Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sr.Citizen Housing Plan.1998 fD~ (n,rJUIE:S .---- --.----- TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ellen Sassano. Senior Long Range Planner RE: Adoption of the Citizen Housing Plan as an Amendment to the Housing Element of the Aspen Area Community Plan DATE: June 2, 1998 BACKGROUND As a result of the Housing Roundtable in January, 1998, the BOCC and City Council gave Staff direction to bring the then-proposed Citizen Housing Plan to the City and County Planning Commissions for joint review and consideration. The Aspen and Pitkin County Planning Commissions met in worksession on February 10 and February 24, 1998 to discuss the merits of joint adoption of the Citizen Housing Plan as an amendment to the Aspen Area Community Plan. While further refinement of the Plan was recommended, it was agreed that joint adoption should be pursued. On March 3rd, subsequent to the joint Commission worksession, the County Planning Commission adopted the Citizen Housing Plan as an amendment to the housing element of the Down Valley Plan. A copy of the County adopting resolution and Plan area boundary is attached as Exhibit "B". PROCESS State statutes authorize the City and County Planning Commissions to adopt master plans in whole, or as work progresses, in parts thereof. Upon adoption by the Planning Commission(s), a request for Plan endorsement may be forwarded to the City Council and BOCC respectively. ADOPTION OF THE PLAN The Aspen Metro Area Citizen Housing Plan is intended to function as an interim Plan with respect to housing until such time as the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) update is complete. Parts or all of this housing plan may be ultimately incorporated into the updated Community Plan. As it has been several months since the Planning Commissions met jointly to discuss the Housing Plan, the following paragraphs are provided to "re-cap" some of the key discussion items that were raised in Commissioners review of the Plan in February: " '\ '.. .. '., . , . , " · While it is reasonable to identify development of affordable housing in the metro area as a priority, the document shouldn't preclude development of affordable housing outside of the metro area; It was ultimately agreed that while the Plan states a preference for housing in the metro area, if the document criteria is used as a whole, it doesn't preclude housing outside of the Metro area. Ji/oreover, the County Planning Commission is currently reviewing a proposal for a new "Rural Affordable Housing Overlay/PUD Zone District" which was drafted by Com Dev Staff to accommodate housing and limited commercial uses on lands located outside of the Aspen Metro Area, and strategically located in relation to transit opportunities, The proposed zone is inten...dedfor the production of Category /,2.3 and -I and limited Resident Occupied Affordable Housing within the rural areas of the County and is intended to provide an opportunity for development of affordable housing consistent with the goals of the Down Valley Plan and the Pitkin County Citizen Housing Plan. · Consideration should be given to the addition of criteria which states that projects shouldn't be growth generators; It was agreed that Philosophy #3 (on page 13 of the attached Plan Draft) was intended to address this issue, Commissioners may wish to review the language of this criterion to be sure that it is satisfactory, · There should be more narrative in the beginning of the document to clarify the purpose of the Plan; If the intention is to provide criteria to help locate and develop affordable housing, then that intent should be more clearly stated; The purpose of the Plan is stated in the introduction section on page one of the document. As it is important that Commissioners agree on the stated purpose of the Plan, it is recommended that this language be reviewed (revised as necessary) and agreed upon. · It may be appropriate to add a bulleted list of what commercial activity is appropriate to accompany affordable housing development after density reaches a certain level; This suggestion may be more appropriately addressed in the AH and/or currently proposed zone district regulations, although the Commissioners may want to address the issue of proximity of affordable housing to commercial services in this Plan. · There are sections of the draft that are contradictory; Commissioners are requested to specifically identifY these sections so that they may be addressed 2 . Philosophy E should consider not only the carrying capacity of the land in optimizing density, but also the carrying capacity of transportation and other support systems; This change has been made to the text on page 16, paragraph #3, . Criteria should be added to address the establishment of homeowners covenants to provide bylaws requiring the maintenance of affordable housing at a certain standard; This could be addressed by revising the second sentence in Philosophy H on page 17 of the attached draft in the following manner: "Quality design, construction and maintenance standards are important in terms of preserving the character of the Aspen area and also in terms of providing a lasting, high quality of life for the residents of citizen housing." The second sentence of the corresponding Criteria H would then be revised with the following language: "Where a specific development plan is being considered" are good quality design, construction and maintenance standards proposed?" . "Containable Development" should be more clearly dermed as development that serves its own need but doesn't create surplus capacity for adjacent properties; Commissioners may want to discuss the addition of this language to the existing definition of "containable development" which states, Containable development means development that will not fundamentally change or be incompatible with the char.>cter of a neighborhood or area. Containable development is also de- velopment that does not promote sprawl and which can be confined (or held) within its area." . It should be clear that housing sites identified for the Basalt area should be used to house employees working in Basalt rather than Aspen; Commissioners may wish to revise the second sentence of Philosophy #1 on page 12 c to state, Working (or retired) Aspen, Basalt,andlor Snowmass citizens should have an opportunity to live close to where they work (or worked). 