a large piece of relatively flat land. b. Cons: Not located near a park/existing outdoor facilities. Requires spending money for land. 18. L'Auberge a. Pros: Located on all major bus lines. Was previously approved for a child care facility, so the site can accommodate a facility. Could potentially use the existing cabins as individual rooms for infants/toddlers. b. Cons: Does not have direct access to park/outdoor facilities. Could be expensive -- will likely require a whole -sale redevelopment, and the removal and I reservation of the existing cabins that are on site. 19. Yellow Brick a. Pros: Existing child care facilities in the building. City -owned property. b. Cons: Would require addition of a second floor and would probably require an investment in major sound proofing. 20. Red Brick a. Pros: Located near existing child care facilities and park. City -owned property. b. Cons: Would require addition of a second floor and moving all current uses to the second floor —would probably need to invest in major sound proofing. 21. ACES parking area a. Pros: Located near outdoor facilities. City currently has a 40 year land lease on the property. b. Cons: The land lease is for affordable housing, so it would require a revision to the land lease and re -opening the COWOP. Not located on a bus route. 7 22. Vacant Blue Vic Parcel a. Pros: Believed to be for sale. Seems to be situated for easy pick up and drop off. b. Cons: Requires spending money for land. 23. Parking Area by Rio Grande Park a. Pros: Is outlined in the Civic Master Plan as a location for new buildings and Neighborhood Commercial zoning, which permits child care facilities. Is located near the parking garage and Rio Grande park. Seems to be situated for easy pick up and drop off. b. Cons: Requires capital costs for a new building. 24. Zupancis a. Pros: Is outlined in the ZG Master Plan as a location for new buildings. Is located near the parking garage and Rio Grande Park. Seems to be situated for easy pick up and drop off. Is a city owned parcel. b. Cons: Would require new buildings and rehabbing of the existing historic structures. 25. Aspen Art Museum a. Pros: Is located on a bus route and seems to be situated for easy pick up and drop off. Near the Rio Grande Park. Would be a unique re -use of a historic building. b. Cons: Unless the museum finds another location, this is not an option. 26. Victorian at Fox Crossing a. Pros: Is located on a bus route and seems to be situated for easy pick up and drop off. Located near existing affordable and free-market housing, so it might serve a need in the immediate vicinity. There is a park, a tot lot, and open space in the vicinity. b. Cons: The developer, has not been able to begin work on the historic building, so some capital will be required. 27. Open Area in Centennial a. Pros: Is located on a bus route and seems to be situated for easy pick up and drop off. Located near existing affordable and free-market housing, so it might serve a need in the immediate vicinity. The Centennial tot lot is in the area. Near open space. b. Cons: Potential drainage problems in the open area. Neighbors might not like to see anything in that area (it was proposed to be a new single family/duplex home there a few years ago and there was opposition to the mass) Q0 28. Smuggler Racquet Club Parcel a. Pros: Is located on a bus route and seems to be situated for easy pick up and drop off. Located near existing affordable and free-market housing, so it might serve a need in the immediate vicinity. Near lots of open space and a tot lot. b. Cons: The lot currently has no zoning. Will need to have a major land use review. Is a former Superfund site, so even though it has been remediated it might cause concern amongst potential users. 29. Anderson Park a. Pros: Is a city owned parcel. There are existing historic buildings that could be retrofitted. b. Cons: We think it was purchased with open space money, so any other use will require a public vote. Our deliberations produced the following list of properties we think were worthy of further consideration: ➢ Burlingame ➢ Buttermilk ➢ Highlands ➢ L'Auberge ➢ Yellow Brick ➢ Red Brick Recommendation: After further review, we recommend that two areas be pursued as possible locations for a child care facility: ➢ Burlingame ➢ Buttermilk With Burlingame being a family -oriented affordable housing project, and the second phase being in design and under the control of the Aspen City Council, it appears to be the best fit and provides the most potential for something to be built in the more immediate future. Buttermilk satisfies the condition that it is close to home and/or work for most of the community, on a transit route, is relatively easy to drive into/out of and could be utilized by skiers going to Buttermilk (which is the more family friendly of the 4 ski mountain sites). We have not yet initiated any conversations with the Ski Company regarding their interest in locating a childcare facility on that site, but would do so when they appear to be more ready to discuss potential redevelopment of their base mountain area. 4. Incentives to developers for community benefits within their land use plans. ✓ Home Child Care Facilities The Land Use Code currently allows for child care facilities to be located in a home through the Home Occupation regulations. An administrative review is conducted for all such businesses. The Land Use code allows for a home child care facility if there are no more than 5 kids. Currently, the licensing requirements for the State of Colorado allow up to 8 kids to be in a home child care facility. Recommendation: We recommend that the Land Use Code be updated to coincide with the State requirements. ✓ Development Incentives Currently, the Land Use Code provides incentives for the development of on -site affordable housing and for development on historic properties. For instance, if a property owner proposed an addition to their historic home they have a lower affordable housing mitigation requirement than non -historic properties. Or, if a property owner proposed a development that included affordable housing on the same site the mitigation level would be lower than if off -site affordable housing were proposed. Similarly, a historic property can have certain impact fees waived through the Land Use Review Process. Recommendation: If City Council were interested, similar development incentives could be included in the Land Use Code through code amendments. We recommend against adding any child care specific incentives at this time, but do recommend that Council include this in future code amendment discussions following the adoption of the Aspen Area Community Plan. 5. Investigate the idea of including childcare in affordable housing developments — existing and planned. ✓ Meet with Burlingame HOA board to ascertain their interest and their needs if interested In repeated conversations with Burlingame HOA board members over the previous two years, they have indicated their willingness to listen to proposals about placing a child care facility in the Burlingame development. The existing commons building remains unfinished but is a potential location for a childcare facility. The drawback to this idea is that it would leave the development with little to no commons space. The building was designed with the potential to put a second floor into the building with /b a child care facility occupying the ground floor and commons space or a unit for a caretaker occupying the second floor. In the density agreement with the city, $25,000 was allocated to the HOA to help them finish out the commons building. Any use of the building for a child care facility would use Kids First funding to finish out that space. The other drawback to the use of the building as a child care facility is the need for some outdoor space that is fenced in for the child care use. The grounds around the building do not lend themselves well to this purpose. In addition, parking and drop-off space — while it could be accommodated — is not ideal at this location. In mid -May we sent a survey to the existing Burlingame owners asking them questions about their desire to see a child care facility located within Burlingame and their need now, and five years from now, for child care facilities. Thirty-eight responses were received from the 91 households. The results were: I favor a child care facility being located on the Phase 2 site: Responses yes - but only if burlingame i don'l If it were available now, I would use childcare for my: Responses 0 5 10 15 20 25 8 infant(6 meeks to 18 toddler (18 to 35 young child (3 to 5 years) P 20 Do you have any of the following special needs for childcare? Time Frame Infants Toddlers Young Child Total Spaces Now 10 3 6 19 5 Years from Now 7 8 8 23 Responses before schoc after schoc evenim weekenc There were 38 responses in the survey and the following space needs for childcare were identified by those 38 respondents. Extrapolating these survey results to either the current entire population or to the projected population at total build out (258 total units) should be done with extreme caution. People who chose not to respond may have done so because they had no childcare needs — or they just could have been too busy to respond to a survey. But by using the above numbers in a ratio to the 38 respondents, you could extrapolate the following possible need for childcare spaces at full build out. Time Frame Infants Toddlers Young Child Total Spaces Full Build Out 258 units 47 20 41 108 While we would not advocate creating a building plan/business plan for those kinds of capacity numbers, the point is that Burlingame is designed to be a family -oriented affordable housing development and high demand there for childcare is to be expected. If a facility