HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Affordable Housing Credit.0042.2015.ASLU0042 2015 ASLU
CODE AMENDMENT
HOUSING CREDITS
-(A ed
0
} 0 kb
PATH: G/DRIVE / MASTER FILES/ADMINISTRATIVE/ADMIN/LAND USE CASE
DOCUMENTS
THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen Community Development Department
CASE NUMBER
PARCEL ID NUMBERS
PROJECT ADDRESS
' ►►
CASE DESCRIPTION
REPRESENTATIVE
DATE OF FINAL ACTION
0042.2015.ASLU
2737 073 31 851
130 S GALENA ST
JESSICA GARROW
CODE AMENDMENT
08.24.15
CLOSED BY DEB PATTISON 06.15.16
ORDINANCE No. 34
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 26.540 — CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT, OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City. of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to prepare amendments related to the Housing Credits chapter of the Land Use
Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department. conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment with the Planning &
Zoning Commission, APCHA Board, private developers of affordable_ housing, and through the
Community Development Department newsletter; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on August 10, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 76, Series of 2015, by a five to zero
(5 — 0) vote, requesting code amendments to update the Certificates of Affordable Housing
Credits chapters and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.540 — Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credit; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and
finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050;
and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Chapter 26.540.010, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, Purpose, shall be
amended as follows:
26.540.010 Purpose
Code Amendment — Housing Credits
Ordinance 34, Series 2015
Page 1 of 4
There are two main purposes of this chapter: to encourage the private sector to develop
affordable housing; and to establish an option for housing mitigation that immediately offsets the
impacts of development. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit is issued to the developer of
affordable housing that is not required for mitigation. Another entity can purchase such a.
Certificate and use it to satisfy housing mitigation requirements. Establishing this transferable
Certificate creates a new revenue stream that can make the development of affordable housing
more economically viable. Establishing this transferable Certificate also establishes an option for
mitigation that reflects built and occupied affordable housing, thereby offsetting the impacts of
development before those impacts are felt. This Chapter describes the process for establishing,
transferring and extinguishing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
Section 2: Chapter 26.540.030, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, Applicability and
prohibitions, shall- be amended as follows:
26.540.030 Applicability and prohibitions
This Chapter applies to all Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Housing credits may only
be established from affordable housing created on a voluntary basis and designated at any
Category with established cash -in -lieu rates in the Housing Guidelines, including the deed -
restriction of unrestricted units (buy -down units).
City of Aspen Housing Credits may be used within the city limits of the City of Aspen as
provided in this Title, and may be used in other jurisdictions as may be authorized by that
jurisdiction. City of Aspen Housing Credits may only be established from development within
the City of Aspen boundaries.
A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed.
Transfer shall be evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document.
Upon transfer, the new owner may request the Community Development Director re -issue the
Credit Certificate acknowledging the new owner.
The market for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit is unrestricted and the City shall not
prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a Credit.
The Community Development Director shall establish policies and procedures for the printing of
certificates, their safe -keeping, issuance, re -issuance, record -keeping, and extinguishments.
Projects seeking approval to develop affordable housing in exchange for Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credit may be subject to additional reviews pursuant to this Title.
Fractional units are eligible for the establishment of Housing Credits if deed restricted as for -sale
or are subject to an agreement with the City requiring the unit to be permanently deed restricted.
For example, if a development project is required to mitigate 2.4 FTEs and is proposing on -site
units that house 3 FTEs, the additional 0.6 FTEs proposed that are not required for mitigation are
eligible for establishment as a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
Any affordable housing units created for the establishment of Housing Credits, including
fractions thereof, which are part of a mixed -use building shall be deed restrict as for -sale. Units
that are part of a 100% affordable housing project may be for -rent.
Code Amendment — Housing Credits
Ordinance 34, Series 2015
Page 2 of 4
This Chapter does not apply to the following:
1. Affordable housing created to address an obligation of a Development Order or which is
otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development.
2. Affordable housing units created prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 6, Series of
2010.
3. Affordable housing units developed by, or in association with: the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority, or similar government or non-
governmental organization (NGO) that receives, public funds for the purpose of building
affordable housing.
4. Dormitory units.
5. The creation of voluntary affordable housing units deed restricted at a Category which a
cash -in -lieu rate has not been established in the Housing Guidelines.
Section 3: Chapter 26.540.080(B), Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, Procedure for
issuing a certificate of affordable housing credit, shall be deleted.
Section 4: Scrivener's Errors
Any .scrivener's errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to
mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the
Ordinance.
Section 5: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6: Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 7: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 8: °
A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the 15d' day of September, 2015 at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
Code Amendment — Housing Credits
Ordinance 34, Series 2015
Page 3 of 4
0 •
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen orr the 24t' day of August, 2015.
Attest:
rx
ik�-VaXAM'
inda Manning, City lerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 15t' day of September, 2015.
At st:
mokk
Linda Manning, City Cl t
rk
Approved as to form:
awes R. True, City Attorney
! -j- lk'L
Steven Skad ron, Mayor
Code Amendment — Housing Credits
Ordinance 34, Series 2015
Page 4 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Housing Credits Code Amendment
Ordinance 34, Series of 2015
DATE: September 15, 2015
SUMMARY:
The attached Ordinance would amend the City's Land Use Code to update requirements and
restrictions involving Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Amendments focus primarily
on the applicability of the chapter to different types of development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This is the second reading of proposed code amendments related to the Housing Credits chapter
of the Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final
review authority for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three -step process. This is the third step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should be pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen created the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits in 2010 to encourage
the private sector to assist in the creation of affordable housing. Four Housing Credits projects
have been completed, and another is approved but not yet completed. To date, certificates have
been created for 47.91 FTEsI.
The program allows a private developer to build voluntary affordable housing units, and then
receive a certificate from the City indicating how many FTEs were housed. The developer can
then sell those certificates (aka credits) to other developers who have their own housing
mitigation requirements. The developer who purchases the credits would then use them to
satisfy their affordable housing mitigation requirement, rather than using a cash -in -lieu payment
1 Certificates are for 28.91 Cat 2 FTEs, 1.75 Cat 3 FTEs, and 17.25 Cat 4 FTEs.
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing Credits
2" Reading — 9/15/2015
Page 1 of 4
or building their own affordable housing units. Only development within the City of Aspen can
use these credits, as no sister program has been created in surrounding jurisdictions.
nvrP"rw-
City Council approved a Policy Resolution on August 10, 2015 (Attached as Exhibit B)
providing staff with direction to amend the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits Chapter.
The amendments are intended to clarify the operations of the program, and are based on
experiences over the past 2-3 years. Below is a summary of the changes included in the code
amendment. The redline version is attached as Exhibit C.
Public Sector Limits: In late 2014, City Council held a work session regarding the application
of Affordable Housing Credit Certificates. It was noted that previous Council provided direction
that no public sector or non-profit entity whose core mission was to provide affordable housing
was to use the program. The rationale was that these organizations have adequate revenue stream
to complete their mission and should not be competing with for -profit private sector individuals
for certificates.
The code amendment states that Housing Credits may only be established by a private sector
developer or a non-profit that does not receive public funding or whose core mission is not
related to the creation of housing. This means, for instance, that Habitat for Humanity is not
eligible to create Housing Credits, as their core mission is to create housing. Similarly, any non-
profit that is a taxing district would not be eligible, as they receive public funds.
Dormitory Units: The proposed amendment limits Housing Credits to full units (studios or
larger), and prohibits dormitory units from being eligible. While dormitory units provide an
important housing option for seasonal employees, they do not generally represent a long-term
housing solution for full-time employees. Because the credits program is used to mitigate full
time employee generation from development in the City of Aspen, planning staff is
recommending dormitory units not be eligible for credits.
Sales Limitations: The proposed amendment requires that any housing which is part of a
mixed -use building (i.e. contains affordable housing units and any other use) be designated as
for -sale or be subject to some other form of permanent deed restriction if the housing units are
being used to create Housing Credits. This will ensure that these units will remain permanently
in the inventory, particularly if the building is demolished or redeveloped in the future. Also
included in the amendment is the ability for units in an entirely affordable housing building to be
for -sale or for -rent.
Fractional or Additional Housing Units: City Council supported allowing any additional
housing mitigation provided by a developer to be eligible for the creation of Housing Credits.
This situation arises when an applicant provides more housing than is required by their
development. For instance, a developer may have a requirement to house 2.15 FTEs, and the
easiest way to do that is to provide a single 2-bedroom unit that houses 2.25 FTEs, leaving an
overage of 0.10 FTEs. Similarly, a developer may choose to provide additional affordable
housing as part of their project. To be eligible for credits, these units must comply with the Sales
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing Credits
21 Reading — 9/15/2015
Page 2 of 4
• 0
Limitations provision above (i.e. be for -sale or be subject to another long-term agreement
guaranteeing the unit will remain permanently in the housing inventory).
Category Limitations: The Housing Credits system is based on the Category of the units
provided, and the associated cash -in -lieu amounts assigned by the Housing Guidelines. Cash -in -
lieu is used to convert Credits between categories. This is needed because often the available.
Housing Credits are not at the category a developer needs. Many of the Housing Credits have
been established from Category 2 units, but a developer's housing mitigation is at Category 4. A
conversion between categories is necessary to ensure a developer is providing the correct
mitigation. Currently, there are no cash -in -lieu options for Categories 5 or higher, meaning there
is no way to convert higher category units to Category 4.
During the Policy Resolution public hearing, Council heard from the NextGen Commission
requesting that higher category units (Cats 5-7) be eligible for the program, stating that many
people from their constituency only qualify at the higher categories. The Housing Board had
recommended against allowing higher category units being included, as the community need is
focused in the lower categories (Cats 1-4). Council requested staff get additional feedback from
both the P&Z and the APCHA Board on this issue. Both recommended that the Land Use Code
be silent on categories, and instead reference the Housing Guidelines cash -in -lieu figures. The
code amendment has been updated to reflect this direction. It states that Housing Credits may be
created at any Category with established cash -in -lieu rates in the Housing Guidelines.
Location Limitations: The proposed code amendment limits where City of Aspen Housing
Credits may be established to within city limits. During the Policy Resolution public hearing,
Council expressed interest in potential incentives for building housing inside the round -about.
Staff recommends that any incentives be part of a larger policy discussion around housing
priorities. Staff suggests that any incentives apply broadly to all housing, including, buy -downs,
housing created because of a mitigation requirement, and housing created for Credits.
Outreach:
Staff conducted outreach with both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Housing Board
as part of preparing the Policy Resolution. Meeting minutes from P&Z are attached as Exhibit
D, and an APCHA memo on the topic is attached as Exhibit E. Also attached is a memo from
the Next Generation Commission (Exhibit F).
As part of the Policy Resolution, Council asked staff to conduct additional outreach with the
boards regarding which Categories should be eligible for the establishment of Housing Credits.
Comments from the APCHA Board are attached as Exhibit H. P&Z's meeting minutes are
attached as Exhibit I.
In addition, staff conducted direct outreach with Matt Brown and Peter Fornell, the main
developers of Affordable Housing Credit projects (Exhibit G). Outreach through the
department's newsletter reached more than 600 subscribers.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance.
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing Credits
2nd Reading — 9/ 15/2015
Page 3 of 4
0
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Ordinance No. 34, Series of 2015, approving a code amendment regarding
Affordable Housing Credits."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A — Staff Findings
Exhibit B — Council Resolution 76, Series 2015
Exhibit C — Code Amendment Redlines
Exhibit D — P&Z meeting minutes, May 19, 2015
Exhibit E — Housing Board Recommendation Memo, July 1, 2015
Exhibit F — Comments from the Next Gen Commission
Exhibit G — Comments from Peter Fornell and Matt Brown
Exhibit H — Housing Board Category Recommendation Memo, August 20, 2015
Exhibit I — P&Z meeting minutes, August 18, 2015
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing Credits
2nd Reading — 9/15/2015
Page 4 of 4
0 9
ORDINANCE No. 34
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 26.540 — CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT, OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to prepare amendments related to the Housing Credits chapter of the Land Use
Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment with the Planning &
Zoning Commission, APCHA Board, private developers of affordable housing, and through the
Community Development Department newsletter; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on August 10, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 76, Series of 2015, by a five to zero
(5 — 0) vote, requesting code amendments to update the Certificates of Affordable Housing
Credits chapter; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.540 — Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credit; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and
finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050;
and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council fords that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Chapter 26.540.010, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, Purpose, shall be
amended as follows:
26.540.010 Purpose
Code Amendment — Housing Credits
Ordinance 34, Series 2015
Page 1 of 4
0 •
There are two main purposes of this chapter: to encourage the private sector to develop
affordable housing; and to establish an option for housing mitigation that immediately offsets the
impacts of development. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit is issued to the developer of
affordable housing that is not required for mitigation. Another entity can purchase such a
Certificate and use it to satisfy housing mitigation requirements. Establishing this transferable
Certificate creates a new revenue stream that can make the development of affordable housing
more economically viable. Establishing this transferable Certificate also establishes an option for
mitigation that reflects built and occupied affordable housing, thereby offsetting the impacts of
development before those impacts are felt. This Chapter describes the process for establishing,
transferring and extinguishing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
Section 2: Chapter 26.540.030, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, Applicability and
prohibitions, shall be amended as follows:
26.540.030 Applicability and prohibitions
This Chapter applies to all Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Housing credits may only
be established from affordable housing created on a voluntary basis and designated at any
Category with established cash -in -lieu rates in the Housing Guidelines, including the deed -
restriction of unrestricted units (buy -down units).
City of Aspen Housing Credits may be used within the city limits of the City of Aspen as
provided in this Title, and may be used in other jurisdictions as may be authorized by that
jurisdiction. City of Aspen Housing Credits may only be established from development within
the City of Aspen boundaries.
A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed.
Transfer shall be evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document.
Upon transfer, the new owner may request the Community Development Director re -issue the
Credit Certificate acknowledging the new owner.
The market for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit is unrestricted and the City shall not
prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a Credit.
The Community Development Director shall establish policies and procedures for the printing of
certificates, their safe -keeping, issuance, re -issuance, record -keeping, and extinguishments.
Projects seeking approval to develop affordable housing in exchange for Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credit may be subject to additional reviews pursuant to this Title.
Fractional units are eligible for the establishment of Housing Credits if deed restricted as for -sale
or are subject to an agreement with the City requiring the unit to be permanently deed restricted.
For example, if a development project is required to mitigate 2.4 FTEs and is proposing on -site
units that house 3 FTEs, the additional 0.6 FTEs proposed that are not required for mitigation are
eligible for establishment as a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
Any affordable housing units created for the establishment of Housing Credits, including
fractions thereof, which are part of a mixed -use building shall be deed restrict as for -sale. Units
that are part of a 100% affordable housing project may be for -rent.
Code Amendment — Housing Credits
Ordinance 34, Series 2015
Page 2 of 4
This Chapter does not apply to the following:
1. Affordable housing created to address an obligation of a Development Order or which is
otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development.
2. Affordable housing units created prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 6, Series of
2010.
3. Affordable housing units developed by, or in association with: the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or similar government or non-
governmental organization (NGO) that receives public funds for the purpose of building
affordable housing.
4. Dormitory units.
5. The creation of voluntary affordable housing units deed restricted at a Category which a
cash -in -lieu rate has not been established in the Housing Guidelines.
Section 3: Chapter 26.540.080(B), Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, Procedure for
issuing a certificate of affordable housing credit, shall be deleted.
Section 4: Scrivener's Errors
Any scrivener's errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to
mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the
Ordinance.
Section 5: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6: Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 7: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 8•
A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the 151' day of September, 2015 at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
Code Amendment — Housing Credits
Ordinance 34, Series 2015
Page 3 of 4
0 •
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 24th day of August, 2015.
Attest:
Linda Manning, City Clerk
Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 15th day of September, 2015.
Attest:
Linda Manning, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Steven Skadron, Mayor
Code Amendment — Housing Credits
Ordinance 34, Series 2015
Page 4 of 4
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three — Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Findings:
The City of Aspen implemented the Housing Credits program in 2010 and has seen a number of
successful private sector housing developments as a result. To date, housing for nearly 48 FTEs
has been created through the program. While the program has been a success, there are
improvements and clarifications to be made. These include specifying what types of units
qualify for the creation of Housing Credits, as well as limiting the program to private -sector
entities. Staff believes the clarifications in the code amendment will ensure the program remains
viable well into the future. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective
cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings:
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan calls for ensuring the rules for affordable housing are
clear (Housing Policy V.1), and that all affordable housing should be within the UGB (Housing
Policy IV.2). This code amendment clarifies the rules related to the creation of affordable
housing credits, and ensures that new housing for credits is located with the City of Aspen. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The intent of the proposed amendment is to ensure a viable Housing Credits Program through the
creation of private sector non -mitigation housing that meets community needs. Staff finds that this
objective is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose of Title 26. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing Credits
211 Reading — 9/15/2015
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit B — Approvedflicv Resolution 0
RESOLUTION NO. 76,
(SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CREDIT CHAPTER OF THE LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development
Department received direction from City Council to amend the land use code to codify a
previous Council direction to limit the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit Chapter
to private developers; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach to subscribers, of the community development
department newsletter, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and the Planning and
Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits Chapter 26.540 of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy
direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public
hearing on August 10, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 76, Series of 2015,
by a five — zero (5-0) vote, requesting code amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides
direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Code Amendment Obiective and Direction
Council hereby provides direction to the Community Development Director to amend
Chapter 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, of the Land Use Code. The
objective of the proposed Land Use code amendment is to specify that:
• Units must be studios or have 1 or more bedrooms (no dorms);
• Fractional units are not eligible for Housing Credits unless they are designated as
"for -sale" or have some other permanent deed restriction that requires the unit to
be built back following demolition;
• Staff should get additional feedback from the APCHA Board and the Planning &
Zoning Commission regarding any Category limitations in the program;
Code Amendment - Housing Credits
Council Policy Resolution No. 76, Series 2015
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 2
0
Exhibit B — Approved Policy Resolution
0
• Only private sector individuals and entities may create Housing Credits (public
sector and housing -based non -profits cannot create Housing Credits);
• Unless a proposal is for 100% affordable housing, all units created for Housing
Credits must be for -sale; and
• Project must be located within the City of Aspen. Staff should explore options to
incentivize housing credit construction east of the round -about.
Section 2•
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 3•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this 1 Oth day of August, 2015.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
James R True, City Attorney
Code Amendment - Housing Credits
Council Policy Resolution No. 76, Series 2015
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 2
0 •
Exhibit C - Redlines
Chapter 26.540
CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT
Sections:
26.540.010
Purpose
26.540.020
Terminology
26.540.030
Applicability and prohibitions
26.540.040
Authority
26.540.050
Application and fees
26.540.060
Procedures for establishing a credit
26.540.070
Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit
26.540.080
Procedures for issuing a certificate of affordable housing credit
26.540.090
Authority of the certificate
26.540.100
Transferability of the certificate
26.540.110
Exchanging category designation of an affordable housing certificate
26.540.120
Extinguishment and re -issuance of a certificate
26.540.130
Amendments
26.540.140
Appeals
26.540.010 . Purpose
There are two main purposes of this chapter: to encourage the private sector to develop
affordable housing; and to establish an option for housing mitigation that immediately offsets the
impacts of development. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit is issued to the developer of
affordable housing that is not required for mitigation. Another entity can purchase such a Certificate and
use it to satisfy housing mitigation requirements. Establishing this transferable Certificate creates a new
revenue stream that can make the development of affordable housing more economically viable.
Establishing this transferable Certificate also establishes an option for mitigation that reflects built and
occupied affordable housing, thereby offsetting the impacts of development before those impacts are
felt. This Chapter describes the process for establishing, transferring and extinguishing a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit.
26.540.020 Terminology
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit (Credit or Certificate). A transferable document issued by
the City of Aspen acknowledging and documenting the voluntary provision of affordable housing which
is not otherwise required by this Title or by a Development Order issued by the City of Aspen. The
Certificate documents the Category Designations and number of employees housed by the affordable
housing. The Credit is irrevocable and assignable. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit is a
bearer instrument.
Establishing a Credit. The process of the City of Aspen acknowledging the voluntary provision of
affordable housing through issuance of a transferable Credit.
Extinguishing a Credit. The process of the City accepting a Credit to satisfy affordable housing
requirements of a development.
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
9/15/2015
Exhibit C
Page 1 of 7
Exhibit C - Redlines
Category Designation. A classification system used to reflect different sales price and rental rate
restrictions of affordable housing as set forth in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines.
26.540.030 Applicability and prohibitions
This Chapter applies to all Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit
Or-dinanee No. 32, SeFies 2012, and heaeefbit#. _. Housing credits may only be established from
affordable housing created on a voluntary basis and designated at any Category with established
cash -in -lieu rates in the Housing Guidelines. including the deed -restriction of unrestricted units (buy -
down units).
City of Aspen Housing Credits re~�rifieates may be used within the city limits of the City of Aspen as
provided in this Title, and . Credit GeFtifieates may be used in other jurisdictions as may be
authorized by that jurisdiction. —City of Aspen Housing Credits may only be established from
development within the City off Aspen boundaries.
A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed. Transfer
shall be evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document. Upon transfer,
the new owner may request the Community Development Director re -issue the Credit Certificate
acknowledging the new owner.
The market for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit is unrestricted and the City shall not
prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a Credit.
The Community Development Director shall establish policies and procedures not ineensistent with
this ChapteFfor the printing of certificates, their safe -keeping, issuance, re -issuance, record -keeping,
and extinguishments.
Projects seeking approval to develop affordable housing in exchange for Certificates of Affordable
Housing Credit may be subject to additional reviews pursuant to this Title.
Fractional units are eli6ble for the establishment of Housine Credits if deed restricted as for -sale or
are subject to an agreement with the City requiring the unit to be permanently deed restricted. For
example, if a development project is required to mitigate 2.4 FTEs and is proposing on -site units that
house 3 FTEs, the additional 0.6 FTEs proposed that are not required for mitigation are eligible for
establishment as a Certificate of Affordable HousingCredit.
Any affordable housing units created for the establishment of Housing Credits, including fractions
thereof, which are part of a mixed -use building shall be deed restrict as for -sale. Units that are part of
a 100% affordable housing project may be for -rent.
This Chapter does not apply to the following_
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
2"d Reading 9/15/2015
Exhibit C
Page 2 of 7
0
Exhibit C - Redlines
1. Affordable housing created to address an obligation of a Development Order or which is
otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development.
2. Affordable housing units created prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2010.
3. Affordable housing units developed by, or in association with: the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or similar government or non-
governmental organization (NGO) that receives public funds for the purpose of building
affordable housing.
4. Dormitory units.
5. The creation of voluntary affordable housing units deed restricted at a Category which a cash -
in -lieu rate has not been established in the Housing_ Guidelines.
26.540.040 Authority
The Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of
this Chapter and of Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny an application for the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit.
The Community Development Director, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of
this Chapter and of Section 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, is authorized to issue,
re -issue, exchange Category designations, and extinguish a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
26.540.050 Application
All applications shall include the information required under Chapter 26.304, Common Development
Review Procedures. In addition, all applications must also include the following information.
1. The net livable square footage of each unit.
2. If applicable, the conditions under which reductions from net minimum livable square footage
requirements are requested according to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines.
3. Proposed Category Designation of sale or rental restriction for each unit.
4. Proposed employees housed by the affordable housing units in increments of no less than one -
one -hundredth (.01) according to Section 26.470.100.2 — Employees Housed.
26.540.060 Procedures for establishing an affordable housing credit
A development application to establish a certificate of Affordable Housing Credit shall be reviewed
pursuant to the Common Development Review Procedures set forth at Chapter 26.304, and the
following procedures and standards. The City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission shall
review a recommendation from the Community Development Director and shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny an application to establish Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. This
requires a one-step process as follows:
A. Step One — Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
9/15/2015
Exhibit C
Page 3 of 7
Exhibit C - Redlines
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for authorizing establishment of
a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
2. Process: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the application after considering the recommendation of the Community Development
Director.
3. Standards of review: 26.540.070
4. Form of decision: Planning and Zoning Commission decision shall be by resolution. The
resolution may include a description or diagram of the affordable housing.
5. Notice requirements: The requirements of 26.212.060 shall apply. No public hearing notice is
required.
26.540.070 Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit
An Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission if all of
the following criteria are met. The proposed units do not need to be constructed prior to this review.
A. The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section
26.470.070.4(a-d).
B. The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not
otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development.
26.540.080 Procedure for issuing a certificate of affordable housing credit
Once the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved an Affordable Housing Credit through
adoption of a Resolution, and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the affordable housing
unit(s), the Community Development Director shall issue a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
in a form prescribed by the Director.
A. The Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit shall include the following information:
1. A number of the Certificate in chronological order of their issuance.
2. Parcel identification number, legal address and the street address of the affordable housing.
3. The Category Designation and number of employees housed by the affordable housing units,
according to Section 26.470.100.2 — Employees Housed, in increments of no less than one -
one -hundredths (.01).
26.540.090 Authority of the Certificate
The Certificate may be utilized in whole or in part, including fractions of an FTE no less than .01 FTE,
to satisfy affordable housing mitigation requirements in accordance with other applicable sections of
this Title.