3 A draft of the Plan text is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit "A" for Commissioners review. AL TERNA TIVES I. Commissioners may take action to approve the Aspen Metro Area Citizen Housing Plan as an amendment to the Housing Element of the Aspen Area Community Plan, acknowledging that the Citizen Housing Plan will not supersede the existing housing element in the AACP, but be used in addition to that Plan. Under this alternative Commissioners will direct Staff to bring back a resolution of approval; 2. Commissioners may choose to endorse rather than fonnally adopt the Plan. Under this alternative, the Plan would be "handed-oft" to the housing committee working on the AACP update with an endorsement from the P&Z. The down-side of this alternative is that any perceived benefits of the Plan will not be realized until the AACP update is completed in December of 1998. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Housing Plan as an amendment to the Housing Element of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Adoption of the Plan should have no detrimental impact to the ongoing process of updating the AACP, and in the interim will provide a common set of standards which may be used by both the City and the County in detennining the most appropriate location for affordable housing. ATTACHMENT A Draft Metro Area Citizen Housing Plan A IT ACHMENT B County Resolution Adopting the Citizen Housing Plan as an Amendment to the Housing Element of the Down Valley Plan (including a map of the Plan Area Boundary) 4 EXHIBIT A INTERIM ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING PLAN The attached draft of the Citizen Housing Plan is identical to the Citizen Housing Plan, , which was adopted by the County Planning Commission as an amendment to the Down Valley Plan, with the exception that references to Pitkin County were replaced with references to the Aspen Area or Metro Area, etc. INTERIM ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I . INTRODUCTION . PURPOSE AFFECTED AREAS APPLICABILITY OVERVIEW . Planning and providing for citizen housing in the Aspen area is necessary to create a balanced community representative of the various types of people that live, work and retire in the area. This interim plan is intended to serve as a framework and guide to local officials, staff members and private property owner/developers in the identification, purchase and development of citizen housing sites. To this end, part one of the interim plan establishes a set of Citizen Housing Philosophies and Criteria to assist in the evaluation of potential citizen housing sites. Three Philosophies and Criteria have been identified as the most important for the future acquisition and development of citizen housing: (1) location within an identified metro area; (2) proximity to available public mass transit; and (3) containable development. The remaining Philosophies and Criteria are identified by the letters A through K in no particular order of significance, but are to be considered along with the three priority Philosophies and Criteria. Part two of the interim plan, which will be enacted at a later date, will consider a variety of potential citizen housing sites in light of the Citizen Housing Philosophies and Criteria. The AACP set forth a goal of creating and preserving a certain number of citizen housing units by the year 2015. The progress with respect to that goal is presently asce~ainable, so a plan that identifies sites that will aliow the production of those units by the year 2015 is appropriate now. The purpose of the interim plan is to address citizen housing needs and opportunities, particularly in the context of sound land use planning and planned and available public transportation. This interim plan will be used to evaluate citizen housing opportunities and site- specific proposals while the Down Valley Comprehensive Plan ("DVCP"), the Aspen Area Community Plan ("AACP") and the Woody Creek Master Plan are being amended, updated and adopted. The purpose of the interim plan is to establish Philosophies and Criteria to evaluate potential citizen housing development sites and actual development proposals. The intention is not to preclude the development of citizen housing outside of the metro areas if it is appropriate considering all of the Philosophies and Criteria. The interim plan addresses the Aspen metro area from a citizen housing and transportation perspective only. The interim plan is applicable to all site-specific applications that are pending at the time of final adoption of the plan and all applications filed thereafter, The interim plan is intended as a complement to and a tool to be used along with the other adopted plans. Consistency with other applicable plans should be considered along with this interim plan, DRAFT #1 FOR PUBLIC HEARING, LAST REVISED 4/23198 PAGE 1 OF 1A INTERIM ASPEN AREA CmZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I . EXISTING ADOPTED PLANS OTHER PENDING PLANS 1984 White River National Forest Management Plan 1985 Highway 82 Corridor Plan 1987 Down Valley Comprehensive Plan 1991 Woody Creek Master Plan 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan 1996 Basalt 3 Mile Plan Aspen Area Community Plan Update Basalt Comprehensive Plan Carbondale Master Plan Down Valley Comprehensive Plan Update Pitkin County Strategic Plan Corridor Investment Study Snowmass Comprehensive Plan White River National Forest Update Woody Creek Master Plan Update DRAFT #1 FOR PUBUC HEARING, lAST REVISED 4/23/98 OVERVIEW . PAGE20F18 INTERIM ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I . DEFINITIONS AFFORDABLE HOUSING * CARRYING CAPACITY ~ CHARACTER CITIZEN HOUSING COMPATIBLE CONTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DEFINITIONS . Affordable housing is a household paying less than 18-28% of its gross annual income for monthly housing costs. For owner Occupied housing costs, the percentage would include, by month, mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and utilities. The purchase price of the home would also not exceed 2.7 times the household's gross annual income. For renter occupied housing costs, this percentage would include monthly contract rent and utilities, Carrying capacity is a term borrowed from ecology that represents the upper limit of population growth that can "be achieved in a particular area when individuals are introduced into that area. Carrying capacity is used in determining the potential of an area to absorb development. Specifically, the term includes, but is not limited to: (1) the level of land use, human activity, or development for a specific area that