HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20130128 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28,2013
PROCLAMATION—Buddy Program 40th Anniversary and National Mentoring Month.............2
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ..........................................................................................................2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ..............................................................................................2
CONSENTCALENDAR................................................................................................................3
PROCLAMATION—Avalanche Dogs...........................................................................................4
CONSENTCALENDAR................................................................................................................4
❑ Minutes - January 14, 2013 ..................................................................................................5
❑ Resolution#16, 2013 - Aspen Ice Garden Sound System....................................................5
❑ Resolution#10, 2013 - Burlingame Phase IIA Civil Infrastructure Construction...............5
❑ Resolution#11, 2013 - Development Review Services Contract ........................................5
❑ Resolution#13, 2013 Approving an IGA with Aspen School District................................5
RESOLUTION #12, SERIES OF 2013 —Neale Avenue Improvement Project.............................5
ORDINANCE#2, SERIES OF 2013 —Jewish Community Center GM Review and Subdivision 5
ORDINANCE#34, SERIES OF 2012—Code Amendment; ADUs and Growth Management.....6
ORDINANCE#1, SERIES OF 2013 —Fee-in-lieu methodology...................................................6
RESOLUTION #14, SERIES OF 2013 —GMQS Allotment Rollover.........................................13
RESOLUTION #15, SERIES OF 2013 —Employee Generation and GMQS Update Policy.......13
1
Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council January 28, 2013
Mayor Ireland called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM with Councilmembers Skadron, Torre,
Johnson and Frisch present.
PROCLAMATION—Buddy Program 40th Anniversary and National Mentoring Month
Council honored the Buddy program that has been pairing volunteer mentors with local youth for
40 years, resulting in a positive impact on over 2,000 youth with the assistance of nearly 1,000
volunteer big buddies, Mayor Ireland and Council proclaimed 2013 to be the 40th anniversary
year of the Buddy program. Council presented the proclamation to the director of the Buddy
Program
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
1. Jim Ward told Council there was a speech at the Hall of Fame dinner and he wants to
remind people of the Aspen attitude and that people who came in here in 60's and 70's did not
want Aspen to wind up like from where they came. Ward said it is great when people come
here who appreciate Aspen and who try to be part of the community rather than bringing their
city attitudes in. Ward told Council his opinion is the only reason traffic backs up on Main street
every evening is because of the traffic light at Cemetery Lane not the roundabout. Ward
reminded Council it is not their responsibility to make sure that everyone who invests money in
this town makes money on that investment.
2. Ashley Cantrell, environmental health department, announced the third annual waste free
cup challenge. Cups can be purchased for $1 in the environmental health department and there
are 13 participating coffee shops in the valley and the one who gets the most business from
customers using these cups wins.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman Torre said he attended the Hall of Fame banquet where Pat Fallin, Joe
Edwards and Michael Kinsley were inducted and it was a great event, remind people of their
contribution.
2. Councilman Torre requested a recap of the X-games from city departments that were
affected, like police, parks, transportation.
3. Councilman Torre announced there is a work session tomorrow to discuss traffic in the
west end and calming strategies as well as parklets in town.
4. Councilman Skadron commended the people who put together the hall of Fame banquet
and the stories should make residents grateful for Aspen.
2
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
5. Councilman Skadron thanked the Ski Company and ESPN for the X-games weekend.
Councilman Skadron stated he is grateful for the opportunity to have partnered with ESPN.
6. Councilman Skadron said he is reconsidering dogs at Burlingame I1 and would like
further exploration on the pre-annexation agreement and how that agreement is easily amended.
Barry Crook, assistant city manager, said there is a work session scheduled on this topic early
March.
7. Councilman Johnson agreed X-games was a great event, good for the community and it
gives Aspen clout in the industry.
8. Councilman Frisch said he likes the diversity of tourists that X-games brings to town.
Councilman Frisch noted he got a snowmobile tour on behind the scenes operations for the X-
games.
9. Councilman Frisch said he, too, attended the hall of Fame dinner and he agreed elected
officials and residents should not forget why people came here in the first place.
