15 percent of all new housing to meet
pricing standards
By John Stroud
Valley Journal staff writer
October 11, 2001
The Carbondale Board of Trustees took a
major step in the arena of affordable housing Tuesday night,
voting 6-0 to adopt an ordinance requiring 15 percent of homes in
new residential developments to meet affordability standards.
The so-called Inclusionary Housing ordinance
takes effect immediately, in the interest of “preservation
of public, health, safety and welfare,” as determined by the
town’s elected officials.
It will apply to all new development
proposals currently on the town’s planning table, including
the proposed 365-home Meadowood Ranch subdivision and the Bonanza
Mobile Home Park redevelopment, which is proposed to include
second- and third-floor residential units on top of ground-level
commercial space.
Any new residential additions to town, such
as the planned annexation and development of the Bair Ranch site
on Highway 133 and the Paul Nieslanik property on White Hill,
which are both still in the preliminary planning stages, would
also have to adhere to the new regulations.
“This is a pretty momentous occasion.
I’m excited,” said Mayor Pro-tem Susie Darrow, who
presided over Tuesday’s meeting in Mayor Randy
Vanderhurst’s absence.
“I look at some of my friends who
bought their homes here a number of years ago, and there’s
no way any of those folks could afford to purchase a home here
today because the gap has become so astronomical,” Darrow
said.
The new regulations originated from the
findings of the 1999 Regional Affordable Housing Initiative
sponsored by the towns of Carbondale, Basalt and Glenwood
Springs, plus Garfield and Eagle counties, and coordinated by
Healthy Mountain Communities.
Carbondale joins Basalt, Aspen and Garfield
and Pitkin counties in requiring developers to provide a certain
percentage of deed-restricted affordable homes targeted at
certain income ranges based on the Area Median Income (AMI),
while Glenwood Springs is putting the final touches on an
inclusionary zoning ordinance as well.
Like Carbondale, Glenwood is looking at a 15
percent mitigation requirement, while Basalt’s ordinance
calls for 20 percent affordable housing and Garfield County
requires 10 percent. Aspen and Pitkin County’s affordable
housing regulations require anywhere from 33 percent to 60
percent mitigation.
Depending on the number of homes in a
subdivision, affordable units would have to be priced so that
homebuyers earning between 65 percent and 150 percent of the AMI,
which is currently about $48,000 per year, would be able to
afford them.
A follow-up set of “implementation
guidelines” will be presented by town staff in about two
months dealing with the size, type and price of
“community housing” units; guidelines for
qualifications to purchase and occupy a unit; guidelines for the
purchase or resale of units; and determination of a fee in lieu
payment for developers who request to pay into a town affordable
housing fund instead of developing affordable housing on site.
Town Planning Director Mark Chain noted the
findings of the Regional Affordable Housing Initiative, including
a “definition of need” for more affordable housing
units to be provided in Carbondale and the lower Valley. Chain
said the “need” has become even more pronounced since
the study was completed.
Among the findings listed in the ordinance
that was passed Tuesday were:
§
The average annual wage in Garfield County increased 32 percent
from 1990-98, while the median rent from Glenwood Springs to
Basalt increased 47 percent and the median sales price of a home
in the Glenwood Springs and Carbondale area went up 113 percent.
§
The median sales price for a single-family home in Carbondale
increased from $98,250 in 1990 to $315,350 through the first half
of 2001; likewise, the price of a townhome or condominium
increased from $60,650 to between $180,000 and $220,000 during
the same decade.
§
Housing is considered “affordable” if households pay no
more than 30 percent of their monthly income for rent or
mortgage. However, a significant number of households locally
currently pay more than 30 percent and even those earning at or
above the AMI are experiencing a housing cost burden.
Only a couple of citizens offered comments on the affordable housing ordinance, including longtime Carbondale resident Ernie Gianinetti, who urged caution in providing subsidized housing and opening the door to more people to move here.
“When you subsidize more housing to
bring more people in, it is having a negative affect on our
communities,” Gianinetti said, noting that poor school
ratings locally are one of those affects. “It’s time to
start paying attention to these things. You’re unleveling
the playing field with this. I think we need to keep it level and
let those who can afford to live here, live here.”
Trustee Mark Whalen took exception to
Gianinetti’s comments, pointing out that the ordinance is
intended to level the playing field with other neighboring
communities that have similar regulations.
“It’s not the perfect answer to
these issues you raise, but it is a step,” he said, adding
that the school crowding issues have existed regardless of the
high cost of housing in Carbondale. “That doesn’t have
anything to do with affordable housing.”
Meadowood Ranch developer Arthur Strock of
California has supported the affordable housing ordinance, but
reiterated his concern that rental units are included in the
equation for determining the number of affordable for-sale
housing units that must be built. The Meadowood plan would
include 220 rental apartments.
“The solution you have at hand
doesn’t work if your goal is to control rents. In fact, it
does just the opposite,” he said, noting that rents
aren’t as big a problem currently as home prices, but that
the new regulations might discourage the development of more
rental housing and drive rents up.
Strock said the regulations, as adopted,
will not affect his development plan, which is being revamped to
include modular homes in place of single-family and townhomes
that were included in an earlier plan, in addition to the
apartment units.
The new ordinance includes a provision for
variances to be granted in cases where a developer provides
incentives that further the goal of affordable housing or other
community needs. Variances would be up to the Board of Trustees
to grant.