Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20171218Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017 1 SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES .................................................................................................. 2 CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 COUNCIL COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 3 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 3 REPORTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3 Resolution #174, Series of 2017 – Interpretive and wayfinding design services for the Rio Grande Park and John Denver Sanctuary. ................................................................................................................. 4 Resolution #176 Series of 2017 – Contract Extension with Next Chapters for Mobility Lab .............. 4 Resolution #177, Series of 2017 – Wheeler and Belly Up Memo of Understanding ........................... 4 Resolution #183, Series of 2017 – Approving a Land Use Restriction Agreement with Colorado Housing and Finance Authority to establish Income Qualification Limits for Aspen Country Inn ............. 4 Resolution #175, Series of 2017 – Contract Extension with Design Workshop for Mobility Lab ....... 4 Resolution #180 Series of 2017 – CACRA Destination Marketing Agreement ................................... 4 Resolution #181, Series of 2017 – CIGA between Pitkin County, Aspen Valley Hospital, Aspen School District and City of Aspen for Mental Health and Substance Use Services ..................................... 4 Minutes – December 11, 2017 .............................................................................................................. 4 ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2017 .......................................................................................................... 4 RESOLUTION #173, SERIES OF 2017 – 330 E Main St – Hotel Jerome – Temporary and Seasonal Use Review .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 RESOLUTION #179, SERIES OF 2017 – Appeal of an Interpretation of the Land Use Code – regarding the removal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 910 E Cooper Avenue......................................................... 5 RESOLUTION #178, SERIES OF 2017 – 834 W Hallam St – Fee Waiver Request .................................. 9 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017 2 At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Myrin, Frisch and Hauenstein present. SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES Mayor Skadron said we have a very special scheduled public appearance. Jeff Woods and Annie Denver. Mr. Woods said he has been here 21 years and has known Annie for 20. We’ve worked on the sanctuary for 19 years and raised over a quarter million dollars for this project. Annie said this is the conclusion to a long term project. John died in 1997. A year later Jeff called me and said the City wanted to do something in his name. After much thought I came up with the idea of a sanctuary inspired through words and music. Earth, water, mountain, sky, pause, reflect and joy. It has been fantastic it has taken as long as it has. I feel very privileged to have been part of it and worked with the parks department. I’m here to say thank you and excited to share the next phase. Mr. Woods said the last phase is to tell the story. 60 percent of downtowns water goes through the sanctuary. We don’t want to pollute it with signs. We will use modern technology, apps and web base to tell the story. Celebrating John and the environmental legacy. Kevin Dunnett, parks, gave a shout out to staff. All the work is done in house. He is proud of all the collaborative efforts. Mayor Skadron said we can’t thank you enough for your generosity. Councilman Hauenstein said he loves the sanctuary. Every time I go down there I feel that spirit. Councilman Frisch thanked Annie for her trust and making sure we can continue to honor his spirit. Annie said this lives in all of us, John just put words to it. Councilman Myrin said it is a beautiful space. Mayor Skadron questions that it is not too digital. The organic is what makes it special. Mr. Woods said we used all native material that is pretty much all recycled. Mr. Dunnett said the digital element is one of the challenges. We are looking at the innovative ways people are using smart technology. You will be able to dive deeper to museum quality information. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Peter Greeney said he thinks the John Denver is wonderful but wondering about the wayfinding from the core to the park and how it relates to the civic center masterplan. Mr. Dunnett replied it is coming. That is on the very near horizon. There will be an RFP to specifically address wayfinding in the downtown core. 2. Mike Maple, thanked Bert for bringing up the food tax refund. He is very disappointed about the 5 dollar increase. It is offensive to the spirit of the 1970’s ordinance. He thinks council is badly off base and the analysis and input from staff was way off base. He encouraged council last week to truly look at the cost of affordable housing development. He continues to believe it is a critical item. Waiver of fees from affordable housing may be appropriate but it does not make the cost go away. It should still be a part of the project development. Councilman Frisch said is it your opinion in 1970 the spirit and intention was to cover all the cost of the food for a family. Mr. Maple said it seems to me it was a pretty clear deal. The city wanted the citizens to pass a 1 percent parks and open space tax. Traditionally that did not apply to groceries. If you agree to the other stuff the city would refund the tax on groceries. The logic has clearly been broken for 20 years. Councilman Frisch said if there is further study to be done, I’m up for that discussion. 