Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20180416 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION April 16, 2018 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Human Services Grants Update II. Com Dev Workplan III. SPECIAL MEETING For the purpose of Executive Session C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a)The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; (b)Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions; (e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, strategy for negotiations, and instructing negotiators - related to property negotiations and litigation. P1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Karen Harrington, Director of Quality THROUGH: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: March 16, 2018 MEETING DATE: April 16, 2018 RE: Options for City Human Services Grant-making, Part 2 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is seeking decisions regarding the following for the Health and Human Services (HHS) Grant program: · Grant alignment: Should we focus the HHS grant dollars on specific needs? If so, which and why? · Grant regionality: Should a proportion of grantee funds be allocated to clients that live or work in Aspen? PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On September 26, 2017, the Council reviewed and discussed options for Human Services Grant focus areas, based on gaps identified in the Sustainability Report. Council directed staff to look more closely at the following as potential grant focus areas: Programs to reduce suicide rates Programs to address gaps in 3rd grade reading proficiency Early prevention programs to reduce harmful behaviors in teens Programs to address needs associated with homeless persons Housing programs Council also asked staff to provide options regarding other aspects of HHS grants management, including: · Improve granting efficiency: Should we shift to multiple year grants, and if so how and to what extent? · Enhance grant accountability: How can we collect better evidence of the impact of our grants? · Improve grant alignment: Should we focus the HHS grant dollars on specific needs? If so, which? · Establish appropriate grant regionality: Should a proportion of grantee funds be allocated to clients that live or work in Aspen? On February 20, 2018, the Council considered the first two goals. Council decided to allow for two-year grants to increase grant efficiency. In addition, Council determined to wait on any decision regarding requiring additional evidence of grant impacts. Council discussed, but made no decision, on whether or how to approach discussion of these goals for all City grant programs. This memo focuses on the last two goals: · Improve grant alignment: Should we focus the HHS grant dollars on specific needs? If so, which? · Establish appropriate grant regionality: Should a proportion of grantee funds be allocated to clients that live or work in Aspen? P2 I. 2 DISCUSSION Alignment of HHS grants with City priorities Mental health and substance abuse (including suicide rates): Assuming that dollars are a proxy indicator of our grant focus, then Health and Well-being is the primary current funding focus. Within Health and Well-being, the primary focus is mental health and substance abuse. The largest single grant is for the Detox Center ($123,165), which is controlled under an IGA. In late 2017, the City entered an IGA for mental health and substance abuse services. The City has committed an additional $70,500 of the HHS grant funds to provide more coordinated and effective mental health and substance abuse services. This alignment is in keeping with focus areas within both the Sustainability Report and the AACP. Staff recommends that Council’s focus on reducing the suicide rate continue, with suicide prevention to be further incorporated into existing mental health and substance abuse IGAs. Community and family connections appears to be a reasonable additional focus area for Council consideration. Grants for programs that get at the root causes of third-grade reading score problems and an increased likelihood of risky behaviors in teens would further align the grants with City priorities and identified gaps. Stakeholders have indicated that the greatest need related to 3rd grade reading proficiency isn’t direct reading- related services, but is support of families more broadly. This is because challenges at home are a primary cause of what subsequently shows up as problems with reading proficiency. Similarly, reducing harmful behaviors in teens can also be impacted via family supports. Staff recommends that Council place an enhanced focus on grants that fall into the category of community and family connections. This can be accomplished simply by using this topical area as a “first filter” – a first consideration – in making grant decisions. This would be a “soft” requirement rather than a “hard” requirement, leaving grant reviewers free to consider other bases for their decision-making should other priorities or needs emerge. Housing and education services per se are not currently a focus of HHS grants. However, substantial