Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 03/07/1996APPROVED APR 4 1995 AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD MEETING MINUTES March 7, 1996 City Council Liaison: Gina Janett Chairperson: Mary Cosgrove Home: 493-9164 Work 667-3232 City Clerk The meeting of the Affordable Housing Board began at 4:10 p.m. in the Community Planning Conference Room, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present were Chairperson Mary Cosgrove, Tom Sibbald, Ann Sanders, Sue Wagner, Christa Sarrazin, and Tony Kavanagh. Staff members present were Ken Waido, Dickson Robin, and Alan Krcmarik. Gina Janett was present from the City Council. Gary Diede, City Engineer, and Rick Richter were present. Frank Bruno, Assistant City Manager, was also present. No public comment was heard. No changes were noted in the February 1, 1996, meeting minutes. Moved by Mr. Kavanagh, seconded by Ms. Sanders: To approve the minutes as written. Motion approved unanimously. Mr. Diede and Mr. Richter gave the Board a presentation on the new narrow street, alley, and residential connection standards. Additional thickness in street surfaces is being proposed which would raise the thickness from 3 to 3 1/2 inches minimum. In addition, retesting of street material after developers have moved dirt is being proposed to determine if the same material exists as existed before development began. An additional 1/2 inch thickness on a standard residential 50-foot frontage lot will cost approximately $60 more per lot. The extra 1/2 inch will add approximately three years additional life to a street. It is estimated that this additional three years will result in approximately $10 million in savings. Proposed street standards or street widths will be narrower. The present standard is a 38-foot wide street with attached sidewalk. Occasionally, in a PUD a 28-foot wide street is utilized. The proposal is to do away with both of those standards and use a 30-foot wide standard and detached sidewalk which allows space for trees and landscaping. Utilities would be allowed a 51-foot right-of-way. At the present time, alleys are not allowed, and some developers have expressed a desire to build alleys. The proposal is, if an alley is built, a 24-foot wide street can be built with parking on one side with the same proposed parkway and the same proposed sidewalk. The alley is proposed to be 12 foot wide, V'ed in the middle for water runoff if the alley is constructed of concrete, and sloped to one side if constructed of asphalt. A required 20-foot setback is proposed if a garage is placed in the alley. AHB Minutes March 7, 1996 Page 2 Concern has been expressed with a tunnel appearance resulting from fences on both sides of the alley. Therefore, that aspect is still being examined. Mr. Diede stated that the proposed street changes did not change the overall costs significantly. However, the costs did not include the proposed street trees or the additional cost resulting in more concrete used for the 20-foot driveway set in. It is proposed that the street trees will be professionally planted at the time of the CO, and the owners of the property will then water the trees. Once the tree has been established for two years, the City will take over the pruning of the tree and replace it if it dies. One tree will exist per lot. Mr. Sibbald stated that he believed an additional cost of approximately $300 would arise per tree. He also stated that depending on the driveway layout, an additional $200-and-some-odd would be added. Therefore, Mr. Sibbald estimates an additional $500, more or less, would be added in costs. Ms. Sanders stated that she is working on a subdivision in northwest Loveland that has narrow streets and side -loading garages on joint driveways. On the south side of the street, an entrance into six homes with an island in the middle has been utilized. Greenbelt areas have been developed in the front and the back of the property. In addition a certain number of trees and sod has been put in in connection with the homeowners' association. This project has been very positively accepted by the general public and is an affordable housing project. Mr. Diede stated that a connection to bike lanes, activity centers, shopping, schools, at cetera, was being proposed to run between lots and the connection would be built by the developer and maintained by either the homeowners' association or the property owner. This would eliminate the City from having to shovel, sweep, and clean the connection. Ms. Cosgrove stated in her opinion it was impractical to expect property owners to maintain the connections especially if fences exist bordering the connection. Mr. Diede replied that the City understood this could be a problem. Most collector streets now have limited access. Therefore, parking is not needed on most of the collectors. It is now allowed to remove the parking lanes and narrow down the street to include the bike lanes and two traffic lanes on the collectors. Mr. Waido asked if an impact study had been undertaken in terms of