is to be located there, more and better analysis of the size of the facility, the potential demand for childcare from Burlingame residents (and how many non-BG residents the facility might be designed to support), and the type of childcare to be offered would all need to be conducted. What we believe our results indicate is that Burlingame has a demand for childcare and is a very good location for increasing capacity. Concerns expressed in the survey relate to: • BG residents not being liable for costs associated with the construction and operation of the facility (beyond what they would pay as individuals in childcare costs) — that is, the HOA should not be burdened with paying for the location of the facility. • Nonresident traffic impacts • location of a facility next to residents • Commercial facility located in a neighborhood • Childcare needs of older children (after school) ✓ Understand what financial impact there is on development by including this in the plans for land development In looking at the designs for Phase 2 of Burlingame, we have asked the BG Design Team to look at possible locations for a child care facility in that phase of the development. After reviewing options, we have concluded that a space at the entrance to Burlingame, opposite the Harmony Park location would be the best fit. This location would: ■ minimize traffic that might come from outside the development to drop off/pick up children at the facility ■ provide a better parking solution for child care facility use ■ offer a planned park location as a secondary use for child care, and ■ allow a fenced in area for use by the child care facility during the operating hours. Attached is a map of the conceptual site plan for Burlingame Phase 2 and a possible location for a child care facility as described above. Recommendation: We recommend that Kids First be provided with land for a childcare facility at the entrance of Burlingame and that the Kids First fund pay for the construction of a facility there to be built as part of the construction contract for Phase 2 development. Furthermore the residents of Burlingame should be afforded a "first priority" status in gaining a space for childcare at this facility both as a way of minimizing traffic into and out of Harmony Road and Burlingame and as an incentive for ownership in Burlingame. 13 t F PoL'nl it P I< Lant oil iiln `j� I "ECL:14En \ r /Ztn� i1vok ' �hJ! -�S G�rxCSy�`" rr -0z,.� ��.. fd�{ YT ��IIIf14 r o r♦Ay 0�5 �-..tL __ _ LO ! 1 '^rvn :jlS Al 3 00L7700 0123 East Basalt Draft 2009 Zoning Map & }— 1 Registered Childcare Facilities Y ki ®lt�rppu�l� •_i.!Ki � ��kp ..�, r f — ■all/1:��Ifun'IUIr a in SEEN ® w saoan'YiO a A•, imemo vME R�►� ..g6,@. -long Oeepl owl m r .. \ i m.. ■r. w6 d • , v Legend ••• s \, • Qiltldro Facib � � ,] FohnEed�Mue Falb - 'a. '�i .. - Rwn �,7.5' • • B.OM • • •• mnM, c • • • i DR IN P l RI TO18 WMING me 1A A WORE IN PDOODDIA AND 15 NOT VET FINMUO _A,3/fN MMSSIMm i........_.,..:___..., .—__--._ ®M Np Mo.weTanu.xxw E d l �l J �`�� _ Art III, Div. 1, Zone Districts Generally §16A-3-50 ...TABLE34 _ SCHEDULEOFUSES Uses: A =Allowed; SF SF IF SF SF EST DU MF MF MU MU MU MU CC CC PUB CO OS S=Special Review; 4 6 15 30 150 PUD PUD 1 2 PUD P= Prohibited Resi ,end al aodAccommodatioo Uses ' .P..<., Singlo-FamilyDetached A A A A A A A A A P..,..A. PP P Dwelling' Two -Family Dwelling' P P I P P I P P A A A P A P P P P P P P Single -Family Attached P P P P P P P A A A P A P P P Dwelling Multi.Dwelling P P P P P P P A A A A A A P A P P P Hotc"ge Room or P P P P P P P P P A A P A S A P P P Suite Lock -Off Room P P P P P P P P P A A A A S A P P p Time Share Unit' P P P P P P P S S S S P A S S P P P Dormitory P P P P P P P A A S A P A S A P P p Manager's Unit/, P P P P P P P A A A A A A A A S P P Restricted Employee Housing Conference Facilities' P P P P P P P P A A A S A A A P P P Accessory Building and A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A S S p Use Home Occupations A A A A A A A A A P A S P P P P P P Day Care Home S S S S S ® S S S S $ ® I$ S 0 , 9 Antenna Reception or S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 1, P Transmission Devices' Notea: I. An accessory caretaker unit (ACU) or accessory employee unit (AEU) may be permitted in conjunction with any single- family detached dwelling pursuant to Section 16A-3-230, Accessory Units. See Section 16A-3-260, Accessory Unit Special Review Standards, for standards applicable to this particular use. 2. One (1) accessory caretaker unit (ACU) may be permitted within a two-family dwelling on a lot located within the DU zone district if created prior to September 21, 1977, pursuant to Section 16A-3-230, Accessory Units. 3. See Section 16A-5-550, Time Share, for applicable standards and submission contents. 4. Conference facilities shall be directly associated with a hoteltlodge or multi -family use. 5. See Section 16A-3-240, Home Occupations, for standards applicable to this particular use. 6. See Section 16A-3-250, Antenna Reception or Transmission Devices, for standards applicable to this particular use. 16A-33 Supp. 7 Art. III, Div. 1, Zone Districts Generally §16A-3-50 Usa: A =Allowed; SF SF SF SF SF EST DU MF MF MU MU MUn2ucc CC PUB ON OS S - Special Review; 4 6 15 30 150 PUD PUD 1PUD P=Prohibited 6roup� sea and Community Facilities t GroupCam Facilities 0 S S S 5 5 S S $ S 0 Group Homes' A A A A A P A A A A A A A P A P P P Educational Facilities' P P P P P P P P P S A S S S A S P P Public U61 ty Uses, ,S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S Services and Facilities Cemetery P P P P P P P P P P A P P P A S S P Major Community P P P P P P P S P S A S S S A S P P Facilities Minor or Accessory A S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P Community Facilities' Commonly owned, S S S S S P S A A S A S S A A P P P above grade, detached garage for three or more autotnobiles'o Cotninerpal Uses and Servrees ,. ._ .. ., Retail Sales .., P P P P P P P P P A A P A A A P P P Establishments; Business/Professional Office Personal Services; P P P P P P P S A A A P A A A P P P Restaurants General Services; P P P P P P P P P S A S A A A P P P Gasoline Service Station Commercial or Public P P P P P P P P P S A S A S A S P P ParkingLot" Commercial/Private P P P P P P P P P S S P P S S P P P Kennel Notes: 7. A group home shall not be located within seven hundred fifty feet (7501) of another group home. 8. Includes both public and private educational facilities. 9. See Section 16A-4-230(c), Utilities, for standards for above grade appurtenances to utilities. 10. Garage shall serve associated residential dwellings, dormitories, botel/lodges or commercial structures 11. parking lot may serve a variety of uses 16A-34 Supp. 7 Art. III, Div. 1, Zone Districts Generally §16A-3-50 Uses: A = Allowed; SF SF SF SF SF EST DU 1VIF iNF MU 1i1i1 ]19I] 1NiT CC CC PUB CON OS S=SpecialReview; 4 6 I IS 30 150 PUD PUD 1 2 PUD P=Prohibited Recreation and Open Space Uses Ski and Passenger Lifts, S S S S S S S A A S A S A S A S S P Tramway Stations and Non -Vehicular Ski I Trails Ski -Related Fabilities12 P P P P P P P P P S A S A S A P S P Commercial Recreation P P P P P P P P P A A S A A A P P P Facilities Private Recreation S S S S S S S A A A A S A S A P P P Facilities Open Use Recreation S S S S S S S A A S A S A S S S S P Uses and Facilities" Indoor Entertainment P P P P P P P P P A A S A A A S P P Facilities Commercial Stables P P P P P P P P P S S S P S S P P P Corrals and Bams14 P P P P S S P S S S S S P S S P P P Grazing of Horses P P P P P A P S I S S I S S P S S S S P Pedestrian Trails S S S S S S S A S S S A A S S S S S Forest, Meadow and A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Open Space I Notes: 12. Ski -related facilities shall be of a noncommercial nature and shall be directly related to a ski area 13. Open use recreation sites shall not have any outside storage, nor create excessive noise, odor, dust or nuisances. 14. Also includes other uses associated with the keeping ofborses. LlffIIlw i Supp. 7 01 Childcare Space Requirements Childcare program Notes Reception, office space 3 offices (120sf/workstation)+ reception Infant Care (6 weeks to 18 months) 80 square feet per infant - 2 rooms Toddler Program (12 to 35 months) 70 square feet per toddler - 3 rooms 3 and 4 year old Program 60 square feet/child (licensed) - 3 rooms Kitchen & Food Prep T9710'090' 8 toilets, 8 sinks plus staff/public facilities Restrooms Sick Room table&seating for up to 20, plus flexible space for Flexible meeting and nursing room rocking chairs Laundry,Miscellaneous Storage Staff space, lunch, breaks, studying Subtotal Children's Center Note: Three, 3-Star programs in the Yellow Brick building average approximately: • 120 sq ft per infant • 85 sq ft per toddler • 56 sq ft per preschooler INFANT -TODDLER SLEEPING SPACE: • visual supervision by at least one staff member at all times. So examples of this not being met would be: a separate sleeping room without a staff member in the room an L-shaped room or one that has blind spots, room arrangement that creates hidden areas, or toilet areas (for toddlers) that are out of view. • If a combination sleep/activity room is used, the sleep area must be separated by a sturdy divider from the area used for activities, and cribs must be arranged so that all babies and cribs are easily accessible to staff members. INDOOR AREA REQUIREMENTS: • There must be open, indoor play space of at least 30 square feet of floor space per child, including space for movable furniture and equipment. Indoor space must be exclusive of kitchen, toilet rooms, office, staff rooms, hallways and stairways, closets, laundry, furnace rooms, and space occupied by permanent built-in cabinets and permanent storage shelves inaccessible to children. • There must be sufficient