City funds from other programs and sources (such as APCHA) support housing and education outside of the grants program. Staff recommend that affordable housing, support for additional homeless facilities, and school education programs continue to be addressed via conversations outside of the HHS grants. The County has brought up concerns regarding needs for emergency housing, supportive housing, and transitional housing. While acknowledging that these topics merit attention, staff recommends that the conversation and any funding for these housing issues also be addressed outside the HHS grant program. Should Council want to discuss the forces for and against the use of focus areas further, the items in Table 1 in Attachment A provide a starting place, and are based on stakeholder input. Alignment of HHS funds with geographic priorities At this time, staff does not have specific information on the numbers or proportion of clients living or working in Aspen and served by grantees. However, grantees who serve more than just the City of Aspen per se are the norm. No guideline currently exists regarding what proportion of a grantee’s funds should be geared toward services to those who live or work within the City. A meeting and survey of POD stakeholders, however, acknowledges that it would be reasonable to have such a guideline in place. Staff recommends, again as a “first filter”, that Council support the use of a guideline that 60% of a grant recipient’s anticipated clients either work or live in Aspen. P3 I. 3 Should Council wish to discuss the pros and cons of using a geographic focus, Table 2 in Attachment B provides insights from stakeholder conversations and a stakeholder survey. RECOMMENDATIONS: Alignment of HHS grants with City priorities: 1. Enhance a focus on reducing suicides via existing IGAs on mental health and substance abuse 2. Incorporate a new non-binding “first filter” focus area (Community and Family Connections) to address root causes of gaps associated with reading scores and to reduce risky teen behaviors 3. Drop housing and direct education services as focus areas for the HHS grants. Address these instead through other existing programs. Alignment of HHS grants with geographic priorities: 1. Support the use of a new non-binding “first filter” guideline of 60% of service recipients to be located within or working within Aspen FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: No requests for additional social services funding are being made. Recommendation are for how best to administer the current HHS grant program ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: These recommendations focus on social sustainability. They are not anticipated to influence environmental impacts. ALTERNATIVES: Council could elect to forego or modify the ideas presented here. PROPOSED MOTION: No motion is proposed; however, Council is requested to provide guidance or decisions regarding administrative changes to the HHS grant program in the areas of grant longevity and assessment of grant success. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ________________________ ________________________ P4 I. 4 Attachment A Table1: Key Forces For and Against Using “First Filter” Focus Areas Forces FOR Focus Areas Forces AGAINST Focus Areas · Allows city to intentionally align funding with stated priorities · Provides clarity regarding why the city is providing funding · Involves identifying and addressing (ideally through data) the greatest needs · Bigger impact, greater chance of achieving priority goals and outcomes · Moves community jointly and strategically forward in one or more key areas (supports collective efforts) · May reduce the number of grants that need to be administered or otherwise simplify administration · Money goes further to resolve a problem · Less “pasta on the wall” · Shows accountability to taxpayers by focusing funds where most appropriate · Some problems may not be fully solvable, even with more funding (persistent baseline need) · Having a diversity of services may be more effective in maintaining a vibrant community · The relatively modest amount of city funds may limit its ability to focus successfully · Need to be careful not to have “blinders” on regarding current and emerging needs · May exclude some organizations previously funded, who may be deserving and who provide important niche services so a smaller clientele base · May narrow overall community support · Focus areas themselves may be contentious · If focus areas change too frequently, it could result in more system disruption and lower impacts · Changes at the federal level may impact where we need to focus · P5 I. 5 Attachment B Table 2: Key Forces For and Against Weighting Applicants Based on Aspen-centric Services Forces FOR an Aspen-centric Preference Forces AGAINST an Aspen-centric Preference · Equity - funds generated in Aspen are used by those who directly participate in the Aspen economy, either by living or working here · It is fair on its face, providing a clear link between the source of funds and who benefits · Recognizes that Aspen cannot take care of the entire valley · Helps Aspen thrive, and taking care of Aspen has positive secondary impacts on the rest of the valley (A strong Aspen contributes substantially to a strong valley) · We are a connected region: Aspen relies on a workforce and contributions from throughout the valley · Supporting the valley more broadly helps maintain a sense of valley community and cohesion · Low income families, who may be more in need of services, are less likely to live in Aspen · Funds spent down-valley trickle up: o A larger, better-equipped workforce o Stronger families of workers o Greater worker retention o Greater safety o Support for those in the service industry · Can be difficult to track information on where people live and/or work · Overall impact may be greater with a broader geographic focus than Aspen only P6 I. Com Dev Work Program Memo – April 16, 2018 Page 1 of 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official MEETING DATE: April 16, 2018 RE: Community Development Department Work Program Update REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests City Council identify any work program items that should be a priority for 2019 and added to the Community Development Department Work Program. SUMMARY: This memo outlines the Community Development Department’s current work program, as well as other priorities previously identified by City Council, P&Z, HPC, and staff. Many of these priorities are carried forward from previous work program discussions. In addition to the projects outlined below, staff continues to focus on regular work items, such as building permits, current land use caseload, and providing walk-in services. At this time, there are approximately 150 permits waiting for review, over 25 land use cases that are in or have been pre-apped by staff, and nearly 20 major policy or code amendment items. Council may wish to re-evaluate the priorities, but based on the department’s staffing levels and current budget capacity, realistically the department cannot add more than one or two new work program items without deleting others. CURRENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM ITEMS: Each item below lists the primary staff contact for the project, as well as the AACP Policies the work implements. The items have been organized into those that are anticipated for completion by the end of 2018 and those that are expected to continue into 2019 or beyond. Anticipated for completion in 2018: A. Permit Improvements: 1. Electronic Permitting System Implementation. The Community Development Department has worked with Vertiba, a contractor for the software system BasicGov, for the last year to develop a new permitting and data management system. That system is in the final construction phase, and staff expects that, following additional beta tests and revisions, that system will be implemented this summer. This is a high priority item for the department as the project affects every Community Development staff member, other City departments, and external customers. Staff has invested significant staff time and resources into the implementation of this project, and it represents the achievement of an important departmental and City goal. Staff: All (Primary points of contact: Jessica Garrow, Karen Harrington, Rebecca Wallace). AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.1 & 2. P7 II. Com Dev Work Program Memo – April 16, 2018 Page 2 of 9 2. Historic Preservation Permit Improvements. The Planning Department is currently working with a consultant to develop more specific standards for the submittal of Historic Preservation Land Use applications. This work is a result of the fine imposed on a project that removed historic material contrary to HPC approvals. The work includes standardized exhibits and descriptions of preservation techniques to help ensure that future preservation projects have clearly defined preservation processes and techniques. Staff is currently meeting with architects, contractors, and structural engineers to obtain feedback and will consult with HPC in May. Staff anticipates receiving final recommendations from the consultant by August and will shortly thereafter inform Council of the recommendations and how they will be implemented. Staff: Amy Simon, Sarah Yoon, Stephen Kanipe. AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.1 & 2. 3. Model Zoning Submission. Community Development has specific standards for the content of Land Use Permit application and Building Permit application submissions. These standards provide guidance to applicants as to the required content of permit applications and proper depiction of that content in plan sets. The items required for Zoning Compliance Review are specified on the Model Zoning Submission, which is a series of 24x36 inch architectural sheets. That document is outdated and does not include information and formatting reflecting current code requirements or building techniques. This is an important item that requires coordination with the permit software update and recent Land Use Code amendments. Staff: Jennifer Phelan, Bob Narracci, Denis Murray. AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.1 & 2. 