Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20151012Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2015 1 SCHEDULED PUBLIC APEARANCES .................................................................................................... 2 CITIZEN COMMENTS & PETITIONS ...................................................................................................... 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3 Resolution #101, Series of 2015 – Wheeler Opera House CM Contract for NV5 ............................... 3 Minutes – September 28, 2015 ............................................................................................................. 3 Next Gen Board Appointment .............................................................................................................. 3 Resolution #112, Series of 2015 – Oklahoma Flats Trail Relocation and Construction Agreement .... 3 ORDINANCE #41, SERIES OF 2015 – 72 Cloud Nine Lane – Planned Development Amendment ......... 3 ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 2015 - Burlingame Seasonal Bond Refinancing ..................................... 4 ORDINANCE #40, SERIES OF 2015 – Parks, Recreation and Open Space Bond Refinancing ................. 5 ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 2015 – Water Shortages Code Amendment ............................................. 5 RESOLUTION #111, SERIES OF 2015 – Policy Resolution – Miscellaneous Code Amendments ........... 5 ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2015 – Land Use Code Reliance .............................................................. 6 ORDINANCE #38, SERIES OF 2015 – Elevator and Trash/Delivery Access Code Amendment .............. 6 ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2015 – Obermeyer Place Rezoning and Minor PD Amendment ............. 7 ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 2015 – Code Amendment Affordable Housing Mitigation for Residential Development ............................................................................................................................................... 10 ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 2015 – Code Amendment – Fee-in-Lieu rate schedule .......................... 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2015 2 At 5:00 pm Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Daily, Frisch, Myrin and Mullins present. SCHEDULED PUBLIC APEARANCES Mayor Skadron presented black diamond awards for outstanding employees to Caitlyn Cunningham, Pete Pelinski and Ritchie Zah. Mayor Skadron stated on behalf of Council, how proud we are to have great employees across the city. CITIZEN COMMENTS & PETITIONS 1. Kathy Markle said she read recently about the status of the bricks on the mall and she fully supports replacing the bricks with something easier to maintain. It would be fabulous. 2. Emzy Veazy III suggested some street lamps at Rio Grande Park. The bricks on the mall are dangerous. He would get rid of the bricks and replace them with something with sparkles. We need something that is safe to walk on. Council should consider an office of protocol. 3. Jim Ward said he moved here in 1964. He thinks Council should change their mind on the Old Power House decision. Council has the chance to change back to a community asset. We don’t need another beer joint in town. It is never too late to change from another beer joint to something more for the community. 4. Ryland French said Aspen is competing with Park City in October as to which town can install the most LED bulbs and smart thermostats. Start at energysmartcolorado.com. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS Councilwoman Mullins stated she went to college fair last weekend. She was very impressed with what was put on. Over 250 schools, 25 participants and 25 to 30 workshops. Students came from all over Western Colorado. It was a terrific event. Councilman Frisch gave a hats off to Kelly Doherty and Kathy Klug for the college fair. He missed Tom Anderson’s memorial service last week but said the community owes him and his family a level of gratitude for all he did for the town and he will definitely be missed. Councilman Daily said he went to the college fair and spent several hours there and learned a lot. It is quite amazing that our high school can produce such a thing. Mayor Skadron thanked Kelly and Kathy for the college fair. There were 250 admission officers and 2,500 kids. Thanks to all the locals who made it happen. Unfortunately it conflicted with the Mayors golf tournament. He thanked the group from Abetone who was here last week to make it an official Sister City. Tomorrow a contingent from Whistler is visiting. On October 26 Council will be honoring Terry Trish, our favorite mail man. BOARD REPORTS Councilwoman Mullins stated Aspen achieved 100 percent renewable energy on our grid. Without movement by Holy Cross and Aspen to add more renewable on the grid, Aspen will not be able to achieve 100 percent renewable. Aspen has reached out to Holy Cross to achieve our long term goals. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2015 3 To date, we have not come up with specific programs yet. We are going to meet quarterly and will continue to report on our progress. Councilman Frisch said Frontiers continues to meets twice a month. There is a CORE reception this Thursday from 5 to 7 to honor and let people know about the Randy Udahl grant recipients at the Inn at Aspen. Mayor Skadron attended the RFTA board meeting. The budget is based on five million transit miles traveled. The negotiations between management and the bus driver union continue. CONSENT CALENDAR Resolution 112 needs pulled and voted on separately as Councilman Daily has a conflict.  