10. Mayor Ireland extended his sympathy to the X-game athletes who were injured. The X-
games were a great show and he hopes ESPN and the X-games come back to Aspen after 2014.
11. Randy Ready, assistant city manager, thanked all staff who helped make the X-games
successful—police,transportation,parks, transportation and RFTA to moved 47,000 people
Saturday. Ready also thanked the community for being welcoming and gracious.
12. Councilman Torre suggested the public hearings for Ordinance #34, 2012, and Ordinance
#1, 2013, be moved up to the first two public hearing.
13. Councilman Skadron reported he attended the Colorado Association of Ski Town
meeting in Telluride where they heard from the tourism board and about affordable housing
program in Telluride.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilman Torre said he has questions on b, c, d, and e. Councilman Torre asked if the Sound
System contract for the Ice Garden had a competitive bid process and how was the contract
determined. Tim Anderson, recreation director, told Council this contract was bid December
2011. There was budget of$25,000 for the project; the bid was $24,995. Anderson told Council
staff was concerned with this project and with the age of the building that the costs would go
over the limit of Council approval of$25,000 so the 2013 budget added $5,000 to the project.
This bid is $26,347. Anderson said this went through the formal bid process; one proposal was
received. Councilman Torre agreed this is necessary equipment and the sound system does need
to be upgraded.
Councilman Skadron asked about (c) Burlingame phase IIA civil infrastructure construction; the
change orders total $90,000 and the memo identifies change order of$31,000 and $29,000 and
asked what the other $30,000 are. Steve Bossart, asset manager, said there are a number of small
3
Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council January 28,2013
change orders that add up to $30,000. Barry Crook, assistant city manager, noted all change
orders will be included in the monthly report on Burlingame phase II. Councilman Skadron
asked if the change orders and the demand on the contingency fund so far is appropriate. Bossart
told Council the project has been through 70% of the infrastructure work where unforeseen
circumstances are usually found. The change orders increase 1.5% of the GMP amount, which is
minimal. Councilman Frisch said he would like to have an overall budget versus actual to keep
a running stream of where the project is so Council can review change orders in context of the
entire project.
Councilman Torre brought up (d) Development Review Service Contract and asked why project
reviews have to be outsourced. Trish Aragon, engineer, told Council this is on an as-needed
basis only and based on last year's work load, the engineering department will need additional
review services.
Councilman Torre asked about(e)Neale Avenue Improvement project and noted the city spends
a lot of money on public outreach and design efforts and why the city's in-house expertise is not
enough for projects like this. Currently there are 3 proposals, Main street improvements, Galena
Plaza, and this project. Tyler Christoff, engineering, told Council these project have new type
solutions to traffic calming and pedestrian safety and these new ideas require more public
process and information sharing. Scott Miller, asset manager, said the city goes above and
beyond seeking public input. Miller pointed out the Galena Plaza project has been going on for 4
years; this takes time and money. Councilman Torre asked if public outreach and design work
costs have been broken out. Garrett said the proposal has those costs broken out.
Councilman Torre requested the Neal Avenue contract not be approved as part of the consent
calendar.
PROCLAMATION—Avalanche Dogs
Aspen Ski Company employees from all 4 mountains and their avalanche dogs were present.
Allie Wade explained the process of training for avalanche dogs. These dogs are also available
as special resources to Mountain Rescue.
In honor of the part that avalanche dogs play in the culture of Aspen and the ski areas of the
Aspen Skiing Company, Mayor Ireland and Council proclaimed Monday, January 28th as
Avalanche Dog Appreciation Day.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ireland moved to approve the consent calendar as amended; seconded by Councilman
Johnson. The consent calendar is:
4
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
• Minutes - January 14, 2013
• Resolution#16, 2013 - Aspen Ice Garden Sound System
• Resolution#10, 2013 - Burlingame Phase IIA Civil Infrastructure Construction
• Resolution#11, 2013 - Development Review Services Contract
• Resolution#13, 2013 Approving an IGA with Aspen School District
All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION#12, SERIES OF 2013—Neale Avenue Improvement Project
Councilman Torre said he would like to know more about the public process for a single
intersection design without spending $75,000 for a charette and design work. Trish Aragon, city
engineer, told Council this intersection has been identified for attention because of the number of
accidents and the speed of vehicles. There is a park on Neale Avenue and kids crossing the
street, conflict with automobiles and hills on two sides. There are also drainage issues, which
will be addressed. Ms. Aragon told Council the city does not have in-house resources to do this
design. Councilman Torre asked if the construction costs are in the budget. Ms. Aragon said
this is design only and the construction costs will be in the 2014 budget.
