Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20211116Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2021 Page 1 of 8 Chairperson McKnight called the regular Planning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting for November 16th, 2021 to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Ruth Carver, Sam Rose, Teraissa McGovern, and Spencer McKnight. Commissioners not in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill and Scott Marcoux Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Planning Director Ben Anderson, Principal Long-Range Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Simon will send out an email to all members with calendar updates through the end of the year. Ms. McGovern stated she will not be able to attend the December 7th meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES None DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARINGS Land Use Code Amendment Resolution – P&Z Recommendation for Single-Family and Duplex Affordable Housing Mitigation Mr. McKnight opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Ben Anderson, Principal Long-Range Planner, stated he would be reviewing a proposed code amendment in process with City Council at this time. This code amendment originated out of several discussions with City Council over the last couple of years around growth management and affordable housing. As part of the outreach for the proposed amendment, staff is asking for a recommendation from the commission. He reviewed the options for approving the draft resolution provided in the agenda packet or not making a recommendation at all. Mr. Anderson reviewed the origins of the proposed code amendment around Council’s concerns regarding a lot of development pressure in town. He stated staff performed an analysis of the growth management allotments of which most of the affordable housing mitigation requirements are connected with the allotment system. The analysis indicated approximately 90% of the allotments year Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2021 Page 2 of 8 to year were not being utilized for all different types of development even though there is a lot of development pressure in town. He added as a consequence, the affordable housing mitigation is not being produced in proportion to the development pressure the community is feeling. He stated the systems designed in the 1970’s no longer allow for growth management and affordable housing to function together. Mr. Anderson stated some changes were made this summer including increases to the fee-in-lieu (FIL), lodging mitigation requirements and affordable housing credits. He stated Council asked staff to work on single-family and duplex residential development and mitigation requirements since it is felt this is currently driving the development context in town. He then explained the areas believed not to providing expected mitigation. He stated the proposed amendment will eliminate the credit for existing floor area and move from a net floor area to a gross floor area calculation for the affordable housing mitigation. This will bring areas including basements, garages and vertical circulation areas of the development currently exempted from the calculation to be included in the calculation of the affordable housing mitigation. Mr. Anderson then identified the review criteria when considering code amendments. He also reviewed what the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) states. He described the content applicable to the proposed code amendments. Mr. Anderson next reviewed the two ways growth management is handled for residential development. He described the first way uses triggers for the demand for a growth management allotment such as when a new subdivision or lot is created, a change in development type occurs or when multi-family units are developed or redeveloped. He noted these types of developments have not been happening in Aspen for some time even though it has been the community expectation for affordable housing. He stated the second way the code mitigates residential development is with single-family and duplex development and redevelopment on existing residential lots. It is currently based on the floor area calculation in the land use code based on an employee generation study from 2015. The study looked at impacts of construction on employee generation and looked at operations and maintenance. He noted the big piece is how the floor area is measured noting when an existing home is torn down, the floor area is credited towards their eventual mitigation requirements and the calculation utilizes net floor area instead of gross floor area and excludes basements, garages, and vertical circulation elements. Mr. Anderson displayed graphics comparing the current code versus the proposed code amendments. Ms. McGovern wanted to clarify the credit is for existing floor area not existing square footage (SF). She gave an example of a home that is 2,000 SF, but the floor area is only 1,500 SF based on the excluded elements such as the garage and vertical circulation. She feels this could be explained better in the code. Mr. Anderson agreed the definitions are not always clear and different professions such as a realtor and the Pitkin County Assessor, view the terms differently as well. He added the amendments would look at gross floor area of all horizontal surfaces between exterior walls of the structure instead of net floor area. Mr. Anderson explained examples of the impacts to the calculation based on the proposed code amendments. Mr. Anderson then further described the difference between net and gross floor area calculations. He noted currently, the City is seeing gigantic basements being added to homes, often setback to setback which have very significant