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
2°d Reading 9/15/2015
Exhibit C
Page 4 of 7
Exhibit C - Redlines
(Ord. No. 6-2010, §5; Ord. No. 32-2012, §1)
26.540.100 Transferability of the certificate
A. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed in
whole or in part, in increments no less than one -one -hundredth (.01). Transfer of Title shall be
evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document. Upon transfer, the new
owner may request the City re -issue the Certificate acknowledging the new owner. Re -issuance shall not
require re -review by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
B. The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit shall be recorded in the real estate records of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the City of Aspen Community Development
Department within five (5) days of such transfer. The report of such transfer shall disclose the
Certificate number, the grantor, the grantee and the total value of the consideration paid for the
Certificate. Failure to timely or accurately report such transfer shall not render the Credit void.
C. The market for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit is unrestricted and the City shall not
prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
26.540.110 Converting category designation of an affordable housing certificate
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit represent a number of employees housed at a specific
Category designation. Projects seeking extinguishment of a Credit to satisfy affordable housing
mitigation standards of this Title may have a different Category Designation requirement than an
existing Certificate represents. This section sets forth a process to convert a Certificate of a certain
Category Designation for a Certificate of a different Category Designation. This process amends the
number of employees housed to create an equivalency. This Section relies on the Affordable Housing
Dedication Fees (aka Fee -in -Lieu) stated in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
are amended from time to time.
To convert a Certificate of a certain Category Designation for a Certificate of a different Category
Designation, the following steps are necessary:
Step 1. Multiply the employees housed stated on the existing Certificate by the per employee
Fee -in -Lieu fee for the Category Designation as stated in the APCHA Guidelines.
Step 2. Divide the resulting number from step 1 by the Fee -in -Lieu fee for the Category
Designation of the proposed Certificate.
The resulting number from step 2 shall be the employees housed for the proposed Certificate. The
Community Development Director shall re -issue a Certificate using this number of employees housed
and specifying the proposed Category Designation.
Example: An owner of a Category 3 Certificate wishes to exchange the Certificate for a Category
2 Certificate. The existing Certificate states 2.25 employees housed.
Step 1. Employees housed multiplied by Category 3 per-FTE Fee -in -Lieu.
2.25 X $217,567 = $489,525.75
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
9/15/2015
Exhibit C
Page 5 of 7
0 •
Exhibit C - Redlines
Step 2. Number from step 1 divided by Category 2 per-FTE Fee -in -Lieu.
$489,525.75 / $230,583 = 2.12
In this example, the Community Development Director would re -issue a Certificate stating 2.12
employees housed and a Category 2 designation. Please note that the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Fee -in -Lieu rates change from time to time. The rates used for this calculation
shall be those in effect upon request for conversion.
The conversion of a Certificate's Category Designation shall be approved by the Community
Development Director and shall not require additional review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
26.540.120 Extinguishment and Re -Issuance of a Certificate
F. Unless otherwise stated in a Development Order, extinguishing all or part of a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit shall occur prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the development for
which the housing mitigation is required. Extinguishment shall be evidenced by an assignment of
ownership on the actual certificate document to "the City of Aspen for extinguishment."
B. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit may be extinguished to satisfy affordable housing
requirements of this Title if the Community Development Director finds the following standards met:
1. All other necessary approvals for the proposed development, as required by this Title, have
been obtained and the applicant has submitted the necessary information, pursuant to Section
26.304.075, Building Permit.
2. The applicant has submitted authentic Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit in the
number and Category Designation required for the development.
3. The Certificate owner has assigned ownership of the Certificates to "the City of Aspen for
extinguishment."
C. When all of a Certificate is extinguished, the city shall void the Certificate. When part of a
Certificate is extinguished, the city shall issue a Certificate citing the remaining FTEs in increments
of no less than .01 of employees housed.
26.540.130 Amendments
Amendments to an affordable housing project that occur during additional review(s) required by this
Title or other amendments which do not change the essential nature of the project may be approved
by the Community Development Director. Revisions to the number or Category Designation of the
affordable housing units and Credit Certificates to be issued shall be reflected in a revised
development order.
Revisions to the number or Category Designation of the affordable housing units and Credit
Certificates to be issued, proposed after all approvals are granted, shall require re -review pursuant to
the standards and procedures of this Chapter.
26.540.140 Appeals
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
2"d Reading 9/15/2015
Exhibit C
Page 6 of 7
Exhibit C - Redlines
An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development Director or Planning
and Zoning Commission, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City Council,
pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
9/15/2015
Exhibit C
Page 7 of 7
•
Exhibit D
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Other Business - Code Amendment Discussion
Ms. Garrow informed P&Z there is no set timeframe yet for the potential code amendments to be in
front of City Council. In preparation, Staff is gathering feedback regarding the items being discussed at
tonight's meeting.
Ms. mow stated there are two possible additions regarding elevators in commercial buildings.
a) Add equirement for elevators to provide access to all floors in a commercial or axed -use
building. rrently, there are no requirements.
b) Add a require nt for separate elevators for residential and commercia ses.
Mr. Bendon noted the Gap b ing as an example of item a). The elevat oes not serve all units on all
floors. Mr. Walterscheid commenliad the elevator in the Gap builcling4oes reach the basement, but the
tenant modified the basement space ich eliminated access to a elevator for the ground floor
commercial tenants using the basement fo torage.
Mr. Walterscheid agrees there should be access p ed to the trash, recycle and utility areas for
commercial tenants.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff would prefer to oid situations requi ' g retrofits to address ADA
requirements or changes in use for uilding.
Ms. Tygre noted there are e ' ing buildings without elevators.
Mr. Walterscheid a s with the intent of the change requested.
Mr. Goode f s requiring multiple elevators may require significant space and cost.
The c mission generally agrees with the requirement of elevators to ensure access, but questio
t requirement of physically separate elevators for residential and commercial uses.
Certificates of Affordable Housing
Ms. Garrow reviewed the six proposed modifications as listed below.
1) Public Sector Limits
Staff is proposing to codify Council's previously provided direction that no public sector or non-profit
entity may use the program.
Mr. Walterscheid asked about the exclusion of non -profits. Mr. Bendon stated the idea was to not
allow entities who utilize public dollars, especially local public dollars, to utilize the program.
P&Z felt the change sounded reasonable.
2) Dormitory Units
Staff is recommending dormitory units not be eligible for credits. They want to avoid people creating
dormitory units for credits.
Page 2
0 0
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Ms. Tygre and Mr. McNellis felt this was acceptable because dormitory units do not satisfy the long
term needs of the housing program.
Mr. Mesirow would like to see if the units could somehow be included.
3) Fractional Cred
Staff is recommending codifying the ability to provide credit for any overage created as units are
built to satisfy a requirement. Staff believes this may encourage owners to build more units onsite.
Mr. Goode asked how the City deals with past situations when owners had an overage they were
not compensated for at the time. Mr. Bendon replied the change would only impact applications
moving forward from the date approved.
P&Z supports the proposed change.
4) Sales Limitations
Staff is proposing only for sale units be allowed for housing credits.
Mr. Goode would like further investigation to determine if rentals could possibly be included.
5) Category Limitations
Ms. Garrow stated the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) identified the need for lower
category units at this time.
Staff recommends limiting the credit program to units defined as category 4 or lower.
Ms. Tygre agrees with the recommendation.
Mr. Walterscheid feels there may be unintended consequences.
Mr. Mesirow stated a recent study conducted by the Next Generation Advisory Commission found
there was a shortage of higher category units. Mr. Morris stated he understands Mr. Mesirow's
concerns but wants additional information to confirm the need.
P&Z supports the proposed change but feels additional information may be helpful to confirm the
exact need.
6) Location Limitations
P&Z feels it is best to limit the locations to the City of Aspen only at this time to limit sprawl. At
some point in the future, it may be necessary to consider the Urban Growth Boundary.
Mr. Walterscheid asked staff if any discussions with the county has occurred. Mr. Bendon replied at
this time no, but they would welcome a discussion.
Timeshare Code Amendment
Ms. Garrow reviewed the proposed code changes.
Page 3
r 0
Exhibit D
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Department
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
DATE: July 1, 2015
RE: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE HOUSING CREDIT PROGRAM
ISSUE: Community Development Department is taking forward proposed changes to Chapter
26.540 of the Land Use Code that deals with the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit
program.
BACKGROUND: The Board reviewed the proposed changes at their Regular Meeting held
May 20, 2015. The Board directed staff to bring the discussion back after the Planning and
Zoning Commission (P&Z) provided feedback to the Community Development Department
(CDD). Below are the proposed changes by the CDD and the feedback from P&Z:
• Public Sector Limits:
o CDD — Any public sector entity will not be allowed to utilize this program.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
Dormitory Units:
o CDD — Due to fact that a dormitory unit does not provide the same standard of
living as a typical studio, 1-bedroom, etc., provision of dormitory -type units
would not be allowed under the Credit program.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
Fractional Credits:
o CDD — Some developments provide more housing than required. This policy
would only allow someone with a full credit to utilize the Credit program;
fractional credits would not be allowed.
o P&Z — Supported allowing any fractional FTE overage from an on -site unit to be
turned into a housing credit.
Sales Limitation:
o CDD — Rental units should not be approved in mixed -use projects, only
ownership -type units.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 1
• Category Limitations:
o CDD — Since mitigation for employee housing is required at Category 4 or below,
the credit program should be limited to Category 4 or below as well.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
• Location Limitations:
o CDD — The Code does not provide limitations as to where someone could develop
affordable units utilizing the credit program. The recommendation is to limit the
use of the Credit Program within the City Limits.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change to limit the use of the credit program
within the City of Aspen.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board reviewed the proposed changes at their regular meeting
held July 1, 2015, and recommended the following:
• Public Sector Limits — The Board agrees that the program should be allowed for private
sector entities and that the public sector and/or non-profit entities should be exempt from
utilizing the program.
• Dormitory Units — Although there is still a need for dormitory units, the Board agreed
that until such time the standard occupancy of 1.0 FTE equates to 150 square feet is
readdressed, dormitory unit should be exempt from the program.
• Fractional Credits — The Board agreed with the Community Development Department
that only full units should be granted the use of the Credit Program and that fractional
overages should be exempt.
• Sales Limitation — The Board agreed that the program should be utilized for ownership
units only, unless a 100% affordable housing project is developed. In this instance, it
could be utilized as a for -sale project or a rental project.
• Category Limitations — The Board recommends that the credits remain at Category 4 or
below. These categories are our biggest need.
• Location Limitations — Although there could be an excellent proposed project outside of
the City limits, the Board recommends that until such time that the County would adopt a
similar program, the credits should only be approved for units provided within the City
limits.
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 2
Chris Bendon
From: Kimbo Brown-Schirato <kimbobrown@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:50 AM
To: Chris Bendon
Cc: Christine Benedetti; Lindsey Palardy
Subject: Fwd: NextGen memo to Comm Dev
Hello Chris:
As a follow up to my email last week, is there anything else you need from us? We are planning on attending
the council meeting and would like to be prepared.
Best,
Kimbo
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kimbo Brown-Schirato <kimbobrown(tr��gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:46 PM
Subject: NextGen memo to Comm Dev
To: Chris Bendon <chris.bendonncityofaspen.com>
Cc: Lindsey Palardy <palardYl(a gmail.com>, Christine Benedetti <christinebenedetti9 a,gmail.com>, Aspen
NextGen <aspennextgen@gmail.coin>
Dear Chris:
After reading the July 21st Comm dev newsletter, our housing sub -committee is planning on attending the code
amendment public hearings and would like to learn a bit more about the proposed amendments with regard to the
affordable housing credits, as pasted below:
Affordable Housing Credits, Resolution 76 (Series 2015)
City Council will review a Policy Resolution on updates to the City's Housing Credits program at their August 10th regular
meeting. This is a public hearing. If the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will return to City Council with final language
in late August. The proposed amendments include the following clarifications, and have been supported by both the
Planning & Zoning Commission and the APCHA Board:
• Units must have 1 or more bedrooms (no dorms).
• Fractional units are not eligible for Housing Credits.
• Units must be deed restricted at Categories 1-4.
• Only private sector individuals and entities may create Housing Credits (public sector and housing -based
nonprofits cannot create Housing Credits).
• Unless a proposal is for 100% affordable housing, all units created for Housing Credits must be for -sale.
• Projects must be located within the City of Aspen.
As NextGen, we put forth the issue that by only building Categories 1 - 4 housing units in the credit program, we are dis-
incentivizing the building of higher category, potentially more family -friendly housing. This was verbally discussed with you
and Jessica when you presented at our June meeting.
NextGen has heard from our demographic that the number one problem facing the housing program as it stands is 'not
enough available units in certain categories', with written feedback indicating an immediate need for more family friendly
units in higher categories so that families may grow with them over time. 30% of participants in our survey stated a total
t` I
annual household income (before taxes) of between $100,000 - $149,999, and 20% had a household income of $150,000
or higher.
It's come to our attention that one way to offer this housing is through the private sector. As it stands, developers do not
receive any credits for building categories 5-7, but we believe there is demand in these categories. We'd like to see the
code amended -- or at least a discussion happen — around incentivizing development in the higher categories.
In addition, the City of Aspen does not believe there is a demand for higher category units (the Burlingame re -
categorization comes to mind). Our housing sessions challenge this assumption, as long as new developments satisfy, to
a certain degree, the 'family friendly' desires of our demographic.
We are always available to talk about this more and would like to express a certain sense of urgency with this matter, as
this seems like a very appropriate time to be part of a real policy change.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Best,
Kimbo on behalf of NextGen's Housing Committee
Kimbo Brown-Schirato
1 1 17 Cara Court
Carbondale, CO 81623
Kimbo Brown-Schirato
1117 Cara Court
Carbondale, CO 81623
•
Exhibit G
From: Peter Fornell [mailto:p.fornell@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 3:34 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: Re: Housing Credits code amendment check -in
Thanks Jessica and I do support your ideas for those changes generally speaking. If the developer needs
to mitigate 1.8 and they build a 2 bedroom which is 2.25 1 believe they should be entitled to a credit
worth .45 which would be saleable. This might increase the likelihood of an on -site mitigation. I might be
misunderstanding you but that was what I thought I'd come out of the last conversation which I would
also support.
Thanks,
Peter
From: Matt L. Brown[ma iIto: mbrown (o)merchantserviceshq.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2015 3:18 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: RE: Housing Credits code amendment check -in
Hi Jessica, my comments are below next to topics...
Summary of potential changes:
• Prohibit public sector and non-profit entities (i.e. the City or APCHA) from creating
credits. Makes sense to me, if the City's program is to encourage private enterprise
development of affordable units. Would be unfair for City to compete and would probably
dissuade private developers from creating units.
• Prohibit the creation of credits from dormitory units and units deed restricted at Category 5
and above. I think Dorm units have some merit for seasonal workforce and transitional housing,
but if the City doesn't, that's understandable. Some people suggested a lower Credit generation
for that type of housing.
• Only allow credits to be created from an entire unit, not a fractional unit. We often see
commercial or lodge developers providing mitigation for slightly more FTEs than their
development generates, and this would clarify that that slight overage is not eligible for the
creation of a Housing Credit. This makes sense to me.
• Require units that are used to create Housing Credits to be for sale when they are in a mixed -
use, commercial, or lodge development. A stand-alone housing project could be for sale or for
rent. So, this would create credits from a for rent project on a 100% residential site? I think the
city/apcha would like some for rent units and this would be helpful to incent developers to build
it.
• Limit the creation of housing credits to projects within the City of Aspen boundaries. So, no
more Airport units? I thought this was the rule already. Works for me.
Thanks, Matt Brown
215-266-5211
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors
THRU: Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
DATE: August 20, 2015
RE: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE HOUSING CREDIT PROGRAM
ISSUE: The APCHA was asked by the City of Aspen's Community Development Department to
provide additional feedback on code amendments to Chapter 26.540 of the Land Use Code
dealing with Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit.
BACKGROUND: City Council approved a policy resolution on August 10 that directed the
Community Development Department staff to recommend code amendments to the Certificates
of Affordable Housing Credit chapter of the Land Use Code. City Council directed them to
obtain additional feedback from both P&Z and the APCHA Board relating to the category limits
of affordable housing created through the credit program.
DISCUSSION: The NextGen Housing Committee asked that the use of credits be increased
above Category 4. Previously, the APCHA Board had recommended the credit program should
be limited to Category 4 or lower units because such units are thought to meet the greatest need
within the community.
The City land use code caps affordable housing mitigation at Category 4. The Guidelines provide
fee -in -lieu for Categories 1 through 4 only, so in order for a developer to provide Category 5, 6
and 7 affordable housing under the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit program, fees for
the higher categories would need to be established.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recognizes the City's land use code limits Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credits to Category 4 and below. However, APCHA staff believes there
could and should be further policy discussion for allowing Certificates of Affordable Housing
Credit for Categories 5, 6 and 7 for housing mitigation purposes and recommends the expansion
of the Certificate Program once the fee -in -lieu amounts for each category (1 through 4 as well as
the addition of 5 through 7) reflect the more accurate construction and land costs to in
establishing the fee.
Previous comments:
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 1
• Public Sector Limits — The Board agreed that the program should be allowed for private
sector entities and that the public sector and/or non-profit entities should be exempt from
utilizing the program.
• Dormitory Units — Although there is still a need for dormitory units, the Board agreed
that until such time the standard occupancy of 1.0 FTE equates to 150 square feet is
readdressed, dormitory unit should be exempt from the program.
• Fractional Credits — The Board agreed with the Community Development Department
that only full units should be granted the use of the Credit Program and that fractional
overages should be exempt.
• Sales Limitation — The Board agreed that the program should be utilized for ownership
units only, unless a 100% affordable housing project is developed. In this instance, it
could be utilized as a for -sale project or a rental project.
• Category Limitations — The Board previously recommended that affordable housing
credits be used for Category 4 or below units based on a belief that lower categories are
the community's biggest need.
• Location Limitations — Although there could be an excellent proposed project outside of
the City limits, the Board recommended that until such time the County adopts a similar
program, the credits should only be approved for units provided within the City limits.
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 2
•
:7
Elliott asked if the commission wanted to further discuss if the resolution should approve the us
stucc nd stated he is okay with the use of the stucco. Mr. Goode stated he accepts the use of s cco.
Ms. McN olas agreed and likes how it breaks up the massing. Ms. Tygre agreed with the o rs.
Mr. McNight feeroposal is great and doesn't see the need to change anythin pproved by City
Council.
Mr. Walterscheid also felt the plicant has done an outstanding job re ing out to their neighbors. He
understands they are still working concerns. He also understandsO a process working with
Engineering and is not too concerned`14,e looks forward to seein a project.
Mr. McNellis motioned to approve Resolution Series 15 as drafted by Staff with additional
information be added for the applicant to comply all Engineering standards in regards to the CMP.
Ms. Garrow stated if the motion is seconded, St pro ses adding sub section 6.5 Construction
Management Plan stating the applicant sha ork with th ngineering Department to ensure the final
CMP meets all City requirements. Mr. ellis was acceptable Staff's proposal. Mr. McNellis also
added that any language referring t e removal of stucco shoul removed from the resolution. Ms.
Tygre seconded the motion.
Mr. Walterscheid aske r a roll call: Ms. McNicholas, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. cNellis, yes; Mr. Elliot,
yes; Mr. Goode, ye nd Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a six to ze (6-0) vote.
Mr. Walter_�efieid then closed the public hearing.
Housing Credits Code Amendment Check -In - Other Business
Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to Staff.
Ms. Garrow stated this is not a public hearing and Staff will periodically meet with P&Z to review
proposed code amendments. She stated this was a second check -in regarding housing credits. In the
previous week, City Council approved a policy resolution directing Staff to move forward with code
amendments to the certificates of affordable housing credit chapter. Previously, P&Z as well as the
Aspen \ Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) Board had weighed in potential code amendments.
The potential amendments are the result of evaluating the program over the past two to three years
and included amendments related to category limitations, location limitations, sales or rental
limitations.
The feedback received earlier from P&Z and APCHA was presented to Council who then asked Staff to
move forward with the code amendment.
Council also requested Staff obtain additional comments from both boards regarding category
limitations. At the previous meeting with P&Z, Staff had recommended the credits chapter be limited to
categories one through four for two reasons.
VA
• 0
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission AuEust 18, 2015
1) There are no cash -in -lieu figures for the higher categories, five through seven and it
is needed in order to convert the certificates between the different categories.
Often a developer will build affordable housing at a category two or three level and
then convert them to credits to sell them to developers who need to satisfy their
mitigation requirements. For example, a developer's mitigation requirement may be
at a category four, so if the housing credit holder has category two certificates,
there needs to be a way to convert them to category four so the developer can
satisfy their mitigation requirement.
2) If the code mitigation is required for a category four, there may be a policy tie in.
The Next Generation Commission had submitted comments to Council during the previous hearing
requesting the higher categories be included within the housing credits program to allow a developer of
housing credits to pick whatever category they want to build. She noted their research indicates there is
some need for the higher categories for the 18-40 demographic.
She stated APCHA is planning to discuss this at a meeting on August 19th. She noted their stance
currently is that APCHA Staff recognizes the City's Land Use Code limits certificates of affordable housing
credits to categories four and lower. However, APCHA Staff believes there could and should be further
policy discussion allowing certificates of affordable housing credit for categories five through seven for
housing mitigation purposes.
Staff is requesting P&Z to respond regarding their level of comfort with allowing certificates to be
created at any category level or would they prefer those be created for categories one through four
only. Because Planning Staff considers the issue to be technical in nature, they are proposing the code
amendment include language stating categories are limited to those with established cash -in -lieu
numbers. That leaves a policy discussion for APCHA to consider and addresses the technical issue.
She asked P&Z for feedback and recommendations for City Council on this item to be considered in the
public hearing scheduled in September.
Mr. Walterscheid asked for the current cap on category four income. Ms. Garrow did not have them
readily available but provided them later in the meeting. They are as stated in the following table. Mr.
Walterscheid asked if the only thing needed is a metric to convert the higher categories. Ms. Garrow
stated he is correct, so instead Staff's proposal is to allow for housing credits to be created for any unit
where cash -in -lieu numbers exist in the APCHA Guidelines. This will allow for APCHA to have the policy
discussion.
Maximum Incomes
0 dependents
3 or more dependents
Category four
$145,000
$167,500
Categories five -seven
$155,000
$208,000
Ms. Tygre noted category four has the largest number of owners followed by category three owners per
the APCHA Inventory Stats table included as part of Exhibit A. She is concerned there are only 15 units in
category one. She feels the policy discussion needs to be looked into more deeply than what can be
done at tonight's meeting so she agrees with Staff's proposed solution to continue the policy portion
and implement only the technical portion at this time. Ms. McNicholas agreed with Ms. Tygre and is
sensitive to APCHA driving the policy discussion more than P&Z.
0 •
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015
Mr. Mesirow acknowledged he sits on both P&Z as well as the Next Generation Advisory Commission
(NextGen) that conducted polling sessions regarding housing in the Aspen Area. He stated housing is
seen as one of the biggest inhibitors for young people to sustain a life in Aspen. The housing committee
conducted four housing summits including discussion groups, clicker sessions and white board sessions
in which 48 people between the ages of 18 and 40 participated. To Mr. Mesirow's surprise, the number
one concern was the lack of units in certain categories.
Ms. Kimbo Brown-Schiratto and Ms. Lindsey Palardy, NextGen members, requested to add input on the
conversation. Mr. Walterscheid stated he would allow her input as long as other commissioners were
not concerned. None spoke of any concerns.
In regards to the top challenges, Ms. Palardy stated the number one concern based on feedback from
the participants was that there were not enough units in certain categories. The white board sessions
identified concerns of available units in higher categories as well as the lower categories. Ms. Brown-
Schiratto felt the income levels of the participants skewed to the higher category units.
Mr. Mesirow feels clearly there is demand in the higher categories and it is important to address the
demand in all categories. He feels it is politically more difficult to justify the higher category units so they
don't tend to get built. In terms of the tonight's discussion, the policy should not favor any one category
and feels the current limits of categories one through four creates an artificial ceiling.
Mr. Walterscheid then acknowledged Mr. Peter Fornell to speak. Mr. Fornell stated building for higher
categories is not necessarily a bad idea and allowing certificates to be created for higher categories is
not a bad idea. He described scenarios for using credits to build affordable housing and noted you
currently can put more money in your pocket with the category two units. The majority of the money
derived from the production of the units comes from the certificate sales which takes time. If there were
a cash -in -lieu number for category seven, the majority of a money to a developer is going to come at the
closing table and a small part of the overall development pro forma is going to come from the certificate
sales. It will pave the road for developers to want to build at the higher category levels. For him,
demand at the lower categories is tremendous. He stated there were 242 applicants for 10 units at 518
Main St. He is concerned that care needs to be taken so that it does not become advantageous to only
build higher category units. The City wants to build units with the least subsidy (higher categories) so
they can get more front doors. He noted they lowered some of the categories at Burlingame. He
understands NextGen's concerns but he wants to make sure the certificate program is not turned into
something that only serves a smaller demand level.
Ms. Garrow stated another issue to keep in mind is the code requires mitigation at a category four level
and the certificates are used to mitigate developer's requirement. In other words, mitigation is allowed
at the higher categories, like the Sky Hotel for instance. They currently are required to mitigate at
category four or lower. Mr. Walterscheid asked why the policy was set this way. Ms. Garrow stated the
housing program has been around for many years and when it first began, it focused on moderate
income and that translated to categories, specifically categories three and four. She did not know why
APCHA does not have cash -in -lieu numbers for the higher categories.
Ms. Tygre stated in regards to mitigating, any new hotel being built is not going to pay its employees
over $100,000 for the most part. She feels it makes sense to have the mitigation match the type of
employees needed and she also recognizes the category for young professionals is completely different
category.
