Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.05232000 PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION AGENDA Location: Plaza One Board Room TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2000 9:30 AM SPECIAL MEETING EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION 1000 AM SPECIAL MEETING Continued 1 st Reading, Growth Management and Fair Share Requirements Legislation ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING 12 NOON LUNCH BREAK 1:30 SPECIAL MEETING (Continued) Continued 1 st Reading, Growth Management and Fair Share Requirements Legislation ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING 4:00 1. Aspen Mass Judge Appointments, Jay Leavitt 4:20 2. Citizen Board Update and Decisions, Karen Sahr 4:30 BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION 3. Future Agendas/Agenda Requests ✓ Monday, June 191h all day Budget Session 4. Memos of Interest 5. Memorial Day Events Funding Request 5:00 PM ADJOURN APPROVED JULY 269 2000 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING (Joint Meeting With P&Z) MAY 239 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Shellie Roy Harper called the special meeting to order at 10:15 AM. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Shellie Roy Harper, Mick Ireland, Dorothea Farris and Leslie Lamont COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Patti Clapper PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Martin, Charlie Tarver PUBLIC MEETING FOR DISCUSSION ONLY ON ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE ADOPTING A NEW GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION, ARTICLE IX,AND ADOPTING THE ASPEN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY—NEXT MEETING SCHEDULED FOR MAY 259 2000 Cindy Houben, Director of Community Development, talked to the Boards about what they would hopefully be discussing today. So far the following sections on Growth Management were to be discussed: the number of GMQS allotments, scoring, floor area (clarifications to be made by staff) and vesting. Regarding Fair Share requirement legislation,the Boards will continue to review various sections including but not limited to sliding scale alternatives, total exemption below specified threshold alternative and deferment payment for employees alternative. Attached to these minutes is the May 23, 2000, memorandum from Gabe Preston to the BOCC. Said memorandum is made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "A". The first discussion began on number of allotments. After several opinions and comments were given on the number of allotments, the discussion turned to the allotments available to the Crystal River Valley and the Frying BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 23,2000 Pan Valley. Many people, both public and from the Boards, questioned whether there should be a separate allocation for these properties from the larger and more expensive properties up valley. From the discussion on Crystal and Frying Pan allotments, Chairperson Harper further questioned the use of TDRs in those areas. The Boards continued to discuss square footage of allotments and then went on to make comments on the "banking" concept of unused TDR square footage. Regarding allotment discussion, Dave Myler suggested that the Boards look at having 30,000 square feet available instead of doing it in 5,000 square foot increments and let people compete for whatever they want. Gideon Kaufman explained the dilemma. He believes the Board would be setting up a system where the people that are going to prevail are the people that come in for a 5,000 square foot allotment, but only want 1,000 square feet and 4,000 don't get used. Commissioner Farris, Chairperson Harper and Commissioner Lamont would like to go with the allotment of square footage rather than unit. Commissioner Lamont said yes, go with the square footage allotment, but you could still use the scoring system to determine who wins and who doesn't win. Commissioner Ireland said staff needs to tell the BOCC whether or not they could devise a valid scoring system that allows comparison. Commissioner Ireland said the Board should go with 5,750 square feet on an existing approved lot that doesn't need an allocation. This would be all-inclusive, including the garage. Four Board members agreed. A discussion developed on the garage being included in the 5750. Some felt that people would not build the garage and use that square footage for their house. Others felt that was not a problem if homeowners decided to do so. Marcella Larsen Chilson, Assistant County Attorney, asked the Board about decks and overhangs and whether or not they should be included? Ms. Chilson was informed by the Board that decks and overhangs will continue to be counted as they are today. She also reiterated that the Board would be eliminating a garage exemption and eliminating a sub-grade exemption to which the Board replied yes. THE NEXT DISCUSSION FOCUSED ON REMAINING ISSUES REGARDING ALLOTMENTS. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 23,2000 Ms. Houben said the major question was should unallocated allotments expire every year. Related questions also arose that, for example, if there is leftover square footage for a year, could it be borrowed from in the future? And, if someone came in one year for 30,000 square feet and was asking for 50,000, could they borrow from the future? Both Boards were in agreement that unallocated allotments expire every year. Both Boards also agreed that there would be no borrowing. THE NEXT DISCUSSION FOCUSED ON ISSUES RELATING TO SCORING. On the subject of scoring, Ms. Chilson suggested that if the Board put a lot more points into one category they would have a wider range of points. And, it seems more appropriate to keep that narrow range and throw the multiplier in to give it more weight, to which Commissioner Ireland agreed. Both Boards and staff discussed the possibility of off-site mitigation for scoring such as an applicant who had no wildlife issues but they donated, for example, $500,000.00 to a wildlife project. Would this then allow that applicant to be given points in the wildlife category? Discussions ensued on this proposal. Commissioner Lamont said she wants the Board to keep something in mind for when they go back and look at allotment"buckets". She said what they need to be thinking about is making sure that they have stimulated competition. And that people,just by meeting minimum threshold are not winning. The Board should want those bonus points for that creativity. The Boards agreed that impact fees should be taken out of the scoring section and be put into subdivisions. An another discussion developed regarding road impacts. After several discussions regarding road impacts, Ms. Chilson gave examples of how they could set up the road criteria the Boards had been discussing. She said if a road is over capacity, you would get zero (0) points. If additional improvements are necessary, she continued, there will be points for whether the applicant is willing to pay for that. And finally, an inquiry on whether or not the improvement is a good idea at all and points for that. This was agreeable to the Board. AT THIS TIME MS. CHILSON WENT OVER SEVERAL CLARIFICATIONS WITH THE BOARD ON A FEW OUTSTANDING ISSUES. A short discussion began on multipliers with Commissioner Farris stating she would prefer not using them. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 23,2000 After questioning the Board members, Commissioner Ireland found that the middle three categories in scoring which were environment, wildlife, and land use were rated equally by the majority of those Board members. Commissioner Ireland suggested that the Board could keep the middle category ones the same, as shown above, and they would be worth twice the affordable housing and the availability of public services and the bonus category. In other words there would be a score of 1 for everything and 2 for the middle categories (environment, wildlife and land use). As Commissioner Ireland's suggestion was agreeable, he made it a staff direction. Charlie Tarver suggested that they change consistent with community goals because wildlife protection, environmental and land use are all community goals also and he thinks they should have a different name. This was agreeable to the Boards. THE NEXT DISCUSSION WAS ON VESTING. Various discussions ensued among the Board members, staff and the public on vesting. Gideon Kaufman posed some real examples to the Board to see how, in a practical sense, the proposed legislation would apply. Glenn Horn would like the Code to show all vesting information in one place to make it easier to find. Mr. Kaufman offered additional scenarios that led to more discussion regarding vesting and development rights. Mr. Kaufman had a suggestion for what the Board is referring to as the TDR program. He thinks they have an opportunity to get very inexpensive affordable housing if they offer people an opportunity for a bonus of, for example, 1000 or 1250 square feet, if they would provide a mandatory rental unit. In other words, an applicant, with the 5750, would have the ability to go to 6750 if they built an EDU (employee dwelling unit). He added that applicant would not pay fair share on the extra square footage. A discussion ensued on Mr. Kaufman's suggestion. It was decided by both Boards to discuss this further after the Moratorium was over. Ms. Chilson summarized the vesting discussion and what the Boards decided. 