Agenda - 02-15-1999 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Feb -15 -99 05:45P Town of Carrbovo 919 968 7737 P.05 IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES: The ordinance I propose begins Nrilh 8 Cas: line formula that wiu require that dCvelo;>er construct a minimum of 20% of all new residential dwelling units within any develerx. :,; su`i. to a conditional-or special -use permit to be no greater than 1100 square feet per -unO, The figures described in the proposal were arrived at using the following reasoning: 1) ACC*rv,:.r to information circulating In the real estate community, dwarlin units In the aun.y arc w;;ina 2i a price roughly equivalent to St 00.00 per square toot. 2) According to Housing and Ur `an Development Department guidelines, the definition of an "affordable" homo, is one iha; can e= purchased by a household whose income i5 $0% or less than the Median hous-c&hold incoarre f -,- a family of four in the Metropolitan Statistical area. Using these guidelines. Q engs C4�-: ,,y Government figurers place the threshold of Wfordability" at *bOUI $104.000 p2Tune. -'C t!! squarb foot figure is a round figure which roughly meets that standard, and is reaso,:et -' compatible with many available floor plans for entry -level single family snits, 3? the 2_= proportionality simply reflects the upper limit of proportionality contained "tt-..in mos, inclusiorlary ordinances using price caps(Inclusionary Housing Programs: Poii•;�os arc, 2cticc:. Mallach. 1986.). VARIATIONS: I believe that there is some room for adjustment In the fioures(a.g. 25 -30% aRoraab�e proportionality, andfor a split requirement of - assuming a 20114 overall proportiona'.ity -" it a+. 1,100 sglft and 10% at 600 sq /ft to promote additional diversity) in the con;tru r�:on o' t':t finat ordinance. Possible other requirements could br that these 'affordable' unks may not be isola:a = : ,c-m t:.e remainder Of the development either visually or by Infrastructure, and that rusid ;;tts of 'affordable" units may out be precluded from full participation In, and acresa to any common facilities within the development and any activities associated Wth any homeowner' a$S*6360n a5SOCiatr4 with the deveioprnerni. The object of these peovisio�s to-& tz� ;,,even-t developers frorn "eating nelghboMoods which would serve to segregate resider c of incomes, Also Mentioned has been the Idea of mandating that "affordable" units may be cons;ruaz—! iv *, a minimum numbor of bedrooms to prevent developers from effie ing `Student' apart ments _o meet the requirements. While there may be some problems with this idea, there may t-f a war to incorporate such a mechanism d, EFRECTWENESS- Anyone wtio says that any piece of legislation is guaranteed to produce art of ttie resu'ts is eitfler footish ordisingenuous. As such t do not propose that the ordinance prcposec .e-e Ls a panacea for our housing dilemma. *i do believe, however that such a measure vii! e,nsU a :ar greaterlevel of divet34iy in new housing than we have experienced in past de—'{65, an-= • :; s wrill significantly broaden housing opportunities for a wider range of resid9r►ts many other market cori;rois. Stich a measure, by discouraging cxtri:sivity a.)d r^:.. W, r _- types may serve to help rnoa:ra(e tnc g^eieral inlationary trend in