Resolution #101, Series of 2015 – Wheeler Opera House CM Contract for NV5  Minutes – September 28, 2015  Next Gen Board Appointment Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #101, Series of 2015, minutes of September 28, 2015 and the Next Gen Board Appointment; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Daily recused himself. Resolution 112 Mayor Skadron asked for a description of the realignment. Matt Kuhn, parks, said the grades are around 20 percent, extending the length as depicted in Exhibit D and drop to the 16 percent range. The trail will be extended higher with the hope to get the grade down to 10. Mayor Skasron asked if it will it be safer. Mr. Kuhn said the whole plan is to make it safer. Councilwoman Mullins asked him to mention it is sluffing off. Mr. Kuhn said there is trail failure which is why it is a high priority. We are given the opportunity to redesign the trail outside the confines of the trail. Mayor Skadron asked if the trail is not moving from City property to private property. Debbie Quinn, attorney’s office, replied the trail will move to an easement. It will benefit the property owner as well as the city.  Resolution #112, Series of 2015 – Oklahoma Flats Trail Relocation and Construction Agreement Councilwoman Mullins moved to approve Resolution #112, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor; motion carried. ORDINANCE #41, SERIES OF 2015 – 72 Cloud Nine Lane – Planned Development Amendment Chris Bendon, community development, stated this is an amendment to the Aspen Highlands Village PUD to accommodate an expansion of an affordable housing unit to add 660 square feet to a home to accommodate accessibility to all members of the family. This requires opening up the entire PUD. It also includes fee waiver requests and will be detailed at second reading on October 26. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2015 4 Councilman Myrin asked about the idea of having used up the property right space and what has been done in the past in terms of precedent. Councilman Frisch asked if there is an elevator going in. Mr. Bendon replied yes. Mr. Bendon replied in regards to the property rights, the floor area is set by PUD. There have been a series of design changes that were requested prior to development. There is a Council allowance for administrative floor area additions to the project based on these design changes. Those were used through administrative amendment on a case by case basis. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #41, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 41 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ALLOWING FOR A RESIDENTAIL ADDITION TO 72 CLOUD NINE LANE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PHASE II, LOT 7 Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #41, Series of 2015 on first reading, seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 2015 - Burlingame Seasonal Bond Refinancing Don Taylor, finance, stated this ratifies the action taken by BG INC to refinance bonds that were issued to construct the Burlingame project. The call date is November 1. The interest rate is at a higher rate, a little over four percent. This will call the bonds and reissue new bonds to pay those off. 3.08 is the new rate with a savings of 570,000 dollars over the remaining life of the bonds. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Kathy Markel said the ordinance is not just refinancing but lumping and ratifying the Burlingame project and the operating agreement. She is curious why it is all being lumped together if this is just a refinancing. Mr. Taylor stated when the project was originally conceived it was a 63/20 corporation as a partnership with City and the Music Associates. In order to get the equity and leverage the City and MAA put up money to create an equity layer. The operating agreement lays out how the property is to be managed over the life of the bonds. The agreement is still in effect until the bonds are paid off and the agreement needs to be in place. The original ordinance ratified the original agreement. Our bond council thought it was necessary to ratify the agreement again. Ms. Chandler asked if it changes the length of the bonds. Mr. Taylor said it shortens the length of the bonds because the savings is taking out the tail of the issue. 2. Marcia Goshorn asked if the deed restriction that it be affordable housing still remain in place. Mayor Skadron said the refinancing of the bonds have no effect on the deed restriction. Mr. Taylor confirmed that. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Myrin suggested in section 5 of the ordinance changing her to him. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2015 5 Councilman Daily moved to adopt Ordinance #39, Series of 2015 with the change of her to him in section 5; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #40, SERIES OF 2015 – Parks, Recreation and Open Space Bond Refinancing Alice Hackney, finance, said this is similar to the multi family refunding. This will replace the final portion that is outstanding on the 2005 series on the parks and open space bonds. The original bonds had an average coupon of 5.06 percent and the new percentage will be at two. It is a net present savings of around 250,000 dollars. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Myrin asked if this also shortens the duration. Mr. Taylor replied yes. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #40, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 2015 – Water Shortages Code Amendment Lee Ledesma, water, said there have been no changes since first reading. The status of the reuse line has been added to the cover memo. Councilwoman Mullins asked if the update is not intended to change policy. Ms. Ledesma replied the overall intent is to be prepared if there is a drought. Stages 1, 2 and 3 remain the same. Councilwoman Mullins asked if they could change the wording so there is not that conflict. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Myrin said the violations section has a first offense, a fine then a fine for subsequent offenses. Does the subsequent offense fine adjust outside of this. Ms. Quinn stated any ordinance violation is punishable up to a year in jail and a fine of 2,650 dollars. This ordinance specifics a specific penalty. Subsequent offenses would be up to the judge. Councilman Myrin asked if it would make sense to refer everything including the first offences to the code instead of a specific number. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #30, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #111, SERIES OF 2015 – Policy Resolution – Miscellaneous Code Amendments Justin Barker, community development, stated these will be code amendment to definitions and miscellaneous supplemental regulations including floor area, height and setbacks. These need to be updated in order to be relevant to current building practices, create more predictability in the zoning review and ensure the purposes of the requirements are being met. Staff maintains a red line version of this code. This will clean up and fix technical errors. The first modification is where hot tubs and mechanical equipment are located and simplifying the language around building envelopes that don’t Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2015 6 have a site specific plan to be treated the same as setbacks are treated. There is also an issue of how floor area is measured for duplexes and multifamily buildings. The proposed amendments were submitted via the newsletter. There was not very much feedback or response. Staff met with P&Z last week and they were mostly supportive. The minutes will be provided at first reading. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Councilman Frisch said it is hard for the public to comment, just like Council can’t when the language is not in the packet. Mr. Barker replied this is just one of the steps in the code amendment process. Mr. Bendon said they could push this off and give Council more direction. Councilman Frisch stated that would be helpful. A page of what is there now, what needs to be fixed and what is on the way. Mayor Skadron said he would not object to that. Councilman Myrin agreed to that. He said they should also have the P&Z minutes. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Myrin moved to continue to October 26, 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2015 – Land Use Code Reliance Councilman Frisch moved to continue to October 26, 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #38, SERIES OF 2015 – Elevator and Trash/Delivery Access Code Amendment Jessica Garrow, community development, told the Council this will update the requirements for commercial buildings related to access to commercial tenant spaces. Staff is proposing to update the code to ensure all commercial tenant spaces on all levels of the building have access to an elevator. Private elevators will still be allowed but this will be a common elevator for commercial tenants. It will also require all commercial tenants have access to both a delivery area as well as trash and recycling area s from the building through an ADA compliant exterior path that is not the alley. Staff is proposing these requirements apply to all new construction and remodels are required to comply with the greatest extent practical. Planning & Zoning has supported the amendment. Staff did outreach through he newsletter and has received some comments that there are a lot of requirements regarding access and public amenity space and these requirements may start to take away ground floor opportunities. Staff feels this is important to ensuring usable spaces and access to all spaces and recommends approval. Councilman Myrin asked for trash and recycling how does this change from what we have now. Ms. Garrow replied it is a little more detailed than the current requirements calling out specific requirements. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #38, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2015 7 ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2015 – Obermeyer Place Rezoning and Minor PD Amendment Sara Nadolny, community development, stated this is second reading for Obermeyer Place minor amendment to a planned development and rezoning. It was approved in 2003 for five buildings with residential and commercial uses. It was approved as Service Commercial Industrial and the dimensions were set by the planned development. The project was developed and approved by the coop process. A Council approved task force was created and comprised of property owners, neighbors, city department, commercial tenants and citizens. The review process enabled the planning design to reflect the community goals and to take into account multiple points of view. The goals were to maintain a physical and financial viable location for locally serving businesses with a minimal reliance on personal vehicles. During development there were a number of businesses that were displaced that were allowed to relocate back into Obermeyer Place when the development was finished. These included a fitness center and a number of offices. These non-conforming spaces also included a space in building