HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 04/03/2014CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD
BOARD MEETING MINUTES
300 Laporte Ave
Fort Collins, Colorado
April 3, 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, Eloise Emery, Curt Lyons,
Jeffrey Johnson
Board Members absent: None
Staff present: Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist; Dianne Tjalkens, Board Support
Council Members present: None
Guests: None
Meeting called to order by Troy Jones at 4:03pm.
AGENDA REVIEW
No comment.
OTHER BUSINESS
Land Bank Tour is next month, May 1. Tour: 3:00–5:00 Meeting: 5:00–6:00pm.
Sue received new information from consultants after meeting packets went out. She will send this to the board
shortly.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Marilyn Heller, League of Women Voters’ Affordable Housing Team, said there will be a panel discussion on
income inequality April 15, 7:00pm, at the Harmony Library. It will be available on Channel 97, the League website
and YouTube. The Affordable Housing Coalition website links to all of the agencies in Loveland and Fort Collins.
She provided a handout on the panel discussion and one on income inequality.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Tatiana moved to approve the March 6, 2014 and March 27, 2014 minutes as amended. Eloise seconded.
Motion passed unanimously, 7-0-0.
Troy: Item 1 correction—1st bullet …the jail and the half-way house”
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM 1: PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTS—SETH LARSON
Seth is working on a transit overlay zone parking study. He gave background on parking requirements; the City only
has maximum requirements for commercial. Multifamily and mixed-use residential have requirements based on
bedrooms per unit. In 2006/07 a TOD Overlay Zone was created which removed minimum parking requirements for
multifamily development to encourage transit and infill development. This shows commitment to Max. Fort Collins
has a Growth Management Area (GMA). The community wants an area between adjacent towns and natural areas.
We are encouraging growth toward the center of town. The City also wants to lower vehicle miles traveled and
encourage walking, biking and using transit. In developing policy, the City believed the market would dictate the
right amount of parking per development; however, development has increased in the last couple of years and there
has been concern about adequate parking. The Summit was a catalyst for a “stop gap” ordinance. He showed a chart
of parking space requirements. The study is to implement parking standards that support City policies, are data
driven, and use best practices. They will look at a strong policy foundation for the TOD Overlay Zone. In April staff
will look at alternatives and recommendations. In the summer an ordinance will be adopted and a policy document
will be completed. Staff is working with a consultant on best practices and policies. He discussed the pros and cons
of parking minimums. Minimum requirements provide reduced street congestion, create orderly development, and
encourage growth in the core, and reduce demand for public parking. The case against minimum parking
requirements is that it encourages vehicle usage, adversely impacts alternative modes of transport, reduces density,
hampers infill, and is bad for the environment in heat islands and storm water runoff. It also makes affordable
housing more challenging. Minimum requirements don’t take into account the demographic being addressed by the
development. Lower income persons and senior housing have a lower use of vehicles. Best practices examples allow
for reductions in minimum parking requirements for proximity to mixed use, rapid transit, etc. Another key element
in designing for mixed use is considering that commercial, recreation, employment and residential should be easily
accessible via bike, walking or transit. This creates safety and sense of place.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Diane asked if there is a distinction between multifamily units and student housing in terms of parking
needs. How many cars are needed for a family with children versus three students in an apartment each
with their own car? Seth said that has been brought up and the challenge is in defining student housing
because it is multifamily that is marketed to students. It could be attached to the leasing model. If you have
overly onerous requirements, developers may decide to say they are just multifamily. Perhaps land use
needs to be looked at: student, senior, etc. Diane said the needs for those two populations are different.
• Tatiana said Seth mentioned Zip cars. She would like to know statistically if they are used and beneficial to
students. Seth said it is on the list for data collection. The marketing says it offsets 15 cars. Tatiana added it
is $69 per day. Seth said there are a number of car share programs; the car comes with gas and insurance. It
could offset gas, insurance and car payment. Sue said you are paying only for what you need. Seth added
that we expect to have places to park our cars everywhere we go, but are perpetuating an unsustainable
model that is bad for the environment.
