Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amend.A117-01 ~ CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY n "_1 A117-01 Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendments Chris Bendon Code Amendments City of Aspen Community Development Department 12/18/01 Ordinance 46-2001 Approved 12/18/01 J, Lindt ;.-, ,-., t""', r) VUlcl MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council John Worcester, City Attorney cr~ Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Chris Bendon, Senior Planner ~ Accessory DweUing Unit Amendments (City Initiated) 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2001. Detached ADU requirement for Growth Management Exemption ADU Floor Area Amendments THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: December 17, 2001 SUMMARY: The City Council initiated amendments to the City's Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADD) Program to eliminate the mandatory occupancy and to require growth management exemptions only be granted for ADUs developed above grade and detached from the primary residence. The proposed ordinance accomplishes these desired changes. The amendment affects the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program, the exemption section of growth management, and the Floor Area calculation section. Two new definitions have been proposed to help clarifY terms used in the proposed language. Under Main Lssues, the primary aspects of this proposed code,amendment have been described. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this code amendment and recommended approval by a 7-0 vote. Their Resolution is attached. The Commission also expressed concern over "buy-down" units. They emphasized a need for the Housing Authority to determine if any legal impediments exist and to research association fees before accepting a unit within a free-market complex. They asked that their comments be forwarded to both City Council and the Housing Authority. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2001. MAIN ISSUES: Detached & Above Grade ADU Requirement: The proposed code language requires Accessory Dwelling Units to be both detached from the primary residence and above grade. This requirement applies to voluntary ADU's as well as those being developed to exempt a residence from Growth Management. A Special Review approval would allow an ADU to be attached and/or partially to fully below grade. 1 r-, r\ Ii The Special Review procedure requires a public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission, or with the Historic Preservation Commission if the property is a historic resource. ADD's designed to meet the design standards will continue to be approved administratively No amendments to the Special Review criteria are proposed. Staff believes these criteria are sufficient to review these potential requests. ADU Floor Area: Currently, Floor Area incentives are available for two methods of ADD development: Detached and Mandatory Occupancy - each exempting 50% of the ADD for the calculation of Floor Area. If an ADD is both detached from the primary residence and deed restricted to mandatory occupancy, both floor area incentives apply for a 100% exemption. The proposed code amendment removes the incentive for mandatory occupancy. This has not been very popular and the few mandatory units approved through this provision have created enforcement problems for the Housing Authority, The detached incentive is also removed with this proposed language and replaced with a 100% Floor Area incentive for units that are condominiumized and sold as affordable housing units according to the Affordable Housing Guidelines. This is a concept that has been discussed by the Infill Advisory Group as a means of encouraging affordable housing in single-family neighborhoods. The concept provides an incentive of one additional square foot of free-market development for every one square foot of affordable housing, up to the limiting size of an ADD. Removing the detached exemption may, however, create some nonconformities and may also affect property owners with plans to expend their primary residence by use of the previous exemption. Structures made nonconforming by adoption of this code language would be unaffected until redevelopment. Redevelopment would need to be accomplished within the bounds of the code in effect at the time. Off-Site Unit: The proposed code language allows an exemption from growth management to be achieved by deed restricting an existing free-market dwelling as an affordable housing unit. The "buy-down" concept is one that has been widely sought (as evidenced in the AACP) as a means of providing affordable housing without creating additional growth, The proposed language facilitates the private sector buy-down of free-market units in exchange for the redevelopment exemption of single-fartlily and duplex units. The purchased unit would need to be within the Infill Area (new definition) and accepted by the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority Guidelines would dictate the resale value of the newly deed restricted unit. 2 ~ n~ ApPLICANT: City of Aspen. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission passed Resolution 41, Series of200l, recommending approval of this Ordinance, A work session with the City Council, Housing Board, and Planning and Zoning Commission was held on this topic and resulted in staff direction to initiate this code amendment. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application, BACKGROUND: The ADU Program was the topic of a work session between the City Council, Housing Board, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, The primary concern of the Boards was the lack of occupancy and the problems associated with mandatory occupancy units. The City Council directed staff to initiate code amendments to eliminate the mandatory occupancy provision and require all ADU's that serve as a GMQS exemption to be built above grade and detached from the primary residence. STAFF COMMENTS: Two ADU code amendments are currently being contemplated under separate public hearings. One is a City-initiated amendment related to land use incentives for future ADU's and the other is a privately-initiated amendment related! to existing mandatory occupancy ADU's, These two amendments are being processed simultaneously, but under separate public hearings, They obviously relate but should remain as separate actions to maintain proper due process. Staffhas aligned the two amendments and no conflicts exist under any approval/disapproval scenario, The Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution highlights the proposed changes to the ADU Program. Cross oill text is proposed for removaL Underlined text is proposed for addition. Regular text indicates no changes, The proposed Ordinance shows plain text, without the highlights, in a ready for codification manner. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No, 46, Series of2001. 3 1""1 ~~ CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 46, Series of2001." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Exhibit B Review Criteria and Staff Comments Planning and Zoning Resolution and Minutes C:\home\Chris\CASES\ADU _ Revisit\CC _MEMO _ CITY doc 4 I"""'i n Exhibit A ADU Program Amendments City Initiated STAFF COMMENTS: Text Amendment Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to a Land Use Code Text Amendment In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in confliclt with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed code amendment intends to simplify the process and increase the community benefit of Accessory Dwelling Units. Specific provisions encourage units providing high quality living as an affordable housing alternative. No aspect of the proposed code amendment is in conflict with other portions of the Municipal Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff believes these changes to the ADU Program are supported by the AACP. There are many references to ADU's and "buy-downs" of existing free-market residences. The purpose of the ADU Program is to allow interspersed employee housing within existing neighborhoods to promote a healthy social fabric and a balance bev.veen the resort and the community. The intention of growth management is to ensure growth of exempt free-market housing is off-set with an equal benefit to the community. Projects, including single-family residences, are scored on a set of community benefit criteria; the highest scored projects of each year gain allotments. In a community where preserving a "critical mass" of local working residents is so important, the community has expressed disappointment with the current ADU Program which essentially provides exemptions from growth management for "guest rooms" that are not required to be occupied. The proposed amendments provide certain incentives to encourage occupancy by local working residents. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: This amendment is proposed for all residential zone districts and also mixed use zones where a single-family or duplex could be developed except for the R-15B Zone District. Due to the relative size of these units compared with a primary unit on the site, staff feels staff comments page I r-" n f these accessory dwelling units will be compatible with typical land uses, densities, and neighborhood characteristics. Special Review allows for variances to the design standards to be considered under a public hearing and where neighborhood compatibility is one of the criteria. Staff believes this criterion is met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The proposed Program encourages a "critical mass" of residents Upvalley and within walking or transit distance to land uses frequently accessed such as employment, recreation, shopping, etc. Encouraging more affordable housing opportunities within Aspen will likely create more traffic on local streets. This needs to btl weighed with the effects of not providing affordable housing opportunities within Aspen. Staff does not believe the amount of potential new units represents a safety issue on local roads. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Increased local housing opportunities will allow for greater utilization of existing and planned infrastructure improvements. This may have less of a negallive effect on the environment than development in areas where infrastructure does not already exist. Generally, staff believes this Ordinance will not encourage adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. staff comments page 2 o n / Staff Finding: Characteristic of traditional towns, and important to Aspen as expn:ssed in the Community Plan, is a "critical mass" of residents and an interspersl:d social layering. The interspersed nature of these units will promote community character. H. Whether there have been chcmged conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surr9unding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The original ADD Program expected 80% utilization of these units without occupancy requirements. Actual utilization hllS been around 25%, far below expectations. Disappointment over the low occupancy of these units has created II desire to amend the program. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: This proposed amendment does not pose any conflicts with the public interest. The AACP reflects a community desire for integrated affordable housing opportunities within established neighborhoods. The community has favored infill opportunities over large- scale greenfield solutions to affordable housing. Staff believes this Ordinance will promote the purpose and intent of this Title. This Ordinance promotes the permanent community by emphasizing on.,site employee housing opportunities for working residents and reducing the dependence 011 the automobile by providing housing near employment and recreation centers. Fewer long-distance commuter trips represents good environmental policy and providing incentives for high quality living units promotes healthy living conditions. staff comments page 3 "...,." r} RESOLUTION NO. 41 (SERIES OF 2001) I Exhibit B A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PROGRAM, SECTION 26.520, THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM, SECTION 26.470, THE METHOD OF CALCULATING FLOOR AREA FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, SECTION 26.575.020, AND RECOMMENDING ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS FOR "DETACHED STRUCTURE" AND "ASPEN INFILL AREA," SECTION 26.104.100, OF THE LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen directed the Planning Director ofthe Community Development Department to propose amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program provisions of the land use code pursuant to sections 26.208 and 26.212; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Sections 26.520, 26.470, 26,575.020, and 26,104.100, of the land use code ofthe Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the amendments to the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), as proposed herein, shall not be implemented retro-activdy upon existing Accessory Dwelling Units but shall apply to properties seeking an exemption from GMQS on or after the date of final adoption of these amendments; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended approval of amendments to Sections 26.520, 26.470, 26,575.020, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program on November 6, 2001, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, City Council adopt the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Program amendments to the land use code by amending the text of sections 26,520, 26.470, 26,575,020, and 26.104,100 ofthe land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 1 ,......." t) Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units, which section defines, describes, authorizes, and regulates the process for developing and requirements for operating an Accessory Dwelling Unit, by striking and adding, denoted by 5tFike and add, language to the Land Use Code as follows: 26.520.010 26. 520.020 26. 520.030 26. 520.040 26. 520.050 26. 520.060 26. 520.070 26. 520.080 26. 520.090 26.520 Accessory Dwelling Units Purpose Definition Authority Applicability Design Standards Calculations and Measurements Deed Restrictions, Recordation, Enforcement Procedure Amendments 26.520.010 Purpose The purpose of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program is to promote the long- standing community goal of socially, economically, and environmentally responsible development patterns which balance Aspen the resort and Aspim the community. Aspen values balanced neighborhoods and a sense of commonality between working residents and part-time residents. ADUs represent viable housing opportunities for working residents and allow employees to live within the fabric of the community without their housing being easily identifiable as "employee housing." ADUs also help to address the affects of existing homes, which have provided workforce housing, being significantly redeveloped, often as second homes. ADUs support local Aspen businesses by providing an employee base within the town and providing a critical mass of local residents important to preserving Aspen's character. ADUs allow second home-owners the opportunity to hire an on-site caretaker to maintain their property in their absence. Increased employee housing opportunities in close proximity to employment and recreation centers is also an environmentally preferred land use pattern, which reduces automobile reliance. Detached ADU's emulate a historic development pattern and maximize the privacy and livability of both the ADU and the primary unit. Detached ADU's are more likely to be occupied by a local working resident, furthering a community goal of housing the workforce. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of200l Page 2 r'\ n l To the extent Aspen desires detached Accessory Dwelling Units which provide viable and livable housing opportunities to local working residents, detached ADU's qualify existing vacant lots of record and significant redevelopment of existing homes for an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System, In addition, detached ADU's deed restricted te as "For Sale" units, according to the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended, and sold according to the procedures established in the Guidelines Mandatory Oecupancy provide for certain Floor Area incentives. 