HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20170130Special Meeting Aspen City Council January 30, 2017
1
CITY CLERK COMMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 2
ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 2016 – AACP and LUC Coordination – Growth Management ............... 2
Special Meeting Aspen City Council January 30, 2017
2
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the special meeting to order with Councilmembers Myrin, Mullins,
Frisch and Daily present.
CITY CLERK COMMENTS
Linda Manning, city clerk, said election season officially begins tomorrow when nominating petitions can
begin to be circulated. They are due back to her no later than March 13th. There are two council seats and
the mayor seat up for the May 2nd election. To be eligible to be a candidate you must be a registered
Aspen elector and a City resident for at least one year and 18 years of age on election day. You also need
to gather 25 signatures on the nominating petition. To pick up a petition see Linda in the clerk’s office.
ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 2016 – AACP and LUC Coordination – Growth Management
Mick Ireland told the Council he has reviewed the ordinance and staff memo and has two comments
regarding the proposed schedule for a gradual implementation. It is an elegant compromise but he would
like council to consider a more rapid increase along the line of 10 to 15 percent per year to recognize the
more critical nature of the problem. He noticed the ordinance calls for the payment or fixing of the
amount due at the development order and asked for council to consider it be set to the issuance of the
building permit. There would be no incentive to turn in an application to keep the amount what it is.
Jessica Garrow, community development, said previous Council direction was to increase the rate for new
space from 60 to 65 percent and to eliminate the credit for previous unmitigated space and phase it in.
The increase encourages Council policy to make sure development mitigates its impact and ensure there
is adequate housing for the community.
Phased mitigate rate
Pros
Mitigation for development activities
Incentivizes remodels over scrape and replace
Avoid shock to the market
Flexibility to respond to future community needs
Cons
Adds risk and uncertainty to developers
Slow to capture additional housing
Annual discussion of mitigation
Possible annual December application rush
The proposal is to start at a 15 percent rate with 3 percent increases each year. 1 FTE at category 4 is
$223,072. 15 percent is just over 33,000 dollars. Add on to that 7,000 every year until you reach full
implementation in 2034. Hypothetical property at 2017. 4,000 square feet of previously unmitigated
space. 2,000 square feet of new space. Existing space generates 18.8 FTE at 15 percent and new space
generates 9.4 FTEs at 65percent rate. 9.4 generates 1.3 million in costs. 18.8 at 15 is 629,000 dollars. At
full implementation the difference is about 4.3 million dollars. That is what we mean by a shock to the
system.
Mayor Skadron asked about an entire cost or percentage of development is this. Ms. Garrow sai d we
have not run the entire pro forma. Phillip Supino, community development, stated the numbers vary
wildly. Depending on land costs and financing the numbers can vary wildly. We have been limiting the
discussion to just mitigation.
Additional considerations
Exempt remodels that are required for building life safety compliance and necessary and normal building
maintenance. Page 16 of the ordinance has exemption language for life safety and necessary
maintenance.
Special Meeting Aspen City Council January 30, 2017
3
Questions
Does Council support increasing the rate from 60 to 65 percent.
Does Council support the phased in approach with 3 percent increases.
Does Council support exempting remodels required for life safety.
Councilwoman Mullins asked what is the danger of the shock. Ms. Garrow said it is a significant policy
change and has the potential to really impact businesses and owners. Originally staff was not
recommending moving forward with the policy. We are now recommending a 10 to 15 percent
introduction with a gradual phase in to ensure some status quo. Councilwoman Mullins said, say you do
100 percent tomorrow are you saying there will not be redevelopment or it will be so expensive local
businesses will not survive. Ms. Garrow replied all of those are potential. In conversations we have had
with building owners there are buildings that will get caught up in this. What we have tried to do is craft
a proposal that phases this in and ensures development is mitigating its impact but does not create an
abrupt change that businesses move out.
Councilman Frisch said some fees are paid at time of submission. Ms. Garrow said either submittal or
CO. You make an application and that locks you in to the mitigation rate. It is all done at building
permit. She suggested having the GM requirement calculated at building permit is more complicated.