Mayor Ireland moved to approve Resolution#12, Series of 2013,Neale Avenue Improvement
Project; seconded by Councilman Skadron. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman
Torre. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 2013—Jewish Community Center GM Review and Subdivision
Jennifer Phelan, community development department, told Council this review is due to a change
at the Jewish Community Center to develop a parsonage on site rather than a social hall. The
new proposal has less floor area. Alan Richman, representing the applicant, told Council they
are not proposing any reduction in mitigation. This is a different building footprint and design,
which has been to HPC and received approval.
Councilman Torre moved to read Ordinance#2, Series of 2013; seconded by Mayor Ireland. All
in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #2
(Series of 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A GROWTH
MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY AND SUBDIVISION
5
Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council January 28, 2013
—OTHER AMENDMENT, FOR THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER, ON THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREETS, LOTS A-1 BLOCK 38, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Mayor Ireland moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 2013, on first reading and set the public
hearing for February 11, 2013; seconded by Councilman Torre. Roll call vote; Johnson, yes;
Skadron, yes; Torre, yes; Frisch, yes, Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 2012—Code Amendment; ADUs and Growth Management
ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 2013—Fee-in-lieu methodology
Chris Bendon, community development department, pointed out these two ordinances are inter-
related. Bendon said Ordinance #1 is being proposed by APCHA and is a change to the housing
guidelines, which work in conjunction with the city and county land use codes. The guidelines
set category standards, set sales and rental programs, set rates for new development for a fee-in-
lieu of providing housing. This amendment is at the direction of both the city and the county
with a sense that the in-lieu fee options were too low and the city and county could not replicate
the housing for the rates, neither to build nor buy down. The original system adopted in 1990
stated a house of 3,000 square feet generated 1 employee. Bendon noted employee generation
studies for residential land use are expensive, both the studies themselves and variable data
gathering. Staff is approaching this from an inclusionary system, which is simpler.
Ordinance#34, amending the land use code describes when new construction requires affordable
housing, sets the category requirement and the percentage, if not 100%. Options are to include
affordable housing on-site, provide affordable housing off-site, to extinguish a certificate of
affordable housing, or to pay a fee-in-lieu. The land use code refers to the APCHA guidelines
for the fee rates. Cash-in-lieu for large projects is usually not the desired result by Council.
Some large projects on-site housing is not desirable, because of bulk and mass that affordable
housing would add to that. The dynamic of affordable housing mixed within the project may not
be desirable; or that the community will not be able to replicate the housing at the rates provided.
Cash-in-lieu is accepted for smaller projects, single family or duplexes or mitigation where less
than 1 employee is the required mitigation.
Bendon pointed out the land use code described the types of construction that triggers affordable
housing requirement; when a commercial project is expanded, the code defines the number of
employees generated and 60% need to be housed by that development; a residential project, the
code describes an inclusionary housing requirement of 60% of the units being affordable and
30% of the floor area being affordable. The guidelines are used when a developer sells or rent
their units or when an applicant is allowed to pay a fee-in-lieu.
Tom McCabe, housing director, told Council staff has been talking about reviewing fee-in-lieu
for over a year; the in-lieu fee is low. McCabe reviewed the key points in the RFP for this study;
these are a detailed description of the proposed methodology and why it is superior to other
methods; to demonstrate the methodology has sufficient analytical authority to be legally
6
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
defensible according to Colorado State Statutes; to include a list of other comparable ski resorts,
cities and counties which have implemented this same methodology and how long it has been in
use by each entity; list entities that may have abandoned that methodology; list legal challenges
to the proposed methodology; data used by the methodology shall reflect the reality of
comparable present day resorts; provide suggested regulatory language. Other requirements was
legislation that works for both the city and the county, is easily understood and easily updated
and represents reality in the Roaring Fork Valley. McCabe told Council the RFPs were reviewed
by a team of city/county staff and RRC won the bid.
