Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 09/04/2014CITY OF FORT COLLINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD BOARD MEETING MINUTES CIC Room, City Hall 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, Colorado September 4, 2014 4:00–6:00pm Chair: Troy Jones Staff Liaison: Sue Beck-Ferkiss 970-221-6753 City Council Liaison: Lisa Poppaw Board Members present: Tatiana Martin, Terence Hoaglund, Troy Jones, Diane Cohn, Board Members absent: Jeffrey Johnson, Eloise Emery, Curt Lyons Staff present: Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist; Dianne Tjalkens, Board Support; Rebecca Everette, City Planner; Ted Shepard, Chief Planner; Mary Atchison, Director of Social Sustainability Council Members present: None Guests: Marilyn Heller, League of Women Voters Meeting called to order by Troy Jones at 4:07pm. AGENDA REVIEW Will discuss ranking date for Competitive Process during Other Business. PUBLIC COMMENT Public panel next April topic will be housing for senior and will consider input from Sue Beck-Ferkiss and/or board members. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Diane moved to approve the August 7, 2014 minutes as amended. Terrence seconded. Motion passed, 4-0-1. (Tatiana abstained due to absence from part of August meeting) Typo: Agenda review, switch order NEW BUSINESS ITEM 1: WEST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN UPDATE—REBECCA EVERETTE & TED SHEPARD This plan will update the 1999 plan. The area extends from Mulberry to Drake, and Taft to Mason, excluding CSU campus. There is new growth and development, student housing pressure, and potential for an on-campus stadium that could affect the area. They are focusing on land use and neighborhood character, transportation and mobility, and open space network. They will develop plans for Prospect and the neighborhoods. The area is diverse in land use, housing types, and residents. This area is younger than other areas, due to proximity to campus. There is a higher percentage of multifamily residential in this area and it has more renter-occupied units than the Fort Collins average. There are also stable single family neighborhoods. There are key properties that could be redeveloped and historical properties; there are natural areas, parks and trails; and Prospect corridor is currently unsafe for bikes and pedestrian use. Staff has done extensive community engagement, has attended a Council work session, and is drafting their vision statements. Ted Shepard added that Prospect Corridor is a subsection of this plan. Staff wants to inject safety for bikes and pedestrians and is looking at a number of options. An idea is to use Lake Street as Remington is used with College. They are constrained by homes on Prospect. Neighborhood livability and character issues have been learned by walking tours. There has been an investment from private sector in multifamily housing in the area. The question is, what should it look like, and what kinds of amenities need to be provided to integrate it into the community, such as bike paths? Staff is working on design aspects to be a part of the plan. They also have areas that can be redeveloped. There is a 20 acre parcel at Shields and Stuart that has not been developed. There are parcels redeveloping along Shields across from campus. There is redevelopment pressure in the area and HMN zone may need to have new design standards to have developments that will maintain the neighborhood character. Next steps include stakeholder meetings, public meetings, and returning to Council. Discussion/Q & A: • Diane asked about building height and setbacks. Is it more expensive to build with setbacks? Terence said yes. With the setback because you lose usable area. Ted said there will be more external walls with more windows, etc. Curt added there is less space to rent to get return on cost. • Troy added that they will charge what the market will bear. • Terence asked about the new sophomore dorms. Ted said it makes Plum Street feel very narrow. It will activate campus west a little more because it is a block away. We’ve heard that the population in the district is relatively immature and a lot of parties are happening. The management has thus far been unwilling to address the litter that has resulted. • Curt asked if anyone is trying to think of how CSU can be held more accountable. Could they implement ways to hold events on campus to deter people from partying elsewhere? Tatiana said then you create transportation issues. • Ted said CSU has a lot of control on the main campus. • Curt said the university wants to increase enrollment, but does not want to provide the housing. Ted said CSU does want to expand enrollment, but the last two entering freshman classes have been smaller than previous, so they are not on the march to greater enrollment. • Troy said this board has been discussing ADUs. Old Town is where you see them most. There is a lot of push and pull with the Student Housing Action Plan in the Old Town zone and maintaining character. What about the lower density areas in the rest of town? Has there been discussion of the appropriateness of converting to duplexes or adding ADUs to meet the density demands? Ted said there is a lot of sensitivity to You+2. The neighborhoods they are meeting with have overwhelming support for maintaining You+2. No one has mentioned increasing housing. It’s not about density, but about the behavior of the tenants. It is related to the maturity of the population that would be using them. • Curt said with ADUs, we are getting rid of a whole housing type due to fear of behaviors. It seems the behaviors could be addressed through