Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19900221Continued Meeting Aspen City Council February 21, 1990 Mayor Pro Tem Gassman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Tuite, Crockett and Peters present. ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 1990 - Affordable Housing Tom Baker, planning office, said there has only been only change regarding multi-family structures, which is the percent of the replacement affordable housing units required to be above grade. Baker pointed out in the past above and below grade was not distin- guished. Baker said if a multi-family structure is demolished, the owner must replace 50 percent of the existing floor area and 50 percent of the existing bedrooms as affordable housing rebuilt on site. Baker said for single family and duplex, the ordinance exempts all remodeling and expansion from mitigating for affordable housing. Baker said staff has worked on the definition of "demolition" to make sure the ordinance is tight enough. Baker said if one is constructing a new single family home or replacing one, there are 3 options, which are all at the property owner's discretion. The first option is to pay the affordable housing impact fee. This impact fee has been reduced from 1 employee per 2,000 square feet to 1 employee per 3,000 square feet. A person would be required to pay an impact fee of $6.76/square foot rate for new construc- tion. If a person were demolishing, they would get credit for the square footage they had prior to demolition. A second option is an accessory dwelling unit. An attached accessory dwelling unit is a conditional use. The R-15B zone district would be the only residential zone district that would not have this option based on their zone district and their annexation agreement. The third option is to deed restrict the primary residence to resident/occupancy. Baker said for a duplex, again at the discretion of the property owners, there is cash-in-lieu and the same employee generation applies. A person cou]_d construct a duplex with one free market unit and one resident occupied unit provided the resident occupied unit is a minimum of 1500 square feet. A new option is to do 2 free market units with 1 accessory dwelling unit provided the ADU is a minimum of 600 square feet. Baker told Council another option is to do two resident occupied units. Baker pointed out the deferral of the impact fee has been retained in this ordinance. A working resident remodelling or expanding would be able to defer the impact fee until the unit is sold to a non-resident of the community. Baker said language has been added that allows that deferred fee to be indexed based upon the value 1 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council February 21, 1990 of the property. David Myler, city attorney' s office, told Council the base number is the value at the time the new construction takes place. The fee is adjusted in proportion to the change in that value over time. Baker said the fee cannot be any less than 25 percent of the original impact fee and no more than 150 percent of the original impact fee no matter how far the value swings. Baker said this ordinance will become effective April 15 in order to allow projects currently in the building department to get through and not provide so much time for someone to come in with new places and avoid Ordinance #l. Baker told Council there should be a 2 year sunset provision where the planning office be required to evaluate the effectiveness and impacts associated with the provisions of this ordinance and report to Council, who will decide whether to continue with the legislation. Baker said if Council decides to not continue with the legislation in 1992, any deferred impact fees will be forgiven. Baker said there is an FAR bonus for attached ADUs that equals 50 percent of the ADU up to a maximum of 250 square feet provided that that ADU is above grade. Staff has determined they need more time to discuss the potential impact of the detached accessory dwelling unit and the financial incentives with P & Z. Baker said one key issue brought up at the last hearing was potential automobile impacts. Baker pointed out there is a conditional use hearing for ADUs as well as the 2 year sunset provision. These are adequate protections to allow staff to collect data as to what is actually going on. The regulations can be adjusted based on this 2 years of gathering data. The second. key issue was the impact deed restrictions have on financing. Myler reminded Council the question was raised at the last Council meeting whether the existing of an ADU would cause problems for financing. Myler told Council he has talked to 3 locals banks and the housing office. The way Ordinance #1 is drafted would not have any impact on the ability to finance construction of a house or duplex with an accessory dwelling unit. Myler said this ordinance does not mandate the placement of these units or that they have to be rented. The only restriction is that if the units are rented, the renters have to be qualified working residents. Myler told Council if the Council were to mandate the ADUs be placed in units or to mandate the units be occupied, this would inhibit the ability of people to borrow money. Myler said there are problems financing affordable housing units that are resale restricted, units the city may build and try to sell. Baker noted that the accessory dwelling units aspects of this ordinance do not change what is already in the code. ADUs are not 2 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council February 21, 1990 mandatorily occupied. If a homeowner decide to rent, the renter has to be qualified with the housing office. Myles said ADUs will be part of the solution, not the entire solution. Baker told Council staff feels the incentive package is important to help preserve the community and to solve the affordable housing problems. Baker said the cottage infill and the financial incentives have been taken out of the ordinance. Baker said Council can proceed with Ordinance #1 without these two items. Baker said staff can return to Council in 6 weeks with these regulations with a recommendation from P & Z. Baker said another alternative is Council proceed with this ordinance only for the multi-family aspects and put off single family and duplex until P & Z gives a recommendation on the incentives. Councilman Peters said by allowing the cash-in-lieu payment to be made solely at the discretion of the property owner, this discre- tion is extended to the second home owner. Councilman Peters said this ordinance may raise money and not produce units. Councilman Peters said he would like to have that discretion for the property owner as long as it is a local homeowner. Evan Boenning complimented Council on the changes that have been made to the ordinance since first reading. Boenning asked if staff has talked to appraisers in town about financing these accessory units. Boenning asked if Council is going to restrict the number of people housed in a ADU. Myles said the ADU is not going to be condominiumized and separately owned; the cost to produce that unit will be financed along the with principal residence in which it is located. Myles said this should not have a negative impact on anyone's property values. Jeffrey Shoaf commended the staff and Council for putting a lot of time and energy into this issue. Shoaf said there are some basic