can be accommodated permanently without an irreversible change in the quality of air, water, land or plant and animal habitats; (2) the upper limits of development beyond which the quality of human life, health, welfare, safety, or community character within an area will be impaired; (3) the maximum level of development allowable under current zoning considering the carrying capacity of the land from a physical and character based perspective. Character means the distinct physical characteristics of a structure or area that set it apart from its surroundings and contribute to its individuality. Specifically with respect to structures, character means the density, height, coverage, setback, massing, fenestration, materials and scale of materials. With respect to an area, character means the nature of the area in terms of intensity of the use using the terms rural, suburban or urban. Citizen housing is any housing that is affordable housing or housing that is reasonably attainable for persons employed, or formerly employed retirees, in Pitkin County. Citizen housing includes deed restricted units as well as free market units, so long as such units are affordable housing. Compatible means capable of existing together without conflict or ill effects. Specifically with respect to structures, compatible means consistent with, harmonious with, similar to and/or enhances the mixture of complimentary architectural styles, either of an individual structure of the character of the surrounding structures. Containable development means development that will not fundamentally change or be incompatible with the character of a neighborhood or area. Containable development is also development DRAFT #1 FOR PUBLIC HEARING, LAST REVISEO 4123/98 PAGE 3 OF 18 DEFINITIONS INTERIM ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I . . that does not promote sprawl and which can be confined (or held) within its area. FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN CHARACTER A fundamental change in character means that the citizen housing development proposed is likely to result in a change in the character of an area so fundamental that its classification as rural, suburban or urban will change. For example, a citizen housing project that transforms an area from rural to suburban, rural to urban or suburban to urban classification, would result in a fundamental change in character of the area. INFRASTRUCTURE Infrastructure means public facilities and urban-services, such as sewage-disposal systems, water-supply systems, other utility systems and roads, METRO AREA The metro area is defined for each jurisdiction as follows: . The Aspen metro area is: the eastern property boundary of the Preserve Subdivision on Independence Pass, northwest to Brush Creek Road where it intersects with Highway 82. The Aspen metro area covers the valley floor between those two points and is inclusive of the West Buttermilk Subdivision, Maroon Creek Ranch Subdivision and the private portion of Smuggler Mountain, to the Red Mountain ridge line .down to Slaughterhouse Bridge, where the boundary coincides with Roaring Fork River until it intersects with Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and Wally Mills property lines and heads northwest until it inte'rsects with Brush Creek Road. . The Basalt metro area is: the "urban growth boundary" delineated in the 1996 Basalt Three Mile Plan, adopted by Basalt, or any Master Plan or siting criteria adopted by the Town of Basalt that supercedes or supplements this plan. . The Snowmass metro area is: the annexation boundary that will be established as part of the pending Snowmass Master Plan. PUBUC FACIUTlES AND Public facilities and urban services are amenities provided typically URBAN SERVICES only to urban development, including but not limited to: civic facilities, publicly-owned community parks, arterial and collector road facilities, police protection, emergency services, health services, recreation facilities and services, schools; and publicly and privately-owned potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, stormwater management, and mass transit facilities that provide services to the public. RURAL Rural means country-like or agricultural. Rural areas are generally characterized by lower density residential development and agricultural uses. SPRAWL Sprawl is the continuous, haphazard, uncoordinated development outside of an urban area that does not provide or properly plan for PAGE40F18 DRAFT #1 FOR PUBUC HEARING, LAST REVISED 4/23/98 INTERIM ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I . DEFINITIONS . concentration of more intense uses and the efficient and economical provision of public facilities and urban services. Sprawl development tends to promote additional development, especially in connection with the provision of public facilities and urban services. SUBURBAN Suburban means a predominantly IOW-density residential area located immediately outside of and physically and socio- economically associated with an urban area, municipality or a city. URBAN Urban means of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a municipality or city. Urban areas are generally characterized by moderate and higher density residential development, commercial development and industrial development. URBAN LAND Urban land means land inside and adjacent to municipalities or cities that is served by public facilities and urban services and is intensively developed. DRAFT #1 FOR PUBLIC HEARING, LAST REVISED 4123/98 PAGE50F18 INTERIM ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I . EXISTING PLANS, CONDITIONS AND OPPORTUNIT1ES . CITIZEN HOUSING Existing Plans AACP The AACP established an upper limit to the desired population of the Aspen Metro Area of 30,000 people by the year 2015. (The 30,000 person cap included full-time residents, second home owners and tourists at peak season around Christmas-time,) The AACP also established the community goal of housing 60% of the working residents upvalley of Aspen Village by the year 2015. The AACP further stated that the majority of futOre residential and commercial growth should be community oriented with the residential sector being made up of a mixture of economic levels. In order to reach the 60% goal, the AACP recommended four primary actions: . The AACP identified a housing shortfall that called for the creation of approximately 450 new deed restricted employee housing units within the Aspen Metro Area and 200 units outside of the metro area upvalley of Aspen Village; . The