• Seth asked what the most important factors are when evaluating parking. Eloise said parking structures in
strategic locations are a reasonable thing to consider. They can pay for themselves. They can look very
attractive and be very safe. Along Max corridor and more in Old Town would be strategic. Seth said the
City is considering that. The Downtown Parking Plan suggests that and they have heard this from citizens
as well. There could be public/private partnerships for parking, including offsite parking that could be
leased to anyone along the Max. They have heard that walking, biking and transit are best for routine trips.
People will continue to own cars to go to the mountains, etc. It then becomes a matter of where you store
your car.
• Eloise added that spill over parking into residential could be solved with parking placards for residential
only parking. She said in a town she lived in all downtown parking was metered and residents could get a
card for the meters.
• Troy said Downtown has different priorities than the rest of town. Rather than devote more parking to
Downtown it would make sense to put the structures along the corridor and allow higher density
development in Downtown.
• Eloise said there is an existing strip development on College with large parking areas that could go vertical.
Tatiana said no one wants to go up because of aesthetics.
• Curt said it was refreshing to hear about the space required for parking cars. What is the extent of the infill
area? What are the street boundaries where the City is considering revamping parking policy? Seth showed
the map, which includes mostly commercial zoning (see presentation). The corridor coincides with the Max
and at campus we have the highest use Transfort line. Typically a TOD is not this large, but station oriented
with incentives to develop there. The City is more ambitious.
• Jeffrey said the City has run into the spill over issue. You see that around the university. If you are going to
have loose or no parking requirements, you are going to allow people to build and the zones around the
TOD are going to push back out of fear that the parking will spill over. You will get that wherever draw the
lines of the map. What is the City thinking about that? Seth said it is difficult to determine where cars are
coming from and who is parking where. We can do occupancy counts to see how full things are. We do
know that people will park in the neighborhoods around CSU and bike or skate to campus because it is
free. A lot of what drives behavior is finding free parking. Sue clarified that two neighborhoods near the
university have implemented parking regulations. Seth added that an actual parking problem must be
identified beforehand. He discussed The Summit and the implementation of a residential parking program
near it. 60% of capacity on street being occupied constitutes an RPP, with a 50% vote by residents. People
will now have to consider parking with where they decide to live. Neighbors don’t want to be
inconvenienced by having to pay for permits and having to get them for guests. Tatiana clarified that you
can park in your garage or driveway for free. Sue said her neighborhood was very congested with college
student parking. The real inconvenience is for guests. You have to call and give the license plate number
for all guests and pay if they stay more than 24 hours. Seth said the fees only cover the enforcement
administration of the program. Parking Services does not have funding to create parking structures, but if
we had on street metered parking, we would have funding to develop parking structures.
• Eloise said in the late-‘80s/early-‘90s Santa Barbara did a study that should be looked at.
• Curt said he saw a program where each resident had a designated guest tag. Seth said he thinks there is a lot
of room for improvement, but the program is very new. There is also an opportunity to sell parking permits
to people who don’t live in the neighborhood, to pay for the program. Sue heard the license plate is the
permit now to keep people from selling permits, etc.
• Seth asked if any of the ideas in the presentation (see slide) would reduce on-site parking demand for
multifamily residential developments. Eloise said off-site car storage and shuttles would help. Troy likes
the idea of transit passes for residences in close proximity to high frequency transit. Diane said with more
working poor, the jobs are not typically Monday through Friday 9:00 to 5:00. Those are more evening and
weekend and that is where we struggle with effective use of transit. If you can’t get to your job on Sunday,
you are going to use a car. Seth said he thinks there should be more affordable housing in the TOD zone.
Lower income people are higher frequency users of transit.
• Seth asked if the amount of a type of parking affects the “feel” of a place. Terence said surface parking
would look better. Troy said on street parking that is diagonal can get more spaces in. It is a good idea to
encourage diagonal parking. Sue said there is new twist with reverse diagonal parking. Seattle and Portland
have done this. Seth said generally it is considered safer. The City may do a pilot of this style parking on
Howes Street. When you have diagonal with bike lanes, backing is nice because you can see bicyclists
when pulling out.
