Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20220215Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2022 Page 1 of 7 Chairperson McGovern called the regular Planning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting for February 1st, 2022 to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Ruth Carver, Sam Rose, Brittanie Rockhill, Spencer McKnight, Teraissa McGovern. Commissioners not in attendance: Scott Marcoux Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Planning Director Ben Anderson, Principal Long-Range Planner Jeff Barnhill, Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS None PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. McGovern requested Ms. Bonfils-Thibault’s name be corrected on page 1. Mr. Rose motioned to approve the minutes for January 18, 2022 and was seconded by Mr. McKnight. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; and Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of five (5) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARINGS None OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Johnson stated the meeting was properly noticed and notices were not necessary for the items on the agenda. Requests to Pay Fee-in-Lieu in Providing Affordable Housing Mitigation Recommendation to City Council Ms. McGovern then opened the item and turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Ben Anderson, Planner, reviewed the history of the Affordable Housing Certificates Program and the current challenges to those only requiring minimal mitigation. He then stated for the first time in the Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2022 Page 2 of 7 history of the program, there have been requests from applicants to pay the fee-in-lieu (FIL) above the 0.1 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) threshold as identified in the agenda packet. Staff has confirmed there are certificates that have not been extinguished, but the certificate holders have plans for the certificates and they are not available for others to use as mitigation. Staff has established a quarterly batch review process for projects to be considered because the projects have slightly over the 0.1 FTE mitigation that can be paid in cash by right. Mr. Anderson stated City Council will consider these requests on March 8th and is requesting P&Z provide their recommendation by approving the resolution provided in the agenda packet. Ms. McGovern asked if there were any questions for staff. Ms. Carver asked if the code could be changed to not allow credits to sit unused for an extended time. Mr. Anderson discussed potential solutions to provide more incentives or possibly use money from the city’s 150 fund to provide a guaranteed backing of the credits. He stated more analysis and discussion would be required before any changes are made to the program. Ms. Carver stated perhaps larger projects need to create more affordable housing onsite. Mr. Anderson responded there used to be an onsite requirement of affordable housing units but over time, the community moved away from the requirement. Ms. McGovern believes it is difficult for single family homeowners to offset their less than 1 FTE requirements. She believes the program is great in theory, but the reality is the larger developers sit on them. She would like to see a change in the process to incentivize on site or off site mitigation. Ms. McGovern then opened for commissioner deliberation. Mr. Rose supports staff’s recommendation since he feels there is a need for the batch approvals of FIL with the lack of credits available. Ms. Rockhill is not sure she understands the difference between a credit and a fee. She supports staff’s recommendation because she doesn’t feel there isn’t a mechanism now. Mr. Anderson noted historically there has been a calculation for the amount of money required to build housing for one FTE. The FIL is based on a category established by the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) and is the balance for the cost to build a unit and the rent or sale revenue that comes in from the unit. A credit can be purchased for mitigation and costs roughly the same as FIL. Mr. McKnight, Ms. Carver and Ms. McGovern agree with Mr. Rose. Mr. Rose motioned to approve Resolution #6, Series 2022 and was seconded by Mr. McKnight. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of five (5) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Ms. McGovern thanked Mr. Anderson. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2022 Page 3 of 7 Update on Residential Development and Short-Term Rental Moratorium Ms. McGovern then asked Mr. Anderson to proceed with the next item on the agenda. Mr. Anderson reviewed the background of the moratorium passed by City Council in December and the role of P&Z. He noted there has been local and national press covering the topic and the city has dedicated staff and consultants to work on it. They have started interviews already with staff, stakeholders in the development and real estate communities, and individuals dealing with short-term rentals. Public facing outreach activities will be scheduled for the first week in March including focus groups with the city’s review boards. He encouraged the P&Z members to participate as a commissioner as well as a member of the public. He also invited them to reach out to him individually if they prefer. Mr. Anderson stated once staff is prepared to propose policy changes, staff will be asking P&Z to weigh in on specific language in ordinances. He then displayed a number of slides used in discussions with City Council including how the moratorium happened, the problem statements identified out of Ordinance 27 establishing the moratorium, and the specific policy areas City Council wants staff to respond to towards the identified problem statements. He reiterated this is a time for P&Z to ask questions and there is no formal action required of P&Z at this time. Mr. Anderson displayed a slide showing issues identified in Ordinance 27, Series 2021 that led to the moratorium. He understands there may be different opinions regarding the mortarium from the community. In staff’s view, looking not only in Aspen, but looking at peer communities across the West, communities are struggling with the same issues and City Council wanted to respond to these issues. He said the community has been struggling with these issues for a long time and they have reached a different scale of intensity over the last couple of years. He then displayed a slide showing examples headlines of news stories on labor shortages, housing, short-term rentals, migration in the mountains, etc. The next side displayed included information regarding Aspen’s climate goals and commitments