HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890815
~ <\'u
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 15. 1989
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr,
Herron, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and
Anderson. Richard Compton was absent.
Michael
Welton
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Mari: I was just thinking that with the parking garage costing 6
million dollars I just wonder why we couldn't just have a special
election and have that 6 million dollars go to have a train
built.
Because of how it has turned out, it just seems like they were
discussing scrapping it. Evidently they do have the ability to
scrap it even though the bonds were approved for that purpose.
Baker: But there is million and a half into it now.
Mari: For 6 million dollars we could do several things. We
could have buses running up and down the valley for who knows how
long every 10 minutes. Or we could just go ahead and lay the
track and start running the train that the voters approved
although we would have to approve the funding going away from the
garage.
Roger:
diverting
corridor.
What about a
those funds
It now comes
resolution asking Council to
to transportation specifically
to $20,000 per parking space.
consider
the rail
Mari: And option C the subsidized taxi program--can you imagine?
$20,000 would subsidize 20,000 taxi rides.
It does seem to me that the voters have approved the train. The
last developer to propose it was estimating about $6 million to
repair the tracks and put in a station, etc. And it just seems
to me it makes a lot more sense to spend $6 million to solve the
problem and we have the obvious solution to it. Why do we need
to wait for a private developer to do it?
Michael: I agree. But I don't know whether we can change mid-
stream when we have already got a horse in the garage. The bonds
have been geared for the parking structure. That money won't be
able to be locked over.
Mari: I am suggesting that the Council explore doing it as a
city project instead of waiting for a developer.
Michael: It is a city/county project.
PZM8.15.89
Baker: There is a study that is going to be done. Maybe what
you want to do is wait until that presentation is made to you and
to the City Council. Then you can encourage funding. RFTA is
commissioning it on behalf of the City and County.
Bruce: So do you think that because it is commissioned by RFTA
that it will be slanted towards--
Roger: OOOOOOH, NO!
Baker: It is intended to be a very objective study of rail and
bus and RFTA is paying for it.
Michael: I think it is a great idea. I don't know why we have
to wait for the results of the study to tell us which one to put
there. I don't see why we couldn't adopt a resolution urging the
city and the County to get together. And regardless of what the
study comes up with that that should be done by them whatever the
results of the study should be done.
Roger: Perhaps at this point it is a little premature until we
get the study back. We know how much a highway is going to cost.
As a result of the study we are going to know how much a busway
is going to cost and rail options are going to cost. Bruce is of
the opinion that when it comes back the busway and the rail
options will be so close that it is going to be a political
decision--do we want a train or do we want a bus.
Welton: You
water feature.
turn it into a summer resort experience with a
The Subterranean Tubing To The River.
Michael: Every once in a while you read something in the paper
that makes a lot of sense. One guy wrote a letter to the editor
talking about 4-laning the highway 82. And he compared it to
what they did in the Florida Keys when the highway fell apart and
they had to 4-lane it. What they did was they 4-laned the parts
of that they could 4-lane and they 2-laned the parts they
couldn't 4-lane because it was too expensive.
And it seems to me, I drove down to Glenwood last week, that that
is probably a great solution. You could 4-lane half of it which
would allow everybody to pass where you have to pass.
Welton: The Highway Department has just got its mind set on 4
lanes. The whole Basalt bypass could have been 4-laned so easily
and so nicely.
Michael: All they are doing is a phenomenal tax burden. It is
going to be a 20-year construction job. Nobody will ever go down
valley and nobody will ever come up valley. And by the time they
2
PZM8.15.89
get through I won't be around to drive on it. Look at Glenwood
Canyon. They are talking about 5 and 6 years to go through the
areas and they don't have Shale Bluffs to remove.
Michael: It seems to me we went through a real elaborate
procedure when we amended the code to talk about what lights were
acceptable--decorative lights. Every time I walk by the cleaners
on Monarch it seems to me those lights are nothing that we ever
talked about. He has got a string of what looks like second hand
Christmas lights strung around his building. Half of them are
not even lit up.