construction impacts. The subgrade areas hold mechanical equipment which Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2021 Page 3 of 8 have long-term maintenance and operational impacts as well. He then displayed a slide showing an example of the current and proposed floor area calculations with a basement as part of the example. He added another amendment would acknowledge the findings of the 2015 Generation study which showed that as homes increase in size, their long-germ operation and maintenance generation is more significant. The proposed changes include a higher FTE generation rate for homes over 4,500 SF in size. Mr. Anderson next displayed a table showing examples of six actual projects between 2015 and 2020. The table included the mitigations base on the current code and the impacts to the projects based on the proposed code amendments. He stated construction on these sites can go on for a couple of years with 20 people on site during that time which he believes the community is stating they feel impacts from these construction sites. Mr. Anderson stated City Council has asked staff to work on the affordable housing mitigation parity between commercial and residential projects. He displayed a graphic providing an example of the Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) for 6,000 SF of commercial (18.33 FTEs) and the same SF for residential (1.26 FTEs) based on the proposed code amendments. Mr. Anderson next reviewed the code changes. One change will be in the definition of floor area. Another change identifies three kinds of development scenarios under growth management in terms around credit. Another area to be changed includes the reconstruction limitations under growth management to provide clarity to what happens to allotments and floor area credit for a demolition. Mr. Anderson then reviewed the deferral of mitigation requirements currently allowed for property owners qualified as a full-time, local working resident. He also clarified this would not change any other dimensional rights for a piece of property. Mr. Anderson concluded stating the proposed schedule for the ordinance review with Council with the first reading on November 23rd and the second reading and public hearing on December 14th. He stated staff recommends approval of the resolution as provided. Mr. McKnight asked for any questions from the commission members. Mr. Rose asked what Pitkin County has in place for the exact topic. Mr. Anderson replied the City and County had a unified system which started in the late 1970’s but over the years, the County’s concept of growth management and affordable housing mitigation has diverged from the City’s concept. The County’s most recent proposed changes were really about reducing the maximum home size. The proposed changes did not talk as much about their mitigation requirement. He doesn’t believe they compare all that much at this time. Mr. Rose stated he worries about the unintended consequences of doing something like this having it effects property values and taxes. Mr. Rose asked where the money generated from the proposed changes would be used. Mr. Anderson replied the reason they have the study is to help show the impacts on affordable housing mitigation generated. He noted people may have different opinions regarding if the proposed changes are fair or not. He also not the City does not currently collect a lot of FIL money because mitigation is encouraged through affordable housing credits. He added hopefully these requirements incentivize private sector developers to produce affordable housing units so the City can give them affordable housing credits which can then be purchased from the developers. Developers may also mitigate by going to City Council and ask to pay a FIL which if allowed by Council would go into the 150 fund which is Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2021 Page 4 of 8 dedicated to building and maintaining affordable housing projects such as Truscott, Burlingame, and the Lumber Yard. Mr. Rose asked for an example of a private developer buying these credits. Ms. McGovern noted Mr. Anderson identified the FIL in his examples to simply see the possible changes in dollars. She added what they’re actually talking about is recalculating the FTE. She added credits are purchased to offset FTEs, not the FIL. Mr. Anderson stated the most recent project completed was at 210 W Main St and is a mix of category units. The project generated 18 FTEs which were handed over when the certificate of occupancy was issued. The developer may now sell them in a private transaction to other developers who need them for mitigating their projects. He believes the certificate system is unique to Aspen. Ms. McGovern stated this is a great idea, but she wants some of the details clarified. She asked with the proposed increase of FTE load doubling, could it be possible to get into a situation where there are not enough FTEs available in certificates to offset the development. Mr. Anderson responded potentially that situation could occur but there are multiple ways to mitigate a project including deed restricting a unit, buy down a unit to create a mini credits project or the FIL option. Ms. McGovern stated she is concerned developers with credits will not sell them in smaller chunks and will only sell them larger projects. This could make credits cost prohibitive for a single-family homeowner. It is also costly and time sensitive to go before Council to ask about the FIL. Mr. Anderson stated the first credits project came online in 2012 and there has not been a single person come to City Council to request to pay the FIL. He believes the market for credits ebbs and flows over time and it was an intentional decision to make it difficult to do anything other than credits