HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 04/02/2015MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD
Date: Monday, April 2, 2015
Location: CIC Room, City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave.
Time: 4:00–6:00pm
For Reference
Troy Jones, Chair
Lisa Poppaw, Council Liaison 970-817-0587
Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Staff Liaison 970-221-6753
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
Troy Jones, chair
Diane Cohn
Curt Lyons
Eloise Emery
Tatiana Martin
Terence Hoaglund
Jeffrey Johnson (arrived 4:22)
Staff Present
Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
Ryan Mounce, City Planner
Clay Frickey, Associate Planner
Pete Wray, Senior City Planner (arrived 4:50)
Councilmembers Present
Guests
Marilyn Heller, League of Women Voters
Call to order: Troy Jones called to order at 4:02pm.
Agenda Review: No changes.
Public Comment: Marilyn handed out a flyer for a panel discussion about affordable housing for
seniors presented by the League of Women Voters.
Member Comments: None.
Review and Approval of Minutes
Diane moved to approve the March 5 minutes as amended. Curt seconded.
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0. Jeffrey arrived after vote.
Correction: March 5, page 3, bullet 7 change “makes sense” to “may be tempted…without proper
permitting.”
Tatiana moved to approve the March 26, 2015 minutes as presented. Eloise seconded.
Motion passed, 5-0-1. Diane abstained.
AGENDA ITEM 1: Old Town Neighborhood Plan—Ryan Mounce, City Planner
Focusing on historic neighborhoods on either side of downtown. Eastside and Westside
Neighborhood Plans were the first subarea plans and were adopted in the 1980s. Neighborhood
character design guidelines were implemented in the 1990s. Character study done in 2013. Original
plans created 3 conservation zoning districts: NCL, NCM, and NCB—low density, medium density
(allows some nonresidential land uses and some multifamily), and buffer zone district (nonresidential
permitted and higher density). 2013 implemented Eastside Westside Character Study. This study
promoted design assistance and adjusted measurement methods, including floor area ratios. Time to
address current neighborhood issues and opportunities. Combining two plans into one process due to
similarities and unity. Also developing neighborhood vision and implementation strategies. Will
guide future decisions on public and private development, infrastructure improvements, etc. There
will be extensive public involvement over next year. Potential issues the plan may address include
neighborhood affordability and compatibility, additional permitted uses, parking, etc. Design
guideline process is running parallel to Plan. Guidelines are voluntary and will highlight examples
based on character areas for new construction and remodels/additions. Will also have pattern book
that will illustrate specific designs and forms. Looking at rehab for historic buildings and achieving
greater sustainability. In the listening sessions and open house last month staff heard that residents
enjoy diversity, new constructions can be too large/contemporary, street lighting is inconsistent, and
existing regulations are unknown or confusing. Varying support for existing commercial, but
predominantly want to preserve neighborhoods for residential. Also heard desire for zoning change
for ADUs, better enforcement of occupancy violations, etc. No support for widening Mulberry and
Shields, but better arterial street crossings desired. Residents also would like urban design
opportunities, improved sidewalk network (gaps, very narrow, tree damage, etc.), and connectivity to
MAX and parks/trails.
Existing conditions analysis: include number of households (which is stable), average household size
has decreased (still over 2 per house), household tenure: more renter than owner occupied. Average
home sales have jumped in the last two years. Average sale price has increased 30% over 10 years.
Losing smaller homes.
Comments/Q&A
• What is meaning of “conservation district”?
o To preserve character for single family residential.
• Are there any vacant lots?
o Few. Also few vacant homes. Predominantly built-out.
• How did open house go?
o Had about 60 participants, went well. Have online surveys going on. Have also had
listening sessions with good attendance.
• Voluntary design guidelines?
o Yes. Will do education.
o Incentives for utilizing design guidelines.
o California town hired architects to create plans for tiny homes. If built one that was
preapproved design, gave a streamlined process.