five for another space with preference to be given to a bakery/café. Most recently a temporary use for the police station has been granted. The on grade businesses are heavily non-conforming. In 2013 Council directed staff to look at SCI businesses and see how they are performing. The North Mill Street properties are not interested in changing. Obermeyer Pl has been in operation for 10 years. There are a number of vacant spaces, underutilized spaces and dead zones. Staff feels the zoning has contributed to the vacancies here. SCI uses are very specific and somewhat outdated. Over the years many uses have been denied location here. Why neighborhood commercial. Commercial is a good fit. To provide a transition from the commercial core to surrounding residential neighborhoods. It provides more flexibility and allows categories of uses that are more general. What uses could be expected to locate at Obermeyer Pl. Retail, commercial, kitchen, artist, childcare, and service uses. Given the location is outside of the commercial core, Staff expects very little retail to locate here. They do not expect high end retail. Why NC over CC or C1. The existing spaces already allow for C1. CC restricts use by levels of the building. CC and C1 are reserved for more downtown. Obermeyer is more of a transition zone. Pros include no fear of redevelopment. The dimensional standards are already set. Cons include the concern over the cost increase. There is no competition but there are vacant units. The second request includes a request for a minor amendment. Staff wants to make sure there is still a place for light commercial. Ms. Nadolny enter Exhibit J into packet which is a letter from Ali Moshari that outlines a number of requests that have been denied. P&Z provided a referral to deny the request and revisit the SCI zone itself. Staff feels this is not the way to go. The goals of Obermeyer Pl need to be revisited. Staff recommends support. Mr. Bendon stated in 2013 this was a top ten goal of the city around how to help local businesses overcome obstacles. One of the things was changes in SCI. Council was interested in a balance in responding to business needs of the community. Four main areas were looked at; Obermeyer Pl, basement of Clarks Market building, properties on both side of N Mill after the post office intersection, and the building with the laundromat. From a district wide SCI discussion you are always looking over your shoulder and inclined to have very specific use discussions to address the issue of the day. Councilwoman Mullins said P&Z did not support this. She is not clear why they don’t or what their suggestion was. Ms. Nadolny said there was lots of discussion and they were split. Ultimately, by recommending denial it would prompt Council to take another look at SCI. Mr. Bendon said they did have a thoughtful conversation but also wanted to make a point about the SCI district. He does not think Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2015 8 they were looking at this through the lense that Council does. He did reinforce that they had a complete discussion and made a decision on that but also wanted to readdress the discussion of SCI. Jerome Simecek, Aspen Snowmass Hospitality, representing the homeowners, said they started out with a build it and they will come mentality. There are still a lot of vacant and underutilized spaces. This amendment has the support of the residential and commercial home owners association. The HOA has the right and the obligation to review business and make sure they fit in as a whole. They have the support of the association. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Marcia Goshorn said she thinks the rezoning is appropriate. She was on the coop. This is locally serving. You can get your dog groomed there but not your hair cut. The big percentage of businesses on North Mill Street are on notice that they are non-conforming. It is not just Obermeyer. During the coop there was lots of discussion that it should be locally serving businesses and if the zoning was changed there would be more businesses there. 2. Scott Lindenau, Studio B Architects, said most of the SCI like shoe repair and vacuum have been displaced down valley. It would be a more vibrant community if more businesses would be allowed in there. 3. Farr Shepard, said he has a technology business and a great opportunity as a young business owner. He would like to use his space as office space but it would be out of compliance. He would like to continue to operate there. There is a sense of community there. 4. Roger Moyer stated he was an occupant before Obermeyer existed. When the project was put into place there was lots of discussion and he was fortunate to be able to get a spot. He saw someone go broke because he had to leave and couldn’t find someone to take his place. What is being proposed is very wise. There is not a lot of vitality there. This proposal is long overdue. 5. Johnathan Searle said his wife owns the art of fitness. Health and wellness is not a permitted use. His wife was grandfathered in and they have thrived there. Their current business contributes to the community and makes people’s lives better. They are currently looking at another space in Obermeyer to expand the business but it is currently not permitted in SCI. 6. Bill Murphy said he has commercial property in Obermeyer Place. Nothing physically will change. He went through four people before he found someone that the zoning would allow. They need a liquor license to make it a little more vibrant. He is in favor of this and wants to lend his support to this. 7. Steve Anderson, Aspen Custom Woodworking, said he is all for the rezoning. Lots of businesses have been turned down with a great opportunity to provide service. His business has doubled since moving into Obermeyer. 