space for play activities that prevent children from being crowded into routine care, sleep, or other spaces. There is not enough space if infants crawl under cribs, feeding tables, staff' must move high chairs after use to provide. space to play, toys have to be moved to high shelves or are stored under cribs, or cribs are crowded together to free up space to play. • Adequate storage space must be provided for indoor and outdoor equipment and supplies. Space for reserve supplies must be in addition to the designated space allotment for children's play activities. • There must be at least 1 diaper change area for each 20 or fewer children in need of diaper changing. Diaper change areas must be located and arranged so as to provide privacy for older children in need of diaper changing. cAdocummts and staingsbanyGVocal settings\tempomry intemet files\ content.ouflook\r=Wnufthildcme space reyuimments.doc I • Diaper changing space must also allow staff to supervise play areas, so not facing the wall or in the hallway or out of the room. 7.702.84 Food Preparation Area • A table, counter, or shelf, separate from the diaper changing area, must be available for preparing infants' and toddlers' food. 7.702.85 Toilet Facilities • Toilet facilities for the staff and other adults must be in separate compartments or separated by a partition from children's facilities. • Toilet rooms for children must be separate from rooms used for other purposes and must be located on the same floor as the inside play area. • A minimum of one (1) lavatory and one (1) flush toilet must be provided for each 15 or fewer children. • Toilet facilities are not required for children under 2 years of age. • Toilet facilities must be provided for children 2 years of age and older. • Toilet rooms for children must be located within the toddler nursery. A diaper change table and hand washing sink is required in every toddler nursery. 7.702.86 Office Facilities • Office space separate from areas used by children, other than for isolation purposes, must be provided for staff to perform administrative dudes. • The office must have sufficient space for maintenance and safe storage of children's and staff records and the center's business records, OUTDOOR PLAY SPACE: • The play area must be fenced or have natural barriers, such as hedges or stationary walls at least 4 feet high, to restrict children from unsafe areas. • The play area must be designed so that all parts are visible and easily supervised. • The playground area must have at least 2 different types of surfaces. Each type of surface must cover at least 10 percent of the playground area. • A shaded area in the fenced play area of at least 150 square feet must be provided by means of trees or other cover to guard children against the hazards of excessive sun and heat. • In the infant nursery, the outdoor play area must be a minimum of 400 square feet. • In the infant nursery, the outdoor area can be used by other age groups at the center, but it must not be used by any other group of children while infants are using it. • In the toddler nursery, the outdoor play area can be shared by infants, but infants and toddlers must not be allowed to use the play area at the same time. 7.702.8 BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES • Centers can be located in a private residence only when that portion of the residence to which children have access is used exclusively for the care of children during the hours the center is in operation or is separate from the living quarters of the family. c:\documents and seaings%arry6local settings\tempomry intemet files\contentoudook\mm6x7mr4\childc space requirements.doe 1b • No other business can operate in the rooms used by the center during the hours of child care. • Rooms licensed for specific ages of children cannot be used for other ages of children without the prior written approval of the licensing authority. INFANT NURSERY • The infant nursery must be located on the grade level. • If the infant nursery is in. the same building as a facility caring for children of other ages, the infant nursery must be physically separated in different rooms. TODDLER NURSERY • The toddler nursery must be located on grade level. • If the toddler nursery is combined with a large child care center or an infant nursery, toddler facilities, both indoor and outdoor, must be completely separate from facilities for other age groups. If the facility wishes to provide opportunities for a toddler to have occasional contact with siblings, plans must be approved by the department licensing representative. The center must comply with applicable state and local building code and zoning regulations. Prior to construction, architectural plans for new buildings or for extensive remodeling of existing buildings must be submitted for review and approval by the department, the local fire department, and the local building department as to appropriateness, adequacy, and suitability for child care functions. 7.702.9 FIRE AND OTHER SAFETY REQUIREMENTS • Buildings must be kept in good repair and maintained in a safe condition. • Combustibles such as cleaning rags, mops, and cleaning compounds must be stored in well -ventilated areas, separated from flammable materials, and stored in areas inaccessible to children. • All heating units, gas or electric, must be installed and maintained with safety devices to prevent fire, explosions, and other hazards. No open -flame gas or oil stoves, unscreened fireplaces, hot plates, or unvented heaters can be used for heating purposes. All heating elements, including hot water pipes, must be insulated or installed in such a way that children cannot come in contact with them. • Children under 2 years of age must be excluded from the kitchen. When children age 2 and over prepare food at the center, they may use only equipment and appliances that do not present a safety hazard. Staff -child ratios must be maintained. • Every building and structure must have sufficient exits to permit the prompt escape of occupants in case of fire or other emergency. Additional safeguards must be provided for life safety in case any single safeguard is ineffective due to some human or mechanical failure. • Every building or structure must be constructed, arranged, equipped, maintained, and operated as to avoid undue danger to the lives and safety of its occupants from fire, smoke, fumes, or resulting panic during the period of time reasonably necessary for escape from the building or structure in case of fire or other emergency. • In every building or structure, exits must be arranged and maintained so as to provide free and unobstructed egress from all parts of the building or structure at all times e.\dmuments and settings%arrydlocal serongsltempormy intemet filw\k tent.outlook\mm6x7mr4Xchildcm space mquiremenu.doc !I when it is occupied. No lock or fastening to prevent free escape from the inside of any building can be installed, Only panic hardware or single-action hardware is permitted on a door or on a pair of doors. All door hardware must be within the reach of children. • No child of less than first grade school level can be cared for in areas above or below the main floor of exit unless allowed by the Uniform Building Code and approved by the local fire department. • Exit from each room must be directly to the exterior of the building or to a common hallway leading to the exterior. • Each center must have at least 2 approved, alternate means of egress from each floor of the building or to a common hallway leading to the exterior. They must be at different locations. • Every building and structure must have an automatic or department -approved manually operated fire alarm system to warn occupants of the existence of fire or to facilitate the orderly conduct of fire exit drills. Criteria to consider in increasing capacity by buying, building, adding or renovating space, while promoting HEALTHY, SAFE, & SUPPORTIVE child care environments through: ✓ Increased square footage per child (i.e., more than is required by licensing) ✓ Meeting ADA standards (e.g., 32" doorways, ramps, door handles operated with limited use of hands, bathroom rails, 1 floor or elevator, etc.) ✓ Natural lighting ✓ Ventilation ✓ Carpeting & easy to clean surfaces (e.g., linoleum, tile, sealed wood, etc.) ✓ Equipment to promote sanitary practices & self-help (e.g., separate sinks for food related and diaper/toileting related handwashing; child sized sinks and toilets; sensored sinks & paper towel dispensers, etc,) ✓ Indoor & outdoor safety equipment (e.g., cabinets & storage areas with magnetic locks or secure latches, playground protective surfaces that meet ASTM standards, water heater controls to keep water under 120 degrees; 4' fence; etc.) ✓ Removal of existing safety hazards (e.g., mitigate children having to walk across parking lot to get to playground; remove playground equipment conducive to head entrapment; address children's easy access to a neighboring creek; etc.) ✓ Configuration of space allows for caregivers to see all children at a glance (e.g., rectangular, square, triangular, circle vs. "L" shaped classroom space; Lucite loft walls vs. solid loft walls; building cubbies in the classroom, rather than the hallway; enough storage space to limit staff leaving children out of ratio to get a necessity; conveniently located & equipped diaper changing areas; bathrooms in classrooms; %s or'/. bathroom doors to allow easy supervision w/ privacy; etc.). c1documents and setrings%arry6local settingskmwowy intemet files\content.oudooklmm6x7mr41childcare space requirements.