3. Toni Kronberg said for resolution 181 – IGA for substance use services, she totally supports the resolution. Resolution 174 – wayfinding within the park. The park is one of two specially designated areas. She supports the work. Resolutions 176 and 175 for the mobility lab, she is not sure what the 5 million will be used for. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017 3 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Hauenstein wished everyone a joyous holiday season. Ski Co has done a fantastic job of making snow. Councilman Myrin said the downtowner is now free. The City is now paying tips. If there is a way to get a sign posted. It has a whole different feel than RFTA. He was out of town for one of the tent mitigation items. In general, I think the city is shorting itself and the community on mitigation. I would allow the space to mitigate for all the things it should, school, housing, then they would be fully mitigated and can put up a tent when they want. The partial mitigation is short sighted. He would like to talk about policy for partial mitigation. There was a suggestion from Toni to disclose what the 5 million is being spent on, it is a valid request. He understands the hesitancy until the money is in hand. On Mike’s comments, I think it is something to look at when it comes to council for the food tax refund. Councilman Frisch said there are all sorts of inflation calculators. Using 7 dollars in 1970 it could be 60 to 70 dollars. The other path is how much are people really spending. If the intent was to zero out the tax paid we can look at that too. We need to reaffirm if we want that discussion to happen in January. We need to discuss if we want to delay for a year and come back to it. There is some type of indexing that can be done. We are roughly in the ball park. On affordable housing, people need to realize it hits home more than any other issue. Nothing sets our community apart from anywhere else than our affordable housing program. When I heard there was going to be discussion about workforce and retirement I tried to keep my head down. It was very disheartening to watch the conversation that took place. I don’t think the discussion over the past month has been positive. He wants to reassure everyone that as long as I sit up here I have no interest to change the program. There are a lot of great and needed discussions about this but I think it spun out a little of control. He will continue to work on the program in front and behind the scenes so our community remains vital for everybody. Mayor Skadron said the city is looking for feedback on conceptual designs for the pedestrian mall. Go to aspenpedestrianmall.com. He wished everyone a healthy, happy and safe holiday season. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Barry Crook invited Ben Carlson from parks to speak about the Ute trail mitigation work. Mr. Carlson said we received word from the County that they will start Ute mitigation work tomorrow morning. A helicopter will be flying equipment and materials up there. Work will begin approx. 8:30 am on Tuesday. Traffic will be stopped briefly on 82 to facilitate. The County anticipates the work will take 10 days. John Peacock, county manager, said this did take more time than the county was hoping to address issues with risk and safety. He is excited to see work beginning and get the trail back open. BOARD REPORTS Councilman Hauenstein said Sister Cities had a bunch of kids come in from Bariloche. Most discussed the food. All really enjoyed the trip. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Skadron said there is a reason why things go on the consent. The reality is a huge amount of work has been done behind the scenes. We have got in the habit of pulling every item. The point is to not do that. Any time prior to public meetings council and the public have the opportunity to reach out to staff. Councilman Frisch said Resolution 181 is such an important aspect to the community. He is good with everything. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017 4 Councilman Myrin asked for Resolution 174 Rio Grande should he recuse himself. Jim True, city attorney, replied it is not a land use approval. The restriction is only associated with land use. Councilman Myrin asked for no nighttime wayfinding. Keep it dark at night. Reso 181 – health and human services. Sara Ott – Laurie Maloy, John Peackcok, Nan Sundeen, Ms. Ott said we have been working diligently to find a way to address mental health services. This is an exciting opportunity to provide a strong continuum of care and a great step further. Mr. Peacock stated this has been a deliberate and considered process over the last year with a great collection of community partners to identify opportunities to improve the continuum of mental health services offered. Excited to be a partner. Councilman Frisch asked how do we know / define success. Ms. Ott said we can bring back a detailed work strategy. It is still a work in progress today but we are confident there will be strong outcome indicators. Councilman