HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19881011A G E N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
October 11, 1988 - Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
Old City Council Chambers
2nd Floor
City Hall
SPECIAL MEETING
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
II . __-
III. PUBLIC HEARING -Continued
A. Displacement/Affordable Housing Code Amendments
IV. ADJOURN MEETING
a. cov
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director
RE: Affordable Housing/Displacement Code Amendments
DATE: October 6, 1988
PURPOSE: Attached for your consideration is the first draft of
proposed Code Amendments in response to the Administrative Delay
adopted by City Council on August 30. The draft reflects the
recommended approach provided to you in our memo dated September
231 which met with your general acceptance when presented on
September 27. We suggest that you refer back to that memo for
the rationale behind each of the proposals we have made.
It is our intention that you review this draft, provide us with
suggestions for changes and additions and direct us to return on
October 18 with a draft Resolution. We would like to obtain your
final recommendation for Council, if possible, on November 1.
ANALYSIS: Following is a section -by -section synopsis of the
proposed amendments.
Section l: This section adds an entire new Division to Article
5, the Zone District Regulations. The new section establishes
displacement requirements along the lines identified in our prior
memo. The requirements apply to all demolition of multifamily
residences, except those in our tourist accommodations zones
(unless a residence in those zones has been used for long term
rental). The standard is a 1:1 replacement ratio for units and a
50o ratio for bedrooms. Replacement is required on -site, unless
the applicant meets one of several criteria permitting the unit
to be replaced elsewhere within the City. Replacement must occur
at the same time that the new units are to be occupied.
Also included in this section is the "caretaker unit" provision,
now known as "attached affordable dwelling units". When a
detached residence, or duplex is demolished, each unit must be
replaced on -site with an attached affordable unit. (P&Z may want
to consider exempting -owner -occupied units which are rebuilt for
the owner's use.) The unit must contain no less than 300 nor
more than 600 sq. ft., be a studio or one bedroom unit and be
attached to or within a principal residence. (P&Z may want to
consider allowing the unit to be detached in lower density zones
such as R-30 and RR.) The units are allowed as accessory uses in
all zones and as such are exempt from density and parkin
requirements, but are subject to all other dimensional
requirements (FAR,' setbacks, etc.) of the zone district.
Section 8: This section replaces the old detached residents
and duplex sliding scale in the RMF zone district with the newer,
R-6 sliding scale. ,
. .........:.
Sections 9-11: These sections apply the R-6 sliding s
to
detached residential and duplex uses in the CC, C-1 andsale Office
zone districts.
One very interesting idea suggested by P&Z which we have not yet
drafted is that of only allowing a residence to be built to some
percentage of the FAR (say, 75% of the sliding scale) when it
does not contain affordable housing and to 100% of the scale when
it does contain affordable housing. While we find this to be an
p
excellent suggestion, we are unsure whether it should only apply
to new development and replacement, or if it would also apply to
small additions. If it is to apply to additions, pp will
probably remove the ability of many owners to do remodels which
involve limited expansion, assuming that many homes alrea
exceed 75% of the sliding scale but are below maximum FAR. If it
is to apply to replacement or new development, it will be ve
difficult to draft and may not be legally sustainable. ry
P&Z should also give us direction on any
which you would like us to add as additional
Your resolution to City Council.
affordableregscover
3
economic incentives
recommendations in
Attachment 1
Section 1
That a new Division 7 of Article 5 be adopted to read as follows:
DIVISION 7: REPLACEMENT HOUSING PROGRAM
Sec. 5-701. Purpose. The City of Aspen's neighborhoods have
traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing
types, including those which are affordable by its
working residents. However, because of Aspen's
attractiveness as a resort environment, and
because of the physical constraints of the upper
Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure
for the redevelopment of older homes for tourist
and second home use.
Preservation of the housing inventory and
provision of dispersed housing opportunities in
Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of
the community. Achievement of these goals will
.promote a socially and economically balanced
community, limit the number of employees who face
a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State
Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of
employee commuting and prevent exclusion of
working residents from the City's neighborhoods.