26. 520.020 General An Accessory Dwelling Unit, or ADU, is a separate dwelling unit incidental and subordinate in size and character to the primary residence and located on the same parcel or on a contiguous lot under the same ownership, A primary residence may have no more than one ADU. An ADU may not be accessory to another ADU. An detached ADU cannot may only be conveyed separate from th(~ primary residence as a "For Sale" Affordable Housing unit to a qualified purchaser -property int€rest ~€parate from the primary residence, pursuant the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. ami- Aan ADU shall not be considered a unit of density with regard to zoning requirements. Accessory dwelling units shall not be used to obtain points in the affordable housing category of the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). Accessory dwelling units also may not be used to meet the requirements of Chapter 26.530 "Residential Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program." All ADUs shall be developed in conformance with this SeCtion, 26. 520.030 Authority. The Community Development Director, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter and of Common Development Review Procedures, Section 26.304, shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a land use application for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. An appeal of the Community Development Director's determination shall be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review. A land use application requesting a variation of the ADU design standards shall be approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review. If the land use application requesting a variation of the ADU design standards is part of a consolidated application process, authorized by the Commlmity Development Director, requiring consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the variation, pursuant to Section 26.-520.080, Special Review, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 3 ,.." f) 26. 520.040 Applicability This Section applies to all zone districts within the City of Aspen in which an Accessory Dwelling Unit is a permitted use, as designated in Section 26.710, and to all Accessory Dwelling Units approved as a Conditional Use prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 11, )\@ri@s of 1999 , Series of2001. 26. 520.050 Design Standards All ADUs shall conform to the following design standards unless otherwise approved, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review: I. An ADU must contain between 300 and 800 net livable square feet, 10% of which must be a closet or storage area. 2. An ADU must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit. This includes the following: a) An ADU must be separately accessible from the exterior. An interior entrance to the primary residence may be approved by the Commission, pursuant to Special Review; b) An ADU must have separately accessible utilities. This does not preclude shared services; c) An ADU shall contain a kitchen containing, at a minimum, an oven, a stove with two burners, a sink, and a refrigerator with a minimum of 6 cubic feet of capacity and a freezer; and, d) An ADU shall contain a bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink, a toilet, and a shower. 3. One parking space for the ADU shall be provided on-site and shall remain available for the benefit of the ADU resident. The parking space shall not be stacked with a space for the primary residence. 4. The finished floor height(s) ofthe ADU shall be entirely above the natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, on all sides ofthe structure. 5. The ADU shall be detached from the primary residence. An ADU located above a detached garage or storage area shall qualify as a detached ADU. No other connections to the primary residence, or portions thereof, shall qualify the ADU as detached. 4.6. An ADU shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the property is located. ~ 7. The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an ADU. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided. ,,",8. ADUs shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of this title which apply to residential development in general. These include, but are not Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 4 t"""\ f) limited to, the Uniform Building Code requirements related to adequate natural light, ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression, and sound attenuation between living units. This standard may not be varied. +'9. All ADUs shall be registered with the Housing Authority and the property shall be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520.070 Deed Restrictions. This standard may not be varied. 26. 520.060 Calculations and Measurements A. Floor Area. ADU's are attributed to the maximum allowable floor area for 1he given property on which they are developed, pursuant to Section 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements. B. Net Livable Square Footage. ADUs must contain between 300 and 800 square feet of net livable floor area, unless varied through a land use review. The calculation of net livable area differs slightly from the calculation of Floor Area inasmuch as it measures the interior dimensions of the unit. 26. 520.070 Deed Restrictions and Enforcement. A. Deed Restrictions. At a minimum, all properties containing an ADU shall be deed restricted in the following manner: . The ADU shall be registered with the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority. . Any occupant of an ADU shall be qualified as a local working resident according to the current AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. . The ADU shall be restricted to lease periods of no less then six months in duration, or as otherwise required by the current AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Leases must be recorded with the Housing Authority. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter. A detached and permanently affordable Accessory Dwelling Units qualifying a property for a Floor Area ExemptionEetms, pursuant to Section 26.575.020(A)(6), shall be deed restricted as a "For Sale" Affordable Housing Unit and conveyed to a qualified purchaser, according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. to Mandatory Occupancy. This additional r@striction requires the /\DU be continuoHsly occupied by a local working resident, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Anthority, f-or leas@ periods of six months or greater. The O'.'ID€r shall retain the right to select a qualified re~ The AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority shall provide a st:mdard form for recording Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restrictions. The deed restriction shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to all. application for a Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 5 r\ f) building permit may be accepted. The book and page associated with the recordation shall be noted in the building permit plans for an ADU. B. Enforcement. The AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority, or their designee, shall enforce the recorded deed restriction between the property owner and AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority. 26. 520.080 Procedure A. General. Pursuant to Section 26.304.020, Pre-Application Conference, Applicants are encouraged to meet with a City Planner ofthe Community Development Department to clarify the requirements ofthe ADU Program. A development application for an ADU shall include the requisite information and materials, pursuant to Section 26.304.030. In addition, the application shall include scaled floor plans and elevations for the proposed ADU. The application shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. Any bandit dwelling unit which can be demonstrated to have been in existence on or prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999, and which complies with the requirements of this section may be legalized as an accessory dwelling unit, if it shall meet the health and safety requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as determined by the Chief Building Official. No retro-active penalties or assessments shall be levied against any bandit unit upon legalization. ADUs require a separate building permit. After a Development Order has been issued for an ADU, a building permit application may be submitted in conformance with Section 26.304.075. B. Administrative Review. In order to obtain a Development Order for an ADU, the Community Development Director shall find the ADU in conformance with the criteria for administrative approval. If an application is found to be inconsistent with these criteria, in whole or in part, the applicant may either amend the application, apply for a Special Review to vary the design standards, or apply for an appeal of the Director's finding pursuant to Subsection C, below. An application for an ADU may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director based on the following criteria: I. The proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit meets the requirements of Section 26.520.050, Design Standards. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 6 r\. r) 2. The applicable deed restriction for the Accessory Dwelling Unit has been accepted by the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority and the deed restriction is recorded prior to an application for a building permit. C. Appeal of Director's Determination. An appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be reviewed as a Special Review pursuant to subsection D, below. In this case, the Community Development Director's finding shall be forwarded as a recommendation and a new application need not be filed. D. Special Review. An application requesting a variance from the ADU design standards, or an appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(b and c). Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is a Historic Landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, or within a Historic Overlay District, and the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: I. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability; and, 2. The proposed ADU is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property; and, 3. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on-street parking, availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. E. Inspection and Acceptance. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 7 r\ " Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for an ADU, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or the Chief Building Official, shall inspect the ADU for compliance with the Design Standards. Any un-approved varia.tions from these standards shall be remedied or approved pursuant to this chapter prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Compliance. 26. 520.090 Amendment ofan ADU Development Order A. Insubstantial Amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for an Accessory Dwelling Unit may be authorized by the Community Development Director if: I. The change is in conformance with the design standards, Section 26.520.050, or does not exceed approvedvariations to the design standards; and, 2. The change does not alter the deed restriction for the ADU or the alteration to the deed restriction has been approved by the Aspen/Pitkin COImty Housing Authority. B. Other Amendments. All other amendments to an approved development order for an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be reviewed pursuant to the terms and procedures of this Section. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.470.070(B) subparagraphs I and 2, which Section defines, authorizes, and regulates the process for exempting the development of single-family and duplex residences from the scoring and competition and scoring procedures of the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), by striking and adding, denoted by stHk€ and add, language to the Land Use Code as follows: I. Single.family. In order to qualify for a single.family exemption, the applicant shall have t:hfw-five (2.~) options: a. a. Providing an above grade, detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), pursuant to Section 26.520; b. Providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit authorized through Special Review to be attached and/or partially or fully sub grade, pursuant to Section 26.520; or, c. Providing an off. site Affordable Housing Unit within the Aspen Infill Area accepted by the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority and deed restricted in accordance with the AspenlPitkin COImty Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 8 I) o Lfl:eaying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or, e. Recording a Resident-Occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single- family dwelling unit being constructed. 2. Duplex. In order to qualify for a duplex exemption, the applicant shall have Jive-six (Q~) options: ~a. Providing one free market dwelling unit and one deed restricted Resident- Occupied (RO) dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet; or, b. b. providing either two above grade, detache<! fr@@ market dwelling Hllits Accessory Dwelling Units or anG-one above grade, detached accessory dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of six hundred (600) net livable square feet, pursuant to Section 26.520;.9L. c. Providing either two Accessory Dwelling Units or one Accessory Dwelling Unit with a minimum of 600 net livable square feet authorized through Special Review to be attached and/or partially or fully subgrade, pursuant to Section 26.520; or, d. Providing an off-site Affordable Housing Unit within the Aspen Infill Area accepted by the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority and deed restricted in accordance with the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or, e. d. !]lroviding two deed restricted Resident-Occupied (RO) dwelling units; or Le. !]laying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.104.100, which section defines terms used in the Land Use Code, by inclusion of the following terms: Structure, detached. A structure not physically connected in any manner to another structure, above or below ground, exclusive of utility connections. Aspen Infill Area. That geographical area of Aspen east of Castle Creek and south of the Roaring Fork River. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.575.020(A)(6), which section defines the method in which Floor Area is calculated for Accessory Dwelling Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 9 r\ > i Units and attributed to the allowable Floor Area for the parcel, by striking and adding, denoted by stHk€ and add, language to the Land Use Code as follows: 6. Accessory Dwellinf( Units. An Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be calculated and attributed to the allowable floor area for a parcel with the same inclusions and exclusions for calculating Floor Area as defined in this Section, unless eligible for an exemption a~ described below. Detached and permanently affordable ADU Floor Area Exemption&mus. Fil'ty-One Hundred (100,w) percent ofthe net li'iable square footag@Floor Area of an ADU which is detached from the primary residence and deed restricted as a "For Sale" affordable housing unit and transferred to a qualified purchaser in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended, by a distanc@ of no I@ss than ten (10) feet and which is housed in a structur@ '':'1ith a footprint of no more than 625 sqHare feet shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area. Mandate."y Occupancy ADU Fleer Area BemiS. Fifty (50) perc@nt ofth@ net livable sqHar@ footag@ of an ,\cc@sso!')' Dw@lling Unit de@d r@strict@d to Mandato!')' Occupancy shall b@ @xclud@d from the calcHlation of floor I.r@a. This Mandato!')' Occupancy r@striction r@qrnr@s the I.DTJ be continuoHsly occupied Bj' a local working resident, as defined by the Asp@nipitkin COHntj' Housing Authority, for I@as@ periods of si): months or greater. Th@ owner shall retain the right to sel@ct a qualified renter. Combined FAR Bonuses. If an .