and what was happening in residential development in response to the goals. He stated residential development made up 33% of Aspen’s emissions in 2017. Also displayed was part of a Pitkin County report indicating homes greater than 5,000 SF in size demand more energy per square foot than smaller homes. Then he displayed some graphics identifying existing conditions including a table showing the growth management allotment system is not really being utilized even with the amount of development occurring, a heat map showing the location of the short term rental permits, and a map showing the number of issued and open building permits. He stated there is currently about $750 million in permit valuation and about 70% of it is residential. Mr. Anderson discussed staff’s view on what success will look like including the identification of effective, practical, and defensible responses to the issues within the time constraints while engaging the community when reviewing the issues and considering responses. He then reviewed the constraints including the need to have responsive ordinances in effect by June 8th, which is the end of the moratorium, the early impacts of COVID on the outreach efforts, the complexity of the issues being reviewed, and the differing opinions regarding the issues and potential responses. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2022 Page 4 of 7 He next reviewed the project staffing including city staff from Community Development, Climate Action, Communications, and Finance departments. He also displayed a list of consultants being utilized and explained their role in the project. Mr. Anderson next reviewed a conceptual project timeline and noted it is a tight timeframe to complete something before the end of the moratorium. Mr. Anderson then discussed the problem statements identified by City Council regarding short-term rentals (STRs) including discouraging further displacement of working locals; basic health, safety, and visitor experience standards; mitigation of employee generation and other impacts; limiting impacts on the community and neighborhood character; and acknowledging STRs as a distinct land use with its own characteristics. He stated the city receives complaints from neighbors that STRs are occurring in residential zones, and they are changing the character of the neighborhood. He asked if there were any questions at this time. Mr. Rose feels the emergency moratorium seemed to be like shooting from the hip when it came to short term rentals. He lives in Hunter Creek and the HOA prevents STRs except for 2 two-week periods per year. He would like to see actions like this incentivized. He believes the long term rentals are completely unaffordable at Hunter Creek. He wouldn’t want to see some owners damaged with any proposed changes when the only way they can afford their unit is because they also own a STR. Ms. Rockhill stated in regards to the city bringing in consultants from the front range and from the Carolinas, she feels there are a large number of experts on this topic that have worked in this industry for 20 years or more that have data the city doesn’t. She stated the rental licensing program is very new and the increases may be because people did not get licenses before the program. She feels there is a free pool of people who are very vested stakeholders like herself, who would want to have a conversation in probably already know a lot of the things the city is working on. Mr. Anderson replied they have a lot of local folks from the industry on a list to be interviewed. There is also a plan to have a focus group specific to the STR topic to balance local knowledge with people who crunch data for a living and who can bring perspectives from other areas. One area in particular includes best practices around ensuring the health and safety visitor experience. He stated it may appear this action is from the hip, but the city has received complaints from neighbors who are frustrated because of what is occurring in the STR next to their home they have been living in for the last 20 years. Ms. Rockhill asked to be included on an interview list. She believes often the people with the deepest pockets are the ones penalized instead of just telling the people that are used to living in the West end for 40 years with the lights off that they have to share their neighborhood. She doesn’t feel that perspective gets voiced very often and usually it is the people that are upset with changes, even when it is not their property. Ms. Carver stated she owns a rental townhouse property with three units and has been a rental landowner for many years. She has a 6 month renter in it, and she has always worked with Tracy Sutton of Aspen Signature Properties. She feels there are vast resources in the community. She feels the city is just becoming aware of some of the problems with some units. She is aware of some people who converted their garage to a rental unit to help put their kids through college and knows of someone who checked into their Airbnb and discovered it had not been fully cleaned from the previous guest. She feels the current problem is with brokers who manage STRs who don’t know what they can do for the upcoming seasons and holidays. She stated most people in this community deal with visitors and that’s how they make their bread and butter. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2022 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Anderson stated City Council has asked staff to look into STR standards and processes regarding zoning, operational standards, life safety, permitting, fees, and enforcement. Mr. Anderson then discussed the pace and scale of residential development. City Council members believes there are inconsistencies between the climate action goals and the residential development. He stated most of the affordable housing mitigation requirements come from new subdivisions and multifamily properties and residential development has dominated the sector currently. He stated Council wants to make sure the mass and scale of residential properties is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). He stated the city hears a lot about the construction impacts on neighbors. He stated the city is receiving a lot of requests for 800 amp services which is four times the amount required by a normal house due to the complexities of the systems in the house. Ms. McGovern stated on the flip side, city staff is asking developers to prioritize electrification which will increase the amps needed and decrease the dependence on gas to meet the climate goals. She stated Aspen is a luxury resort and the developers are trying to provide the level of luxury required by tourist and second homeowners. She