density. Mr. Diede stated that the Planning Department said they were willing to reduce the minimum lot size. Mr. Sibbald suggested doing away with the lot size requirement all together. In response to questioning, Mr. Richter stated that the current residential street standard is four and three, but the current streets being built are three and four. Three and four is the current minimum standard. AHB Minutes • • March 7, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Sibbald stated that he believed two standards were ultimately being changed and asked, if the minimum standard is four and three, why make a change? Mr. Richter stated that one of the concerns initially was the construction traffic during the construction of the houses. A count was taken on subdivisions in Fort Collins last summer to determine the number of trucks during that season, and a minimum pavement design was developed based on the traffic. Mr. Richter added that these are minimums and not standards. A street cannot be constructed based on these standards because design depends on the soils reports and various other aspects. Mr. Sibbald stated that one problem he sees with connectors is the fence lines being constructed right up behind the sidewalk. He suggested either limiting the height of the fence next to the sidewalk or limiting the fence proximity to the sidewalk. Mr. Bruno discussed the capital improvements program with the Board. The Board was given background information that had been provided to City Council. The combination of the Master Plan, City Dialogue, City Plan, and other outreach will form the basis of what elements are going to be considered for capital improvements. Right now the various staffs and departments are going through the process of looking at the different issues as they relate to the Master Plan and City Plan. A list of different projects is being developed, and once that is developed, the existing boards and commissions will be utilized to develop a capital improvement program that has annual limits with a 20-year horizon in the realization that needs are going to change over time. In April of 1996 the capital improvement limits are due to be completed. Staff is recommending to Council that the role of the boards and commissions in the process will be to do sorting and prioritizing. That will then form the basis of the capital improvements limits, and the program will then go to City Council. Staff is suggesting that in May, June, and July the Board will consider certain criteria and will look at the consequences of not funding a project or not doing a project within a certain limit of time. Mr. Bruno gave the Board a memo containing the different criteria and roles and responsibilities. Staff hopes to return on a routine basis as the Board begins sorting and prioritizing. Ms. Cosgrove asked where the Board would fit in in terms of the pieces of the capital improvement program. Mr. Bruno stated that he believed the Board would be involved both through the City Plan and any phasing policies that address where development should occur. He also believed the Board would be involved in the capital limits of the Master Plan. Mr. Robin addressed the Board concerning priority processing of affordable housing development applications. AHB Minutes March 7, 1996 Page 4 City Council has directed Staff to explore the possibility of coming up with a priority processing system for affordable housing development. In light of the pending Pioneer Mobile Home Park closure and a number of projects being considered to relocate some of the Pioneer residents, Staff was directed to expedite the implementation of the priority processing system. As a result, Staff has developed a draft process that would expedite or provide priority building permits for utility plan review and for the development agreement. The bottom line is, when the application comes in the door, it goes to the top of the pile rather than the bottom. In response to questioning, Mr. Robin stated that applicable projects are determined by the Advanced Planning Department. An affordable housing developer would submit an outline of what the project will entail, and Staff will verify whether or not it is an affordable housing project. Once the determination of an affordable housing project is made, Staff will contact the Development Review Department, and they will take the steps necessary to move the project through the process more quickly. Staff is close to implementing the priority processing for qualified affordable housing projects and asked for input from the Board if they had anything to add. Mr. Sibbald questioned what percentage of the AMI was being considered. Mr. Robin replied that 80 percent and lower was being considered. Mr. Sibbald asked why 100 percent of AMI was not being considered. Mr. Robin replied that Staff was wanting to keep in line with the possibility of somebody applying through the rebate program. In response to questioning, Mr. Robin stated that he believed approximately six months could be saved in the process. Moved by