1 Vested site specific development plan approvals, still within their three year period,will not have to get exemptions, incentives or compete for allotments. 2 If you already had a development allotment that specifies a square footage,you would be entitled to that square footage. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 23,2000 3 If you had a development allotment that does not specify square footage,you will get 5750. 4 If you had a development approval that didn't necessarily include a development allotment for a subdivision or a Planned Unit Development,you will also get the square footage specified within that approval, regardless of whether or not it is still vested. Ms. Chilson also informed the Board that there is a new exemption being created for Gideon Kaufman's client. It is the one where you have some improvements on your property, either a CDU or an EDU, that came along with a site specific development plan. You would be allowed 5750 on top of that. Commissioner Lamont clarified that what someone has is there square footage in their development allotment but all other aspects of the Code are applicable The Board would now hear Mr. Preston's presentation. Ms. Houben reminded the Board that he was returning with some issues from Fair Share that the Board wanted him to bring back. The Board wanted discussions on the Sliding Scale approach to the exemptions from the Fair Share requirements, total exemptions below specified threshold alternatives, and the deferment payment from scoring alternatives. Mr. Preston said all his presentation was about was the Sliding Scale option. In addition to referring to his memorandum attached to these minutes as Exhibit"A", he also referred to his memorandum as exhibited in the minutes of May 08, 2000. After Mr. Preston's presentation, Commissioner Ireland said the simplest thing to do would be to exempt"stuff' under a certain square footage and suggested that there be no Fair Share up to 5,000 square feet. After this discussion ended, Ms. Konchan asked the Boards to think about the following issues for their next few meetings. If the Board does a sliding scale and the number is 2,000 that is easily done. But, if an applicant would be exempt under 4,000 or 5,000, what about 50 or 100 square feet above that? Would they pay the incremental difference above it or would they pay the full boat? They are also to think about measurement, where one of the discussions would be on whether square footage should be counted as heated or unheated. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 4:31 PM. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 23,2000 Respectfully submitted, �ynd � 4�_ ee�:. Dean Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners Shellie Roy Harper Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners ww/g/minutes/2000/05232000 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 SPECIAL MEETING MAY 23,2000 MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners From: Gabe Preston, Planner Through: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director Date: 5/23/00 Re: Sliding Scale AH Fee Structure for Residential Development and Revision to Table 5 of the May 8 Memo on Fair Share Requirements. Purpose: This memo consists of a look at a sliding scale fee structure for AH fair share requirements for residential development. There was a significant error in Table 5 in the first planning Staff memo on fair share requirements dated May S. 00. This memo includes the revisions to Table 5, which estimates the amount of money the BOCC will probably want to make up for units exempted from AH requirements given several exemption thresholds. The Sliding Scale Fee Structure In recent meetings, the BOCC and P&Z have discussed the idea of using a sliding scale to assess AH fees between certain unit sizes. Staff applied equal interval sliding scales to units between 2000 sq. ft.-5000 sq. ft., 2000 sq. ft.-4000 sq. ft., and 2000 sq. ft.