In its Housing Master Plan, the City has
established a goal that housing be provided by
both the public and private sectors. The City,
through the Housing Authority, has provided
affordable housing both within and adjacent to the
city limits. The City finds it necessary to adopt
limitations on the displacement of housing units
from its inventory to insure that the private
sector maintains its role in the provision of
affordable, housing and to prevent a housing
shortfall from occurring while the impacts of new
development are being addressed.
Sec. 5-702. Applicability. Whenever aproject is proposed in
which one or more residential dwelling units is to
be demolished, the applicant shall be required to
replace the demolished housing units pursuant to
the standards of this Division.
The requirements of this Division shall apply to
demolition of residential dwelling units in the
Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR), Commercial Lodge
(CL),. Lodge Preservation (LP) and Commercial Core
(CC) zone districts only when it is found that the
unit has been rented at any time during the past
shall not be permitted.
Sec. 5-705. Timing. Replacement units shall be available for
occupancy at the same time as the new units,
regardless of whether built on- or off -site.
When replacement units are proposed to be built
off -site, the applicant shall be required to
obtain a development order approving the off -site
development prior to or in conjunction with
obtaining a development order approving
redevelopment of the site on which demolition is
proposed to take place.
Sec. 5-706. Procedure. When multi -family dwelling units are
demolished and replaced, the applicant shall be
subject to the requirements of Art. 7 Div. 10
Subdivision. When detached residential and duplex
dwelling units are demolished and replaced, the
applicant shall be subject to the requirements of
Sec. 5-707, Attached Affordable Dwelling Units.
Sec. 5-707. Attached Affordable Dwelling Units. Whenever a
detached residential or duplex dwelling unit is
demolished, the owner shall be required to replace
each unit on -site with an Attached Affordable
Dwelling Unit. Such units shall be constructed in
either a studio or one -bedroom configuration and
contain no less than 300 nor more than 600 square
feet. Such units shall be included within or
attached to a principal residential structure and
shall be considered accessory uses in all zone
districts in the City of Aspen. Such units shall
not be subject to the minimum lot area per
dwelling. unit requirements and parking
requirements of Art. 5, Div 2, but shall be
subject to all other dimensional requirements of
the underlying zone district.
Attached affordable dwelling units shall be
subject to review and approval by the Aspen/Pitkin
Housing Authority. The Housing Authority shall
requirethat the unit be limited, by deed
restriction or other guarantee running with the
land, to rental for periods of six months or
longer and to occupancy by no more than two (2)
qualified employees of Pitkin County, as defined
by the Housing Authority. Such units shall not be
separately condominiumized.
Attached affordable dwelling units may also be
developed within any existing or new detached
3
ficant that it is not likely the City could
produce affordable housing because of the magni-
tude of the project it would be required to
develop.
When the application shall be for residential development
allotments, a minimum of twenty five percent (25%) of the total
number of bedrooms built on the site for which allotments are
requested shall be affordable housing, unless, pursuant to the
above standards, it shall be determined that this amount of
affordable housing cannot or should not be built on -site. For
the purposes of this section, a studio shall be considered a
three-quarter (3/4) bedroom.
If the Council shall not approve the method by which the
applicant proposes to provide affordable housing, the applicant
shall be provided with direction as to which other method or
methods would be preferable.
Section 3
That the following new language be added at the end of the
"Minimum lot area per dwelling unit" requirement in Art. 5, Div i
21 Dimensional Requirements, n the Residential Multi -Family
(RMF), Commercial (C-1), Office (0) and Lodge/Tourist Residential
(L/TR) zone districts:
"For multi -family dwellings when at least fifty percent (50%) of
the bedrooms built on -site are restricted as affordable housing,
provided that a studio shall be considered a three-quarter (3/4
bedroom, the following sq. ft. requirements apply: )
studio: 500
1 bedroom: 600
2 bedroom: 1,000
3 bedroom: 1,500
Units with more than 3bedrooms: one (1) bedroom per 500
square feet of lot area."