• Curt asked if anyone has tried putting a bike lane between the street and parking. Riding next to parked cars
is terrifying. Seth said there are many different models for cycle tracks and multi-use paths.
• Troy said he was on staff when diagonal parking was put in on Rigden Farm and it was a difficult decision
with considering cyclists. Staff looked at accident rates and found Walnut had more space between parking
and travel and had a lower incident of bicycle/car accidents.
• Diane said she doesn’t understand CSUs role in addressing housing and parking. What is their required
engagement? Seth said the City has no control over CSU. CSU understands the spill over issue. Terence
said CSU over-sells its permits. Permit sales are not based on number of spaced available.
• Eloise asked if CSU was looking at a parking structure. Seth said it has been discussed, but the City cannot
finance building a parking structure for CSU. There are also limited locations. There are parking impact
fees, parking fee in lieu, but you have the parking issue that happens until the funds are adequate to build.
What drives this is that parking is free outside of campus. A parking structure will never be free. Do we
need a combination of strategies?
• Diane said she wonders if the City is looking at adjustment to requirements that CSU should have. The
university brings in dollars and students, but with all that funding can they bring along what is needed for
those students? Seth said CSU is looking at housing and parking capacity, but it will never be free. CSU is
basically a government in itself. The City has no power over them. Terence said CSU does have plans for
parking structures, but there is no timeline. Seth said they are starting their outreach now and partnering
with the City.
• Sue asked how the higher ridership, lower income people have been included in the study. Seth said there
have been many open houses and the one downtown had a lot of transit riders in attendance. There has been
neighborhood outreach as well, but that demographic has not been targeted.
• Public Comment—Jonathan Carnahan said he and his wife looked at renting at Max Flats. No one who
rents an apartment there gets a parking space. The owners said there is on-street parking, but he cannot find
any. He was working at a business near the Summit and the businesses were upset that residents were going
to take parking spaces. Now they are looking for a permit for building a $6 million parking structure. They
are looking for $5 million in assistance to build it and there are appeals against it. CSU’s ten year plan is to
increase its student population by 3000 per year, and the City can do nothing about it. He wants to take the
Max as much as he can when it is complete, but it is all north/south. The new alignments of the east/west
routes to Max will extend the travel time for transit when going diagonally across town. He sees that the
board’s opinion goes to Council and would like his concerns addressed.
o Seth added that there is an online survey available at fcgov.com/parkingstudy. He said feedback
from this board is consistent with what he has heard from other boards.
o Tatiana said after the Council work session the board can develop a recommendation.
ITEM 2: COMMENTS & QUESTIONS ON COMPETITIVE PROCESS
Sue said that tonight the AHB’s recommendation will be delivered to the CDBG Commission. Troy said he took
notes on the board’s comments on the rankings and will present to them to the Commission. Sue added that there is
a consultant studying the competitive process, so there may be changes coming forward. For now, we are doing this
twice a year. The next time we will be reviewing housing applications will be September.
ITEM 3: STATUS REPORT OF HOUSING AFFORDABILITY POLICY STUDY
Sue said she will send out new data from the consultants to the board. The stakeholder workshop on the April 16 has
moved to the Senior Center. A third workshop may be necessary. She will be reaching out to the stakeholders for
feedback on the need for a third. She said we need an opportunity to apply the tools to what is found in the report, so
the schedule may need to be changed, but she is trying to keep on track to go to Council May 27. The consultants are
struggling with student housing/tenants and where that fits into the affordable housing study. The study assumes that
the students are in the lowest incomes.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Curt said that is erroneous because they have the most discretionary money.
• Sue added that there are many different kinds of student populations and you cannot assume they are all
using low income housing.
• Tatiana added that age is another factor that is erroneous. Is every 20 year old in college, living off their
parents, or working and falling in that bracket?
