Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20130204 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION February 04, 2013 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Joint Housing Board Interview II. Code Amendment Priorities 2.4.2013 Council Work Session Memo Page 1 of 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: January 28, 2013 MEETING DATE: February 4, 2013 RE: Community Development Department work program review REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This memo outlines the Community Development Department’s current work program, as well as other priorities previously identified by City Council, P&Z, and staff. Staff requests that Council identify their top priorities and goals as they relate to the Community Development Department. If possible, staff requests that Council score their top priorities prior to the February 4th work session to help streamline the discussion. SUMMARY: At the beginning of 2012, City Council identified a number of AACP implementation priorities. Many of these fell to Community Development. In addition, Council identified a number of priorities for Community Development as part of the yearly Council Retreat. The Planning and Zoning Commission provided input on potential AACP implementation priorities in 2012, and has provided another list of 2013 priorities to City Council (attached as Exhibit B). Many of these priorities were also listed in their 2012 list. This memo outlines the various project staff has been working on since the initial 2012 prioritization work session, as well as a status update. In addition, the memo provides detail on what staffing and financial resources are needed for P&Z’s suggested items. Exhibit A lists all of these items, and City Council is asked to rank their top eight (8) Community Development work program priorities. The purpose of the process is to determine which projects Council is most enthusiastic about pursuing at this time. This process is more about what should come first, rather than approving or rejecting any given project. At the work session on Monday, February 4th, staff will present a list of projects that scored the highest. Staff hopes this scoring, like in 2012, will enable City Council to identify the most pressing or important work program items for 2013. CURRENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM ITEMS: Beyond the general planning services the city provides (processing land use applications, providing walk-in services, etc), community development staff is working on the following items. P1 II. 2.4.2013 Council Work Session Memo Page 2 of 7 1. Downtown Zoning Code Amendment. As part of the AACP implementation, City Council requested staff examine and process changes to the downtown zones (CC and C- 1). This work comprised a large portion of Community Development’s work program over the last year. City Council approved changes to these zones on January 14, 2013. This project is complete. 2. Mitigating Impacts of Development Study: As part of the AACP implementation, Council asked staff to identify the various impacts development has on the community. Staff prepared a white paper on this topic and presented it to City Council on May 21, 2012 (a copy is also available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and- Zoning/Long-Range-Planning/). At that meeting, City Council asked staff to move forward on a Transportation Study to ensure development mitigates its transportation impacts (more below). This project is complete. 3. Mitigating Transportation Impacts. Following the May 21, 2012 work session, staff from Community Development, Engineering, Transportation, and Environmental Health worked together to complete a scope of work for professional assistance related to quantifying the transportation impacts from development. City Council approved the contract in December, and staff continues to work on this project. A Council check-in is tentatively scheduled in the spring of 2013, with project completion in May. This project is on-going. 4. Lodging Development. As part of AACP implementation and Council’s Top Ten Goals, Council directed staff to study lodging and engage the lodging community in a discussion related to the future of our lodging product. Work has included an existing conditions report on lodging and condominium units, a charrette with lodging stakeholders, and consultant reports regarding potential next steps. A copy of this work is available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and- Zoning/Long-Range-Planning/). With the downtown code amendments complete, staff has transitioned to place primary focus on this Council Priority. Council directed staff in December to move forward with the following items that support this goal: conduct a lodging customer expectations survey/study, create report on lodging economics 101, address hybrid condominium/hotels, and explore development assistance for lodge refurbishments. This project is on-going. 5. Employee Generation Update. Another AACP implementation priority was to update the ten-year old study that identified the employee generation numbers fo commercial and lodge development in the city. City Council approved a contract with Economic and Planning Systems out of Denver to conduct this update. First and second readings to codify the findings in the study are scheduled in February. When staff anticipates completion of the project. This project is on-going. 6. Growth Management Double Dip. City Council provided Policy Direction in 2012 to eliminate the “double dip” provision in Growth Management that allows a developer to only satisfy the larger of multiple housing mitigation requirements when affordable P2 II. 2.4.2013 Council Work Session Memo Page 3 of 7 housing is developed on site. This code amendment is scheduled to coincide with Employee Generation Update, and should be completed in February. This project is on- going. 