doesn’t know how we can be consistent with the goals without having an impact on infrastructure. Mr. Anderson responded he can clearly see how those two things are in conflict with each other. Ms. McGovern does not believe the mass and scale was brought up as a reason for the moratorium. She feels the mass and scale has been consistent with the land use code and is a different conversation if it is not consistent with the AACP. She believes mass and scale as well as infrastructure will require a much more information and much more public outreach because of the longer impacts to the build environment. She feels what the community wants and what Council wants may be different at this point. Mr. Anderson agrees they are difficult topics, and noted they were referenced in Ordinance 27. Ms. Carver asked if we are talking about STRs or development. Mr. Anderson stated the four areas included in the moratorium including STRs, pace and scale of development, further encouragement of affordable housing, and make processes for affordable housing and development more streamlined. Ms. Carver stated in regards to pace and scale, she has experienced nine construction projects within a block and a half of her residence, and she doesn’t believe a neighborhood should be impacted so heavily at one time. She would like to see some limits as to what can be done at once. Ms. Carver also asked why they give two construction workers a permit to park all day in a 2 hour zone. She believes it should be three construction workers to cut back on the cars, etc. Mr. Anderson then discussed development allotments stating the allotments are for new development, so they have not been used. It is easy to see all the construction around town along with the parking concerns, noise concerns and construction fencing that is up for three years. Staff has heard from Council and members of the community that there is a growth management system, but it isn’t pacing the development. He believes demolition will be a topic of focus in this area. Ms. McGovern stated most of the time they don’t want their projects to be as complicated as they are, but in order to meet all the requirements, it makes the project complicated because the requirements increase the scope. She gave an example of a project to remodel 50% of the interior required a storm water management plan, a low water landscape plan even when the original scope wasn’t anything Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2022 Page 6 of 7 outside of the building. The requirements increase the number of people involved on the project and increases the length of the project. She would like to see this as part of the conversation and would also like to understand the priorities of the community. Mr. Anderson stated they will be looking at demolition because it a big part of the development context and it is confusing and leads to outcomes we don’t want. He noted there will be some discussion regarding demolition triggering compliance with GMQS standards. Ms. McGovern believes the demolition code section is very arduous and drives the design of any existing project. Mr. Anderson stated counsel also wants to have a discussion regarding residential development allowances. He added the discussion will include calculations and measurements dealing with mass and scale. Mr. Anderson next discussed the current processes involved with reviewing affordable housing projects. He noted the recent 1020 E Cooper Ave project which fully complied with the code but took 18 months to get approved. Ms. McGovern noted there already been another application on the site for the previous year. She also stated she and Ms. Carver would like as part of the discussion to have the code require commercial multi-unit projects to build affordable housing on site and not be able to use credit or for a small percentage. Ms. Carver agreed with Ms. McGovern. Mr. Anderson responded the city is not seeing many large scale projects anymore. Ms. McGovern feels the land use code should be written to look at potential future projects and not just what is available currently. Mr. Anderson stated currently in the land use code, growth such as new residential and new commercial is directly related to growth management. City Council has requested staff to figure out how to decouple this relationship and he feels the community is questioning the success of this. Mr. Anderson the discussed areas related to the development review process to be reviewed including the efficiency and predictability of the review process, loopholes leading to and desirable outcomes, board reviews, and barriers to approving affordable housing projects. He then discussed the proposed public engagement plan and encouraged the commissioners to participate as a community member as well as a commissioner. Ms. Rockhill asked if there will be an opportunity for public comment on whatever staff drafts for Council’s review. Mr. Anderson responded the conversation with Council will be at public hearings. Ms. Carver believes it would be good to include architects in the conversation. She then asked if the city requires a certain percentage of demolition materials to be recycled. Mr. Anderson responded the city will be looking into encouraging participation. He added the county has regulations in place, and it seems to work better on larger lots where there is room to sort on site. He added the excavation and demolition company for the Molly Gibson is pursuing some innovative tactics on demolition, sorting, and grinding materials to be recycled or take to the landfill. Mr. Anderson thanked everyone for their valuable comments. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission February 15, 2022 Page 7 of 7 Ms. McGovern appreciates staff and Council taking on these difficult projects. She feels the compressed timeline is tough and may not allow for an outcome as good as the community deserves, but she appreciates areas being prioritized as what should be done now and what can wait. She encouraged the commissioners to participate. Update on New Commissioners Ms. McGovern asked staff for an update on new commissioners. Ms. Simon responded Council had interviewed candidates last week and she does not know of their decision. Ms. Simon added staff could not find a time for a work session so it will be discussed at the March 1st regular meeting. Ms. McGovern asked if the work session would be recorded so it could be available to new commissioners. Ms. Carver asked when the terms were ending. Ms. Simon responded the end of March or the March 15th meeting. Mr. McKnight motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. Rockhill. Rose. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 pm. Cindy Klob, Records Manager