Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.19920810CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AUGUST 10, 1992 VI. Consent a) Minutes July 7, 13 b) Resolution Theatre in the park lease c) Vending Agreement Aspen Massage Assoc/golfcourse d) request for fund extension of day camp e) resolution smuggler technical advisory committee f) Housing Office Accounting g) City hall remodel additions h) vending agreements rotary club; voters for choice; eagle's i) housing stuff VII Liquor License Authority Business a) Renewals - Milan's; Lucci's; Smuggler Land Office; Flying Dog Brew Pub b) Special Event Permits - Eagle's Club. Voters for Choice c) Transfer I Quattro; 72 Aspen Bici Mango's Inc. VIII.Public Hearings a) Ord. 48, 1992 - Ratifying Section M PUD Amendment b) Ord. 39, 1992 - Kraut Rezoning c) Ord. 49, 1992 - REquired Liquor SErver Training d) Ord. 50, 1992 - Liquor License Procedures e) Ord. 51, 1992 - Amending Vending Procedures f) ACES Annexation ( Tabled to 8/24) IX Action Items a) Koch/Wagner Ice Rink b) Black Birch Water Service c) Ord. 1992 - Garrish Rezoning d)' Ord. 1992 - Woods Subdivision Exemption e) Ord. 1992 - Increase Utility Connect & Disconnect Charges Information Items a) Main Street Banner Police COpy the control of Owner, despite good faith efforts on its part to perform in a timely manner." 3. Savanah seeks extensions in the current construction schedule deadlines as follows: From To Certificate of Occupancy Ice Rink/Park 10/1/92 10/1/93 4. Savanah has allege~ that the following facts and/or circumstances have c3used delays in the progress of the construc- tion of the Ice Rink/Park component and that such facts and circumstances were beyond its control: i. The David Koch Foundation of Wichita, Kansas, by and through its authorized representatives, has offered to build an ice rink on or near Wagner Park in the City of Aspen. A Schematic Design PacKage for the proposed Wagner Park Ice Rink presented to City Council on May il, 1992, describes an ice rink capable of being used primarily for recreational skating with potential for ice shows, limited hockey use and skating instruc- tion. ii. The City Council, Savanah and the David Koch Foundation require additional time to evaluate the Wagner Park Ice Rink proposals and designs in conjunction with the Ice Rink/Park component of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Agree- ment to determine which ice rink and location would be in the best interest of the City of Aspen. iii. Because of delays in the planning and review process of Savanah's ice rink/park proposal precipitated by the Koch Proposal, should City Council determine that it is in the City's best interests to proceed with the ice rink/park proposal of Savanah on Lot 6 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision, Savanah will be unable to complete the ice rink/park by October 1, 1992, the date therefor established .in the Amendment to the PUD Agree- ment dated June 10, 1991. While delays in the planning process occasioned by the intervention of the Koch Proposal may have only been a few months, construction constraints, particularly the pouring of a large slab of concrete for the ice rink, necessitate a full one-year extension of the deadline. 5. City Council finds that Savanah has been able to demonstrate by a preponderance of the testimony and evidence as established in the record that the time required by City Council, Savanah and the David Koch Foundation to evaluate the best site COpy proposal for an ice rink has caused unavoidable delays in the progress of construction for Lot 6 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivi- sion that are beyond the control of Savanah despite its good faith efforts to perform. NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING, City Council does hereby grant to Savanah Limited Partnership the following extension to the construction schedule deadlines for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision, which extension shall be incorpo- rated into a written amendment to the PUD Agreement pursuant to Sections M and 0(6), subject to those ter~~ and conditions as set forth below: EXTENSION · Certificate of Occupancy Ice Rink/Park From To 10/1/92 10/1/93 CONDITIONS 1. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Ho'tel Phase I, and as a condition precedent thereto, Savanah shall deposit $700,000.00 in an escrow fund for the benefit and in the name of the City of Aspen to secure Savanah's performance in regard to the following: (1) The establishment of a permanent fund to defray operation and maintenance costs for the Wagner Park Ice Rink in the event the city should deter- mine to authorize such ice rink; or (2) Construction by Savanah of an ice rink/park as approved by the Aspen City Council and as required by the PUD Agreement on Lot 6 of the Aspen Moun- tain Subdivision. In such event, Savanah may be permitted to periodically draw down or reduce the escrow amount upon the authorization of the Direc- tor of Public Works and Planning Director corre- sponding with the progress toward the successful completion of the ice rink/park. Ail documents establishing the escrow and the escrow instructions shall be in a form satisfactory to the City Attor- ney. 2. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Hotel Phase I, and as a condition precedent thereto, Savanah shall clean and improve Lot 6 by removing all construction materials, equipment, debris and fencing therefrom, regrade the lot as necessary to allow pedestrian traffic, and aesthetically improve the site as reasonably required by the Public Works Director and Planning Director. 3. In the event that City Council grants development approval to the David Koch Foundation for development of the Wagner Park Ice Rink, Savanah shall thereafter seek all requisite amendments to the PUD Agreement, final PUD development plan, and other applicable development approvals within a reasonable time period in order to construct and maintain a· municipal park on Lot 6 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision. 4. The effectiveness of tha extension as granted herein shall be contingent upon Savanah's compliance, as determined by the City staff, with all of those conditions as set forth above. In the event that any condition as set forth above is not sub- stantially complied with, then the extension granted herein shall automatically be rendered invalid and such failure(s) to comply shall constitute non-compliance w~th the First Amended and Restated PUD/Subdivision Agreement. Savanah shall thereafter be entitled to a hearing before City Council to determine sanctions or penalties for its non-compliance, which may include the revocation or termination of any or all approvals contained in the PUD Agreement. Done this day of , 1992. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO Copy By' ® John S. Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 4c_~2.3 Copy SECTION M A~NDMENT TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED PLAY, NED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOP THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION THIS AMENDMENT to the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreemeqt for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision ("PUD Agreement"), being entered into between the City of Aspen, Colorado ("City") and Savanah Limited Partnership ("Savanah" or "Owner") on this day of 1992, provides as follows: RECITALS WHEREAS, on May 21 1992, Savanah submitted a written peti- tion to the City pursuant to Section M of the PUD Agreement seeking an extension in the construction schedule deadline governing construction and development of Lot 6, the proposed Ice Rink and Park, within the Aspen Mountain Subdivision; and WHEREAS, a hearing was conducted before the City Council on July 13, 1992, in accordance with Section M of the PUD Agreement relating to requests for extension of one or more time periods required for performance, during which Savanah successfully demonstrate¢., that th~ reasons necessitating the extension in the existing construction schedule deadline were beyond its control; and WHEREAS, Section M of the PUD Agreement authorizes exten- sions of the time periods for co:~struction schedules upon a proper showinc; and WHEREAS, Section 0(6) of the PUD agreement authorizes amendments to the Agreement by written instrument executed by the parties thereto. NOW~ THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions as contained herein, it is agreed that the provisions hereinbelow shall amend the PUD Agreement as follows: 1. Savanah's construction schedule deadlines as set forth in Section A2 of the PUD Agreement, and as previously amended by those Section M amendments executed on June 11, 1990, (recorded in Book 627 at Page 457 in the records of the Pitkin County Recorder), and on June 10, 1991, (recorded in Book 654 at Page 418 in the records of the Pitkin County Recorder), are amended to provide as follows: Certificate of Occupancy Ice Rink/Park From To 10/1/92 10/1/93 -- Exhibit 2 -- 2. The amended construction schedule deadline as provided for in paragraph 1 above shall be and remain in force and effect only insofar as Savanah complies with all of those terms and conditions as set forth in that written decision of the City Council of the City of Aspen attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and incorporated herein that was issued upon and in response to Savanah's petition of May 20, 1992, seeking a Section M amend- ment. 3. Ail other terms and conditions of the PUD Agreement and the previous Section M amendments dated June 11, 1990, and June 10, 1991, not inconsistent with or superseded by this amendment, shall remain in full force and effect. 