Section 4
That the use tables in the Residential Multi -Family (RMF) and
Office (0) zone districts contained in Art. 5, Div. 2 be amended
to add "dormitory" as a permitted use.
Section 5
That the following new section be added to Art. 7, Div 10,
Subdivision:
Sec. 7-1004. C.S. Affordable Housing. The proposed subdivision
shall be required to provide affordable housing in
5
sq.ft. in lot area, up to a maximum of
4,020 sq. ft. of floor area.
15,000-50,000 4,020 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 5 sq.ft.
of floor area for each additional 100
sq.ft in lot area, up to a maximum of
5,770 sq.ft. of floor area.
501000+ 5,770 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 2 sq.ft.
of floor area for each additional 100
sq.ft. in lot area.
Lot Size
Allowable
Duplex (Sq. Ft.
Sq, Ft.
0- 31000
90 sq.ft. of floor area for each
100
sq.ft. in lot area, up to a maximum
of
2,700 sq.ft. of floor area.
31000- 61000
2,700 sq.ft. of floor area, plus
30
sq.ft. of floor area for each additional
100 sq.ft. in lot area, up to a maximum
of 3,600 sq.ft. of floor area.
6,000- 91000
3,600 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 16
sq.
ft. of floor area for each additional
100
sq. ft. in lot area, up to a maximum
of
4,080 sq.ft. of floor area.
91000-15,000
4,080 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 6 sq.ft.
of floor area for each additional
100
sq.ft. in lot area, up to a maximum
of
4,440 sq.ft. of floor area.
15,000-50,000
4,440 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 5 sq.ft.
of floor area for each additional
100
sq.ft in lot area, up to a maximum
of
6,190 sq.ft. of floor area.
501000+
6,190 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 3 sq.ft.
of -floor area for each additional
100
sq.ft. in lot area.
Multi -family: 1:1
Section 9
That Art. 5, Div. 2, Dimensional Requirements, be amended with
regard to the external floor area ratio in the Commercial Core
(CC) , zone district to read as follows:
7
9,000-15,000 4,080 sq.ft. of
floor area, plus 6 sq.ft.
Of floor area
for each additional 100
sq. ft. in lot area, up to a maximum of
4,440 sq.ft. of
floor area.
15,000-50,000 4,440 sq.ft. of
floor area, plus 5 sq.ft.
of floor area
for each additional 100
sq.ft in lot area, up to a maximwn of
6,190 sq.ft. of
floor area.
50,000+ 6,190 sq.ft. of
floor area, plus 3 sq.ft.
of floor area
for each additional 100
sq.ft. in lot area.
All uses other than detached residential and duplex dwellings:
1.5:1; however, the 1.5:1 external floor area ratio may be
increased to 2:1 by Special Review pursuant to Art. 7, Div.4.
Section 10
That Art. 5, Div. 2, Dimensional Requirements, be amended with
regard to the external floor area ratio in the Commercial (C-1),
zone district to read as follows:
10. External floor
area ratio (applies to conforming and
nonconforming lots of record):
Lot Size
Detached Residential
Allowable
Dwell i* Ms (Sq. Ft.)
Sct. Ft.
0- 3,000
80 sq.ft. of floor area for each 100
in lot area, up to a maximum of 2,400
sq.ft. of floor area.
31000- 61000
2,400 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 28
sq.ft. of floor area for each additional
100 sq. ft. in lot area, up to a maximum
of 3,240 sq.ft. of floor area.
61000- 91000
3,240 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 14
sq. ft. of floor area for each additional
100 sq.ft. in lot area, up to a maximum
of 3,660 sq.ft. of floor area.
91000-15,000
3,660 sq.ft. of floor area plus 6 sq.ft.
of floor area for each additional 100
sq.ft. in lot area, up to a maximum of
4,020 sq. ft. of floor area.