Tom: We will check that out real quick.
Michael: I don't really mean to critical about this but with the
people right in the audience a couple of members of our
Commission characterized their house in less than favorable
terms. I would agree that the house deserves less than favorable
terms but I don't think that is befitting a public board.
Jasmine: One of the reasons that I brought up that house was
that I felt that it really did not--that house was an
exemplification of what was not appropriate under 8040 Greenline
because of that massive facade.
Michael: But my point was not that you don't like the house.
You are entitled not to like the house. But the fact that we all
sat here and characterized it as "the smelter" I think is
inappropriate.
MOTION
CONSENT AGENDA
LEFTON STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Michael excused himself from this action.
Roger: I move that we adopt the consent agenda.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
100 EAST BLEEKER HISTORIC DESIGNATION
PUBLIC HEARING
Welton opened the public hearing.
MOTION
Roger: I move to table action and continue the public hearing to
date certain of August 22, 1989.
Welton asked for public comment. There was none and he closed
the public hearing.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
3
PZM8.15.89
CARRIAGE HOUSE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PUBLIC HEARING
Welton opened the public hearing.
Leslie made presentation as attached in record.
picture examples of carriage houses in Aspen.
And showed by
The issues that we have identified that need to be addressed with
putting forward any kind of ordinance that addresses the idea was
first FAR. FAR can be used as an incentive. We can do an FAR
bonus if someone were to do something like this. Do you want to
only give an FAR bonus for existing structures and for people who
come forward to preserve the existing structures. You have the
total vacant lot that someone is newly developing and they want
to put a detached or attached carriage house structure. Should
they get an FAR bonus for that?
There is the built out lot and they want to do something. Should
they get a bonus? Or the non-conforming structure. Or the lots
that already have a structure on it and now they want to do
something with that. Should they get the FAR bonus?
We feel pretty strongly that if someone is going to preserve an
existing structure and renovate that structure that they should
get an FAR bonus for that. That is really in line with all the
historic preservation elements that have been set up.
But we would like direction as to if you think that bonus is
essential to getting this to happen or if we need it on any kind
of development.
Roger: I can conceive of the idea of the need for FAR bonus on
the property. But there should very definitely be a limit as to
the maximum size of the carriage house. I don't want a carriage
house to wag the house.
We should look at what should be the maximum and what should be
the minimum. If there is a garage involved what do we do about
that as well because that kicks in another standard.
Karen Day, designer: The floor plan I came up with is 15x20 and
allows for a 6x6 bathroom with a shower, a 5x5 kitchen with just
a refrigerator, stove, hot water heater and sink. A gas range
stove for heat. The heat would rise and a fan would blow the air
down.
4
PZM8.15.89
Then you would have a living room that would be about llx13 which
is a decent size living room. It would allow it to have a sofa
bed that would make into a queen size bed. There would be 14ft
of closets and then a sleeping loft that would hold a king size
bed. So easily 2 people could live in this. That is 420sqft
with the loft.
Roger: If a structure has a feature like a loft door which is a
very nice feature on that type of house, I would like to maintain
it so we can still call it a carriage house as opposed to an
accessory dwelling unit.
Graeme: I think this is a really good approach because it helps
to invigorate the neighborhood and at the same time provide
employee housing. But in terms of size I would be in favor of a
maximum size. I don't think I would be in favor of a minimum
size.
Roger: I think our problem is the UBC.
Lipsey: You need to make allowances for this particular overlay
and just say that for this particular type of house UBC standards
don't apply.
If you look at the efficiencies that Karen has incorporated into
that plan it would be an extremely livable 300sqft ground floor--
almost like 800sqft. It is a fully planned space. So I think
there is a way around UBC.
Tom: If P&Z wants to direct us to look into that I think council
would go along with that.
Jasmine: I think if you are going to put these things in a
residential neighborhood, certain minimal facilities do have to
be met. I would not want an accessory unit on my property not
having a toilet, for instance, and I wouldn't want on the
property next door either.