9
0 •
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015
Mr. Walterscheid asked about the City's stance in regards to the value of the certificate. Ms. Garrow
stated the City does not place a value on the certificates. They are bought and sold on the free market
and the City has no involvement whatsoever.
Mr. Walterscheid then asked about the City's stance in regards to the valuation of the cash -in -lieu fee.
Ms. Garrow stated the cash -in -lieu fee is under discussion currently and believes it will be going before
Council within the next few weeks. She feels the number is likely to change and looks like it will be going
down. Mr. McNellis asked if P&Z was part of this discussion at which Ms. Garrow replied no. She added
there was a detailed study completed by a third party company to study real employment figures
related to areas including construction and the operation of homes. The study revealed the cash -in -lieu
numbers are higher than they should be. Ms. McNicholas noted that Mr. Chris Bendon had previously
discussed the study with P&Z.
Mr. Walterscheid asked in addition to the value, was the number of full time employees (FTEs) created
by development part of the study. Ms. Garrow stated it was part of the methodology used.
Ms. Garrow stated Council wants to know if P&Z have a strong feeling on any kind of category limitation
for credits. Should they be limited to category four and lower or should the land use code be agnostic
and state it is limited to whatever categories have cash -in -lieu figures within the APCHA guidelines.
Mr. McNellis stated a third option would be to create a number for all categories. APCHA would have to
determine the values for categories above category four.
Mr. McNellis stated he agrees with Staff's language and supports it being driven by APCHA who should
determine the need to define numbers for categories five through seven.
Ms. McNicholas asked if Council will adopt the conversion figure as part of the code amendment. Ms.
Garrow stated it is already in the land use code now. The code amendment is focused on how the
certificates are created. For instance, it could only be created from housing within the City of Aspen or it
can only be for sale if part of a mixed use building. Ms. McNicholas asked if you could take credits
created by a category two or three. Ms. Garrow stated there are already cash -in -lieu numbers for
categories one through four which allows staff to determine the value for FTEs at category one for a
category four.
Mr. Walterscheid was curious if there were advantages to a category seven than a lower category and
should the metric be determined to favor the middle level categories. Ms. Garrow stated it is possible to
state certificates at a higher level are worth few FTEs. She added this is a much larger policy discussion
and would require more input from both P&Z and APCHA.
Mr. Fornell asked Ms. Garrow about Council's recent discussion regarding remainder or fractional
certificates. Ms. Garrow stated Council's direction is that if a developer over mitigates their project and
they have a fraction or full unit remaining, they can be turned into credits if they are for sale units or
there some other deed restriction agreement in place to ensure they will permanently be in the
inventory.
Mr. Fornell stated the certificate program is currently in dire straits. It's on the verge of collapse because
they are about to change the cash -in -lieu number to a number that no one can afford to use to build
10
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015
affordable housing including the City and other developers. Almost four years ago, Council directed
APCHA to conduct a study of what it takes to produce a FTE within the city limits. The 11 month study
determined they are collecting approximately half of what it takes to produce the unit currently. The
direction coming to Council recently requests they lower the cash -in -lieu number based on the notion
the City can take the money and someday forward can build 400 units at the lumberyard. They are
basing their calculation of the future possibility. When a developer has to mitigate housing, they don't
have a choice of walking six miles outside of town to build their housing. He feels they are not
comparing apples to apples. There are currently no competitors in the market for the development of
housing for certificates out of fear the City is going to drop the number and collect all the money. The
recent study was not an independent study. It was done by Barry Crook internally and is a bad deal for
the Next Generation people and for the community. He encouraged P&Z to support the certificate
program.
Mr. Mesirow asked if Mr. Fornell's concerns impact tonight's question at which Ms. Garrow stated it
does not. Mr. Fornell stated the recent discussion regarding fractional certificates impact potential
competition.
Ms. Brown-Schiratto added NextGen has come to the conclusion the City is most likely not going to build
the higher category units. She referred to the APCHA Inventory Stats table in Exhibit A of the agenda
which shows those looking for housing categorized five or higher must rely on private developers and
the housing credit program to house people. She also noted from their commission, there are only two
people that live in the City of Aspen. Everyone else lives outside the city. She added there are young
professionals who are willing to be part of this community but who actually are unable to live in Aspen.
Mr. McNight likes Staff's approach, but feels there could be a much easier and scientific approach.
Letting the developers decide rather than APCHA and the City deciding our needs and where demand
exists. He would like to see APCHA's numbers on people who have submitted applications and for what
category they are eligible.
Ms. Garrow stated the information she has from APCHA states the most need is categories two and
three. When APCHA has had a higher category unit, they have had difficulty selling it and the unit
typically does not get sold in the lottery process.
Mr. McNight believed there were a lot of category five units at Burlingame that ended up as category
four in order to sell them. Ms. Garrow confirmed this as true as well as some units with a category six
and seven that had be adjusted down to three and four. He feels there should be a more fluid process to
identify the current category needs.
Mr. Mesirow stated the credit program is separate from what APCHA is building. He thought if a
developer does not feel he could sell a category six, he would not build it.
Mr. Fornell stated the higher category units built were by and large in an inferior location to a person
with that level of income. He said he would build category five and six on Park Ave if the was a cash -in -
lieu number today.
Ms. McNicholas feels this is APCHA's realm because your advocacy is more important because they
decide the value is determined within categories. The history and the basis of the program is for lower
income workers in the town. Not to say professional workers are not, but to put a higher priority on
11
0 •
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015
providing housing to the lower income employees. She stated that is a cultural value expressed within
the town and advocated by those that live here participate in APCHA. She is supportive of Staff's
suggested amendment and feels it is better served by APCHA.
Mr. McNellis added this approach allows APCHA to have the conversation. He suggested NextGen
continue their dialogue with APCHA. Mr. Goode also felt it would be helpful for NextGen to suggest
APCHA to look into it further.
Mr. Walterscheid feels the metric should be created and then let APCHA control a system for identifying
where the need is based on market fluctuations. He feels this is something APCHA needs to institute and
control.
Ms. Garrow stated she heard consensus to move forward to tie it to cash -in -lieu and asking APCHA to
look at the cash -in -lieu for the higher categories. She thanked P&Z for their feedback.
Mr. Good asked if there was anything P&Z could do to highlight Mr. Fornell's concerns. Ms. Garrow and
Mr. McNellis encouraged members to speak during public comment to Council.
Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk's Office, Records Manager
12
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE:AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
LAND USE CODE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will ti held on Tuesday September 15, 2015, at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen
Ciry Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S.
Galena St., Aspen, to consider an amendment to
the text of the Land Use Code to update the Certrfi-
cates of Affordable Housing Credits Chapter,
Chapter 26.540. The potential amendment would
atltlress eligibility for establishing housing credits.
For further information, contact Jessica D the City Of Aspen Community Development De -
arrow at
partment, 130 S. Galena St , Aspen, CO, (970)
429-2780, jessica.garrow,®cityofaspen.com
s/ Steven Skadron, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on August 27, 2015_
Chy of
Aspen Account
Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on August
27.2015
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 62 J day
of E4&14 "Sir , 201.5--, by e!6n Se� �-*--�
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires:
Notary -Public
KAREN REED PA17ERSON
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: NOTARY ID #19964002767
• COPY OFTHEPUBLICATION My Commission E Yes February 15. 2016
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
-r.�np..,d -&- Lnoilt l30 S • �aa , Aspen, CO
�EDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
13= 20 !C
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, 42t:_�� (name, please print)
being or repres nting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
l�Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on the _ day of , 20_, to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
0
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Housing Credits Code Amendment
First Reading, Ordinance 34, Series of 2015
PH: September 14, 2015
DATE: August 24, 2015
SUMMARY:
The attached Ordinance would amend the City's Land Use Code to update requirements and
restrictions involving Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Amendments focus primarily
on the applicability of the chapter to different types of development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance, on First Reading.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This is the first reading of proposed code amendments related to the Housing Credits chapter of
the Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review
authori for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three -step process. This is the third step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should be pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen created the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits in 2010 to encourage
the private sector to assist in the creation of affordable housing. Four Housing Credits projects
have been completed, and another is approved but not yet completed. To date, certificates have
been created for 47.91 FTEs'.
The program allows a private developer to build voluntary affordable housing units, and then
receive a certificate from the City indicating how many FTEs were housed. The developer can
then sell those certificates (aka credits) to other developers who have their own housing
mitigation requirements. The developer who purchases the credits would then use them to
' Certificates are for 28.91 Cat 2 FTEs, 1.75 Cat 3 FTEs, and 17.25 Cat 4 FTEs.
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing Credits
1st Reading — 8/24/2015
Page 1 of 4
satisfy their affordable housing mitigation requirement, rather than using a cash -in -lieu payment
or building their own affordable housing units. Only development within the City of Aspen can
use these credits, as no sister program has been created in surrounding jurisdictions.
OVERVIEW:
City Council approved a Policy Resolution on August 10, 2015 (Attached as Exhibit B)
providing staff with direction to amend the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits Chapter.
The amendments are intended to clarify the operations of the program, and are based on
experiences over the past 2-3 years. Below is a summary of the changes included in the code
amendment. The redline version is attached as Exhibit C.
Public Sector Limits: In late 2014, City Council held a work session regarding the application
of Affordable Housing Credit Certificates. It was noted that previous Council provided direction
that no public sector or non-profit entity whose core mission was to provide affordable housing
was to use the program. The rationale was that these organizations have adequate revenue stream
to complete their mission and should not be competing with for -profit private sector individuals
for certificates.
The code amendment states that Housing Credits may only be established by a private sector
developer or a non-profit that does not receive public funding or whose core mission is not
related to the creation of housing. This means, for instance, that Habitat for Humanity is not
eligible to create Housing Credits, as their core mission is to create housing. Similarly, any non-
profit that is a taxing district would not be eligible, as they receive public funds.
Dormitory Units: The proposed amendment limits Housing Credits to full units (studios or
larger), and prohibits dormitory units from being eligible. While dormitory units provide an
important housing option for seasonal employees, they do not generally represent a long-term
housing solution for full-time employees. Because the credits program is used to mitigate full
time employee generation from development , in the City of Aspen, planning staff is
recommending dormitory units not be eligible for credits.
Sales Limitations: The proposed amendment requires that any housing which is part of a
mixed -use building (i.e. contains affordable housing units and any other use) be designated as
for -sale or be subject to some other form of permanent deed restriction if the housing units are
being used to create Housing Credits. This will ensure that these units will remain permanently
in the inventory, particularly if the building is demolished or redeveloped in the future. Also
included in the amendment is the ability for units in an entirely affordable housing building to be
for -sale or for -rent.
Fractional or Additional Housing Units: City Council supported allowing any additional
housing mitigation provided by a developer to be eligible for the creation of Housing Credits.
This situation arises when an applicant provides more housing than is required by their
development. For instance, a developer may have a requirement to house 2.15 FTEs, and the
easiest way to do that is to provide a single 2-bedroom unit that houses 2.25 FTEs, leaving an
overage of 0.10 FTEs. Similarly, a developer may choose to provide additional affordable
housing as part of their project. To be eligible for credits, these units must comply with the Sales
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing Credits
I Reading — 8/24/2015
Page 2 of 4
Limitations provision above (i.e. be for -sale or be subject to another long-term agreement
guaranteeing the unit will remain permanently in the housing inventory).
Category Limitations: The Housing Credits system is based on the Category of the units
provided, and the associated cash -in -lieu amounts assigned by the Housing Guidelines. Cash -in -
lieu is used to convert Credits between categories. This is needed because often the available
Housing Credits are not at the category a developer needs. Many of the Housing Credits have
been established from Category 2 units, but a developer's housing mitigation is at Category 4. A
conversion between categories is necessary to ensure a developer is providing the correct
mitigation. Currently, there are no cash -in -lieu options for Categories 5 or higher, meaning there
is no way to convert higher category units to Category 4.
During the Policy Resolution public hearing, Council heard from the NextGen Commission
requesting that higher category units (Cats 5-7) be eligible for the program, stating that many
people from their constituency only qualify at the higher categories. The Housing Board had
recommended strongly against allowing higher category units being included, as the community
need is focused in the lower categories (Cats 1-4). Council requests staff get additional feedback
from both the P&Z and the APCHA Board on this issue. An update on their feedback will be
presented at second reading, after staff has met with both groups. For now, staff has included
two different options in the code amendment:
1. Limit Housing Credits to Category 4 and lower; or
2. Allow Housing Credits to be created at any Category with established cash -in -lieu rates
in the Housing Guidelines.
Location Limitations: The proposed code amendment limits where City of Aspen Housing
Credits may be established to within city limits. During the Policy Resolution public hearing,
Council expressed interest in potential incentives for building housing inside the round -about.
Staff recommends that any incentives be part of a larger policy discussion around housing
priorities. Staff suggests that any incentives apply broadly to all housing, including, buy -downs,
housing created because of a mitigation requirement, and housing created for Credits.
Outreach:
Staff conducted outreach with both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Housing Board
as part of preparing the Policy Resolution. Meeting minutes from P&Z are attached as Exhibit
D, and an APCHA memo on the topic is attached as Exhibit E. Also attached is a memo from
the Next Generation Commission (Exhibit F).
As part of the Policy Resolution, Council asked staff to conduct additional outreach with the
boards regarding which Categories should be eligible for the establishment of Housing Credits.
Staff will be meeting with both boards prior to second reading, and their additional comments
and recommendations will be incorporated into the memo at that time.
In addition, staff conducted direct outreach with Matt Brown and Peter Fornell, the main
developers of Affordable Housing Credit projects (Exhibit G). Outreach through the
department's newsletter reached more than 600 subscribers.
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing Credits
1st Reading — 8/24/2015
Page 3 of 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance on First Reading.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Ordinance No. 34, Series of 2015, approving a code amendment regarding
Affordable Housing Credits, on First Reading."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A — Staff Findings
Exhibit B — Council Resolution 76, Series 2015
Exhibit C — Code Amendment Redlines
Exhibit D — P&Z meeting minutes, May 19, 2015
Exhibit E — Housing Board Recommendation Memo, July 1, 2015
Exhibit F — Comments from the Next Gen Commission
Exhibit G — Comments from Peter Fornell and Matt Brown
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing Credits
V Reading — 8/24/2015
Page 4 of 4
0 •
ORDINANCE No. 34
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 26.540 — CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT, OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to prepare amendments related to the Housing Credits chapter of the Land Use
Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment with the Planning &
Zoning Commission, APCHA Board, private developers of affordable housing, and through the
Community Development Department newsletter; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on August 10, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 76, Series of 2015, by a five to zero
(5 — 0) vote, requesting code amendments to update the Certificates of Affordable Housing
Credits chapter; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.540 — Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credit; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and
finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050;
and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Chapter 26.540.010, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, Purpose, shall be
amended as follows:
26.540.010 Purpose
Code Amendment — Housing Credits
First Reading Ordinance 34, Series 2015
Page 1 of 4
There are two main purposes of this chapter: to encourage the private sector to develop
affordable housing; and to establish an option for housing mitigation that immediately offsets the
impacts of development. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit is issued to the developer of
affordable housing that is not required for mitigation. Another entity can purchase such a
Certificate and use it to satisfy housing mitigation requirements. Establishing this transferable
Certificate creates a new revenue stream that can make the development of affordable housing
more economically viable. Establishing this transferable Certificate also establishes an option for
mitigation that reflects built and occupied affordable housing, thereby offsetting the impacts of
development before those impacts are felt. This Chapter describes the process for establishing,
transferring and extinguishing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
Section 2: Chapter 26.540.030, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, Applicability and
prohibitions, shall be amended as follows:
26.540.030 Applicability and prohibitions
This Chapter applies to all Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Housing credits may only
be established from affordable housing created on a voluntary basis and designated at a Category
4 income level or lower [or] designated at any Category with established cash -in -lieu rates in the
Housing Guidelines, including the deed -restriction of unrestricted units (buy -down units).
City of Aspen Housing Credits may be used within the city limits of the City of Aspen as
provided in this Title, and may be used in other jurisdictions as may be authorized by that
jurisdiction. City of Aspen Housing Credits may only be established from development within
the City of Aspen boundaries.
A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed.
Transfer shall be evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document.
Upon transfer, the new owner may request the Community Development Director re -issue the
Credit Certificate acknowledging the new owner.
The market for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit is unrestricted and the City shall not
prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a Credit.
The Community Development Director shall establish policies and procedures for the printing of
certificates, their safe -keeping, issuance, re -issuance, record -keeping, and extinguishments.
Projects seeking approval to develop affordable housing in exchange for Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credit may be subject to additional reviews pursuant to this Title.
Fractional units are eligible for the establishment of Housing Credits if there are deed restricted
as for -sale or are subject to an agreement with the City requiring the unit to be permanently deed
restricted. For example, if a development project is required to mitigate 2.4 FTEs and is
proposing on -site units that house 3 FTEs, the additional 0.6 FTEs proposed that are not required
for mitigation are eligible for establishment as a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
Any affordable housing units created for the establishment of Housing Credits which are part of
a mixed -use building shall be deed restrict as for -sale. Units that are part of a 100% affordable
housing project may be for -rent.
Code Amendment — Housing Credits
First Reading Ordinance 34, Series 2015
Page 2 of 4
9 •
This Chapter does not apply to the following:
1. Affordable housing created to address an obligation of a Development Order or which is
otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development.
2. Affordable housing units created prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 6, Series of
2010.
3. Affordable housing units developed by, or in association with: the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or similar government or non-
governmental organization (NGO) that receives public funds for the purpose of building
affordable housing.
4. Dormitory units.
5. The creation of voluntary affordable housing units deed restricted at a Category 5 income
level or higher. [or] at a Category which a cash -in -lieu rate has not been established in the
Housing Guidelines.
Section 3•
Any scrivener's errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to
mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the
Ordinance.
Section 4: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5: Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 6: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 7:
A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the t" day of , at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the day of
2015.
Code Amendment — Housing Credits
First Reading Ordinance 34, Series 2015
Page 3 of 4
•
is
Attest:
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2015.
Attest:
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Code Amendment — Housing Credits
First Reading Ordinance 34, Series 2015
Page 4 of 4
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three — Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Findings:
The City of Aspen implemented the Housing Credits program in 2010 and has seen a number of
successful private sector housing developments as a result. To date, housing for nearly 48 FTEs
has been created through the program. While the program has been a success, there are
improvements and clarifications to be made. These include specifying what types of units
qualify for the creation of Housing Credits, as well as limiting the program to private -sector
entities. Staff believes the clarifications in the code amendment will ensure the program remains
viable well into the future. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective
cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings:
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan calls for ensuring the rules for affordable housing are
clear (Housing Policy V.1), and that all affordable housing should be within the UGB (Housing
Policy IV.2). This code amendment clarifies the rules related to the creation of affordable
housing credits, and ensures that new housing for credits is located with the City of Aspen. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The intent of the proposed amendment is to ensure a viable Housing Credits Program through the
creation of private sector non -mitigation housing that meets community needs. Staff finds that this
objective is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose of Title 26. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing Credits
1 I Reading — 8/24/2015
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit B — Apprm,ed �ic,,- Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 76,
(SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CREDIT CHAPTER OF THE LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development
Department received direction from City Council to amend the land use code to codify a
previous Council direction to limit the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit Chapter
to private developers; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach to subscribers of the community development
department newsletter, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and the Planning and
Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits Chapter 26.540 of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy
direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public
hearing on August 10, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 76, Series of 2015,
by a five — zero (5-0) vote, requesting code amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides
direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Code Amendment Obiective and Direction
Council hereby provides direction to the Community Development Director to amend
Chapter 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, of the Land Use Code. The
objective of the proposed Land Use code amendment is to specify that:
• Units must be studios or have 1 or more bedrooms (no dorms);
• Fractional units are not eligible for Housing Credits unless they are designated as
"for -sale" or have some other permanent deed restriction that requires the unit to
be built back following demolition;
• Staff should get additional feedback from the APCHA Board and the Planning &
Zoning Commission regarding any Category limitations in the program;
Code Amendment - Housing Credits
Council Policy Resolution No. 76, Series 2015
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit B — Approved Policy Resolution
•
• Only private sector individuals and entities may create Housing Credits (public
sector and housing -based non -profits cannot create Housing Credits);
• Unless a proposal is for 100% affordable housing, all units created for Housing
Credits must be for -sale; and
• Project must be located within the City of Aspen. Staff should explore options to
incentivize housing credit construction east of the round -about.
Section 2:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 3•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this 1 Oth day of August, 2015.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
James R True, City Attorney
Code Amendment - Housing Credits
Council Policy Resolution No. 76, Series 2015
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 2
0
0
Exhibit C - Redlines
Chapter 26.540
CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT
Sections:
26.540.010
Purpose
26.540.020
Terminology
26.540.030
Applicability and prohibitions
26.540.040
Authority
26.540.050
Application and fees
26.540.060
Procedures for establishing a credit
26.540.070
Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit
26.540.080
Procedures for issuing a certificate of affordable housing credit
26.540.090
Authority of the certificate
26.540.100
Transferability of the certificate
26.540.110
Exchanging category designation of an affordable housing certificate
26.540.120
Extinguishment and re -issuance of a certificate
26.540.130
Amendments
26.540.140
Appeals
26.540.010 Purpose
There are two main purposes of this chapter: to encourage the private sector to develop
affordable housing; and to establish an option for housing mitigation that immediately offsets the
impacts of development. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit is issued to the developer of
affordable housing that is not required for mitigation. Another entity can purchase such a Certificate and
use it to satisfy housing mitigation requirements. Establishing this transferable Certificate creates a new
revenue stream that can make the development of affordable housing more economically viable.
Establishing this transferable Certificate also establishes an option for mitigation that reflects built and
occupied affordable housing, thereby offsetting the impacts of development before those impacts are
felt. This Chapter describes the process for establishing, transferring and extinguishing a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit.
26.540.020 Terminology
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit (Credit or Certificate). A transferable document issued by
the City of Aspen acknowledging and documenting the voluntary provision of affordable housing which
is not otherwise required by this Title or by a Development Order issued by the City of Aspen. The
Certificate documents the Category Designations and number of employees housed by the affordable
housing. The Credit is irrevocable and assignable. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit is a
bearer instrument.
Establishing a Credit. The process of the City of Aspen acknowledging the voluntary provision of
affordable housing through issuance of a transferable Credit.
Extinguishing a Credit. The process of the City accepting a Credit to satisfy affordable housing
requirements of a development.
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
I' Reading 8/24/2015
Exhibit C
Page 1 of 7
•
i
Exhibit C - Redlines
Category Designation. A classification system used to reflect different sales price and rental rate
restrictions of affordable housing as set forth in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines.
26.540.030 Applicability and prohibitions
This Chapter applies to all Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit
Or-di-nanee Ale.'LSeries r2012, and henee€orth. I Housing credits may only be established from
affordable housing created on a voluntary basis and designated at a Category 4 income level or lower
[or] designated at any Category with established cash -in -lieu rates in the Housing Guidelines
including the deed -restriction of unrestricted units (buy -down units);
Cityof f Aspen Housing Credits GeFtifieates may be used within the city limits of the City of Aspen as
provided in this Title, and . Qe44 G^-*' ^^*�may be used in other jurisdictions as may be
authorized by that jurisdiction. —City of Aspen Housing Credits may only be established from
development within the Cityof f Aspen boundaries.
MINNION I �IMWMM.M;;
NEW
A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed. Transfer
shall be evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document. Upon transfer,
the new owner may request the Community Development Director re -issue the Credit Certificate
acknowledging the new owner.
The market for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit is unrestricted and the City shall not
prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a Credit.
The Community Development Director shall establish policies and procedures not ineensistent with
this Chapter for the printing of certificates, their safe -keeping, issuance, re -issuance, record -keeping,
and extinguishments.
Projects seeking approval to develop affordable housing in exchange for Certificates of Affordable
Housing Credit may be subject to additional reviews pursuant to this Title.
Fractional units are eligible for the establishment of Housing Credits if there are deed restricted as
for -sale or are subject to an agreement with the City requiring the unit to be permanently deed
restricted. For example, if a development project is required to mitigate 2.4 FTEs and is proposing
on -site units that house 3 FTEs, the additional 0.6 FTEs proposed that are not required for mitigation
are eligible for establishment as a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
Any affordable housing units created for the establishment of Housing Credits which are part of a
mixed -use building shall be deed restrict as for -sale. Units that are part of a 100% affordable housing
project may be for -rent.
This Chapter does not apply to the following:
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
I 't Reading 8/24/2015
Exhibit C
Page 2 of 7
0
•
Exhibit C - Redlines
1. Affordable housing created to address an obligation of a Development Order or which is
otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development.
2. Affordable housing units created prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2010.
3. Affordable housing units developed by, or in association with: the City of Aspen Pitkin
County, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or similar government or non-
governmental organization (NGO) that receives public funds for the purpose of building
affordable housing.
4. Dormitory units.
5. The creation of voluntary affordable housing units deed restricted at a Category 5 income
level or higher. [or] at a Category which a cash -in -lieu rate has not been established in the
Housing Guidelines.
26.540.040 Authority
The Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of
this Chapter and of Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny an application for the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit.
The Community Development Director, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of
this Chapter and of Section 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, is authorized to issue,
re -issue, exchange Category designations, and extinguish a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
26.540.050 Application
All applications shall include the information required under Chapter 26.304, Common Development
Review Procedures. In addition, all applications must also include the following information.
1. The net livable square footage of each unit.
2. If applicable, the conditions under which reductions from net minimum livable square footage
requirements are requested according to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines.