4. Expedited Tenant Finish Permitting Process. The Community Development Department has implemented a pilot program to assist minor tenant finish permits through the process. An expedited review process ensures that more minor tenant finish applications are not placed in the queue behind large permits that require more significant review time. This can provide a significant benefit to business owners, because it can shorten the time required to start or reopen a business in the City. Staff will update Council on this item in the fall for discussion. Staff: Stephen Kanipe and Denis Murray. AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.1 & 2. B. Land Use Code Updates: 5. Miscellaneous Code Amendments. Throughout the year, staff keeps a “redline” version of the code that identifies areas of the code that are confusing, contradictory, or do not address emerging issues. These primarily focus is on the calculations and measurement section of the code – how buildings, fences, etc. are measured for height, floor area, setbacks, etc. The most recent update was completed at the end of 2014. Staff is working with a focus group comprised of architects and designers to discuss specific topics for amendment and anticipates bringing a code amendment forward this summer. Council supported and passed a Policy Resolution in February 2018 in support of this amendment, which staff is using to establish the scope and contents of this code amendment. Many of these changes are needed to clarify or solidify changes made during the moratorium. For instance, the definition of demolition and the determination of natural versus finished grade should be examined and updated to account for newer building designs and land use trends. These amendments also include the parking and mobility code section to clean up incorrect or confusing language and update the multi-family and lodge zone districts requirements, which were not covered during the moratorium. Staff P8 II. Com Dev Work Program Memo – April 16, 2018 Page 3 of 9 anticipates completion of this work in the fall of 2018. Staff: Phillip Supino and Justin Barker. AACP: Managing Growth Policy III.1, VIII.1 & 2. 6. Historic Preservation Benefits. As one way to encourage good preservation practices, there are several benefits that may be granted to historic properties as part of a land use approval. Since new historic design guidelines were adopted in 2015, HPC and Council have expressed concerns with the size of additions proposed to historic structures and a desire to meaningfully address the problem. At a work session discussion on the benefits in January, Council directed staff to conduct public outreach regarding the benefits and to return with a policy resolution outlining proposed amendments. This outreach is ongoing. Staff anticipates being able to bring a policy resolution to Council for consideration on May 14th, with public hearings on specific ordinance language in June. Staff: Amy Simon and Sarah Yoon. AACP: Historic Preservation Policy II. 1- 3. 7. Housing Credit Program updates. In recent years, multiple applications for new affordable housing credits have been made with the Community Development Department. These include proposed rental and sales projects, and a mix of categories, which has some impacts on the ability for buyers to achieve conventional financing. It may be appropriate to complete amendments to either the land use code or the APCHA guidelines to address this and other emerging issues. This was discussed with Council at a work session in January with a scheduled follow-up on May 21st. With Council direction, work on this could be completed in-house with close coordination with APCHA and the City Manager’s Office. Staff anticipates amendments would take 4-12 months, depending on if the amendments are to the land use code or the APCHA guidelines. Staff: Jessica Garrow, Ben Anderson, and Mike Kosdrosky. AACP: Managing Growth Policy VII.2; Housing I.2, II.5, III.2, IV.5, V.1. C. Other Items: 8. Lift 1A Location Study. The City and property owners adjacent to Lift 1A are engaged in a study (phase 2) to determine the optimal future replacement location of Lift 1A relative to approved and proposed developments in the area. The study looks at four scenarios: bringing the loading platform just north of Gilbert Street, bringing the loading platform just north of the existing Lift One bull wheel, adding a mid-station scenario, and bringing the loading platform as far down the mountain as possible. As part of the project’s scope, the history and significance of the original Lift 1 will be evaluated. Staff anticipates the study will be finalized in early May and will be followed by a council work session on May 15th for final direction. Depending on the result of the study and direction provided by the Council, there may changes necessary to Willoughby Park, the entitled Lift One Lodge, and the proposed Gorsuch Haus to accommodate a new loading platform further down the mountain. Potentially, multiple projects will require final design and land use reviews. This is a high priority item for the department and will likely be the primary focus for Council this summer. Staff: Jennifer Phelan. AACP: Managing Growth Policy IV.3. 