AACP called for 750 units of free market housing currently occupied by working residents to be preserved within the Aspen Metro Area; . The AACP identified the need for 200 occupied AD Us in the City of Aspen; and . The AACP proscribed mitigation for commercial, lodge and residential growth to keep in step with the 60% goal. Aspen and Pitkin County are currently updating the AACP. Basalt Three The two main purposes of the Basalt Three Mile Plan were: (1) to Mile Plan provide guidance in the Town's consideration of future growth and development and establishment of Urban Growth Boundaries; and (2) to help coordinate the actions of Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield Counties regarding growth and development in the three-mile area. The four underlying concepts used in creating the plan included: creation and conservation of sense of community; social, economic and environmental sustainability; livability of the community and quality of life for residents; and quality in man made and natural environments. The Plan recommends policies that establish that 55% of the housing created will be attainable by a median income family spending no more than 35% of their income for housing. Basalt is currently updating its Master Plan. PAGE 6 OF 18 DRAFT #1 FOR PUBUC HEARING, LAST REVISED 4123/98 INTERIM ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I . EXISTING PLANS, CONDITIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES . DVCP The DVCP did not formally address the provision of citizen housing. Rather, the DVCP's primary philosophy was land preservation oriented and one of its main goals was "[t]o identify the highest priority land for preservation and suggest preservation strategies while recommending the most suitable locations for development." The "employee housing" section of the DVCP states only Pitkin County's general policy of encouraging such housing closer to Aspen. The DVCP's explanation for that policy is the transportation problem created by having employees commute to work in Aspen from down valley, The DVCP also suggested that Pitkin County revisit citizen housing preferences because some down valley sites might provide more of a family lifestyle than is provided by the citizen housing in Aspen. The DVCP's cluster-residential designation also might provide some opportunities for citizen housing. Pitkin County is currently updating the DVCP, Woody Creek The Woody Creek Master Plan did not address the proVIsion of Master Plan citizen housing, except to identify Woody Creek's preferred pattern of growth: dispersed, low-density housing. The Plan states as its housing policy that: "Affordable housing in Woody Creek should be mixed in with existing units (infill and dispersal by the private sector, instead of government housing projects)," The 1991 Woody Creek Master Plan adopted by the Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission deleted the DVCP's cluster residential designation on Pitkin Iron, Woody Creek is in the process of finalizing its Master Plan which will then be forwarded to the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration. Existing Conditions GENERAL There is a general perception that the population composition of the area is changing. It is also perceived that along with this composition shift that there has been an increase in the level of services demanded. The demand for a higher level of service is not necessarily linked with any physical growth in the commercial or residential sectors other than the addition of employees. Consequently, some of the employees generated in connection with the demand for a higher level of service may be unmitigated. DRAFT #1 FOR PUBUC HEARING, LAST REVISEC 4/23/98 The data is not complete regarding the existing housing and employee conditions. For example, information is available regarding the number of jobs in Pitkin County as a whole, but a breakdown for each of the employment centers (I.e., Aspen, Basalt and Snowmass) has not been compiled, Various groups are PAGE 7 OF 18 INTERIM ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I . EXISTING PLANS, CONDITIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES . currently conducting studies that may provide the data and statistical information that is currently lacking. This interim plan will likely need to be revisited once complete information regarding existing conditions is available, PROGRESS The existing conditions currently backed by sufficient data are as follows: . The 1996 population of Pitkin County was approximately 14,119 persons. . In 1996, 14,929 wage-paying jobs in Pitkin County were reported. In 1995, approximately 4,000 proprietor jobs in Pitkin County were reported. . Since 1990 through 1996, the job growth rate in pitkin County has been approximately 17,1%. . Much of the job growth rate is believed to be unrelated to actual physical growth in the commercial or residential sectors. . Since 1993, the Aspen Metro Area (includes some County projects) has seen the production of 152 new units. Additionally, 40 units have been approved, but not built, and 86 potential units are in the review process. No new deed restricted employee units have been created in the non-metro area. ,( Total New Unit Shortfall (considering only built units): 498 units, 298 Metro and 200 Non-Metro. ,( Total New Unit Shortfall (counting all units approved and projects still in the review process): 372 units, 172 Metro and 200 Non-Metro. . Outside the metro area, 150 units have been preserved at Aspen Village and another 50 units may be preserved at the Woody Creek Trailer Park. If the 100 units at Lazy Glen are also considered, a total of 300 units have been preserved in the non-metro area. The City of Aspen has or will preserve 6 units. ,( Total Preservation Unit Shortfall (including Lazy Glen): 444 units. . 