8. Keith Schenkelberg said he owns two properties. It is a great opportunity for businesses to thrive. He is in favor of this. 9. Kim Scheuer, Aspen Medical Care said if they leave they won’t be able to come back. This will bring vibrancy. They want more of it and support the change. 10. Tammy Lane, Lane Fine Art, said she supports the proposal. Vitality is not possible with the SCI zone there. The space next to her was empty for four years. She hopes it is approved. 11. Wally Obermeyer said he loves little businesses. The beauty of the project is what you hear tonight from the people who have little spaces who need flexibility. Expanding the zoning will add that vitality. He hopes Council passes this. 12. Tim Fortier, Aspen Tile owner in the 465 N Mill building said we don’t need SCI. There are vacancies. There is more SCI then needed. It is a great idea to get rid of the SCI. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Daily said it is time to bring some additional diversity and vitality to this building. It is a neat building and it deserves additional variety and flexibility. He is impressed with the broad base of Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2015 9 support the application has from the various owners of the building, residential and commercial. It speaks volumes to him. The allowed uses today are just too narrow. The idea of what do we do and is there a need to revisit the rest of SCI, perhaps but that is a conversation for another time. He is in favor of this application Councilman Frisch said at first there was hesitation to tackle one part of SCI. There is the opportunity tonight to look at a specific building. There are three levels of up zoning; physical and he is not concerned about that, up zoning of uses which leads to up zoning of cost. He was trying to champion the rework of SCI for a while. There is not a hard cap on the rent or what the sales cap can be. The question is how we make sure pricing does not spin out of control. He does not think some of the boutique stores will be moving down there. We will see rent creep or for sale creep. His big concern is over time, in 10 or 15 years will we still be seeing the locally serving businesses or another generation of high end retail or high end legal space. He agrees with everything that was talked about but what are the long term economic consequences. This might need to be a necessary trade off but we need to be aware of the long term tradeoffs. Mr. Bendon said by expanding the pool of those who can operate there will be some rent increases. That needs to be compared against the vacancies that have been there since the project has been opened. Mr. Simecek said there are physical limitations to the property along with parking and subterranean spaces that will not lend to high end retail. Councilman Myrin asked if offices are allowed in SCI. Mr. Bendon replied no, only as an accessory use and limited in size. Councilman Myrin asked if offices would be allowed if this was approved. Mr. Bendon replied yes. Councilman Myrin said he agrees with P&Z. It is frustrating that you can’t solve problems. He will not be supporting this because the up zoning to convert to offices. There is no reason why this model should not be use for the other SCI properties. He agrees the list is outdated. Offices is the one thing that should not be putting pressure on the SCI zone. Office is such a broad group and we will end up with an office park. The way to do it is the way P&Z suggested. Councilwoman Mullins said Councilman Frisch had a good point. SCI is an important component of our zoning. Spaces are there for SCI qualifying businesses but they are not coming to use it. We need to take into consideration the owners and tenants here in support. She will support the change. Councilman Frisch said most of the spaces are desirable for uses other than locally serving stuff. What is allowed in NC is pretty much everything. He want us to be fully aware what we are signing up for. He thinks we are making a really big decision and want to make sure we have time to think about this. Mr. Bendon said there is nothing that is immediately pending. NC allows for a bunch of things, including a very liberal bunch of uses. There is a use called neighborhood commercial uses. Neighborhood commercial uses does not allow for offices. It allows for retail but not offices. If offices is a hang up we could look to this definition of neighborhood commercial uses. There is a clean path to make an adjustment to the zoning that does not open it up to offices. Mayor Skadron said as the ordinance stands he has no confidence a change from SCI to NC delivers the Obermeyer’s family dream as a home for cool people running small businesses. He is reminded of the Sandy’s building and fearful that is the case here. He is not opposed to expanding SCI at some time. He Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2015 10 needs to know that whatever action delivers a sense of vibrancy and is recognized as a unique place in Aspen. It should be about diversity, artsy vibe and grit. He is fearful it will be offices and rents that will be forced out. He is not willing to move forward with it. Councilman Myrin said neighborhood commercial uses are already onsite. Ms. Nadolny said several spaces are zoned for it. Councilman Myrin said the solution is already there on part of the parcel, is it achieving what we are trying to achieve. Mr. Bendon said it is mixed bag. The healthy spaces are those that also allow for NC with the one