4. This amendment document shall be promptly recorded in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their signatures on the day and year as first written above. THE CITY OF ASPEN COpy John S. Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk STATE OF COLORADO County of Pitkin The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of __, 1992, by John S. Bennett as Mayor and Kathryn S. Koch as City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My commission expires: Notary Public Address SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By: ASPEN ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL, INC., General Partner By: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attorney of Savanah Limited Partnership STATE OF County of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1992, by WITNESS M~ HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My commission expires' Notary Public Address TO: THRU: THRU: FROM' DATE: RE- MEMORANDUM Mayor and Council f~ / Amy Margerum, City Manager ~'~~/ Diane Moore, City Planning Direct Leslie Lamont, Planning August 10, 1992 Kraut Property Map Amendment Office to Affordable - Second Reading Ordinance 39, Series 1992 SUMMARY: Council tabled second reading of Ordinance 39, Series of 1992 at the July 27, 1992 public hearing. Council requested staff to provide the following items for their review which would support the rezoning of the Kraut parcel from Office (O) to Affordable Housing (AH): * Commuter/Workforce Information Relevant Sections of the Draft 1992 Aspen Area Community Plan These items are discussed in the current issues section. Council also requested information regarding the proposed text amendments for Affordable Housing zone district and this information is provided in Attachment "C". PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: This rezoning request was tabled from the July 27, 1992 pub] Lc hearing. CURRENT ISSUES: ~n October of 1991 a citizens Housing committee was appointed by che City Council and Board of County Commissioners to research the housing needs of the Aspen area community. The Committee's work bas been an integral part of the formation of the Draft Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). The Committee studied the housing issues of the community for over nine (9) months concluding with specific recommendations to the AACP Oversight committee. The Housing committee recommendation process can be summarized by four (4) distinct phases of work. 1. Review of Phase I technical data housing needs assessment 2. Establishment of a housing philosophy 3. Identification of a potential housing locations 4. Housing needs assessment (actual survey through AACP consultants) 5. Final recommendations to the Oversight committee Once step 4 had been competed, the Housing committee recognized that the future planning of the Aspen area community was dependent on revitalization of the local resident workforce. Research (see Attachment "A", Housing Needs Assessment, May 1992 and Attachment "B", Implications of Community Plan Policies) indicated that the resident workforce has dropped by 15% (to 45%) since 1987, meaning that more of the Aspen workforce was moving away and relocating to other communities and commuting to Aspen. The Housing committee used 1987 as a baseline since that is the year they agreed that many of the workforce began to leave the residential community. The committee determined that a sense of community is lost when the level of the workforce living in the community drops below the 1987 level, which represented 60% of the workforce living up valley of Aspen Village. The AACP is premised on the committee's final 'ecommendation which was accepted by uhe Growth and Character committees' and approved by the Oversight committee. In order to achieve the ambitious goal of providing housing for 60% of our workforce in the Aspen area community, the public and private sectors must contribute through the production of affordable housing. The AACP has established other parameters which help define the level of public contribution required for housing over the next 23 years (at which time the community theoretically reaches buildout). The Plan, to date, suggests that 53 dwelling units of affordable housing are required per year, based on continued buildout in the commercial, lodge and free market residential sectors and based on a 650 dwelling unit deficit. The contribution of the various sectors of the community is estimated as follows: 53 AH units: 19 public sector units built per year; 8 units built ~er year in association with lodge development; 9 units built per year in association with new free market residential development; 17 units built per year in association with new commercial development. The rezoning of the Kraut property for affordable housing was identified by the AACP Housing committee as a location for affordable housing. The committee has established the need for affordable housing located between Aspen Village and the City of Aspen. In order to reach the specific goal to house 60% of the workforce in the community at the time of buildout, an established unit count contribution by the public sector is 19 units per year. In addition, for the public record, staff has attached the July 27, 1992 memo with all the pertinent information. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of Lots E, F, G, H, and I, Block 105 of PUBLIC*NOTICE PLACE PURPOSE-- B. JOSEPH KRABACHER THOMAS C. HILL JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III OF COUNSEL JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. July 28, 1992 LAW OFFICES KIItABACIII~;R, IIILI~ & EI)WAI4DS PROFE.~$1ONAL CORPORATION · JEROME PROFESSIOhAL BUILDING ~ ~ 201 NORTH MILL STREET e° , ~'- ASI'I,:N, COI,ORADO 81611,.._. ~ ",~_ JUL 3 0 1i'2 TELEPHONE (303) 92.~-6300 (303) 925-7116 TELECOPIER (303) 9,25-1 ! 81 Edward M. Caswall City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Kraut Property Rezoning/Public Notice Dear Jed: As you know, our office represents the 700 East Hyman Avenue Condominium Association and the owners of the individual units within that condominium. Our clients are opposed to the proposed rezoning of the Kraut property from "office" to "affordable housing." I am informed the City failed to comply with the requirements of § 6-205 E, Aspen Land Use Regulations, concerning public notice for last night's public hearing on the Kraut property rezoning. As you know, last night's public hearing was continued to the next regularly scheduled City Council hearing to allow the City Council to hear additional evidence. Since the next scheduled meeting is a "continuation" of the meeting last night, the notice for the next meeting is likewise insufficient. I understand that you would argue that, ~ =cause I appeared (thanks to a courtesy telephone call from Le~ x= Lamont) and represented our clients in last night's hearing, aived the right to object to the adequacy of the public notice. ~owever, I think if you carefully read Zavala v. City and County of Denver, 759 P.2d 664, 668 (Colo. ].988), you will agree that both appeacance at the public hearing and the failure to object to the inadequacy or lack of notice combined constitute a waiver of the due-process argument. In addition to the two members of the public who objected to the lack of notice (Micky Spaulding and W.R. Wa~.~on), you noted the notice problem in your comments. Further, by this letter, my clients object to the failure properly to provide public notice of the hearing which began last night and is continued to the next regular City Council meeting. I would appreciate it if you would include this letter in the record of the continued public hearing. Edward M. Caswall July 28, 1992 Page 2 Please contact me .if you have any questions. Sincerely, C. / cath cc 700 East H~an Avenue Homeowners Leslie Lamont seven~ltrs~caswall.01 B. JOSEPH KRABACHER THOMAS C. HILL JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, Ill OF COUNSEL JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. July 28, 1992 Kathryn Koch 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado LA~,' OFFICES KI~.AI~ACtlER, HILL & EDWAI~.I)S PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JEROME PROFESSIONAL BtJILOING 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORAI)O 81611 Street 81611 of each of Regulations. TELEPHONE (303) 925-&300 (303) 925-7116 TELECOPIER (303) 925-1181 5. Section 6. Section 5-213, Office. 5-301, General Provisions. 7. Section 7, Division 4 (the entire division), Special Review) . 1. Section 5-101, General Purpose. 2.. Section 5-102, Zone Districts Established. 3. Section 5-103, Official Zone District Map. 4. Section 5-206.2, Affordable Housing. Please send me a bill for these certified copies. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~~~~R~ HILL & EDWARDS, P.C. cc Edward M. Caswal~/ seven~ltrs~koch. 01 Re: Aspen Land Use Regulations Dear Kathryn: I would appreciate it if you would provide me with certified copies the following sections of the Aspen Land Use B. JOSEPH KRABACHER THOMAS C. HILL JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III OF COUNSEL JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. LAW OFFICES KI~AIIACIII,;I,[, IIILL & I,; I) W A i{ I) S PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JEROME PI~OFESSlONAL i~UILDING 201 NORTH MILL STRE. ET A$1'I'.'N, COLOR,~L)O 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-6300 (303) 925-7116 TELECOPIER (303) 925-1181 July 28, 1992 Leslie Lamont A~pen~Pitkin County Planning Department 1~0 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 