\DU is @Iigible for both of th@ Floor .A.rea bonuses G@scriB@d above, one hundr@d(IOO) p@rc@nt of the n@tliyable sqHare footage oftoo f.DU shall be @xclHded from the calcHlation of Floor Aftla. Section 5: Pursuant to Section 26.310.050 of the Municipal Code, the adoption ofthis resolution by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall not be considered a pending ordinance. APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on November 6, 2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 10 ~ , NEW URBAN NEWS Granny flats add flexibility and affordability In several new urban communities, accessory dwelling units are strong sellers and offer benefits to both home owners and developers. Accessory dwell41g units (ADUs) appear under many aliases - granny flats, garage apartments, car- riage houses, ancillary units - and they almost 41variably show up on a checklist of what sets new urban com- munities apart from conventional sub- divisions. They are by no means ubiq- uitous, but developers from diverse projects report that granny flats have become a popular amenity and an im- portant selling point. For an overview of selected projects with ADUs, along with financial, regulatory, and other details on these units, see accompany- ing New Urban News table. For some home owners, the most attractive aspect of ADUs is the po- tential for extra income from renting out the unit. Other home owners view the extra space as a flexible addition that can be used as a home office, as lodging for teenage children or eld- erly family members, or as a guest room with great privacy. From a developer's perspective, ADUs provide an extra tier of hous- ing options - affordable units that can attract people from diverse age and income groups. Another benefit is safer and more lively alleys. With more "eyes on the street," children and adults are more likely to use the alley for play and socialization. HIGHER DENSITY Moreover, 1/ accessory units are an easy way to get more people in the same area and therefore support low vehicle miles traveled and all of the good environmental outcomes from density," says developer Bob Chapman. "Accessory units offer density without making the street ap- pear overbuilt." In the infi!! project Trinity Heights, which Chapman is developing with architect Milton Grenfell, garage apartments have been added to 15 of the 24 single homes. Because Chapman and Grenfell want to encourage builders - who generally have no experience with granny flats - to construct ADUs, they offer a financial incen- tive. Instead of charging builders a per lot fee, the developers ask for 17 percent of the home sale price. For the ADU upgrade, however, builders are assessed only 6 percent of the sales revenue. Regulations vary on ADUs, but there are a few ground rules that ap- ply in most cases. The unit must be under the same ownership as the principal building, and there istypi- cally a requirement for at least one extra off-street parking space. In most projects, the units are considered part of the main house and do not count Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in selected projects As% of Count Project! AOUs all SF' Average Monthly toward . Parking Where are Location buill homes size Cost of upgrade rental density? requirements ADUs allowed? AmeHa Park! 27 33% 500 sq.ft. $43,000 -$65,000 $600-$750 No 1 off-street pad All lots Fernandina Beach, Fl Courtside Villagel 50 18% 600sq.l1. $35,000 (included $850-$900 No 1 off-street pad All detached home Santa Rosa, CA in home price) alley lots FairviewVilIagel 50 18% 600sq.ft. $20.0002 $500-$700 No None All lots (limited to Fairview,OR 50% 01 homes) Highlands Garden 20 40% 425sq.l1. $60,000-$65,000 $650-$750 No 1 carport All detached home lots Villagel Denver, CO (limited to 40%) Hometown Oswegol 5 10% 500sq.ft $40.000 None are rented No 1 off-street pad All detached home lots Oswego.IL (limited to 25%) Kentlandsl 45 4% 600sq.ft. $30,000 $900 Yes3 1 off-street space All lots Gaithersburg, MD Orenco Station! 27 15% 400sq.lt $40,000'$50.000 $500-$700 Yes 1 off-street space All detached home lots Hillsboro, OR Prospect! 40 36% 650 sq.l1. $35,000-$50,000 $1,000 Yes 2 off-street spaces All detached home lots Longmont, CO Southern Villagel 5 1'% 500 sq.ft. $50.000 $500-$600 Yes 1 off-street space All lots 50 leet wide or Chapel Hill, NC above Trinity Heights/ 15 62% 500sq.ft. $37,000-$43,000 $650-$700 No 1 off-street space All detached home lots Durham, NC ISingle~family. 2 This amount assumes that the decision. to build an ADU is made before the garage is built. 3 An ADU from 0 to 699 square feet counts asa.114dwelling unit; iarger units count as 1/2 and 3/4. DECEMBER .2001 " toward the overall density. "We were very serious about this during permit- ting," says Joel Embry, developer of Amelia Park in Fernandina Beach, Florida. "To count a garage apartment as a separate dwelling unit raises the public's impression of the density in a way that it is not actually occur- ring." In most projects, ADDs are re- stricted to specific lots or housing types, but these rules vary consider- ably (see table). ADDs are generally not counted toward maximum density require- ments, and Chapman explains why. "The developer will always choose to make $20,000 on a house rather than $4,000 on a garage apartment. So you kill any chance of them being built if they are included." THE PROSPECT EXAMPLE One exception to the rule is Pros- pect, a project in Longmont, Colo- rado. According to developer Kiki Wallace, the city can collect extra impact fees bycounting the garage apartments as independent dwell- ings. The typical impact fee for a home in Prospect is $18,000, and an ADD can put in another $6,000 in city coffers. "It works out just fine, be- cause I have 570 density units for 80 acres and I am not going to use them all," Wallace says. While he had no problems getting permission to build ADDs, the city has struggled with keeping track of the extra units and therefore discour- age other developers from including them in new projects. "It was painful for the city to begin with," Wallace says, but it now has a system that pre- vents ADDs, and the impact fees, from falling through the cracks. Despite high impact fees, ADDs have been very successful in Prospect - out of the approximately 110 homes completed, 40 have finished garage apartments. Builders usually include an unfinished shell above the garage, and charge about $50,000 for the average upgrade. Most units are in the 650 sq. ft. range, but one 950 sq. ft. unit has been built over a three-car garage. With an average rent of $1,000, the income potential has become a major ,-. Granny flats come in a great variety of configurations. The unit in Courlside Village, above lefl, has a separate entrance facing the parking pad. Flats in Fairview Village altatch to both single-family homes, right, and to live/work units, above right. driver for the ADDs, Wallace says. "Most people have the idea that they are going to use it for a home office. About half build it for that reason, but I'd say that all of them end up rent- ingit out.f1 Some public agencies that seek to encourage granny flats, but do not wish to give an open-ended permis- sion, have simply capped their con- struction at a certain percentage of home sites. Such restrictions are placed on Fairview Village, High- lands Garden Village, and Hometown Oswego. HELP WITH THE MORTGAGE The benefit to the home owner can be substantial. In Courtside Village, a neighborhood in Santa Rosa, Cali- fornia, garage apartments are in- cluded with every single-family home located on an alley. To date, 50 units have been completed, and developer and designer Alan Cohen estimates that half the 600 sq. ft., one-bedroom apartments are rented out at a rate of $850 to $900. The alley homes cur- rently sell for $390,000, including the ADD. Assuming a 15 percent down payment and a 30-year mortgage at 7 percent, Cohen calculates the monthly mortgage to be $2,205. A DECEMBER 2001 9 rental fee of $900 covers 41 percent of the mortgage. Cohen adds that con- ventional developers in the area have noticed the success of Courtside's ADDs, and have begun to build them in other subdivisions. However, the calculation of more interest might be whether the rental covers the extra cost of the upgrade. In Trinity Heights, the addition of a garage and an apartment costs from $37,000 to $43,000 (the price of the garage alone is about $15,000). Since the apartments rent out for $700; month, the home owner can recoup about double the mortgage on the ADD while paying for the two-car garage simultaneously - one reason for the units' popularity. The upgrade cost in Trinity Heights is at the lower end, however. Typically, the price of the garage is included in the price of the primary structure, and upgrades range from $40,000 to $65,000. Nev- ertheless, rental fees typically cover the extra monthly mortgage for the ADD, and then some. Developers are also seeing ex- amples of home owners who move into the garage apartment and rent out the principal building. This strat- egy works as a holding pattern for people who plan to retire to Amelia Park, for example. The garage apart- ment becomes a weekend home, while the principal townhouse is a steady source of income until retire- ment. ACCESS AND AMENITIES Developers and builders use a va- riety of strategies for access to ADUs. In Orenco Station (Hillsboro, Oregon) the choice of exterior stairs allows for the addition of a small porch in front of the first-floor entrance to the unit. Some entrances face the side yard of the home, while those at the end of blocks face the street. "These are bet- ter for a home office or a rentaI:' says Mike Mehaffy of PacTrust, the devel- oper. In Courtside Village, the stairs are internal, and the entrance faces the extra parking pad off the alley. This offers homeowners and tenants the greatest degree of privacy. An un- usual approach is used in the largest units in Amelia Park, those built over attached, three-car garages. They come with a separate entrance within the garage, where one of the parking spaces is reserved for the tenant. The basic amenities in most ADUs include a bedroom, a bath, and a small kitchen. Many developers offer a range of options, from loft units to more highly finished versions with separate rooms. Hometown Oswego in Illinois has a few 500 sq. ft. units that feature a kitchen, separate living rooms and bedrooms, and walk-in closets. "People love them, " says de- veloper Perry Bigelow, "it's the most efficient use of space we offer." Municipal regulations are a poten- tial hurdle for developers. Even though Trinity Heights is an infill project in the City of Durham, the city charter had to be amended to allow accessory units to be built. Even with this amendment, the local law stated that the units could not be within 15 feet of the property line, even at the back alley. This shifted the units to- ward the middle of the lot, reducing , -~~p :a~~o~~~~~::;!~:~~~~ Sn~~(~,2,~(:::~;;i\;~;2' Ancillary unit d~fined: art.part-' , of the ancillary dwelling 'shalr not e~: _ ment not greate~ tnan 600 squa~e c~ed 500 sq':;are f~~t,Gepe,.?1 #e~;~~~h f:ee~ ,s~~~in:~_p:tjH,tr,~;o,~e,~,~fF:~,~.fr~t~':~ lot ma~h,a_",e9Pepr~dp~1,~d'8~~:'~~'~ principal buildktg. -rtmay :~rmay ',,'6t cillary building, with 1.5 as~igTIed p~rk: be a separate building. Ancill~ry '!';':~ ing spaces for each,:B-o;th.dw7IliIlgs do ~~t Soul1.t.t~~ardW~:2:~~i\y.~,;ge,~,~ ' shall b~ ~;~:)~~'~~~'?M1~~~~R~:'.~:: sity ca1cul~~,~?~~':''', ",_,:~'",~-F(::7,ii~/-:,,(i;0::ji;i~i!;~0S~ habitabl~:~~ea ofthe'aric~I'10 ~~~~~~-\ Ancillary ti~its are,', ~t19~e~:':,~_&':::~Ji, shall not '~xceed,5~b, sq~are, fe'~t.: ':'~~~: tiers, of the Trar;s,~:c~, f~Otn':~~-t~lSB:t9~~; ter andS()~~, ,,~i~~.~:,,~;,?,. pa~~?, .~.f~'~<~S' ~der thefoll?~,~,g.~~~tr~c:t:t?~~~:.~*~l areGlSSi~~d~?>~~'~~.~t;~5~~g_~b~,~,' and Sub~ urban tiers: Eachl"t iliay ha;e may be' reduced according-to' Shared' one principal ~d one ~dllaiy buildc parking standards. .: ' ing~'..With.tw?:':~>~~i~e~'p;f~g"~a'g~I~; j<.?;:;r~:,,;::~'::-RfXfj(Ay:''i:':;\:)\>':: for each. B6th dwellings'shill'beunder - From 'The 'Sma.fl 'Code ~e same .()~~~!~f1,~' '~~i~i~i0~Z~~'~t~,f: Plater~Z~~e;~~...~.E~'.,:,:~,;:~::~:'::':::,;; :,~:;:,:< :'; ,.:.;:t::;::;itlri!(;0\ DECEMBER 2001 10 usable yard space. (Fortunately, Trin- ity Heights lots are 140 feet deep). In Portland, on the other hand, the regional planning authority now al- lows ADU s in all area jurisdictions. "It is expected to help with the sup- ply of affordable residences and to contribute to a more resource-effi- cient development pattern," Mehaffy explains. Tucked away behind homes, ADUs tend to fly under the radar, but in the projects where they have taken hold, developers are uniformly positive about their impact. "They are one of our real success stories," says Rick Holt, one of the developers of Fairview Village near Portland, Or- egon. "We've added them to rowhouses as well as single-family homes and they have introduced a greater blend of people in our com- munity." Ninety percent of the ADUs in Fairview Village are rented out. "In Amelia Park, we are discover- ing that when people live in the ga- rage apartments, the alley thrives as a civic location," Embry says." Also, we are achieving the mix of affordability that we want on an inclusionary basis, rather than through the pods of the conventional subdivision. It's a practical way of achieving one of the more elusive goals of the New Urbanism.". r) NEW URBAN NEWS Project focuses on green building, affordable housing Most new urban developments of fer some environmental advan- tages; Highlands Garden Village in Denver, Colorado, is set apart by its comprehensive approach to resource conservation. Plus, with the project's affordable housing components and broad range of prices, the developers attempted to meet most goals of the Charter of the New Urbanism with this 27-acre infill redevelopment - while earning a reasonable profit. The latter goal has been met. Sales and leasing of most residential units are finalized just two years after the first homes were completed. In addi- tion, developers Burgwyn, Perry & Rose have seen substantial price esca- lation in the market rate units. "Ab- sorption has been much faster than an- ticipated, and it's because people love community," says codeveloper Jonathan Rose. He adds that the "sub- urban quality" homes in the urban lo- cation made for an appealing product. Highland Gardens Village is located a mile and a half from downtown on the site of a defunct amusement park. The site is surrounded by the historic Denver grid - allowing the develop- ers to tie in to existing streets, public utilities, and mass transit. The site offered the developers op- portunities for reuse - starting with a historic theater and carousel house. Trees and gardens were salvaged - as were 30 tons of concrete. The developers went to substantial lengths to use recycled constmction materials, and to make the homes en- ergy efficient. Some of these efforts amount to good building techniques - such as making homes as tight as possible while ensuring good venti- lation, purchasing energy efficient ap- pliances and windowsf and minimiz- ing the length of heat ducts. But the HGV sales and lease prices Homes back up to public gardens. developers have gone well beyond common practice by using wind source electricity and obtaining alter- native energy vehicles for a neighbor- hood car-sharing program. Some of the green measures cut costs - the reuse of concrete saved a net $80,000 in hauling and material purchase costs, Rose says. Most mea- sures added costs, e.g. purchasing wind source electricity for community, multifamily, and senior housing build- ings .adds 10 percent to utility bills in developer-owned buildings. Overall, Rose estimates that green building techniques raised construction costs by two or three percent, although he has not conducted a detailed study. On the other side of the ledger, po- tential home buyers are offered lower utility costs, good indoor air quality, and a better overall product, he be- lieves. "Not only is it the right thing to do and better for the Earth, but there are marketing advantages," he says. The 290-home project, master planned by Calthorpe Associates, in- cludes 90,000-110,000 square feet of commercial, plus 38,000 square feet of civic/ community buildings. Fifty-two Category Energy efficiency Description Highlands Garden Village environmentaldesign features 1. Mixed.use, human.scale streets and blocks encourage walking and bicycli'ng. 2. Connection to mass transit in the form of frequent bus service to site. 3. Large double glazed vinyl windows with loW E glass increase daylighting and save energy. 