Melanie, RRC, noted McCabe summarized the assignment. The outcome was not to determine
what Aspen's affordable housing requirements are but to support the requirements. When the
requirements are determined by the land use code for a particular applicant, this methodology, if
affordable housing is not produced, is to calculate what the dollar value would be. It is up to the
Council to determine what is assessed as the obligation of a development. The methodology
recommended is the market affordability gap, which is a three-step process—determine the
market price for 900 square foot unit, the approximate size of an affordable housing unit;
determine the market price for the unit, determine what a household at each income category can
afford to pay—the difference between the market price and the affordable price is the gap. That
gap can be expressed on a per unit basis, a per employee basis or a per square of employee
housing required. This method is versatile as it can be any of the 3 expressions. Melanie said in
all the research, the only other methodology found is used by the Town of Telluride, which was
Aspen's former methodology. Other communities either do not allow fees-in-lieu or allow fees
only under specified conditions. Melanie said paying the fee is the exception rather than the rule
for most development applications.
Melanie said the proposed method is easy to calculate, uses two sources of data—county
assessor and U. S. Department of Housing and Development. Melanie pointed out with this
proposal, it is easy to keep the fees current. The fee in place has not been revised in 10 years
except for the cpi. The proposed fee works in various income categories. This has been tested in
court. The fee is neutral; it is not subsidized. This is not a wholesale price nor is it incentivizing
developers to want to pay the fee-in-lieu.. Melanie pointed out in this methodology, there are
many variables, all of which were reviewed by the city/county team. Melanie said deed
restricted sales were not included as they do not reflect the cost of producing units; the price is
based on the income of the households this is trying to serve.
Melanie said the research looked at volatility in the market, which is why the report recommends
switching the method of calculation from a 3-year rolling median to an average of the medians
for 3 years. This takes the number of sales out of the equation. Melanie reminded Council the
current fees have not been updated since 2002 and there is a substantial increase in the proposed
fees for 2013. Fees that were proposed but not adopted in 2007 are similar to the fees proposed
in this ordinance.
Bendon said Ordinance #34 proposed to eliminate accessory dwelling units as a mitigation
option. When a single family or duplex goes through renovation or additions, there is a
requirement for affordable housing mitigation. The ADUs that were produced for this mitigation
have an occupancy rate of about 25%, which is one of the reasons proposing to remove this
option. The ordinance contains options for retiring ADUs, which are to retire the deed restriction
allowing one to use an ADU however, or to physically remove the ADU from their property.
7
Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council January 28,2013
The ordinance amends the growth management system to apply the mitigation requirements for
single family and duplex on any type of expansion. Bendon stated impacts on the community
are felt regardless of the method of construction.
Bendon stated this ordinance moves to an inclusionary requirement for floor area and suggests
30%requirement, meaning the additional floor area added to a single family or duplex structure
would trigger a requirement for affordable housing floor area of 30% of what is being
constructed. Bendon noted the basis for this is in the city's current code; the requirement for
new subdivisions is that 60% of the units are affordable housing and 30% of the floor area is
affordable housing. Mixed use projects have a 30% requirement for affordable housing. Bendon
agreed there are significant cost increases associated with this. In the current system, a 600 foot
expansion would cost $77/foot or$46,000; under the 30%requirement and the new proposed
rates, this would cost $127,000. There are other options besides paying the fee; on site housing,
a certificate of affordable housing credit.
