A public-private partnership that would replace a couple of ramshackle apartment buildings in Aspen’s east end with a mix of free-market and affordable housing still needs a lot of work, Aspen City Council said Monday night.
The council stopped short of granting conceptual approval for a project called Aspen Walk when at least three of the council members said they weren’t prepared to vote yes. Major concerns include the size and mass of the redevelopment, whether there should be a mix of rental and for-sale employee units, and parking.
Public comment on the project was mixed.
The council did vote to give the developers one more shot and come back with a refined conceptual plan on Sept. 29.
Private investors, partnering with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, are proposing a total of 40 residential units in one 46,000-square-foot building. The mix would include 24 affordable housing units and 14 free-market units, plus 53 parking spaces in an underground garage. The housing authority has secured a $750,000 commitment from the owners to use toward relocating tenants during the construction process.
Existing structures consist of 11 affordable housing units at 414 Park Circle that are geared toward lower-income workers and 14 free-market units at 404 Park Ave. that serve as de facto affordable housing because of reasonable rents there.
Some of the strongest objections were to the size and mass of the project.
“For my taste this is Limelight East,” said Councilman Steve Skadron, who noted that in the past he has supported density in affordable housing and voted against affordable housing that wasn’t dense enough. “It will alter the character of the neighborhood. It contradicts the Aspen Area Community Plan that housing should be compatible with the neighborhood.”
Mayor Mick Ireland suggested that the free-market units should be reduced in size or number to deal with the mass, and lamented that proposed developments these days tend to have the largest possible size free-market units and the employee housing then gets squeezed.
“I’m disturbed that the planning standard we’ve seemed to adopt is the whole neighborhood is going to be giant so that’s what we have to go with,” said Ireland.
Two council members suggested that the city might also participate financially, perhaps by buying down some units, if that would “make it fit,” said Ireland.
The 24 affordable housing units would total about 10,000 square feet of livable area — which is slightly more than the existing amount of true affordable housing — and the 14 free-market units would take up more than 33,000 square feet.
There was some debate about the parking, which would give each free-market unit two parking spaces and each employee-housing unit one space. Some suggested it wasn’t adequate while others called for a reduction or preference being given to owners without vehicles. The general consensus moving forward was to allow one space per unit, regardless of the type, and figure out a fair way to allocate the remaining spaces, plus provide alternative transportation options.
Whether two buildings which currently house all rental units should be replaced by a for-sale employee housing project was also a subject of debate. The housing authority and its board recommended an entirely for-sale project because “renters do not have the commitment to their unit as much as the owner does and their behavior is often an order of magnitude different and frequently incompatible,” according to a memo from the housing office.
“I think it’s a very big mistake to get rid of rental housing at this time,” said Jackie Kasabach, who lives on King Street. Responding to a claim that the housing could address the school district’s problem of having new teachers quit before they start, Kasabach pointed out that Aspen Walk wouldn’t help in those cases because newcomers don’t qualify for for-sale housing.
Councilman Steve Skadron was the only council member to definitely state his preference to include a mix of rental and for-sale units in the affordable housing.
Both housing director Tom McCabe and Tom Klassen, who represents the investors, argued that the deal on the table was the best deal possible given the current economic climate. Investors secured the terms of their loans late last year, explained Klassen, and “since then the market for this has vaporized. Condominiums are a bad word. That financing is not available today.”
Councilman J.E. DeVilbiss challenged the development partners’ claim that financially it wouldn’t work any other way. He commented that the Limelight project was sold on the basis that it couldn’t be any different because of finances.
“I’m just not one to accept those sorts of assertions without the ability to examine them,” said DeVilbiss. “The issue of finance is not in the code but once it’s injected by applicants it’s something the city is obligated to consider.”
Perhaps the most passionate argument for the project came from a resident of 414 Park Ave., who said she was looking forward to the opportunity of buying her own place in town. But she cautioned that the housing should be as livable as possible, noting that when the height of the building was reduced by 4 feet it put some of the housing into subgrade space.
“I want livable space, I want light, I want to fill up my bathtub with hot water, which I can’t do now,” said Dion Milliman of 414 Park Ave.
Milliman also cautioned against larger, more expensive units, noting that most of the existing tenants are single people who might not be able to afford or qualify for a larger unit. On that note, she said that most of her neighbors were fine with having just one parking space.
As for the size of the project, while “the mass of the project is amazing to me, I think it’s too big but there are these compromises we’re going to have to make.”
lutz@aspendailynews.com