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Canopies over downtown dining areas DATE: June 15, 2010 SUMMARY: The purpose of this meeting is to discuss conflicting direction in the Land Use Code relative to canopies over outdoor restaurant seating on private property. A canopy is a roof -like cover that projects more than five feet from the wall of a building. Outdoor dining adds greatly to the character of downtown, both for diners and by -passers. Restaurants throughout town have creatively situated tables on private property, sidewalks or the pedestrian malls to make the most of their location. While 85% of the approximately 28 restaurants with outdoor dining use umbrellas and free standing heaters to keep guests comfortable when weather changes, operators often ask (or don't ask) to install a canopy on their property to create a roof over the tables. Sides, windows, doors and heat often follow, and some of the canopies are left up, and used, year round. Large canopies can increase the bulk of a building. They tend to create the appearance of additional enclosed space, and, particularly when drop down sides are used, they can take away from the public experience. They are typically constructed of materials that are inferior to the surrounding buildings. The existing canopies downtown do not comply with current regulations. Staff is often asked to approve similar structures. Policy guidance from Council is needed. Erecting a canopy over outdoor dining can trigger four areas of the Land Use Code; Commercial Design Review, Historic Preservation Review, Growth Management, and Temporary Use. Commercial Design Review is triggered when a canopy is placed over "Public Amenity Space" aka, dedicated Open Space. Public Amenity areas are intended to be creative, well -designed public spaces and settings that contribute to an attractive, exciting, and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public Amenity spaces are required to be open to the sky. The only exceptions are temporary or seasonal coverings, such as umbrellas and retractable canopies. Trellises, like the one at Cantina, are also allowed. Seasonal coverings are not permitted to have walls or sides unless they are approved as a Temporary Use. Community Development is concerned with the pattern of Temporary and Seasonal Use requests that are renewed so frequently, or defined so broadly that the activity essentially becomes permanent. A Temporary Use approval that would allow an outdoor dining area to be enclosed with a roof and walls might be appropriate for an isolated, special event, but otherwise has proven to evolve in to an addition that is left in place, with sides down, for _ f� much of the year... Despite the fact that the Public Amenity requirements indicate Temporary Use is an option, the Growth Management section of the code only exempts the structure from affordable housing mitigation if there are no walls, screens, windows or other enclosures. The notion is that an enclosed outdoor dining area is a semi -permanent space that may increase the capacity, and therefore the number of employees of the restaurant. Anyone attempting to do business or hold an event outside in Aspen has an uphill challenge with the ever -changing weather. In general, Community Development staff Ii1 w ., believes that the more successful examples of outdoor dining in town are flexible spaces, with movable tables and adjustable umbrellas which can make the most of the circumstances. They are available for use when weather allows, but typically temporarily reduce the occupancy inside the building, rather than expanding seating. Existing downtown canopies DIRECTION NEEDED FROM COUNCIL The conflicting language in the Land Use Code must be addressed through a Code Amendment, as determined appropriate by Council, and then must be enforced regularly. Options: • Prohibit canopies and only allow free standing umbrellas and open trellises. This is the policy the City enforces for outdoor seating on the malls and sidewalks. • Only allow canopies with no walls. • Allow canopies with no walls, but require some amount of affordable housing mitigation due to the enclosed character of the element. • Create a canopy "season" allowing for summer outdoor coverings for a specified period only. • Require case by case Temporary Use approval either Administratively or by Council for each canopy. A canopy of a certain size and height may be appropriate in one location, but not another. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director0449 FROM: Drew Alexander, Planning Technician 0. A. RE: Short Term Rentals, Work Session MEETING DATE: June 15, 2010 SUMMARY: Staff is asking for direction from City Council as to what action should be taken with short-term rentals. The City of Aspen, like most resort towns, has a prevalence of these operations. This type of use is only permitted in zone districts with a lodge designation (Lodge, Commercial Lodge, Lodge Overlay, and Lodge Preservation Overlay). However, short-term rentals exist throughout the City in nearly every zone district. Community Development receives complaints regarding short-term rentals on a semi - frequent basis. The current process is to contact the property owner, notify them of the violation, and keep an open relationship with the complainant to see if the violation continues. The operation of a short-term rental is very hard to track and requires a significant amount of staff hours. If the offender is caught again violating the Code they would likely be cited into municipal court. Recently, Community Development discovered that the Finance Department was trying to identify the majority of short-term rentals in the City. They are doing so in order to procure uncollected tax dollars and to require that all operators receive a business license. This process will hit a significant roadblock when the short-term rental operator needs a Zoning signoff for their business license. Most of these locations are non -conforming by being located in an improper zone district. After this dilemma was discussed, Community Development began researching strategies that other resort communities had implemented for short-term rentals. Also researched was recent work that the Colorado Association of Ski Towns has completed. The research (shown below) indicates that most communities have applied a system that allows for short-term rentals in certain residential zone districts. Staff is requesting Council's guidance for either enforcement or Code amendments. RESEARCH: 1.) Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST): CAST is currently working on the short- term rental issue. Joyce Burford, Executive Director of CAST, explained that they recently conducted an RFP for two candidates that will manage the work, which includes a two -pronged approach. For the first approach, CAST is working with the Department of Revenue and the Colorado Municipal League to draft a letter that reflects those conditions in Colorado Revised Statute, C.R.S. § 39-5-108.5 (See Exhibit A for the full statute). This statute requires that owners of furnished residential real property report their personal property at the request of the local assessor no more than twice per year. The statute states that this work can be handled by the property owner or the owner's agent. An important element here is that the language allows for the owner's agent to be the listing website. The letter that the CAST team is preparing will go out to these major websites asking them to honor the statute and to release the lists of all short-term rentals in the State of Colorado. Burford also hopes to have included in the letter an approval from the State Attorney's Office. If this approach fails, CAST will use one of the contractors hired through the RFP process to start a back-up plan. If and when the listing websites are uncooperative, the CAST contractor will figure out a methodology to obtain the lists of short-term rental properties. This may include working individually with each website or simple scouring them all for the necessary data. Once the contractor has procured the list, it will be turned over to communities in Colorado. After a community receives the list, they can either work with it on their own, or hire the assistance of the CAST contractor to further implement the list. 2.) Park City, UT: Park City has in place a system called Nightly Rentals. Nightly Rentals are an allowed use in various districts throughout the city, but primarily in the historic zones nearest to the commercial core area, similar to Aspen's West End. A person owning a home in one of the allowed areas would have to obtain a business license (needs approval from the Building Inspector) prior to operation, and when the dwelling unit is being used as a Nightly Rental, the entire unit must be allotted for this use. If the property includes a lock -off unit that the owner wishes to use as a Nightly Rental, a conditional use application must be approved. The only area that allows Nightly Rentals other than a historic zone is the Single Family (SF) zone but only in the Prospector Village Subdivision (a very limited area). Kayla Sintz, a planner for Park City, says that the program works very well in the historic areas near the commercial core. Sintz mentioned that this is the place tourists want to be and it places the least demand on public infrastructure. However, Sintz does admit that Nightly Rentals have placed an unexpected burden on the historic zones. The Nightly Rentals have contributed to making these areas more transient and increased pressure for development that would maximize the allowances for that given zone (the more space and bedrooms built, the more it can rent for). In Aspen, most development already attempts to maximize their allotments. 