Tom: You are not saying you don't want to see new units on the
alleys. Carriage house is just a name that we latched onto
because it has historical roots. I think most people would agree
that the scale and the look of the carriage houses was something
good to model after. They are not really carriage houses, but if
they have a car in them-a car is a mOdern-day carriage and it is
not an inappropriate name either.
Jasmine: They don't necessarily have to be
houses and they don't all have to be victorian.
to figure out a way to encourage people who are
called carriage
I am just trying
putting up a new
5
PZM8.15.89
development and who may be using a different style to consider
this.
Leslie: Three issues to be discussed are: When we first started
talking about this we were talking about detached units. And the
accessory dwelling unit provision can only be attached. I think
we are kind of moving away from that. So if the accessory
dwelling unit can be detached I think that is where we are going
to address a lot of the new development and the new types of
structures.
The other is if it is something that you want to see is only
detached or attach dependant upon the site or the owner's option.
Graeme: I think there is a lot of potential to have attached
dwelling units as well as detached. If there could be something
like a new construction, you could give a 250sqft bonus if you
put in an accessory dwelling unit and have a 250sqft debit if you
didn't. That would be a way to encourage this.
Lipsey: I do think the idea of detached is very important
because of a couple of things. Then it is a house. If it is
attached it is an apartment. It really isn't any different than
a duplex or just an apartment. That in terms of psychologically
and in terms of the dignity of that kind of housing vs. an
apartment and the problems of noise and separation is a
distinction to make. So I think the detached version of it is
real important.
Graeme: I think there should be as many options available as
possible.
Welton: It is problematic with our 100ft x 30ft lots. And one
of these in this group was one that was already a carriage house
that had been lived in for at least a decade and a half and we
added a garage. But because the carriage house did not function
as a carriage house any more but in putting the garage in you got
into that area of the code that says you have to have 10 feet
between buildings. I ended up connecting everything with
breezeways so that they were defined by Bill Drueding as attached
parts of all of the whole because there wasn't enough space
physically to make them detached and to meet the then code.
Psychologically I like having the detach structure on the alley
but sometimes you just don't have the physical space on the
property to do that. And I don't know how you work in the
flexibility into the code.
Leslie: There are several things as pertains to dimensions
requirements to be reviewed in the code as far as variances go
and that would be the rear yard setback. Most of the existing
6
PZM8.15.89
ones are right on the alley. There is also a height limit when
you are right on the alley. We are also looking at the parking
requirements, the open space requirement, the lot coverage and
now this detached or separation of the buildings.
Bruce: I am having
difference between
dwelling unit.
a hard time understanding exactly what the
carriage house as opposed to accessory
Tom: Accessory dwelling unit has to be attached. Carriage house
typically is a small-scale detached structure adjacent to the
alley. It is in the setback for sure.
Lipsey: The thing about it being a detached unit it would have
to be given permission to build on the rear lot line to exceed
the height limit for an accessory building. It may also have the
ability to not meet the present side yard setbacks. On the other
hand we do want to encourage some open space.
This also represents an increased density. How is that going to
go down with the people who live there? Is this whole idea going
to be something that they are going to support or are they going
to see it as a threat?
One thing that could happen is if it is under the jurisdiction of
the Housing Authority and they determine who is in there and what
the rent would be, you would have a furor on your hands. So it
seems like the unit price should be free market-the rent. And
the person who owns the unit can have a choice who they rent to.
At the same time you don't want to create a situation where
people are going to short-term these during Christmas so you
would maybe want to have as part of the ordinance a requirement
that there be a minimum 6 month lease on these things. The goal
is to solve employee housing.
The other important goal is to revitalize
blocks that are becoming second homes for
To get people back into the neighborhoods.
revitalization is an important issue.
some of these housing
summer and Christmas.
We think the area of
Roger: As a west ender I have been lamenting the fact that it
has become less and less of a neighborhood because of the flight.
As far as these units are concerned I think we want to make them
residential housing and that should come under the resident
housing rules.
Tom: That has no price or income limitation.
