HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19881025A G E N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
October 25, 1988 - Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
Old City Council Chambers
2nd Floor
City Hall
SPECIAL MEETING
SITE VISIT - Meet in the Aspen Club Parking Lot at 4:30
A. Gordon/Callahan Subdivisions
B. 1010 Ute Avenue
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
II. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Displacement/Affordable Housing Code Amendments
III. ADJOURN MEETING
a.cov
`ul u•CS►! ZI
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
i
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director
RE: Affordable Housing/Displacement Revised Resolution
DATE: October 21, 1988
Attached for your consideration is the second draft of a P&Z
Resolution recommending council's adoption of Code Amendments and
economic incentives with respect to affordable housing and
displacement. This draft contains numerous significant changes
in response to the public hearings on October 11 and 18. Due to
the number of changes made, I have placed highlights next to the
key sections, which I will verbally review with you, rather than
listing each change in this memo.
There are two sections which I particularly want to bring to your
attention. First, on page 4, a suggested definition for
demolition/significant remodeling is proposed. Following a staff
meeting on this subject, it is recommended that when any one the
following activities occurs, the replacement housing program
requirements apply:
1. there is a reduction in the number of units on -site;
2. there is a dwelling moved outside of the City limits; or
3. there is remodeling or alteration of a dwelling, causing the
appraised value of the structure, net of land value, to
increase by more than some percentage (number to be inserted
at the meeting), as measured cumulatively over five years.
The staff considered several other criteria which you may want to
insert ..in the Resolution, including the following: y
4. there is remodeling or alteration of a dwelling causing at
least % of the structure to be made uninhabitable.
5. there is partial or complete demolition of at least % of
the structure's value, net of land value.
6. there is partial or complete demolition or alteration of
of the dwelling's floor area, and/or % of its
exterior wall area, and/or % of its structural members.
I remain uncertain that the third recommended criterion will
actually work, given its potential stifling effect on upgrading
of dwellings, including both visitor and resident occupied units.
We should discuss these issues at the meeting.
The other section we wanted to bring to your attention is on page
6 and is in response to the request that there be a way to
encourage the development of Accessory Dwelling Units which
exceed the minimum 300 sq. ft. size requirement. After
struggling with ways to codify this through the sliding scale, a
much simpler approach was arrived at. The proposal is to set the
minimum standard for the unit at 300 sq. ft. or 10% of the total
area of the new structure, whichever is larger. If you look at
the sliding scale, you will -see that to obtain maximum FAR on a
6,000 sq.. ft. lot, a 324 sq. ft. accessory unit would be
required. ....To obtain maximum FAR on a 9,000 sq. ft. lot, the
minimum unit size increases to 366 sq. ft., or 408 sq. ft.
(depending on the zone: district) while for a 15,000 sq. ft. lot
the minimum unit size increases to 402 sq. ft. or 492 sq. ft.
(depending on the zone district).
Obviously, we will also need to go over the other sections we did
not get to on October 11, in particular, the revised sliding
scales and the economic incentives. It is my hope that we can
complete the review at the meeting on October 25 and you will be
able to authorize the Chairman to sign the Resolution. If we
need to come back to you one final time, this will have to occur
at a special meeting on November 1, as I will be unable to attend
your regular meeting on November 8.
Two final points need to be made in response to comments at the
last hearing. First, Ric Neilly stated that we have no empirical
evidence that loss of free market multi -family housing would have
a significant effect on our housing -market. I had Tom Baker look
at the results of our 1987 employee survey, which is the basis of
our current Housing Element. He found that approximately 50% of
the over 600 respondents from Aspen who lived in free market
units lived in multi -family housing. Free market multi -family
units are providing housing to approximately 31% of the Aspen
respondents, which is an even larger percentage than deed
restricted multi -family units, which provide housing for about
29% of the respondents from the City of Aspen.
I also wanted to respond to Frank Ross' question about how the
Housing Authority guidelines'. define a "qualified employee". On
page 11 of the 1988 guidelines it states that to be eligible to
rent or purchase a unit, an individual must be an employee who
works at least 30 hours per weeks,, 9 months a year in Pitkin
County, be a, senior resident of 60 years of age or more or be
handicapped, as such is defined by Federal and State legislation.
affordableregsresocover.l