• Sue said the consultants are drilling down on that data. The Gap analysis said we were 8000 units short,
with 4000 being for students. Meaning we need 4000 more for low income non-students. The study will
look at strategies for building the right developments for the right demographics.
• Tatiana said on the six month planning calendar there are May 27 and October 28 work sessions for
affordable housing policy. Sue said she plans for the second Council meeting to be in September. She does
not intend to have two work sessions. The general conclusion of the initial report is that the housing
affordability for ownership has fewer barriers than rental at this time. There is a mismatch of people to
units. We have people in the lowest income range that do not have units available that are affordable to
them, then there is a group who are paying less than 30% of income for housing and are not cost burdened
who are taking up units that would be affordable for lower income people. She is meeting with the
consultants before the next workshop to plan. The first part of the meeting will be answering questions and
some of the workshop will address questions from the last workshop. The consultants are still working on
land costs, to see if those have increased.
• Terence said lot costs are going up so fast, it has moved from 18% to 25%. Terence added that water costs
have gone up dramatically.
• Sue said we also need to consider build out in 20 years. Most of their data is 2000-2012 because the data
sets are complete. Beyond 2012 the data is not complete. She is asking them to find out what they can and
make projections. Terence added that 2008-2012 was the recession.
• Curt said the people taking inventory who are spending less than their 30% are those in a position to save
money to move into a single family residence. This is 30% of gross income, so you could have student
loans. There are other factors.
• Sue said we should all be spending less than 30%, but for the lowest income that is not an option. The cost
burdening is very real for specific demographics. That affects low wage earners more than others, while
some homeowners are cost burdened, particularly those who are fixed income. We can do some policy
toward that, but we need to see the big picture coming toward us. It will require projections.
• Eloise asked if Sue would prepare a concise statement to email out to stakeholders in advance of the
meeting. Sue said she plans to provide some information in advance of the meeting. The email will also
give a heads up on the potential third meeting.
• Jeffrey asked if we are considering the TOD Overlay’s effect on land value. When you allow more vertical
building and less parking, land value goes up. Tatiana said there is not much vacant land in that corridor.
She agrees that the land value will go up though. Jeffrey said the land cost has already spiked.
• Sue said raw land and redevelopment opportunity are two different things. When the price is right you can
tear down. Jeffrey said he sees this as almost all redevelopment. Demo costs are a small impact. Sue said
when you tear down you may not have all the infrastructure needs you have with new development.
Terence said with increased density you may have different needs for water, sewer, etc. Developers want to
know why they have to pay for capital improvements when the infrastructure is already there.
• Sue said the idea of development paying its way is more complicated than it first seems, even if you accept
that it is the best policy. Terence added that if development paid for everything, it would be cost prohibitive
to build.
OTHER BUSINESS
ITEM 1: OPEN BOARD DISCUSSION
• Troy said he emailed out the Max recommendation draft to the board. Tatiana said it looked good. Eloise
said she had minor edits. Troy suggested putting it on letterhead and emailing it to Council. Sue will assist
with this process.
• Tatiana said the Fort Collins Board of Realtor invites the board to Affordable=Achievable: A Community
Conversation, at the Lincoln Center. There will be speakers on affordable housing. Tatiana will email the
information to the board.
• Tatiana said there is a new development on the northwest side of town, Bella Vira (at Overland and
Elizabeth), which is going to be townhomes. It is on Council’s schedule for May 6. Curt said even at
market rate, townhomes have more opportunity to be affordable than single family detached. Sue added
that she has heard of problems in building townhomes and condos. Terence said the ease of class action
lawsuits against developers has been a problem in Denver. It takes only two owners in a complex to start a
class action lawsuit. It has been an issue for many years and is preventing developers from building these
types of homes.
• Jeffrey added that in the Gaps Analysis, people paying 20–25% of gross income for housing are competing
with lower income people; the problem may be inventory for move-up. If there is no townhome to move to
from an apartment, you are going to stay in the apartment until you can afford a single family detached. Sue
said it is an overall inventory problem.