3. Proposed Category Designation of sale or rental restriction for each unit.
4. Proposed employees housed by the affordable housing units in increments of no less than one -
one -hundredth (.01) according to Section 26.470.100.2 — Employees Housed.
26.540.060 Procedures for establishing an affordable housing credit
A development application to establish a certificate of Affordable Housing Credit shall be reviewed
pursuant to the Common Development Review Procedures set forth at Chapter 26.304, and the
following procedures and standards. The City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission shall
review a recommendation from the Community Development Director and shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny an application to establish Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. This
requires a one-step process as follows:
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
1 g Reading 8/24/2015
Exhibit C
Page 3 of 7
0 •
Exhibit C - Redlines
A. Step One — Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for authorizing establishment of
a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
2. Process: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the application after considering the recommendation of the Community Development
Director.
3. Standards of review: 26.540.070
4. Form of decision: Planning and Zoning Commission decision shall be by resolution. The
resolution may include a description or diagram of the affordable housing.
5. Notice requirements: The requirements of 26.212.060 shall apply. No public hearing notice is
required.
26.540.070 Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit
An Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission if all of
the following criteria are met. The proposed units do not need to be constructed prior to this review.
A. The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section
26.470.070.4(a-d).
B. The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not
otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development.
26.540.080 Procedure for issuing a certificate of affordable housing credit
Once the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved an Affordable Housing Credit through
adoption of a Resolution, and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the affordable housing
unit(s), the Community Development Director shall issue a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
in a form prescribed by the Director.
A. The Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit shall include the following information:
1. A number of the Certificate in chronological order of their issuance.
2. Parcel identification number, legal address and the street address of the affordable housing.
3. The Category Designation and number of employees housed by the affordable housing units,
according to Section 26.470.100.2 — Employees Housed, in increments of no less than one -
one -hundredths (.01).
B. Issuance of the Certificate. At the time of issuance of a Certificate by the City, a letter
acknowledging receipt and acceptance of the certificate shall be submitted by the owner to the
Community Development Department.
26.540.090 Authority of the Certificate
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
I' Reading 8/24/2015
Exhibit C
Page 4 of 7
•
Exhibit C - Redlines
The Certificate may be utilized in whole or in part, including fractions of an FTE no less than .01 FTE,
to satisfy affordable housing mitigation requirements in accordance with other applicable sections of
this Title.
(Ord. No. 6-2010, §5; Ord. No. 32-2012, §1)
26.540.100 Transferability of the certificate
A. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed in
whole or in part, in increments no less than one -one -hundredth (.01). Transfer of Title shall be
evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document. Upon transfer, the new
owner may request the City re -issue the Certificate acknowledging the new owner. Re -issuance shall not
require re -review by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
B. The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit shall be recorded in the real estate records of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the City of Aspen Community Development
Department within five (5) days of such transfer. The report of such transfer shall disclose the
Certificate number, the grantor, the grantee and the total value of the consideration paid for the
Certificate. Failure to timely or accurately report such transfer shall not render the Credit void.
C. The market for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit is unrestricted and the City shall not
prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
26.540.110 Converting category designation of an affordable housing certificate
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit represent a number of employees housed at a specific
Category designation. Projects seeking extinguishment of a Credit to satisfy affordable housing
mitigation standards of this Title may have a different Category Designation requirement than an
existing Certificate represents. This section sets forth a process to convert a Certificate of a certain
Category Designation for a Certificate of a different Category Designation. This process amends the
number of employees housed to create an equivalency. This Section relies on the Affordable Housing
Dedication Fees (aka Fee -in -Lieu) stated in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
are amended from time to time.
To convert a Certificate of a certain Category Designation for a Certificate of a different Category
Designation, the following steps are necessary:
Step 1. Multiply the employees housed stated on the existing Certificate by the per employee
Fee -in -Lieu fee for the Category Designation as stated in the APCHA Guidelines.
Step 2. Divide the resulting number from step 1 by the Fee -in -Lieu fee for the Category
Designation of the proposed Certificate.
The resulting number from step 2 shall be the employees housed for the proposed Certificate. The
Community Development Director shall re -issue a Certificate using this number of employees housed
and specifying the proposed Category Designation.
Example: An owner of a Category 3 Certificate wishes to exchange the Certificate for a Category
2 Certificate. The existing Certificate states 2.25 employees housed.
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
I' Reading 8/24/2015
Exhibit C
Page 5 of 7
Exhibit C - Redlines
Step 1. Employees housed multiplied by Category 3 per-FTE Fee -in -Lieu.
2.25 X $217,567 = $489,525.75
Step 2. Number from step 1 divided by Category 2 per-FTE Fee -in -Lieu.
$489,525.75 / $230,583 = 2.12
In this example, the Community Development Director would re -issue a Certificate stating 2.12
employees housed and a Category 2 designation. Please note that the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Fee -in -Lieu rates change from time to time. The rates used for this calculation
shall be those in effect upon request for conversion.
The conversion of a Certificate's Category Designation shall be approved by the Community
Development Director and shall not require additional review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
26.540.120 Extinguishment and Re -Issuance of a Certificate
F. Unless otherwise stated in a Development Order, extinguishing all or part of a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit shall occur prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the development for
which the housing mitigation is required. Extinguishment shall be evidenced by an assignment of
ownership on the actual certificate document to "the City of Aspen for extinguishment."
B. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit may be extinguished to satisfy affordable housing
requirements of this Title if the Community Development Director finds the following standards met:
1. All other necessary approvals for the proposed development, as required by this Title, have
been obtained and the applicant has submitted the necessary information, pursuant to Section
26.304.075, Building Permit.
2. The applicant has submitted authentic Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit in the
number and Category Designation required for the development.
3. The Certificate owner has assigned ownership of the Certificates to "the City of Aspen for
extinguishment."
C. When all of a Certificate is extinguished, the city shall void the Certificate. When part of a
Certificate is extinguished, the city shall issue a Certificate citing the remaining FTEs in increments
of no less than .01 of employees housed.
26.540.130 Amendments
Amendments to an affordable housing project that occur during additional review(s) required by this
Title or other amendments which do not change the essential nature of the project may be approved
by the Community Development Director. Revisions to the number or Category Designation of the
affordable housing units and Credit Certificates to be issued shall be reflected in a revised
development order.
Revisions to the number or Category Designation of the affordable housing units and Credit
Certificates to be issued, proposed after all approvals are granted, shall require re -review pursuant to
the standards and procedures of this Chapter.
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
I' Reading 8/24/2015
Exhibit C
Page 6 of 7
0 •
Exhibit C - Redlines
26.540.140 Appeals
An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development Director or Planning
and Zoning Commission, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City Council,
pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
I" Reading 8/24/2015
Exhibit C
Page 7 of 7
0 • lExhibit D
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Other Business - Code Amendment Discussion
Ms. Garrow informed P&Z there is no set timeframe yet for the potential code amendments to be in
front of City Council. In preparation, Staff is gathering feedback regarding the items being discussed at
tonight's meeting.
Ms. G`mrrow stated there are two possible additions regarding elevators in commercial buildings.
a) Add equirement for elevators to provide access to all floors in a commercial or axed -use
building. rrently, there are no requirements.
b) Add a require nt for separate elevators for residential and commercia ses.
Mr. Bendon noted the Gap b ing as an example of item a). The elevat oes not serve all units on all
floors. Mr. Walterscheid commenla4.the elevator in the Gap buildin oes reach the basement, but the
tenant modified the basement space ich eliminated access to e elevator for the ground floor
commercial tenants using the basement foNktorage.
Mr. Walterscheid agrees there should be access p ed to the trash, recycle and utility areas for
commercial tenants.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff would prefer to oid situations requi ' g retrofits to address ADA
requirements or changes in use for uilding.
Ms. Tygre noted there are e ' ing buildings without elevators.
Mr. Walterscheid a es with the intent of the change requested.
Mr. Goode fe
lers requiring multiple elevators may require significant space and cost.
The c mission generally agrees with the requirement of elevators to ensure access, but questiNkdd
t requirement of physically separate elevators for residential and commercial uses.
Certificates of Affordable Housing
Ms. Garrow reviewed the six proposed modifications as listed below.
1) Public Sector Limits
Staff is proposing to codify Council's previously provided direction that no public sector or non-profit
entity may use the program.
Mr. Walterscheid asked about the exclusion of non -profits. Mr. Bendon stated the idea was to not
allow entities who utilize public dollars, especially local public dollars, to utilize the program.
P&Z felt the change sounded reasonable.
2) Dormitory Units
Staff is recommending dormitory units not be eligible for credits. They want to avoid people creating
dormitory units for credits.
Page 2
0
•
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Ms. Tygre and Mr. McNellis felt this was acceptable because dormitory units do not satisfy the long
term needs of the housing program.
Mr. Mesirow would like to see if the units could somehow be included.
3) Fractional Credits
Staff is recommending codifying the ability to provide credit for any overage created as units are
built to satisfy a requirement. Staff believes this may encourage owners to build more units onsite.
Mr. Goode asked how the City deals with past situations when owners had an overage they were
not compensated for at the time. Mr. Bendon replied the change would only impact applications
moving forward from the date approved.
P&Z supports the proposed change.
4) Sales Limitations
Staff is proposing only for sale units be allowed for housing credits.
Mr. Goode would like further investigation to determine if rentals could possibly be included.
S) Category Limitations
Ms. Garrow stated the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) identified the need for lower
category units at this time.
Staff recommends limiting the credit program to units defined as category 4 or lower
Ms. Tygre agrees with the recommendation.
Mr. Walterscheid feels there may be unintended consequences.
Mr. Mesirow stated a recent study conducted by the Next Generation Advisory Commission found
there was a shortage of higher category units. Mr. Morris stated he understands Mr. Mesirow's
concerns but wants additional information to confirm the need.
P&Z supports the proposed change but feels additional information may be helpful to confirm the
exact need.
6) Location Limitations
P&Z feels it is best to limit the locations to the City of Aspen only at this time to limit sprawl. At
some point in the future, it may be necessary to consider the Urban Growth Boundary.
Mr. Walterscheid asked staff if any discussions with the county has occurred. Mr. Bendon replied at
this time no, but they would welcome a discussion.
Timeshare Code Amendment
Ms. Garrow reviewed the proposed code changes.
Page 3
0 0
Exhibit D
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Department
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
DATE: July 1, 2015
RE: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE HOUSING CREDIT PROGRAM
ISSUE: Community Development Department is taking forward proposed changes to Chapter
26.540 of the Land Use Code that deals with the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit
program.
BACKGROUND: The Board reviewed the proposed changes at their Regular Meeting held
May 20, 2015. The Board directed staff to bring the discussion back after the Planning and
Zoning Commission (P&Z) provided feedback to the Community Development Department
(CDD). Below are the proposed changes by the CDD and the feedback from P&Z:
• Public Sector Limits:
o CDD — Any public sector entity will not be allowed to utilize this program.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
• Dormitory Units:
o CDD — Due to fact that a dormitory unit does not provide the same standard of
living as a typical studio, 1-bedroom, etc., provision of dormitory -type units
would not be allowed under the Credit program.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
• Fractional Credits:
o CDD — Some developments provide more housing than required. This policy
would only allow someone with a full credit to utilize the Credit program;
fractional credits would not be allowed.
o P&Z — Supported allowing any fractional FTE overage from an on -site unit to be
turned into a housing credit.
• Sales Limitation:
o CDD — Rental units should not be approved in mixed -use projects, only
ownership -type units.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 1
•
• Category Limitations:
o CDD — Since mitigation for employee housing is required at Category 4 or below,
the credit program should be limited to Category 4 or below as well.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
• Location Limitations:
o CDD — The Code does not provide limitations as to where someone could develop
affordable units utilizing the credit program. The recommendation is to limit the
use of the Credit Program within the City Limits.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change to limit the use of the credit program
within the City of Aspen.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board reviewed the proposed changes at their regular meeting
held July 1, 2015, and recommended the following:
• Public Sector Limits — The Board agrees that the program should be allowed for private
sector entities and that the public sector and/or non-profit entities should be exempt from
utilizing the program.
• Dormitory Units — Although there is still a need for dormitory units, the Board agreed
that until such time the standard occupancy of 1.0 FTE equates to 150 square feet is
readdressed, dormitory unit should be exempt from the program.
• Fractional Credits — The Board agreed with the Community Development Department
that only full units should be granted the use of the Credit Program and that fractional
overages should be exempt.
• Sales Limitation — The Board agreed that the program should be utilized for ownership
units only, unless a 100% affordable housing project is developed. In this instance, it
could be utilized as a for -sale project or a rental project.
• Category Limitations — The Board recommends that the credits remain at Category 4 or
below. These categories are our biggest need.
• Location Limitations — Although there could be an excellent proposed project outside of
the City limits, the Board recommends that until such time that the County would adopt a
similar program, the credits should only be approved for units provided within the City
limits.
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 2
From: Kimbo Brown-Schirato <kimbobrown@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:50 AM
To: Chris Bendon
Cc: Christine Benedetti; Lindsey Palardy
Subject: Fwd: NextGen memo to Comm Dev
Hello Chris:
As a follow up to my email last week, is there anything else you need from us? We are planning on attending
the council meeting and would like to be prepared.
Best,.
Kimbo
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kimbo Brown-Schirato <kimbobrown a,gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:46 PM
Subject: NextGen memo to Comm Dev
To: Chris Bendon<chris.bendon@..cityofaspen.com>
Cc: Lindsey Palardy <palard I mail.corn>, Christine Benedetti <christinebenedetti9 cr,gmail.com>, Aspen
NextGen <aspennext en e gmail.com>
Dear Chris:
After reading the July 21st Comm dev newsletter, our housing sub -committee is planning on attending the code
amendment public hearings and would like to learn a bit more about the proposed amendments with regard to the
affordable housing credits, as pasted below:
Affordable Housing Credits, Resolution 76 (Series 20151
City Council will review a Policy Resolution on updates to the City's Housing Credits program at their August 10th regular
meeting. This is a public hearing. If the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will return to City Council with final language
in late August. The proposed amendments include the following clarifications, and have been supported by both the
Planning & Zoning Commission and the APCHA Board:
• Units must have 1 or more bedrooms (no dorms).
• Fractional units are not eligible for Housing Credits.
• Units must be deed restricted at Categories 1-4.
• Only private sector individuals and entities may create Housing Credits (public sector and housing -based
nonprofits cannot create Housing Credits).
• Unless a proposal is for 100% affordable housing, all units created for Housing Credits must be for -sale.
• Projects must be located within the City of Aspen.
As NextGen, we put forth the issue that by only building Categories 1 - 4 housing units in the credit program, we are dis-
incentivizing the building of higher category, potentially more family -friendly housing. This was verbally discussed with you
and Jessica when you presented at our June meeting.
NextGen has heard from our demographic that the number one problem facing the housing program as it stands is 'not
enough available units in certain categories', with written feedback indicating an immediate need for more family friendly
units in higher categories so that families may grow with them over time. 30% of participants in our survey stated a total
•
•
annual household income (before taxes) of between $100,000 - $149,999, and 20% had a household income of $150,000
or higher.
It's come to our attention that one way to offer this housing is through the private sector. As it stands, developers do not
receive any credits for building categories 5-7, but we believe there is demand in these categories. We'd like to see the
code amended — or at least a discussion happen — around incentivizing development in the higher categories.
In addition, the City of Aspen does not believe there is a demand for higher category units (the Burlingame re -
categorization comes to mind). Our housing sessions challenge this assumption, as long as new developments satisfy, to
a certain degree, the 'family friendly' desires of our demographic.
We are always available to talk about this more and would like to express a certain sense of urgency with this matter, as
this seems like a very appropriate time to be part of a real policy change.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Best,
Kimbo on behalf of NextGen's Housing Committee
Kiinbo Brown-Schirato
1 1 17 Cara Court
Carbondale, CO 81623
Kimbo Brown-Schirato
1117 Cara Court
Carbondale, CO 81623
•
• Exhibit G
From: Peter Fornell [mailto:p.fornell@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 3:34 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: Re: Housing Credits code amendment check -in
Thanks Jessica and I do support your ideas for those changes generally speaking. If the developer needs
to mitigate 1.8 and they build a 2 bedroom which is 2.25 1 believe they should be entitled to a credit
worth .45 which would be saleable. This might increase the likelihood of an on -site mitigation. I might be
misunderstanding you but that was what I thought I'd come out of the last conversation which I would
also support.
Thanks,
Peter
From: Matt L. Brown[ma iIto: mbrown(a�merchantserviceshq.corn
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2015 3:18 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: RE: Housing Credits code amendment check -in
Hi Jessica, my comments are below next to topics...
Summary of potential changes:
• Prohibit public sector and non-profit entities (i.e. the City or APCHA) from creating
credits. Makes sense to me, if the City's program is to encourage private enterprise
development of affordable units. Would be unfair for City to compete and would probably
dissuade private developers from creating units.
• Prohibit the creation of credits from dormitory units and units deed restricted at Category 5
and above. I think Dorm units have some merit for seasonal workforce and transitional housing,
but if the City doesn't, that's understandable. Some people suggested a lower Credit generation
for that type of housing.
• Only allow credits to be created from an entire unit, not a fractional unit. We often see
commercial or lodge developers providing mitigation for slightly more FTEs than their
development generates, and this would clarify that that slight overage is not eligible for the
creation of a Housing Credit. This makes sense to me.
• Require units that are used to create Housing Credits to be for sale when they are in a mixed -
use, commercial, or lodge development. A stand-alone housing project could be for sale or for
rent. So, this would create credits from a for rent project on a 100% residential site? I think the
city/apcha would like some for rent units and this would be helpful to incent developers to build
it.
• Limit the creation of housing credits to projects within the City of Aspen boundaries. So, no
more Airport units? I thought this was the rule already. Works for me.
Thanks, Matt Brown
215-266-5211
9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors
THRU: Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
DATE: August 20, 2015
RE: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE HOUSING CREDIT PROGRAM
ISSUE: The APCHA was asked by the City of Aspen's Community Development Department to
provide additional feedback on code amendments to Chapter 26.540 of the Land Use Code
dealing with Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit.
BACKGROUND: City Council approved a policy resolution on August 10 that directed the
Community Development Department staff to recommend code amendments to the Certificates
of Affordable Housing Credit chapter of the Land Use Code. City Council directed them to
obtain additional feedback from both P&Z and the APCHA Board relating to the category limits
of affordable housing created through the credit program.
DISCUSSION: The NextGen Housing Committee asked that the use of credits be increased
above Category 4. Previously, the APCHA Board had recommended the credit program should
be limited to Category 4 or lower units because such units are thought to meet the greatest need
within the community.
The City land use code caps affordable housing mitigation at Category 4. The Guidelines provide
fee -in -lieu for Categories 1 through 4 only, so in order for a developer to provide Category 5, 6
and 7 affordable housing under the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit program, fees for
the higher categories would need to be established.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recognizes the City's land use code limits Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credits to Category 4 and below. However, APCHA staff believes there
could and should be further policy discussion for allowing Certificates of Affordable Housing
Credit for Categories 5, 6 and 7 for housing mitigation purposes and recommends the expansion
of the Certificate Program once the fee -in -lieu amounts for each category (1 through 4 as well as
the addition of 5 through 7) reflect the more accurate construction and land costs to in
establishing the fee.
Previous comments:
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 1
1P 0
• Public Sector Limits — The Board agreed that the program should be allowed for private
sector entities and that the public sector and/or non-profit entities should be exempt from
utilizing the program.
• Dormitory Units — Although there is still a need for dormitory units, the Board agreed
that until such time the standard occupancy of 1.0 FTE equates to 150 square feet is
readdressed, dormitory unit should be exempt from the program.
• Fractional Credits — The Board agreed with the Community Development Department
that only full units should be granted the use of the Credit Program and that fractional
overages should be exempt.
• Sales Limitation — The Board agreed that the program should be utilized for ownership
units only, unless a 100% affordable housing project is developed. In this instance, it
could be utilized as a for -sale project or a rental project.
• Category Limitations — The Board previously recommended that affordable housing
credits be used for Category 4 or below units based on a belief that lower categories are
the community's biggest need.
• Location Limitations — Although there could be an excellent proposed project outside of
the City limits, the Board recommended that until such time the County adopts a similar
program, the credits should only be approved for units provided within the City limits.
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 2
0 0
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more
than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice
requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
--CL
Signat 'e
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledgeq before me this l0 day
of (1�' 7 , 20Lr, by
PUBLIC Narm
RE:AMENDMENT TOTHE CITY Oi ASM
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
U
LAND USE CODE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Monday August 10. 2015, at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen
City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 136 S.
My commission expires:
J t'
Galena St.. Aspen, to determine it amendments to
the text of the Land Use Code should be pursued.
The potential amendments would update Chapter
26.540. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit.
For further information, contact Jessica Garrow at
the City of Aspen Community Development De-
pa S. Galena St.. Aspen, CO,com (970)
NOtar Public -
-2780. essra30
429.2780. Jessica.Ganow@cityotaspen.com.sl$t_even
REN REED PATTERSON
$katlron.MayorNOTARY
Aspen City CouncilPubi
PUBLIC
rNOTARY
STATE OF COLORADO
(I137 etl in the Aspen Times on July 23. 2G15
1113794871
ID #19984002767
ACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: My Conunl>SY�n Expires February 16, 2016
• COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
0 0
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: r/-
�✓n P�/,oiyylR-� `ice-- , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
Z40c% /D , 2016-
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
(name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on the day of , 20_, to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
•
•
1 &CIMY" 1 ►11
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
MEETING DATE: August 18, 2015
RE: Housing Credits Code Amendment
SUMMARY & BACKGROUND:
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide additional feedback on code amendments to
the City's Housing Credit regulations (Chapter 26.540). Staff met with the Planning and Zoning
Commission in May and received general feedback on a set of potential amendments (minutes attached
as Exhibit B). Staff also met with the APCHA Board to gain their feedback (memo attached as Exhibit
Q. City Council approved a Policy Resolution on August 10t' that directs staff to process code
amendments to the Housing Credits chapter (Resolution attached as Exhibit A). Part of their direction to
staff was a request to get additional feedback from both the P&Z and the APCHA Board regarding any
limits on the Category of housing created through the credits program.
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT — CATEGORY LIMITATIONS:
The Housing Credits system is based on the Category of the units provided, and the associated cash -in -
lieu amounts assigned by the Housing Guidelines. Currently, there are no cash -in -lieu options for
Categories 5 or higher. The land use code is silent on which Categories new Housing Credits can be.
Planning staff has, however, taken the position that they can only be created as a Category 4 or lower
because that coincides with the cash -in -lieu provisions of the Housing Guidelines and is the only way to
currently convert Housing Credits between categories. There is a need to convert Housing Credits
between categories because many of the credits are created at a Category 2 or 3 level, but a developer's
housing mitigation requirement is at a Category 4 level. There is no way to convert a credit certificate to
or from Category 5 or higher because there are no cash -in -lieu figures for those higher Categories.
Therefore, planning staff has recommended codifying that the credit program is limited to Category 4 or
lower.
The APCHA Board has recommended that the program be limited to Category 4 and lower because
those are the units of greatest need. The NextGen Commission has recommended that higher category
units be eligible for the program because their research indicates there is a need for higher categories
within their demographic (email comments attached as Exhibit D).
REQUEST OF P&Z:
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on the proposed code amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A — Council Policy Resolution 76, Series 2015
Exhibit B — P&Z Minutes from May 19, 2015 discussion on code amendment
Exhibit C — Original APCHA Board comments on code amendment
Exhibit D — Email from NextGen Commission on code amendment
RESOLUTION NO. 76,
(SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CREDIT CHAPTER OF THE LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community, Development
Department received direction from City Council to amend the land use code to codify a
previous Council direction to limit the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit Chapter
to private developers; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach to subscribers of the community development
department newsletter, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and the Planning and
Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits Chapter 26.540 of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy
direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public
hearing on August 10, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 76, Series of 2015,
by a five — zero (5-0) vote, requesting code amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides
direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Code Amendment Obiective and Direction
Council hereby provides direction to the Community Development Director to amend
Chapter 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, of the Land Use Code. The
objective of the proposed Land Use code amendment is to specify that:
• Units must be studios or have 1 or more bedrooms (no dorms);
• Fractional units are not eligible for Housing Credits unless they are designated as
"for -sale" or have some other permanent deed restriction that requires the unit to
be built back following demolition;
• Staff should get additional feedback from the APCHA Board and the Planning &
Zoning Commission regarding any Category limitations in the program;
Resolution No. 76, Series 2015
Page 1 of 2
r
• Only private sector individuals and entities may create Housing Credits (public
sector and housing -based non -profits cannot create Housing Credits);
• Unless a proposal is for 100% affordable housing, all units created for Housing
Credits must be for -sale; and
• Project must be located within the City of Aspen. Staff should explore options to
incentivize housing credit construction east of the round -about.
Section 2•
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 3•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this 1 Oth day of August, 2015.
Steven Skadron, MaN'or
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Linda Manning, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
Resolution No. 76, Series 2015
Page 2 of 2
• • lExhibit C
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Other Business - Code Amendment Discussion
Ms. Garrow informed P&Z there is no set timeframe yet for the potential code amendments to be in
front of City Council. In preparation, Staff is gathering feedback regarding the items being discussed at
tonight's meeting.
Ms. Cow stated there are two possible additions regarding elevators in commercial buildings.
a) Add equirement for elevators to provide access to all floors in a commercial or axed -use
building. rrently, there are no requirements.
b) Add a require nt for separate elevators for residential and commercia ses.