Bendon noted the percentage of inclusionary housing requirement is important step in this
equation. The community needs to be able to articulate a rational basis for that number, which is
a combination of the community need as well as the overall effect that number has on the
community. Staff is recommending 30%; however, there are other percentages that have a
rationale basis—a 15% inclusionary requirement, which would mimic the same ratio of free
market FAR and affordable FAR, which exists in the community currently. Generally speaking
there is 9,046,000 square feet of free market housing and 1,270,000 square feet of affordable
housing. These numbers come from the assessor who counts heated square footage. The
affordable housing divided by free market housing results in 14%. Floor area is calculated
differently from heated square footage. Staff estimates in floor area affordable housing
represents 15% of existing free market. To replicate that would require all new development
maintain that current ratio of affordable housing to free market. The resulting fee may be more
tolerable to the community.
Bendon said 11% mimics the current system in place today, which would have no impact vis a
vis the fees being paid currently. Bendon pointed out way to lessen the impact on the
community is to have a delayed impact date or a fee that slowly ratchets into place. Additional
option may be to exempt small project or small houses. Bendon said staff would need time to
craft a definition of"small"to incorporate that in one of the above options. Councilman Frisch
said at previous meetings, he argued this was off kilter. Councilman Frisch agreed a strong
affordable housing program is one of the keystone of this community and sets Aspen apart from
other communities. Councilman Frisch said with all the mitigations, Aspen may be losing sight
of the goal of having a strong affordable housing program and community citizens; fees and
mitigations affect everyone. Melanie reiterated this fee methodology can work with whatever
Council decides the requirements should be. Bendon said he had to be convinced off of a
construction cost basis for the fees. The cost is the difference between the market value and the
affordable value for which the unit can be sold. This can be tracked annually because the
assessor tracks the value of properties. Bendon pointed out the costs at Burlingame are relatively
the same as the methodology proposed by Melanie.
Councilman Frisch said one issue is that the replacement fee is low because it has not been
increased in 10 years. Councilman Frisch suggested EPS come and address how many
employees are added by how much square footage. Bendon said the number of employees
8
Regular Meeting - Aspen City Council January 28,2013
generated by residential development is a volatile number but stabilizes on units over 10,000
square feet, which the city does not experience. The number of employees does not have to do
with square footage of residential units but more with people living in the unit.
Councilman Johnson said there is time to hear from the community on this issue as some steps
on the public outreach side seem missing. Councilman Johnson noted there are 3 funding
mechanisms to affordable housing, the RETT tax, a portion of sales tax and fees for mitigation.
Councilman Johnson asked is there is any double charging. Bendon said the two tax sources
were adopted by the community in recognition of the housing deficit, the imbalance that creates
transportation impacts. The revenues from those two tax sources go to address the existing
problem. The mitigation requirement assigned to development-is for impact to the community
caused by increase of that type of development, for lodging, for commercial, for residential.
Councilman Johnson asked if that thinking is still relevant. Bendon said the structure is still
appropriate and there is an expectation that new development pays its way. Councilman Johnson
supports a method that is logical, that makes sense, that is transparent, easily understood and
compatible with the city and county. Councilman Johnson said Council has to decide what
amount is appropriate.
Councilman Skadron asked if this policy implies there is no limit to affordable housing needed
or that there is no limit to money government will collect. Bendon said this amendment sets out
expectations for new development, a 30% inclusionary requirement that is a limit. Council can
set a different limit. Bendon said there have been discussions about when does the community
know there is enough affordable housing. This was discussed as part of the Aspen Area
Community Plan and the groups who worked on that agreed a critical mass of local, working
residents living in the community was needed.
Mayor Ireland told Council he analyzed the 7,000 property records for the city and one concern
is whether it is fair to people who have not sold or remodeled their house to pay fees and there
may be a way to exempt that square footage. Mayor Ireland said he is also concerned that the
single family housing stock is becoming second homes. Aspen is losing population, especially
between the ages of 20 and 40. There needs to be affordable housing produced to offset the
decline in local population. Mayor Ireland stated the methodology is not as important as what is
the bottom line impact to homeowners and Council should set reasonable rates.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
_Jody Edwards requested his letter be included in the record. Edwards said legally what this is
about is fairness; case law requires impact fees be fairly calculated and rationally based. The
Colorado impact fee statute requires the city shall quantify the reasonable impacts. A mitigation
fee can be no larger than necessary to defray the actual impacts caused by the new development.