9. Building Permit / Address File Scanning. The Community Development Department is working with a Denver-based vendor to convert all building files to electronic format. Approximately 90% of the files have been digitized, and staff from both Community P9 II. Com Dev Work Program Memo – April 16, 2018 Page 4 of 9 Development, IT, and the Clerk’s Office, is currently working on quality control, and creating a usable and searchable file management system to enable easier use by staff and the public. The project is anticipated to be completed around the end of the year. Staff: Rebecca Wallace, Bonnie Muhigirwa. AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.1 & 2. 10. Temporary Tents. City Council has requested a work session to review the regulations regarding temporary tents on private property. This work session is tentatively scheduled in June, and depending on direction at that time, staff anticipates being able to complete code amendments by the end of the year. Staff: Garrett Larimer. AACP: Aspen Idea Policy I.3, Managing Growth V.3. Expected to continue beyond 2018: 11. Uphill Economy (Council Goal #3). One of City Council’s Goals focuses on working with strategic partners to identify priority implementation items from the Uphill Economic Plan. Implementation of this goal is two-fold: the creation of an Uphill Recreation Plan and work on economic diversification. Staff expects an RFP for the Recreation Plan to be released later this spring. The Rec Plan is a traditional planning process to inventory existing Uphill infrastructure and opportunities, work with stakeholders to assess opportunities and constraints, and the development of policies that support the Uphill Economy. The Rec Plan will include policies and outline objectives to support the City’s efforts to create a new entrepreneurial ecosystem and promote the Uphill Economy at the local, regional, and state level. The economic diversification efforts will focus on implementing an uphill symposium and educational event, continuing support of weekly uphill meet-ups, the 18/19 Uphill Ascent, and targeted efforts with companies to locate to the region. Staff: Jessica Garrow, Phillip Supino, Mitch Osur, and Nancy Lesley. AACP: Aspen Idea Policy I.3-4; Managing Growth Policy I.4. 12. Commercial Vitality (Council Goal #5). One of City Council’s Goals focuses on ensuring Aspen’s Commercial areas attract and retain vibrant and vital businesses. Some of the work on the Uphill Economy Goal supports this. In the first year, city staff has focused on existing city- owned commercial spaces, including the Wheeler restaurant space, as well as potential options for the Cooper Street Pier space. The owners of the former Cooper Street Pier space have encountered difficulty in securing a tenant to occupy the space. Staff has been meeting with the representatives to discuss potential options moving forward. Pursuing a resolution to this issue would support Council’s goals regarding affordable and local serving commercial. It may also provide a framework for the pursuit of other solutions related to those policy goals. Additionally, staff has begun researching communities that address vacant storefronts, and expects to be able to present the findings to Council later this fall. If Council desires additional work on this goal, some potential options are listed later in this memo under AACP-Coordination Process. Staff: Jessica Garrow, Justin Barker, Scott Miller. AACP: Aspen Idea Policy I.3-4; Managing Growth Policy I.4, V.1-2. 13. Small Lodge Preservation Program. In 2015, the City adopted a Small Lodge Preservation Program intended to assist small lodges in continuing to operate. In 2016, two fractional lodges joined the program, and five (5) lodges applied for and received grants through the energy efficiency program. In 2017, four lodges received permit fee reductions for improvements to P10 II. Com Dev Work Program Memo – April 16, 2018 Page 5 of 9 their structures. Additionally, seven lodges took advantage of the Energy Efficiency program, leveraging approximately $92,600 of City and CORE funds to make efficiency upgrades to their buildings. So far in 2018, four lodges have been granted approximately $38,800 for efficiency upgrades. The Hotel Aspen is currently working toward submission of a building permit, which will likely take advantage of permit fee reductions. Staff is working with member lodges to utilize the other benefits in the program and anticipates lodges will continue to use the energy efficiency grants and building permit fee reduction benefits. This program is in effect until June 2020. Due to the success of this program and its popularity with member lodges, staff is requesting Council input on whether there is interest in extending the program beyond 2020. Staff: Phillip Supino. AACP: Managing Growth Policies IV.1-4. 