7
PZM8.15.89
Roger: No, but it definitely has a residential--residents of the
community. I don't care if it 1S a retiree or what. Potentially
it is an income base for the property so for that benefit the
community should get a benefit of it being residential housing as
opposed to short-termers being in there. That is our focus for
this type of house.
Jasmine: I agree with Roger. I think one of the things
important about the size of the accessory dwelling units is that
although there is a need for family oriented housing, these are
not the things to do this. You don't want to have a Mother,
Father and 3 kids because I think there is where you really start
getting into a density problem. You need 1 or 2 people because
of the size. I think if it is restricted to 1 or 2 people it
will alleviate some people's fears as well.
Roger: Where there is a 2-person loft and maybe a roll-out bed
for the visitor I find perfectly acceptable. I do worry if it is
such a way that you start getting more than 2 people who are
permanent residents.
Lipsey: Another aspect we see is if it works in the west end
which has the smallest lots in all of Aspen, we know it is going
to work everywhere else.
Welton: Not necessarily. Because there is no alley system.
Lipsey: No. But people do have detached garages.
consider the garages the modern day coach house then
opportunity in the outlying suburbs.
So if you
there is an
Mari: I am very enthusiastic about this approach. I think it is
an approach that encourages individual creativity. And I think
that we ought to allow for as much individuality on the owner's
side as possible within certain guidelines that restrict. We
should come up with a pitch roof for example.
It doesn't bother me to have something look like a carriage
house. Especially in the west end you are dealing with a fabric
that is already there. And to have some strange things that are
very jarring along those alleys I think would be obtrusive for
the character of the west end.
Lipsey: Nowhere in Aspen is there an architectural review board.
My hope is that the scale will take care of itself. Things that
small-scaled are just almost automatically less offensive and
less problematic in terms of style and everything else. I think
if we have footprint and some very simple things like maybe a
sloping roof of a minimum slope and maybe a required gable that
scale etc will solve it's own problems.
8
PZM8.15.89
Roger: We
maybe if it
some sort.
appropriate
should at least establish
exceeds it, it goes into a
The carriage house on
for that property.
a maximum size and then
special review process of
the Elisha property is
Roxanne: The Elisha carriage house is about 4 times the size of
what we are proposing.
Lipsey: It should be linked to the size of the property.
Graeme: And to the size of the main house.
Roger: Maybe ratio of carriage house to main house.
Jasmine: I have often felt that Bill's approach is that if the
unit is small enough the small ones should just go through. And
we have to determine what that size is. I would really like to
see if anything comes of that. But I think it is really
important to just let them go through. Whatever footprint we
decide say "Fine. You can do it".
Welton: It can be done as a ratio to the total lot area.
Jasmine: I really want to make the incentive for these people to
make these small. Not to do it on a ratio. To encourage them to
do the smallest possible efficient house. I don't want to see
them any bigger even if the land will allow it.
Lipsey: That is a safer starting approach. Then if it works
maybe you could say we could stand a little bigger one here or
there.
Another couple of incentives are waiving tap fees for sewer and
water and maybe even getting the gas company to waive tap fee for
gas. Perhaps even getting the banks to help with financing with
good construction loan rates. Doing everything we can to foster
this and at the same time put in some limit that we know is going
to protect it from being a monster. That is going to help a lot.
Welton: I think putting a quantitative ratio on it eliminates
having to go through special review.
Mari: How is 500sqft or some amount of FAR whichever is smaller?
Welton: I would rather see some of these good examples on these
picture boards. You could almost look at those examples and
figure out how big the lot is, how big the footprint of the
carriage house is. And if it is a story and a half you know the
9
PZM8.15.89
FAR is the story times 1.5. I think we should encourage story
and a half type of solutions.
Bruce: Conceptually I like the idea of approaching the housing
problem through this mechanism. I am concerned about the density
situation and maybe that is not a problem since we have some
empty neighborhoods. All we are doing is putting some people in
there who used to be there anyway.