3.) Breckenridge, CO: The Town of Breckenridge (TOB) utilizes a system called the Chalet House Program. Below is portion of their definition for a Chalet House: Chalet House: A building or structure of single-family or duplex residential character: a) which is used as temporary housing for a tour group for a period of not less than two (2) nor more than thirty (30) consecutive nights, b) which has a manager or employee who provides meals for tour group members, and other management services such as housekeeping and ground transportation, c) the operation of which does not require the provision of additional on site parking spaces beyond that normally required for a single-family residence, and d) the appearance of which has not been altered (either on the interior or exterior) so as to change the single-family residential character of such building structure. This program includes an extensive administrative review process that seeks approval from the Community Development Director. Adjacent properties are noticed and given time to submit feedback to the TOB. There is a list of criteria that a Chalet House must satisfy and maintain if a permit is issued. The permits are also revocable if the regulations of the TOB Development Guide are not being met. 4.) Telluride, CO: The Town of Telluride (TOT) very recently created a short-term rental program. The events leading up to its creation are extremely similar to the scenario that Aspen is faced with now. Michelle Haynes, a TOT planner, explained that in 2009 the Finance and Clerks Departments wanted to identify all the short-term rental operations within the town limits to acquire uncollected tax dollars. Telluride quickly realized the conflict between the Land Use Code and having operators obtain business licenses for a business that was widely prohibited throughout the town. Telluride now has a provision for short-term rentals within a limited number of zone districts. Similar to Park City, the majority of these zones are focused on residential neighborhoods (including those historic in nature) near the commercial core. The criteria for allowing a short-term rental include the following: a. Use: Short term rental is a use permitted by right or a use permitted on review in the underlying zone district (Hillside Transitional, Hillside Developing 1, Residential, Historic Residential, and Medium Density Residential Zone Districts). b. Units: The structure contains only one (1) dwelling unit, or the dwelling to be rented is the primary structure when more than one (1) dwelling exists on the lot. c. Bedrooms: The dwelling unit to be rented contains no more than four (4) bedrooms. d. Trash Storage: There is a clearly -defined trash storage area and an adequate number of trash containers provided. e. Owner Representative: There is an owner representative within the Town of Telluride, who is on call full-time to manage the property during any period within which the property is occupied as short-term accommodations. The name, address, and phone number of the owner representative shall be listed on the business license which is on file at Town Hall. Two fundamentals of this program that are in line with Staffs ideology for an Aspen program are the trash storage and owner representative requirements. With the potentially dangerous wildlife in the Aspen area, adequate trash storage, which should include bear -proofing, is an absolute must. Also, the ability for a disgruntled neighbor to know how and who to contact if a problem arises is crucial for a fair and reasonable system. S.) Crested Butte, CO: Again, Crested Butte has a system titled Short-term Rentals. This program allows for unlimited short-term rentals in seven zone districts. The owner of the short-term rental property must obtain a revocable license from the Town of Crested Butte if he/she plans to operate a short-term rental. Also, the following conditions must be satisfied: a. Adequate parking; b. Receipt of required business licenses, including the business occupation license tax; c. Identification of a management contract person or entity within the County; d. Adequate rubbish storage and removal; and e. Adequate instruction to tenants regarding solid fuel burning devices and parking restrictions. Although, somewhat minimal, these requirements hit on some key elements that Staff believes should be in place if Aspen were to adopt a short-term rental program. STAFF RESPONSE: Staff feels that Code amendments are needed. Some type of system should be in place allowing short-term rentals and to ensure proper monitoring, enforcement, and tax collection. There are a significant number of existing short-term rentals. The existing rentals, although not tracked, seem to only be a problem when management is negligent or when neighbors simply do not approve. There are elements in all of the researched programs that Staff find attractive. The simplicity of the Park City program would limit staff hours reviewing applications and the control mechanisms of the Breckenridge system would ensure a system that is fair and reasonable. Telluride will be an important program to monitor since they too are just starting the process. Staff recommends the following: • A permitting system that would require operators to have a valid business license. Businesses licenses are approved annually so each operator would be subject to Community Development review each year. • The system should include some variant of a land use application. This would be administrative and at a lower fee schedule than the typical administrative review fee. o Public noticing should be included in this process so that the surrounding neighborhood is aware of the intention to operate a short-term rental. o The public should be given at least 30 days to submit feedback to Community Development. • Operators should be required to post a small businesses identification sign on the subject property that includes a number to call in case of an emergency. • Investigate the City of Aspen's zone districts to rule out any areas where short- term rentals should not exist. • The permit should be revocable by the Community Development Director if the operation is not compliant with City regulations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council review Staff's Response and determine whether a Code amendment for a short-term rental program is worth pursuing, or if Staff should enforce the existing prohibition. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: Exhibit A: Colorado Revised Statute § 39-5-108.5 F,XmiBr"r NOTE: This bill has been prepared for the signature of the appropriate legislative officers and the Governor. To determine whether the Governor has signed the bill or taken other action on it, please consult the legislative status sheet, the legislative history, or the Session Laws. -00� Ii HOUSE BILL 09-1110 BY REPRESENTATIVE(S) Scanlan, Liston; also SENATOR(S) Gibbs. CONCERNING INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR UPON REQUEST IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE RENTAL OF FURNISHED RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: SECTION 1. Part 1 of article 5 of title 39, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read: 39-5-108.5. Furnished residential real property rental advertisements - information to be provided to the assessor - legislative declaration. (1) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES THAT: (a) EACH ASSESSOR IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO DISCOVER AND ASSESS TAXABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN THE ASSESSORS COUNTY ANDTO PROVIDE EACH PERSON KNOWN OR BELIEVED TO OWN TAXABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY WITH A PERSONAL PROPERTY SCHEDULE; Capital letters indicate new material added to existing statutes; dashes through words indicate deletions from existing statutes and such material not part of act. (b) EACH OWNER OF TAXABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO LIST THE OWN ERAS TAXABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY ON THE PERSONAL PROPERTY SCHEDULE, AND THE RECEIPT OF A PERSONAL PROPERTY SCHEDULE FROM THE ASSESSOR PROVIDES NOTICE TO A PROPERTY OWNER THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY OWN TAXABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, WHICH HELPS TO ENSURE THAT: LAWS; (I) MORE PROPERTY OWNERS COMPLY WITH STATE PROPERTY TAX (II) THE PROPERTY TAX BURDEN IS MORE FAIRLY DISTRIBUTED; AND (III) THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES LOST BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DUE TO PROPERTY OWNERS' LACK OF KNOWLEDGE REGARDING THE TAXABLE STATUS OF CERTAIN PERSONAL PROPERTY IS MINIMIZED; (C) PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT IS USED TO FURNISH RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY IS EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TAXATION SO LONG AS IT IS NOT USED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME AT ANY TIME, BUT GENERALLY BECOMES SUBJECT TO TAXATION IF THE RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY IS OFFERED FOR RENT ON A FURNISHED BASIS OR OTHERWISE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES; (d) IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE STATE, A HIGH PROPORTION OF RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY IS ADVERTISED FOR RENT ON A FURNISHED BASIS DIRECTLY BY PROPERTY OWNERS OR BY REAL ESTATE AGENTS, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANIES, LODGING COMPANIES, AND INTERNET AND PRINT -BASED LISTING SERVICES THAT ACT AS AGENTS FOR MULTIPLE PROPERTY OWNERS AND ADVERTISE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES FOR RENT, AND BECAUSE THE ADVERTISEMENTS TYPICALLY DO NOT PRECISELY IDENTIFY THE PROPERTY OFFERED FOR RENT BY ADDRESS OR THE OWNERS NAME: (I) IT IS DIFFICULT FOR EACH ASSESSOR TO ACCURATELY IDENTIFY WHICH PARCELS OF FURNISHED RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY ARE BEING