14. Historic Property Inventorying. The City is required to periodically update the official inventory of historic properties with updates pictures and technical analysis. No changes to which properties are designated is part of this effort. This update is a requirement to maintain the city’s Certified Local Government (CLG) status with the state. Staff is currently investigating the state requirements for historic surveys and will likely issue an RFP for a consultant to undertake a re-survey of about 100 historic properties. Staff: Amy Simon. AACP: Historic Preservation Policies I.1-2 and III.1. 15. Permit Improvements Group. The Community Development and Engineering Departments are currently working with a consultant and a group of customers to identify areas to improve services, the clarity of the overall development process, and to identify areas to provide clearer on-going customer feedback by using Lean Six Sigma techniques. This work is on-going, with some expected deliverables in late 2018, and continuing work into 2019 and potentially beyond. Staff: Jessica Garrow, Rebecca Wallace, Stephen Kanipe, Mike Metheny, Justin Forman and Trish Aragon. AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.1 & 2. 16. Aspen Mobility Lab (Council Goal #4). The City is exploring a significant mobility experiment for summer 2019. There are a number of departments working together on this goal, including the Community Development Department. The inter-departmental team is focusing on potential test projects to demonstrate longer-term changes that could be implemented to improve connectivity, mobility, and the downtown experience. Staff: Jessica Garrow and Phillip Supino. AACP: Transportation Policies 1 and 2. 17. Pedestrian Malls Project (Council Goal #9). The City, led by the Parks and Asset Departments, is working on a master plan for the Pedestrian Malls. There are a number of departments working together on this goal, including the Community Development Department. Staff: Jessica Garrow and Amy Simon. AACP: Historic Preservation Policy III.1, Parks/Open Space/Trails Policy V.1, Transportation Policy II.3. 18. Wayfinding Project. The City, led by the Engineering and Parks Departments, is working on a wayfinding plan that implements some of the items in the City's Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. The Community Development Department is assisting in this effort. Staff: Jessica Garrow and Justin Barker. AACP: Managing Growth I.3, Historic Preservation Policy III.1, Parks/Open Space/Trails Policy V.1, Transportation Policy II.3. P11 II. Com Dev Work Program Memo – April 16, 2018 Page 6 of 9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF SUGGESTIONS: Below is a list of the items staff suggests for discussion as potential additions to the department’s work program. At this time, staff suggest items 1 through 4 be added to the 2019 work program. 1. Fee-in-Lieu Update. At a work session in January, Council expressed an interest in analyzing the fee-in-lieu option for affordable housing mitigation more comprehensively in 2019. This project would be an extension of the discussions held regarding commercial fee-in-lieu during the moratorium. It would also be in response to questions from Council regarding the relationship between commercial and residential fee-in-lieu rates, HP benefits, ADU mitigation, and the effect of affordable housing fees on development trends. The project may include an analysis of fees for the commercial and residential sectors, as well as the employment generation rate study that underpins the affordable housing fee structure. This would require consultant assistance at a cost of approximately $35,000 and would require 12 months to complete. Staff: Phillip Supino. AACP: Managing Growth Policies VII.1-2; Housing Policies I.2, II.5, III.1-2, IV.3. 2. Community Development Fee Update. The Community Development fee structure has not been updated since 2010. These fees include land use review, permit review, and building permit fees, but do not include Impact Fees. Staff is interested in a comprehensive analysis of the fee structure in 2019 to update the fees for 2020. In the interim, minor updates are scheduled for discussion later this summer, but will not include a wholesale evaluation of the fee structure. Staff anticipates that the process would require consultant assistance at a cost of approximately $75,000 and would take about 6-8 months to complete. Staff: Jessica Garrow, Stephen Kanipe, and Rebecca Wallace. AACP: Managing Growth Policy I.2. 3. Affordable Housing Zone District. Council and staff are interested in pursuing either updates to the existing Affordable Housing/Planned Development zone district or the creation of a new affordable housing zone district. Staff anticipates the process could be completed without consultant assistance and would take approximately 4 to 6 months. Staff: Phillip Supino and Justin Barker. AACP: Housing Policies II.1-3, III.2, VI.2 & 5. 4. Multi-family Replacement Updates. The Land Use Code requires the demolition, conversion, or combination of multi-family residential units to provide mitigation for the loss of any units through a variety of options. These mitigation options have not been updated for several years. Staff is interested in a comprehensive analysis of these mitigation options to ensure the desired outcomes of the community are being met through the program. It is expected that this analysis would require consultant assistance at a cost of $10,000 and would take about 6 to 8 months to complete. Staff: Jessica Garrow AACP: Managing Growth Policy VII.1-2; Housing Policy II.1, IV.3. 