4. Efficient framing and engineered lumber products reduce use of wood. 5. Energy efficient boilers, air conditioners, mechanical systems, water heaters, and appliances used throughout. 6. Centrally located furnaces with duct runs.as short as pOSSible boost heating efficiency. 7. Blower door testing allows air penetration to be carefully calibrated, aliowing buildings to "breathe" while keeping heat loss and gain to a minimum. 8. Compact fluorescent lighting in senior housing and mUltifamily buildings. 9. Sealed combustion gas fireplace using outside combustion air. 10. light colored interior walls, ceilings, soffits, and carpets reduce daytime lighting needs. 1. Recycling of a vacant, 27~acre infill site, formerly operated as an amusement park. 2. Use of existing city water, sewer, and storm water infrastructure. 3. ConnecUon to existing street grid and surrounding neighborhoods. 4. Renovation of 1 OO~year~old theater as a community arts and cultural center. Carousel house to be transformed into pavilion for periormances and community events. 5. Thirty tons of concrete from old site crushed and used as a road base. 6. Recycled content construction materials include oriented strand board for sub~flooring and exterior walls, insulation, carpet pads, interior doors, tiles, I joints in floor and roof trusses, and decking and other outdoor structures. 7. High fiyash content concrete (flyash is a byproduct of coal fired power plants). 8. Homes with kitchens that include built~in recycling storage centers. 1. Electricity generated from wind farms used in multifamily units, civic buildings, and parks. 2. Electric powered car, and two natural gas vehicles for cOl"!1munity use. 1. Community parks and gardens feature edible plants and increase permeable land suriace. 2. Conservation of existing gardens and trees (mature trees shade homes and save energy). 3. Water conserving vegetation planted throughout the project. 4. Native grasses, trees, and plants used. Recycling/ reuse Alternative energy landscaping Product Original ($) Final ($) Single family 199.500-316,500 211.996'429,666 Townhomes 178,500-209,500 193,063-283,244 Cohousing 144.632-249,377 153.795-267,817 Interior air Seniorapts. 470-1065/month 450-1065/month quality Ii 1. Selection of paints with low volatile organic compound emissions. 2. Furnace duct work sealed with low toxic mastic. DECEMBER 2001 11 ~vhtr ~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November 6. 2001 ..... t"""\ ~ r"'1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November 6. 2001 ADD Code Amendment dealt with existing units with mandatory occupancy (deed-restrictions); what to do with the already approved ADDs, which will be the next public hearing. Bendon explained the incentive of FAR was not very successful because it created a difficult enforcement; P&Z suggested deleting this from the code 2 years ago. The ADDs that were detached were less likely to be used as ~m extra bedroom and were more likely to be used as intended. There were changes in the FAR and the concept was brought up of one additional square foot of additional FAR added to the main dwelling for every square foot of the ADD that was built above grade as an incentive; this ADD would be sold to a qualified resident. Bendon said that the amendments were noted in the resolutions with color. Bert Myrin asked if the for sale unit would be detached and above grade. Bendon replied that the incentive for the for sale ADD would be the additional FAR and the community benefit for employee housing with in-fill. Roger Haneman asked how the lot splits would occur. Bendon replied that it could be condominized or used as a lot split. Myrin said that it could be designed for year round occupancy. No public comments. Ruth Kruger asked if this was an exercise in futility or would this program be used; she asked ifthis was another option for employee housing to be built. Bendon replied that he did not to want characterize this as an exercise in futility, someone might use this program and it would be a different way for an incentive program to be characterized. Bendon stated that this would be an actual for sale unit associated with rights without an enforcement issue. Eric Cohen said that the accessory unit was exempt from FAR and the free-market incentive was the additional square footage. Bendon said that the current system for occupancy did not allow control of who would be placed in the ADD and with a condominium there would be more reliance placed on the units. Ron Erickson said that the off site unit buy downs should be accomplished in groups with prior homeowner approval. Erickson said that if there were parts of the resolution that needed refinement from the housing guidelines but on the whole was moving in the right direction for the ADD goals ofthis commission. Alan Richman suggested that the condominium association make it clear if they want deed-restricted units. Erickson stated that this should be a cautious undertaking with a clarification from the Housing Authority in the guidehnes. Tygre stated that she agreed with Erickson on a successful buy down transaction with more 4 1"""\. n ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November 6. 2001 information documented from thy Housing Authority. Tygre stated that long time locals were more likely to house employees. Tygre stated that she was appalled by the mandatory occupancy on an ethical basis and was happy that this code amendment came forward. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve PZ Resolution #01-41 recommending approval of the City-initiated amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program eliminating the mandatory occupancy provision, amending the Floor Area incentives available for the ADU's and allowing off-site affordable housing provision to exempt single-family and duplex development from growth management. Bert Myrin seconded. Roll call vote: Kruger, yes; Myrin, yes; Erickson, yes; Cohen, yes; Blaich, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0. Ron Erickson recommended that the Housing Authority include in the guidelines language for clarification for buy downs of existing free-market units, including prior approval from the existing condominium ass()ciations or a certificate of no negative effects. Erickson stated that this recommendation was to go to Housing and City Council. Haneman said that he felt that this should was the responsibility of the homeowners' association and not at the P&Z level. Erickson said that he stated that the associations could be more proactive than reactive in the by-laws.' Cohen said that this would put a roadblock for the sales of units. Bendoll replied that Jasmine was on the right track because it keeps the unit affordable. Blaich stated that he was positive on this recommendation to Housing. The commission was in favor of this recommendation. Bendon stated that there\Ver~ a, series ofrecOIl1mendations to the housing guidelines that will be generated from the In-fill Committee. PUBLIC HEARING: 5 r-, ry \J ll~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council RE: John Worcester, City Attorney Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directo~ Chris Bendon, Senior Planner ~W1 Accessory Dwelling Unit Amendments (City Initiated) 1" Reading of Ordinance No.W.o, Series of 2001. Detached ADU requirement for Growth Management Exemption ADU Floor Area Amendments THRU: FROM: DATE: November 26, 2001 SUMMARY: The City Council initiated amendments to the City's Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADD) Program to eliminate the mandatory occupancy and to require growth management exemptions only be granted for ADUs developed above grade and detached from the primary residence. The proposed ordinance accomplishes these desired changes. The amendment affects the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program, the exemption section of growth management, and the Floor Area calculation section. Two new definitions have been proposed to help clarify terms used in the proposed language. Under Main Issues, the primary aspects ofthis proposed code amendment have been described. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this code amendment and recommended approval by a 7-0 vote. Their Resolution is attached. The Commission also expressed concern over "buy-down" units. They emphasized a need for the Housing Authority to determine if any legal impediments exist and to research association fees before accepting a unit within a free-market complex. They asked that their comments be forwarded to both City Council and the Housing Authority. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No.4~, Series of 2001, upon first reading. MAIN ISSUES: Detached & Above Grade ADU Requirement: The proposed code language requires Accessory Dwelling Units to be both detached from the primary residence and above grade. This requirement atpplies to voluntary ADU's as well as those being developed to exempt a residence from Growth Management. A Special Review approval would allow an ADU to be attached and/or partially to fully below grade. 1 {"l {'1 >..."f The Special Review procedure requires a public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission, or with the Historic Preservation Commission if the property is a historic resource. ADU's designed to meet the design standards will continue to be approved administratively No amendments to the Special Review criteria are proposed. Staff believes these criteria are sufficient to review these potential requests. ADU Floor Area: Currently, Floor Area incentives are available for two methods of ADU development: Detached and Mandatory Occupancy - each exempting 50% of the ADU for the calculation of Floor Area. If an ADU is both detached from the primary residence and deed restricted to mandatory occupancy, both floor area incentives apply for a 100% exemption. The proposed code amendment removes the incentive for mandatory occupancy. This has not been very popular and the few mandatory units approved through this provision have created enforcement problems for the Housing Authority. The detached incentive is also removed with this proposed language and replaced with a lOO% Floor Area incentive for units that are condominiumized and sold as affordable housing units according to the Affordable Housing Guidelines. This is a concept that has been discussed by the Infill Advisory Group as a means of encouraging affordable housing in single- family neighborhoods. The concept provides an incentive of one additional square foot of free-market development for every one square foot of affordable housing, up to the limiting size of an ADU. Removing the detached exemption may, however, create some nonconformities and may also affect property owners with plans to expend their primary residence be use of the previous exemption. Structures made nonconforming by adoption of this code language would be unaffected until redevelopment. Redevelopment would need to be accomplished within the bounds of the code in effect at the time. Off-Site Unit: The proposed code language allows an exemption from growth management to be achieved by deed restricting an existing free-market dwelling as an affordable housing unit. The "buy-down" concept is one that has been widely sought (as evidenced in the AACP) as a means of providing affordable housing without creating additional growth. The proposed language facilitates the private sector buy-down of free-market units in exchange for the redevelopment exemption of single- family and duplex units. The purchased unit would need to be within the Infill Area (new definition) and accepted by the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority Guidelines would dictate the resale value of the newly deed restricted unit. 2 1""'\ r'1 ApPLICANT: City of Aspen. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission passed Resolution 41, Series of 200 I, recommending approval of this Ordinance. A work session with the City Council, Housing Board, and Planning and Zoning Commission was held on this topic and resulted in staff direction to initiate this code amendment. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. BACKGROUND: The ADU Program was the topic of a work session between the City Council, Housing Board, and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The primary concern of the Boards was the lack of occupancy and the problems associated with mandatory occupancy units. The City Council directed staff to initiate code amendments to eliminate the mandatory occupancy provision and require all ADU's that serve as a GMQS exemption to be built above grade and detached from the primary residence. STAFF COMMENTS: Two ADU code amendments are currently being contemplated under separate public hearings. One is a City-initiated amendment related to land use incentives for future ADU's and the other is a privately-initiated amendment related to existing mandatory occupancy ADU's. These two amendments are being processed simultaneously, but under separate public hearings. They obviously relate but should remain as separate actions to maintain proper due process. Staff has aligned the two amendments and no conflicts exist under any approval/disapproval scenario. The Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution shows the proposed changes to the ADU Program and highlights the amendments in blue. Cress eat text is proposed for removal. Underlined text is proposed for addition. Regular text indicates no changes. The proposed Ordinance shows plain text, without the highlights, in a ready for codification manner. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No.%., Series of2001, upon first reading. 3 r"'. rj CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance NO.'!k..., Series of2001, upon first reading." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Exhibit B Review Criteria and Staff Comments Planning and Zoning Resolution C:\home\Chris\CASES\ADU _Revisit\CC_ MEMO _ CITY.doc 4 ~ 1""\ , Exhibit A STAFF COMMENTS: Text Amendment ADU Program Amendments City Initiated Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to a Land Use Code Text Amendment In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed code amendment intends to simplify the process and increase the community benefit of Accessory Dwelling Units. Specific provisions encourage units providing high quality living as an affordable housing alternative. No aspect of the proposed code amendment is in conflict with other portions of the Municipal Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff believes these changes to the ADU Program are supported by the AACP. There are many references to ADU's and "buy-downs" of existing free-market residences. The purpose of the ADU Program is to allow interspersed employee housing within existing neighborhoods to promote a healthy social fabric and a balance between the resort and the community. The intention of growth management is to ensure growth of exempt free-market housing is off-set with an equal benefit to the community. Projects, including single-family residences, are scored on a set of community benefit criteria; the highest scored projects of each year gain allotments. In a community where preserving a "critical mass" of local working residents is so important, the community has expressed disappointment with the current ADU Program which essentially provides exemptions from growth management for "guest rooms" that are not required to be occupied. The proposed amendments provide certain incentives to encourage occupancy by local working residents. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: This amendment is proposed for all residential zone districts and also mixed use zones where a single-family or duplex could be developed except for the R-15B Zone District. Due to the relative size of these units compared with a primary unit on the site, staff feels staff comments page 1 r\ , ! E) these accessory dwelling units will be compatible with typical land uses, densities, and neighborhood characteristics. Special Review allows for variances to the design standards to be considered under a public hearing and where neighborhood compatibility is one ofthe criteria. Staff believes this criterion is met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The proposed Program encourages a "critical mass" of residents Upvalley and within walking or transit distance to land uses frequently accessed such as employment, recreation, shopping, etc. Encouraging more affordable housing opportunities within Aspen will likely create more traffic on local streets. This needs to be weighed with the effects of not providing affordable housing opportunities within Aspen. Staff does not believe the amount of potential new units represents a safety issue on local roads. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: The types of uses and densities possible with the existing ADD program has not presented excessive demands on public facilities. The development permit process does address some ofthese concerns through tap fees, park fees, and drainage plans. Other impact fees are only applied to subdivisions, such as the school impact fee. Additional employee units of any type will represent additional burdens on the infrastructure. The community has demanded more affordable housing with the expectation that some of this development may require additional general services. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Increased local housing opportunities will allow for greater utilization of existing and planned infrastructure improvements. This may have less of a negative effect on the environment than development in areas where infrastructure does not already exist. Generally, staff believes this Ordinance will not encourage adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is cClnsistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. staff comments page 2 ,-.., , t1 , ,:/ Staff Finding: Characteristic of traditional towns, and important to Aspen as expressed in the Community Plan, is a "critical mass" of residents and an interspersed social layering. The interspersed nature of these units will promote community character. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The original ADD Program expected 80% utilization of these units without occupancy requirements. Actual utilization has been around 25%, far below expectations. Disappointment over the low occupancy of these units has created a desire to amend the program. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: This proposed amendment does not pose any conflicts with the public interest. The AACP reflects a community desire for integrated affordable housing opportunities within established neighborhoods. The community has favored infill opportunities over large- scale greenfield solutions to affordable housing. Staff believes this Ordinance will promote the purpose and intent ofthis Title. This Ordinance promotes the permanent community by emphasizing on-site employee housing opportunities for working residents and reducing the dependence on the automobile by providing housing near employment and recreation centers. Fewer long-distance commuter trips represents good environmental policy and providing incentives for high quality living units promotes healthy living conditions. staff comments page 3 r', r) ~hil--~ .". RESOLUTION NO. 41 (SERIES OF 2001) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PROGRAM, SECTION 26.520, THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM, SECTION 26.470, THE METHOD OF CALCULATING FLOOR AREA FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, SECTION 26.575.020, AND RECOMMENDING ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS FOR "DETACHED STRUCTURE" AND "ASPEN INFILL AREA," SECTION 26.104.100, OF THE LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen directed the Planning Director of the Community Development Department to propose amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program provisions of the land use code pursuant to sections 26.208 and 26.212; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Sections 26.520, 26.470, 26.575.020, and 26.104.100, of the land use code ofthe Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the :Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Pinal action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the amendments to the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), as proposed herein, shall not be implemented retro-actively upon existing Accessory Dwelling Units but shall apply to properties seeking an exemption from GMQS on or after the date of final adoption of these amendments; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended approval of amendments to Sections 26.520, 26.470, 26.575.020, and 26.104.100 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program on November 6,2001, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation ofthe Planning Director and recommended, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, City Council adopt the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Program amendments to the: land use code by amending the text of sections 26.520, 26.470, 26.575.020, and 26.1 04.1 00 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANN1NG AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 1 1'""\. n Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units, which section defines, describes, authorizes, and regulates the process for developing and requirements for operating an Accessory Dwelling Unit, by striking and adding, denoted by stfllre and add, language to the Land Use Code as follows: 26.520.010 26. 520.020 26. 520.030 26. 520.040 26. 520.050 26. 520.060 26. 520.070 26. 520.080 26. 520.090 26.520 Accessory Dwelling Units Purpose Definition Authority Applicability Design Standards Calculations and Measurements Deed Restrictions, Recordation, Enforcement Procedure Amendments 26.520.010 Purpose The purpose of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADD) Program is to promote the long- standing community goal of socially, economically, and environmentally responsible development patterns which balance Aspen the resort and Aspen the community. Aspen values balanced neighborhoods and a sense of commonality between working residents and part-time residents. ADUs represent viable housing opportunities for working residents and allow employees to live within the fabric of the community without their housing being easily identifiable as "employee housing." ADUs also help to address the affects of existing homes, which have provided workforce housing, being significantly redeveloped, often as second homes. ADUs support local Aspen businesses by providing an employee base within the town and providing a critical mass of local residents important to preserving Aspen's character. ADUs allow second home-owners the opportunity to hire an on-site caretaker to maintain their property in their absence. Increased employee housing opportunities in close proximity to employment and recreation centers is also an environmentally preferred land use pattern, which reduces automobile reliance. Detached ADU's emulate a historic development pattern and maximize the privacv and livabilitv of both the ADU and the primary unit. Detached ADU's are more likelv to be occupied bv a local working resident furthering a communitv goal of housing the workforce. To the extent Aspen desires detached Accessory Dwelling Units which provide viable and livable housing opportunities to local working residents, d(:tached ADU's qualify Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 2 r\: n existing vacant lots of record and significant redevelopment of existing homes for an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System. In addition, detached ADD's deed restricted te as "For Sale" units, according to the AspenlPitkin Countv Housing Authoritv Guidelines, as amended, and sold according to the procedures established in the Guidelines Mandato!')' OccUjJaIlcy provide for certain Floor Area incentives. 26. 520.020 General An Accessory Dwelling Unit, or ADD, is a separate dwelling urlit incidental and subordinate in size and character to the primary residence and located on the same parcel or on a contiguous lot under the same ownership. A primary residence may have no more than one ADD. An ADU may not be accessory to another ADU. An detached ADU cannot mav onlv be conveyed separate from the primarv residence as a "For Sale" Affordable Housing unit to a qualified purchaser -property interest separate from the primal')' residence, pursuant the AspenlPitkin Countv Housing Authoritv Guidelines, as amended. and- Aan ADD shall not be considered a unit of density with regard to zoning requirements. Accessory dwelling units shall not be used to obtain points in the affordable housing category of the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). Accessory dwelling units also may not be used to meet the requirements of Chapter 26.530 "Residential Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program." All ADDs shall be developed in conformance with this Section. 26. 520.030 Authority. The Community Development Director, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter and of Common Development Review Procedures, Section 26.304, shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a land use application for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. An appeal of the Community Development Director's determination shall be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review. A land use application requesting a variation of the ADD design standards shall be approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the Phuming and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review. If the land use application requesting a variation of the ADU design standards is part of a consolidated application process, authorized by the Community Development Director, requiring consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the variation, pursuant to Section 26.-520.080, Special Review. 26. 520.040 Applicability This Section applies to all zone districts within the City of Aspen in which an Accessory Dwelling Unit is a permitted use, as designated in SI~ction 26.710, and to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 3 1"""". n all Accessory Dwelling Units approved as a Conditional Use prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1999 , Series of2001. 26. 520.050 Design Standards All ADUs shall conform to the following design standards unless otherwise approved, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review: I. An ADU must contain between 300 and 800 net livable square feet, 10% of which must be a closet or storage area. 2. An ADD must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit. This includes the following: a) An ADU must be separately accessible from the exterior. An interior entrance to the primary residence may be approved by the Commission, pursuant to Special Review; b) An ADU must have separately accessible utilities. This does not preclude shared services; c) An ADU shall contain a kitchen containing, at a minimum, an oven, a stove with two burners, a sink, and a refrigerator with a minimum of 6 cubic feet of capacity and a freezer; and, d) An ADD shall contain a bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink, a toilet, and a shower. 3. One parking space for the ADU shall be provided on-site and shall remain available for the benefit of the ADU resident. The parking space shall not be stacked with a space for the primary residence. 4. The finished floor height(s) of the ADU shall be entirely above the natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. on all sides of the structure. 5. The ADU shall be detached from the primary residence. An ADD located above a detached garage or storage area shall qualifv as a detached ADU. No other connections to the primary residence. or portions thereof. shall qualify the ADU as detached. 4.6. An ADU shall be located within the dimensional requirements ofthe zone district in which the property is located. ~ 7. The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an ADU. Ifthe entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided. ,,",8. ADDs shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of this title which apply to residential development in general. These include, but are not limited to, the Uniform Building Code requirements related to adequate natural light, ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression, and sound attenuation between living units. This standard may not be varied. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 4 1""'\ " ,. j +'9. All ADDs shall be registered with the Housing Authority and the property shall be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520.070 Deed Restrictions. This standard may not be varied. 26. 520.060 Calculations and Measurements A. Floor Area. ADD's are attributed to the maximum allowable floor area for the given property on which they are developed, pursuant to Section 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements. B. Net Livable Square Footage. ADDs must contain between 300 and 800 square feet of net livable floor area, unless varied through a land use review. The calculation of net livable area differs slightly from the calculation of Floor Area inasmuch as it measures the interior dimensions of the unit. 26. 520.070 Deed Restrictions and Enforcement. A. Deed Restrictions. At a minimum, all properties containing an ADU shall be deed restricted in the following manner: . The ADU shall be registered with the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority. . Any occupant of an ADD shall be qualified as a local working resident according to the current AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. . The ADU shall be restricted to lease periods of no less then six months in duration, or as otherwise required by the current AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Leases must be recorded with the Hou.sing Authority. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter. A detached and permanently affordable Accessory Dwelling Units qualifying a property for a Floor Area ExemptionEetms, pursuant to Section 26.575.020(A)(6), shall be deed restricted as a "For Sale" Affordable Housing Unit and conveved to a qualified purchaser. according to the AspenlPitkin Countv Housing Authoritv Guidelines. as amended. to Mandato!')' Occupancy. This additional restriction reC/Hires the .\DU be continuously occupied by a local \vorking resident, aD defined by the .^.speniPitkin County Housing ,^.uthority, f-or lease periods of sill months or greater. The ov.'ner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter.- The AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority shall provide a standard form for recording Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restrictions. The deed restriction shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to an application for a building permit may be accepted. The book and page associated with the recordation shall be noted in the building permit plans for an ADU. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 5 1"""\. n B. Enforcement. The AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority, or their designee, shall enforce the recorded deed restriction between the property owner and AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority. 26. 520.080 Procedure A. General. Pursuant to Section 26.304.020, Pre-Application Conference, Applicants are encouraged to meet with a City Planner of the Community Development Department to clarify the requirements of the ADU Program. A development application for an ADD shall include the requisite information and materials, pursuant to Section 26.304.030. In addition, the application shall include scaled floor plans and elevations for the proposed ADU. The application shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. Any bandit dwelling unit which can be demonstrated to have been in existence on or prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999, and which complies with the requirements of this section may be legalized as an accessory dwelling unit, if it shall meet the health and safety requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as determined by the Chief Building Official. No retro-active penalties or assessments shall be levied against any bandit unit upon legalization. ADDs require a separate building permit. After a Development Order has been issued for an ADD, a building permit application may be submitted in conformance with Section 26.304.075. B. Administrative Review. In order to obtain a Development Order for an ADD, the Community Development Director shall find the ADU in conformance with the criteria for administrative approval. If an application is found to be inconsistent with these criteria, in whole or in part, the applicant may either amend the application, apply for a Special Review to vary the design standards, or apply for an appeal of the Director's finding pursuant to Subsection C, below. An application for an ADU may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director based on the following criteria: I. The proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit meets the requirements of Section 26.520.050, Design Standards. 