It is the government's responsibility to make up the deficit if there is one. Edwards stated the
fairness standards need to apply to any of the 5 choices in Ordinance 434 for mitigation.
Edwards said there is nothing in the record that attempts to measure the impacts on the need for
affordable housing caused by construction of a new or expansion of a single family or duplex
unit but the ordinance has a cost to that expansion. There needs to be a relationship to that
number an applicant has to pay.
9
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
Edwards stated the 30% inclusionary figure is arbitrary and does not meet the standard of
fairness. None of the 30%, 15% or 11% options are based on quantification of the impact to
affordable housing. A median price for an Aspen luxury residence is not what APCHA builds
for workforce housing. Edwards said the gap methodology does not work in Aspen. The
proposed ordinances will add $135/square foot to the cost of construction for anyone, which will
add to the decimation of the construction industry in the valley. Edwards noted there has been
little public input on this ordinance and the public should be involved in working on this
amendment and suggested a 90 day continuation to allow public to analyze and comment.
John Olson said a large amount of need for employee housing is created through construction
and there will be less construction, fewer units will be needed. Olson told Council during the
review of the AACP, the biggest area of concern by the community was employee housing
mitigation fees. There has been a lot of public comment on this concept, not favorable. Olson
said the city needs to rethink affordable housing design and criteria should look and feel like.
Olson said there should be conversation regarding public/private partnerships on affordable
housing.
Gideon Kaufman told Council he owns an older home in the east end where ADUs are not
permitted. Kaufman said Ordinance #34 says if he wants to expand his home 600 square feet, he
would be charged $128,000 in mitigation fee which does not include tap fees and other city fees.
Kaufman noted adding that expense would make it impractical for some people to expand their
homes and this may be an unintended consequence of this code amendment. This would
encourage demolition and rebuilding of some older houses. Kaufman pointed out exactions have
to have a direct relation to impact and there would not be increase in employee generation
resulting from a small addition to an existing house but would take away flexibility of owners of
these type of houses. Kaufman said he hopes this will not be adopted for legal, practical and
fairness reasons.
Tim Semrau said he served on the housing board and for a decade there was a feeling that
APCHA's calculation were not quite right that 3,000 square feet creates one employee. Semrau
said over the past decade, APCHA has tried to come up with a better methodology. Semrau
noted although this methodology is easier to calculate, it doesn't make it right or just. Semrau
said he does not understand how this methodology relates to the AACP, which calls for a critical
mass of employees and for the city to implement reasonable mitigation. What does this have to
do with the methodology that takes luxury free market housing and what an employee can afford
and charges the difference. Semrau stated this methodology is the perfect storm of government
exaction and increases each year in relation to the size of the exaction; the fee will continue to
increase until nothing can be built. Semrau said the real costs of this mitigation is very high and
will double the costs of exaction. Semrau requested this ordinance be tabled and hire a company
to quantify how many employees are created by every square foot of residential housing.
Semrau said it is not difficult to figure out what it costs to build by averaging Burlingame costs,
Fornell costs, and free market development costs.
Shelly Roy stated she is a long term advocate of housing. Ms. Roy said trying to get more
money out of the program misses the picture. The reasons for affordable housing program are to
maintain a local resident population; to assure a sustainable local labor force. Originally the
program focused on for-rent housing, which is what part-time workers need. There is currently a
deficit in full time work. Ms. Roy noted that one can buy a house in mid-valley for less than
10
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28,2013
$200,000. Ms. Roy said the city should step back and re-think their goals as the circumstances
have changed. This program is upsetting the balance of the community.
Bob Bowden told Council he is a developer of free market and employs many people. Bowden
said he is willing to pay or offset whatever impacts he creates. Bowden stated he understands the
balance between having affordable housing for employees and employing people. Bowden
noted this is a balance; if the economy is killed, the need for housing is killed. Bowden
reiterated he is happy to pay his fair share and wants to make sure it is fair share; the city should
qualify the assumptions and when the assumptions make sense, mitigate for that and quantify
how much it costs to mitigate.