50 ADUs have been constructed in the City and 50 EDUs more have been created in the County for a total of 100 ADUs/EDUs. Note that the actual available stock of this type of housing may be slightly higher because County caretaker units are not included in these numbers. A problem in the occupancy rates in the City (somewhere below 30%) has been identified. The units in the County are occupied in excess of 80% of the time. PAGE 8 OF 18 DRAFT #1 FOR PUBUC HEARING, ,-",ST REVISED 4/23/98 INTERIM ASPEN AREA CmZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I . EXISTING PLANS, CONDITIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES . . The two most significant projects identified by the Housing Office in terms of judging whether mitigation has been successful are the Moore and Highlands projects. The Moore ' PUO fell short of the 60% goal by 13 units. If the dormitory units of the Highlands PUO are considered real employee housing, then Highlands probably did meet the 60% goal. It should also be noted, however, that while the Highlands project includes a large number of luxury free-market homes, 20 of those homes were approved contingent upon the use of TORs which will result in the preservation of 20 former potential development sites in the backcountry. ./ Total Mitigation Shortfall: 13 Units. . While the Moore and Highlands projects may have fallen short of the 60% mitigation goal, more significant is the development and re-development that is occurring in Aspen and Pitkin County with no employee mitigation at all, For example, older homes that are torn down and replaced with newer, often larger, homes with no mitigation required. DRAFT #1 FOR PUBLIC HEARING, LAST REviSED 4123/98 PAGE 9 OF 18 INTERIM ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I . EXISTING PLANS, CONDITIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES . TRANSPORTATION The following are the existing conditions and opportunities for mass transit. This interim plan addresses only the provision of citizen housing within the context of available and planned mass transit, but it does recognize that the creation of citizen housing may implicate other infrastructure issues (e.g., schools, water, emergency rescue). These other potential infrastructure issues, along with transportation, are addressed more thoroughly by the various Aspen, Basalt. Pitkin County and Snowmass regulations and plans, and are also considered as one of the Philosophies and Criteria in locating citizen housing sites. (See the Policies section, infra.) Existing Plans 1996 Roaring Fork Transit Development Plan Entrance to Aspen EIS 1997 Roaring Fork Transit Agency Recommendation for System Improvements Existing Conditions Currently the only public transit that exists in Pitkin County is bus selVice provided by RFTA. The 1996 RFTA Development Plan and the 1997 RFTA Recommendation for System Improvements describe the basic available and planned selVice routes currently provided by RFT A. Under consideration is a valley-wide train system that would ultimately provide selVice from Glenwood into the City of Aspen. Opportunities RFTA's plan for additional selVice is outlined in the 1997 RFTA Recommendation for System Improvements. The plans for a valley-wide train have identified a number of possible station stops all of which are still being reviewed. In connection with the Entrance to Aspen, the voters will be asked to consider some transit issues that may affect the train. PAGE 10 OF 18 DRAFT 111, FOR PUBUC HEARING, lAST REVISED 4/23198 INTERIM ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I GOALS AND POLICIES . GOALS . To create and ensure the provision of a sufficient supply and variety of attractive, dispersed, sound, safe, and affordable living units that are appropriately scaled to the neighborhoods for the working (or retired) citizens of the Aspen area. To create a livable community that is balanced from a socioeconomic and resident/non-resident perspective. To identify the actual present citizen housing shortfall and formulate a plan to encourage the development of the needed housing in appropriate locations, To provide a framework to identify the locations appropriate for citizen housing through the application of Citizen Housing Philosophies and Criteria. To identify a mechanism and set of policies to reduce the number of unmitigated employees generated in the Aspen area, To encourage orderly growth and development in appropriate areas of Aspen while protecting the character of the various areas of the unincorporated Pitkin County, making efficient use of public services, de-emphasizing automobile transit, and preventing development sprawl. To examine the appropriateness and desirability of the AACP's goal of providing citizen housing for 60% of the Pitkin County workforce upvalley of Aspen Village by the year 2015. To update the data and methodology behind the 60% goal of the AACP (or provide updated data and appropriate methodology for whatever new goal may be established). To ensure that housing issues are considered on a regional basis including consistency with intergovemmental agreements and commitments relating to joint planning issues. To consider the cross-jurisdictional impacts of the location of citizen housing, parti9ularly with respect to the provision of public facilities and urban services. DRAFT #1 FOR PUBUC HEARING, LAST REVISED 4123/98 PAGE 11 OF 18 INTERIM ASPEN AREA CmZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I GOALS AND POLICIES . . POLICIES Citizen Housing The following Philosophies and Criteria shall be used to evaluate all Location citizen housing sites and site-specific development plans. Each of Philosophies these Philosophies and Criteria shall be considered in the broader And Criteria contexts of the AACP, the Basalt 3 Mile Plan and the DVCP. Three priorities have been established for the location of citizen housing sites and they are identified as Philosophy/Criteria 1-3. The remaining Philosophies and Criteria are identified by the letters A through K and should be considered as well, but they are identified with no particular order of significance. PRIORITY NO.1: METRO AREA LOCATION PHILOSOPHY/CRITERIA 1 PhilosoDhv 1: Development of citizen housing is preferred within the metro areas and employment centers of Aspen, Basalt and Snowmass. Working (or retired) Aspen citizens should have an opportunity to live close to where they work (or worked). Further, citizen housing located outside of metro areas may result in an undesirable pattern of growth that negatively impacts the Aspen area and may further compound the perception that locals do not live in our metro areas anymore, Aspen, Basalt and Snowmass are all significant employment centers and, with the exception of schools which are over-capacity, these urban cores have the public facilities and urban services necessary to serve any additional development. ' Criteria 1: Is the site or proposed development within an existing metro area and employment center (Aspen, Basalt or Snowmass)? If the site is outside of a metro area, consider whether there is documentation or other credible evidence to support a present, urgent need for citizen housing that can not realistically be fulfilled in the metro areas? In