OFFERED FOR RENT AND TO WHICH OWNERS OF FURNISHED RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY THE ASSESSOR SHOULD PROVIDE PERSONAL PROPERTY SCHEDULES: AND (II) THIS DIFFICULTY IMPAIRS THE FAIRNESS AND EFFICIENCY OF THE PAGE 2-HOUSE BILL 09-1110 PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM AND REDUCES PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS BY MAKING IT MORE LIKELY THAT OWNERS OF FURNISHED RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY RENTED TO OTHERS WILL, IN SOME CASES DELIBERATELY AND IN MANY OTHER CASES DUE TO A LACK OFNOTICE REGARDING STATE PROPERTY TAX LAWS, FAILTO PAY PROPERTY TAXES DUE ON PERSONAL PROPERTY USED TO FURNISH THE RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY; AND (e) IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO REQUIRE THE OWNER OF FURNISHED RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY OR AN AGENT OF THE OWNER WHO ADVERTISES THE PROPERTY FOR RENTTO PROVIDE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSOR OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED UPON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSOR MADE NO MORE THAN TWICE DURING ANY YEAR AS SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION OR AS MUTUALLY AGREEDTO BY THE ASSESSOR ANDTHE OWNER OR AGENT PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (b) OF SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION. (2) (a) UPON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSOR OF ANY COUNTY OR CITY AND COUNTY MADE NO MORE THAN TWICE DURING ANY YEAR: (I) A PROPERTY OWNER WHO ADVERTISES FOR RENT FURNISHED RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY THAT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE COUNTY OR CITY AND COUNTY SHALL PROVIDE TO THE ASSESSOR A LIST THAT IDENTIFIES EACH PROPERTY SO ADVERTISED BY ADDRESS; AND (II) AN AGENT WHO ADVERTISES FOR RENT ON BEHALF OF A PROPERTY OWNER FURNISHED RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY THAT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE COUNTY OR CITY AND COUNTY SHALL PROVIDE TO THE ASSESSOR A LIST THAT IDENTIFIES EACH PROPERTY SO ADVERTISED BY OWNER AND ADDRESS. (b) AN ASSESSOR AND A PROPERTY OWNER OR AGENT MAY MUTUALLY AGREE THAT THE OWNER OR AGENT SHALL ANNUALLY PROVIDE TO THE ASSESSOR BY A SPECIFIED DATE THE INFORMATION THAT AN ASSESSOR MAY REQUIRE TO BE PROVIDED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (a) OF THIS SUBSECTION (2). (3) FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "AGENT" MEANS AREAL ESTATE BROKER, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 12-61-101 (2) (a), C.R.S., A PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A LODGING COMPANY, AN INTERNET WEB SITE LISTING SERVICE, A PRINT -BASED LISTING SERVICE, OR ANY OTHER PERSON PAGE 3-HOUSE BILL 09-1110 THAT EITHER SEPARATELY OR AS PART OF A PACKAGE OF SERVICES ADVERTISES FURNISHED RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY IN THE STATE FOR RENT ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN EXCHANGE FOR COMPENSATION. SECTION 2. 39-5-125 (1), Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended, and the said 39-5-125 is further amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SUBSECTION, to read: 39-5-125. Omission - correction of errors. (1) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (3) OF THIS SECTION, whenever it is discovered that any taxable property has been omitted from the assessment roll of any year or series of years, the assessor shall immediately determine the value of such omitted property and shall list the same on the assessment roll of the year in which the discovery was made and shall notify the treasurer of any unpaid taxes on such property for prior years. (3) IF TAXABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN OMITTED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ROLL OF ANY YEAR OR SERIES OF YEARS IS DISCOVERED DUE TO A PROPERTY OWNER OR AN AGENT OF A PROPERTY OWNER WHO ADVERTISES FOR RENT FURNISHED RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY PROVIDING INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSOR PURSUANT TO SECTION 39-5-108.5 (2), THE ASSESSOR SHALL NOT NOTIFY THE TREASURER OF ANY UNPAID TAXES ON THE TAXABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR PRIOR YEARS AND THE PROPERTY OWNER OR AGENT SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY SUCH UNPAID TAXES FOR PRIOR YEARS. SECTION 3. Act subject to petition - effective date. This act shall take effect at 12:01 a.m. on the day following the expiration of the ninety -day period after final adjournment of the general assembly that is allowed for submitting a referendum petition pursuant to article V, section 1 (3) of the state constitution, (August 5, 2009, if adjournment sine die is on May 6, 2009); except that, if a referendum petition is filed against this act or an item, section, or part of this act within such period, then the act, item, PAGE 4-HOUSE BILL 09-1110 section, or part, if approved by the people, shall take effect on the date of the official declaration of the vote thereon by proclamation of the governor. Terrance D. Carroll SPEAKER OF T1IE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Marilyn Eddins CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES APPROVED Peter C. Groff PRESIDENT OF THESENATE Karen Goldman SECRETARY OF THESENATE Bill Ritter, Jr. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO PAGE 5-HOUSE BILL 09-1110 THE CITY OF ASPEN MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE: June 11, 2010 MEETING DATE: June 15, 2010 RE: Capital Improvement Cap Limitations for 45 Callahan Court, Unit 203 ISSUE: Scott Kirkwood and Lori Dodd (hereinafter Owners) are requesting an additional amount to be added on as a capital improvement (above their 10%) to expand their unit by 400 square feet. SUMMARY FROM APCHA BOARD MEETING OF MAY 5, 2010: The owners purchased their two -bedroom, 1,215 square foot, Category 4 unit, for $271,000 on December 10, 2007. The deed restriction allows the owner to spend an additional 10% for capital improvements ($27,100). The estimated cost for this planned expansion is $61,946 -which is $34,846 over the capital improvement cap -and of course that is only an estimate, the actual costs could be higher. The value of the home has appreciated by $12,183 -and is currently valued at $283,183. Today's beginning sales price for a Category 4, two -bedroom unit, is $287,000. If the owners were allowed to add all of the additional $34,846; the current price of the home would be $345,129. This exceeds a Category 4 single-family home price. Although the expandability of some units at Burlingame was built into the plans, the intent was that the homeowner has the option to expand, but the 10% cap would still remain in place. The intent was not to have the expansion increase the price such that the unit no longer satisfies the original category designation or changes the bedroom count. Owners have been allowed to expand their unit size, but were never intended to recoup any money above the 10% cap on the improvements. APCHA has allowed others to expand, but only within the 10% cap or what was specified in their deed restriction. The units are planned to house employees and their families for generations beyond the original purchasers, and maintaining affordability over time is one of the prime reasons the program exists. A price increase of this magnitude takes this unit out of category four and such a category change would have to be approved by both the Housing Board and the City Council. RECOMMENDATION FROM APCHA STAFF: Staff believes this price increase is excessive and violates one of the foundational rationales (maintaining affordability) of the program; therefore, staff is recommending that if the Board approves the expansion that it disallow recouping any amount greater than the 10% that is allowed in the deed restriction and that the owners execute documents memorializing the same. MINUTES FROM APCHA BOARD MEETING ACTION ITEM: • Request to Add on Improvements Above 10% as stated in Deed Restriction at 45 Callahan Court #203: Lori Dodd and Scott Kirkwood, owners of 45 Callahan Court, #203, were present. Dodd distributed additional pictures of where the space is that they would like to expand. Christensen stated that Dodd and Kirkwood would like to complete an area to add another bedroom. The estimated cost is over $61,000. The permitted capital improvements are $27,100; therefore, the estimated overage of the expansion is $36,846. Staff is recommending denial of the ability for Dodd and Kirkwood to add anything over the allowed 10% cap to their sales price. Dodd stated three things about this request: 1) this unit is very unique in that it does have a great deal of unlivable space -400 square feet; 2) they have cut as many comers as possible and will do as much as possible to keep the costs down -the current maximum cost is about $155 per square foot; and 3) they are concerned that if they are forced to sell the house earlier than when they would want to, that they could not recoup their costs. Goshom stated that when Burlingame was being developed, the COWOP group suggested units that could be expandable internally. They thought that this was a good idea. The problem was what costs should be allowed. Dodd stated that there are some units specified as expandable units at Burlingame; this is not one of them. McCabe stated that if the costs take it outside the category, the Board cannot make this decision. This would be a decision of City Council. McCabe stated that staff does not have an issue with them expanding the unit, but that the amount allowed should remain at the 10% cap. Christensen stated that if all of these costs are realized, the unit would cost more than a Category 