• Pushback. Not everyone wants the same house. This came up in character study.
o Also in neighborhoods where people don’t want to see things that are out of
character.
o Don’t want cookie cutter either.
o Limited area.
o Subordinate structures can be done right.
o Preapproved plans could have additional design options.
• Will anything address compatibility? Is that goal of design guidelines?
o We’ve heard both sides. People feel when something is not compatible, but also don’t
want to restrict personal expression of property owners.
o Certain level of compatibility required by code?
We don’t regulate style. Do regulate setbacks, etc.
• What about buildings over 50 years?
o Will go through historical review process. There could be restrictions if eligible for
historical certification.
• If design guidelines are voluntary, might become a NIMBY weapon to attack people on what
they want to do. Walking into some unintended consequences.
• Disconnect with City for incentives. Design money ($2000 for design help), but this is a little
money with a lot of restrictions.
o Have to be careful with incentives. Open to hearing about other incentives that are
not financial.
o Heard lot of feedback that the guidelines need to be voluntary.
o Not suggesting they are mandatory, but people will latch on and cause issues.
• Is the City considering less light polluting street lighting?
o Staff will begin to look at overall lighting level and specific fixtures.
• What percentage of houses would be historic?
o Most of neighborhoods are over 50 years old. When proposing additions, must go
through historic review process.
o If not eligible for historic designation, then more flexibility.
• Affordability continues to decline. Did that come up in listening session?
o Yes. Have existing conditions data. Owners feel windfall from appreciation, but
comparing to being able to stay in the neighborhood if they sold.
• Fees encourage people to build larger homes to make the numbers work. Can’t afford to build
small.
o Also trend that household size is going down, so bigger houses that are emptier. Isn’t
there a way to quantify the fees for the infrastructure that is really being used by a
small house? If 400ft2 or less infill, your impact is probably a fraction of a large home
on greenfield.
o Applies to 2500 or 4500ft2 home too. Same trend is applicable to four bedroom home
for “traditional” family. Young professionals may want to get into a home, and if
only option is moving from a condo to 4500ft2 home, you are stuck in your condo.
o Average house size is 2600ft2.
• What is age demographic of these neighborhoods?
o Had questions about how school of choice affects neighborhoods. Will look at things
like age and incomes.
• Have some low income?
o But many are students.
o A lot of people may have lived there a long time and their home values have
appreciated. Doesn’t mean they have high incomes. Most everyone is below area
median income. Either long term residents or cost-burdened.
o Housing prices outpacing incomes on national level. Investors will take advantage.
Will see more rentals.
• Why has number of permits dropped since 2010?
o Standards limit how large you can build. If already at limit, can’t do much else. Some
may become “locally designated,” which limits construction too.
o Average size of house and of addition went down. May be result of 2013 standards.
• Looking at infill opportunity? Apartments? Commercial usage?
o Mostly built-out. Not much available land.
o Would have to do assemblage and scrape to add multifamily.
o Will focus on fringe/transition areas that have more multifamily and other land uses.
Looking at compatibility.
• How can board continue to be involved through the process?
o Open. Willing to give regular updates. Strategic to weigh in on implementation
strategies.
o Will get notices to open houses.
o Board would like to hear about involuntary displacement through rehab of
multifamily, gentrification, etc.
• Ability to age in place affected by affordability of building ADU.
o Lots not big enough due to floor area ratio.
o Floor area ratio prevents density and change in neighborhoods.
o Restrictions may be because what neighbors were presented with in the past may
have been less desirable than what would be done now.
o Restrictive lot size requirements. Seattle, Portland, etc., have ½ the lot size
requirement for a secondary unit. People move into smaller unit and rent out large
house. More important to stay in community than house.
o Option to internally break home into 2 apartments. What are restrictions there? Can
also let them stay in place and get rental income.
o Durango has neighborhoods that allow different types of ADUs. Choice of residents.