8161]. Re: Kraut Property Rezoning Dear Leslie: At the public hearing on July 27, 1992, the City Co'Incil continued the public hearing to allow the City Council to receive more evidence in the record to assist it in its ultimate decision on this rezoning application. I would appreciate it if you would provide me with each of the following. i · A copy oi each document you intend to offer into the record at the continued public hearing. · A list of all witnesses you intend to have testify at the continued public hearing. · A copy of all notices previously sent and proof of posting in accordance with the requirements of ~ 6-205E, Aspen Land Use Regulations. · A copy of any public notices which are sent in the future in accordance with the Land Use Regulations. · A complete and accurate copy of the rezoning application for the Kraut Droperty certified by you as custodian of that application that it is complete and accurate. Please send me a bill for the costs of copying the above documents. Les~' = Lamont July ~-8, 1992 Page 2 Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely,. HILL & EDWARD~:  E. Edwards, III JEE cath cc 700 East Hyman Avenue Homeowners Edward M. Caswal,P- seven~ltrs~lamont. 11 Premier Lodge Rating System'"' A Division of Elizabeth Farson Associates, Inc. EO. ~x 10602 · Aspen, CO81612 ° (303)925-3708 July 30, 1992 City Council Members City of Aspen City Hall Aspen, CO 81611 Dear City Council Members: I live in "employee housing". And I don't always feel comfortable admitting it to people because, believe me, there is a stigma attached. I am disheartened at the comments made in yesterdays Daily News article about owners of 700 East Hyman condominiums threatened litig'ation against the city, because "employee housing" may be built across the street from their million dollar condominium homes: CRW~s Micky Spalding fears articles of clothing hanging carelessly from the window sills. He also envisions heaps of other stuff laying about. His printed words in a letter to Leslie Lamont of the planning office were "...what is going to happen to the people, bicycles, skis, cars, dogs, friends, underwear that needs to be dried, potted plants, extra clothing, extra furniture, etc. Will that all be hanging out of their windows or sitting on their decks?,, An owner of one of the expensive 700 E Hyman condominiums wrote to someone saying: "What Aspen needs is more parks and open space and fewer high-density condominium developments." I agree. Perhaps we should tear down 700 E Hyman. Bill Carr, another owner at 700 E Hyman doesn't want to see the "employee housing" developed across the street either. If it is built and he doesn't like the new neighbors and their stuff strewn about, he can move back to his very large, beautiful home on Glen Eagles. Some of the concerns and complaints Mick Spalding expressed can be dealt with. The blemish of "employee housing" in some neighborhoods unfortunately probably cannot. More to a constructive point...in 1981 I bought a Lone Pine PMH condominium. It is first class and I am fortunate to have bought it. The only problem w~th its plan and design is that there is absolutely no storage space, either inside the units or outside the building. Bicycles are not allowed on our decks. There is no alternative but to leave them outside on the north entrances to the buildings. I rent storage space in the basement of a Hunter Creek building, but storage space is hard to find and too expensive for many. A prerequisite for any public housing should include plans for adequate storage space, inside and out, especially in a town whose residents have so many athletic toys. As for what may or may not be allowed on the decks or building exteriors, that can be dealt with in the lease or purchase agreements. Respectfully, Elizabeth Farson cc: Leslie Lamont t// the Aspen Townsite (Kraut property) amending the Official Zone District map from office to Affordable Housing. ATTACHMENTS: A. Housing Need Assessments & June 23, 1992 Memo to Sub-committees B. Action Plan Recommendations C. Draft Affordable Housing Text Amendments D. Ccuncil July 27, 1992 Memo with Exhibits ASPEN AREA COMMHH1TY PLAN HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT PREPARED BY ~ RICtlMAN PLANNING SERVICES MAY, 1992 '1' ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT A. Purpose ~, the approx/mately 15 years since the City of Aspen and Pitkin County first began addressing the problem of affordable housing, several assessments of the future need for such units have been a.ccomplished. Surveys of employees have been conducted in 197~, 1981, 1983, 1987 and 1990/91, providing a statistical basis from which to determine the community's need for affordable housing. In Ja ,~ary of 1980, the first numerical definition of employee housing need in Pitkin County was