Councilman Frisch said the vast majority of the fees are set though.
Jim True, city attorney, said there are a number of mitigation standards that are set at different times. We
could certainly do this at building permit issuance. The prediction is based on a prediction of when the
permit will be issues. He is not sure you end the rush people have been concerned with or it will
accomplish the purpose.
Councilman Frisch said for the exemption of remodels, where would trying to bring a building up to
ADA fall in to this. Ms. Garrow said the suggestion is it might want to be stricter on this requirement
than others. There is a more likelihood to be gamed if it is not tied to a remodel. If there is a failing roof,
mold or broken windows you should not get sucked into a remodel requirement. Councilman Frisch said
staff came up with a good balance and he is supportive of Staff’s solution. He suggests we stick to staff’s
recommendation.
Councilman Daily said he agrees with Adam’s comments. He has been leaning in this direction for a
week or so. Staffs direction is fair and reasonable. The new language on demo triggered as determined
by community development director. Ms. Garrow said it is by building code and the non conforming
chapter of the building code. There are some things that come in for emergency permits when a car runs
in to a building or a leak in a roof. Councilman Daily said it makes sense. He asked if a “to be required”
needed to be added. Ms. Garrow said we could so it mirrors the moratorium language.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Ward Hauenstein stated it is very positive the mitigation is being added back in. He questioned to
what is just and fair as to someone who already owns a building and hadn’t had to pay in the past.
Maybe the trigger should be when a building is sold. If a current owner remodels they don’t pay
but when they sell it does kick in.
2. Toni Kronberg said a lot of applications have been able to be combined in front of P&Z. Ms.
Garrow said there are a number of places in the LUC that allow combination of review. She
suggested it is a different conversation. Ms. Kronberg said Section D page 38 – affordable
housing for essential public facilities the city council may waive mitigation for essential public
facilities. She does not feel it is appropriate.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Special Meeting Aspen City Council January 30, 2017
4
Councilwoman Mullins said to address Ward’s question about burdening current owners. Mr. True said
he is not prepared to suggest we would have the power at this time to do something like that. We could
look in to it further. Councilwoman Mullins said she is not sure she is there.
Councilman Myrin said he will vote for what staff suggested but he is suggesting a 20 percent start then a
2 percent increase per year. He is worried about the square feet in the pipeline. Long term it is a good
balance. He is good with the 65 percent and the life and safety and normal maintenance.
Councilwoman Mullins said she is with Adam on keeping the mitigation rate at 60 percent. After all the
discussions she is good with the increase and the slower capture of mitigation over the next 18 years.
Mainly because it hasn’t been changed in so many years. Ward’s comments are good. There are two
sides to the gradual capture. The burden is on the seller. It is a good flexible program.
Ms. Garrow said life safety is called out. Do you want ADA specifically called out. Councilman Frisch
said it is important to stick to the current FAR and not get in to the bump out but he doesn’t want to
discourage anyone to not upgrade to ADA. Ms. Garrow said we can change the language to include it.
Mr. True said there is an example of a building that would argue if they put a corridor on the west side of
the building to have a separate elevator on the east side to access ADA they would put an elevator to have
exclusive access for penthouse access. We want to be careful about adding this.
Mayor Skadron said he could find reason to initiate the gradual schedule for a higher mitigation rate. The
entire thesis is based on a sweet spot premise. He will concur with his fellow council members and
subscribe to the staff recommendation of 15 percent and 3 percent increases.
Councilman Myrin said he will support the staff recommendation. We can reevaluate if 3 percent is not
enough and increase if it is not enough down the road. If it is bumped it could create a rush of
applications. That is why he was suggesting starting at a higher rate.
Councilwoman Mullins said it is a good point but there are other factors.
Ms. Garrow suggested adoption of ordinance 31 as in exhibit C with amendments.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #31, Series of 2016 as in exhibit C with amendments;
seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes;
Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
Mayor Skadron said we have adopted five of the six moratorium ordinances with viewplanes left. Ms.
Garrow said they will be back in March with that ordinance.
Councilman Daily moved to adjourn at 6:35 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning, City Clerk