7. ADUs. City Council and P&Z have expressed frustration that the ADU program does not provide meaningful housing, as was originally intended. P&Z identified this as one of their top AACP implementation priorities in 2012. Staff has been working on this issue, which is currently in front of City Council. This project is on-going. 8. Sign Code. In 2012, City Council directed staff to update the sign code. Staff has been working on this project for many months, and received official Policy Direction from City Council to move forward with amendments in December of 2012. These amendments are scheduled for first and second readings in February. Once the code changes are approved, some outreach and additional work will be required to ensure the community understands the new code. Staff anticipates completion in March or April of this year. This project is on-going. 9. Eliminate Obstacles to Business Development. One of City Council’s top ten goals is to eliminate various obstacles to businesses in Aspen. Most of the work on this goal focuses on different city processes, such as creating a “New Business Welcome Packet,” but some changes could be made to sections of the Land Use Code. The sign code changes will alleviate some of the barriers, but there are other code sections that need to be amended. Staff is requesting Policy Direction on these in February, with first and second readings to be scheduled subsequently. Staff anticipates completion in February or March of this year. This project is on-going. POTENTIAL NEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM ITEMS: The following items potential new or additional work program items that Council may wish to pursue. These include items identified by both P&Z and staff. If City Council is interested in continuing and/or completing work the listed above, not all of the following items can be pursued this year given staff and funding constraints. 10. Amend and update Subdivision. Staff believes the subdivision chapter as written creates confusion and does not clearly outline what is required for final development documents. The chapter has not been updated in many years, and as such some of the requirements may be outdated, especially as they relate to engineering requirements. Since many projects are subject to the provisions of this chapter, staff believes it is important to update and amend it to reflect modern standards and review. This work would require outreach with the development community as well as other city departments. Staff anticipates that this would require no financial resources from the AACP budget, moderate community outreach, and could be completed in the spring or summer of 2013. 11. Amend and update SPA and PUD. (note: Both staff and P&Z are interested in amending the PUD requirements, but in different ways. This section highlights staff’s proposed amendment.) The Specially Planned Area (SPA) and Planned Unit P3 II. 2.4.2013 Council Work Session Memo Page 4 of 7 Development (PUD) portions of the land use code allow variations to the allowed uses (SPA) and dimensions (PUD) on a project specific basis. They are similar processes, requiring an individual project to demonstrate that a variation from uses or dimensions in the underlying zone district provides a benefit to the community and results in a desirable development pattern. These sections, like subdivision, have not been updated in many years and an update to ensure the chapters reflect up to date standards. This work would require outreach with the development community as well as other city departments. Staff anticipates that this would require no financial resources from the AACP budget, moderate community outreach, and could be completed in the spring or summer of 2013. 12. Explore Amendments to Growth Management related to commercial spaces. For the past few years, City Council has granted temporary use approvals for a retail space to operate out of a common hallway that had not received a growth management allotment. During the last review, City Council expressed interest in finding a more permanent solution to this issue. This would require an amendment to the growth management portion of the land use code, and could either exempt certain spaces from requiring a growth management review, explicitly outline that such space cannot be used as commercial space unless it receives a growth management review, or require a partial growth management review. City Council has also expressed interest in exploring growth management exemptions for commercial space in a basement or in a common area. Staff anticipates that this would require minimal financial resources from the AACP budget, moderate community outreach, and could be completed in the spring or summer of 2013. 13. Address Private Pot Clubs. With the passage of the Colorado constitutional amendment last November that legalized pot (Amendment 64), the Community Development Department has received a number of inquiries regarding the ability for someone to open a private pot club. These are currently not permitted under the City’s zoning, which requires all businesses to be “open to the general public.” The state is required to adopt regulations related to this issue later this year, and staff anticipates exploring what changes, if any, are needed based on those rules. If Council is interested in addressing this issue before the state does, staff anticipates this would require minimal financial resources from the AACP budget, moderate community outreach, and could be completed in the summer of 2013. 