2. The applicable deed restriction for the Accessory Dwelling Unit has been accepted by the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority and the deed restriction is recorded prior to an application for a building permit. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 6 1"". n C. Appeal of Director's Determination. An appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be reviewed as a Special Review pursuant to subsection D, below. In this case, the Community Development Director's finding shall be forwarded as a recommendation and a new application need not be filed. D. Special Review. An application requesting a variance from the ADD design standards, or an appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304. The Special Review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(b and c). Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is a Historic Landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, or within a Historic Overlay District, and the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: I. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU program, promotes the purpose ofthe zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability; and, 2. The proposed ADD is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property; and, 3. The proposed ADD is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character ofthe neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on-street parking, availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. E. Inspection and Acceptance. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for an ADU, the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority, or the Chief Building Official, shall inspect the ADU for compliance with the Design Standards. Any un-approved variations from these standards shall be remedied or approved pursuant to this chapter prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Compliance. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 7 /"""\ ~ "... '1 26. 520.090 Amendment of an ADU Development Order A. Insubstantial Amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for an Accessory Dwelling Unit may be authorized by the Community Development Director if: I. The change is in conformance with the design standards, Section 26.520.050, or does not exceed approved variations to the design standards; and, 2. The change does not alter the deed restriction for the ADU or the alteration to the deed restriction has been approved by the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority. B. Other Amendments. All other amendments to an approved development order for an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be reviewed pursuant to the terms and procedures of this Section. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.3 IO of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.470.070(B) subparagraphs I and 2, which Section defines, authorizes, and regulates the process for exempting the development of single-family and dupiex residences from the scoring and competition and scoring procedures ofthe Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), by striking and adding, denoted by stflke and add. language to the Land Use Code as follows: I. Single-family. In order to qualify for a single-family exemption, the applicant shall have tffiee..five (2.3) options: a. a. Providing an above grade. detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), pursuant toSection 26.520; b. Providing an Accessorv Dwelling Unit authorized through Special Review to be attached and/or partiallv or fullv sub grade" pursuant to Section 26.520; or. c. Providing an off-site Affordable Housing Unit within the Aspen Infill Area accepted bv the AspenlPitkin Countv Housing Authoritv and deed restricted in accordance with the AspenlPitkin Countv Housing Authoritv Guidelines. as amended; or, LrEaying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or, e. Recording a Resident-Occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single- family dwelling unit being constructed. 2. Duplex. In order to qualify for a duplex exemption, the applicant shall have Hve-six (2~) options: Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 8 1"'\ ("\ \" "} a. a. Providing one free market dwelling unit and one deed restricted Resident- Occupied (RO) dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of one thousand five hundied (I,500) square feet; or, Lb. providing either two above grade, detached- free market dwelling Hllits Accessorv Dwelling Units or and--one above grade, detached accessory dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of six hundred (600) net livable square feet, pursuant to Section 26.520;..Ql:, c. Providing either two Accessory Dwelling Units or one Accessory Dwelling Unit with a minimum of 600 net livable square feet authorized through Special Review to be attached and/or Partiallv or fullv sub grade, pursuant to Section 26.520; or, d. Providing an off-site Affordable Housing Unit within the Aspen Infill Area accepted bv the AspenlPitkin County Housin,~ Authoritv and deed restricted in accordance with the AspenlPitkin Countv Housing Authoritv Guidelines, as amended; or, ~d. Eproviding two deed restricted Resident-Occupied (RO) dwelling units; or f. e. Epaying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.104.100, which section defines terms used in the Land Use Code, by inclusion of the following terms: Structure, detached. A structure not phvsicallv connected in anv manner to another structure, above or below ground, exclusive of utilitv connections. Aspen Infill Area. That geographical area of Aspen east of Castle Creek and south of the Roaring Fork River. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.575.020(A)(6), which section defines the method in which Floor Area is calculated for Accessory Dwelling Units and attributed to the allowable Floor Area for the parcel, by striking and adding, denoted by stflke and add, language to the Land Use Code as follows: 6. Accessory Dwellinf! Units. An Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be calculated and attributed to the allowable floor area for a parcel with the same inclusions and exclusions for calculating Floor Area as defined in this Section, unless eligible for an exemption a~ described below. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 9 r", () <f Detached and permanentlv affordable ADU Floor Area Exemption&mus. Fil'ty-One Hundred (lOO,w) percent of the nct livable squarc footagcFloor Area of an ADU which is detached from the primary residence and deed restricted as a "For Sale" affordable housing unit and transferred to a qualified purchaser in accordance with the AspenlPitkin Countv Housing Authoritv Guidelines. as amended. by a distance of no less than ten (10) fcet and which is houscd iB a structare with a footprint of no more than 625 sqaare f-cet shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area. -'.{<inflater; OCCNP3l1C~' jDU P!eer jr-ell BanNS. Fifty (50) pereeBt ofthc net linble sqaare footagc of an f.ccessory Dwelling Unit deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy shall be ellclHded from the calculation of Floor ,\rea. This Mandator)' Occupancy restrietioB rcqaires the ,\DU be cOBtinHously occupied by a local working resident, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing f.athority, for lease periods of six months or greater. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter. Cembined PjR Ben!/sDs. If an f.DU is eligible for both of the Floor ,\rea bonuses described above, OBe Imndred (100) percent of the Bet li"lable sqHare f-ootage of the f.DU shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area, Section 5: Pursuant to Section 26.310.050 of the Municipal Code, the adoption oftms resolution by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall not be considered a pending ordinance. APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on November 6,2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 41, Series of2001 Page 10 ""(~ 0. () :TlL c , MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directo~ Chris Bendon, Senior Planner ~~ Accessory Dwelling Unit Amendments (City Initiated) - Public Hearing Detached ADU requirement for Growth Management Exemption ADU Floor Area Amendments THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: November 6, 2001 'ttit] -- 0 SUMMARY: The City Council has initiated amendments to the City's Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADD) Program to eliminate the mandatory occupancy and to require growth management exemptions only be granted for ADU's developed above grade and detached from the primary residence. The proposed Resolution accomplishes these desired changes. The amendment affects the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program, the exemption section of growth management, and the Floor Area calculation section. Two new definitions have been proposed to clarify terms used in the proposed language. Under Main Issues, the primary aspects ofthis proposed code amendment have been described. Staff recommends the Commission recommend City Council adoption of this code amendment. MAIN ISSUES: Detached & Above Grade ADU Requirement: The proposed code language requires Accessory Dwelling Units to be both detached from the primary residence and above grade. This requirement :applies to voluntary ADU's as well as those being developed to exempt a residence from Growth Management. A Special Review approval would allow an ADU to be attached and/or partially to fully below grade. The Special Review procedure requires a public hearing with th,~ Planning and Zoning Commission, or with the Historic Preservation Commission if the property is a historic resource. ADU's designed to meet the design standards will continue to be approved administratively. No amendments to the Special Review criteria are proposed. Staff believes these criteria are sufficient to review these potential requests. 1 ~rf;J # -v' " f"""'". .- f'n ADU Floor Area: Currently, Floor Area incentives are available for two methods of ADD development: Detached and Mandatory Occupancy - each exempting 50% of the ADU for the calculation of Floor Area. If an ADD is both detached from the primary residence and deed restricted to mandatory occupancy, both floor area incentives apply for a 100% exemption. The proposed code amendment removes the incentive for mandatory occupancy. This has not been very popular and the few mandatory units approved through this provision have created enforcement problems for the Housing Authority. The detached incentive is also removed with this proposed language and replaced with a 100% Floor Area incentive for units that are condominiumized and sold as affordable housing units according to the Affordable Housing Guidelines. This is a concept that has been discussed by the Infill Advisory Group as a means of encouraging affordable housing in single-family neighborhoods. The concept provides an incentive of one additional square foot of free-market development for every one square foot of affordable housing, up to the limiting size of an ADU. Removing the detached exemption may, however, create some nonconformities and may also affect property owners with plans to expend their primary residence be use ofthe previous exemption. Structures made nonconforming by adoption of this code language would be unaffected until redevelopment. Redevelopment would need to be accomplished within the bounds of the code in effect at the time. Off-Site Unit: The proposed code language allows an exemption from growth management to be achieved by deed restricting an existing free-market dwelling as an affordable housing unit. The "buy-down" concept is one that has been widely sought (as evidenced in the AACP) as a means of providing affordable housing without creating additional growth. The proposed language facilitates the private sector buy-down of free-market units in exchange for the redevelopment exemption of single-family and duplex units. The purchased unit would need to be within the Infill Area (new definition) and accepted by the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority Guidelines would dictate the resale value of the newly deed restricted unit. ApPLICANT: City of Aspen. PREVIOUS ACTION: The planning and Zoning Commission has not previously considered this Resolution. A work session with the City Council, Housing Board, and Planning and Zoning Commission was held on this topic and resulted in staff direction to initiate this code amendment. 2 r\ ~ REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. BACKGROUND: The ADU Program was the topic of a work session between the City Council, Housing Board, and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The primary concern of the Boards was the lack of occupancy and the problems associated with mandatory occupancy units. The City Council directed staffto initiate code amendments to eliminate the mandatory occupancy provision and require all ADU's that serve as a GMQS exemption to be built above grade and detached from the primary residence. STAFF COMMENTS: Two ADU code amendments are currently being contemplated under separate public hearings. One is a City-initiated amendment related to land use incentives for future ADU's and the other is a privately-initiated amendment related to existing mandatory occupancy ADU's. These two amendments are being processed simultaneously, but under separate public hearings. They obviously relate but should remain as separate actions to maintain proper due process. Staffhas aligned the two amendments and no conflicts exist under any approval/disapproval scenario. The Resolution shows the proposed changes to the ADU Program and highlights the amendments in blue. Cress om text is proposed for removal. Underlined text is proposed for addition. Regular text indicates no changes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the City-initiated aIIJFndments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program as described in Resolution Ol-~ RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve PZ-Resolution 01-11.. recommending approval of the City- initiated amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program eliminating the mandatory occupancy provision, amending the Floor Area incentives available for the ADU's, and allowing off-site affordable housing provision to exempt single-family and duplex development from growth management." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Proposed Resolution Exhibit B -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments 3 r". ~ , ) b Exhibit .. ADD Program Amendments City Initiated STAFF COMMENTS: Text Amendment Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to a Land Use Code Text Amendment In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed code amendment intends to simplify the process and increase the community benefit of Accessory Dwelling Units. Specific provisions encourage units providing high quality living as an affordable housing alternative. No aspect of the proposed code amendment is in conflict with other portions of the Municipal Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff believes these changes to the ADD Program are supported by the AACP. There are many references to ADU's and "buy-downs" of existing free-market residences. The purpose of the ADU Program is to allow interspersed employee housing within existing neighborhoods to promote a healthy social fabric and a balance between the resort and the community. The intention of growth management is to ensure growth of exempt free-market housing is off-set with an equal benefit to the community. Projects, including single-family residences, are scored on a set of community benefit criteria; the highest scored projects of each year gain allotments. In a community where preserving a "critical mass" oflocal working residents is so important, the community has expressed disappointment with the current ADD Program which essentially provides exemptions from growth management for "guest rooms" that are not required to be occupied. The proposed amendments provide certain incentives to encourage occupancy by local working residents. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: This amendment is proposed for all residential zone districts and also mixed use zones where a single- family or duplex could be developed except for the R -15B Zone District. Due to the relative size of these units compared with a primary unit on the site, staff feels staff comments page I -/ AFFIDA VII OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: It () fJ. Codt ~e/;~J 12//:;/01 , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ,200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) 55. County of Pitkin ) I, ~ (1\M l(' S / ~ I ~ ('1 +- (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: X Publication of notice." By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of thepublication is attached hereto. _ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproofmaterials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide -a'ndtwenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed oflett~ not ..Iess thanofie inch in height. Said notice was posted at least ten)! 0) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from. the _ day of '''.e. . -:;;; ,200_, to and including the date and time of the public he.aring. A'phqtograph of the posted notice (sign)is attached hereto. ,'," N" ...,..--:lv{ailil')g ofr!6tice. By the mailing ofa notice obtained from the C~~unit)i .;Deyeloprirent Department, which contains the information described in Section 26:30'i..060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, mllllicipal government, school, service. district or other governmental or quasi-governmental ~'<bthat owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) F r , I __-"',I Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other suftlciendegal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ~<Y/~ .~~A/ nature ':;>.~ The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged befqre \lie this ~ day of "'bv.. , 200..!...., by -:::J~'S h'~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL . ..' .... ,. PUBlic lk5.fitt'..:. . .; RE CITY OF ASPEN ~E"CODE AMEND- MENTS S~C+fg~'?~ 520, , CCESsg~-;'6-:~g UNITS SEt 6:575. , 76:f7U ~ MF.ASOm,MENTS" AND tCTlON oWrH MArfAGEMENT QUO 'A sySTEM ~ ~ OR CE IS HeREBY GIVEN that a publiC hearing NOT! ""Tf;;~""" ber 17 2001 at a meetmg Will be held on ec~m As 'en City Coun- to begm at s,'Otr"P'M:b_" beftty~t~~1l l~O SOuth Groe- ell Council Cham ers, l, I t d b ' Aspen to consider an application IOlt a e Y ~:~ City ~f Aspen, reQuestlngS:~i~~V~ ~~~ p,: posed code amendments to . '5 5' ell cessory Dwelllng Units, Section 26 7 26 4;Oc~1~- tion and Measurements, and ~echon ~ .; GroWth ~anagement Quota sy~~ma:;~~:~~ A TT ACHMENTS: The p'rOposed amendments ~ ~nrru~ ~d exemptIon given to AccessOry "OWe ng n a:' rowth management~aemptions or ~~;I:;:\: and duplex de,,:e~~~~~u~:::')Y OF THE PUBLICATION above-grade, detached Accessory For further mformatlon contact Chns Bendon""at . ~itK'''vC lty Development ue- ~,:t;;:';':~(io' ~~tbO';~~ St~ ,,",p,n. CO (""W OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) : 92~P??':",'S/He\enKaJ!.r!Jq~?,~r,~~lM~;r?r ,:<;;,,;.2'. ;"::'::/,,;,',:ii';;"':'" 'Aspen, City Council . P b";h'd in T~' "Pin Ti..,,'on D,,,..b~L I. 4ND GO VERNiYIENT AL A GENCIES NOTICED u, __,', "__""__":,,,,,,,"-"":-::,,'i:,'.-:'''''''' __',' '""-,,',,, ,,__, ""'V",c""".'"c:,,-~.'-i 2""t.(81~l) " . . , BY iYL4IL My commission expiresH )~3J '::>0>3 5' -L>>::h Notary Public '~"'''~~' r\ ~ '. ASPENIPITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM To: City Council Date: August 17,2001 From: Mary Roberts Re: rOry D~elling Unit Work Session The qity Council will be discu~sing the Accessory Dwelling Unit program at a work sessi0n on August 20, 2001. ccessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are currently one of sevetal methods to obt . exemption from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). Th' nt ofthe program is to provide affordable housing scattered throughout the community. However, there is no requirement that the ADU be occupied. This has raised a concern about whether this program is effective in meeting the goal of providing affordable housing. This issue was discussed by the Housing Board at its August 1,2001 meeting. The Board concluded that the ADU program is an important tool for the affordable housing program and should be continued. It made some specific recommendations regarding how to modify the ADU program to garner more occupancy in these units. Attached to this memorandum are the staff memorandums to the Housing Board, associated background material, and the Draft Minutes from the 8/1/01 Housing Board meeting. Attachments: 8/1101 Memo to the Housing Board 8/2/96 Memo to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Chapter 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units, Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.470.070, GMQS, Aspen Municipal Code Draft Minutes, 8/1/01 Housing Board Meeting ~ r"", ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM To: Housing Board Date: August 1, 2001 From: Mary Roberts Re: Accessory Dwelling Unit Requirement BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen allows "Accessory Dwelling Units" (ADD) under its Land Use Code "to promote the long-standing community goal of socially, economically, and environmentally responsible development patterns which balance Aspen the resort and Aspen the community. " The ADU program was instituted in an effort create additional housing opportunities for working residents of Aspen and Pitkin County. As an incentive for property owners to provide ADUs, vacant lots of record prior to 1976 and redevelopment/replacement of existing single-family homes and duplexes are exempt from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). In addition, any ADUs deed restricted to maridatory occupancy permit the primary unit to be eligible for certain floor area bonuses. City Council has scheduled a work session on the ADU program for August 7, 2001 at 4:00p.m. and have asked for the Housing Board's recommendation on whether ADUs should continue to be an allowed option for an exemption from GMQS. DISCUSSION: There are some 242 ADUs currently approved under the City of Aspen code. Of these, only 60 _ 70 have a mandatory occupancy requirement. It should be noted that these figures reflect only APPROVED ADUs and do not indicate how many ADUs have actually been built and occupied. According to a 1996 survey conducted by the Community Development Department, the occupancy rate overall for ADUs was found to be approximately 50% in the City (Attachment "A"). The ADU program has been subject to some scrutiny because of the discrepancy between units built, occupancy of the units and the ability to fulfill the intent oftl1e ADU program: to provide another source of affordable housing within the community. Accessory Dwelling Units are explicitly defined by Chapter 26.520 (Attachment "B") of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This section stipulates the purpose of the ADU program and when ADUs are allowed. As well, unit size and other pertinent design standards for the ADU are detailed. The GMQS portion of the Code explains how the exemption works (Attachment "C") and lists several options for meeting the exemption for single-family and for duplexes. One of the options listed under each unit type is to provide an ADU pursuant to Section 26.520. The ADU program, under the City code, is offered by the City as an option, or a bonus, to exempt a property from GMQS or to allow an increase in Floor Area Ratio (FAR). ADUs are not a "right" under the zoning code and they are not something the City is obligated to provide. As such, the City would have the right to eliminate the ADU option. Under the existing GMQS exemptions there are, in fact, three options to receive an exemption for a qualifying single family home. One is provision of an ADU meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.520. The other two ^--. r>. are payment of an affordable housing impact fee based on the AspenlPitkin County Housing Guidelines, or the recordation of a Resident Occupied (RO) deed restriction on the exempt single family home. There are five (5) options for a duplex: one ofthe duplex units be an RO unit with a minimum of 1,500 sq. ft.; provide one 600 sq. ft. ADU; provide two 300 sq. ft. ADDs; both of the duplex units be RO; pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee. It should be noted that ADUs have sometimes been offered and approved as part oflarger Planned Dnit Development (PUD) projects. While not technically able to garner more "points" for such a project under the GMQS rating system, these units are called ADUs and generally must meet the provisions of Chapter 26.520. In some cases, PUD ADDs are required to have mandatory occupancy. Thus, not all ADDs exist because of an exemption from GMQS. In assessing whether the ADU provision of the GMQS exemption for pre-existing single family homes and duplexes should continue, it is important to consider the intended versus real benefit of an ADD. The stated purpose of the ADD program is to provide housing for the community's workers. The concern is that this particular housing source is not meeting that purpose and that other options would better serve the goal o,f housing. The impact fee is already an option. Another option couldbe, in-lieu of the provision of an ADD, the "buy-down" of a free-market unit to a deed <restricted unit at a specific category level. RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels that the effectiveness of the ADU program in meeting the housing needs of the community is difficult to measure. The voluntary nature of the program is appealing, but it is an unpredictable source for housing since each property owner can independently decide when and if they want to rent the ADU. There are also logistical problems with compliance (for both the landlord and the tenant) when units are scattered in private homes. It is much more difficult and time-consuming to monitor compliance on such units in part because the neighbors are less likely to be aware of what the restrictions are. There may also be unit design considerations that make the primary residence owner unwilling to rent the ADD, preferring for it to remain unoccupied rather than compromise their privacy. Staff has consulted with theAPCHA legal counsel on this matter. Legal counsel concurs that the ADD program is an option that the City is not obligated to provide. Staff has also consulted with the Community Development .staffwho have expressed the caution that it is preferable to provide applicants with several options in order to encourage their acceptance of the exemption. Staff recommends that the ADU option be eliminated. Options that could be considered to replace the ADD option are: 1. Option to "buy-down", and deed restriction to a specific Category, of an existing free market unit meeting the approval of the APCHA; 2. Option to "buy-in" to a publicly subsidized affordable housing project at the subsidy rate; or 3. Further investigate mandatory occupancy requirements for ADDs. It should be noted that the ADU option does not need to be replaced with any new option, however stafffeels that options I and 2 above would work to achieve the original intent of the ADU program and the GMQS exemption. '. ~A.~lM~el\T~ JYc.. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director DATE: April 2, 1996 RE: Conclusions and Recommendations from The Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey SUMMARY: Due to uncertain information regarding the utilization of ADUs, the Planning Commission directed staff to conduct a survey of existing units to determine construction and occupancy rates. . In January of 1996, George Krawzoff completed a survey of the 81 known approvals for ADUs following the implementation of Ordinance I, and provided a summary to staff. The preliminary results were of concern due to the return of only 30 responses (37%). The Housirtg Office and George refined the results of the survey by referencing building permit files to determine if these units had been completed. Staff has included the survey and research results as Exhibit A. Dave Tolen from the Housing Office has also responded to the conclusions of the survey, and his March 27, 1996 memo is attached as Exhibit B. Staff agrees with the Housing Office perspective that although the program is not perfect, it should be continued. Planning staff has suggested some changes that may improve the livability and potential occupancy rates of the unit. Conclusions from Survey: Staff has summarized the more important elements of the survey results below: · The Housing Office and George are both confident that the qualifying tenant occupancy rate is near 50%. . Property owners have significant concern regarding the potential for additional regulatory approaches, including mandatory rentals and the potential for management by the Housing Office. . The majority of units (58%) are in the range of 300 to 500 square feet, with 40% of units greater than 500 square feet. . Over 35% of units are below-grade, and only II % are detached from the primary residence. Comments from the Housing Office: Dave Tolen has responded to the Planning Commission's request to summarize the Housing Office's position on the ADD program based on the survey results (see Exhibit B). Dave's response frames his position in light of the ability of the public sector to produce housing when compared to even a 50% occupancy rate. For example, the 1 (-....\ (' Benedict Commons project produced 27 studio and one-bedroom units at a cost of $1.7 million. The ADU program, which was started in 1990, has produced 23 occupied rental units, which are more affordable than the Benedict units, at no cost to the public sector. Staff is in agreement with Dave's conclusions, primarily based on the ability of the ADU program to produce affordable units in the City. Dave goes on to suggest that further regulation or intervention by the Housing Office or Community Development is not necessary, and in fact may be counter- productive. He suggests that local property management firms may be a tool to market units that are currently unoccupied. Staff Recommendations: Based on conversations internally and with the Housing Office, staff would suggest that although not a perfect system, the ADU program creates more units faster and more efficiently than if the City relied on cash7in-lieu to produce affordable units. However, staff would suggest that the livability and neighborhood impact criteria could be improved. Staff would suggest the following modifications to the ADD program be considered by the Commission: 1. All ADDs should be above-grade or at garden level; 2. . All ADDs should have exclusive access, and not be internally linked to the primary structure; 3. As is required by Ordinance 30, all one bedroom and studio units shall provide one on- site 'parking space; 4. Private property management firms should be approached to assist in marketing these units to encourage full utilization of existing ADU s. If these requirements were not met, the applicant would be required to pay the applicable cash- in-lieu. Staff has also attached several pie charts depicting the data from the survey. Exhibits "A" _ Survey Results Memo from George Krawzoff . "B" - Memo from Dave Tolen 2 26.520.010 Sections: 26.520.010 26.520.020 26.520.030 26.520.040 26.520.050 26.520.060 26.520.070 26.520.080 26.520.090 Chapter 26.520 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Purpose. General. Authority. Applicability. Design Standards. Calculations and Measurements. Deed Restrictions and Enforcement. Procedure. Amendment of an ADU Development Order. 