• Terence added that townhomes are harder for builders to finance and insure. Sue heard the City is requiring
individual hook-ups for sewer, water, etc. Terence said the sprinkler system requirement adds another
$5000 to each unit. It makes them unaffordable. Jeffrey said insurance, tap fees, and the lending market not
being right to build this move-up product are preventing development. Curt said a builder he knows cannot
afford the insurance for building duplexes. Sue said that creates a strain on move-up inventory that is also
entry into ownership. Once we understand better, we can create policy to help.
• Curt said in the ‘50s new houses were built for first time home buyers. Now houses are built for 3rd, 4th, 5th
time home buyers because that is where the money is. In the ‘50s the average home being built was 900
square feet.
• Sue added that at the workshop there was blame on City fees. There are many factors, but the City fees
push people away from smaller units. If you pay the same fees either way, the profit is in building one
larger home. Jeffrey said the incentive to build smaller units is not there because you lose profitability.
• Tatiana said the development proposed at Drake and Lemay was knocked down and is now single family
homes because of NIMBY. Sue said we are comfortable with single family homes today in Fort Collins,
but they might not be best for the future. Eloise added that is why people move to Fort Collins, to get away
from congestions. Sue said we are expecting 2% growth per year. Isn’t it better to plan for that?
• Eloise asked how you can keep the cost of land feasible/reasonable, when you have a GMA. Sue said you
have to build up. Eloise said no one wants that.
• Sue asked how you interject the preference discussion into the issue. If you have $200,000, you can buy a
single family home in Ault or try to find a townhome in Fort Collins. If you have choices, then you don’t
have an affordability issue.
• Curt said then you are incurring additional child care and commuting expenses and it’s not environmentally
a sustainable lifestyle. If you are driving 50 miles to work, that doesn’t work.
• Jeffrey said choice is important but from a standpoint of time away from your children, it is a loss to the
community and your family. All that time in the car is a huge cost, but how do you quantify that?
• Sue said if you can afford to buy in Fort Collins and choose to move elsewhere that is not an affordability
issue, but if you cannot find something you can afford and have to commute, that is an affordability issue.
• Tatiana gave information about active multifamily units for sale and said there are currently only 2 that are
not under contract.
• Eloise said the Group’s report shows that under $250,000 there is no inventory.
• Sue said the consultants used real median income at 2012, and the area median income can only afford a
house at $190,000, but there is no inventory at that price.
• Jeffrey said when looking at policy you need to look at long term trends. Real estate has a 7 year cycle. Sue
said the numbers leave us with an upward trajectory. Jeffrey said this data doesn’t take into account
bumping against the GMA. That is the wild card.
• Sue said if we don’t want to have the housing affordability issues that Boulder is having we cannot restrict
the GMA and height as they have done. We have examples of what not to do, but we cannot control
everything.
• Terence said they have had spill-over issues into neighboring communities.
• Sue said she will get more information on the Housing Affordability Policy Study and encouraged all board
members to attend the stakeholders’ workshop on April 16.
• Curt said he would like to discuss CSU more at another meeting. We have a huge institution with a huge
impact on the community that is immune to being responsible. Sue said they are a land grant university, so
they have a lot of privilege. Terence said there is an arm of the university that buys land around town. He
wonders about their legal structure. They are buying land at inflated values for future expansion.
ITEM 2: LIAISON REPORTS
• Not discussed.
ITEM 3: FUTURE MEETINGS AGENDA
• Not discussed.
ITEM 4: CITY COUNCIL SIX-MONTH PALNNING CALENDAR REVIEW
• Not discussed.
– Meeting adjourned at 6:08pm by Tatiana Martin (Troy left at 5:30 to attend CDBG Commission). –
The next meeting of the Affordable Housing Board is scheduled for:
May 1
Land Bank Tour: 3:00–5:00pm
Meeting: 5:00–6:00pm
Participants will meet at:
Fort Collins City Hall
Council Information Center
300 Laporte Ave