hesitation is around the bakery space. Councilman Frisch said vibrancy would be every space is filled up. He is not looking for any type of pizazz down there. He wants to do something to open up the uses. The vibrancy hurdle is to fill up the spaces. Councilwoman Mullins said we are looking at a real lost opportunity down there. Perhaps the mistake was using the SCI zoning originally. The list of acceptable uses don’t combine to make a viable place. SCI works great at Mill Street. It clearly doesn’t work here. We can tweak it and make it more complicated or allow NC which is in other areas of town that have not become high end retail. They are stable areas in town and this can become one of them. Councilman Frisch suggested to continue this. He wants to broaden the horizons to expand the uses. Councilwoman Mullins said she would vote to change the zoning. SCI is the wrong zoning for this property. If there is a chance to address some of Councilman Myrin’s and Councilman Frisch’s concerns and reassure that it will serve locally serving businesses that would be good. This needs to address this property and not the SCI as a whole. Councilman Frisch moved to continue to November 9, 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 2015 – Code Amendment Affordable Housing Mitigation for Residential Development Chris Bendon, community development, stated the City first adopted requirements for residential development in 1990 through ordinance one. Mitigation options were through a cash in lieu payment or by building an accessory dwelling unit as the primary options. A study was performed and determined that each 2,000 square feet of residential development generated the need for the community to house one full time equivalent employee. The requirement was lessened to one FTE per 3,000 square feet of residential construction. There have been updates to the cash in lieu payment over time. The current requirement is for $79.97 per square foot of new development. Staff enlisted the help of RRC Associates who conducted a study and concluded that a house of 3,000 square feet actually generates .445 employees not one. They looked at both employees from the initial construction of the home and its ongoing maintenance and operation. Council also asked for an update to the fee in lieu numbers. Those will be presented in the next ordinance. This ordinance updates the growth management requirements based on the RRC report. The scale proposed is a stepped linear scale. It makes the math a lot easier. The proposed ordinance eliminates the ADU as a mitigation option. The estimate occupancy is in the 20 to 30 percent range. There is widespread disappointment in ADU’s serving as real mitigation to the community. The ordinance continues to have offsite units to serve as mitigation or fee in lieu to be paid. It lowers the threshold for a Council review from 1.25 to .25 FTEs. It allows for owners of properties Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2015 11 with existing ADUs to replace, remove or make part of the main house by paying a onetime fee in lieu equating to .38 FTE or just below 100,000 dollars. The ordinance maintains what has been known as the deferral option. Mitigation is still required but a payment can be deferred until the property is no longer owned by a local working resident. Questions about what are the cost implications. The 79 dollars lowers to just below 42 per sq ft based on the lowering from 1 employee to .445 and the slight increase in fee in lieu rate. The ordinance updates the City’s allowance and limitations around temporary use applications. They cannot be unlimited or used consecutively. They are limited to a time period within a 12 month time span. There were 11 points in the policy resolution. Those are achieved in this ordinance. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Ron Erickson, chairman of APCHA, said they submitted a memo July 15, 2015. APCHAs position is they oppose this. It tends to concentrate on residential mitigation but it is broad based. APCHA recommends eliminating any mitigation for residential up to 600 sq ft. They agree with the elimination of the ADU program and FIL or housing credit but feel it is still too low. The biggest issue is with the methodology. He gave the example of Burlingame. We don’t get that many large mitigation projects. To base methodology on Burlingame is understating the true cost of reproducing the housing we are looking for. FIL should be the last option. Build on site, off site then housing credit. Developers will take the least expensive and easiest method. If there is a FIL there should be a surcharge in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 percent. 2. Peter Fornell said at what quantity is the threshold an applicant should be allowed to pay cash in lieu without coming to ask the question we thought .25 FTE sounded like a good number. With the new .445 numbers that mitigates a 1,650 foot remodel and encompasses over 90 percent of the applications that come in. If the concern is helping out the addition/remodel property owner that wants to add 300 or 600 square feet .10 of a certificate satisfies that. We are looking to give the easy path to the small remodel and .1 satisfies that. 3. Mike Maple applauded Council for staying the course and coming up with a sound system with a rational nexus. The fee credit program is a fantastic program. It is a monopoly if property owners are forced to utilize it. There needs to be a mechanism to make it work. There needs to be some reasonable means of not being beholden to the monopoly holders of the fee credits to pay the mitigation as cash. The ordinance references 26.470.90, which only allows council to consider cash in lieu with three criteria. The biggest concern with the ordinance is the deferral program. In no case shall the fee be adjusted downward by 25 percent or upward greater by 50 percent of the impact fee. The mechanisms make no sense. It gives zero credit for a resident occupied home. Qualified working residents should be credited using the RRC standard. 