26.520.010 Purpose. The puxpose of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program is to promote the long-standing community goal of socially. econoIllically, and environmentally responsible development pat- terns which balance Aspen the. resort ,imd Aspen the community. Aspen values balanced neighborhoods and a sense of commonality between working residents and part-time residents. ADUs represent viable housing opportunities for working residents and allow employees to live within the fabric of the community without their housing being easily identifiable as "em- ployee housing:" ADUs also help to address the affects of existing homes, which have pr0- vided workforce housing, being significantly redeveloped, often as second homes. ADUs support local Aspen businesses by providing an employee base within the town and providing a critical mass of local residents important to preserving Aspen's character. ADUs allow second home owners the opportunity to hire an on-site caretaker to maintain their prop- erty in their absence. Increased employee housing opportunities in close proximity to employ- ment and recreation centers is also an environmentally preferred land use pattern which re- duces automobile reliance. To the ex.tent Aspen desires Accessory Dwelling Units which provide viable and livable hous- ing opportunities to local working residents, ADU's qualify existing vacant lots of record and significant redevelopment of existing homes for an ex.emption from the Growth Management Quota System. In addition, ADD's deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy provide for certain Floor. Area incentives. 26.520.020 General. An Accessory Dwelling Unit, or ADU, is a separate dwelling unit incidental and subordinate in size and character to the primary residence and located on the same parcel or on a contigu- . ous lot under the same ownership. A primary residence may have no more .than one ADU. An ADU may not be accessory to another ADU. An ADU cannot be conveyed as a property inter- est separate from the primary residence, and an ADU shall not be considered a unit of density (Aspen 4100) .. 678 .~. .') 26.520.030 with regard to zoning requirements. Accessory dwelling units shall not be used to obtain points in the affordable housing category of the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). Acces- sory dwelling units also may not be used to meet the requirements of Chapter 26.530 "Resi- dential Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program." All ADUs shall be developed in con- formance with this Section. 26.520.030 Authority. The Community DevelOpment Director, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter and of Common Development Review Procedures, Section 26.304, shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a land use application for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. An appeal of the Community Development Director's determination shall be considered by the Planning and Zoning COmmission and approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review. A land use application requesting a variation of the ADU design standards shall be approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review, If the land use application requesting a variation of the ADU design standards is part of a con- solidated application process, authorized by the Community Development Director, requiring consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the variation, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review. 26.520.040 Applicability.. This Section applies to all zone districts within the City of Aspen in which an Accessory Dwelling Unit is a permitted use, as designated in Section 26.710, and to all Accessory Dwell- ing Units approved as a Conditional Use prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999. 26.520.050 Design Standards. All ADUs shall conform to the following design standards unless otherwise approved, pursu- antro Section 26.520.080, Special Review: 1. An ADU must contain between 300 and 800 net livable square feet, 10% of which must be a closet or storage area. 2. An ADU must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit. This includes the following: a) An ADU must be separately accessible from the exterior. An interior entrance to the primary residence may be approved by the Commission, pursuant to Special Review; 679 (Aspen 4100) :'; ., r"\ ,......" ~' 9 26.520.080 . The ADU shall be registered with the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority. . Any occupant of an ADU shall be qualified as a local working resident according to the current AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. . The ADU shall be restricted to lease period~ of no less then six months in duration, or as otherwise required by the current AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Leases must be recorded with the Housing Authority. Accessory Dwelling Units qualifying a property for a Floor Area Bonus, pursuant to Section 26.575.020(A)(6), shall be deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy. This additional restriction requires the ADU be continuously occupied by a local ':Yorking resident, as defined by the As- penlPitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six months or greater. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter. The AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority shall provide a standard form for recording Ac- cessory Dwelling Unit deed restric.tions. The deed restriction shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to an application for a building permit may be accepted. The book and page associated with the recordation shall be noted in the building permit plans for an ADU. B. Enforcement. The AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority, or their designee, shall enforce the recorded deed re- striction between the property owrierand AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority. 26.520.080 Procedure. A. General. Pursuant to Section 26.304.020, Pre-Application Conference, Applicants are encouraged to meet with a City Planner of the Community Development Department to clarify the require- ments of the ADU Program. A development application for an ADU shall include the requisite information and materials, pursuant to Section 26.304.030. In addition, the application shall include scaled floor plans and elevations for the proposed ADU. The application shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. Any bandit dwelling unit which can be demonstrated to have been in existence on or prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999, and which complies with the requirements of this section may be legalized as an accessory dwelling unit, if it shall meet the health and safety requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as determined by the Chief Building Offi- cial. No retro-active penalties or assessments shall be levied against any bandit unit upon le- galization. ADUs require a separate building permit. After a Development Order has been issued for an ADD, a building permit application may be submitted in conformance with Section 26.304.075. 681 (Aspen 4/00) /:~, ~ 26.520.090 3. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability. of on-street parking, availability of transit ser- vices, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. E. Inspection and Acceptance. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for an ADU, the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority, or the Chief Building Official, shall inspect the ADU for compliance with the De- sign Standards. Any Ull"approved variations from these standards shall be remedied or ap- proved pursuant to this chapter prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Compliance. 26.520.090 Amendment of an ADU Development Order. A. Insubnantial Amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for an Accessory Dwelling Unit may be authorized by the Community Development Director if: . . 1. The change is in conformance with the design standards, Section 26.520.050, or does not ex- ceed approved variations to the design standards; and, 2. The change does not alter the deed restriction for the ADU or the alteration to the deed restric- tion has been approved by the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority. B. Other Amendments. All other amendments to an approved development order for an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be reviewed pursuant to the terms and procedures of this Section. Ord. No. 44-1999 ~1 683 (ASpen 4/00) , ~~~~v 26.470.070 3. Replacement of structures listed on inventoll' of historic structures. A structure included on the inventory of historic structures that is neither an historic landmark nor located within an Historic Overlay District may be removed from a property and relocated elsewhere within the City of Aspen and need not be demolished in order for a replacement structure on its original site to be exempted from the growth management competition and scoring procedures, pro- vided that the structure is designated as an historic landmark :in its new location and all neces- sary development approvals are obtained from HPC and the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion. 4. Revlacement of demolished multi-famiZv, residential units. Replacement of demolished multi-family residential units shall be subject to the requirements of the Housing Replacement Program (See Chapter 26.530), and Sections 26.470.070(A)(I) and (2), above. 5. Remodelinf!. restoration or eXDansion of e;istinf! sinf!le~farrlilv or duvl~.. dwellinf!s. The remodeling, restoration or expansion of existing single-family or duplex dwellings shall be ex- empt from the growth management competition and scoring procedures. --. B. Detached single-jamily or duplex dwelling unit. The following shall be exempt from the growth management scoring and. competition procedures: 1) the construction of one or two de- tached residential units or.a duplex dwelling on a lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prier to November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Section 26.480.020(E), or 2) the replacement after demolition of one or two detached res.idential units or a....d. uplex dwelling, or 3) the remodel or expansion of a single-fanrily dweIlingintoa.duplexdwellirig. This exemption shall not be applied to any lot for which any other development allotment is currently being sought or is approved. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development al- lotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the. Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030.:Ex,emption review is by the Community De- velopment Director, This exemption shall be granted only if the following standards are met 1. Sinf!le-familv. In order to qualify for a single-family exemption, the applicant shall have three (3) options: *' a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADD) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicaQle affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. 2. Duplex. In order to qualify for a duplex exemption, the applicant shall have five (5) op- tions: 611 (^'Po" 4/00) 26.470.070 ~ a. providing one free market dwelling unit and one deed restricted, resident- occupied dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet; ~ b. providing two free market dwelling units aI;1d one accessory dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of six hundred (600) net lIvable square feet pursuant to Section 26.520; .....c. providing two free market dwelling units and two Accessory Dwelling Units, each P with a minimum net livable floor area of three hundred (300) square feet, pursuant to Sec- tion 26.520; d. providing two deed restricted, resident-occupied (RO) dwelling units; or e. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the AspenJPitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. C. Historic .kfzndmark Lot Split. The. construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created throug'li' a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 26.480.030(E). This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective anllual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470,030. Exemption review is by the Community Development DIrector. This exemp- tion shall only apply if the standards of Section 26.470.070(B)(l) or (2), as applicable, are met D. Historic landmarks. 1. Chanf!e of use. The change of use of an historic landmark that does not increase the build- ing's existing floor area ratio shall be exempt. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceil- ings. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. 2. Enlarf!ements for additional tiwellinf! and tourist accommodations units. The enlargement of an historic landmark that develops, on a maximum cumulative basis: (a) not more than one residential dwelling or three hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast, board- inghouse, roorninghouse or dormitory units. This exemption shall be deducted from the re- spective annual development allotments and from the Aspen Metro Area development. Ex- emption review is by the Community Development Director. (b) more than one residential dwelling or more than three (3) hotel, motel, lodge, bed and breakfast, boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units'shall be exempted. This ex- emption is not deducted from annual allotments or from Aspen Metro Area ceilings. Re- view is by Growth Management Commission. The applicant shall demonstrate that as a re- sult of the development, mitigation of the project's community impacts will be addressed by the standards set forth at sub-Section 5, below. . (Aspen 4100) 612 ~~ Q~ Burson made a motion to allow an additional capital improvement up to $30,000 for the entire roof replacement, but that this capital improvement will be depreciated over the life of the roof's warranty; Goshorn seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Guthrie, Elliott, I~oy, Goshorn, Knowlton, Semrau and Burson voted yes. Motion passed. r\ t"""\ VIII. DISCUSSION ITEM - Accessory Dwelling Units vs. P~lyment-in-Lieu: Roberts stated that this was put in place to help Aspen provide additional affordable housing units and reach the community goal to house 60% of the employees within the area stated in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). However, the majority of the units are not being used to house employees. Chris Bendon, City Long-Range Planner for the Community Development Department, stated that the units require mandatory occupancy if the development requests an FAR bonus. There is not a maximum rent that can be charged on these units. Burson made' a motion to eliminate the ADU program and that the funds obtained by payment-in-Iieu be provided into buying other infill and buydown units with the townsite; Elliott seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Roy, Guthrie, Knowlton, Semrau, Goshorn voted no; Elliott and Burson voted yes. Motion failed. After further discussion, Guthrie made a motion to recommend to City Council to allow someone to provide an ADU with specific conditions, or satisfy the mitigation with another option as stated below: 1. The mitigation shall be satisfied by prov~~g ~ ADU, but the ADU must be in a separate structure~.7"~' 2. The mitigation shall be satisfied by selling the unit to the City/Housing Authority for around $100,000 and the City/Housing Authority will deed restrict the unit and manage the unit; or ~ ""~. 3. The mitigation shall be satisfied by providing a buydown unit approved by the Housing Authority, with the unit to be located between the mountain and the rivers within ,Aspen; or 4. The mitigation shall be satisfied by a payment-in-Iieu fee, with this fee going into a specific fund to provide infill affordable housing. Roy seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Roy, Guthrie, Knowlton, Elliott, Semrau, Goshorn voted yes; Burson voted no. Motion passed. IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Board went into an Executive Session to discuss potential litigation and potential property acquisition. Th,a Board came out of Executive Session. Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Minutes August 1. 2001 DRAFT Page 4 ,~