other laws. Ted said not allowing ADUs in conjunction with You+2 is casting a wide net. It is a high level of service that this City Council continues to support. • Sue added that neighborhood services feel You+2 is a successful program for them. And the affordability can go either way as a result. Owners would not necessarily reduce the per person rent when adding more people to a home. We are looking at how to change this for those populations we are not targeting, such as seniors. The original ordinance was to prevent multiple families from living together and it was a parking issue. • Curt said there should be a way to hold owners accountable for renter behavior. • Ted said when the Grove and nearby areas were built the complaint became that we are concentrating the behavior. Then we decide to spread them out into ADUs and that is not wanted either. Campus cannot house all of the students. • Tatiana said the conversations we have at neighborhood and other public meetings keep coming back to CSU students. They are not the main population of Fort Collins. They are triggering the big community issues around livability, transportation and housing. The focus needs to be changed to consider who will be a long term resident. • Rebecca said she works with the CSU liaison and she knows there are some students who are making problems. But many issues are from young rental populations who may not be students. • Tatiana added that she has not heard any issues about the southwest side of town and she knows students are living there. There are bars and shopping too, and no one is looking at it. • Troy added that maybe because of the issues in this area it isn’t appropriate to look at additional ADUs, but there is untapped potential to add to housing stock and diversity. Homeowners could add a lot of de-facto affordable units all over town. • Ted said they are thinking about permission for additional uses with odd-shaped lots. This would be lot specific, rather than zone specific. He does not see support to change the RL district zoning. Troy said that would be a good start that could be used as a demonstration. • Troy added that the downtown zone has alleys and is a different animal. If there is parking in the alley, it helps a lot. • Ted said in the east-side and west-side neighborhoods many corner lots have been divided. That speaks to the individuality of our neighborhoods. There is a variety of lot sizes, some left over from farms. Zoning throws a one-size fits all onto the area. • Curt asked what Planning and Zoning can do to address this issue. Ted said you have addition of permitted use or conditional use permits. The problem is there is pushback with predictability. Some people say the minute you give flexibility; you break the bargain of the zone they purchased into. • Tatiana said the majority of the presentation is on the west central neighborhood plan, but it seems the focus is on Prospect Corridor and transportation. Rebecca said Council has been driving the conversation. They have wanted to talk about open space and land use, but want more information on the Prospect Corridor at the next meeting. This area has more potential issues, as Council is mostly on board with the rest of the plan and land use issues. • Rebecca agreed to send more information on specifics through Sue. • Ted asked if the board had seen the Aspen Heights shuttle bus. Terence said they are all parking on the street. Ted said they voluntarily added the shuttle bus. With the slow rate of leasing, they opted to purchase a bus. They were not the number one leasing spot due to being farther from campus. They have sufficient parking. • Tatiana asked if the City would consider decreased parking standards when a development provides a shuttle service to CSU and Max. Ted said the planning staff in Boulder is ahead of us in that regard. They do more with parking demand management scenarios. Our code would allow us to look at a flexible approach like that. Rebecca added that even though people use the shuttle, they may still own a car, so we are still looking at car storage. • Troy asked if Ted was seeking a recommendation from the board. Ted said they have taken notes on input from the board. • Curt said not all duplexes are going to be for students. There are a lot of young couple and empty nesters who need more affordable housing. We can’t assume it will always be for students. Students are also competing with permanent residents for affordable housing. ITEM 2: FUNDING HOUSING APPLICATIONS—MARY ATCHISON Mary said the recommendations on the competitive process have major implications to this board and the CDBG Commission. Staff has been discussing implementation of recommendations, and the City Manager gave suggestions on presenting to Council. Mary gave a handout on the recommendations. The first is to work with Council to articulate priorities. She thinks the priorities will be finalized when the Social Sustainability Strategic Plan is finalized. The four focus areas are community health and wellness, housing, income disparity, and mobility. The second recommendation is to separate all affordable housing projects from the competitive process. The AHB will determine priorities based on City plans. The thought is to then request letters of intent for pipeline projects. The idea is for the board and Social Sustainability to understand what is coming and have a big picture. Staff (Sue Beck-Ferkiss and Beth Rosen) would review the letters of intent to ensure that the organization is qualified and has the capacity to complete the project. An invitation would be sent to those who passed to submit an application. Staff is currently