14. Update Commercial Design Standards. In 2012 City Council approved a code amendment that created a new call-up procedure for all Commercial Design Conceptual approvals. Through that process some City Council members expressed interest in updating certain sections of the standards related to materials and corner elements. With a scope limited to examining some specific sections of the standards, staff anticipates this would require minimal to moderate financial resources from the AACP budget, moderate community outreach, and could be completed in the summer of 2013. 15. Update Residential Design Standards. The City has Residential Design Standards in place that address all single-family, duplex, and multi-family development. These standards have not been updated since their initial creation over ten (10) years ago. Staff P4 II. 2.4.2013 Council Work Session Memo Page 5 of 7 believes a re-examination and update to these standards is needed. Much of the work could be completed in-house, with some consultant assistance. Staff anticipates this would require minimal to moderate financial resources from the AACP budget, moderate to significant community outreach, and could be completed in the fall of 2013. 16. Explore Amendments to Vested Rights Extensions. The P&Z has expressed concern that projects receive vested rights extensions and are not required to comply with code changes that may have occurred since the original project approval. Their memo (Exhibit B) outlines some of their specific concerns. Staff does not believe an amendment is needed in this section. City Council reviews all Vested Rights Extensions, and has a review criterion that states, “…Reasonable conditions may be imposed by the City Council, including, but not limited to, compliance with any amendments to this Title adopted subsequent to the effective date of the development order and associated vested rights.” Staff believes this criterion allows City Council to address the concerns of P&Z on a project specific basis, and that no amendment is needed. If City Council is interested in pursuing an amendment, outreach to the development community, as well as research related to state requirements for vested rights would be required. Staff would work with the City Attorney’s office on this code amendment. Staff anticipates that this would require minimal financial resources from the AACP budget, moderate community outreach, and could be completed in the summer of 2013. 17. Amend residential zone districts, and floor area, height, and site coverage calculations. The P&Z has expressed an interest in updating the floor area and gross square footage calculations in the city’s residential zones. This would include a review of current exemptions, the landing of TDRs, and other zone district requirements such as heights and site coverage requirements. Their memo (Exhibit B) outlines some of their specific concerns. This is a very ambitious task, and will require substantial financial and staff resources to complete. Outreach to the development and real estate communities, as well as individual homeowners and neighborhoods would be needed. In addition, consultant work regarding how calculations could change would be needed. Staff does not recommend moving forward with this amendment at this time. Staff anticipates this will require a significant portion of the AACP budget, significant community outreach, and will take 12 to 18 months to complete. 18. Amend the PUD Regulations to eliminate dimensional variations. (note: Both staff and P&Z are interested in amending the PUD requirements, but in different ways. This section highlights P&Z’s proposed amendment.) P&Z has expressed interest in amending PUD to no longer allow variations from the dimensions in the underlying zone district. Their memo (Exhibit B) outlines some of their specific concerns. Staff does not recommend moving forward with this amendment, as it eliminates the purpose of the PUD process, and nearly 51% of land in the City has a PUD overlay. There are sites that, either for site constraints, or community benefits, need some variations in their dimensions. For instance, the City does not have a zone district that addresses public buildings such as the fire station or the hospital. These are critical resources for the community, and should be subject to public review. Typical zoning cannot anticipate their needs. Similarly, having the flexibility of the PUD process has enabled a complete P5 II. 2.4.2013 Council Work Session Memo Page 6 of 7 public conversation of the amount of development appropriate on unique parcels, such as Truscott or Burlingame. In addition, a number of projects were approved when larger dimensions were permitted in zone districts, and they now have a PUD overlay to enable expansions (after a review) to ensure they remain successful. An example is The Gant, one of the City’s largest condominium hotels. It was approved in the 1970s, and is currently zoned R-15 with a Lodge and a PUD overlay. The Gant does not conform with the R-15 dimensions in terms of floor area, or height, but has a site-specific PUD that locks them into the current development plan. If they wish to expand or remodel one of the buildings they can request approval through the PUD process. Staff anticipates that this would require minimal financial resources from the AACP budget, moderate to significant community outreach, and could be completed in the spring of 2013. 