Mr. Sibbald, seconded by Ms. Sanders: To recommend that any housing product that is intended to be used by a housing population at 100 percent or less of AMI should be eligible for priority processing. Motion approved unanimously. The Board was asked to help identify two or three City actions which impact the cost of housing and offer suggestions for modifications to these actions. The following three suggestions were made: - A cost benefit analysis should be required of engineering and building standards prior to implementation. - As part of the cost of services study, the park land and street oversizing fee should be given a sliding fee scale determination. - Investigate water and sewer fees based on fixtures. Mr. Sibbald stated that in some of the mountain communities, fees are based on fixtures. The nexus is that if you have more fixtures, you probably have more people, and you have more demand potential. AHB Minutes. • • March 7, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Krcmarik gave the Board an update on the cost of services study. Council reviewed the cost of services study and directed Staff to bring forward some impact fee ordinances for all five items. However, Mr. Krcmarik didn't believe a unanimous opinion existed on the fees with the exception of the library and the community park. At the study session with Council on the 27th of February, Council was presented the same information that the Board had received previously. Council also received the comments that the Board had made from the earlier February meeting including the sliding fee scale suggestion. Council directed Staff to proceed along that line and collect more data. Staffs position is that the data supports the conclusion that a larger home usually contains more people than a smaller home. Mr. Wanner requested more information on use tax on building permits. Staff has supplied him with that information. Mr. Sibbald requested a copy of the information Staff gave to Mr. Wanner. Mr. Krcmarik stated that Staff is at the stage of drafting the legislation on the cost of services study. The City Attorney expects to have drafts by the end of next week. The draft could be circulated to the Board for its next meeting which would allow the Board to give additional comments. Staff talked with the Finance Committee about the Province Town project. The Finance Committee's concern is how to ensure that the affordable housing component of Province Town stays affordable for more than just the first couple of years. Staff asked for feedback from the Board on how to keep the units affordable. Mr. Sibbald stated that the interest rate is always going to dictate the affordability, and that cannot be controlled unless you are the issuer of the bond that provides the financing, and then you can control the interest rate. In response to questioning, Mr. Krcmarik stated that between 150 and 250 houses are proposed to be built in the 135,000 to $140,000 range. He believed the square footage would be 1600. Ms. Sanders stated that 1600 was too large, and square footage in the area of 1100 needed to be considered instead. Mr. Sibbald stated that there are two condo projects he knows of that are for -sale projects. One project is in Vail, and one is in Aspen. The Project in Vail is called Pitkin Creek Town Houses. Both projects had restrictions in the form of a cap as to the amount of appreciation an owner could get. The Vail project was done through the City of Vail with a bond issue. The name of the Aspen project was unknown, but it was constructed in the 70s and still exists and serves its purpose. Mr. Kavanagh stated that the purpose is to see the owners generate some income to help break the cycle. He added that CHAFA had set up a recapture tax as far as the first eight to ten years, where the home money goes back to, perhaps, subsidize the next owner. Mr. Sibbald suggested that the City could act as a mortgage bond, revenue bond channel for the project and added that the units need to be 1100 square feet, one story, or two story, and the project needs to have a cap on it. AHB Minutes March 7, 1996 Page 6 Staff also asked for feedback from the Board on what a reasonable amount of time would be. Mr. Kavanagh suggested seven years. Ms. Sanders stated that Farmer's Home was seven to ten years. She added that she felt ten years would be too long. Mr. Robin gave the Board an update on the Pioneer Mobile Home Park situation. Last count, 149 households were still remaining in Pioneer. Don Parsons is still going through the development process. The nonprofit groups are still talking about purchasing the project. The City has allocated the CDBG funds. $200,000 has been set aside to assist Pioneer residents. $15,000 has been set aside to assist with the housing counseling program for residents. $15,000 was allocated for the resources assistant center to assist with the development cost of the town house project. In response to questioning, Mr. Robin stated that a development application is supposed to be submitted later on this month. Cloverleaf