and to have the FIL process a little bit arduous so the market could kind of sort it out. Ms. McGovern feels because we are running out of room to build affordable housing and therefore FTEs, the proposed changes will tip the balance even faster. Mr. Anderson hopes the proposed changes would drive a more consistent demand for affordable housing mitigation. He added developers building for credits are currently having to wait three to five years to get their revenue back from credits. Ms. McGovern asked if the code could be updated to clarify the definitions of net floor area, gross floor area and gross SF. She uses gross SF and floor area. Mr. Anderson replied to really fix everything would require a fairly major undertaking to pull apart a huge section of the land use code. He added it is a topic he would like to engage at some point. Mr. Anderson stated he would look further into it. Ms. Carver is concerned for the resident of Aspen who has finally afforded to buy a house and wants to put in a basement that the cost of the smaller homes will be raised for anybody dreaming of buying a home. She stated she sees the other end of the spectrum every day in Aspen with the large basements and constant construction and understands why this is being proposed. She asked if residents living in town for a period of time and were continuing to live in town wouldn’t have a larger mitigation requirement, even if they were to sell. She doesn’t believe it’s fair to the working class Aspenite who is able to buy a home. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2021 Page 5 of 8 Mr. Anderson responded she has a valid point. Mr. Anderson noted Mr. Mike Maple is attending the hearing tonight and he made similar comments last week. He added the average single-family home price in Aspen is now between $10 and $11 million dollars at a conservative SF estimate of $3,000 per SF. He continued stating staff and City Council acknowledge there are long time working locals who have contributed significantly to the community. He explained if they want to stay in their homes and never pay a dollar of mitigation, they can do a huge remodel as long as they don’t add SF. And if they want to do a bigger project on their property, the deferment program is available to them. He added there’s been a real transformation of the functions of homes that once dominated the community so it’s challenging to operate in this economic reality, address the affordable housing crisis and provide protections for the folks described by Ms. Carver. Ms. Carver acknowledged there has been a shift but there are still locals who may want to improve their homes. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners for their current positions. Ms. McGovern thinks it’s a good idea and reiterated her concerns regarding the availability of credits for homeowners. Mr. Rose thinks it a great idea but wondered if the mitigation percentages could be scaled more instead of the 0.16 to the 0.36 based on the SF. Ms. Johnson wanted to clarify the FTE numbers were developed after several studies were conducted to look at the impact of development and the numbers correlate to the data. Ms. Carver stated she can see the point of the proposed changes but wanted to see how the other members felt about her example of a local homeowner. Ms. McGovern does not feel this is unfairly burdening the local who already owns their home because of the deferral program. Mr. McKnight agreed with Ms. McGovern. Mr. McKnight opened the floor for public comment. Mr. Maple does not feel the City is not doing enough to create affordable housing and noted the Lumber Yard project as an example where only 300 units are planned will be built on an expensive site and dedicating $20 million dollars for underground parking. He encouraged everyone to demand to be part of the review of these projects. He does not feel the City has been doing a good job for decades. He does not believe staff’s interpretation of the 2015 study to apply the mitigation to different numbers is valid, proper, or fair and probably illegal. Mr. Maple stated he is an Aspen homeowner, and his family has lived here since 1968. He has owned his home for 25 or 26 years and his house is now 53 years old. One day he would like to be able to rebuild his home but feels the proposed changes will push the possibility over the edge. He stated there is no way he would consider participating in the deferral program because you are deferring what might be due in the future and the deferment program does not recognize the residents in the house as credit for mitigating FTE units. He would also like residents to be recognized for the time they have been living in the home. Mr. McKnight closed public comment. Mr. McKnight asked staff if he wanted to respond to Mr. Maple’s comment. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2021 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Anderson believes he made valid points with the increasing difficultly for working locals to live in non-deed restricted housing in this town. Mr. Anderson noted the 2015 study is about new construction activity and the impacts of this activity in new homes. He noted there have been people who have taken advantage of the deferral program with smaller additions and in full redevelopment projects. Mr. McKnight asked if there are some negative impacts of the deferral program he is missing. Mr. Anderson believes Mr. Maple is most concerned about the uncertainty of future mitigation requirements but noted if the home is sold in the future to a local, the deferral continues. Ms. McGovern asked what section of code covers the deferral program. Mr. Anderson replied it’s in the growth management section. Mr. Anderson added when a homeowner uses the deferral program, essentially a deed