Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.04262005TUESDAY~ APRIL 26~ 2005 12:00 NOON 1:30 PM 1. 2:30 2:45 3:15 3:30 ~/~:00 5:00 PM PITI(IN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION AGENDA Plaza One Conference Room LUNCH MEETING with Colleen Truden Memos of Interest Future Agendas/Agenda Requests BOCC Open Discussion 2. Preparation for Joint Meeting with Town of Carbondale BREAK 3. Employers Guidebook for Housing Your Workforce, J Sue Robertson 4. Statewide Water Supply Initiative Update, Kristine Crandall SPECIAL MEETING - JOINT MEETING WITH P&Z Employee Housing Impact Fee, John Ely ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING ADJOURN APPROVED MAY '11, 2005 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 26~ 2005 (Joint meeting with P&Z Commission) NOTE: For all staff memorandums and associated documents, including additional exhibits submitted, refer to the BOCC PACKET FOR APRIL 26, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kay-Clapper called the special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to order at 4:11 PM. BOCC COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Patti Kay- Clapper, Dorothea Farris, Jack Hatfield, Mick Ireland and Michael Owsley BOCC COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None P&Z COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners John Howard, Peter Thomas, Jay Murphy, Joseph Krabacher and Steve Whipple ALSO PRESENT: Hilary Smith, County Manager; Cindy Houben, Director of Community Development; Lance Clarke, Assistant Director FIRST READING ON DRAFT ORDINANCE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THF PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE ADOPTING A REVISED EMPLOYEF HOUSING IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE AND REPEALING EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THE LAND USE CODE RELATING TO AFFORDABLE OR EMPLOYEE HOUSING MITIGATION OR IMPACT FEES - STAFF PERSON: JOHN ELY~ COUNTY ATTORNEY - MOTION TO APPROVE ON FIRST READING, AS AMENDED WITH SECOND READING TO A DATE TO BE DETERMINED John Ely, County Attorney proceeded with his presentation to the joint boards as cited in his memorandum dated April 26, 2005 and made a part of the meeting packet. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 Chairperson Kay-Clapper questioned why this was set at 5750 square feet as opposed to 3500 square feet which is the number she thought the studies were leaning toward. Mr. Ely said that the discussions were set around the fact that 5750 was already a number that was in the vernacular established through Growth Management. It represented a point at which the majority of housing at that level or lower was going to be a type of housing where you would find local inhabitants. Primarily, you would anticipate less impacts being generated or at least impacts that could be accommodated by our existing system. Above that, the habitation started to become almost exclusively a second home scenario where the impacts were increased. Chairperson Kay-Clapper is concerned about putting 100% of the housing mitigation within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). She worries about where it would all go. She also asked about the board having to create their own authority to manage these monies. Mr. Ely said that was an option discussed earlier with the board. They don't have to do, he said, but they can do it. Chairperson Kay-Clapper said she is having a hard time supporting this and would have preferred a Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT), especially in light of the fact that 2005 is looking to be a huge real estate turnover year. An RE'Ir tax would have to be by Constitutional Amendment. Commissioner Ireland agrees that the RETT is fair and equitable but he's not going to go another ten years without an employee housing impact fee simply because the State won't cooperate with the best alternative. Commissioner Hatfield said that he is hesitant to say he fully supports this because he doesn't believe it goes far enough. He said that this study ratcheted down the amount of monies that were talked about six months ago. The monies that this impact fee will accumulate are rather minimal and he said that we don't have to worry about building a lot of housing anyway. But, he added, it's a great start. Commissioner Howard said that his feeling is that once you get beyond 5750 the impacts of a primary residence are as great as a secondary residence. He asked if the primary resident impact fee of 5750 is high enough. To him, it seems Iow. Commissioner Howard also commented on a portion of the last sentence in paragraph C in Section III of the Ordinance. It reads, in part, "...the availability of employee housing has outpaced the ability of working families in the County to afford housing". He suggested that the word outpaced be replaced with the word insufficient. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 Mr. Ely will take care of that. Commissioner Thomas said that he also supports the RETT. But, his concern is more with the impacts on commercial and small businesses. Mr. Ely said that there is an ability to do an independent fee calculation if you can demonstrate that the improvement that you're building will generate less than that provided in the Code you could be assessed for a lower fee. Discussion ensued on the impact on commercial versus residential and on the impact fee calculation. Commissioner Hatfield said that he is comfortable with the 5750 but the amount it generates is too Iow because he thinks it generates more employees before, during and after construction than have been talked about. Mr. Ely said that if the board wanted further examination of the data that went into the calculation of the impact fee then they could do that. This can be continuously looked at through time or it could be shelved for a time at the