developing underwriting criteria. Qualified applications would then come to the Affordable Housing Board for a project review with applicants and staff. The next recommendation is to use City funds only to fund human services. The CDBG Commission is already allocating these to nonprofit agencies. All housing funds (CDBG, HOME) would come through the Affordable Housing Board. In the past some CDBG funds have been used to fund nonprofit services. That use of federal funds has created an intolerable level of oversight. Other recommendations include making technical assistance optional, developing a mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness of funding decisions, and reviewing contract monitoring and reporting processes. Recommendation 8 is to change the name and charge of the CDBG Commission. Some of the charges of the CDBG Commission will be moved to the Affordable Housing Board. This will require Council action. We envision and will recommend that Sharon Thomas continue to staff the CDBG Commission, and Sue and Beth will be involved in designing the application and consideration process for housing. Lisa Poppaw is the Council liaison to both boards and staff has requested a meeting with her. Mary has presented to the CDBG Commission twice and they are concerned with the change in the process and reduction in funding to the agencies. Mary also discussed potential conflict of interest. If a project is related to anyone on the board, the person would recuse themselves from consideration of that particular project, but not the other projects. The potential impact of conflict of interest is one issue that could affect the membership of the board. Discussion/Q & A: • Tatiana asked how projects are currently vetted. Mary and Sue said it happens after the fact. JAG was found to be ineligible after they were awarded funding. This is why the letters of intent and staff review are important. • Diane asked if there is a shift in the attention the board is to give to the projects’ financial. Mary said there would be a shift there. Staff would vet the project, so that the board would not look at ineligible projects. Then the board would be able to talk to the developer in the project review. Sue added that the Affordable Housing Board would be allocating funds. Mary added that staff would work with the board on the project review and the board would make funding recommendations to Council. • Tatiana said Council has chosen this board due to its expertise in housing. She is concerned that the board does not necessarily have financial expertise. Would that shift the needs for who sits on the board? Mary said that is not clear yet and can be determined down the road if the need arises. Sue said the board will be working with a finite amount of funds and determining if the projects are a good use of funds. It is more important to understand the projects and the allocation process than the financials. • Diane suggested providing training to the board on what to keep in mind during the project reviews. • Curt said in the last process, the Affordable Housing Board went to the presentations given to the CDBG Commission and that felt strange to be wallflowers. It felt redundant and awkward. Sue said we will have at least one more process under the current system. What we would like to do is have several times during the year to accept applications and we will not have to allocate funds if the projects are not good. There has been a real push to allocate funds in the past. Mary said if you are aware of how much needs to be spent now and how much can be carried over, you can hold funds for better projects that are further down the pipeline. • Diane asked about the annual dollar loss when changing the designation of funds. Mary said is about $150,000 loss to the human services. The department will begin work to try to increase the funding for the human services. • Tatiana asked about the merging of the boards. Sue said the big changes Council was looking toward, they have backed off of. Diane said she attended the Super-Board meeting, and was given a chart showing where each board falls under the seven key outcome areas. • Tatiana asked if there should be a meeting with both boards. Sue said she would welcome that if needed as we move through the process. • Tatiana asked about the implementation date. Mary said the goal is January 1. It is likely that the timeframe of the application process will change. We may have just one competitive process for human services annually. There will also be one for affordable housing projects, but there could be a rolling system for unallocated funds. • Tatiana asked if this process might cut out smaller groups since large developers like Fort Collins Housing Authority have more long term projects planned. Mary said it might, but the amount of money will be expanded and this may require smaller developers to think more long-term. Sue said it may also depend on the board priorities and if one of them is to support projects from a diverse set of developers. • Sue asked for the board’s opinion on these changes. Tatiana said the only thing she does not care for is human services losing funding. This is an accomplishment and a promotion for this board. • Diane said the CDBG Commission struggled with the housing pieces because they did not have the background knowledge. Add the human services and that is a huge amount of work for one board. It makes sense to separate it out. • Troy like the aspect of being able to meet the applicants, ask questions, and see financials. • Tatiana added that the Affordable Housing Board should have a retort to the complaints the CDBG Commission may have