5. Future Land Use Map and Annexation Policy. In the last few years, the city has received annexation requests for county parcels located adjacent to the city boundary. Additionally, the Water Department receives service requests from properties outside of the city boundary, where the city does not have planning jurisdiction. While the Aspen Area Community Plan provides general policy guidance it is not a future land use map. Staff recommends a future land use map and more specific annexation policy be created to assist in the evaluation of future annexation and service requests. In addition, the city has an existing annexation plan, but it focuses on the legal process for annexation, rather than broader policies that should guide decisions on annexation. Creation of a P12 II. Com Dev Work Program Memo – April 16, 2018 Page 7 of 9 future land use map and annexation policy would require consultant assistance and community outreach, as well as coordination with other department, including Water and the City Attorney. Staff anticipates that the planning and mapping portions of this effort would cost $50,000 and would take 10 to 12 months to complete. Depending on the level of coordination and work needed related to water service, temporary help may be required as well. Staff: Jessica Garrow and Phillip Supino. AACP: Managing Growth Policy II.1 & 2; West of Castle Creek Policy I.1, II.1. 6. Expedited Energy Efficiency Permit Process. The Community Development Department is interested in the development of an expedited review process for energy efficiency permits. It would support the City’s energy efficiency and sustainability policies, as well as assist property owners in complying with energy code requirements. This expedited process would apply only to permits required for energy efficiency improvements like solar panel installation or mechanical system upgrades. Like the tenant finish process described above, it will be essential to clearly define the types of activities eligible for the expedite process. Staff: Stephen Kanipe and Mike Metheny. AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.1 & 2; Environmental Stewardship I.1 &2, II.1-4, V.1-5. 7. Short-Term Rental Regulations. Short term rental regulations were adopted by the City in 2012 and have not been reviewed or updated since. In that time, the City has received one formal complaint about a short-term rental property, however a number of other unofficial complaints or inquiries have been made more recently. Given the increase in inquiries the city is receiving as well as the ongoing conversations with Air-BnB, it may be time to evaluate the program and make certain operation changes. For instance, the program does not allow single room rentals, but a quick internet search indicates these do occur. Staff: Phillip Supino. AACP: Managing Growth Policy IV.2, IV.3. ITEMS FROM THE AACP-LUC COORDINATION PROCESS: A significant take-away from the 2016-2017 AACP-LUC coordination process was the degree to which regulations in various areas effect development outcomes throughout the community. For example, changes to the parking regulations were designed to free lot area to achieve Council’s pedestrian amenity and second tier space goals. Use mix policies have ancillary benefits to economic sustainability and second tier space policies. The following is a list of the items identified during the moratorium as potential follow up programs or code amendments. The items have been divided into two categories: items that could be implemented under the second year of one of Council’s Goals (#5), and other AACP-LUC items. If Council desires this work to commence, other items in the work program will need to be removed. Council Goal #5: “Analyze opportunities to retain and attract small, local, and unique businesses to provide a balanced, diverse, and vital use mix supporting the community.” 1. Legacy Business Program. The Legacy Business Program was a concept put forward in the fall of 2016 to support essential and locally serving businesses. The idea is to provide government assistance to legacy businesses to assist in their sustainability throughout changing commercial market. Staff: Phillip Supino. 2. Essential Business Overlay Zone Standards. The Essential Business Overlay Zone (EBO) was adopted as part of Ordinance 30, 2016 to address Council’s use mix objectives. Council expressed P13 II. Com Dev Work Program Memo – April 16, 2018 Page 8 of 9 an interest in having additional discussions about additional features of the EBO as part of the Work Program. Staff: Phillip Supino. 