4 single-family home. Christensen stated the current maximum sales price as stated in the Guidelines for a Category 5, two -bedroom unit is $395,000. Erickson stated that this is a strange unit, but the owners could still use this additional space for storage without spending so much money. The owner is the one that makes that decision. Smiddy stated that you take what you can get. Dodd stated that they were under the impression that they could finish this space. Gudim stated that they can. Goshom stated that they could go to City Council to ask for clarification on the expansion of this unit. Erickson made a motion to approve staffs recommendation in that the owners can recoup up to the 10% maximum as stated in their deed restriction only; Gudim seconded the motion. Smiddy, Goshom, Gudim and Erickson voted yes. Motion Passed DISCUSSION Mr. Kirkwood and Ms. Dodd appeared before the City Council during Citizen Communications to seek a change in the category/unit designation in order to gain further relief from the application of the capital improvement cap decision received from the Housing Board. They were directed to work with the City Manager's Office. I have met with Housing Office staff and discussed the situation with Ms. Dodd and have developed a variety of alternative ways of thinking about their issue. The Housing Office is rightly concerned about the implications to future owners of this unit regarding its affordability if the improvements are granted and they are fully recovered in a subsequent sale. They also note that while some of the Burlingame units were designated for future potential expansion, this unit was not so designated. This seems to me to have been an oversight as the unit is clearly designed to accommodate the expansion such as that contemplated by Ms. Dodd and Mr. Kirkwood. Ms. Dodd and Mr. Kirkwood's interest is in recovering as much, if not all, of their investment in expanding their unit. (See their letter attached) Their current estimates are: Total estimated improvement costs of $74,546: • general contractor's bid of $61,946 • architectural fees estimated at $,2000 • permits estimated $2,000 • materials purchases $3,600 • personal labor $5,000 (not recoverable under our rules) Below is the policy on capital improvements from the Housing Guidelines: SECTION 10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT POLICY AND MINIMUM STANDARDS TO RECEIVE FULL VALUE AT TIME OF RESALE Capital improvements and upkeep on deed -restricted units are necessary to enhance the longevity of the affordable housing unit. A maximum sales price will be affected, either higher or lower, relating to the condition of the unit and if the unit meets the minimum standard criteria. Any owner wishing to utilize the new capital improvement policy will be required to enter into the deed restriction that is currently being used at the time of the request. Units Built After January I, 2004 and Re -Sale Units: An owner will be required to maintain a minimum standard for the unit purchased. See Table I, Minimum Standards for Seller to Receive Full Value. Prior to any sale of a unit, the Housing Office Staff will determine a maximum sales price. The Sales Manager shall conduct an inspection and a list provided to the Seller as to the items that will need to be done PRIOR to closing to get full value. The Buyer also has the right to pay for a formal inspection of the unit during the inspection period stated in the Sales Contract. If said inspection reflects items not met on the Minimum Standards for Seller to Receive Full Value table, the Seller shall be required to remedy those items. If the unit meets the standard criteria, the Property or Unit shall be sold for an amount ("Maximum Resale Price") in excess of the lesser of the purchase price: • Plus an increase of three percent (3%) of such price per year from the date of purchase to the date of Owner's notice of intent to sell (prorated at the rate of .25 percent for each whole month for any part of a year); OR • An amount based upon the Consumer Price Index (All Items, U.S. City Average, Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (Revised), published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics) calculated as follows: the Owner's purchase price divided by the Consumer Price Index published at the time of Owner's purchase stated on the Settlement Statement, multiplied by the Consumer Price Index current at the date of intent to sell; • Plus any approved capital improvements. Homeowners Requesting the Ability to Use this Capital Improvement Policy: If an owner requests to utilize the new capital improvement policy, such owner shall be required to enter into a new, updated deed restriction. Capital improvements can be added to the maximum resale price. A 10% capita. improvement maximum will be established for each new owner. All capital improvements will be depreciated. Certain capital improvements will not be counted as the 10%. Each capita] improvement will depreciate according to the depreciation schedule stated in an approved handbook. The current source is the Marshall Swift Residential Handbook. Any capital improvements associated with health and safety, energy efficiency, water conservation, and green building products will be exempt from the 10% capital improvement cap; however, such capital improvements shall be depreciated according to the depreciation schedule stated in an approved handbook. Any improvement to bring the unit up to the Aspen Affordable Housing Building Guidelines will also be allowed as part of the 10% cap. An owner should check with the Housing Office prior to starting the improvement to verify that the cost can be recouped. It will be up to the homeowner to maintain the unit in good condition. This would include, but not be limited to, the condition of the roof, boiler and water heater, and appliances. Educational programs shall be scheduled for existing homeowners' associations and newly developed homeowners' associations as to what their responsibilities are in maintaining the project in good condition Permitted Capital Improvements 1. The term "Permitted Capital Improvement" as used in the Agreement shall only include the following: a. Improvements or fixtures erected, installed or attached as permanent, functional, non - decorative improvements to real property, excluding repair, replacement and/or maintenance improvements; b. Improvements for energy and water conservation; c. Improvements for the benefit of seniors and/or handicapped persons; d. Improvements for health and safety protection devices (including radon); e. Improvements to add and/or finish permanent/fixed storage space; f. Improvements to finish unfinished space; g. Landscaping; It. The cost of adding decks and balconies, and any extension thereto; and/or i. Improvements associated with health and safety, energy efficiency, water conservation, and green building products. 2. Permitted Capital Improvements as used in this Agreement shall NOT include the following: a. Jacuzzis, saunas, steam showers and other similar items; b. Upgrades or addition of decorative items, including lights, window coverings and other similar items. c. Upgrades of appliances, plumbing and mechanical fixtures, carpets and other similar items included as part of the original construction of a unit and/or improvements required to repair and maintain existing fixtures, appliances, plumbing and mechanical fixtures, painting, and other similar items, unless replacement is energy efficient or for safety and health reasons. 3. All Permitted Capital Improvement items and costs shall be approved by the APCHA staff prior to being added to the Maximum Resale Price as defined herein. In order to get credit for an improvement where a building permit is required, the improvement will not be counted unless a Letter of Completion was obtained by the Building Department. My Recommendation: I see certain things as underlying facts that have guided my recommendations: • The unit was designed to be expanded and the expansion will result in a 2-bedroom 1- bath unit becoming a 3-bedroom 2-bath unit. • The owners knew of the capital improvement limitations when they bought the unit and some kind of adherence to that rule should be enforced. • We have and will have 3-bedroom units at Burlingame — it is designed as a family complex and 3-bedroom units are a plurality of the development plans now and in the future. So adding a 3-bedroom unit to the unit mix there and losing one 2-bedroom unit is not a dramatic shift in the inventory. • On the other hand, changing the category from a Category 4 unit to a Category 5 unit does not seem to be warranted nor does it seem necessary to provide some relief to the current owners. • Keeping the category at its current designation addresses the affordability issue by: (1) limiting the increase to the 10% contemplated in the rules but (2) increasing the bedroom count to what it will actually be. In other words, if we limit the price increase to that associated with the bedroom count increase and the 10% cap we act within the boundaries of our current rules. I am recommending that: 1. The 10% recovery rule be adhered to and applied to the purchase price of your unit — as is the direction in the guidelines. 