Hauenstein said he is fully supportive of everything in the resolution. We need to extend the mill levy in November to extend the funding. Some of the services are going to Basalt and he would like to see Basalt and Eagle county contribute. • Resolution #174, Series of 2017 – Interpretive and wayfinding design services for the Rio Grande Park and John Denver Sanctuary. • Resolution #176 Series of 2017 – Contract Extension with Next Chapters for Mobility Lab • Resolution #177, Series of 2017 – Wheeler and Belly Up Memo of Understanding • Resolution #183, Series of 2017 – Approving a Land Use Restriction Agreement with Colorado Housing and Finance Authority to establish Income Qualification Limits for Aspen Country Inn • Resolution #175, Series of 2017 – Contract Extension with Design Workshop for Mobility Lab • Resolution #180 Series of 2017 – CACRA Destination Marketing Agreement • Resolution #181, Series of 2017 – CIGA between Pitkin County, Aspen Valley Hospital, Aspen School District and City of Aspen for Mental Health and Substance Use Services • Minutes – December 11, 2017 Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2017 – 500 W. Hopkins Ave. (Boomerang Lodge), PD Amendment – To Be Continued to January 22, 2015 Jessica Garrow, community development, said this is the continued public hearing for Boomerang and a request to further continue. The applicant is working on changes including reducing the overall height. The work is quite schematic and they request additional time. Staff supports this continuation with no more. Councilman Myrin asked what is the distinction between supporting this and not a future continuance. Ms. Garrow said they believe they are not quite ready to produce this solution. A month should be adequate time. She recommends they make that deadline and present it. Councilman Hauenstein moved to continue Ordinance #21, Series of 2017 to January 22, 2018; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017 5 RESOLUTION #173, SERIES OF 2017 – 330 E Main St – Hotel Jerome – Temporary and Seasonal Use Review Councilman Myrin stated he received public notice via mailing so he will recuse himself. Garrett Larimar, community development, stated this is temporary and seasonal use review for Hotel Jerome. They are represented by Sunny Vann. The property is located in the CC zone with a PD overlay. The proposal is separated into two items. First is for the ice lounge. It will be placed in the Mill Street terrace. It is approximately a 12 x 12 structure, 7 foot tall and made of ice block walls. They are requesting use through April 1, 2018. The space will be used for beverage tastings and guest services. The second request is for more traditional special event tents. They are anticipating 37 events for 74 days in the Main St. courtyard and the Mill St. terrace. They are requesting 5 annual recurrences. Staff has reviewed the application and find it consistent with what you would see in a lodge, minimal impacts as seen from the street. The materials are relatively consistent. We did have a last minute request from the Aspen fire department. The resolution includes the updated language. They are concerned egress be maintained for the structure on Mill St. Both the applicant and fire have agreed the language is adequate. There was an error in the mitigation calculation. The mitigation for ice lounge should be 800 and change. Mr. Vann said the request from the fire marshal was last minute. After looking at the terrace we are comfortable we can preserve the required pathways. The permits are referred to fire and they will look at it. The revised language is acceptable. Councilman Hauenstein said he will be consistent with his other temporary use comments. He wants to get away from using propane as a source of heat. One of our goals is to get away from fossil fuels. He wants to move us away from propane as a source of heat. Mayor Skadron said he chatted with the St. Regis team this weekend about this. The technology is coming. Councilman Hauenstein asked if the mitigation is consistent with Grey Lady and Regis. Ms. Garrow replied it is. Councilman Frisch said he is with Ward. This works for him. He is not sure if we are having more tent chatter of late. He would like to find some time to check in with staff. If there is anything we can do at an administrative level that would be great. Ms. Garrow said it is a worth wile check in. Mayor Skadron agreed. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Tony Deluca, Hotel Jerome, said the space was built with ice and cut outs for bottles of vodka. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #173, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #179, SERIES OF 2017 – Appeal of an Interpretation of the Land Use Code – regarding the removal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 910 E Cooper Avenue Ms. Garrow told the council this is an appeal of interpretation that was rendered in October for the removal of an ADU. An appeal is a public hearing. In 2015 there was a code amendment for procedures to remove ADUs. They were not used as anticipated when the program was created. Removal requires a .38 FTE mitigation through cash in lieu or housing credit extinguishment. The code amendment did not address when an ADU was mitigated for two units rather than a single family home. Regarding mitigation, there was and currently are a menu of options for mitigation. When this was approved the code allowed a larger ADU to mitigate. Typical it would have been two 300 square foot or one 600. They chose the one 600 square foot ADU. The interpretation found since it was approved to mitigate two units, double the FTEs were required to remove it. We acknowledge the land use code does not provide Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017 6 specific direction for this scenario. There are about 10 ADUs like this. When the code does not specifically address something it allows the Community Development director to interpret it. We looked for guidance in the growth management code, current requirements related to removal of ADUs and approvals for this property. There are three criteria to evaluate if an interpretation should be upheld. 