restriction is placed on the property. He continued stating the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) handles the placement of the deed restriction. Ms. McGovern is interested to read the language how the agreement is added. Ms. Johnson stated she is not sure there are more specifics in the code, but there may be some direction in the APCHA forms and agreements required as part of the deferral program. Ms. McGovern asked if there was a way to work with APCHA outside of this process to change the deferred costs calculated based on the time of development versus the time of sale to see if would provide long-time locals more certainty. Mr. McKnight feels it is important to have this conversation as well and understands Mr. Maples’s concerns. Mr. Anderson responded staff could include an addition to the recommendation if the commissioners want to add it. Ms. Carver stated in the past the commission has passed on similar recommendations to Council and feels the Council only sees the commission approved it. She is not willing to approve the resolution without these points regarding the long-time owner clarified more. Mr. Spencer is not sure he wants to move it forward as well. Ms. McGovern stated because it is not defined in the code, she does not feel she has a position to not pass it until what is being asked for is defined and she doesn’t believe the commission has purview over these items. She feels it is appropriate to add it as a recommendation to the condition. Ms. Simon stated there is language in the APCHA guidelines defining exactly how the deferral process works. She then summarized the section to the commissioners. Mr. Anderson stated he has seen three of these agreements in the past six years but understands they may become more regular under the proposed code changes. Mr. Rose feels it’s a tough one and feels Mr. Maples’s real life example was very moving. He is concerned about the negative effects for locals on something that is supposed to be positive. Ms. McGovern stated although she does not own a free market residence, she considers herself a local. Mr. Rose responded he does not want to have one good thing at the cost of another. They both agreed they want a balanced solution. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2021 Page 7 of 8 Mr. Rose asked Mr. Maple what he would change about it. Mr. Maple feels staff’s proposal is fundamentally flawed. He does not feel the study supports staff’s proposal. He thinks the deferral program should be defined in the code and not in APCHA guidelines. He believes the deferral program should recognize the occupancy of a local homeowners as mitigation and mitigation should not be calculated at the time of the sale which is an unknown. Mr. Rose believes some credit should be available for locals in free market housing. Mr. Anderson stated he hears those points but noted on all the mitigation requirements, it is for the generation of new development activity. He added if Mr. Maple wanted to renovate his home without tearing it down, there would not be a single dollar of affordable housing mitigation. The mitigation would be assessed on new SF added as part of a redevelopment. Considering Mr. Maples’s suggestions would necessitate a whole different kind of mitigation requirements. Ms. McGovern reiterated she believes this is not in the purview of this commission and if changes to the deferral program are to be deliberated further, it should be done with the APCHA Board. Ms. Johnson stated the commission could make a recommendation to suggest a study of the deferral program and the provisions to address certain concerns. The issue before the commission at this hearing is the proposed amendment by staff and whether or not the commission makes recommendation with or without conditions for the amendments to be adopted by Council. Mr. Anderson added his suggestion for a recommendation would be to acknowledge the issue and the concern. Ms. Carver feels it is a great start but is not a complete product so she will not recommend it tonight. Ms. McGovern would vote to forward this to Council with comments to review the code section regarding the deferral program. Mr. Rose and Mr. McKnight both agreed with Ms. McGovern. Mr. Anderson asked to confirm their action will be a recommendation of support with the condition for staff to evaluate the relationship of the deferral agreement and the notion of the deferral amount being assessed at the time of the building permit rather than the time of the future sale. Ms. McGovern feels it is too specific and perhaps it should be an overall review of the deferral program. Mr. McKnight agreed with Ms. McGovern and wants to evaluate unforeseen consequences of proposed amendments. Ms. Carver is concerned Council will approve the proposed amendments and not really consider the Commission’s conditions. Mr. McKnight agreed he is frustrated at times with how much Council does or does not listen to the commission, but this is the process available. Ms. McGovern stated another condition she would like is to really drill down on the definition of net floor area versus gross floor area. Ms. McGovern understands Ms. Carver’s concerns as well. Ms. McGovern motioned to approve Resolution #12, Series 2021 with the conditions of further review of the net and gross floor area and the deferral program for housing mitigation. Mr. Rose seconded the Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2021 Page 8 of 8 motion. Mr. McKnight asked for a roll call: Ms. Carver, no; Mr. Rose, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of three (3) in favor – one (1) not in favor. The motion passed. Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. Carver. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 pm. Cindy Klob, Records Manager