2. The unit designation is changed to a 3-bedroom unit (because that is what the unit will become) 3. The category designation remain at Category 4 (this is an important result from our perspective) 4. Thus the change in selling price would be calculated to be an additional $56,100 to a NEW current selling price of $343,100 • + $27,100 (the 10% from the purchase price of $271,000) • + $29,000 (the increase from going from a 2-bedroom unit to a 3-bedroom unit at $316,000 - $287,000 ... the current selling price for a 3-bedroom unit minus the current selling price of a 2-bedroom unit) We feel this continues with the policy direction that the guidelines provides for and recognizes the change in unit size. There are of course, several other options for the Council to consider including: 1. Keeping the unit at a category 4, 2-bedroom unit: + $27,100 (the 10% rule) for a total NEW price of $298,200 2. Changing the unit to a category 5 2-bedroom @ 395 000: + $108,000 from the current selling price of $287,000 3. Changing the unit to a 3-bedroom unit category 4 @ $316,000: + $29,000 from the current selling price of $287,000 4. Changing the unit to a 3-bedroom unit category 4 @ $316,000, calculating the 10% from that number: _+ $31,600, then adding the bedroom count increase of+ $29,000 for a total increase of $60,600 from the current selling price of $287,000 for a total NEW selling price of $347,600 5. Permit them to recover their costs and add that to the current purchase price: _ + $69,546 (current estimate of $74,546 less the $5,000 in personal labor) added to the current selling price of $287,000 for a total NEW price of $356,546. RECOMMENDATION: 1. The 10% recovery rule be adhered to and applied to the purchase price of your unit — as is the direction in the guidelines. 2. The unit designation is changed to a 3-bedroom unit (because that is what the unit will become) 3. The category designation remain at Category 4 (this is an important result from our perspective) 4. Thus the change in selling price would be calculated to be an additional $56,100 to a NEW current selling price of $343,100 • + $27,100 (the 10% from the purchase price of $271,000) • + $29,000 (the increase from going from a 2-bedroom unit to a 3-bedroom unit at $316,000 - $287,000 ... the current selling price for a 3-bedroom unit minus the current selling price of a 2-bedroom unit) REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Approve the staff recommendation and send the decision on to the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Board and the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners for their information. LETTER FROM OWNERS TO HOUSING AUTHORITY April 6, 2010 Scott Kirkwood / Lori Dodd 45 Callahan Ct, #203 Aspen, CO 81611 Mr. Tom McCabe Executive Director Aspen Housing Authority Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. McCabe: We are getting ready to make some major improvements to our Burlingame unit #203 and are seeking approval to add the improvement cost to the equity in our home as we are going to be incurring significant expense due to the unique opportunity our unit presents. Our unit is very unique in that we have nearly 400 sq. ft of unfinished space (already insulated, floored and partially wired) on the second level of our single -level condo that we have no way to access unless we bring a 12 foot ladder into the living room and climb through a 3' x 2' opening in the wall. We were informed that the original plans for our unit were changed sometime during the construction process (it was originally designed as office space) resulting in a great deal of unlivable space within our unit and a rather odd layout. In spite of this, our unit has so much potential that it is inconceivable we don't make use of the space available to us to use as efficiently as possible. The recommendation from Poss Architects includes adding a stairway and loft in order to access the unfinished space. This is going to require installing support beams to handle the load. In addition to finishing out the space, we will be installing a 2nd bathroom upstairs. We are going to have to remove the toilet and tear up the floor in our only bathroom in order to access the plumbing, therefore our home will not be livable during this time and we will have to rent another place to live. Overall we will be increasing the square footage by 41 % within our unit. The maximum allowed under the 10% capital improvement cap will give us an additional $27,100 in equity; however the estimated out-of-pocket cost for completion is $61,946. Prior to initiating this entire process (in the latter part of2009,) we contacted Pam Gabel at the Housing Authority regarding the 10% capital improvement cap and informed her we thought the project would cost us close to $50K. She stated that if we could show multiple bids that exceeded the 10% max then you would consider an exception to this rule. We proceeded with hiring and paying for an architect/general contractor -nearly $2000 to date, in order to move forward with our plans. Once all of our plans and approvals were finalized in March 2010, we placed another call to Pam to see what we needed to do at this point for the housing authority's approval. At this time she informed us that there were no exceptions to the 10% max capital improvement rule and did not acknowledge telling us otherwise. As you can imagine, this was very upsetting to us. Please know that we are cutting every comer possible in order to make this affordable. We have reduced the number of windows from the original plans, as well as removed the deck. We personally will be purchasing and picking up a majority of the materials, installing doors, door casings and trim (windows, doors and baseboard) and plan to do all the painting ourselves. Many expenses we didn't initially anticipate have arisen in order to comply with building dept codes.:.. testing for asbestos, hardwiring new fire -alarm sensors for additional fire -sprinklers, installing additional support beams and tempering windows ... just to name a few. We love our home and hope to live here for many, many years to come. However, with the current state of the economy it would be negligent on our part to assume that our jobs are secure. Sinking this much money into our home could be very detrimental to our financial stability if we cannot recoup the cost should we be forced to sell in the near future. Due to the unusual layout of our unit, extensive nature of the improvements, increased livability and significant expense; we are hoping you will seriously consider waiving the 10% capital improvement maximum as this is not a typical capital improvement for employee housing. We truly believe that with the added improvements, this unit would be highly desirable and extremely marketable at an increased sales price, especially when you take into consideration the spectacular views of all four ski areas from the proposed 2�level. It is our understanding that in order for the HA to add equity for the bank's valuation, as well as appreciate the added equity from the remodel, we will have to refinance our home after the project is completed. Financially, this is going to be difficult. We have secured a personal loan at a very high interest rate in order to fund this project. We would very much welcome additional equity added to the value of our home when we refinance in order to help pay this off with a cash -out option. Paying title insurance, appraisal fees and loan origination costs for a second time after only 2 yrs of occupancy is very disconcerting especially if interest rates go above our very good 30 yr fixed rate. Which leads to the question.... Would a home equity loan (which also requires an appraisal) be sufficient in lieu of refinancing in order to increase the home value if interest rates continue to rise and we are not able to lock -in at an acceptable rate? The plans have already been approved by the HOA and we have preliminary approval from the City. We want to submit the permit application as soon as possible and hope to have a permit early next month. We have attached the general contractor's proposal, time -line for completion, architectural plans as well as photos for your review. We would very much welcome a site visit in order for you to better understand the situation. Thank you for your consideration. Lori Dodd and Scott Kirkwood 618-5740 askaspenC&comcast.net or doddlori(aaoi.com SPECIAL MEETING CALLED FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION Date June 15, 2010 Councilmembers present: ❑ Mick Ireland [} Steve Skadron ❑ wayne Romero Torre [T Derek Johnson II. Motion to go into executive session by --TD Other persons present: FOR: ❑ Mick Ireland `Steve Skadron ❑ Dwayne Romero Torre erek Johnson Call to order at: Ancilmembers not present: Mick Ireland ❑ Steve Skadron [ Dwayne Romero ❑ Torre ❑ Derek Johnson AGAINST: ❑ Mick Ireland ❑ Steve Skadron ❑ Dwayne Romero ❑ Torre ❑ Derek Johnson k L040 A III. MOTION TO CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION OF: C.R.s.24-6-402(4)(9'r�i/6;5L) irlT-r- Q /- ��t/r7f Tp�ic 10The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest 471 (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions. (c) Matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law or rules and regulations. (d) Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations, including defenses against terrorism, both domestic and foreign, and including where disclosure of the matters discussed might reveal information that could be used for the purpose of committing, or avoiding prosecution for, a violation of the law; Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators; Ar/ (f) (I) Personnel matters except if the employee who is the subject of the session has requested an open meeting, or if the personnel matter involves more than one employee, all of the employees have requested an open meeting. IV. ATTESTATION: The undersigned attorney, representing the Council and being present at the executive session, attests that the subject of the unrecorded portions of the session constituted confidential attorney -client a fn�ynication: The undersigned chair of the executive session attests that the discussions t 's a tive s ssion were limited to the topic(s) described in Section III, above. Adjourned at: J • 1