1 – due process. We do not believe due process was violated. All timelines were met. 2 – related to abuse of discretion. We do not believe there was abuse of discretion. The land use code cannot predict every circumstance. When the code was silent on this issue because the mitigation was physically there for two units that extinguishment of double mitigation was required. There are two resolutions attached, one upholds the interpretation and the other reverses it. Applicant – Jeff Conklin and Roy Martayan Mr. Conklin said Roy is a 17 year part time resident. He owns the property at 910 E Cooper. He filed an application requesting an interpretation. What is the mitigation fee to remove an ADU. We read the section of code related to ADU mitigation. Shall provide mitigation for .38 at category 2 rate prior to removal of the unit. This can be done by a certificate of affordable housing credit or fee in lieu payment. That is what the primary section of the code focused on. The code does not distinguish between type of affordable housing unit. ADU and carriage house are treated similar. It does not distinguish size of ADU or type of home mitigated for or address of property. This is a voluntary ADU created prior to ordinance 35 of 2015 that shows .38 FTE payment of category 2 rate. Looking at the code, there is nothing in there that is ambiguous. The ADU in my clients property is voluntary created. At .38 the fee is 121,670 dollars. At the time of development, the developer had four options if developing a duplex. One was if there was a duplex one be free market one be RO, or and ADU of 600 square feet, 2 RO units or a fee in lieu payment. If providing an ADU you had to build one bigger than normal. We don’t disagree with the development documents. They don’t say anything to the employee mitigation fee that must be paid. My client was looking at purchasing the unit and part of the due diligence process he had contact with city staff. Part of the plan was to remove the ADU. The attorney representing Mr. Martayan came to this conclusion. There were calls to city hall and they were given this sections of the code. The interpretation that staff has offered has no precedent. If the city had intended for double the mitigation to apply then the site specific development options and prior code would have made some reference to that. If there is a deficiency in the code the city has an opportunity to correct it and they have not done so. In this case it feels like the payment required is unreasonable. We argue that the interpretation is unreasonable therefore staff has abused its discretion. Mayor Skadron said this wouldn’t show up in the code but was part of the purchase agreement way back. The developer had the choice to provide 2 - 300 or 1 - 600 square foot ADUs. What is clear is there was mitigation of 600 square feet. Ms. Garrow said the site specific approval is related to the ADU. Page 169 outlines the language from the subdivision exemption for the developer to choose one of the options. In the history of ADUs this has been an option, to provide a larger ADU for double the mitigation. In the regular operation of the department we often get questions as to what it takes to remove an ADU. We recite the code language. It does not specifically site size. The minimum is 300 and maximum is 800. In terms of this section for removing an ADU it does not talk about size. That is why we had to do an interpretation. Councilman Hauenstein said on page 194 of the packet, section C2 of 1990 ordinance, I see the intent for two free market duplexes that 1 ADU be supplied. Mr. True replied correct. What you have to look at are the approvals that occurred together with the entire ordinance. When the approval was done in 1990 there were options about free market, duplex, residential and occupied. I do recognize the current language but looking at the ordinance and approval, page 225, the options including paying the affordable housing impact fee. My understanding is that would have resulted in a payment of 1.2 FTEs at that time. The 600 square foot was really intended to provide more than just what the .38 FTEs calculate to now. To evaluate and recognize the language that exists now you have to look back at the original ordinance and the approval and realize we were looking at the mitigation beyond .38. Had they paid the applicable affordable housing impact fee that was set forth in the approval ordinance they would have paid for 1.2. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017 7 You have to look at all this together. Councilman Hauenstein said he thinks the intent was the ADUs would get rented and become part of the housing inventory but there was never that stipulation. 