19. Explore amendments to the Multi-Family Replacement Program. P&Z has expressed interest in amending the City’s Multi-Family Replacement Program to allow only 100% replacement. The City of Aspen has had a Multi-Family Replacement Program since 1989. The basic premise of the program is to prevent the loss of multi- family housing units that have housed local workers. The program works to preserve the City’s housing inventory by addressing the continuing trend of residential units being converted into second homes. The program has evolved over time, but has always required a certain percentage of the units and bedrooms that are demolished to be replaced. The original program required 50% replacement of units and 25% of bedrooms. In the 2000s the program was changed to allow two different forms of replacement – either 50% or 100% of units, bedrooms, and net livable square footage to be replaced as affordable housing. If a developer chooses 100% replacement, they can replace any free-market units with no mitigation. If the 50% replacement option is chosen, affordable housing mitigation is required for any replacement free-market units. The program has been successful in creating affordable housing throughout the community. If the 50% replacement provision is eliminated it would effectively freeze multi-family properties to exactly what currently exists, limiting a property owner’s ability to add to or change the development. Any code amendment that changes the replacement options will require work with the City Attorney to ensure it does not open the city to regulatory takings claims. Staff anticipates that this would require moderate financial resources from the AACP budget, significant community outreach, and could be completed in the summer or fall of 2013. 20. Update parking requirements. P&Z has expressed interest in looking at the parking requirement outlined in the code. The code currently allows less on-site parking for projects located in the core area than projects located outside of the core. The code also allows the payment of cash-in-lieu for some parking requirements. A comprehensive study are parking needs for different land uses may be beneficial, given the section has not been updated in approximately 10 years. There are new trends related to land use review of parking, including establishing a maximum parking requirement rather than a minimum parking requirement (in an effort to encourage use of alternative transportation modes). Staff anticipates that this would require significant financial resources from the AACP budget, significant community outreach, and could be completed in the 12 to 18 months. P6 II. 2.4.2013 Council Work Session Memo Page 7 of 7 21. Amend and update the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Chapter of the Code. The Land Use Code requires a heightened review for any project located near our rivers and streams, within an established view plane, located near Hallam Lake, or located within 100 feet of the 8040 elevation line. These code sections have not been updated recently, and staff believes there are some ways to better ensure these sensitive areas are protected when developed. The P&Z has also expressed interest in updating these regulations. This work program would require outreach to the environmental and development communities, as well as coordination with other City Departments. Staff anticipates that this would require minimal financial resources from the AACP budget, minimal to moderate community outreach, and could be completed in the fall of 2013. 22. Strengthen the Lodge Zone District. The P&Z supports incentivizing new lodging and reducing the loss of existing lodging. Staff believes this goal coincides with the on-going lodging work and does not require additional council direction. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Many of the new work program items will require funding, which staff believes can be accommodated through the existing AACP Budget. Following the work session, staff will more closely scope out the identified priorities to ensure there is budget to accommodate everything. If additional financial resources are required, staff will come forward with a supplemental request. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Scoring sheet for Community Development Work Program Priorities Exhibit B: P&Z identified code amendment priorities P7 II. Exhibit A – Scoring Sheet for Community Development Work Program Priorities The list of potential priorities below corresponds to the numbers and more detailed explanation in the staff memo. Two have already been selected because contracts have been executed for these items. Staff requests that City Council identify their top *8* priorities (this is in addition to the two already selected). If possible, staff requests that Council score their top priorities prior to the February 4th work session to help streamline the discussion. Initiative/Project Status Estimated Timeframe Priority 1. Downtown Zoning Code Amendment Complete Complete n/a 2. Mitigating Impacts of Development Study Complete Complete n/a 3. Mitigating Transportation Impacts Ongoing May 2013 X 4. Lodging Development Ongoing Fall 2013 5. Employee Generation Update Ongoing February 2013 X 6. Growth Management Double Dip Ongoing February 2013 7. ADUs Ongoing Spring 2013 8. Sign Code Ongoing Spring 2013 9. Business Development Ongoing Spring 2013 10. Subdivision Code Amendment New Spring/Summer 2013 11. SPA and PUD Code Amendment New Spring/Summer 2013 12. Growth Management Code Amendment New Spring/Summer 2013 13. Private Pot Clubs New Summer 2013 14. Update Commercial Design Standards New Summer 2013 15. Update Residential Design Standards New Fall 2013 16. Vested Rights Extension Amendment New Summer 2013 17. Residential floor area, height, etc Code Amendment New Spring/Summer 2014 18. PUD Code Amendment – P&Z New Spring 2013 19. Multi-Family Replacement Code Amendment New Summer/Fall 2013 20. Parking Requirements New Spring/Summer 2014 21. ESA Code Amendment New Fall 2013 P8 II. P9 II. MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Mayor and City Council CC: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner FROM: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission DATE: Tuesday December 18, 2012 RE: Request City Council to pass a resolution “endorsing” P&Z top priority code amendments (A-G in concept form below) to be initiated by P&Z. SUMMARY: This spring the process to initiate a code amendment changed such that City Council now must “endorse” amendments in a concept form initiated by the P&Z. In light of this process, the P&Z met on February 7, 2012 to prioritize potential code amendments and identified 8 policy concepts as top priorities (see attachment A). Subsequently, City Council worked with Staff on several of the 8 items identified by P&Z in February. Info on the current status of this work is available here: http://tinyurl.com/cc5crg9. The P&Z met on November 27, 2012 to continue to prioritize areas for code amendments originally from the February meeting and also identified one additional area (item G below) with a high priority for code amendments. This memo is a request that City Council “endorse” the amendments below (A-G) in concept form to enable the P&Z to take the next step of working on code amendments. Independently, and less important, if the budget allows, this is also a request to budget for staff time to work alongside P&Z on these amendments. BACKGROUND: P&Z reviews applications throughout the year and it is with some frequency that areas for improvement to the code are identified. The P&Z keeps an informal list of these areas and periodically reviews this list (most recently on 11/27/12) to prioritize the good learning that comes from many hours of applying the current code across multiple applications. The next step in the process is to write this good learning into the code timely enough to provide future applicants increased certainty and predictability in the zoning and land use process. It is this step that the P&Z is asking City Council for help by passing a council resolution endorsing the concept of P&Z’s top priority amendments (included in sequence below) and – if possible - budget for staff to work alongside P&Z on these amendments. The final language of all amendments will be approved in Ordnance form by City Council. If endorsed by City Council, the P&Z will begin working on one amendment at a time, starting with the first one below and passing it along to City Council for final approval in an Ordinance. The goal is to receive feedback from City Council on the process with one issue for code amendment at a time. A. Explore Amendments to Vesting Extensions. The P&Z is concerned about the number of recent requests to extend vested rights for projects that were approved more than 3 years ago. The P&Z believes a significant amount of good learning goes into code modifications and that an applicant should, in exchange for extending development rights, agree to accept the current code. The P&Z is concerned that extensions will result in development that is not consistent with current community goals, and we believe that projects should meet the current code at the time of the request, rather than relying on old codes. The P&Z believes this creates confusion in the community, and that exploring changes to the requirements could improve the certainty and predictability in the land use code process. B. Update Residential Zone Districts. The P&Z would like to see the gross built square footage more closely reflect the residential FAR permitted. This would include reviewing the exemptions of sub-basements in FAR, site coverage requirements, general mass and scale, P10 II. heights and landing of TDR’s. This furthers the Policies outlined in the Residential section of the AACP Growth Management chapter (Policies III.1 – III.4). C. Amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations. The P&Z would like to align the PUD process to limit the parameters to the underlying zone district while allowing a flexible site pattern. Aligning development expectations with the underlying zone district provides applicants increased certainty and predictably in zoning and the land use process. D. Explore Amendments to the Multi-Family Replacement Program. The Land Use Code requires that any multi-family unit that has ever housed a local working resident be replaced with affordable housing when it is demolished. The code allows for a 50% or 100% replacement of the number of units, bedrooms, and net livable space that is demolished. The P&Z would like to examine possibility of requiring replacement at the 100% level. E. Update Parking Requirements. The P&Z would like to see a consensus between what the code requires and what an applicant typically negotiates for in land use approvals. This will provide applicants more predictability in the zoning and land use process. F. Update Stream Margin Review and 8040 Greenline Review. The Land Use Code requires a heightened review for any project located near our rivers and streams, as well as for any development within 100 feet of the 8040 elevation line. The P&Z is interested in updating these regulations to ensure they are adequately protecting these environmentally sensitive areas. This furthers Growth Management Policy II.2, which calls for controlling the location and size of homes to protect our natural environment, as well as Environmental Stewardship Policy III.3, which calls for preserving our riparian habitats. G. Strengthen the Lodge Zone District. The P&Z would like to incentivize the development of new lodging and reduce the loss of existing lodging. This furthers the Policies outlined in the Lodging section of the AACP Growth Management Changer (Policies IV.1- IV.2) P11 II. Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner CC: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission RE: AACP Implementation, P&Z Priorities Recap The Planning and Zoning Commission met on February 7, 2012 to discuss AACP implementation priorities. Members in attendance included LJ, Stan, Cliff, Bert, and Keith. The group reviewed a number of items, and settled on the following policy items as their top priorities. Staff has provided a brief summary of the topics discussed. The priorities are listed below, in no particular order. Where applicable, the priorities are listed with the AACP Policy they further. An overarching theme of these priorities is to create certainty and predictability in the development review process. Specifically, the P&Z believes the following priorities further Growth Management Policy VII.1: “Restore public confidence in the development process,” and Growth Management Policy VII.2: “Create certainty in zoning and the land use process.” A. Examine and Amend the Downtown Codes. The P&Z is interested in a comprehensive review of the allowable dimensional requirements (height, floor area, open space, lot coverage), mitigation levels, and design standards. There is some concern by P&Z related to design standards, and ensuring they are reflective of our historic character. They would like to examine these standards, which relate to Growth management Policy V.3, calling for codes that result in development that “reflects our architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and diversity of heights…” The P&Z believes this will improve the predictability of the land use process, and will further Growth Management Policy I.6 which calls for lowering building heights. In addition, the P&Z believes this furthers the protection of our small town character, which is referenced in a number of philosophy statements and policies throughout the AACP. The P&Z would also like to examine the current code language that enables a redevelopment to carry forward an existing non-conformity. For instance, the code allows a lot that has less parking or public amenity space than is required in the underlying zone district to carry forward that deficit in a redevelopment. Overall, the P&Z wants to ensure the codes get us the kinds of buildings and development that “fits” in our community. B. Strengthen the Lodge Zone District. The P&Z has expressed concerns related to the allowed use mix in the Lodge Zone District. They are interested in amending the zone district to better encourage the development of lodging units. The P&Z believes this will improve the predictability of the land use process, as well as further the policies set forth in the Lodging Section of the Growth Management Chapter (Policies IV.1 – IV.4) C. Amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations. The P&Z has expressed concern about the ability to request a PUD designation on lots less than 27,000 square feet. They are P12 II. Page 2 of 2 interested in examining the appropriate “cut off point” for a PUD designation. Over the past few years, they have seen applicants with relatively small parcels (6,000 – 10,000 sf) request a PUD to vary some aspect of their underlying dimensional requirements. The P&Z believes examining the minimum lot size requirement, and the PUD process in general will help improve the general predictability of the land use review process, as outlined in AACP Growth Management Policies VII.1 and VII.2. D. Update Residential Zone Districts. The P&Z has expressed concern about the zone district requirements in the residential zones. Specifically, they would like to examine site coverage requirements, heights, and general mass and scale. They are also interested in examining the exemptions to floor area calculations (e.g. basement exemptions). This furthers the Policies outlined in the Residential section of the Growth Management chapter (Policies III.1 – III.4). E. Update Stream Margin Review and 8040 Greenline Review. The Land Use Code requires a heightened review for any project located near our rivers and streams, as well as for any development within 100 feet of the 8040 elevation line. The P&Z is interested in updating these regulations to ensure they are adequately protecting these environmentally sensitive areas. This furthers Growth Management Policy II.2, which calls for controlling the location and size of homes to protect out natural environment, as well as Environmental Stewardship Policy III.3, which calls for preserving our riparian habitats. F. Update Parking Requirements. The P&Z is interested in examining and updating the parking code. This would include an examination of the program generally as well as the specific parking requirements for development. This furthers Transportation Policy V.1, “Develop a strategic parking plan that manages the supply of parking and reduces the adverse impacts of the automobile.” G. Explore Amendments to Vesting Extensions. The P&Z is concerned about the number of recent requests to extend vested rights for projects that were approved more than 3 years ago. The P&Z believes a significant amount of good learning goes into code modifications and that an applicant should, in exchange for extending development rights, agree to accept the current code. They are concerned that extensions will result in development that is not consistent with current community goals, and believe that projects should meet the current code, rather than relying on old codes. The P&Z believes this creates confusion in the community, and that exploring changes to the requirements could improve the certainty and predictability in the land use code process. H. Explore Amendments to the Multi-Family Replacement Program. The Land Use Code requires that any multi-family unit that has ever housed a local working resident be replaced with affordable housing when it is demolished. The code allows for a 50% or 100% replacement of the number of units, bedrooms, and net livable space that is demolished. The P&Z would like to examine the ability to replace at the 50% level. P13 II.