discretion of the board. Commissioner Thomas said that in the aggregate, for example, it says residential structures under 5750 or lesser are exempt. What if someone has 100 acres of land and has a 5750 house that they've built, they've got a 900 square foot CDU that's detached and then they build a 5000 square foot barn or Ag structure. Are they exempt? Mr. Ely said that if Commissioner Thomas wants to look at residential structures such as CDUs and EDUs and the primary residence all together, his assumption is that you would. You wouldn't want to exempt them except for the employee units which are called out as exempt within this Code. The barn would not be exempt as it is not a residential structure within the scope of the study. Commissioner Krabacher said that he thinks this should be moved forward. We definitely have a need for affordable housing especially with the latest round of market activity. But, he said that he thinks for an office that three employees for 1000 square feet and then 60% of that. So their fee per employee is around $177,000.00. Regarding residential he said this. A developer building a 6000 square foot house has to pay $20,000.00 for an impact fee. He thinks that this is peanuts. With regard to commercial, he said that there isn't a lot of commercial in the County. Is it legitimate to say if it's a general office it's 4.5 employees and if it's a real estate office it's 5.9? He asked if there was some basis for this in the study. He asked about some definitions he found unclear such as "local market retail" versus "guest market retail". Regarding the amount of the impact fee, Commissioner Krabacher said that he's not sure he's well versed enough to BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 address that but he does note that it seems a little heavy to what the City charges or maybe not. Commissioner Ireland shared a few slides showing the possibilities and present placement of employee housing within the UGB such as the Airport Business Center, Burlingame, and Stillwater to name a few. He also showed some statistical information on the growing number of residents 55 years of age and older which are becoming more the majority in Pitkin County. Commissioner Whipple agrees with Commissioner Krabacher. He too thinks they could go below 5750. He's fine with the residential. He said that his concern comes with the commercial section. He said that he'd hate to see things freeze in place at the Airport Business Center because there was some sort of an economic engine that caused that employee generation number to - -. A discussion began on whether there would be mitigation for remodels and/or expansions with or without a change of use. The uses are set out in Table 2 of the packet material. After discussion, Mr. Ely informed both boards that the dilemma is that once you revise the data that went into the study that generated this formula to calculate the fee then you would be shelving it for awhile because it wouldn't be done within a first reading or second reading. If you want to move forward on this with the fee as supported by the study that we have now, the BOCC could follow the P&Z recommendation to adopt this on first reading with an amendment to reflect any concerns addressed here today. The P&Z board members gave their views. Commissioner Whipple said that he doesn't think that 5750 has to be a benchmark moment. Regarding commercial, he feels a need to clarify that a change of use but not a remodel would initiate this. It was stated that if there were a change of use that generated additional employees and the applicant disagreed with the impact fee, theoretically they could challenge that on an audit. Commissioner Krabacher agreed with Commissioner Whipple. He said that he would take it to 4500 or 4000. Commissioner Thomas said that there were a few things he would tweak but he also thinks it's important enough to push forward at this time. John McBride asked John Ely what a change of use was. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 Mr. Ely said that if you go from one classification of use to another that is a change of use. Also, if there is an increase in the amount of employees that would be generated by that change in use then it would be affected as well. Again, he reminded everyone that the uses were set out for commercial in the table on page 2. Commissioner Whipple moved to recommend approval of the ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners, in concept and as amended as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 On residential, revisit the 5750 square foot amount and reconsider lowering that number with a suggestion of 3500 Reconsider a lower percentage of mitigation for commercial - of that impact they suggest lowering that percentage in the abstract Change of use in the categories to something more intensive Take out remodels that do not effect the use and/or square footage Suggest revisiting current exemption for accessory structures Commissioner Howard seconded the motion. The motion from Planning and Zoning passed unanimously. Commissioner Ireland moved to pass this ordinance on first reading with direction to staff to investigate the issues that have been recommended by P&Z and also to look into the issue of Whether or not we should have a higher residential impact fee and come back to the board with a proposal for study. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to I with Commissioner Kay-Clapper voting nay. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Hatfield moved to adjourn the special meeting at 5:20 PM. Commissioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 Respectfully submitted, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners atti Kay-Cl~'pper Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners g\bocc\min utes~005\min.spec.04262005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 26, 2005