2015 rewrite revisited the ADUs. Mr. Conklin said the code does not say subject to any site specific development approvals. There is nothing in the code to jump from the word an to tying it in to the manner staff has. The mitigation requirement was imposed prior to development related to a duplex lot. It encumbers now one unit. To try to come to a different conclusion is unreasonable for someone reviewing the code to use the word an to a link to the legislative intent from 1990. Mr. True said one disagreement I have, recognizing his arguments, that is subject to disagreement is how many FTEs a 600 square foot unit mitigates for versus a 300 one. Mr. Conklin said the code is clear at .38. Mr. True replied now if you used the cash in lieu number of 1.2 FTEs. Mr. Conklin said this is a unique circumstance with no precedent that applies to very few instances. Councilman Hauenstein said a duplex was built and the ordinance required to mitigate for the duplex. It got assigned to one side not the other. Ms. Garrow said with an ADU it has to land somewhere and absent any condo decs or agreement between the units it can fall to one unit down the road. Councilman Hauenstein said it is attached to your duplex and mitigates to both sides. Ms. Garrow replied correct. Mr. True stated removal of it means that this duplex enjoys the 600 square feet. Mr. Conklin added upon payment of the mitigation fee. Councilman Frisch said we’re limited under the review. What are you arguing. Mr. Conklin replied abuse of discretion. Mr. True said it includes improper interpretation of the law. Councilman Frisch said there was a 600 square foot ADU built not a 300. Silence is a purposeful comment. Are you saying anything not written verbatim should be used. Either a loophole or mistake when we did this and we need to honor it. Are you arguing an ADU is an ADU no matter how big it is. Mr. Conklin said he is not sure if there was a mistake made. The 2015 ordinance and minutes don’t reflect if an ADU was for single family or duplex. I think the intent was the plane language as written. Councilman Frisch said he thinks Jessica said as it comes to duplexes it wasn’t a point the city was focusing on at the time. Ms. Garrow said there are approximately 10 of these and I don’t think they came up as part of the review. Councilman Frisch said looking at this through the lens that the ADU there was to mitigate for two. There was the option to do one. We cannot come up with every situation and I don’t think silence is intentional. Mr. Martayan said the burden has changed after I purchased the property. I was given one number by the planner of the day and now it has changed. Councilman Frisch said you agree with that. Ms. Garrow said she is not sure what those conversations were. We do keep track of the calls we get. We don’t have any documentation that shows what the conversation was for this property. Often we get calls saying I have an ADU what does it take to get rid of it. The last time there was a red flag raised. Councilman Frisch said if it happened as the applicant says would it change your interpretation. Ms. Garrow replied no, we have a disclaimer that we may lack information or miss something. We strive for this not to happen. Mr. True said the concept of detrimental reliance is significantly different than this. We have taken the position that a call to the planner of the day is not adequate to provide information that someone can rely upon. We try to have it be as best as we can. The detrimental reliance is not in front of you but is this an abuse of discretion because staff has incorrectly interpreted the code. Mr. Conklin said the plain language of the code says an ADU or carriage house. Councilman Frisch asked if someone sends an email and specifically say I have an ADU at 910 Sesame Lane can you confirm it and someone replies back its .38. Does that change the question. Mr. True said we try very hard to provide disclaimers if someone is seeking opinions in an email without going through proper process. There is a circumstance we recognize someone can properly rely on those brief opinions. Without going through a formal process we are clear about not relying on it. Councilman Myrin said it is always a challenge when duplexes are condominimized to figure out what goes with what unit. It is something that may be questioned when there is an ADU attached to one side. I think staff’s conclusion was reasonable. It is one step looking further than just one piece of the duplex but the whole property. As Jim pointed out paying the impact fee at the time would represent more. He is leaning towards staff that they did not abuse discretion. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017 8 Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Mayor Skadron said Roy, I feel for you. Mr. Martayan said there is a problem with the code and it does not address this situation. Mayor Skadron said when you use the word capricious do you mean obsolete. Mr. Conklin said it is the legal standard phrase. Mr. True added it is a common phrase used in the legal world. If you conclude that staffs interpretation of the code is incorrect than the court would view that as an abuse of process. Mayor Skadron said in issues like this I consider intent and fairness to the program. We are here to protect the principals of the community plan. The intention is clearly to deliver 600 square feet of mitigation. That is a serious deal to us. I think that staff using ordinance 1 of 1990 as the basis of the interpretation was not arbitrary but rightly considered. They did approach this correctly. At