I am also concerned about the alley situation and how that is
go~ng to work. We haven't talked about where these people are
g01ng to park. If we are going to extend the height limits of 15
or 18 feet and having a carriage house on the south side of the
alley what is that going to do to the snow and ice and being able
to get up and down there. So I think there are some things we
need to think through before we just jump in and try and solve
our affordable housing problem.
Conceptually I think we have got a
probably a way we can work through it.
careful about jumping in too quickly
through.
good idea and there is
But I think we need to be
and not thinking things
Graeme: I think Bruce is really correct in that. I think the
approach is great. Maybe we need to look at some system where
the people on the block take the trash out to the ends of the
alley so that we don't have trucks. And I think that needs to be
looked at as a whole thing.
The hardest thing in this whole thing is the parking. We are
increasing the density of the buildings but I think we can handle
that. We are increasing the people but that is even a desirable
aspect of it. But the hideous thing is the cars. And not only
when you put something right on the alley. You have got your
carriage house then you have got your garage. But if you build a
4 bedroom house in the west end you need to put 4 required
parking spaces on that. They are either going to wind up in the
front of the house on the main street which everybody is trying
to discourage. You are going to have a little house and a bunch
of cars in the back. And that, to me, is going to be the thing
that is really the hardest to deal with.
Lipsey: That is going to be a problem. You are going to have
people who are much more within walking distance of downtown. So
hopefully they are not going to have to have a car as much as if
they lived out further. In this way we are hoping it is going to
help transportation.
Then you can utilize maybe the ground floor of this for 2 cars
and then have the apartment completely on the 2nd floor. And
10
PZM8.15.89
then maybe even have a basement under the garage that is storage
for out-of-season things like bicycles and skis. Maybe you would
be adding one coach house unit but maybe you would be adding a 2
car garage below it where none existed before.
Maybe just have one car on the ground floor and half the unit on
the ground floor and the other half or 2/3 above the garage. We
don't want to create a problem by having no place to park cars.
Karen has a scheme of a carport aside a unit on the ground floor
with a porch on the other side with a garden. No doubt about it,
we have to address it.
Bruce: If this idea takes off and we get some of these units
built and people living in them it may be time at that point to
talk to RFTA about running a west end shuttle. A shuttle running
through here would discourage people using their automobiles.
Lipsey: Or even limit the number of cars in these households.
Welton: I do think that a mixed use of garage and residential is
something that could be encouraged. In the process you are
solving part of the problem that you are creating just by making
dual use.
Graeme: I think there should be some more flexibility in terms
of setbacks. I think it would be important to maintain a
percentage of the lotline free of parking or building. The
alleyscape is going to lose the charm that it has. Leave 30% of
the lotline undeveloped in terms of house or parking. Then you
start to get fences and rose bushes etc.
Welton: No. I think part of the charm of walking down an alley
is you really don't know what to expect. There are buildings
that are jammed right up against there. I had never been down
the alley and looked at the back of Nicholas DeWolf's house. I
didn't realize that it was all just--it is a pretty solid wall.
It is continuous but I don't think it is bad at all.
Graeme: But if you had that up and down the alley it would be a
whole different thing. I say you should leave a certain
percentage in each alley that is going to be able to have some
planting.
Leslie: Regarding parking are we talking
requirements for the primary structure? The main
we talking about that combined with the parking
the--
about parking
house? Or are
requirement of
Mari: I think we are only talking about the incremental
requirement.
11
PZM8.15.89
Leslie: If every free market or every primary residence that is
built must provide enough parking on site per bedroom and if you
don't require that for the second building then it would seem to
me that you would have the space on the street for them to park.
Welton: That is a real reasonable approach. I don't know if we
are ready to continue adding to our deficit of parking.
Graeme: There is something that is going to change here. Most
of the old houses don't have required parking. And if by
building a carriage house it triggers bringing that house up to
standard in terms of parking then we are just going to be paving
the west end. And I would be in favor I think of waiving the
parking for the carriage house and maybe not requiring them to
bring up their parking.