to Council as it is best for long term change. • Troy suggested making a motion and recommendation here, then having members attend the Council meeting. • The board agreed to revisit this topic in the October meeting and possibly draft a recommendation to Council. Troy added he would like to see language in the memo about how Recommendation 2 repairs a convoluted process. Sue said the memo could include how the board would welcome this charge, is already ranking the projects, etc. Tatiana added that the board has often discussed wanting to be able to speak with housing applicants. Tatiana moved that the AHB support the upcoming change for the Competitive Process as presented. Diane seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0-0 (Terence not in attendance during motion) ITEM 3: HOUSING AFFORDABILITY POLICY STUDY DRAFT REPORT AND NEXT STEPS—SUE BECK-FERKISS Staff received the revised report and emailed it to the board. She provided a handout on staff recommendations. She is going to Planning and Zoning next week and October 2 to Council. She has requested another work session, but that has not yet been granted. The technical team is looking at short-, mid-, and long-term strategies. Council wanted to see a selection of the most impactful strategies. Sue is meeting with the technical team tomorrow and they will select approximately five priorities to implement first. There must be short-term options, but they may select some mid- and long-term options as well. Sue also handed out a chart showing the housing continuum and rental inventory gaps. She will present to Council graphics showing the impact of the commuter-shed. Sue asked the board to look at the charts and give suggestions. The first recommendation was to have a senior extra occupancy permit. Neighborhood Services would like us to use a variance on the code first. Once we see how many requests we get we can modify. Staff will recommend increasing home buyer assistance. There are parallel processes going on around the City that are coming to the same conclusions. The URA is already considering asking for affordable housing funds in TIF financing. With this and TOD, there are real opportunities. Minimum house size changes are already in progress and we will defer to that process. Recommendation 6 is to preserve manufactured homes. Sue is doing a separate work plan on fee waivers. We are heading toward giving waivers to more organizations than just FCHA, and perhaps coming up with certain restrictions so the waivers are not so open ended. The Land Bank program has been offered up for appraisals, and we may want to change the ordinance to include mixed use and mixed income. If we are able to determine a course for the Land Bank, the City may be able to acquire more properties either in Mountain Vista or the TOD. Discussion/Q & A: • Diane said on the chart showing excess, does this suggest that if we had more higher income rental units that people would move into them? Would people shift? Tatiana gave the example of a newly married couple who wants to move into a larger apartment. If they can move up, they will. Sue added that 100% of people won’t shift up, but many will. • Curt said rents are so high and it’s so hard to qualify for a mortgage, you need to be able to afford your rent, student loans and save for a down payment. You can’t save that in a more expensive unit. • Tatiana said the rent cost difference from a one bedroom at Penny Flats to a five bedroom house is not that much. • Diane said we want to encourage seniors to change behavior in the way they are approaching housing. We should be going to them, not asking them to come to us. Sue said Neighborhood Services does not think there is a need. The real push back is opening up You+2 at all. This allows us to leave that alone and lead seniors to a path to legally cohabitate. • Tatiana thinks we should not have anything in the recommendations related to You+2, because then it opens it all up. • Tatiana added that we need to educate the community on the homebuyer assistance program. Diane agreed that she likes this recommendation. • Curt asked if the fees will be related to the minimum house size. He thinks they need to be linked. Reducing the minimum house size does not make it more affordable to build without changes in fees. • Troy said to combine Recommendations 3 and 6 into a solution. The old mobile home parks have deteriorated infrastructure and they have not budgeted for upgrades. This terrible situation goes on until they sell to a shopping center. Maybe we can have a list of priorities on what to spend the money on, such as steering it toward buying easements. Sue said that is one thing staff has had in mind. The mitigation strategy has already identified the strongest parks that are worth preserving. Then there would be rules to go along with the easement. • Troy asked what the final product is. Sue said the study and our recommendations will be bundled in the AIS. Sue will take what we have ready in October, and will explain to Council what staff is still working on and request an additional work session. Troy said the final product is what Council adopts in ordinance. Sue said some will be ordinance and others will be policy. OTHER BUSINESS ITEM 1: OPEN BOARD DISCUSSION • Not discussed. ITEM 2: LIAISON REPORTS • Not discussed. ITEM 3: FUTURE MEETINGS AGENDA • Not discussed. ITEM 4: CITY COUNCIL SIX-MONTH PLANNING CALENDAR REVIEW • Not discussed. – Meeting adjourned at 6:30pm by Troy Jones – The next meeting of the Affordable Housing Board is scheduled for: October 2 at 4:00pm Participants will meet at: Fort Collins City Hall Council Information Center 300 Laporte Ave