this point I think that staff acted reasonably and don’t agree the interpretation was an abuse of discretion. Mr. Conklin said say this was a 1980 approval and hypothetically if one of the options was to construct a 600 square foot ADU amongst a four plex. Mr. True said he is not comfortable asking hypothetical question. Councilman Frisch said his thought is 2 - 600 square foot units would have been built. There was an option at the time to do one big unit with the assumption that would be twice the many workers living there. It makes me uncomfortable when we have to go to the small print and say we have this disclaimer. If we use it too much it questions our credibility. I also don’t want to discourage staff from giving advice. We have to balance this. The concern I have is regardless of what happens tomorrow we are going to update this wording to capture the duplex stuff. The fact we will clarify that ASAP and there is some version of .38 it gives me pause to stand behind the program and staff but worry we kind of made a boo boo. Not that silence is purposeful but we try really hard to capture everything. I’m sympathetic to the discussion it was an ADU. Mr. Conklin said the plain language of the code says an ADU. If the city had wanted to include or distinguish between different types of ADU based on size there was an opportunity to include that in the code and it is not there. Councilman Hauenstein said he does not think there was anything arbitrary. I think your logic was good. The way I’m reading the 1990 ordinance is that .38 would have been what the mitigation should be and that’s what fair. You are getting the benefit of the 600 square feet. I think that .38 was the intent of the 1990 ordinance. I’m in favor of overturning Ms. Garrow. Councilman Myrin said he completely disagree. Option are for a duplex dwelling unit. It is reasonable to assume these options are for both sides. It was speaking about a duplex. Each option is focused on half of the duplex. If the agreement between the owners is not clear it is not the city’s responsibility to figure it out. All we care about is the total for the housing units provided. The argument Jim made earlier resonated with me. Payment would have been for a higher amount at 1.2. It seems reasonable the affordable housing is for a duplex not for one side of the duplex. Mr. Conklin said the way I look at it is the approval says single family or duplex, if you build a duplex the ADU just needs to be bigger. Councilman Myrin said it comes down to interpretation. Councilman Frisch said he firmly believe this ADU was built to honor both sides and two units of an ADU. My issue is not a lack of clarity of the mitigation. It is not an accident it is twice the size to mitigate for. I think we made some mistakes in the wording of the ordinance and some type of advice was offered. I think we need to own up to that. Regardless of how this plays out do you see clarifying this. Ms. Garrow said there is a work session in January and staff can include this if council wishes. Councilman Myrin moved to adopt Resolution #179, Series of 2017 to affirm the interpretation; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, no; Myrin, yes; Hauenstein, no; Mayor Skadron, yes. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017 9 Two to two vote. Mr. True said unless someone wants to change position you have to continue this. Mayor Skadron said he thinks we should continue this. If you want to work on a third option in the meantime. Mayor Skadron moved to continue Resolution #178, Series of 2017 to January 8, 2018; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #178, SERIES OF 2017 – 834 W Hallam St – Fee Waiver Request Justin Barker, community development, said this is a request for several fee waivers for a project that has already been approved. They are close to submitting for a building permit. The project is 100 percent affordable housing. There is a historic structure on site. The proposal includes restoration of that and two new structures. Fees requested waived include impact, TDM and air quality and parks. They total just around 24,000 dollars. There are no review criteria for waivers of these fees. Staff provided a number of examples of waivers in the past. For the most part they have not been granted. Other fees include planning review fee of $1,300 and building permit fees. The estimation is based on project valuation and are right around 120,000 of fees asked to be waived. Staff recommends if council is interested in reducing fees to follow the non-profit waiver. Waiving planning application fees and permit fees top out at 15,000 dollars. Patrick Rawley, Stan Clauson associates, with Matt Brown. Under the code the only criteria is, is it a 100 percent affordable housing project. This has been a very lengthy approval process stretching back to March 2015. There have been a number of limitations. We started out with 25 beds and are now down to 18. They are rental units per APCHA request. Remodeling the historic cabin is a unique expense. The waiver is in the code and an opportunity for council to show their value of affordable housing. Matt is a local guy here developing. Mr. Brown said as a developer I understand the expenses and risks of development. I am approaching my fourth year of ownership of the property. It was always intended for it to be affordable housing. I was not expecting the amount of time it took to get here. We are now ready to submit for a building permit. Permit fees