issued. Based on survey data, which established the number of persons who wanted to move to Aspen from down valley, the number of persons paying housin~ costs beyond their means and the number of persons living in overcrowded conditions, a 250 unit rental/ownership "shortfall" was d6fined. The report also projected the need to produce 67 units per year, to address demands due to growth in the size of the work force. The several needs assessments which have occurred since 1980 have taken into account the same basic factors as the original study, while adding some new considerations. A constant factor throughout each assessment has been the 250 unit sht~rtfall, to which has been added the demand associated with growth in the work force and the demand due to displacement of employees from free market units. The Housing Committee'of the Aspen Area Community Plan has examined the housing needs assessment methodology which the City and County have been utilizing in recent years. The Committee finds that several refinements should be made to this methodology to reflect the current hou:- - .; situation in the Aspen Area, so an estimate of housing production needs can be formulated for the Community Plan. The methodology which is being used in 1992 builds upon the previous assessments, but does not take the 250 unit shortfall as its point of departure. That shortfall reflects the 1979 housing market and employee, proffi, e, which ia vastly different than today's. Some key differences'are the older, more permanent population, which is seeking more 'family-oriented housing, the greater housing choices which now exist down valley, and the widening gap between the price of flee market ownership housing opportunities in the Aspen Area and employees' ability to pay. This assessment instead begins with the Committee's determinatDn that in 1986 (when the 1987 housing survey was actually conducted, and prior to the displacement of the late 1980's), there was a more acceptable community balance than presently exists in the Aspen Area between resident and non-resident housing. The Committee finds that the number of - persons needing to be housed to re-constitute thb prior balance provides a better way of defining the current unmet need for affordable housing than the prior shortfall analysis. A new housing needs assessment has, therefore, been conducted in conjunction with the Community Plan. The purpose of this report is to summ~/rize the housing needs assessment methodology which the Committee chose to utilize and describe the results obtained. It should be recognized that a comprehensive plan for addressing the community's housing: needs must not only take into account the total number of employees requiring housing, but should. _also consider the type of units these persons desire, the amount they can afford to pay for housing, and the location/design of the units. The plan should also consider whether the amount of housing which needs to be produced can be achieved within the t>uildout permitted by current zoning, or whether changes should be made to the zoning maps or land use regulations to achieve the community vision. These changes could include designating lands for development within the affordable housing zone district, or changing the percen, tage of all new development which must be affordable housing. An analy~i~ of buildout a.s compared to housing need is provided within this report. B. Components Of Housing Need The three components which the C6rmnittee finds comprise the total housing production need for the Aspen Area are as follows. The current unmet need for affordable housing in order to increase the percentage of the work force which is housed in the Aspen Area. 2. The demand for housing from new commercial, lodge, residential and recreational development and from growth in public sector employment. 0 The need to replace free market housing from which residents are displaced when units are converted to second home or seasonal occupancy. For purposes of this analysis, the Housing Committee has defined the study area as that area up-.valley of Aspen Village, ex¢ludin___._.__~ Snowmass Village. Data has, therefore, been collected for this area, which is an area larger than that Being addressed by the Community Plan. - Analyses were conducted to calculate need in each component. To the extent pc~ssible, calculations address both the ultimate need for affordable housing within the area and the amount of housing which must be produced annually to achieve the ultimate objective. 