considering whether there is a present, urgent need, the goal of the AACP to house 60% of the workforce upvalley of Aspen Village shall be considered as shall the probability that such goal can be accomplished by the year 2015. PAGE 120F 18 DRAFT #1 FOR PUBUC HEARING, LAST REVISED 4/23/98 INTERIM ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I GOALS AND POLICIES . . PRIORITY NO.2: PROXIMITY TO A V AU.ABLE PuBuc MAss TRANSIT PHILOSOPHy/CRITERIA 2 PhilosoDhv 2: Citizen housing, particularly higher density citizen housing, should be located adjacent to available public mass transit. Because the issue of whether, when and where a train will be built is unresolved, it would be premature to premise the approval of any site- specific development plans solely on the ultimate construction of the train (I.e., other interim public mass transportation should be available). Criteria 2: Is the site or proposed development adjacent to available public mass transit? If such transit is not currently available and is still proposed, then consider: 1. Is the provision of public mass transit realistic and desirable? 2. Who will pay the cost to make the transit available? 3. When will the transit be available? 4. What impact will the provision of public transit in this location have on: a. The character of the surrounding neighborhood? b. The safety of the public? c. The public treasury? d. The level of service and capacity of roads servicing the location (before and after development)? e. The environment? f. The visual experience from the public viewplanes and neighboring properties? 5. If there are significant negative impacts found in subsection (4) above, consider whether a non-development or minimal development is preferable to one that would require mass transit. Also, consider whether the negative impacts are outweighed by the advancement of citizen housing goals. PRIORITY NO.3: CONTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PmLosOPHY/CRITERlA3 PhilosODhv 3: Citizen housing should only be permitted where such development is containable and will not promote additional development or sprawl. Criteria 3: Is the site or proposed development plan containable in the sense that it will not tend to promote sprawl and that the development can be confined (or held) within its area? DRAFT 111 FOR PUBUC HEARING, LAST REviSED 4123/98 PAGE 13 OF 18 GOALS AND POLICIES INTERIM ASPEN AREA CmZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I . OTHER CONSIDERATIONS . PHILOSOPHY/CRITERIA A PhiloSODhv A: The availability of public facilities and urban services is critical to the provision af desirable citizen housing, however the provision of those services may not be desirable in some instances. Where public facilities and urban services are not fully available concurrent with proposed citizen housing, issues regarding the fiscal impact of providing such services arise, Further, even where the developer proposes to pay the entire cost for the provision of public facilities and urban services, where such faciliti~s and services are proposed outside of the metro areas significant land use issues may be implicated. For example, the provision of public facilities and urban services outside of metro areas may fundamentally change the character of the area and contribute to undesirable sprawl development which has social, financial and environmental consequences that should be avoided. ~rn~ tJo ~~~ ~~ ~"ro ~-VO Criteria A: Are all necessary public facilities and urban services available concurrently with the development of the site or phasing of the proposed development? If there is not full public facility and urban service concurrency at the time of the consideration of the site or proposed development, or the developer proposes to provide such services in a non-metro area, then consider: 1. Is the provision of public facilities and urban facilities realistic in this location? 2. Is the provision of public facilities and urban services desirable for the proposed location? 3. Will the introduction of public facilities and urban services result in a dramatic change to the community character of the area and/or a fundamental change in the type of historical use of the property? If the proposed location is rural in character, consider whether public facilities and urban services are appropriate in that particular rural area. 4. Who will pay the cost to make these services and facilities available? 5. How would the provision of public facilities and urban services in this particular location impact: a. The character of the surrounding neighborhood? b, The safety of the public? c. The public treasury? d. The level of service and capacity of roads servicing the location (before and after development)? e. The environment? f. The visual experience from the public viewplanes and neighboring properties? DRAFT #1 FOR PuBUC HEARING, LAST REVlseo 4/23/98 PAGe140F18, INTERIM ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I GOALS AND POLICIES . . 6. Would the provision of public facilities and urban services in this particular location encourage a sprawl development pattem? 7, If phasing along with increases in services and facilities is proposed, will these services and facilities really be available concurrently with the completion of each phase of the development (Le., when the occupants really need it)? PmLOSOPHY/CRlTERIA B Philosoph v B: While the provision of citizen housing is important, it is equally important that we preserve the character of our community and natural environment. Citizen housing should not be developed where such development will result in fundamental- incompatibilities or fundamental changes in the character of any neighborhood or area. Particularly where rural lands located outside of the metro areas are implicated, careful consideration should be given to the issue of whether citizen housing development will likely transform the character of the area from rural to suburban or rural to urban, Criteria B: Will the development of the site with citizen housing be compatible with the neighborhood or area in which it is proposed? What will the effect of the development of citizen housing be on the character of the neighborhood or area? Will such development likely result in a fundamental change in the character of the neighborhood or area? (For example, will the development of citizen housing in the area transform the character of the area from rural to suburban or urban?) PmLOSOPHY/CRITERIA C Philosoph v C: Citizen housing developments should emphasize non- automotive transportation through site design that internally and externally promotes. alternative transportation modes (Le., mass transit, walking, biking, etc,). Criteria C: Is the site or proposed development plan internally and externally oriented to promote alternative, non-automotive transport? Specifically: 1. Can the proposed site accommodate an intemal pedestrian- oriented design? Or, if a specific development is proposed, is the site design pedestrian-oriented? Does the internal site design promote alternative, non-automotive transport? 