Mr. Bendon noted the Gap b ing as an example of item a). The elevat oes not serve all units on all
floors. Mr. Walterscheid commen the elevator in the Gap buildin oes reach the basement, but the
tenant modified the basement space ich eliminated access to a elevator for the ground floor
commercial tenants using the basement fo torage.
Mr. Walterscheid agrees there should be access p ed to the trash, recycle and utility areas for
commercial tenants.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff would prefer to oid situations requi ' g retrofits to address ADA
requirements or changes in use for uilding.
Ms. Tygre noted there are e ' ing buildings without elevators.
Mr. Walterscheid a es with the intent of the change requested.
Mr. Goode feers requiring multiple elevators may require significant space and cost.
The c mission generally agrees with the requirement of elevators to ensure access, but questio d
t requirement of physically separate elevators for residential and commercial uses.
Certificates of Affordable Housing
Ms. Garrow reviewed the six proposed modifications as listed below.
1) Public Sector Limits
Staff is proposing to codify Council's previously provided direction that no public sector or non-profit
entity may use the program.
Mr. Walterscheid asked about the exclusion of non -profits. Mr. Bendon stated the idea was to not
allow entities who utilize public dollars, especially local public dollars, to utilize the program.
P&Z felt the change sounded reasonable.
2) Dormitory Units
Staff is recommending dormitory units not be eligible for credits. They want to avoid people creating
dormitory units for credits.
Page 2
0
Regular Meeting PlanninE & Zoning Commission Mav 19, 2015
Ms. Tygre and Mr. McNellis felt this was acceptable because dormitory units do not satisfy the long
term needs of the housing program.
Mr. Mesirow would like to see if the units could somehow be included.
3) Fractional Credits
Staff is recommending codifying the ability to provide credit for any overage created as units are
built to satisfy a requirement. Staff believes this may encourage owners to build more units onsite.
Mr. Goode asked how the City deals with past situations when owners had an overage they were
not compensated for at the time. Mr. Bendon replied the change would only impact applications
moving forward from the date approved.
P&Z supports the proposed change.
4) Sales Limitations
Staff is proposing only for sale units be allowed for housing credits.
Mr. Goode would like further investigation to determine if rentals could possibly be included.
5) Category Limitations
Ms. Garrow stated the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) identified the need for lower
category units at this time.
Staff recommends limiting the credit program to units defined as category 4 or lower.
Ms. Tygre agrees with the recommendation.
Mr. Walterscheid feels there may be unintended consequences.
Mr. Mesirow stated a recent study conducted by the Next Generation Advisory Commission found
there was a shortage of higher category units. Mr. Morris stated he understands Mr. Mesirow's
concerns but wants additional information to confirm the need.
P&Z supports the proposed change but feels additional information may be helpful to confirm the
exact need.
6) Location Limitations
P&Z feels it is best to limit the locations to the City of Aspen only at this time to limit sprawl. At
some point in the future, it may be necessary to consider the Urban Growth Boundary.
Mr. Walterscheid asked staff if any discussions with the county has occurred. Mr. Bendon replied at
this time no, but they would welcome a discussion.
Timeshare Code Amendment
Ms. Garrow reviewed the proposed code changes.
Page 3
0 •
Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Department
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
DATE: July 1, 2015
RE: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE HOUSING CREDIT PROGRAM
ISSUE: Community Development Department is taking forward proposed changes to Chapter
26.540 of the Land Use Code that deals with the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit
program.
BACKGROUND: The Board reviewed the proposed changes at their Regular Meeting held
May 20, 2015. The Board directed staff to bring the discussion back after the Planning and
Zoning Commission (P&Z) provided feedback to the Community Development Department
(CDD). Below are the proposed changes by the CDD and the feedback from P&Z:
• Public Sector Limits:
o CDD — Any public sector entity will not be allowed to utilize this program.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
• Dormitory Units:
o CDD — Due to fact that a dormitory unit does not provide the same standard of
living as a typical studio, 1-bedroom, etc., provision of dormitory -type units
would not be allowed under the Credit program.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
• Fractional Credits:
o CDD — Some developments provide more housing than required. This policy
would only allow someone with a full credit to utilize the Credit program;
fractional credits would not be allowed.
o P&Z — Supported allowing any fractional FTE overage from an on -site unit to be
turned into a housing credit.
• Sales Limitation:
o CDD — Rental units should not be approved in mixed -use projects, only
ownership -type units.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 1
• Category Limitations:
o CDD — Since mitigation for employee housing is required at Category 4 or below.
the credit program should be limited to Category 4 or below as well.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
Location Limitations:
o CDD — The Code does not provide limitations as to where someone could develop
affordable units utilizing the credit program. The recommendation is to limit the
use of the Credit Program within the City Limits.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change to limit the use of the credit program
within the City of Aspen.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board reviewed the proposed changes at their regular meeting
held July 1, 2015, and recommended the following:
• Public Sector Limits — The Board agrees that the program should be allowed for private
sector entities and that the public sector and/or non-profit entities should be exempt from
utilizing the program.
• Dormitory Units — Although there is still a need for dormitory units, the Board agreed
that until such time the standard occupancy of 1.0 FTE equates to 150 square feet is
readdressed, dormitory unit should be exempt from the program.
• Fractional Credits — The Board agreed with the Community Development Department
that only full units should be granted the use of the Credit Program and that fractional
overages should be exempt.
• Sales Limitation — The Board agreed that the program should be utilized for ownership
units only, unless a 100% affordable housing project is developed. In this instance, it
could be utilized as a for -sale project or a rental project.
• Category Limitations — The Board recommends that the credits remain at Category 4 or
below. These" categories are our biggest need.
• Location Limitations — Although there could be an excellent proposed project outside of
the City limits, the Board recommends that until such time that the County would adopt a
similar program, the credits should only be approved for units provided within the City
limits.
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 2
From: Kimbo Brown-Schirato <kimbobrown@gmail,com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:50 AM
To: Chris Bendon
Cc: Christine Benedetti; Lindsey Palardy
Subject: Fwd: NextGen memo to Comm Dev
Hello Chris:
As a follow up to my email last week, is there anything else you need from us? We are planning on attending
the council meeting and would like to be prepared.
Best,
Kimbo
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kimbo Brown-Schirato <kimbobrownng_mail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:46 PM
Subject: NextGen memo to Comm Dev
To: Chris Bendon<chris.bendonna,cityofaspen.com>
Cc: Lindsey Palardy <palardyl(a�gmail.com>, Christine Benedetti <christinebenedetti9 a,gmail.com>, Aspen
NextGen <aspennext en o gmail.com>
Dear Chris:
After reading the July 21st comm dev newsletter, our housing sub -committee is planning on attending the code
amendment public hearings and would like to learn a bit more about the proposed amendments with regard to the
affordable housing credits, as pasted below:
Affordable Housing Credits, Resolution 76 (Series 20151
City Council will review a Policy Resolution on updates to the City's Housing Credits program at their August 10th regular
meeting. This is a public hearing. If the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will return to City Council with final language
in late August. The proposed amendments include the following clarifications, and have been supported by both the
Planning & Zoning Commission and the APCHA Board:
• Units must have 1 or more bedrooms (no dorms).
• Fractional units are not eligible for Housing Credits.
• Units must be deed restricted at Categories 1-4.
• Only private sector individuals and entities may create Housing Credits (public sector and housing -based
nonprofits cannot create Housing Credits).
• Unless a proposal is for 100% affordable housing, all units created for Housing Credits must be for -sale.
• Projects must be located within the City of Aspen.
As NextGen, we put forth the issue that by only building Categories 1 - 4 housing units in the credit program, we are dis-
incentivizing the building of higher category, potentially more family -friendly housing. This was verbally discussed with you
and Jessica when you presented at our June meeting.
NextGen has heard from our demographic that the number one problem facing the housing program as it stands is 'not
enough availabie units in certain categories', with written feedback indicating an immediate need for more family friendly
units in higher categories so that families may grow with them over time. 30% of participants in our survey stated a total
annual household income (before taxes) of between $100,000 - $149,999, and 20% had a household income of $150,000
or higher.
It's come to our attention that one way to offer this housing is through the private sector. As it stands, developers do not
receive any credits for building categories 5-7, but we believe there is demand in these categories. We'd like to see the
code amended — or at least a discussion happen -- around incentivizing development in the higher categories.
In addition, the City of Aspen does not believe there is a demand for higher category units (the Burlingame re -
categorization comes to mind). Our housing sessions challenge this assumption, as long as new developments satisfy, to
a certain degree, the'family friendly' desires of our demographic.
We are always available to talk about this more and would like to express a certain sense of urgency with this matter, as
this seems like a very appropriate time to be part of a real policy change.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Best,
Kimbo on behalf of NextGen's Housing Committee
Kimbo Brown-Schirato
1 1 17 Cara Court
Carbondale, CO 81623
Kimbo Brown-Schirato
1117 Cara Court
Carbondale, CO 81623
•
•
Jessica Garrow
From: Cindy Christensen
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 11:55 AM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: Higher Category Units
Attachments: 2014.pdf; Sales Activity 2015.pdf; BG2 Phase2 Category Changes.xlsx
I have attached the Sales Activity for deed restricted units for 2014 and the current one for 2015. This shows how many
applicants were in the lottery. The first number is either an in -complex bidder or a top priority, with the other numbers
showing lower priority households (less than four years, or not meeting the minimum occupancy requirements for a
specific unit, etc.).
I have also attached a spreadsheet that shows the 2"d phase of BG2 and the categories that were changed in order to
accommodate the number of reservations that were received. APCHA also had a Category 6 two -bedroom on the
market at Burlingame Phase I for over a year. The home is now under contract. There was also another Category 5 two -
bedroom at Burlingame Phase I that was on the market for more than the initial bid period. It is finally under contract,
but to a single person household. Initially, there were 37 Category 5 — 7 proposed at Burlingame Ranch Phase 11; again,
only 2 are higher than Category 4 (two three -bedroom units at Category 5).
Cindy Christensen
Operations Manager
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
970-920-5455/Fax 970-920-5580
cindv. christensenc(D.citvofasoen.com
www. apcha. or
APCHA HAS MOVED! OUR NEW LOCATION IS AT 210 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 202. CHECK OUR
WEBSITE FOR MAP TO NEW OFFICE.
CJ
CJ
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
City of Aspen/Pitkin County
210 E. Hyman, Suite 202
Aspen. CO 81611
SALES ACTIVITY IN 2015
As of August 04, 2015
DATE
COMPLEX & NUMBER CLOSED SIZE OF UNIT SQ. FT
Annie Mitchell Homestead
101 Pass Go Lane
06/10/15
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
678
221 Pass Go Lane
07/21/15
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
787
710 Pass Go Lane
08/04/15
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
678
Aspen Highlands Villaqe:
0199 Prospector Rd, #3102
01/06/15
3-Bdrm/2-Bath
1,300
56 Cloud Nine
4-Bdrm/2-Bath DUP
1,600
0199 Prospector Rd, #3112
3-Bdrm/3-Bath
1,300
Aspen Village:
74 Aspen Village
04/20/15
3-Bdrm/1-Bath SFH
960
Bavarian Inn Condominiums:
107 N. 71' St., #204
Studio/1-Bath
412
07/28/15
Benedict Commons:
715 E. Hyman, #21
Studio/1-Bath
506
Burlingame Ranch I:
0042 Mining Stock Prky#101
03/04/15
1 -Bdrm/1 -Bath
897
0034 Molly Court, #101
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
1,268
0045 Callahan Court, #201
03/31/15
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
1,215
0123 Forge Road, #205
03/27/15
2-Bdrm/1'/2-Bath
1,329
0129 Mining Stock Prky#101
03/27/15
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
1,052
0161 Mining Stock Prky#204
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
1,268
0067 Molly Court, #202
06/01/15
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
802
0163 Forge Road, #102
07/31 /15
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
1,152
970.920.5050
Fax: 970.920.5580
www.apcha.org
SALES PRICE/ # Of
PRICE SQ. FT. Category Bids
$ 121,670 179 2 24/3
175,902 224 3 32/1
121,666 179 2 25
$ 276,278
321,329
263,040
$ 860,647
$ 299,000
$ 299,000
$ 97,554
$ 97, 554
$ 124,202
$ 124,202
$ 249,000
435,000
312,713
306,730
267,800
420,944
118,375
198 900
$ 2,309,462
213 3 9/2
201 4 31H/14/6
202 3 3SA/11 /5
311 RO 1
237 2 14
245 3 35/2
278
4
2
343
6
1
257
4
11H/2
231
4
1
255
4
1
332
5
1
148
2
22/4
173
3
7/2
Sales Activity for 2015 Page 1
•
•
DATE
SALES
PRICE/
# Of
COMPLEX & NUMBER
CLOSED
SIZE OF UNIT
SQ. FT.
PRICE
SQ. FT.
Category
Bids
Burlingame Ranch II:
273 Paepcke Dr., #101
07/10/15
3-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,294
$ 347,000
257
4
PS
273 Paepcke Dr., #102
04/20/15
2-Bdrm/13/-Bath
1,021
311,000
305
4
PS
273 Paepcke Dr., #201
03/24/15
3-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,260
231,000
183
3
PS
273 Paepcke Dr., #202
04/10/15
2-Bdrm/13/-Bath
1,045
199,000
190
3
PS
273 Paepcke Dr., #203
03/23/15
2-Bdrm/1'/2-Bath
1,032
311,000
301
4
PS
273 Paepcke Dr., #204
03/27/15
2-Bdrm/1'/2-Bath
1,036
201,000
194
3
PS
273 Paepcke Dr., #301
04/16/15
3-Bdrm/13/-Bath
1,327
455,000
343
5
PS
273 Paepcke Dr., #302
03/19/15
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
730
170,000
233
3
PS
275 Paepcke Dr., #101
04/15/15
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
708
113,000
160
2
PS
275 Paepcke Dr., #102
03/25/15
3-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,289
234,000
182
3
PS
275 Paepcke Dr., #201
06/05/15
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
673
110,000
163
2
PS
275 Paepcke Dr., #202
03/16/15
3-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,321
234,000
177
3
PS
275 Paepcke Dr., #203
04/23/15
2-Bdrm/1'/2-Bath
1,019
314,000
308
4
PS
275 Paepcke Dr., #301
03/30/15
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
725
170,000
235
3
PS
275 Paepcke Dr., #302
04/01/15
2-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,042
139,000
133
2
PS
333 Paepcke Dr., #101
05/15/15
3-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,290
343,000
266
4
PS
333 Paepcke Dr., #102
03/19/15
2-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,018
201,000
197
3
PS
333 Paepcke Dr., #201
03/16/15
3-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,260
231,000
183
3
PS
333 Paepcke Dr., #202
03/23/15
2-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,044
203,000
194
3
PS
333 Paepcke Dr., #203
03/31/15
2-Bdrm/1'/z-Bath
1,035
314,000
303
4
PS
333 Paepcke Dr., #204
03/13/15
2-Bdrm/1'/2-Bath
1,036
201,000
194
3
PS
333 Paepcke Dr., #301
03/25/15
3-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,323
339,000
256
4
PS
333 Paepcke Dr., #302
03/17/15
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
734
170,000
232
3
PS
335 Paepcke Dr., #101
03/16/15
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
707
168,000
238
3
PS
335 Paepcke Dr., #102
03/17/15
3-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,285
237,000
184
3
PS
335 Paepcke Dr., #201
03/12/15
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
675
110,000
163
2
PS
335 Paepcke Dr., #203
03/12/15
2-Bdrm/1'/2-Bath
1,024
311,000
304
4
PS
335 Paepcke Dr., #301
04/24/15
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
734
283,000
381
4
PS
335 Paepcke Dr., #302
03/19/15
2-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,044
196,000
188
3
PS
360 Paepcke Dr., #102
03/24/15
3-Bdrm/2'/2Bath
1,405
460,000
327
5
PS
360 Paepcke Dr., #103
03/16/15
2-Bdrm/1'/2Bath
1,035
201,000
194
3
PS
$7, 507, 000
Centennial:
410 Teal Court
03/17/15
2-Bdrm/2-Bath
881
$ 180,088
204
4
11H/3
421 Teal Court
03/13/15
1-BdrmU1-Bath
733
152,965
209
4
21H/10
212 Teal Court
02/10/15
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
598
129,928
217
4
10
325 Free Silver Court
03/20/15
2-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
881
211,994
241
4
10/2
215 Free Silver Court
05/11/15
Studio/1-Bath
498
112,537
226
4
6/2
421 Free Silver Court
2-Bdrm/2-Bath
881
225,690
256
4
12/1
$1,013,202
Sales Activity for 2015 Page 2
DATE
SALES
PRICE/
# Of
COMPLEX & NUMBER
CLOSED
SIZE OF UNIT SQ. FT.
PRICE
SQ. FT.
Category
Bids
East Cooper Townhouse Condos:
205 Lacet Court
01/29/15
3-Bdrm/2-Bath
1,284
$ 644,774
502
RO
4/3
$ 644,774
East Hopkins Alley:
962 East Hopkins Alley
01/28/15
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
800
$ 294,623
368
4
10/7
$ 294,623
Fairway III:
5115 Owl Creek Road, #30
05/08/15
2-Bdrm/2-Bath
1,036
$ 208,963
202
4
18/1
$ 208,963
Fornell, The:
518 W. Main St., B206
03/10/15
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
802
$ 136,000
170
2
DC
$ 136,000
Hoaglund Ranch:
140 Hoaglund Ranch Road
06/16/15
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
895
$ 199,018
222
3
1/2
39 Eddie Lane
1-Bdrm/1-Bath SFH
620
215,340
347
2
7/1
$ 414,358
Hunter Creek:
522 Vine Street
06/01/15
2-BdrmP/<-Bath
736
$ 159,743
217
4
10/9
$ 159,743
Lazy Glen:
4 Lazy Glen
3-Bdrm/2-Bath SHF
1,216
$ 229,000
188
RO
2/1
$ 229,000
Little Amax:
605 W. Hopkins #207
3-Bdrm/2-Bath
1,225
$ 344,977
282
4
12/6
$ 344,977
Sales Activity for 2015 Page 3
DATE
SALES
PRICE/
# Of
COMPLEX & NUMBER
CLOSED
SIZE OF UNIT
SQ. FT.
PRICE
SQ. FT.
Category
Bids
Obermever Place:
101 N. Spring, #205
06/23/15
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
696
$ 161,636
232
3
59/3
101 N. Spring, #109
2-Bdrm/2-Bath
904
646,569
715
RO
3/1
$ 808,205
Smuggler Hunter Trust Condo:
6 Williams Way
04/29/15
1-Bdrm/1-Bath SFH
598
$ 322,000
539
4
OC
$ 322,000
West Hopkins:
732 West Hopkins
07/30/15
2-Bdrm/1'/z-Bath
863
$ 132,534
154
2
14/6
728 West Hopkins
07/24/15
2-Bdrm/1'/z-Bath
895
147,850
165
2
17/8
$ 280,384
Woody Creek Subdivision:
145 Woody Creek Plaza
3-Bdrm/2-Bath SFH
980
$ 174,000
178
6
1
205 Woody Creek Plaza
02/26/15
3-Bdrm/2-Bath SFH
1,536
316,000
206
6
2
210 Woody Creek Plaza
03/23/15
3-Bdrm/3-Bath SFH
1,624
417,788
257
6
4/3
217 Woody Creek Plaza
04/28/15
3-Bdrm/2-Bath SFH
1,456
314,974
216
6
2/2
142 Woody Creek Plaza
07/15/15
2-Bdrm/2-Bath SFH
1,076
295,746
275
6
1
105 Woody Creek Plaza
2-Bdrm/2 % Bath SFH
850
338,027
398
6
2
$1,856,535
OC = Owner's Choice
IH = In -House Bid
SA = Set Aside Unit
PS = Presales
DC = Developer's Choice
TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS LISTED/SOLD IN 2015: 74
TOTAL SALES PRICE IN 2015: $17,910,629
RO UNITS SOLD BY OWNER
Aspen Village:
57 Aspen Village 06/30/15 $200,000 RO
71 Aspen Village 07/20/15 180,000 RO
Sales Activity for 2015 Page 4
DATE
SALES
PRICE/ # Of
COMPLEX & NUMBER
CLOSED SIZE OF UNIT SQ. FT.
PRICE
SQ. FT. Category Bids
Lazy Glen:
97 Lazy Glen
06/30/15
$166,000
RO
North 40:
27 Narrow Way
05/11/15
$1,468,000
RO
60 Riverdown Drive
06/30/15
642,393
RO
Smuggler Park:
108 Maple Lane
01/06/15
$ 507,500
RO
255 Cottonwood Lane
05/12/15
1,200,000
RO
Sales Activity for 2015 Page 5
0
•
COMPLEX & NUMBER
Annie Mitchell Homestead
522 Pass Go Lane
411 Pass Go Lane
211 Pass Go Lane
220 Pass Go Lane
712 Pass Go Lane
Aspen Highlands Village:
0115 Boomerang Rd, #5105
46 Cloud Nine
Burlinaame Ranch I
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
City of Aspen/Pitkin County
210 E. Hyman, Suite 202
Aspen, CO 81611
SALES ACTIVITY IN 2014
As of December 31, 2014
DATE
CLOSED SIZE OF UNIT SQ. FT.
03/20/14
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
780
03/25/14
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
678
07/30/14
1 -Bdrm/1 -Bath
678
10/09/14
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
787
12/05/14
1 -Bdrm/1 -Bath ADA
678
07/10/14
3-Bdrm/3-Bath
1,300
10/29/14
4-Bdrm/2%-Bath Dup 1,600
0129 Mining Stock Prky #202 06/10/14
0045 Callahan Ct. #101
04/09/14
0042 Mining Stock Prky #107
06/24/14
0123 Forge Road, #205
07/08/14
0095 Forge Road
09/30/14
0044 Callahan Court, #201
10/15/14
Burlinaame Ranch II
0473 Paepcke Dr. #101
0473 Paepcke Dr. #102
0473 Paepcke Dr. #201
0473 Paepcke Dr. #202
0473 Paepcke Dr. #301
0473 Paepcke Dr. #302
0475 Paepcke Dr. #101
0475 Paepcke Dr. #102
0475 Paepcke Dr. #201
0475 Paepcke Dr. #202
0475 Paepcke Dr. #203
0475 Paepcke Dr. #301
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
1,083
3-Bdrm/2-Bath
1,555
3-Bdrm/2-Bath
1,588
2-Bdrm/1'/z-Bath
1,329
3-Bdrm/3'h-Bath SFH
2,538
3-Bdrm/2-Bath
1,614
970.920.5050
Fax: 970.920.5580
www.apcha.org
SALES PRICE/ # Of
PRICE SQ. FT. Category Bids
$ 170,919
109,853
115,161
172,384
112,901
$ 681,218
$ 204,532
323,742
$ 528,274
137,603
216,159
336,986
306,730
539,330
548,077
$2,084,885
219
3
11
162
2
14/1
170
2
12/2
219
3
16
167
2
18/1
157 3 6/3
202 4 41H/12/9
127
2
2/16
139
3
3/6
212
4
21H/6
231
4
11H/4
213
RO
51H/4
340
7
1
06/26/14
3-Bdrm/1'/<-Bath
1,272
166,000
131
2
PS
02/04/14
2-Bdrm/l%-Bath
1,012
137,750
136
2
PS
02/06/14
3-Bdrm/1%-Bath
1,325
228,000
172
3
PS
01/27/14
2-Bdrm/l%-Bath
1,049
135,750
129
2
PS
01/22/14
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
731
165,000
226
3
PS
03/26/14
2-Bdrm/1%-Bath
1,047
196,000
187
3
PS
01 /16/14
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
707
109,000
154
2
PS
02/19/14
3-Bdrm/1'/-Bath
1,285
228,000
177
3
PS
01/14/14
1 -Bdrm/1 -Bath
733
109,000
149
2
PS
02/21/14
3-Bdrm/1'/-Bath
1,327
228,000
172
3
PS
01/23/14
2-Bdrm/1'/2-Bath
1,027
137,750
134
2
PS
02/04/14
1 -Bdrm/1 -Bath
735
165,000
225
3
PS
Sales Activity for 2014 Page I
•
•
DATE
SALES
PRICE/
# Of
COMPLEX & NUMBER
CLOSED
SIZE OF UNIT
SQ. FT.
PRICE
SQ. FT.