151000-50,000
4,020 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 5 sq.ft.
of floor area for each additional 100
9
Lot Size
Detached Residential
Allowable
Dwellings �.Ft. )
- Sq. Ft.
0- 31000
80 sq.ft. of floor area for each 100
in lot area, up to a maximum of 2,400
sq.ft. of floor area.
31000- 61000
2,400 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 28
sq.ft. of floor area for each additional
100 sq. ft. in lot area, up to a maximum
of 3,240 sq.ft. of floor area.
61000- 9,000
3,240 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 14
sq.ft. of floor area for each additional
100 sq. ft. in lot area, up to a maximum
of 3,660 sq.ft. of floor area.
91000-15,000
3,660 sq.ft. of floor area plus 6 sq.ft.
of floor area for each additional 100
sq.ft. in lot area, up to a maximum of
4,020 sq. ft. of floor area.
15,000-50,000
4,020 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 5 sq.ft.
of floor area for each additional 100
sq.ft in lot area, up to a maximum of
5,770 sq.ft. of floor area.
50,000+
5,770 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 2 sq.ft.
of floor area for each additional 100
sq.ft. in lot area.
Lot Size
Allowable
Duplex (Sq. Ft. )
-
-Ft*
0- 31000
90 sq.ft. of floor area for each 100
sq.ft. in lot area, up to a maximum of
2,700 sq.ft. of floor area.
31000- 6,000
2,700 sq.ft. of floor area plus 30
sq.ft. of floor area for each additional
100 sq. ft. in lot area, up to a maximum
of 3,600 sq.ft. of floor area.
61000- 91000
3,600 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 16 sq.
ft. of floor area for each additional 100
sq. ft. in lot area, up to a maximum of
4,080 sq.ft. of floor area.
91000-15,000
4,080 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 6 sq.ft.
of floor area for each additional 100
sq.ft. in lot area, up to a maximum of
4._
LAW OFFICES OF
RICHARD Y. NEILEY, Jr., P.C.
chard 1'. Neilev, Jr.
':one M. Alder
HAND DELIVERY
600 East Hopkins Avenue, Suite 3
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-9393
October 11, 1988
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning Director
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Displacement/Affordable Housing Code Amendments
Dear Mr. Richman and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission:
This letter is written to address concerns raised by the Memo-
randa issued by the Planning Department on September 23, 1988 and
October 6, 1988 regarding the above matter.
This office represents the owners of the Valley -Hi Apartments at
1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. This property was involved
in the planning process at the time the administrative delay was imposed
on August 8, 1988. As a consequence, the planned redevelopment of the
property has been affected by the moratorium prohibiting the acceptance of
demolition/ subdivision applications and will be affected in the future by the
proposed Code amendments.
The proposed Code amendments are not likely to achieve the
stated objective of preserving existing and creating new inventories of
affordable housing. The proposed amendments are so restrictive as to be
punitive and confiscatory. Because they create no true incentive for
development of new affordable housing, the impact will be felt most sub-
stantially by the few remaining non-condominiumized residential multi -family
properties, without any assurance that those properties will remain in the
affordable housing inventory.
Although the perception that an affordable housing shortage
exists is probably correct, there appears to be a complete lack of empirical
data to serve as a basis for determining which sectors of the public cre-
ated the problem and which ought to be charged with rectifying it. ' It
does not appear that any analysis of the impact of commercial or lodge
Letter to Mr. Richman and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 1988
Page 2
development on the housing marl=_et has been done or that alternatives to
imposing regulations on residential development and redevelopment have
been considered. The proposed amendments radically alter the traditional
rights and interests of property owners. It appears that the City has
failed to consider alternatives to placing the burden of providing afford-
able housing primarily on the shoulders of those persons who wish to
upgrade their properties. For example, although a six-month minimum
lease restriction has been in place for many years with respect to
condominiumization, it is beyond contention that substantial numbers of
such units have been placed in the short-term rental market and are thus
removed from the long-term residential market place without the City
taking any steps toward enforcement.