3. Affordable Commercial. The goal of an affordable commercial space program would be to make available commercial space to tenants meeting certain criteria to help achieve Council’s use mix and economic sustainability goals. There is not currently a model for such a program, and it has been discussed only theoretically. A public-private partnership between the City and local interest groups could be an effective option to support an affordable commercial program leveraging City assets with outside resources and capacity. Staff: Phillip Supino. 4. Cooper Street Pier Space. The owners of the former Cooper Street Pier space have encountered difficulty in securing a tenant to occupy the space. Staff has been meeting with the representatives to discuss potential options moving forward. Pursuing a resolution to this issue would support Council’s goals regarding affordable and local serving commercial. It may also provide a framework for the pursuit of other solutions related to those policy goals. Staff: Justin Barker 5. Commercial Vacancy Requirements. Council has expressed interest in exploring methods to counter commercial storefronts that remain vacant for extended periods of time. Staff has performed preliminary research into options that other communities have implemented related to this issue. Staff: Justin Barker Other AACP-LUC items: 6. Live-Work Residential Standards: Live-work residential units were a focus of some discussion regarding the EBO, SCI zone, use mix and affordable housing priorities. The City does not currently allow live-work units, as there is fear about the ability to control either the residential or commercial nature and occupancy of such units. Staff: Phillip Supino. 7. Parking Cash-in-Lieu Rate. One outcome of the update to the parking section of the Land Use Code during the AACP-LUC process was the determination by the consultant team that the cash-in- lieu of parking fee structure may require revision. Such a study would be conducted over 4 to 6 months. Staff: Phillip Supino. 8. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Update. Following Council’s direction to staff to incorporate the City’s parking, transportation and mobility policies into the new parking regulations, the TIA has become a central component of the new parking code. As such, improvements to the TIA would ensure that all those policy areas work in concert to achieve Council and community objectives. Depending on the scope of the update, the project may take 6 to 9 months. Staff: Community Development, Transportation, and Engineering. 9. Affordable Housing “Transfer” Amendment. During the AACP-LUC process, Council discussed a program to allow development in the CC and C-1 zones to ‘transfer’ their affordable housing requirement between sites in the zones. This would allow affordable housing to concentrate on certain sites, reducing potential conflicts with commercial uses in mixed-use buildings. Developing this program may take 4 to 6 months, including public outreach and collaboration with APCHA. Staff: Phillip Supino. P14 II. Com Dev Work Program Memo – April 16, 2018 Page 9 of 9 10. Resident-Occupied Housing “2.0”. A corollary to the discussions on affordable housing mitigation and live-work housing was the concept of “RO 2.0” standards. The idea was to develop new standards for RO housing, which is traditionally housing with a local residency requirement and no price cap. The policy and regulatory development process would require consultant assistance, collaboration with APCHA and 9 to 12 months, depending on the scope of the project. Staff: Phillip Supino. 11. Essential Public Facility Mitigation Rate. Presently, APCHA and P&Z collaborate to establish the mitigation rate for essential public facilities. Council has expressed interest in examining this policy and process. This policy review and subsequent code amendment process may take 6 to 9 months, including public outreach and coordination with APCHA. Staff: Phillip Supino. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The current Community Development work program has been budgeted for, or will be included in the department’s spring supplemental requests based on past Council direction. Additional monies may be needed if Council is interested in jump-starting or moving more quickly on any of the current items. Any additional work program items identified by City Council will require additional budget monies. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: AACP Policies and Work Program Table P15 II. Exhibit A ComDev Work Program check-in Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A – Potential New Work Program Items Relationship to AACP Policies Areas & Moratorium Discussions Aspen Idea Managing Growth for Community and Economic Sustainability West of Castle Creek Transportation Housing Parks, Recreation, Open Space, & Trails Environmental Stewardship Historic Preservation Lifelong Aspenite Moratorium Follow Up? Affordable Housing Fee-in-Lieu Com Dev Fee Update Affordable Housing Zone District Multi-family Replacement Updates Future Land Use Map & Annexation Policy Energy Efficiency Permit Process Short-Term Rental Regulations Legacy Business Program EBO Standards Affordable Commercial Cooper Street Pier Space Commercial Vacancy Requirements Live-Work Residential Parking CIL Rate Study TIA Update Affordable Housing Transfer RO 2.0 Public Facility Mitigation P16II.