Category
Bids
0475 Paepcke Dr. #302
02/19/14
2-Bdrm/13/-Bath
1,048
196,000
187
3
PS
0440 Paepcke Dr. #101
02/13/14
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
712
109,750
154
2
PS
0440 Paepcke Dr. #201
05/16/14
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
682
167,000
242
3
PS
0440 Paepcke Dr. #202
01/27/14
3-Bdrm/2'/2-Bath
1,377
330,000
245
4
PS
0440 Paepcke Dr. #203
12/11/14
3-Bdrm/2'h-Bath
1,378
343,000
360
4
PS
0440 Paepcke Dr. #204
02/26/14
3-Bdrm/2'/2-Bath
1,414
336,000
238
4
PS
0440 Paepcke Dr. #301
01/22/14
1-bdrm/1-Bath
733
167,750
229
3
PS
0442 Paepcke Dr. #101
03/31/14
3-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,292
164,000
127
2
PS
0442 Paepcke Dr. #102
02/04/14
2-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,021
198,750
195
3
PS
0442 Paepcke Dr. #201
01/28/14
3-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,256
226,750
181
3
PS
0442 Paepcke Dr. #202
01/29/14
2-Bdrm/13/-Bath
1,045
135,000
129
2
PS
0442 Paepcke Dr. #203
01/24/14
2-Bdrm/1'/2-Bath
1,033
135,750
131
2
PS
0442 Paepcke Dr. #204
01/23/14
2-Bdrm/1'/z-Bath
1,038
302,750
292
4
PS
0442 Paepcke Dr. #301
01/29/14
3-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,300
336,000
258
4
PS
0442 Paepcke Dr. #302
01/31/14
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
736
164,750
224
3
PS
0425 Paepcke Dr. #101
03/06/14
3-bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,292
226,750
176
3
PS
0425 Paepcke Dr. #102
03/20/14
2-bdrm/13/-Bath
1,023
135,750
133
2
PS
0425 Paepcke Dr. #201
03/10/14
3-Bdrm/13/-Bath
1,325
228,000
172
3
PS
0425 Paepcke Dr. #202
03/14/14
2-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,045
198,750
190
3
PS
0425 Paepcke Dr. #203
02/26/14
2-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,036
305,000
294
4
PS
0425 Paepcke Dr. #204
08/06/14
2-Bdrm/1'h-Bath
1,034
305,000
295
4
PS
0425 Paepcke Dr. #301
03/20/14
3-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,324
164,000
124
2
PS
0425 Paepcke Dr. #302
03/07/14
1 -Bdrm/1 -Bath
734
165,000
225
3
PS
0410 Paepcke Dr. #101
04/04/14
3-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,295
161,000
124
2
PS
0410 Paepcke Dr. #102
04/04/14
2-Bdrm/13/-Bath
1,025
135,000
132
2
PS
0410 Paepcke Dr. #201
05/02/14
3-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,261
163,750
130
2
PS
0410 Paepcke Dr. #202
03/18/14
2-Bdrm/1%-Bath
1,047
135,750
130
2
PS
0410 Paepcke Dr. #301
03/14/14
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
733
167,750
229
3
PS
0410 Paepcke Dr. #302
03/14/14
2-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,065
195,750
184
3
PS
0412 Paepcke Dr. #101
03/13/14
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
708
109,750
155
2
PS
0412 Paepcke Dr. #102
03/31/14
3-Bdrm/13/-Bath
1,287
161,000
125
2
PS
0412 Paepcke Dr. #201
04/08/14
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
679
109,000
161
2
PS
0412 Paepcke Dr. #202
03/26/14
3-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,308
168,750
129
2
PS
0412 Paepcke Dr. #203
04/25/14
2-Bdrm/1'/z-Bath
1,014
137,750
136
2
PS
0412 Paepcke Dr. #301
03/17/14
1 -Bdrm/1 -Bath
724
107,000
148
2
PS
0412 Paepcke Dr. #302
03/26/14
2-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
1,039
195,750
188
3
PS
$b, 994, /5U
Centennial
125 Free Silver Court
07/10/14
2-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
881
$ 256,903
292
4
5/2
220 Teal Court
09/05/14
2-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
881
228,239
259
4
11H/8
324 Free Silver Court
09/09/14
2-Bdrm/13/4-Bath
881
235,979
268
4
5/4
214 Free Silver Court
10/27/14
Studio/1-Bath
455
106,400
234
4
13/1
$ 827, 521
Sales Activity for 2014 Page 2
DATE SALES PRICE/ # Of
COMPLEX & NUMBER CLOSED SIZE OF UNIT SQ. FT. PRICE SQ. FT. Category Bids
Chaparrel Aspen:
17 Rock Hollow Way 05/14/14 2-Bdrm/1'/z-Bath 979 $ 316,217 323 5 5
Common Ground
412 Independence Place 06/18/14 1-Bdrm/1-Bath 816 $ 96,836 119 2 2AM/22
$ 96,836
Fornell. The, 518 W. Main St.:
A101
11/10/14
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
916
$ 136,000
148
2
18/38
A102
11/24/14
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
822
136,000
164
2
18/38
B103
12/18/14
2-Bdrm/1'/2-Bath
940
136,000
145
2
18/38
B104
11/07/14
2-Bdrm/1'/z-Bath
980
198,000
202
3
24/16
B105
11/07/14
2-Bdrm/1'/z-Bath
980
198,000
202
3
24/16
B203
12/18/14
Studio/1 1/2-Bath
456
92,000
202
2
42/2
B204
11/04/14
2-Bdrm/1'/z-Bath
820
136,000
166
2
18/38
B205
11/06/14
2-Bdrm/1'/2-Bath
820
136,000
166
2
18/38
C107
11/07/14
1-Bdrm/3/<-Bath
600
110,000
183
2
63/4
C207
12/16/14
3-Bdrm/2-Bath
1,160
166,000
143
2
18/14
$1,444,000
Hoaglund Ranch:
36 Eddie Lane 05/22/14 1-Bdrm/1-Bath SFH 942 $ 175,000 186 3 1
34 Eddie Lane 03/18/14 2+-Bdrm/1-Bath 945 198,431 210 3 2/1
Hunter Creek
733 Vine Street
02/26/14
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
736
$ 193,273
277
4
1/9
627 Vine Street
04/24/14
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
736
223,456
304
4
114
526 Vine Street
11/18/14
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
736
206,999
281
4
8/12
524 Vine Street
12/09/14
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
736
182,057
247
4
5/6
Little Aiax:
605 W. Hopkins #203 05/13/14 3-Bdrm/2-Bath 1,225 $ 355,474 290 4 14/4
$ 355,474
Sales Activity for 2014 Page 3
DATE
SALES
PRICE/
# Of
COMPLEX & NUMBER
CLOSED
SIZE OF UNIT
SQ. FT.
PRICE
SQ. FT.
Category
Bids
Midland Park:
213 Midland Park Place
03/14/14
1-Bdrm/1-Bath
625
$ 165,320
265
4
17/3
$ 165,320
North 40:
140 Totterdown Drive
04/15/14
4/Bdrm/3'/z-Bath SFH
3,219
$1,160,000
360
RO
1
$1,160, 000
Obermeyer Place:
101 N. Spring Street #106
05/09/14
1 -Bdrm/1 -Bath
700
$ 163,251
233
3
55/2
101 N. Spring Street #104
08/26/14
1 -Bdrm/1 -Bath
623
163,319
262
3
40/1
$ 326,570
Pitkin Park Place (AABC):
415H Pacific Avenue
12/11/14
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
808
$ 130,754
162
1
1
$ 130,754
Smuggler Run:
20 Ajax Avenue
07/11/14
2-Bdrm/2-Bath SFH
1,092
$ 337,175
309
4
7
$ 337,175
Sopris Creek Cabin:
0373 Sopris Creek Rd #2
05/20/14
2-Bdrm/2-Bath
1,149
$ 216,796
189
3
7/3
0373 Sopris Creek Rd #1
12/30/14
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
885
219,898
248
3
5/3
$ 436,694
Twining Flats
60 Twining Flats Road
02/07/14
3-Bdrm+1'/z/BathSFH 1,866
$ 349,037
187
4
12/5
$ 349,037
W/J Ranch:
141 Lower Bullwinkle
01/13/14
3-Bdrm+23/,/BathSFH
2,230
$ 663,828
298
RO
4/1
220 Stevens Street
08/08/14
2-Bdrm/2-BathSFH
1,200
301,414
251
4
18
46 Stevens Street
11/20/14
2-Bdrm/1-Bath DUP
960
290,951
303
RO
10/1
$1,256,193
Sales Activity for 2014 Page 4
DATE SALES PRICE/ # Of
COMPLEX & NUMBER CLOSED SIZE OF UNIT SO. FT. PRICE SQ. FT. Category Bids
West Hopkins:
724 West Hopkins 11/13/14 2-Bdrm/1'/-Bath 976 $ 187,127 192 3 36/13
$ 187,127
Woodv Creek Subdivision
102 Woody Creek Plaza 03/07/14 3-Bdrm+/3-Bath SFH 1,062 $ 260,000 597 6 1
201 Woody Creek Plaza 07/03/14 3-Bdrm/3-Bath SFH 1,899 410,000 262 6 1
140 Woody Creek Plaza 12/30/14 2-Bdrm/1-Bath SFH 680 110,000 162 6 1
$ 780,000
OC = Owner's Choice
IH = In -House Bid
SA = Set Aside Unit
PS = Presales
DC = Developer's Choice
AM = Associate Members of Common Ground
TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS LISTED/SOLD IN 2014:
100
TOTAL SALES PRICE IN 2014:
$21,637,261
RO UNITS SOLD BY OWNER
Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC)
319 AABC, Unit 5 (J&K)
09/08/14
$725,000
RO
Aspen Village:
34 Aspen Village
03/28/14
$180,000
RO
104 Aspen Village
05/01/14
195,000
RO
116 Aspen Village
05/30/14
189,500
RO
47 Aspen Village
11/19/14
405,000
RO
33 Aspen Village
12/30/14
410,000
RO
Lazy Glen:
70 Lazy Glen
03/04/14 Lot Only
$ 35,000
RO
83 Lazy Glen
04/25/14
230,000
RO
59 Lazy Glen
04/30/14
225,000
RO
33 Lazy Glen
11/05/14
180,000
RO
71 Lazy Glen
11/12/14
275,000
RO
18 Lazy Glen
11/14/14
210,000
RO
Sales Activity for 2014 Page 5
DATE SALES PRICE/ # Of
COMPLEX & NUMBER CLOSED SIZE OF UNIT SQ. FT. PRICE SQ. FT. Category Bids
North 40:
0067 Riverdown Drive
03/26/14
4-Bdrm/3'/z-Bath SFH 3,300
$1,050,000
318 RO
0066 Totterdown Road
10/27/14
4-Bdrm/3'/2-Bath SFH 3,300
1,036,933
314 RO
Pitkin Park Place Condominiums:
417 Pacific Avenue, Unit H
10/24/14
2-Bdrm/1-Bath
$ 320,000
RO
Smuggler Park:
200 Cottonwood
05/30/14
SFH
$540,000
RO
140 Maple Lane
09/03/14
SFH
900,000
RO
309 Oak Lane.
10/27/14
SFH
625,000
RO
123 Maple Lane
12/16/14
SFH
495,000
RO
W/J Ranch:
099 Lower Bullwinkle
04/16/14
SFH 3,300
$1,152,250
349 RO
TOTAL NO. OF OTHER RO SALES IN 2014:
20
TOTAL SALES PRICES OF OTHER RO HOMES
IN 2014:
$9,378,683
Sales Activity for 2014 Page 6
s
N
W
Q
IL
x
z
Q
W
'1Q
V
Z
li
m
CU>,
m 0
= tw
u Q)
:3 (10
a U
w
a
F-
z
0
Q
U
0
J
I
V)
L.LJ
d:
0
0
Q
ct
M
M
N
m
M
m
V
m
m
N
M
L0
L0
L0
r�
m
Ln
L.0
L0
Ln
cr
v
In
m
N
M
Ln
M
[t
N
00
N
M M
O
Wto
M
O
O
O
M
O
N
M
c
M
O
N
14
^
n
E
E
E
E
E
E
O
O
O
O
O
�,
O
L
L
L
L
L
4,
f0
fC
}
fD
4,
f4
L
!0
fC
fC
3
3
3
3
3
11
3"
Q)
QJ
Q)
QJ
QJ
Q)
>
>
>
>
>
s
i
Q1
>
J
Q)
L
i
J
J
J
J
w
W
'Q
J
w
w
w
0.
a
a
'ZI
a
o
o
'Y
o
7
33
J
J
5
J
Z)
C7
C
G
C
CC3
C
C3
C
C3
C
Lf1
In
V1
In
Ll1
N
^
V1
N
N
M
m
N
N
N
e-i
1-1
M
m
N
ri
-1
-1
M
rq
M
t7
[t
N
.--1
N
N
N
r-1
ei
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
r-I
a --I
.-i
N
M
.--4
ri
N
N
M
r-4
m
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Q)
QJ
Q1
QJ
QJ
Q)
W
QJ
QJ
Q1
Q1
a
Q/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
aJ
a�
a�
ai
a
s
Q%
a
a
a
Qi
Qi
a
U
U
V
U
V
U
U
U
U
u U
V
V
V
m
ro
r0
c0
ro
ry
co
rd
ra
rn
ro
ro
ro
a
a
a
a
a
a
0.
0_
a
s
0-
o.
a
0
0
0
o
m
m
m
m
m
m
M
m
Ln
C1
l0
w
1.0
M
m
m
m
m
N
N
N
N
V
M
m
m
M
M
m
m
m
N
N
N
N
CO
u
LL
U
U
p
p
p
U
U
0
N
to
In
In
t0
W
l0
W
w
N
N
N
N
c.
•
•
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Policy Resolution: Housing Credits Code Amendment
Resolution 76, Series of 2015
DATE: August 10, 2015
SUMMARY:
The attached Resolution outlines policy direction for amendments to the City's land use code
regarding Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Amendments focus primarily on the
applicability of the chapter to different types of development.
If the Policy Resolution is approved, Staff will bring an Ordinance to City Council that amends
the Land Use Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Resolution.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This meeting is to review potential changes to the City's Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three -step process. This is the second step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should be pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen created the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits in 2010 to encourage
the private sector to assist in the creation of affordable housing. Four Housing Credits projects
have been completed, and another is approved but not yet completed. To date, certificates have
been created for 47.91 FTEs1.
The program allows a private developer to build voluntary affordable housing units, and then
receive a certificate from the City indicating how many FTEs were housed. The developer can
then sell those certificates (aka credits) to other developers who have their own housing
mitigation requirements. The developer who purchases the credits would then use them to
' Certificates are for 28.91 Cat 2 FTEs, 1.75 Cat 3 FTEs, and 17.25 Cat 4 FTEs.
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing Credits
Policy Resolution — 8/10/2015
Page 1 of 5
• 0
satisfy their affordable housing mitigation requirement, rather than using a cash -in -lieu payment
or building their own affordable housing units.
Only development within the City of Aspen can use these credits, as no sister program has been
created in surrounding jurisdictions.
OVERVIEW:
Staff is proposing a number of code amendments to the Housing Credits chapter. These are
intended to clarify the operations of the program, and are based on experiences over the past 2-3
years. Staff conducted outreach with both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Housing Board. Summaries of their comments are included under each policy area.
Public Sector Limits: In late 2014, City Council held a work session regarding the application
of Affordable Housing Credit Certificates. It was noted that previous Council provided direction
that no public sector or non-profit entity whose core mission was to provide affordable housing
was to use the program. The rationale was that these organizations have adequate revenue stream
to complete their mission and should not be competing with for -profit private sector individuals
for certificates. Planning staff is proposing to amend the Housing Credits chapter to address this
policy issue.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z agreed with the recommendation to limit the creation of
housing credits to projects that are brought forward from the private sector. They felt that
projects that use public dollars should not be eligible to create housing credits, as the
creation of housing is part of the mission of public entities and the program was intended
to provide an incentive for the private sector to provide more affordable housing.
APCHA Board: The Board also agreed that the program should be limited to private
sector entities.
Dormitory Units: A dormitory unit does not provide the same standard of living that typical
affordable housing does. While dorm style units provide an important housing option for
seasonal employees ,they do not generally represent a long-term housing solution for full-time
employees, Because the credits program is used to mitigate full time employee generation from
development in the City of Aspen, planning staff is recommending dormitory units not be
eligible for credits.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z felt strongly that dormitory units should not be eligible for
Housing Credits. While they support dorm -style units, they felt only full sized units that
provide units likely to result in housing for longer term employees should be eligible for
the creation of Housing Credits.
APCHA Board: The Board also agreed that the program should exclude dorm units.
While there is a need for dorm units, the Board felt they should be excluded until the
occupancy and unit size standards are addressed.
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing Credits
Policy Resolution — 8/10/2015
Page 2 of 5
Sales Limitations: Planning staff suggests that units which are built to create Housing Credits
be limited to for sale units if those units are part of a commercial, lodge, or free-market
development. This will help ensure that these units will remain permanently in the inventory,
particularly if the building is demolished or redeveloped in the future. Planning staff suggests
that units in an entirely affordable housing building be able to be for sale or rent.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z felt that housing units constructed for the purpose of
creating housing credits in a commercial or mixed -use building should be limited to for -
sale in order to ensure those are in the inventory in perpetuity. They felt that other units
that are part of a purely residential development should be allowed to be rentals, but only
with a development agreement ensuring they continue to be available as a permanent unit
in the inventory.
APCHA Board: The Board recommended that units should be limited to for -sale, unless
it is a 100% affordable housing project.
Fractional Credits: Often an applicant will provide more housing than is required by their
development because of how the unit is configured. For instance, a developer may have a
requirement to house 2.15 FTEs, and the easiest way to do that is to provide a single 2-bedroom
unit that houses 2.25 FTEs, leaving an overage of 0.10 FTEs. The land use code is unclear as to
if that 0.10 FTE overage is eligible to be turned into a Housing Credit.
This policy issue has occurred once since the Housing Credits chapter was created. At the time,
the Planning and Zoning Commission approved credit certificates for the Hotel Aspen only for a
full unit, not for an incremental amount of FTEs provided above what was required. Planning
staff believes the P&Z's approach during that review that only full units be granted Housing
Certificates makes the most policy sense and proposes to codify it.
Staff's main concern about granting fractional credits is related to ensuring the unit is
permanently affordable. If a sales limitation requirement discussed above is in place to ensure
any credit is part of a permanently deed restricted unit, staff could be more comfortable with the
idea of granting fractional credits.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z supported allowing any fractional FTE overage from an on -
site unit to be turned into a Housing Credit. They agreed with comments Peter Fornell
has made that allowing a developer to create a credit for the fractional overage might
provide them with an incentive to actually build an affordable housing unit for their
mitigation requirement, rather than trying to pay cash -in -lieu.
APCHA Board: The Board supported staffs recommendation that the program be
limited full units.
Category Limitations: The Housing Credits system is based on the Category of the units
provided, and the associated cash -in -lieu amounts assigned by the Housing Guidelines.
Currently, there are no cash -in -lieu options for Categories 5 or higher. The land use code is
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing Credits
Policy Resolution — 8/10/2015
Page 3 of 5
silent on which Categories new Housing Credits can be. Planning staff has, however, taken the
position that they can only be created as a Category 4 or lower because that coincides with the
cash -in -lieu provisions of the Housing Guidelines. There is no way to convert a credit certificate
to or from Category 5 or higher because there are no cash -in -lieu figures for those higher
Categories. Therefore, planning staff recommends codifying that the credit program is limited to
Category 4 or lower.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z supported limiting Housing Credits to units that are deed
restricted at Category 4 and lower. They supported this mainly to ensure the program can
be properly administered, as there are no cash -in -lieu numbers for Categories 5 and
higher to tie the Housing Credit conversions to. Some members of the P&Z requested
that the APCHA Board consider creating cash -in -lieu numbers for the higher categories
so developers have an incentive to build higher categories. These particular P&Z
members feel there is a demand for higher category units.
APCHA Board: The Board felt strongly that the program be limited to Category 4 and
lower, as those Categories represent the largest need.
Location Limitations: The Housing Credits chapter is unclear on where City of Aspen Housing
Credits may be established. Typically transferable rights can only be created and landed in the
home jurisdiction (in this case, the City of Aspen). This is the case, for instance, with the City's
Historic Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Program. Designation of a historic property in
Pitkin County does not provide a property owner with a City of Aspen TDR, and vice versa.
In 2013, an applicant requested that City of Aspen Housing Credits be established through the
construction of voluntary affordable housing at the ABC in Pitkin County. At the time, City
Council approved the request. Planning staff questions if housing created anywhere (Basalt,
Carbondale, Redstone, Garfield County, Eagle County, or Vail, for instance) should be eligible
to establish Credits, as they can only be used to mitigate FTEs generated by development within
the City of Aspen. Planning staff recommends the program be limited to the City of Aspen to
ensure development impacts in Aspen are not pushed to other jurisdictions.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z supports the construction of affordable housing wherever it
can be located, but felt strongly that City of Aspen Housing Credits should only be
created from housing within the City of Aspen limits. Because the City of Aspen is the
only jurisdiction where these credits can be created and used, the Commission felt it
would be unfair to allow credits to be created from housing outside the city. They felt
that would continue to push Aspen's housing needs further down valley, creating
additional sprawl and transportation demands. Since Housing Credits are used to
mitigate development in Aspen, they felt strongly that those credits should only be
created from housing created within the City of Aspen.
APCHA Board: The Board supported limiting the City of Aspen Housing Credits
program to units only built within City Limits.
OUTREACH:
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing Credits
Policy Resolution — 8/10/2015
Page 4 of 5
0 r
Staff met with the Planning and Zoning Commission and Housing Board to discuss the potential
changes to the Housing Credits Program. Both groups were supportive of the changes. The
Housing Board agreed with all of staff s recommended changes (Exhibit B). The Planning and
Zoning Commission agreed with all of staffs recommended changes except for the fractional
unit requirement (Exhibit Q. They felt fractional unit should be eligible for the creation of
Housing Credits.
In addition, staff conducted direct outreach with Matt Brown and Peter Fornell, the main
developers of Affordable Housing Credit projects (Exhibit D). They were also supportive of
staffs proposed changes, with the exception that Peter Fornell felt fractional unit should be
eligible for the creation of Housing Credits. Outreach through the department's newsletter
reached more than 600 subscribers, with no comments received.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Policy Resolution.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No. 76, Series of 2015, approving a Policy Resolution regarding
Affordable Housing Credits."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A — Staff Findings
Exhibit B — Housing Board Recommendation Memo
Exhibit C — P&Z meeting minutes, May 19, 2015
Exhibit D — Comments from Peter Fornell and Matt Brown
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing Credits
Policy Resolution — 8/10/2015
Page 5 of 5
•
RESOLUTION NO. 76,
(SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CREDIT CHAPTER OF THE LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development
Department received direction from City Council to amend the land use code to codify a
previous Council direction to limit the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit Chapter
to private developers; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach to subscribers of the community development
department newsletter, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and the Planning and
Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits Chapter 26.540 of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy
direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public
hearing on August 10, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 76, Series of 2015,
by a _-_ vote, requesting code amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides
direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective and Direction
Council hereby provides direction to the Community Development Director to amend
Chapter 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, of the Land Use Code. The
objective of the proposed Land Use code amendment is to specify that:
• Units must have 1 or more bedrooms (no dorms);
• Fractional units are not eligible for Housing Credits;
• Units must be deed restricted at Categories 1-4;
• Only private sector individuals and entities may create Housing Credits (public
sector and housing -based non -profits cannot create Housing Credits);
Resolution No. 76, Series 2015
Pagel of 2
• Unless a proposal is for 100% affordable housing, all units created for Housing
Credits must be for -sale; and
• Project must be located within the City of Aspen.
Section 2•
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 3•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this day of , 2015.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
James R True, City Attorney
Resolution No. 76, Series 2015
Page 2 of 2
•
•
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review — Initiation
In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section
26.310.020(B)(2), Step Two — Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall
consider:
A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment.
Staff Findings:
The City of Aspen implemented the Housing Credits program in 2010 and has seen a number of
successful private sector housing developments as a result. To date, housing for nearly 48 FTEs
has been created through the program. While the program has been a success, there are
improvements and clarifications to be made. These include specifying what types of units
qualify for the creation of Housing Credits, as well as limiting the program to private -sector
entities. Staff believes the clarifications in the attached Policy Resolution will ensure the
program remains viable well into the future. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy,
community goal, or objective of the City including, but not limited to, those stated in
the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Findings:
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan calls for ensuring the rules for affordable housing are
clear (Housing Policy V.1), and that all affordable housing should be within the UGB (Housing
Policy IV.2). This code amendment clarifies the rules related to the creation of affordable
housing credits, and ensures that new housing for credits is located with the City of Aspen. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The objective of the proposed Land Use code amendment is to specify that:
• Units must have 1 or more bedrooms (no dorms);
• Fractional units are not eligible for Housing Credits;
• Units must be deed restricted at Categories 1-4;
• Only private sector individuals and entities may create Housing Credits (public sector
and housing -based non -profits cannot create Housing Credits);
• Unless a proposal is for 100% affordable housing, all units created for Housing Credits
must be for -sale; and
• Project must be located within the City of Aspen.
Staff finds that this objective is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose of Title 26.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing Credits
Policy Resolution — 8/10/2015
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
C�
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Department
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
DATE: July 1, 2015
RE: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE HOUSING CREDIT PROGRAM
ISSUE: Community Development Department is taking forward proposed changes to Chapter
26.540 of the Land Use Code that deals with the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit
program.
BACKGROUND: The Board reviewed the proposed changes at their Regular Meeting held
May 20, 2015. The Board directed staff to bring the discussion back after the Planning and
Zoning Commission (P&Z) provided feedback to the Community Development Department
(CDD). Below are the proposed changes by the CDD and the feedback from P&Z:
• Public Sector Limits:
o CDD — Any public sector entity will not be allowed to utilize this program.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
• Dormitory Units:
o CDD — Due to fact that a dormitory unit does not provide the same standard of
living as a typical studio, 1-bedroom, etc., provision of dormitory -type units
would not be allowed under the Credit program.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
• Fractional Credits:
o CDD — Some developments provide more housing than required. This policy
would only allow someone with a full credit to utilize the Credit program;
fractional credits would not be allowed.
o P&Z — Supported allowing any fractional FTE overage from an on -site unit to be
turned into a housing credit.