Mobile Home Park will be providing 45 additional spaces in the fall with the restriction of only 1996 homes being allowed in. The City is attempting to put together a package to assist people who qualify for a new home. Mr. Sibbald suggested that the City apply for a revolving credit line for low down payment for acquisition of new homes. In response to questioning, Mr. Waido stated that insufficient funds exist in the HOME program to assist in purchasing the new homes. Mr. Robin added that HOME funds can only be allocated if the home is on a permanent foundation. Mr. Sibbald suggested that if Staff went to the State and said that they had $200,000 of CDBG, the State could probably find another $200,000 to match it. Ms. Janett stated that Council has suggested that the City Manager look for $150,000 of City funds for Pioneer. Mr. Waido stated that the most logical place for that money to come from would be the affordable housing fund, and legal issues are involved with City funds going to charitable donations. Ms. Janett stated that the CDC should be up and running shortly, and the hope was to run some money through that program. Mr. Sibbald requested a status report on the trust fund and HOME. Mr. Waido replied that he could easily do that for the trust fund and would look into the possibility of a report for HOME. Mr. Robin gave the Board an update on the Affordable Housing Index. - An attempted comparison of housing development costs has been underway between Longmont, Greeley, Loveland, and Fort Collins. However, Loveland was not very cooperative, so it is no longer being evaluated. 1990 and 1995 are being used as AHB Minutes March 7, 1996 Page 7 the base comparison years. Staff has not been very successful in determining what the construction costs are in the different communities. Therefore, one basic standard was used for construction cost for single-family dwellings. Staff was fairly successful in determining fees. Longmont has the highest fees, then Fort Collins, and Greeley has the lowest fees. One other significant determinant in the cost of housing was the land cost. Longmont, again, was the highest, then Fort Collins, and then Greeley. Staff wants to factor in the income levels for the types of housing in Fort Collins, Greeley, and Longmont. The base unit that was used was a 1,000 square foot home on a 6,000 square foot lot. Now Staff is trying to determine how to do an income analysis of the cost of housing development in terms of how many people could live in these units in the various communities. Mr. Sibbald stated that the adjusted median income is a determinant to some extent of the housing affordability. Greeley is 20 percent less than Fort Collins. Fort Collins is about 15 percent less than Longmont. Mr. Sibbald added that he did not believe the housing cost or the increase in the housing cost necessarily tracks linear with the difference in adjusted median income. Mr. Robin stated that Staff would like to determine how many people could afford to purchase these homes. However, that information is difficult for the year 1995 because household income is not known. The only information that can be utilized is the AMI. Mr. Sibbald suggested extrapolating back to the 1990 ratio. Mr. Waido added that that is the only information available, and it assumes all segments of the community are growing at the same rate. Mr. Sibbald stated that the profit and overhead numbers being utilized are not correct He suggested that Staff get a subscription to Builder's Magazine for useful information. He added that a survey was in Builder's Magazine on profit level averages of builders across the United States. Mr. Robin requested a copy of the survey from Mr. Sibbald. Mr. Robin asked for Board feedback on whether or not Staff was on the right track. Mr. Sibbald stated that he would like to see the product before he could reply. Mr. Robin stated that the Board would receive a copy at the next meeting. Some discussion was held on the upcoming study session with Council. It was determined that all the issues previously raised for discussion with Council were contained in the Board's packet. Mr. Waido stated that he has listened to the Board's frustrations for the last six to nine months, and he hopes the Board can get to the issues and let Council know of their frustrations. AHB Minutes March 7, 1996 Page 8 Ms. Sarrazin stated that she would be resigning from the Board due to personal family issues. She gave her thanks to all the Board members for their help. Ms. Janett thanked Ms. barrazin for serving on the Board. Ms. Janett asked if the Board would object to waiting until July to fill Ms. Sarrazin's seat. Mr. Sibbald replied one of the frustrations of the Board was the difficulty in reaching a quorum. Ms. Janett stated that interviews would be held in April and May for the July seats. Ms. Cosgrove suggested looking at individuals from the last interview cycle who could still be candidates. Mr. Sibbald moved adjournment. Upon unanimous vote, the meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.