• Also, will they be affordable to build with fees? Not equitable to charge same as 5 bedroom
home.
o Ratios can prevent changing use of existing structures too.
o Parking restrictions prohibit as well.
o Parking will be an issue in this area.
o City runs into same issues in looking at own properties, such as Sherwood.
• Was there controversy around this area before?
o Yes, with character study. 4 years of debate. Have design standards in place and
pursuing design guidelines. Updating vision and policy direction.
o People may not be as open to this due to history.
o Part of public outreach is distinguishing two processes.
AGENDA ITEM 2: Impact Fee Rebalancing Discussion
2008 HUD report provided by Eloise. Will look next at City’s early impact fees. Members are
encouraged to research and share via email.
Comments/Q&A
• Who to meet with in City who has institutional history?
o Ted Shepard.
• Sue and Eloise will brainstorm more ideas for research.
AGENDA ITEM 3: Spring Competitive Process Ranking Discussion
Sue provided summary to board. Staff and CDBG Commission noted they are anxious and excited
for board rankings.
Comments/Q&A
• Happy with session because came to agreement. If cannot come together as board it is harder
for other groups to understand the board’s value.
• Worked out to use the video presentations. Optional fall process if additional monies come
in, but this will most likely be only process for 2015.
• What happened with City Clerk’s Office?
o Clerk’s office engaged with Lisa Poppaw. Misunderstanding that wanted seat at
deliberations, not at presentations. Charge of board allows to ask those types of
questions and interact with other boards and commissions. CDBG has right to
structure own meetings. Can try again if ever feel important again. Also, interest in
having a mixer when new Council liaison is on board.
• Board comments on Solar, not happy with verbiage. Flippant.
o That is why sending chair, so he can answer questions. They deliberate in a couple of
weeks.
AGENDA ITEM 4: Debrief Super Board Meeting
Sue provided summary of table discussions. Will also send draft plan to boards and commissions
when ready. Have work session, and adoption August 18. New Council: good opportunity to bring
new councilmembers up to speed on HAPS, Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, etc.
Comments/Q&A
• We use the goals as our guiding principles. Use them more specifically than anything else in
the plan. In the past they were prioritized. Suggest equally weighted. Other suggestions?
• Leveraging dollars for community support. Legacy 2 changed ranking because of dollars
leveraged. Can we add as a principle?
o This comes up in every competitive process. When providing 100% funding, not
comfortable.
o LHIP gets other dollars for Loveland, but for Fort Collins we pay the lion’s share.
o In criteria CDBG Commission uses, there is discussion of leveraging. Leveraging is
also included in five year strategic plan.
o Can we look at whole plan, not just goals?
o Anything in plan can be used for decision making.
o Why can’t we factor the money into our ranking?
We don’t have ultimate authority for allocation of funding.
Were told not to factor money into the decision making.
Trying to make best rankings based on all information we can gather.
Entitled to bring whatever information needed to make the ranking. More
flexibility as outside the allocation process. Leveraging is important to make
sure City is funding programs supported by community.
• Have draft goals and putting draft plan around them.
• Overall doing good job educating ourselves, going to Council meetings, and working with
others. Continued philosophy.
o At super board meeting, saw that community knows a lot about affordable housing.
o Have said we want to look at/evaluate inclusionary housing ordinances. Talked about
prioritizing PABS for a couple of years. Good opportunity to calendar work plan
items that we should continue to study.
IHO is under provision of new units. Toward end of plan’s lifecycle, could
say looking at it again.
• “Increasing rental inventory”: could it just say “…housing inventory”? Would encompass
townhomes, condos, etc.
o That is under ownership support.
We only do first time homebuyer assistance.
Has been broadened to discuss ownership more under that goal.
o Frustrated that rental-centric, and solutions are to subsidize. Would like a better long
term solution to housing.
This is affordability housing strategic plan, which focuses on those that need
subsidies due to limited resources.
More owners than renters is better long term.