1. Increasing the Percentage Of The Work Force Housed · · As noted above, the Housing Committee has determined that in 1986, a more acceptable balance between resident and non-resident housing existed than is found today in the Aspen Area. In order to determine the number of persons who would need to be provided with housing to re-constitute this balance, the following questions must be answered: What percentage of the work force was housed in the Aspen .:M'ea at the time of the 1986 sur¥~y? How does this compare to the percentr,ge housed in this Area today? * What is the current size of the work force in the Area? Using this information, several different scenarios for increasing the percentage of the work force housed in the 'Aspen Area-can be provided to the Committee for policy direction. Staff of the AsperffPitkin County' Housing Authority analyzed the data files for the 1987 survey to correlate the survey responses to the area in question. They determined that in 1987, approximately 60% of those persons working up valley of Aspen Village were also living in this area. They conducted a similar evaluation of responses to the more recent survey, and determined that by 1990/91, this percentage had droppe.d to approximately 45%. Employment data provided to the Housing Authority by the State of Colorado indicates there was an annual average of 12,750 jobs in Pitkin County in 1990. The 1990 Housing Survey demonstrates that each employee holds, on the average, 1.29 jobs. Assuming the number of reported jobs is accurate, there were ab. qut 9,880 employees in the County in 1990. Of thes.e, the Housing Authority estimates 8,~100 held jobs in the Aspen Area, with the remainder working in Snowmass Village or within the down valley area of Pitkin County. In order to verify and better understand this information, a survey of nearly 50 businesses (including both skiing companies, hotels, restaurants, retail shops, professional offices, the media, construction services and local government/special districts) in the Aspen Area was conducted. Employees were asked to identify where they Dived and whether they lived in deed restricted or free market units. This survey reached over 2,800 employees, which is 35% of the Aspen Area's work force. The survey results are summarized in Table 1. Up Valley of Aspen Village Down Valley of Aspen Viii. age Snowmass Village ~'--. '- '- ..': .'.' :.'.'. · .-. i.- :.:.:'i':'::i. ;:' .~,' ". '.~ '.' ' · Totals " Number of Employees Surveyed 1,158 1,334 320 To make this information comparable to that compiled from the housing surveys, those living in Snowmass Village should be excluded. Using this approach, 46.5% of the current work force lives up valley and $3.5% lives down valley of Aspen Village. These results are quite comparable to and confirm the 45% figure obtained from the 1990/91 ltousing Surveys. In order to provide options for the Housing Committee to consider, three scenarios were analyzed for increasing the percentage of the work force housed in the Aspen Area. These three s~narios would increase the percentage of the work force housed in the Aspen Area from 45% to 50%, 55% or 60%. The results of this analysis follow below. Percentage of Work Force Housed in Area Number of Employees Who Are Housed in Area .45 3,600 .50' 4,000 .55 4,400 .60 4,800 In order to increase the percentage of the work force housed in the Aspen Area to 60%, an additional .1,200 persons will need to be provided with housing. Survey data indicates that an average of 1.9 persons occupy each deed restricted dwelling unit in Pitkin County. This means that 630 new units would need to be produced to house an additional 1,200 employees. Production would only need to be 420 units, housing 800 employees, or 210 units, housing 400 employees, to increase the percentage to 55% or 50% respectively: The Housing Committee will need to choose among these opfiolzq and will also need to select a time frame for accomplishing the necessary production. If the Committee chose a target of housing 50% of the work force, it might be reasonable to try to accompSsh the necessary production withL,~ a five year period. If a higher target is chosen, a longer production period will likely be necessary. 2. Providing Housing In Respon. se To New Development . The second step in the methodology is to calculate the numbe~' of employees for whom housing would need to be produced due to growth in the commercial, lodge, residential, public and ski area sectors. Tables 2 through 7 summarize the results of this analysis, with the columns which are shaded representing the key data for purposes of this study. Table 2 calculates the number of full time equivalent (FTE) employees 'which would be generated by 'likely" and "maximum" buildout of commercial space within the study area. These buildoul levels are from an analysis of buildt~ht summarized off pages 96 - 101 of the Community Plan, Phase One Report. It was not necessary to updat~ this data, since a check of building permit records indicated no new commercial development had occurred since the Phase One Report was issued. The data has been rounded off to simplify this analysis.