have grown exponentially since we started. A large part of the incentive for this type of project is fee in lieu but it has not keep up with other costs of the project. Another major cost has been the ongoing cost of carrying the property. Councilman Myrin said you said the fees increased significantly. Do you know what the fees would have been. Ms. Garrow said the fees haven’t changed on the permit side. They are based off of valuation. She is not sure what they might have been. Councilman Frisch asked what is the comment about non-profit. Mr. Barker said last year a fee structure was created for the non-profit applications. For permits it is a tiered structure. There is a template in place we could follow. Ms. Garrow said as far as we can tell other affordable housing projects have not had a fee reduction on the permit side. Last year we had a request for the Historical Society which prompted the non-profit structure. Councilman Hauenstein said he is appreciative of your efforts in building affordable housing. He thinks that AH/work force hosing has impacts on society, school district, fire and water. As one of the members of the public we have to look at the whole cost of development. Work force housing, the fees should be charged. He is not in support of waiving them. We demonstrated it on 455, 502 and Main St. I think it should be the policy of council that we don’t waive the fees even though I’m supportive of your effort. Mr. Rawley said they would be happy with any waiver and a waiver of the application fee would be helpful. He would like council to consider some portion of the waiver. Councilman Frisch said if someone shows up to start the process to build something is there a different path for free market or affordable housing. Mr. Barker said in terms of review process and fees it is the same. Councilman Frisch said his pitch with the historic society was there should be a set fee so we don’t have to pick how valuable a non-profit is. It is a little funny if two applications show up, one with the Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 18, 2017 10 community being desperate for, it seems crazy we are not trying to do something to help the process. There is a policy discussion and I am definitely for some kind of path whether it be financial or not. Would I be willing to start that now. My hope is council and staff can come up with a policy for affordable housing. We had the discussion about 517 and 802 and if we do something for Matt we held ourselves to a higher power. The view up here was we were shifting funds between ourselves. Are you thinking the 50 percent could be a possible outcome. Mr. Barker said it is an existing model that is not unreasonable. The permit fees cap out at 15,000. In terms of impact fees there is no model on reducing those fees other that what has been requested in the past. Ms. Garrow said there is also the permit review. There is no policy looking at the fee schedule. There is no ability for the Community Development director or city manager to reduce those fees. We can provide an expedited path for permit review. Caution that if you decide to move forward with a reduction you will see other affordable housing developers in here asking for the same treatment. Councilman Frisch said his direction would be to hold off on the waiver until a broader policy discussion but if there is a reduction we apply it to this application. Ms. Garrow said we would ask that for any application in the process. Councilman Frisch said there should be a fee brake but he wants a broader discussion. He would like them to be grandfathered. Mayor Skadron said what component of the overall development is the historic cabin. Mr. Rawley replied 1,100 square feet out of 5,400 square feet of FAR. Mayor Skadron said generally I don’t subscribe to fee waivers. I think Wards position is the right one. I find the inclusion of the historic cabin compelling. Through AspenModern we are regularly in the discussion of fee waivers. Should we consider the inclusion of the historic structure. Ms. Garrow said this is a designated structure through the Victorian program. One of the benefits is a waiver of certain impact fees. That calculation is for the non- historic portion. Mayor Skadron said that was going to be my proposal. He is not hearing support for the fee waivers. Mr. Brown said I understand that and knew it was a possibility coming in. It is a tough situation in terms of how much you incentivize to build these and that is for you to determine. From our standpoint we don’t pay anything less for development. It is the same as if building commercial or any entity. Councilman Myrin said he thinks there are some policy discussions that council should have going forward. We need to make the code and fees align with our policies. Councilman Frisch said either we wing this or save it for a policy discussion and grandfather them in. I think that is the best thing to do. Mr. Rawley asked for the 1,300 dollar fee waived. Councilman Myrin said he would support that. Councilman Hauenstein said he is not sure how we deny the resolution but approve the waiver. Ms. Garrow said we would have to amend the resolution to include the waiver of 1,300 and no other. Councilman Myrin moved to adopt Resolution #178, Series of 2017 with the 1,300 dollar waiver only; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried At 8:40 p.m.; Councilman Hauenstein moved to adjourn; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning, City Clerk