What is percentage of renters to ownership nationally?
• Around 60/40 with ownership going down.
• Fort Collins trending faster. Top 20 in increasing rent.
• Redwood 72 new units, Habitat only 10 units. Put about $70,000 per
unit into Habitat homes. Good to continue to think about.
• Plan is community plan. Board uses it to direct thinking, but don’t want to create plan to
work perfectly for the board.
o Want it to give guidance to development community, staff, board, etc. One stop place
for good information.
o Also use it to be consistent in decision making, so developers know what to expect.
• Six of seven tables at super board meeting mentioned transit. If development is near transit,
that is better.
o Depends on population serving.
o If there are no options for transit, people won’t choose a job or a house based on
transit.
o Affordable housing should have interconnection with other services such as hospitals,
child care, grocery stores, natural areas, transit, etc.
o Want ability when ranking projects to prioritize transit.
• Is strategic plan only used for allocation of funding, or broader strategic document?
o Broader, but also used for allocation.
o Housing affordability is more than passing out money to projects. Should be more
holistic. Do not want to send message that about doling out funds.
Have used it in the past to decide what items on Council agenda to address in
meetings.
Most of board role is to give Council advice on things that will affect
affordable housing. Goals help articulate priorities and where going to direct
resources and policy.
Plan document as a whole elaborates on other things in purview including
policy and advice to Council.
Work plan will be more specific to the board.
The strategic plan directs staff and Council.
Discussion was funding allocation driven. Other things that affect
affordability must be addressed in the goals.
o Education is really important and helping people overcome negative view of
affordable housing.
Affordable housing is not just 30% or less of AMI.
• 80% or lower. Around 80% is where intersects with market.
Education is huge: Inclusionary housing, if tackle political issues may drive
wedge between those who are inclined to free enterprise and those who
welcome subsidization. When warring, lose workforce housing. The gap is
huge. Met with people regarding contentious annexation in Berthoud. They
did not want renters or subsidized housing. Prejudice due to lack of
understanding.
NIMBY and education about consumers of affordable housing and
importance to community. Starting to give public presentations, including
how affordable housing is indistinguishable from market rate rental units.
Doing a lot right.
• Inclusionary housing opponents are same who employ a lot of people. Can we help them
understand there is something in it for them and not just a hand out? Will lead to more
support. Not commuting, not polluting.
o Should include as talking point to Council. Stigma.
o Important to get lobbying money behind community improvements.
o First time homebuyers’ assistance was ranked higher.
o New PSD school teacher, competing against 300 applicants, with student loan debt,
starting white collar profession at less than 80% AMI. Need over $50,000 annually to
buy a house.
Cities are getting creative with this: building low income housing next to
schools for new teachers.
• Slideshow on Aging Communities: all members should review. Good info on current trends
and new ideas.
o Some neighborhoods are de-facto becoming age in place communities. Organizations
are forming to create services internally.
• Sue will bring board suggestions to the subcommittee.
AGENDA ITEM 5: Council Comments—Who and What?
April: Tatiana will present after elections to give information to new Council, including report on
Super Board Meeting.
May: Curt will discuss ADUs.
AGENDA ITEM 6: Other Business
Open Board Discussion
• Email on internal code?
o Terrance is working on this.
• What input are we providing to HUD strategic plan?
o Gave input through focus group.
o In process. Still doing outreach. Will use affordable housing strategic plan’s new
goals.
o Going to Council May 19. Need support?
Staff hasn’t asked. Could comment on housing. Can add to May agenda;
invite Heidi.
• Board members agree they enjoy having more discussion time in each meeting.
Liaison Reports
• None.
Future Meeting Agendas
• May 7: Murphy Center tour and meeting
• June 4: Redtail Ponds tour and meeting
Review of City Council 6 Month Agenda Planning Calendar
• Not discussed.
Meeting Adjourned: 6:18pm
Next Meeting: May 7, Murphy Center