• Sales Limitation:
o CDD — Rental units should not be approved in mixed -use projects, only
ownership -type units.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 1
• Category Limitations:
o CDD — Since mitigation for employee housing is required at Category 4 or below,
the credit program should be limited to Category 4 or below as well.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
• Location Limitations:
o CDD — The Code does not provide limitations as to where someone could develop
affordable units utilizing the credit program. The recommendation is to limit the
use of the Credit Program within the City Limits.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change to limit the use of the credit program
within the City of Aspen.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board reviewed the proposed changes at their regular meeting
held July 1, 2015, and recommended the following:
• Public Sector Limits — The Board agrees that the program should be allowed for private
sector entities and that the public sector and/or non-profit entities should be exempt from
utilizing the program.
• Dormitory Units — Although there is still a need for dormitory units, the Board agreed
that until such time the standard occupancy of 1.0 FTE equates to 150 square feet is
readdressed, dormitory unit should be exempt from the program.
• Fractional Credits — The Board agreed with the Community Development Department
that only full units should be granted the use of the Credit Program and that fractional
overages should be exempt.
• Sales Limitation — The Board agreed that the program should be utilized for ownership
units only, unless a 100% affordable housing project is developed. In this instance, it
could be utilized as a for -sale project or a rental project.
• Category Limitations — The Board recommends that the credits remain at Category 4 or
below. These categories are our biggest need.
• Location Limitations — Although there could be an excellent proposed project outside of
the City limits, the Board recommends that until such time that the County would adopt a
similar program, the credits should only be approved for units provided within the City
limits.
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 2
0 • lExhibit C
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Other Business - Code Amendment Discussion
Ms. Garrow informed P&Z there is no set timeframe yet for the potential code amendments to be in
front of City Council. In preparation, Staff is gathering feedback regarding the items being discussed at
tonight's meeting.
Ms. Glow stated there are two possible additions regarding elevators in commercial buildings.
a) Add'a-requirement for elevators to provide access to all floors in a commercial or axed -use
building. rrently, there are no requirements.
b) Add a require nt for separate elevators for residential and commercia ses.
Mr. Bendon noted the Gap bN4,ing as an example of item a). The elevat does not serve all units on all
floors. Mr. Walterscheid commen the elevator in the Gap buildin oes reach the basement, but the
tenant modified the basement space ich eliminated access to a elevator for the ground floor
commercial tenants using the basement fo torage.
Mr. Walterscheid agrees there should be access p ed to the trash, recycle and utility areas for
commercial tenants.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff would prefer to oid situations requi ' g retrofits to address ADA
requirements or changes in use for uilding.
Ms. Tygre noted there are e ' ing buildings without elevators.
Mr. Walterscheid a es with the intent of the change requested.
Mr. Goode f s requiring multiple elevators may require significant space and cost.
The c mission generally agrees with the requirement of elevators to ensure access, but questio d
t requirement of physically separate elevators for residential and commercial uses.
Certificates of Affordable Housiing
Ms. Garrow reviewed the six proposed modifications as listed below.
1) Public Sector Limits
Staff is proposing to codify Council's previously provided direction that no public sector or non-profit
entity may use the program.
Mr. Walterscheid asked about the exclusion of non -profits. Mr. Bendon stated the idea was to not
allow entities who utilize public dollars, especially local public dollars, to utilize the program.
P&Z felt the change sounded reasonable.
2) Dormitory Units
Staff is recommending dormitory units not be eligible for credits. They want to avoid people creating
dormitory units for credits.
Page 2
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Ms. Tygre and Mr. McNellis felt this was acceptable because dormitory units do not satisfy the long
term needs of the housing program.
Mr. Mesirow would like to see if the units could somehow be included.
3) Fractional Credits
Staff is recommending codifying the ability to provide credit for any overage created as units are
built to satisfy a requirement. Staff believes this may encourage owners to build more units onsite.
Mr. Goode asked how the City deals with past situations when owners had an overage they were
not compensated for at the time. Mr. Bendon replied the change would only impact applications
moving forward from the date approved.
P&Z supports the proposed change.
4) Sales Limitations
Staff is proposing only for sale units be allowed for housing credits.
Mr. Goode would like further investigation to determine if rentals could possibly be included.
5) Category Limitations
Ms. Garrow stated the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) identified the need for lower
category units at this time.
Staff recommends limiting the credit program to units defined as category 4 or lower.
Ms. Tygre agrees with the recommendation.
Mr. Walterscheid feels there may be unintended consequences.
Mr. Mesirow stated a recent study conducted by the Next Generation Advisory Commission found
there was a shortage of higher category units. Mr. Morris stated he understands Mr. Mesirow's
concerns but wants additional information to confirm the need.
P&Z supports the proposed change but feels additional information may be helpful to confirm the
exact need.
6) Location Limitations
P&Z feels it is best to limit the locations to the City of Aspen only at this time to limit sprawl. At
some point in the future, it may be necessary to consider the Urban Growth Boundary.
Mr. Walterscheid asked staff if any discussions with the county has occurred. Mr. Bendon replied at
this time no, but they would welcome a discussion.
Timeshare Code Amendment
Ms. Garrow reviewed the proposed code changes.
Page 3
•
•
Exhibit D
From: Peter Fornell [mailto:p.fornell@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 3:34 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: Re: Housing Credits code amendment check -in
Thanks Jessica and I do support your ideas for those changes generally speaking. If the developer needs
to mitigate 1.8 and they build a 2 bedroom which is 2.25 1 believe they should be entitled to a credit
worth .45 which would be saleable. This might increase the likelihood of an on -site mitigation. I might be
misunderstanding you but that was what I thought I'd come out of the last conversation which I would
also support.
Thanks,
Peter
From: Matt L. Brown[ma iIto: mbrown Cabmerchantserviceshq.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2015 3:18 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: RE: Housing Credits code amendment check -in
Hi Jessica, my comments are below next to topics...
Summary of potential changes:
• Prohibit public sector and non-profit entities (i.e. the City or APCHA) from creating
credits. Makes sense to me, if the City's program is to encourage private enterprise
development of affordable units. Would be unfair for City to compete and would probably
dissuade private developers from creating units.
• Prohibit the creation of credits from dormitory units and units deed restricted at Category 5
and above. I think Dorm units have some merit for seasonal workforce and transitional housing,
but if the City doesn't, that's understandable. Some people suggested a lower Credit generation
for that type of housing.
• Only allow credits to be created from an entire unit, not a fractional unit. We often see
commercial or lodge developers providing mitigation for slightly more FTEs than their
development generates, and this would clarify that that slight overage is not eligible for the
creation of a Housing Credit. This makes sense to me.
• Require units that are used to create Housing Credits to be for sale when they are in a mixed -
use, commercial, or lodge development. A stand-alone housing project could be for sale or for
rent. So, this would create credits from a for rent project on a 100% residential site? I think the
city/apcha would like some for rent units and this would be helpful to incent developers to build
it.
• Limit the creation of housing credits to projects within the City of Aspen boundaries. So, no
more Airport units? I thought this was the rule already. Works for me.
Thanks, Matt Brown
215-266-5211
From: Kimbo Brown-Schirato <kimbobrown@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:50 AM
To: Chris Bendon
Cc: Christine Benedetti; Lindsey Palardy
Subject: Fwd: NextGen memo to Comm Dev
Hello Chris:
As a follow up to my email last week, is there anything else you need from us? We are planning on attending
the council meeting and would like to be prepared.
Best,
Kimbo
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kimbo Brown-Schirato <kimbobrown u,gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:46 PM
Subject: NextGen memo to Comm Dev
To: Chris Bendon<chris.bendonna,cityofaspen.com>
Cc: Lindsey Palardy <palard 1 ,gmail.com>, Christine Benedetti <christinebenedetti9@gmail.com>, Aspen
NextGen <aspennextg_en@g_mail.com>
Dear Chris:
After reading the July 21st Comm dev newsletter, our housing sub -committee is planning on attending the code
amendment public hearings and would like to learn a bit more about the proposed amendments with regard to the
affordable housing credits, as pasted below:
Affordable Housing Credits, Resolution 76 (Series 2015)
City Council will review a Policy Resolution on updates to the City's Housing Credits program at their August 10th regular
meeting. This is a public hearing. If the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will return to City Council with final language
in late August. The proposed amendments include the following clarifications, and have been supported by both the
Planning & Zoning Commission and the APCHA Board:
• Units must have 1 or more bedrooms (no dorms).
• Fractional units are not eligible for Housing Credits.
• Units must be deed restricted at Categories 1-4.
• Only private sector individuals and entities may create Housing Credits (public sector and housing -based
nonprofits cannot create Housing Credits).
• Unless a proposal is for 100% affordable housing, all units created for Housing Credits must be for -sale.
• Projects must be located within the City of Aspen.
As NextGen, we put forth the issue that by only building Categories 1 - 4 housing units in the credit program, we are dis-
incentivizing the building of higher category, potentially more family -friendly housing. This was verbally discussed with you
and Jessica when you presented at our June meeting.
NextGen has heard from our demographic that the number one problem facing the housing program as it stands is 'not
enough available units in certain categories', with written feedback indicating an immediate need for more family friendly
units in higher categories so that families may grow with them over time. 30% of participants in our survey stated a total
annual household income (before taxes) of between $100,000 - $149,999, and 20% had a household income of $150,000
or higher.
It's come to our attention that one way to offer this housing is through the private sector. As it stands, developers do not
receive any credits for building categories 5-7, but we believe there is demand in these categories. We'd like to see the
code amended — or at least a discussion happen -- around incentivizing development in the higher categories.
In addition, the City of Aspen does not believe there is a demand for higher category units (the Burlingame re -
categorization comes to mind). Our housing sessions challenge this assumption, as long as new developments satisfy, to
a certain degree, the 'family friendly' desires of our demographic.
We are always available to talk about this more and would like to express a certain sense of urgency with this matter, as
this seems like a very appropriate time to be part of a real policy change.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Best,
Kimbo on behalf of NextGen's Housing Committee
Kimbo Brown-Schirato
1 117 Cara Court
Carbondale, CO 81623
Kimbo Brown-Schirato
1117 Cara Court
Carbondale, CO 81623
Gmail - NextGen memo to Comm Dev •
https://mail.google.com/ u/ 1 /?ui=2& ik=fe4022ac89&view=pt&q=i n...
Gm11_--Ji
b,Gcx)S1<
NextGen memo to Comm Dev
Kimbo Brown <kimbobrown@gmail.com>
Kimbo Brown-Schirato <kimbobrown@gmail. com> Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:46 PM
To: Chris Bendon <chris.bendon@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: Lindsey Palardy <palardyl@gmail.com>, Christine Benedetti <christinebenedetti9@gmail.com>, Aspen NextGen
<aspennextgen@gmail.com>
Bcc: Skippy Mesirow <skippy.mesirow@gmail.com>, "Duncan@AspenBrewingCompany.com',
<duncan@aspenbrewingcompany.com>, Clay Stranger <claystranger@gmail.com>, Matt Evans
<vansmatte@gmail.com>
Dear Chris:
After reading the July 21 st comm dev newsletter, our housing sub -committee is planning on attending the code
amendment public hearings and would like to learn a bit more about the proposed amendments with regard to the
affordable housing credits, as pasted below:
Affordable Housing Credits, Resolution 76 (Series 2015)
City Council will review a Policy Resolution on updates to the City's Housing Credits program at their August 10th
regular meeting. This is a public hearing. If the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will return to City Council with
final language in late August. The proposed amendments include the following clarifications, and have been
supported by both the Planning & Zoning Commission and the APCHA Board:
• Units must have 1 or more bedrooms (no dorms).
• Fractional units are not eligible for Housing Credits.
• Units must be deed restricted at Categories 1-4.
• Only private sector individuals and entities may create Housing Credits (public sector and housing -based
nonprofits cannot create Housing Credits).
• Unless a proposal is for 100% affordable housing, all units created for Housing Credits must be for -sale.
• Projects must be located within the City of Aspen.
As NextGen, we put forth the issue that by only building Categories 1 - 4 housing units in the credit program, we
are dis-incentivizing the building of higher category, potentially more family -friendly housing. This was verbally
discussed with you and Jessica when you presented at our June meeting.
NextGen has heard from our demographic that the number one problem facing the housing program as it stands is
'not enough available units in certain categories', with written feedback indicating an immediate need for more
family friendly units in higher categories so that families may grow with them over time. 30% of participants in our
survey stated a total annual household income (before taxes) of between $100,000 - $149,999, and 20% had a
household income of $150,000 or higher.
It's come to our attention that one way to offer this housing is through the private sector. As it stands, developers do
not receive any credits for building categories 5-7, but we believe there is demand in these categories. We'd like to
see the code amended -- or at least a discussion happen -- around incentivizing development in the higher
categories.
In addition, the City of Aspen does not believe there is a demand for higher category units (the Burlingame
re -categorization comes to mind). Our housing sessions challenge this assumption, as long as new developments
satisfy, to a certain degree, the 'family friendly' desires of our demographic.
1 of 2 8/17/2015 11:41 AM
Gmail - NextGen memo to Comm Dev • https://mail.googief/mail/u/l/?ui=2&ik=fe4022ac89&view=pt&q=in...
We are always available to talk about this more and would like to express a certain sense of urgency with this
matter, as this seems like a very appropriate time to be part of a real policy change.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Best,
Kimbo on behalf of NextGen's Housing Committee
Kimbo Brown-Schirato
1117 Cara Court
Carbondale, CO 81623
2 of 2 8/17/2015 11:41 AM
0 0
Aspen Next Generation Advisory Commission
Housing Feedback Executive Summary
Introduction
Aspen Next Generation Advisory Commission hosted four instant polling sessions in early April 2015. Forty-
eight (48) people between the ages of 18 and 40 who live and/or work in Aspen participated in an hour long
session where pertinent questions from the 2008 Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) housing
survey were re -polled and exploratory questions added to gauge participants' current feelings about housing in
the Aspen area.
Below are key takeaways from the clicker sessions and exploratory questions. More detailed summaries and the
survey questions are available upon request.
Participant overview
• 100% are full time residents; 67% live in Aspen; 41 % own their unit
* 42% of respondents* live in APCHA housing [*n=19]
• 82% of participants have lived in the area 3 or more years
* 74% are aged 24-34 (18% - age 35-40; 2% - age <24; 2% - age >40)
* Participants' household income breakdown is as follows:
o $25,000 to $34,999 - 9% o $100,000 to $149,999 — 30%
o $35,000 to $49,999 — 7% o $150,000 to $199,999 — 7%
o $50,000 to $74,999 — 17% o $200,000 or more — 13%
o $75,000 to $99,999 —17%
Clicker Sessions: Key Findings
• Participants* identified the TOP challenge with the APCHA housing program as:
0 60% - not enough available units in certain categories
0 16% - eligibility criteria are outdated and too restrictive
0 9% - difficult to grow into unit because need more room
0 6% - too many restrictions on dogs
0 3% - insufficient capital reserves for older complexes
0 3% - construction and finishes are not good quality
0 3% - Cannot recover investments to full extent [*n=32]
* Assuming affordable housing is available, 87% of participants would like to live in Aspen as their first
choice (7% - Carbondale; 4% - SMV; 2% - Basalt/El Jebel).
* 76% of participants are either satisfied or very satisfied with their current residence.
* 96% of renters would like to buy a residence in Aspen, and many participants would sacrifice size in
order to live closer to work.
• 57% have filed an APCHA application, and 45%* have bid on/entered a lottery for a unit. [*n=31]
• Of the 43% who have NOT filed an application with APCHA, reasons for doing so largely center
around lack of family -friendly unit availability, perception that work history is not long enough for
competitive lottery units, not qualifying for anything other than `RO' category units, pet restrictions and
desire to purchase homes with an additional bedroom.
* NO participant has filed an application with the Snowmass Village Housing Authority.
0 Dog friendly units are an absolute necessity for 37% and desirable for 48% of participants.
• 0
Exploratory Questions: Key Findings
Q1: What is the purpose of the affordable housing program?
• To serve our workforce — by attracting and keeping skilled employees here while allowing them space
to grow families. Diverse views on type of employee(s) to prioritize.
• To offer desirable (safe/healthy, affordable, convenient) housing for different life stages.
• To assist individuals (particularly new arrivals and younger adults) in finding housing.
• To create a vibrant, diverse, active community of locals who live and work here (not commuting).
• To create a path to home ownership.
Q2: What are your challenges and complaints regarding the current program?
Challenges
• No options - can't afford free market AND can't afford/qualify for affordable housing.
• Aspen is losing valued community members due to lack of options; Local kids can't return without help.
Complaints
• Eligibility
o Difficulty qualifying: cap on assets/income is too low; difficult to find housing with less than 4
years of employment history; too much priority is given to people already in housing program.
o Difficulty growing: hard to fmd a new unit as family grows — feels like progressive eviction.
• Availability
o Insufficient housing stock (e.g., lower & higher categories, larger units (3-4 beds) for families).
o Current dog restrictions lead to dishonest and unfair work-arounds.
• Unit -specific
o Poorly constructed housing — homeowners end up bearing cost
Program
o Need to reevaluate entire program — goal, policies, scope, etc.
■ Housing in this valley is a regional issue, and policies should reflect this reality.
■ Program perceived as favoring later -life residents. How to include younger generation?
o Lottery process does not feel transparent and fails to inspire confidence in the program.
o Rules not currently enforced.
o Perception that certain staff and developers are receiving unfair special privileges.
Q3: What are your constructive ideas for improving the affordable housing program?
Big Picture
• Valley -wide, family -friendly vision — with development clustered around city centers/Hwy 82.
• More of all types of units (especially large ones); more dog -friendly units.
• Better oversight on design and cost -management for new construction.
Constructive Ideas
• Eligibility
o Lessen restrictions: allow more assets; exclude retirement savings; allow couples in 1-bed units.
o Opportunities: to earn extra chances in lotteries; open I" priority bids across complexes.
o Prioritize year-round workers.
• Availability
o Incentivize unit downsizing when appropriate (e.g., empty nesters).
o Expand existing units; Increase # of dog -friendly units.
o Handle ALL properties (including R.O.) through lottery system.
• Unit Needs
o More choice and better quality needed for all types of inventory, with emphasis on:
■ More entry level; more 3-4 bedroom units with yards/common space; more categories
1-2 (rentals) for seasonal employees.
o Housing to fit life stages — so that certain groups can choose to live near/away from each other.
o Option to pay more for upgrades on finishes.
o Require energy efficient windows and appliances.
2
Financial
o Require/incentive employer contributions.
o Expand funding for capital improvements.
o Grow incentives for APCHA housing development (in ALL categories) by private employers.
Program
o Strengthen APCHA-Community communications
■ Improve website navigability and online resources (unit availability, APCHA rules).
■ Increase APCHA open houses, social activities to facilitate info sharing/education.
■ Create customizable notification system: APCHA pings you when units become
available.
o Enforcement
• Enforce rules: Review employment histories, and annually audit income/assets.
■ Check on whether people are working; whether reporting entire year's income
(including cash).
■ Ensure no special privileges (i.e., for individuals in housing lottery, for developers).
■ Know who lives where; kick out non -qualifiers.
Q4: What does family -friendly housing look like?
Physical characteristics
• Space to grow, with storage (garage or storage unit), parking, and communal outdoor space/private yard.
• Within Aspen School District.
• Fosters livability, with close proximity to: work, school, communal areas, parks/green space, public
transit, and other key services (e.g., grocery).
• Neighborhoods a safe distance from highway/busy roads.
Non-physical characteristics
• Safe, quiet, affordable, pet -friendly, promoting "messy vitality".
• In area with other families.
Unit -specific characteristics
• Comfortable size: townhome style or single family; quality construction.
• 2-4 bedrooms, 2 baths, parking, with garage/storage unit, basic appliances (washer, dryer, dishwasher).
0
0
L o
p Ln M o r, rn o
N _ N N N -1
ti
in
0
Z
0
U)
U
C
t
G7
C
r
00
O
O
OM
N
r-
0
0
m
[t
I-
O
M
r-
00
N
N
N
T
a)
CO
M
0
0
0
0
f-
LO
a
T
T
�
C)
0
0
0
0
IT
0
0
CC;
O
N
T
L,C)
O
NC:)
0
ii7
O
T
M
00
O
O
04
0
T
f�
I_
C.-4
O
O
O
0
T00
T
IT
O
T
M
T
O
O
0
T
i—
LO
r-
T
N
N
N
O
LO
O
C)00
r-
r�
T
-
N
O
N
T
O
T
LO
0
T
N
0_0
0
0
0
0
ca
0
fa
U
'^
vJ
-0
N
000000m
-0
0
-0
0
-0
W
L
I
w
o
I
3
1
w
L
�
uo U)
c
Fi
I
C
E
C
0-0
.c)
0
0
0
0
CU
0
l^
vJ
-0
-0
-0
-0
U
U
Cm
Cm
CO
m
<n
I
I
1
L
O
U)
I—
LOL
•
s
N r1i N O[V O O
(B
O
ti
"T
(D
CA
00
-
1�
I-
Iq
C)
cM
cM
o
N
N
M
N
T
0
00
o
M
M
°
00
M
T
T-
LO
—
N
N
Ln
m
r-00000000
0
CO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
Gr,0000000
0
`3
M
U)
r-
O
0
O
I—
M
Ln
M
rn
�
N
cor—
N
v
tit
Cfl
N
r
0
0
00
T
N
N
�v
CIO
0O
CV)
o0000
0
0 0 0 0 0
N M m. O O
I�
II
.O
E
N
T
cn �,.O
�
E�
w
>,
ui
CY)O�
-
O
0
O
0
O
0
c
�
m O�
p N-
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
m
0
•I-R
�
�
W
��
W
�1 �
A
E
L
u-
�
+rye
m
(n
�
��
0
E
U-
�
U
m
m
m
O-
cn U
W
m
W
CO
W
CO
L
O�
c
3
aD
c
3
O
C/)
Off"
cn
F-
N I I CD
Ln e- CD
O M Cl)
T T
c Q +�+
U o U
U
CD Ln CO T
co CD N M
T % O
N N
0
PJ
A
- U
M --
U p
O
-0 E
O �
E-
v _
Q 0
= =
0
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Department
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
DATE: July 1, 2015
RE: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE HOUSING CREDIT PROGRAM
ISSUE: Community Development Department is taking forward proposed changes to Chapter
26.540 of the Land Use Code that deals with the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit
program.
BACKGROUND: The Board reviewed the proposed changes at their Regular Meeting held
May 20, 2015. The Board directed staff to bring the discussion back after the Planning and
Zoning Commission (P&Z) provided feedback to the Community Development Department
(CDD). Below are the proposed changes by the CDD and the feedback from P&Z:
• Public Sector Limits:
o CDD — Any public sector entity will not be allowed to utilize this program.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
• Dormitory Units:
o CDD — Due to fact that a dormitory unit does not provide the same standard of
living as a typical studio, 1-bedroom, etc., provision of dormitory -type units
would not be allowed under the Credit program.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
• Fractional Credits:
o CDD — Some developments provide more housing than required. This policy
would only allow someone with a full credit to utilize the Credit program;
fractional credits would not be allowed.
o P&Z — Supported allowing any fractional FTE overage from an on -site unit to be
turned into a housing credit.
• Sales Limitation:
o CDD — Rental units should not be approved in mixed -use projects, only
ownership -type units.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 1
0 •
• Category Limitations:
o CDD — Since mitigation for employee housing is required at Category 4 or below,
the credit program should be limited to Category 4 or below as well.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change.
• Location Limitations:
o CDD — The Code does not provide limitations as to where someone could develop
affordable units utilizing the credit program. The recommendation is to limit the
use of the Credit Program within the City Limits.
o P&Z — Agreed with CDD's proposed change to limit the use of the credit program
within the City of Aspen.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board reviewed the proposed changes at their regular meeting
held July 1, 2015, and recommended the following:
• Public Sector Limits — The Board agrees that the program should be allowed for private
sector entities and that the public sector and/or non-profit entities should be exempt from
utilizing the program.
• Dormitory Units — Although there is still a need for dormitory units, the Board agreed
that until such time the standard occupancy of 1.0 FTE equates to 150 square feet is
readdressed, dormitory unit should be exempt from the program.
• Fractional Credits — The Board agreed with the Community Development Department
that only full units should be granted the use of the Credit Program and that fractional
overages should be exempt.
• Sales Limitation — The Board agreed that the program should be utilized for ownership
units only, unless a 100% affordable housing project is developed. In this instance, it
could be utilized as a for -sale project or a rental project.
• Category Limitations — The Board recommends that the credits remain at Category 4 or
below. These categories are our biggest need.
• Location Limitations — Although there could be an excellent proposed project outside of
the City limits, the Board recommends that until such time that the County would adopt a
similar program, the credits should only be approved for units provided within the City
limits.
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 2
40
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
MEETING DATE: June 17, 2015
DATE OF MEMO: June 5, 2015
RE: Housing Credits Program
SUMMARY:
Later this summer the City will be updating the Housing Credit regulations (Land Use Code
Chapter 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit) and requests feedback from the
APCHA Board on a number of policy items. These changes are intended to clarify the
operations of the program, and are based on experiences since the program began. Planning staff
has also received feedback from the City Planning & Zoning Commission. A summary of their
comments is included under each topic.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen created the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits in 2010 to encourage
the private sector to assist in the creation of affordable housing. Four Housing Credits projects
have been completed, and another is approved but not yet completed. To date, certificates have
been created for 47.91 FTEs'.
The program allows a private developer to build voluntary affordable housing units, and then
receive a certificate from the City indicating how many FTEs were housed. The developer can
then sell those certificates (aka credits) to other developers who have their own housing
mitigation requirements. The developer who purchases the credits would then use them to
satisfy their affordable housing mitigation requirement, rather than using a cash -in -lieu payment
or building their own affordable housing units.