2. Is the site or proposed development plan externally oriented to promote alternative, non-automotive transport? Is it reasonably accessible to existing and/or proposed recreation/commuter trails, sidewalks and mass transit? PmLosoPHY/CRiTERlAD Philosoph v D: Citizen housing should be visually compatible with its surrounding environments, both built and unbuilt. The issue of visual compatibility is particularly important from adjacent public and private viewplanes and along identified scenic corridors. DRAFT #1 FOR PUBUC HEARING, LAST REVISED 4123/98 PAGE 15 OF 18 GOALS AND POLICIES INTERIM ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I . PHILOSOPHY/CRITERIA E 1, ;:h/ PHILOSOPHY/CRITERIA F ~~( . Criteria D: Is the site or proposed development plan visually compatible with its surrounding environment (built and unbuilt) as seen from the public and adjacent private viewplanes? Philosoohv E: The under-development of certain citizen housing sites is undesirable. Considering the carrying capacity of the land, citizen housing sites should attempt to optimize the density of the site to produce the greatest number and variety of needed citizen housing types. Criteria E: Does the site or proposed development plan optimize the site's potential density, considering the maximum density appropriate from a carrying capacity perspective (including transportation). Philosoohv F: While achieving the optimal number of citizen housing units considering the carrying capacity of a given site is important, it is also vital that the proposed density and housing types be the type of units identified by the City of Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office in their affordable housing guidelines and definitions and any applicable local housing policies. (For example, 100 dormitory or 100 resident- occupied units may not be as desirable as a mixture of category types.) Criteria F: Do the proposed density and housing types proposed significantly contribute to the overall Aspen/Pitkin County and regional housing goals and needs as identified by the City of Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office, and/or any subsequently created regional housing authority, and/or applicable local housing policies? DRAFT #1 FOR PUBue HEARING, LAST REVISED 4/23/98 PAGE 16 OF 18 INTERIM ASPEN AREA CmZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I GOALS AND POLICIES . . PHILOSOPHY/CRITERIA G Phi/osoohv G: The opportunity for a high quality of life in any citizen housing development is a critical component in attracting employees (and retirees) to live in such housing. Ownership housing represents a more desired type of housing and chance for a higher quality of life for both the residents and their neighbors. The placement of citizen housing within a neighborhood and also within a larger project should preferably be dispersed among free market units and other housing types. Infill development is highly desired. Criteria G: Does the site or the proposed development plan provide an opportunity for a high quality of life - both for those living in the housing, as well as their neighbors? The type of housing in terms of ownership versus rental units shall be considered in terms of the quality of life as shall the mix of housing (in terms of category type and integration/dispersal among free market units or other housing types). PHILOSOPHY/CRITERIAH Philosoohv H: Citizen housing should be of good quality design and construction, structurally sound and energy efficient. Quality design and construction are important in terms of preserving the character of of the Aspen area and also in terms of providing a lasting, high quality of life for the residents of citizen housing, Criteria H: Does the site present an opportunity for good quality design and construction? Where a specific development plan is being considered, are good quality design and construction proposed? What will the operating costs of the unit be (e.g., heating' bills, etc.)? Consider the likely economic life of the units proposed and weigh it against the public subsidy for those units. PHILosOPHY/CRITERIA I Phi/osoohv I: The design of citizen housing should utilize and conserve the natural scenic features of the site, Site design should conserve valuable and scenic natural features, and social opportunities, based on site characteristics, should be promoted and utilized. Criteria I: Does the site or proposed development utilize and conserve the natural scenic features of the site? DRAFT #1 FOR PUBUC HEARING, LAST REVlseo 4123/98 PAGe 17 OF 18 INTERIM ASPEN AREA CITIZEN HOUSING PLAN: PART I GOALS AND POLICIES . . PHILOSOPHY/CRITERIA J Philosoahv J: The development of citizen housing usually results in a neutral or negative fiscal impact. However, the fiscal impact should nonetheless be considered, particularly to the extent that such impact varies by the type and location of the citizen housing developed. In some instances where the negative fiscal impact of the development of a particular site with citizen housing significantly exceeds the impact of development of other citizen housing sites, consideration should be given regarding the appropriateness of development in that instance. Criteria J: What will the fiscal impact of the development of the site or proposed development be? How does the fiscal impact of this particular site or proposed development compare to other citizen housing sites? If the proposed site has a negative fiscal impact that significantly exceeds the fiscal impact of developing other citizen housing sites, consider whether development is justified. PHILOSOPHY/CRITERIA K philosoahv K: Citizen housing sites should be consistent with the AACP, the DVCP and the Basalt Three Mile Plan, and any plans that supercede or supplement these documents. Citizen housing sites should also be consistent with any intergovernmental agreements among Aspen, Basalt, Pitkin County or Snowmass. Criteria K: Is the site consistent with the AACP, the DVCP and the Basalt Three Mile Plan, and any plans that supercede or supplement these documents? Is the site consistent with all adopted intergovernmental agreements? Employment In reviewing everf development application, for commercial and/or Generation residential uses, the effect of the proposed use on the generation of Considerations employees shall be considered. The type of person the use is intended to attract and the likelihood that the proposed use will attract persons who require a high level of service shall also be considered. Employers of a significant number of employees who seek development review approvals shall be required to provide housing for substantially all of their generated employees near the proposed development. (Examples would be the Aspen Skiing Company and the former Ritz.) PAGE180F18 DRAFT #1 FOR PUBUC HEARING, lAST REVISED 4/23/98 f.Jc+4Ift. IT "J!.~" RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COIVfMlSSION ADOPTING THE PITKIN COUNTY CITIZEN HOUSING PLAN AS Al'l tJPDATE TO THE 1987 DOWNY ALLEY PLAN Resolution No. PZ-98-~ I. Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute (hereinafter reterred to as C.R.S.) 30-28- 106, "it is the duty of the County Planning COmmission to make and adopt a master plan for physical development of the unincorporated territory of the County:' 2. C.RS. 30-28-108 states that Planning COmmissions may adopt their master plans in whole, or as the work progresses, in parts thereot: and may amend. extend or add to their master plans. 3. C.R.S. 30-28-106 E. provides that in creating the master plan, the Planning Commission may take into consideration the availability of :mordable housing within the County or region. 4. The Pitkin County Down Valley Plan, which was adopted by Pitkin Counry in 1987, addressed the issue of affordable housing in a general manner. The Aspen Area Community Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "AACP") was jointly adopted by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County in 1993. The AACP identified a specific need for affordable housing and identified potential development sites, but provided no criteria upon which to rank potential affordable housing sites or areas in the Context of overaII Community goals and policies. 5. The following public meetings and public hearings were held by the Planning and Zoning Commission in order to solicit public COmment on the development of a Citizen Housing Plan drafted to establish affordable housing development criteria in the context of broader Community goals: July 28, 1997 August 25, 1997 September 9, 1997 September 30, 1997 October 6, 1997 October 20, 1997 November 13, 1997 November 18, 1997 December 2, 1997 January 13, 1998 January 27, 1998 February 10, 1998 February 24, 1998 Public Meeting Public Meeting Public Meeting Public Meeting Public Meeting Public Meeting Public Meeting Public Meeting Public Meeting Public Hearing Public Hearing Public Hearing Public Hearing 111111I1111I11111111111I11111111111I111 11111111 11111111 414597 13/17/1998 84:18P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILYI t ...1 ~ a .. _ _ _ __ .. _ __ "--- --~-._..- March 3,1998 Public Hearing 6. Upon adoption, the Plan will apply to all properties within the Down Valley Plan planning area boundary identified on map Exhibit "B," e:<:cept those which cmrently have a vested site specific development plan. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL YED by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission that it does hereby adopt the Pitkin County Citizen Housing Plan (attached as Exhibit" Xi as an amendment to the housing element of the Down V alley Plan. The Housing Plan shall function as an Interim Plan with respect to housing until such time as the Down V alley Plan as a whole is updated. NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE .\SPEN TIMES on the 13th day ofDecember, 1997 . INTRODUCED, FIRST READ, AT A PUBLIC HEARING at a special meeting on the 13th day of January, 1998. DISCUSSED AJ.~ CONTINUED AT SECOND READING on the 27th day of January, 1998. DISCUSSED A.i.~ CONTINUED AT THIRD READING on the 10th day of February, 1998. DISCUSSED A.i.~ CONTINUED AT FOURl'H READING on the 24th day of February, 1998. APPROVED A.i.~ ADOPTED AT 5TH READING ON THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH. 1998. CERIll")J!;D TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH. 1998. PUBLISHED AnlW.<. ADOPTION IN THF. ASPv:N TIMES on the 21st day of March, 1998. .__"_"_,__... __'___'U. . IIIIIII 11111 1IIIIIIIillllllllIII 1IIIIIflllllllllfilIliI- 414517 113/1711118 84: lIP RESOLUTI IlAYIS SILYI 2 ., 22 R .... D.... N '.fIe PITKIN COUNTY CO 2 ATTEST: ~ a~~~ L ce Clarke, CO=unity Development Deputy Director APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: (&n,f1n~ :1 .5'. qe Cindy Houben Co=unity Development Director . 111111I111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 414!17 13/17/1998 M;18P RESOLUTl DAVIS SILvt 3 ., 22 It .,.. D.... N .... 1"11I<%N COUNTY CO PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BY D~ ~ David Gifl' Chairman DATE 3 'CJp' APPROVED AS TO FORlv[: ~-~~ John Ely CountV' . y 3 I I I I " :l I g I I I I ) i'; __ ,..'" __ ,_L ..-"- ...-." _L ,__ ..L >=" I I I '~ I I I I I I I e !! n ~ I 1 I I I I 1/ ,\ -.I ,.1_ '1 I I I _"~'.\-:~__..\ ~\~ !l I I I I Fl 1 I r I..... '....... \ , .. , v'l r 1,"- I' " I "I. L ..."'..:::,...... ".I I " 1 I I I ...."-1. I !: : \ ~ I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I T ~ \ :( , I I !'l !'l ~ I !!l I I 1 .-."-- t:S ~ r:= ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a I e ~ =t 8 r:= ;.Q ~ t' , .,~ ' I I " ",ll 1 I I 11 :<l I !l I I I , I I "I- I I I I r. 1- ~ U I ) ',- 1 1 I I - - I / " / /. I ,-,_..~. ') ,yl ~..- / l ' 1 / , I ,1.1 I , I I I. I I)' /" I I J -Il -' _.- \ I __",.---.-- /! I/~/ _-' --1 ,-- '-- e I\./ ___ / I (>.., .-_J ,> : IJ i r -- -1-- -- "':' -," .. -- " -- " ;I :\ 11 ~ u !! M !'l " , .. \ I ) ~ 1 A PI I ----1---,-_ .. .. , ",," 'I \ !'l II !o ~ I I I I I _ _ _ _ _1_ _ __ _ -- '~ " 1 ~'ov--_< I I I I 1 I . ~ ..J',- -'\:--- --''"- ~ ~-- ,""...,/- I I I I I -- - --1 /_____~ " ! -I J'+I '~I , III II (/ , ,.,-,--=------~_._-_.,- ..-, -.. -----------. ~(2-jc;8 ~(~~ p~ C WITNESS LisT* AGENDA ITEM: .:If..tTFR1 U V\ BolA!7/ rJ~ H-NJ NAME OF WITNESS: 1. t:1\evl S:t.~~ n 2, 'Pit Ie.- ~(~ , si?J.ff 3, ~ce 0 (M"ke~ 1 ~-.a..-ff- f 4. _~r.A C2~R;h6 I P'4bl'~~ 5. 5rA:~ C! LA1.1f<nN) 3T-~ +r Staff Person 6. 7. 8. 9. 10, 11. 12. 13. 14. 15, 16. * Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members.