inadequacies in ordinance #1, the primary one being that is focuses on a small percent of the people and only people who are going to be developing from this point forward. Larry Fredrick said the original intent is laudable; however, this ordinance places an extreme burden on few people and is not fair to everyone in the city. Fredrick said higher density creates social problems, parking problems; Council is creating as many problems as they are trying to solve and are shifting the problems to another direction. Wainwright Dawson asked how many units this will yield. Baker said staff did a survey and identified 100 lots in 6 neighborhoods that would fall under these regulations. Baker said it is hard to tell how many units will be built. Mickey Herron said this may create 3 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council February 21, 1990 ways for people to get a 250 FAR bonus and not do anything since they are not obligated to put anyone in the space. Herron said P & Z had recommended that occupancy in the ADUs be mandatory. Herron said the city may not accomplish anything making this voluntary. Myler sid staff did considerable analysis of the extent of the impacts caused by development. Myler said based on these studies and their assumptions, staff concluded for every 3,000 square feet of new floor area, the community would be required to house one employee. Bob Walker asked if any ordinance like this has been tried and what were the results. Ms. Margerum said there is an ordinance for accessory dwelling units and in-lieu payments in Santa Barbara. The ordinance is just being tested. The accessory dwelling unit concept works well for people in Santa Barbara county for people being able to afford housing; accessory dwelling units are listed as an amenity. Myler pointed out that impact fees based upon the impacts created by development is not new. Myler said demolition and replacement ordinances have been in effect in other cities. Marcia Goshorn asked about deed restricted the accessory dwelling units. Baker said the current code requires a deed restriction for resident occupancy, which means there are no price or income guidelines but a tenant has to be a qualified employee of the community. The code does not require these to be mandatorily occupied. Mark Tye, 935 East Cooper, told Council when he purchased his property he discussed with the planning office what could be built on an RMF property. Tye said this ordinance affects his property rights. Tye said he wants to be part of the employee housing solution but does not want to give up 50 percent of his property rights, which he worked very hard for. Tye said this ordinance should be fair and equitable to all property owners. Howie Mallory said there is no maximum size for the ADUs. In the west end a person could conceivably have three 1,600 square foot units. Maliory said the impact on neighborhoods will be dramatic. Mallory said a 300 square foot ADU for a family is not appropriate either. Mallory said the impacts on traffic and parking will have to be addressed. Mallory requested Council follow staff recommen- dation and delete the single family and duplex requirements. Penney Evans pointed out that perhaps one reason the single family and duplex owner was exempt from GMP is they are providing employee housing, for themselves. Ms. Evans suggested either deleting the single family and duplex requirements or making them entirely voluntary. Fred Peirce said this is proposed as a mitigation impact but it really is a financial disincentive to upgrade one's living quarters 4 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council February 21, 1990 as a resident. Baker pointed out if the market goes down, the minimum a person would be required to pay is 25 percent of the original impact fee. The fee could diminish by 75 percent but could only increase by 25 percent. Peirce said rather than impose these burden and run the risk of dispossessing existing employees, give it 2 years and see if the voluntary incentives provide what the city wants. Rick Lindner said to discriminate against the second home owners who are paying taxes and providing income is out of line. Lindner told Council investors from outside Colorado are not too happy about deed restricted properties, especially for single family and duplex properties. Sally Roach asked why a local resident who tears down their house and rebuilds is impacting the community more than someone who merely does a remodel. Baker said one would only pay for new, additional square footage. Baker pointed out a working resident would put on new square footage would defer the impact fee until the structure were sold to a non-resident. Marty Schlumberger said he does not feel there is a huge need in the community for this type of housing. Schlumberger said this will put a number of burdens on local property owner. Bil Dunaway said he favors this ordinance. Barbara Norris favors this ordinance. Ms. Norris said there are a lot of homes in the west end that have become empty, owned by out of town owners. Mayor Pro Tem Gassman closed the public hearing. Councilman Tuite said he does not feel this is an onerous regula- tions; it contains a lot of options. Councilman Tuite said he is willing to pass the multi-family portion of the ordinance and to remand the single family and duplex portions back to P & Z. Councilman Crockett said when the city is trying to accomplish close in, affordable housing, the density has to go up. Councilman Crockett said he favors passing the multi-family aspects of this ordinance at the least. Councilman Crockett said staff needs time to focus on the incentives. Mayor Stirling concurred- with deferring the single family and duplex part of this ordinance. Councilman Peters said Council has addressed a lot of the concerns brought up in the public hearings on this ordinance. Councilman Peters suggested this ordinance be passed as is and have staff develop an incentive package. Councilman Gassman said he views this ordinance more as a community preservation rather than providing a lot of housing. Councilman Gassman said he is ready to accept the recommendation of staff on this. Councilman Gassman pointed out every additional house that is torn down and replaced by a second home is another loss in what everyone is trying to preserve. 5 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council February 21, 1990 Councilman Gassman moved to ask staff to proceed with, alternative 1, which is to proceed with the draft as written and to come up with a schedule for implementing an incentive program coincident with the effective date of the ordinance; seconded by Councilman Peters. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. Mayor Stirling moved to continue the public hearing to February 26; seconded by Councilman Peters. All in favor, motion carried. REQUEST FOR FUNDS - Ballot Counter City Clerk Kathryn Koch requested emergency funding of $6,000 to pay the city's share of a ballot counter. This will be shared with Pitkin County, who is also paying $6,000. For the election February 13, 1990, the company sent in a counter. There is another election is 3 weeks and the city has to purchase a counter for that election. Councilman Tuite moved to approve $6,000 from the contingency fund for the ballot counter; seconded by Councilman Crockett. All in favor, motion carried. Council adjourned at 7 p.m. Kathryn Koch, City Clerk 6