res_9256 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 " h"I"...,....,....¡." "~,...r~"h;l;t" .L.~ vu..l.U,..I.I.""'" V..I. u.........V.1 UU.U.1.1.u.y 1.3 overall quality of housing and the urban environment 1.4 public infrastructure and services 1.5 neighborhoods 1.6 access/transportation between housing and employment 2.0 When resources are available, continuously strive to improve the quality of approximately 200 existing units which are below the average physical condition of housing units within the community (currently 55 single family and 160 multi-family units). 3.0 Fill the gaps in the city housing "portfolio", by providing housing for all stages of the life cycle such as the needs for entry level housing and more affordable senior housing; 4.0 Assist in the provision of entry level family housing to regenerate the community and our neighborhoods. 5.0 Meet city goals, LCA benchmarks, and city indexes (subject to market conditions and TP<l.nl1Tp.p ~nT:ibhilitv) fnT thp nPTinri frnm 1 QQn tn ?Ol 0 UTili hp' ._~~_._- -'_U__U"J,f ~~. -..- r-u~- ~.~... .--- -- --.- ..... -_. PROPOSED CITY INDEX -existing LCA BENCHMARKS CITY -WIDE GOALS Sources: Met Councilor (City) 1996 ~ough 2010 I Affordable Housing (ownership @ $115,000 or less)* 76% (75.4%) 68% to 77% 75% Affordable Housing (rental at $51O/month orless)* 47% (50.0%) 45% to 48% 50% Life Cycle Housing- Detached 59% (55.5%) Detached 64% to 59 % 60% - Comp Plan '94 Life Cycle Housing- Attached 41% (43.3%) Attached 36% to 41% 40% - Comp Plan '94 (Condos, Townhomes, Apt.) Owner VS. Renter Mix 68% (64. 9%) Owner units 64% to 74% Owner units 65% - Owner Units 32%(35.1%) Renterunits 26% to 36% Renter units 35% - Renter Units Density - S. Fam. - Detached 2.20 units per acre 2.85 units per acre* (2.84 units per acre) 1.8 to 2.9 units per acre Density - Multi Fam.- Attached 17.00 units per acre 12 to 15 units per acre' (20.86 units per acre) 12 to IS units per acre (Senior Housing may I be higher density)* * Tn h.. <I~il1ctø~ <lnnl1<111" ~'-' v'-" -"'"J'"""U""'-' -............""'-......J. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Mastel and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: P. Johnson, Mastel, Goedeke, Wiski, and V. Johnson and the following voted against the same: None. WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 2