Welton: For new development I think that they would provide all
the free market parking they are required to provide but the
carriage be exempted.
Roxanne: The zoning Dept. says you only have to provide for a
new parking space for every new bedroom that is created.
Karen: Recently I have become quite a student of the alleys.
There are just lots and lots of cars that are already in the
alleys. What my suggestion would be is that we not allow the
carriage houses to have parking in the alleys. And that those
people be made to park possibly on the end street instead of on
the main street. I am afraid that if we allow more cars in the
alleys that we are just going to really complicate our problems
in a lot of ways.
Welton: We just got through analyzing what kind of development
was happening with the new houses in the west end and how all
these new houses were building 2-car garages that were facing
Hallam street or Francis street. They are doing curb cuts that
cut down on the amount of parking that was available for during
concerts and how really our alleys historically in any city have
been there for the use of carriages or cars. So you have a nice
curb with flowers all the way around it--not a 25ft concrete
apron that goes down onto the main streets. That is kind of a
reversal in a philosophy that has been formalized in the last 3
years. That, yes, the alley should be used for service,
automobile storage etc. to get it off the street and to keep from
turning our streets into one driveway after another.
Roger: Also concerning the facade of the alley, there are places
now where you can go at least 3 R-6 lots in a row where the
fortress mentality is put up a 6ft fence on the alley clear
12
PZM8.15.89
across-maybe with a break into a trash area or into a garage.
But the alleyscapes have already started to assume that solid
wall. And I think the nice thing about the carriage house is
that it tends to break up that if it is on the lot line. And so
I very much like the idea of a carriage house because at least it
will be open to the alley and the fence is limited to whatever is
left on that property.
Graeme asked about snow removal in alleys.
Roger: It is removed.
Leslie: That is a problem that Bill Drueding initially
identified when we first met on this. When you talk about
relieving the rear yard setback, snow removal and the turning
radius of cars being able to go into carports and garages if you
don't have that setback. That is something that we definitely
need to pursue further.
Baker: In terms of zone districts,
looking at all of the districts
district.
at the staff level we are
excluding the commercial
We don't want to do anything that is going to make it attractive
to do more residential in the Office or C-1 zones. Maybe we need
to look at the C-C Zone differently. I don't know.
We have not looked at duplex lot. And would this be something we
would want to consider for each duplex unit--in either duplex
unit or for just one carriage unit on the lot?
Bruce: Another thing is how this would work on lots where there
are not alleys. Over in the Cemetery Lane area there are no
alleys over there. So are we really only talking about the west
end. Or are we going to allow somebody to put a carriage house
on a lot that they have got along Snowbunny or Cemetery Lane?
Baker: What we found with Ord. 51 was that in neighborhoods that
are locally oriented--Snowbunny, the east side, those areas feel
like they are already invigorated and they don't want any more
density. Maybe we can put a general overlay on the west end.
Bruce: Maybe just look at R-6.
Roger: I think that duplex is usually a single structure and it
is usually on 9,OOOsqft, allowing just one carriage house on that
brings you up to a density of one family for 3,OOOsqft which I
think is all right to aim for. And that puts the 6,OOOsqft lots
with a single family unit up to, in effect, one unit per
3,OOOsqft. So I tend to say for a duplex lot, one unit unless I
13
PZM8.15.89
can see something very beneficial otherwise. There still is not
the space there. Maybe 1 and 1/2 units.
Roxanne: That is an incentive for historic landmarks. Is 2
separate residential structures on 6,OOOsqft. We don't want to
dilute that kind of incentive.
Graeme: As far as I am concerned with the FAR thing I think if
there was a little stick in there it might wake some people up.
If they knew if there was 250sqft that they couldn't get unless
they did this, that would slap a lot of guys right in the face.
Another idea would be if in the alley in the middle of the alley,
you close that off so that the alley is not a through street
anymore. That would mean the only people going through there
would be going in from either end. Everybody could get into
their place but it would make it so it is not a through street.
It would make it more their personal space.