Dylan Johns said the city should look at the entire fee structure. Johns said a 20 to 30%
occupancy for ADU does not sound bad and eliminating ADUs would be eliminating a rental
option and loss of space. Johns said the city needs to look at what employees who are generated
by construction of residential space. Johns said the pace of the affordable housing program in
Aspen does not need to be geared towards something that moves rapidly based on the existing
economic conditions. Johns said it is important to have a measurable program that does not
change too radically.
Tony Clancy told Council property in Aspen is expensive; construction is expensive and this
ordinance would make expensive "unaffordable". Clancy said city policies should attract people
to town; they should generate jobs; they should be fair. Clancy suggested this be put on"open
city hall" for public input. Sarah Broughton said Aspen should be proud of the flexibility and
diversity of peoples the affordable housing program brings to the community. Ms. Broughton
said the ADU program adds to that diversity and flexibility. Eliminating the ADU program is
taking the short view and diminishing the number of choices people have to supply affordable
housing.
Mike Maple stated he supports the idea of the community providing housing for the community
as well as paying one's own way. Maple said it is inexcusable that the housing mitigation fees
have not been updated since 2002. The community has a large investment in affordable housing
and this should be seen to. Maple said the city needs a rational,justifiable, defensible system
and one that complies with Colorado law. Maple said the methodology proposed does not
correlate to a semblance of a fair, rational justifiable system. Maple said proposals like this are
destructive to the community and are part of what feels like a relentless attack in free market
property owners. Maple said the city has proposed regulations to down zone, down size,
historic preservation requirements and mitigation requirements over the past 15 years. Maple
outlined that for his residence, they generate need for an employee for 80 hours/year, which is
4/100ths of an employee. Maple told Council there are 2 FTEs living at their residence and they
pay sales tax, property tax and pay more than their fair share. Maple agreed the city needs to do
a better job of outreach on these ordinances.
Susan Welch said she, too, enjoys the diversity of Aspen and the employee housing helps. Ms.
Welch questioned whether so many units are needed; too many units will cause Aspen to become
a city. Ms. Welch asked what happens when employees retire and continue in their units; the
city will have to build more units. Ms. Welch asked how large Aspen could grow and still be the
Aspen people moved here for. Ms. Welch asked if kids can inherit units if they do not live or
work here. Ms. Welch asked if Aspen uses money collected for affordable housing for senior
11
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
housing. Ms. Welch said the city should make sure rules for affordable housing units are being
followed.
Peter Fornell stated housing requires a subsidy whether it is from the city, the developer, or
affordable housing credits. Fornell said the gap method does work because land purchase costs
are the same whether it will be used for affordable housing or for free market housing. Fornell
noted the design requirements are the same for affordable housing as for free market
development. Fee-in-lieu is a convenience for developers so they do not have to build units on
their property. Fornell pointed out the land use code requires housing mitigation to be built
within the urban growth boundary; it is expensive. Fornell suggested one solution is to require
affordable housing to be built as part of one's development.
Jack Wilke said this seems to be an aggressive step to collect more money to build affordable
housing. Wilke said more people are living in affordable housing than in permanent residences.
Wilke said Council should tell people how far they are going to go with the affordable housing
program. Howie Mallory said this is a complicated program being proposed with lots of moving
parts, it is not easily understood and full of unintended consequences. Mallory said the program
is not understood by the public and the city should do more outreach and generate information on
what the city is trying to accomplish. Mallory requested Council pause and have open houses to
explain the methodology and consequences on different types of property.
Councilman Skadron agreed this is complicated and would like staff to have some open houses
so this proposal can be understood. Councilman Johnson said he would like a proposal that
makes sense, is compatible, is transparent and easily understood. Fees have not been increased
for over 10 years and $76 is too small. The issue is what the fee should be, what is fair.
Councilman Johnson said there should be exemptions for minor expansions or additions.
Councilman Frisch said making amendments to residential properties affects a wide variety of
citizens. This amendment seems to reward those who have already built out their properties.
Councilman Frisch stated methodology is very important; the market affordability gap is
transparent and is easy to digest but it is not fair and does not get to what is going on.