4. Marcia Goshorn said she has an issue with the buyout of the ADU calculation. It is a good intention that did not work out as planned so they get a massive discount. At that price you could no way build another one. If they want to buy out of it paying the FTE is fair. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Mr. Bendon said there is some continued conversation about the deferral program. It is in the housing guidelines. There may be simpler ways to do it. It is a conversation within the housing guidelines. They did cover the concept of providing a credit for the number of working years a property housed an employee over the 40 years and it is not a job I would want to do and is not advisable. Marcia mentioned the buyout price of an ADU should be higher. We have to acknowledge that ADUs provide roughly a 25 percent occupancy. In 1990 it was a higher number. When an ADU goes away the impact to community housing is that unit, on average, is housing someone one out of four times. Councilman Frisch said it would be nice to get more than 90,000 but we should quit while we are ahead. Regarding the certificate program there has been some hesitancy from Council on the monopoly issue. He is comfortable the relief valves are in place. He is happy to waive the 600 sq ft thing. He is not sure Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2015 12 Council wanted to allow a 1,600 sq ft remodel with the ability to write a check. He thinks we all agree ADU units should go. He thinks Chris’s math is right. He is open to discussing creating some sort of deferral credit. Councilman Myrin agrees with Peter, the .25 should be reduced to .1. He also supports FIL being the last option which is also what APCHA wants. It would help address the methodology. He asked about the ADU buy out and creating a non-conforming structure. Mr. Bendon said it would be recognized as a legally created non-conforming structure. It is language that is carried forward from the current code. Councilwoman Mullins said she supports eliminating the ADUs. As far as the requirement to come to Council, she would support the lowering to .1 or 600 sq ft. Lowering will be supporting and expanding the program. FIL needs to stay as an option. Councilman Daily said he agrees with Councilmembers Mullins and Frisch. He supports the elimination of ADUs. He agrees that it enables us to move on. Cash in lieu at .1 is a comfortable number that will encourage additional affordable housing units. Mayor Skadron said the ordinance does not say 90,000 but it does have the .38 number. Mr. Bendon replied correct. Mayor Skadron said it is unfortunate to get rid of the ADU program. It speaks to the core values of Aspen. Mr. Bendon said the program does not go away they just don’t receive mitigation for them. Mayor Skadron said there is Council support to go to .1 for the cash in lieu amount. Councilman Myrin asked about the adoption date. Mr. Bendon said he would suggest this and ordinance 37 be adopted on the same night or go into effect on the same date. Mr. True stated the Charter requires an ordinance go into effect 30 days after it is passed unless the ordinance expands that. It would be ok for the ordinance to expand that to say the same time ordinance 37 becomes effective. Councilman Myrin moved to adopt Ordinance #35, Series of 2015 with the change of .25 to .1 and the change in effective date to when ordinance 37 becomes effective; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 2015 – Code Amendment – Fee-in-Lieu rate schedule Barry Crook, manager’s office, stated this will amend the land use code to adopt a new fee in lieu methodology. It has been in the works four years to this point. In 2012 RRC and Reese Consulting proposed a market affordability gap methodology. Council did not care for that methodology. On Jan 6 2014 Council tabled that discussion to wait for the residential mitigation study. On March 31, 2015 Council reviewed seven different methodologies including the option to continue the current one. The fee in lieu was adopted in 1990 based on the subsidy required to build affordable housing. The baseline was last recalculated in 2001. In July of this year Staff provided Council with three different density variations. Council chose an option that looked at the costs retrospectively and prospectively and used a middle density number. A 100 percent number would be 16.4 units per acre or the size of Annie Mitchell. A 75 percent number is 14.1 units per acre or the size of Centennial. The ordinance is written based on methodology two at 75 percent. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2015 13 Councilman Frisch said the City has bought some parcels of land that will be rezoned affordable housing and can put whatever density we want there. The more we reduce the density the higher the fees are going to be. There are land cost and construction costs. What is your confidence level in the numbers for BGII. Mr. Crook said they used 414 dollars at BGIII for vertical construction. The small projects make up a small component of the weighted average. Councilman Frisch said Peter did some projects and how did that density match up with these numbers. Mr. Crook replied the 9 units on Main Street are a less dense project that what Peter did on Main Street. He said he does think they are reasonable densities given the neighborhoods and adjoining properties. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment 1. Peter Fornell said there are five projects that are currently being used and contemplating what a subsidy can cost. Burlingame has a zero cost basis for its land. There was an agreement between the City and a private developer to provide entitlements for free market development in exchange for receiving those lots to build with. He said those entitlements had a value. I, as a private sector developer don’t have the ability to go and entitle another parcel in exchange for free land to build with. If you can’t assign some land cost to that project you can’t use that as a comparative analysis. At the lumber yard you are looking at a maybe if we do it 10 years away from us project. It is irresponsible to use it as a comparative analysis. There are three projects to look at 517 Park, 802 Main and Castle Creek. He said he put together an analysis of mid-level development that penciled out at 300,000 dollars subsidy per FTE at category two and 214,000 dollars at category four. That is much more in line with what you are going to see occur. A 260,000 cash in lieu number when a 300,000 subsidy is required will require 40,000 from the taxpayers for each employee mitigated for these projects. He urged Council to support a cash in lieu number representative of the projects they want to build. 2. Kimbo Brown Schirato and Christine Benedetti from Next Gen stated the 18 to 40 demographic is a big chunk of the work force. They read from the AACP, all types of people and income levels should have affordable housing. There is a demographic bottleneck. There is a need for family friendly homes. A new fee in lieu methodology that omits higher category housing is ignoring a certain set of the demographic. They asked Council to include fee in lieu numbers for categories five through seven. Housing problems will not be solved by building our way out of it. 3. Maria Hidalgo said she supports what next gen was saying with the need for more higher category housing and the need for cash in lieu numbers associated with them. 4. Marcia Goshorn said the purpose of cash in lieu numbers was originally to build an affordable housing unit. It turned out it was a number that was a whole lot cheaper to pay then to build. For years the numbers have been too low. 5. Mike Maple said Staff has made a good attempt to try to come up with what the subsidy should be. He said the Burlingame land has been anything but free because it came with extraordinary infrastructure costs. Section one of the ordinance provides the fee in lieu rates should be updated every five years and there should be a provision that the numbers should update every year. There should be an automatic adjustment mechanism. 6. Frank Reynolds stated that the BGII numbers are without the land costs and the lumberyard will be at least ten years out. The density of the three projects looks a little aggressive. The 260,000 is too low. 7. Amos Underwood said he agrees that the current fee is too low and the proposed fee is too low. He appreciates the density discussion. The economy of scale should not be a handout to the developer. Development should pay its way. 8. Matt Evans, next generation, said he wants to continue to push the upper categories to seven. They did a lot of studies that show their generation is looking for it and family friendly housing. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2015 14 Mr. Crook said in regards to allowing mitigation from five to seven, Council has appropriately not allowed it to developers. If you could pay a fee for it why wouldn’t you and pass it on to the government. If you want to create certificates for five, six and seven it is completely different. I can’t charge a fee that is 50 percent more than my costs are. We still have 79 units to develop at Burlingame. Some of the higher categories at Burlingame were lowered because no one wanted to buy them. It is appropriate to build more lower categories. Councilwoman Mullins said there is a disconnect here. She is not convinced using Burlingame was correct. Her gut feeling is the figures are not high enough. People who are building the projects are saying it is not high enough. She is not convinced we have come up with the right figure. The density is 14 per acre at centennial. The density at the open houses were quite a bit higher than that. She is not convinced we have come up with the answer yet. Councilman Frisch stated the density is important to talk about but we can’t get too focused on it. We are not going to get the density right. He is happy to try to get a wider variety of properties in the mix. Councilman Myrin said Ron Erickson said to use 50 percent instead of 75 percent. He would lean toward that. We have asked developers to follow the zoning. He is comfortable if our numbers reflected what our code allows us to build. He is comfortable with something closer to what housing recommended. He would support the higher category numbers the way Barry presented it. Councilman Daily said we don’t have something we are going to vote on tonight. He agrees with Councilman Myrin’s thinking with the APCHA recommendation of 50 percent being more realistic. He is willing to explore higher levels of categories. Mayor Skadron said he would support exploring higher levels of categories. He support Staffs recommendation. Councilman Frisch moved to continue to November 9, 2015; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Daily moved to adjourn at 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor, motion carried.