-3000 sq. ft. The number of increments in sliding scales were determined as follows: Number of Increments = (Range of Scale / 250 sq. ft.) +1 where Range of Scale = upper end of scale — lower end of scale Table 1 below summarizes the fees that would be assessed for homes of various sizes based on a sliding scale fee structure. The most effective way to describe the fee structure is in terms of one of the three sliding scales listed above. The 2001-4000 sq. ft. scale range contains 8 increments of 250 sq. ft. Since the full fee would be assessed, in this scheme, for units over 4000 sq. ft., each 250 sq. ft. threshold beyond 2000 sq. ft. would add an additional 11.1% or 1/9 to the percentage of the fee for which that unit would be assessed. For example, a 2500 sq. ft. residence would be assessed at 22.2% of the total fee, $4,324 specifically. Each 250 sq. ft. counts for 1/9 (instead of 1/8) so that the final 9`h would be applied should a unit exceed 4000 sq. ft. The same holds true for the 2000-5000 sq. ft. range where each 250 sq. ft. above 2000 sq. ft. would add and additional 7.7% (or 1/13) and the 2000-3000 sq. ft. range where each additional 250 sq. ft. beyond 2000 sq. ft. would add an additional 20% (or 1/5). Note: Once the scale range is exceeded, the mitigation level is assumed to be 100%. Table 1 Fee Schedule for AH Fees for Residential Development Based on Three Alternative Sliding Scales SQ. FT. FULL FEE 000-5000 SQ. FT. 000-4000 SQ. FT. 000-3000 SQ. FT. 2000 $ 21,752.69 $ - $ - $ - 2250 $ 24,905.11 $ 1,915.78 $ 2,767.23 $ 4,981.02 2500 $ 28,118.74 $ 4,325.96 $ 6,248.61 $ 11,247.50 2750 $ 31,389.36 $ 7,243.70 $ 10,463.12 $ 18,833.62 3000 $ 34,713.38 $ 10,681.04 $ 15,428.17 $ 27,770.70 3250 $ 38,087.73 $ 14,649.13 $ 21,159.85 $ 38,087.73 3500 $ 41,509.74 $ 19,156.34 $ 27,673.16 $ 41,509.74 3750 $ 44,977.08 $ 24,218.43 $ 34,982.17 $ 44,977.08 4000 $ 48,487.66 $ 29,838.56 $ 43,100.15 $ 48,487.66 - 4250 $ 52,039.64 $ 36,027.44 $ 52,039.64 $ 52,039.64 4500 $ 55,631.33 $ 42,793.33 $ 55,631.33 $ 55,631.33 4750 $ 59,261.23 $ 50,144.12 $ 59,261.23 $ 59,261.23 5000 $ 62,927.96 $ 58,087.34 $ 62,927.96 $ 62,927.96 Table 2 forecasts some key outcomes of the three different sliding scale ranges. The larger the scope of the sliding scale exemption, the lower the effective percentage the mitigated employees relative to the employees generated. The County will probably want to "make-up" for the fees, or proportion of fees not paid by the exempt or partially exempt units. This amount, summarized in the far right corner, could add up to more than $500k per year given the 2001-5000 sq. ft, alternative. Table 2 Forecast of the Mitigation Levels and Fiscal Commitments of Sliding Scale Alternatives 2001-2010 RANGE OF SLIDING % OF FEE ADDED PER PERCENT MITIGATED UNMITIGATED FEES TO MAKE- SCALE 250 SQ. FT. EMPLOYEES EMPLOYEES UP 2001-5000 sq. ft. 7.7% 83% 78.7 $ 5,032,422.54 2001-4000 sq. ft. 11.1% 87% 59.8 $ 3,820,787.60 2001-3000 sq. ft. 20.0% 92% 38.0 $ 2,426,885.96 Revised Table 5 from May 8 Planning Staff Memo on Fair Share Requirements While all of the other figures in the May 8 memo were deemed accurate upon re- examination, Staff noticed that the numbers in Table 5 were off by a factor of 2. This is a crucial table because it estimates the amount the County will want to supply from the general fund to make-up for the exempted units. If the County decides to allow an exemption for units below a certain size, the County probably will want to make up for the revenue that would have been collected from the exempted units' fair share requirements. Table 5 forecasts this amount for 2001-2010. Table 5 (revised from May 8 Planning Staff memo) Aggregate Amount County Will Have to Pay for Affordable Housing from Other Funding Sources Given a Range of Exemption Thresholds 2001-2010 MITIGATION LEVEL NO EXEMPTION 1000 SQ. FT. 2000 SQ. FT. 3000 SQ. FT. 4000 SQ. FT. 60% $0 $ 104,301 $ 816,770 $ . 2,164,248 $ 3,974,946 65% $0 $ 112,993 $ 884,834 $ 2,344,602 $ 4,306,192 70% $0 $ 121,685 $ 952,898 $ 2,524,956 $ 4,637,437 75% 0 $ 130,376 $ 1,020,962 $ 2,705,310 $ 4,968,883 80% 0 $ 139,068 $ 1,089,026 $ 2,885,664 $ 5,299,928 85o/a 0 $ 147,760 $ 1,157,091 $ 3,068,018 $ 5,631,174 90% 0 $ 156,452 $ 1,225,155 $ 3,246,372 $ 5,962,420 95% $0 $ 165,143 $ 1,293,219 $ 3,426,726 $ - 6,293,665 100% 0 $ 173,835 $ 1,361,283 $ 3,607,080 $ 6,624,911 Notes on Table 5: • The higher the mitigation level, the greater the amount of revenue the County will need to "make-up" when exempting units below a certain size. • The revenues shown in Table 5 would have to be made up over a ten year period, not all at once. For example, the 100% mitigation level with a 2000 sq. ft. exemption would require to County to produce about $136k per year from some other funding source.