Councilman Frisch pointed out the cash-in-lieu fee is $72 and the city is building at over
$900/square foot to develop living space. The issue is how to get from $72 to a more reasonable
number. Councilman Frisch stated staff's responsibility is providing a methodology that works
with more fairness and realism. It is up to Council to figure out how to take the large gap in
those figures to get to a number that honors a robust affordable housing program. Councilman
Frisch noted one issue is whether Council wants a number that truly mitigates what new square
footage residential causes or just figure out a legally defensible number. Councilman Frisch
stated an issue for him is the assumption of full employment. Councilman Frisch stated
mitigation is important because people want to be in this town, both free market and affordable
residents.
Councilman Torre said he would like to continue this conversation to solve issues like
exemptions, the gap between construction numbers, continuing the community-wide beneficial
housing program. Councilman Torre said this has been a topic for ten years. Mayor Ireland
agreed this needs more work. Mayor Ireland said he does not want a fee that makes it impossible
for people to stay in Aspen; this is mostly about single family homes and people should be able
to make their house livable. If the fee is onerous and people sell out and leave, this is defeating
12
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
the purpose. Mayor Ireland said over the past 10 years the number of local residents in free
market housing has decreased; there about 400 to 500 homes still used by local residents out of
the 1060 single family units in Aspen. What drives need for staff is the conversion from single
family houses of 2500 square feet to one of 5000 square feet which requires staff.
Mayor Ireland asked if staff could look at a correlation between the 30% or 15% and cost of
construction. Mayor Ireland agreed there should be an exemption for residents who expand their
house to be able to live in it. Mayor Ireland stated Aspen is losing population. The number of
births at AVH has not changed in the last 18 years. Affordable housing is keeping the population
from declining. EPS study says if you do not add affordable housing, the number of people
commuting to town will increase to meet the existing job need. Mayor Ireland suggested more
information on the housing stock that remains in local ownership and how that would be
fostered; an appropriate exemption so people can stay in their home; how much revenue would
this generate and how much is really needed; does the city need more money from this source.
Mayor Ireland said he would like information that correlates with the cost-driven approach, is
this fee being laid on people with smaller houses. Mayor Ireland said what is important to him is
who does this affect and why the city is considering it.
Mayor Ireland moved to continue Ordinance #34, Series of 2012 and Ordinance #1, Series of
2013; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION#14, SERIES OF 2013 —GMQS Allotment Rollover
Chris Bendon, community development department, reminded Council this is an annual review
to decide how much unused growth allocations should be rolled over into the future. Bendon
pointed out the chart illustrating the allotment available annually between
residential/commercial/lodge, how much was used and how much left over. In residential there
are 18 allotments, one was used, 17 are remaining; 33,000 square feet of commercial is available;
2,000 square feet was used leaving 31,000 square feet; 112 pillows of lodge were available, 6
were awarded, leaving 106 pillows. Bendon suggested these not be rolled forward.
Councilman Skadron moved to adopt Resolution#14, Series of 2013; seconded by Mayor
Ireland.
Mayor Ireland,opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Frisch asked if these are not rolled over and if a lodge proposal came in needing
more pillows, is there a way to accommodate that. Bendon said there is a process in the code for
an applicant to request more than an annual allotment.
All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION#15, SERIES OF 2013—Employee Generation and GMQS Update Policy
13
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28,2013
Chris Bendon, community development department, outlined this resolution gives staff direction
to amend the employee generation portions of the land use code. Bendon told Council staff has
contracted with EPS to update the commercial mitigation standards, how many employees are
generated by different types of uses. There is a chart showing the numbers from the 2002 study
and the numbers from the most recent study. Many businesses are being surveyed; additional
work is being done in the service/commercial/industrial zone to see why the number increased
from 3.5 to 5.2 to see if that is statistically valid.
Councilman Johnson moved to approve Resolution#15, Series of 2013; seconded by
Councilman Skadron.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the
public hearing.
All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Torre moved to adjourn at 9:45 pm; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in
favor, motion carried.
athryn Koch
City Clerk
14