There might be snow or fire problems. But I think just doing
that one little thing--putting that barrier up in the middle of
the alley would make that their own space. Pedestrians could
walk through there.
Roger: I like that idea but the problems would be services.
starts at one end and goes through to the other end. The
department would rather not have to deal with something
that.
BFI
fire
like
Graeme: It could be a barrier they could drive right over. Also
if someone has a carriage house on the alley maybe they should
have to walk to the end of the alley to put their trash out.
Mari: In Vale on the pedestrian streets they have barriers that
only the transit people have cards to make it work.
Jasmine: I have a problem with blocking off public access ways.
These are public streets and alleys. And you do not have the
right to restrict public access to them. That is what streets
and alleys are for.
Another thing--a couple of days ago there was an article about
the man who had the duplex over on West Hyman that was supposed
to be an employee unit. For 7 years it hasn't been used as an
employee unit. He finally got caught. Now he is whining and
sniveling because he has been using if for his guests who come
and he certainly doesn't want it to be used as an employee unit.
So far they are taking the hard line with him and saying "No, he
is going to have to use it as an employee unit".
14
PZM8.15.89
And so now what if he doesn't? For 7 years it has not been used
as an employee unit. And by the time he gets done fighting with
them, it will be another 2 years before it ever gets used an
employee unit.
This is a lovely idea for permanent residents. And if there is
non-compliance with it then we are going to have extra density in
the west end, extra bulk, extra all the problems that we have
identified and people not really using them for what they are
supposed to be used for. This is what seems to happen with a lot
that we do. It starts a to become a joke after a while.
The same thing is true in Ord. 47, 51 or whatever it is. That is
that there is no punishment for people who do not comply. It is
all very well and good to say "We have discovered this and now
you have to be in compliance". But so what!? It's like saying
to people "Well, why don't you not be in compliance for as long
as you think you can get away with it?" I can see that this is a
situation which is ripe for more of that type of thing to happen.
Baker: If we don't house people we want in those, then we have
accomplished nothing.
Jasmine: I really think this has to have in it substantial
penalties for non-compliance and it has to be written into the
Ordinance.
Michael: I don't think that is the solution. For example it
would be easy to turn around and pass some kind of a City tax
that is assessable to anybody who has any kind of an accessory
dwelling unit unless they file an affidavit each year stating
that it has been occupied by a resident that is sworn to. And
then they get an exemption from that tax.
Jasmine: I think there are definite ways of doing it but it has
to be in there. What we have now is nothing.
Michael: What else I don't want to do is try to throw another
burden on the Housing Authority. It would be nice to find a way
that didn't involve them.
Bruce: On the density question I would just point out that if we
allow these things, we are in effect, allowing more density than
the underlying zoning which troubles some of us greatly as it
relates to other projects. Maybe the goal here is sufficient for
us to go ahead and do that. But I just want us to realize that
we are saying we are going to allow more density here than the
underlying zoning permits.
15
PZM8.15.89
Roger: Getting back to the enforcement at the very least these
types of units have to be registered with some form of authority
be it a taxing district or the Housing Authority so that in
either case it will be enforced.
The cost of non-compliance should come close to 1 and 1/2 times
the rent per month or something on that order so that it is
reasonably stiff. It should be based on $500 per month if it is
unoccupied for more than 3 months in a row for instance.
Welton: It is a good solution for a problem but we don't even
know if the problem exists yet.
Leslie: Roxanne has suggested a small homes tour. It could be
something sponsored by this Commission for the public. It is
something to think about.
Roxanne:
September.
Why don't we scheduled a week before your meeting in
Just a site study.
Members were in favor of this in general.
Lipsey: My guess is that if you visited and spoke with people
who live in 350sqft in an alley presently and then you spoke with
somebody who lives in a 350sqft apartment anywhere in the city
that you are going to find 2 different kinds of people. One is
going to be happy and have a lot of pride in this little house
and be enjoying it. The other person is going to be someone who
lives in a project who is never particularly happy because his
problem is the product of the project.
There being not further comment Welton continued the hearing to
September 19, 1989.
16