The situation which will be faced by the Valley -Hi Apartments
under the proposed Amendments is illustrative of the punitive and
confiscatory result which will impact existing properties in RMF zone
districts. The Valley -Hi is currently comprised of nineteen units. B e-
cause the proposed amendments do not address the existing and historic
use of the property with respect to affordable housing, it would appear
that all nineteen units would be required to be replaced on -site or on
other property within the City of Aspen for redevelopment of the property
to occur, regardless of whether or not their prior use falls within afford-
able housing guidelines. Replacement of all units on -site would result in
non -conformity as to density; therefore, it would be necessary for the
owners to acquire a separate parcel of land within the City to reconstruct
approximately half of the units. Because all of the units would be
required to be deed restricted for affordable housing, the resulting values
would never justify the expenditure involved in acquiring the property and
developing residential units. Additionally, a cursory review of available
vacant land within the city limits establishes the fact that it is for all
practical purposes impossible to locate a site to construct the additional
units.
Under the proposed amendments, any redevelopment of the
Valley -Hi Apartments and similar buildings would require total dedication
as affordable housing regardless of prior use or the impact that that
dedication would have on value and redevelopment potential. And, because
of the lack of vacant property available to mitigate density problems, the
redevelopment of property such as the Valley -Hi is prohibited both practi-
cally and encomically. The result is that the City will have confiscated all
real development rights and eliminated the reasonable use and enjoyment of
the properties. This, in our view, is both illegal and unfair.
The only alternative to redevelopment of existing RMF structures
is to retain those structures and uses while upgrading the facilities to
maximize return on capital. Whether or not such an alternative would be
justified is speculative but may well be better than knowingly submitting
such properties to restrictions which would guarantee the inability to
realize even minimal return on investment through development potential.
Under the proposed regulations, the City of Aspen will deprive
the Valley -Hi Apartments' owners of reasonable use and enjoyment of their
property and require them to deed restrict the property to affordable
r
Letter to Mr. Richman and the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 1988
Page 3
housing use without any compensation for the loss of value. Because it is
impos6i.ble to replace all of the units on -site and impossible to find alterna-
tive vacant land for construction, it will be impossible to do anything
beyond minor remodels of the existing units. In short, the proposed
Amendments constitute a condemnation of the property. This creates an
intolerable burden on the Valley -Hi Apartments.
The 1:1 replacement ratio must be rejected. That ratio does not
insure the preservation or development of affordable housing. While it
may discourage demolition, it leaves property owners with the sole option
of remodeling and increasing rents. Certainly, this does not promote the
objective of the City.
Permitting an increased density on development sites is meaning-
less where existing units must all be replaced as affordable housing units
and no free-market development will be permitted. In such circumstances,
it will be impossible for any developer or any property owner to justify
the cost of construction affordable housing units.
It is our belief that the proposed regulations do little except
create the potential for protracted conflict between developers, property
owners and the City. The complete lack of incentives for voluntary devel-
opment of affordable housing is a notable deficiency of the regulations.
Similarly, the unrealistic ratio between units demolished and affordable
housing units to be built assures nothing but the financial inability to
develop affordable housing.
While the objective of slowing displacement of employees and loss
of housing units may momentarily be achieved by the proposed amend-
ments, there is no assurance of any long-term increase in affordable
housing inventory. Unless the City takes steps to enforce existing rental
restrictions on condominiums, develop employee housing projects itself and
create incentives for the development of affordable housing by the private
sector, the problems which are presently perceived will never be truly
addressed. The proposed amendments should be rejected in their present
format and realistic revised amendments should be drafted for consid-
eration. An adoption of the proposed amendments will be vigorously
opposed by the owners of the Valley -Hi Apartments.
Very ruly yours,
RI Y. 1EILEY J . , P.
ichard Y . Neiley Jr .
RYN/agk