Only development within the City of Aspen can use these credits, as no sister program has been
created in surrounding jurisdictions.
PROPOSED CODE CHANGES:
Six substantive changes to the Housing Credits chapter of the Land Use Code are proposed.
Public Sector Limits: In late 2014, City Council held a work session regarding the application
of Affordable Housing Credit Certificates. It was noted that previous Council provided direction
that no public sector or non-profit entity whose core mission was to provide affordable housing
was to use the program. The rationale was that these organizations have adequate revenue stream
to complete their mission and should not be competing with for -profit private sector individuals
' Certificates are for 28.91 Cat 2 FTEs, 1.75 Cat 3 FTEs, and 17.25 Cat 4 FTEs.
for certificates. Planning staff is proposing to amend the Housing Credits chapter to address this
policy issue.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z agreed with the recommendation to limit the creation of
housing credits to projects that are brought forward from the private sector. They felt that
projects that use public dollars should not be eligible to create housing credits, as the
creation of housing is part of the mission of public entities and the program was intended
to provide an incentive for the private sector to provide more affordable housing.
Dormitory Units: A dormitory unit does not provide the same standard of living that typical
affordable housing does. While dorm style units provide an important housing option for
seasonal employees ,they do not generally represent a long-term housing solution for full-time
employees, Because the credits program is used to mitigate full time employee generation from
development in the City of Aspen, planning staff is recommending dormitory units not be
eligible for credits.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z felt strongly that dormitory units should not be eligible for
Housing Credits. While they support dorm -style units, they felt only full sized units that
provide units likely to result in housing for longer term employees should be eligible for
the creation of Housing Credits.
Fractional Credits: Often an applicant will provide more housing than is required by their
development because of how the unit is configured. For instance, a developer may have a
requirement to house 2.15 FTEs, and the easiest way to do that is to provide a single 2-bedroom
unit that houses 2.25 FTEs, leaving an overage of 0.10 FTEs. The land use code is unclear as to
if that 0.10 FTE overage is eligible to be turned into a Housing Credit.
This policy issue has occurred once since the Housing Credits chapter was created. At the time,
the Planning and Zoning Commission approved credit certificates for the Hotel Aspen only for a
full unit, not for an incremental amount of FTEs provided above what was required. Planning
staff believes the P&Z's approach during that review that only full units be granted Housing
Certificates makes the most policy sense and proposes to codify it.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z supported allowing any fractional FTE overage from an on -
site unit to be turned into a Housing Credit. They agreed with comments Peter Fornell
has made that allowing a developer to create a credit for the fractional overage might
provide them with an incentive to actually build an affordable housing unit for their
mitigation requirement, rather than trying to pay cash -in -lieu.
Sales Limitations: Planning staff suggests that units which are built to create Housing Credits
be limited to for sale units if those units are part of a commercial, lodge, or free-market
development. This will help ensure that these units will remain permanently in the inventory,
particularly if the building is demolished or redeveloped in the future. Planning staff suggests
that units in an entirely affordable housing building be able to be for sale or rent.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z felt that housing units constructed for the purpose of
creating housing credits in a commercial or mixed -use building should be limited to for -
sale in order to ensure those are in the inventory in perpetuity. They felt that other units
that are part of a purely residential development should be allowed to be rentals, but only
with a development agreement ensuring they continue to be available as a permanent unit
in the inventory.
Category Limitations: The Housing Credits system is based on the Category of the units
provided, and the associated cash -in -lieu amounts assigned by the Housing Guidelines.
Currently, there are no cash -in -lieu options for Categories 5 or higher. The land use code is
silent on which Categories new Housing Credits can be. Planning staff has, however, taken the
position that they can only be created as a Category 4 or lower because that coincides with the
cash -in -lieu provisions of the Housing Guidelines. There is no way to convert a credit certificate
to or from Category 5 or higher because there are no cash -in -lieu figures for those higher
Categories. Therefore, planning staff recommends codifying that the credit program is limited to
Category 4 or lower.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z supported limiting Housing Credits to units that are deed
restricted at Category 4 and lower. They supported this mainly to ensure the program can
be properly administered, as there are no cash -in -lieu numbers for Categories 5 and
higher to tie the Housing Credit conversions to. Some members of the P&Z requested
that the APCHA Board consider creating cash -in -lieu numbers for the higher categories
so developers have an incentive to build higher categories. These particular P&Z
members feel there is a demand for higher category units.
Location Limitations: The Housing Credits chapter is unclear on where City of Aspen Housing
Credits may be established. Typically transferable rights can only be created and landed in the
home jurisdiction (in this case, the City of Aspen). This is the case, for instance, with the City's
Historic Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Program. Designation of a historic property in
Pitkin County does not provide a property owner with a City of Aspen TDR, and vice versa.
In 2013, an applicant requested that City of Aspen Housing Credits be established through the
construction of voluntary affordable housing at the ABC in Pitkin County. At the time, City
Council approved the request. Planning staff questions if housing created anywhere (Basalt,
Carbondale, Redstone, Garfield County, Eagle County, or Vail, for instance) should be eligible
to establish Credits, as they can only be used to mitigate FTEs generated by development within
the City of Aspen. Planning staff recommends the program be limited to the City of Aspen to
ensure development impacts in Aspen are not pushed to other jurisdictions.
P&Z Comments: The P&Z supports the construction of affordable housing wherever it
can be located, but felt strongly that City of Aspen Housing Credits should only be
created from housing within the City of Aspen limits. Because the City of Aspen is the
only jurisdiction where these credits can be created and used, the Commission felt it
would be unfair to allow credits to be created from housing outside the city. They felt
that would continue to push Aspen's housing needs further down valley, creating
additional sprawl and transportation demands. Since Housing Credits are used to
0
•
mitigate development in Aspen, they felt strongly that those credits should only be
created from housing created within the City of Aspen.
REQUEST OF APCHA:
The APCHA Board is asked to provide general feedback on the policy items above.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE HOUSING A UTHORITY BOARD
OF THE CITY OFASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY
WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2015
The Meeting will be held in
City Council Chambers / City Hall
130 South Galena, Aspen, Colorado
5:00 p.m.
Call to Order
Public Comment
Updates: Housing Frontier Group Update
Executive Director's Comments
Director's Comments
Consent Calendar (these matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
• Minutes of the May 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
• Resolution No. 10 (Series of 2015), Authorizing A. Ronald Erickson, Chairperson, to Sign the
Pre -Construction Services Agreement with Aspen Constructors for the Aspen Country Inn I, L.P.
Appeal Hearing:
• Request by Landlord/Owner to Charge more Rent at 210 Main Street, Unit 8 (Ted Guy) —King
Louise LLC Compliance Hearing
Public Hearing:
• Resolution No. 08 (Series of 2015), Adopting Amendments to the Aspen/Pitkin Employee
Housing Guidelines
Discussion Item:
• Review of Recommended Changes to the Housing Credits Program
Adjournment
NEXT MEETING TO BE HELD JUNE 3, 2015
• 0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
RE: Housing Credits Program
SUMMARY:
The City is looking at updates to the Housing Credit regulations (Land Use Code Chapter
26.540) and requests feedback from the APCHA Board on the following policy items. These
changes are intended to clarify the operations of the program, and are based on experiences over
the past 2-3 years.
Public Sector Limits: In late 2014, City Council held a work session regarding the application
of Affordable Housing Credit Certificates. It was noted that previous Council provided direction
that no public sector or non-profit entity whose core mission was to provide affordable housing
was to use the program. The rationale was that these organizations have adequate revenue stream
to complete their mission and should not be competing with for -profit private sector individuals
for certificates. Planning staff is proposing to amend the Housing Credits chapter to address this
policy issue.
Dormitory Units: A dormitory unit does not provide the same standard of living that typical
affordable housing does. Planning staff is recommending dormitory units not be eligible for
credits.
Fractional Credits: Often an applicant will provide more housing than is required by their
development because of how the unit is configured. For instance, an applicant may have a
requirement to house 2.15 FTEs, and the easiest way to do that is to provide a single 2-bedroom
unit that houses 2.25 FTEs, leaving an overage of 0.10 FTEs.
This policy issue has occurred once since the Housing Credits chapter was created. At the time,
the Planning and Zoning Commission approved credit certificates for the Hotel Aspen only for a
full unit, not for an incremental amount of FTEs provided above what was required. Planning
staff believes the P&Z's approach during that review that only full units be granted Housing
Certificates makes the most policy sense and proposes to codify it.
Sales Limitations: Planning staff suggests that units which are built to create Housing Credits
be limited to for sale units if those units are part of a commercial, lodge, or free-market
development. This will help ensure that these units will remain permanently in the inventory,
particularly if the building is demolished or redeveloped in the future. Planning staff suggests
that units in an entirely affordable housing building be able to be for sale or rent.
Category Limitations: The Housing Credits system is based on the category of the units
provided, and the associated cash -in -lieu amounts assigned by the Housing Guidelines.
Currently, there are no cash -in -lieu options for Categories 5 or higher, which poses a problem
0 •
when mitigation requirements are Category 4 or lower. There is no way to convert an
established credit certificate from Category 5 or higher. Therefore, planning staff recommends
limiting the credit program to units Category 4 or lower.
Location Limitations: The Housing Credits chapter is unclear on where City of Aspen Housing
Credits may be created. Typically transferable rights can only be created and landed in the home
jurisdiction (in this case, the City of Aspen). This is the case, for instance, with the City's
Historic Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Program. Designation of a historic property in
Pitkin County does not provide a property owner with a City of Aspen TDR.
In 2013, an applicant requested that City of Aspen Housing Credits be established through the
construction of voluntary affordable housing at the ABC in Pitkin County. At the time, City
Council approved the request, stating that any additional housing should be eligible. Planning
staff questions if housing created anywhere (Basalt, Carbondale, Redstone, Garfield County,
Eagle County, or Vail, for instance) should be eligible. Staff requests direction from the APCHA
regarding if Housing Credits should be created from voluntary housing outside the City of
Aspen. If the APCHA is interested in supporting Housing Credits from affordable housing
outside the City, other potential geographic limits could be the Urban Growth Boundary or Pitkin
County.
REQUEST OF APCHA:
The APCHA Board is asked to provide general feedback on the policy items above.
•
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
APCHA Board of Directors
Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
May 20, 2015
30rt'." I-T% CM'1W)WtW -
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE HOUSING CREDIT PROGRAM
ISSUE: The Community Development Department is taking forward proposed changes to
Chapter 26.540 of the Land Use Code that deals with the Certificates of Affordable Housing
Credit program.
BACKGROUND: The proposed changes are as follows:
• Public Sector Limits — Any public sector entity will not be allowed to utilize this
program.
• Dormitory Units — Due to fact that a dormitory unit does not provide the same standard of
living as a typical studio, 1-bedroom, etc., provision of dormitory -type units would not be
allowed under the Credit program.
• Fractional Credits — Some developments provide more housing than required. This policy
would only allow someone with a full credit to utilize the Credit program; fractional
credits would not be allowed.
• Sales Limitation — Rental units should not be approved in mixed -use projects, only
ownership -type units.
• Category Limitations — Since mitigation for employee housing is requires at Category 4
or below, the credit program should be limited to Category 4 or below as well.
• Location Limitations — The Code does not provide limitations as to where someone could
development affordable units utilizing the credit program. Does it make sense to allow
the credit program to be utilized not only outside of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County,
but other areas down valley as well?
RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend the following:
• Public Sector Limits — Staff understands the reasoning for this policy and would
recommend approval.
• Dormitory Units — Staff agrees with the proposed policy and would recommend approval.
• Fractional Credits — Staff agrees with the proposed policy and would recommend
approval.
• Sales Limitation — Staff agrees with the proposed policy and would recommend approval.
• Category Limitations — Staff agrees with the proposed policy and recommends approval.
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 1
•
Pi
• Location Limitations — There could be an excellent proposed project down valley that
meets the needs of the housing program and would, therefore, recommend that the
Housing Credit Program be allowed in other jurisdictions within other Urban Growth
Boundaries in the Roaring Fork Valley; however, APCHA should only approve down
valley projects that serve the employment and community interests of Pitkin County and
the City of Aspen.
C4builJ{n "Dal'n' � -
-
buy-
1
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 2
0
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: May 19, 2015
RE: Housing Credits Code Amendment
SUMMARY:
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on potential code
amendments to the City's Housing Credit regulations (Chapter 26.540).
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT:
Staff is proposing four code amendments to the Housing Credits chapter. These are intended to
clarify the operations of the program, and are based on experiences over the past 2-3 years.
Public Sector Limits: In late 2014, City Council held a work session regarding the application
of Affordable Housing Credit Certificates. It was noted that previous Council provided direction
that no public sector or non-profit entity whose core mission was to provide affordable housing
was to use the program. The rationale was that these organizations have adequate revenue stream
to complete their mission and should not be competing with for -profit private sector individuals
for certificates. Staff is proposing to amend the Housing Credits chapter to address this policy
issue.
Dormitory Units: A dormitory unit does not provide the same standard of living that typical
affordable housing does. Staff is recommending dormitory units not be eligible for credits.
Fractional Credits: Often an applicant will provide more housing than is required by their
development because of how the unit is configured. For instance, an applicant may have a
requirement to house 2.15 FTEs, and the easiest way to do that is to provide a single 2-bedroom
unit that houses 2.25 FTEs, leaving an overage of 0.10 FTEs.
This policy issue has occurred once since the Housing Credits chapter was created. At the time,
the Planning and Zoning Commission approved credit certificates for the Hotel Aspen only for a
full unit, not for an incremental amount of FTEs provided above what was required. Staff
believes the P&Z's approach during that review that only full units be granted Housing
Certificates makes the most policy sense and proposes to codify it.
Sales Limitations: Staff suggests that units which are built to create Housing Credits be limited
to for sale units if those units are part of a commercial, lodge, or free-market development. This
will help ensure that these units will remain permanently in the inventory, particularly if the
0 .
building is demolished in the future. Staff suggests that units in an entirely affordable housing
building be able to be for sale or rent.
Category Limitations: The Housing Credits system is based on the category of the units
provided, and the associated cash -in -lieu amounts assigned by the Housing Guidelines.
Currently, there are no cash -in -lieu options for Categories 5 or higher, which poses a problem
when mitigation requirements are Category 4 or lower. There is no way to convert an
established credit certificate from Category 5 or higher. Therefore, staff recommends limiting the
credit program to units Category 4 or lower.
Location Limitations: The Housing Credits chapter is unclear on where City of Aspen Housing
Credits may be created. Typically transferable rights can only be created and landed in the home
jurisdiction (City of Aspen). This is the case, for instance, with the City's Historic Transferable
Development Rights (TDR) Program. Designation of a historic property in Pitkin County does
not provide a property owner with a City of Aspen TDR.
In 2013, an applicant requested that City of Aspen Housing Credits be established through the
construction of voluntary affordable housing at the ABC in Pitkin County. At the time, City
Council approved the request, stating that any additional housing should be eligible. Staff
questions if housing created anywhere (Basalt, Carbondale, Redstone, Garfield County, Eagle
County, or Vail, for instance) should be eligible. Staff requests direction from the Planning &
Zoning Commission regarding if Housing Credits should be allowed to be created from
voluntary housing outside the City of Aspen. If the P&Z is interested in supporting Housing
Credits from affordable housing outside the City, other potential geographic limits could be the
Urban Growth Boundary or Pitkin County.
REQUEST OF P&Z:
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on the proposed code
amendment.
•
•
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission Mav 19, 2015
Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM
with members, Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, Brian McNellis, Skippy Mesirow and Jesse
Morris.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Chris Bendon, Jessica Garrow, and Becky Levy.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Ms. Tygre referred to a recent article in the paper which reported high occupancy rates for the winter
season. She asked Staff if it would be possible to obtain the details of the report. Ms. Garrow thought
Mr. Bill Tomcich may be able to provide the report. She stated she will look into it.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES
March 17, 2015 Minutes — Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in
favor, motion carried.
April 7, 2015 Minutes — Mr. Goode moved to approve the minutes with the modification requested. The
motion was seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. McNellis stated he would need to recuse himself from the 200 S. Aspen St public hearing.
Mr. Walterscheid stated he would have to recuse himself from the 200 S. Aspen St public hearing.
200 S Aspen St, Hotel Lenado, Planned Development - Continued from
4/7/2015
Mr. Goode opened the hearing for the 200 S Aspen St public hearing.
The applicant is working on revisions to the proposal and was not ready to present to P&Z. Staff
recommended tabling the application until the applicant is ready to present. Ms. Tygre motioned to
table the application, seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor, motion carried.
Mr. Goode closed the hearing.
Page 1
0
•
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission Mav 19, 2015
Other Business - Code Amendment Discussion
Ms. Garrow informed P&Z there is no set timeframe yet for the potential code amendments to be in
front of City Council. In preparation, Staff is gathering feedback regarding the items being discussed at
tonight's meeting.
Elevators in Commercial / Mixed -Use Buildings
Ms. Garrow stated there are two possible additions regarding elevators in commercial buildings.
a) Add a requirement for elevators to provide access to all floors in a commercial or mixed -use
building. Currently, there are no requirements.
b) Add a requirement for separate elevators for residential and commercial uses.
Mr. Bendon noted the Gap building as an example of item a). The elevator does not serve all units on all
floors. Mr. Walterscheid commented the elevator in the Gap building does reach the basement, but the
tenant modified the basement space which eliminated access to the elevator for the ground floor
commercial tenants using the basement for storage.
Mr. Walterscheid agrees there should be access provided to the trash, recycle and utility areas for
commercial tenants.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff would prefer to avoid situations requiring retrofits to address ADA
requirements or changes in use for a building.
Ms. Tygre noted there are existing buildings without elevators.
Mr. Walterscheid agrees with the intent of the change requested.
Mr. Goode feels requiring multiple elevators may require significant space and cost.
The commission generally agrees with the requirement of elevators to ensure access, but questioned
the requirement of physically separate elevators for residential and commercial uses.
Certificates of Affordable Housing
Ms. Garrow reviewed the six proposed modifications as listed below.
1) Public Sector Limits
Staff is proposing to codify Council's previously provided direction that no public sector or non-profit
entity may use the program.
Mr. Walterscheid asked about the exclusion of non -profits. Mr. Bendon stated the idea was to not
allow entities who utilize public dollars, especially local public dollars, to utilize the program.
P&Z felt the change sounded reasonable.
2) Dormitory Units
Staff is recommending dormitory units not be eligible for credits. They want to avoid people creating
dormitory units for credits.
Page 2
Regular Meeting Planniny, & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Ms. Tygre and Mr. McNellis felt this was acceptable because dormitory units do not satisfy the long
term needs of the housing program.
Mr. Mesirow would like to see if the units could somehow be included.
3) Fractional Credits
Staff is recommending codifying the ability to provide credit for any overage created as units are
built to satisfy a requirement. Staff believes this may encourage owners to build more units onsite.
Mr. Goode asked how the City deals with past situations when owners had an overage they were
not compensated for at the time. Mr. Bendon replied the change would only impact applications
moving forward from the date approved.
P&Z supports the proposed change.
4) Sales Limitations
Staff is proposing only for sale units be allowed for housing credits.
Mr. Goode would like further investigation to determine if rentals could possibly be included.
5) Category Limitations
Ms. Garrow stated the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) identified the need for lower
category units at this time.
Staff recommends limiting the credit program to units defined as category 4 or lower.
Ms. Tygre agrees with the recommendation.
Mr. Walterscheid feels there may be unintended consequences.
Mr. Mesirow stated a recent study conducted by the Next Generation Advisory Commission found
there was a shortage of higher category units. Mr. Morris stated he understands Mr. Mesirow's
concerns but wants additional information to confirm the need.
P&Z supports the proposed change but feels additional information may be helpful to confirm the
exact need.
6) Location Limitations
P&Z feels it is best to limit the locations to the City of Aspen only at this time to limit sprawl. At
some point in the future, it may be necessary to consider the Urban Growth Boundary.
Mr. Walterscheid asked staff if any discussions with the county has occurred. Mr. Bendon replied at
this time no, but they would welcome a discussion.
Timeshare Code Amendment
Ms. Garrow reviewed the proposed code changes.
Page 3
Regular Meetin1l Planninp, & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Mr. Gibbs added that allowing houses to timeshare may encourage higher occupancy which he
supports. Mr. Mesirow added he would support changes to allow higher occupancy as well.
CC / C-1 Clarifications
Ms. Levy provided the background regarding the impacts to free market residential units located in CC
and C-1 zone districts with the enactment of Ordinance 25, series 2012. Permitted uses on the fourth
floor are not addressed in the code, despite the existence of several buildings with four floors above
ground level in both districts. The City has received requests from owners of the fourth floor units who
wish to upgrade or expand their units. The current code allows the units to continue to exist, but
consider them units of non -conforming use and therefore subject to the non -conforming portion of the
code. The owners of the units experience difficulties obtaining financing and building permits based on
the non -conforming status.
Staff is proposing to amend the code to clarify the free market residential units established prior to
Ordinance 25, series 2012 continue in CC and C-1 as conforming as long as they do not expand.
Currently there is a 10% cap for a 12 month period to improve or maintain a non -conforming unit.
One of the properties impacted is the Concept 600 building located at 600 E Main St.
Mr. Bendon explained the non -conforming portion of the code needs a complete review and upgrades.
He also explained at the time Ordinance 25, series 2015 was approved, emphasis was placed on
reducing height to 28 ft and eliminating new penthouses and not necessarily realizing the impacts to
existing units. He is aware there is a substantial number of units impacted by this ordinance. He also
feels the 10% cap does not make sense for the residential units.
Mr. Bendon then stated this was not technically a public hearing but was aware of members of the
public at the meeting who may want to provide comment if allowed.
Mr. Walterscheid then asked for members of the public to provide comment if they wished.
Mr. Jim Smith lives at the Concept 600 building is also president of the homeowners association. He
stated he became aware of the issues when he attempted to obtain a building permit six months ago to
expand their porch. He stated they would like to see the long existing free market resident units
recognized as conforming. He reviewed old meetings in an effort to determine the focus of the efforts to
approve Ordinance 25, series 2012 which he feels focused on future development instead of the existing
units. He also feels it was an unintended consequence. He would like the code to be clarified to allow
units to be maintained, upgraded and improved as needed as well as allow other provisions available
prior to the ordinance.
Ms. Lindsey Smith also lives at the Concept 600 building. She described the type of tenants in the
building including long term renters, short term renters, and locals. The free market units are not
separated from the renters. She feels the building represents a cross section of the visitors and residents
of Aspen. Many improvements have been completed to the building to meet safety and ADA
requirements. She reiterated the same requests as Mr. Smith.
Mr. Bill Sterling is a commercial user of the building as of 1978. He is troubled by the non -conforming
status and feels it may negatively impact the real estate market values and impede financing. He would
like the ordinance to be amended to allow flexibility to maintain and upgrade the units. He feels the
ordinance had unintended consequences.
Page 4
LJ
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission Mav 19, 2015
Mr. Jody Edwards represents the unit owners and feels Staff's proposal is a good first step. He is
concerned the owners will not be able to expand their units. As examples, he stated owners may want
to expand their deck to the near wall, combine w adjacent units or extend the top roof to cover their
deck. He noted some owners had completed similar projects in the past.
Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff for rebuttal.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff wants to focus on making the units conforming to stay with the intent of the
ordinance. The owners have other mechanisms to utilize to pursue expansions or changes in use for the
units.
Mr. Walterscheid then asked for comments from the commissioners.
Ms. Tygre does not like to change code that only affects one property but feels the ordinance was over-
reaching. She feels it is best to keep the scope narrow at this point in time. Mr. Gibbs agreed.
Mr. Mesirow asked if the intent of City Council was to cease development of larger penthouses. Mr.
Bendon stated he doesn't expect the units to amortize away and feels at the time the ordinance was
approved, the focus was on the impact the penthouses had on the commercial use of the buildings
along with height, mass and scale.
Mr. McNellis asked how the 10% cap was determined. Mr. Bendon stated it is an outdated percentage
and Ms. Levy added that she found other cities are eliminating the cap altogether.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff will present options to City Council to consider to move forward.
Land Use Code Applicability
Ms. Garrow described the proposed code amendments to address minor amendments, major
amendments and multi -step processes.
P&Z supports staff's recommendations.
Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk's Office, Records Manager
Page 5
0
0
2 .15, 4S(-(A
Permits in
File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help
iX1 V_j �
J-11&jump 1
Main Custom Fields Routing Status Fee Summary Actions Routing History
oPermit
type aslu Aspen Land Use Permit; 00422015 ASLU
Address CITY S GALENA Apt/Suite CITY HALL
City [ASPEN State I Zp 81511
Permit Information
Master permit Routing queue asluT-7 Applied 05i0412015 -
i
Project I Status pending Approved
Description APPLICATION FOR HOUSING CREDITS CODE AMENDMENT Issued
NO FEES
Closed(final
Submitted IJESSICAGARROW Ckd FE Days Expires 04128I2016 -
Submitted via
Owner
Last name JCFFY HALL First name 801 CASTLE CRK
ASPEN CO 81611
Phone () Address
Applicant
Z Owner is applicant? ❑ Contractor is applicant?
Last name CITY HALL First name 801 CASTLE CRK
ASPEN CO 81611
Phone () Cust 112727 Address
Email �—
Lender
Last name First name
Phone () - Address
enGold5 server an elan ;