HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 03/05/2015MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD
Date: Monday, March 5, 2015
Location: CIC Room, City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave.
Time: 4:00–6:00pm
For Reference
Troy Jones, Chair
Lisa Poppaw, Council Liaison
Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Staff Liaison 970-221-6753
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
Troy Jones
Diane Cohn
Curt Lyons
Eloise Emery
Tatiana Martin
Jeffrey Johnson
Terence Hoaglund
Staff Present
Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist
Beth Rosen, Affordable Housing Program Administrator
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
Councilmembers Present
Guests
Call to order: Troy Jones called to order at 4:04pm.
Agenda Review: no changes
Public Comment: none
Member Comments: none
Review and Approval of Minutes
Eloise moved to approve the February 5, 2015 minutes as presented. Diane seconded.
Motion passed unanimously, 7-0-0.
AGENDA ITEM 1: Underwriting Criteria for Federal Funding—Beth Rosen
Underwriting criteria do not require formal adoption/action by board or Council. Beth made some
edits to previous draft based on input from this board. Waiver request section has new language
regarding projects that meet a critical community need without necessarily meeting all other criteria.
Projects may apply for City dollars in these cases, but must meet financial viability criterion. Beth
will provide the AHB and CDBG Commission with her comments in a staff summary for each
project. These are administrative policies and will become effective for the fall competitive process.
AHB will weigh the projects against affordable housing strategic priorities.
Sue added that these are not mandatory guidelines, but assist in complying with HUD regulations and
HOME criteria and reporting. This will be a good resource for staff, AHB, CDBG Commission, and
the applicants.
Beth said we want to think about long term sustainability and viability of the projects, and do not
want to put the City in the position of assisting in acquisition of substandard housing.
AGENDA ITEM 2: Housing Priorities Strategic Plan Super Board Meeting Discussion
40 people have RSVP’d for the super board meeting. Sue and Clay Frickey are developing the
presentation. This is one of the first steps of outreach. The plan is based on the Gaps Analysis and
HAPS, and the subcommittee is now organizing implementation into a five year action plan. The
super board meeting is to seek high level responses to the five goals. The goals are similar to the
previous plan, but expand the homeowner assistance program.
Committee members will act as table facilitators and AHB members are requested to volunteer as
able. Sue is planning a HAPS stakeholder “reunion” and will continue to do outreach with civic
groups that have shown interest. Work session has not been scheduled, but would most likely be held
in May. Looking for adoption in June/July. Sue is very appreciative of the subcommittee that is
developing the five year strategic plan.
Comments/Q&A
• Will the super board meeting have a similar format to Gaps and HAPS meetings?
o The Clerk’s Office is hosting this. They will provide city-wide information. This
project’s presentation will start with a polling questionnaire (clickers), then table
work and a report back. Same night as Redtail Ponds Open House, which is earlier in
the evening.
AGENDA ITEM 3: Impact Fee Rebalancing Discussion
Troy and Curt met with Cameron Gloss to discuss micro-units and accessory dwelling units. The
issue is whether full impact fees are fair for small homes or for areas that are being redeveloped and
have existing infrastructure. Cameron referred them to a new planning study for the Old Town
Neighborhood Plan, and to a PowerPoint presented at the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute annual
conference that was held in March.
Curt is looking specifically at greenfield versus infill development. He showed a chart of the how the
percentage of people living in a single person household has increased dramatically and data on how
there are more single persons than single person residences in Denver. However, new construction is
designed for large families. Fees are designed for full capacity as well, and based on statistical
averages. Curt would like demographics for one and two person occupancy in Fort Collins. Sue
agreed to look for this information. Curt showed photos and floor plans for micro-homes and
discussed the use of shipping containers in building small units. Sue added that there is more
communal space needed when building smaller units, such as community rooms, laundry rooms, etc.
Some goals of smaller units include responding to changing demographics, attracting and retaining
young professionals, reducing sprawl, mitigating environmental impacts of development, and
allowing senior to age in place. Santa Cruz has been proactive and has 6–12 preapproved plan
designs for ADUs. Other cities have reduced lot size requirements for building ADUs.
Sue added that new development in Fort Collins has had success with ADUs, but existing
development is more of a challenge.
Curt added that in Portland, new ADU applications have risen dramatically. If you allow ADUs, you
free up the burden on the municipality to create new affordable housing.
Comments/Q&A
• What are regulatory challenges?
o Seattle is changing parking regulations.
• Seattle allows tandem parking. Fort Collins does not.
o Even tandem garages can only be counted as one space.
o Many cities have had to change parking requirements to accommodate ADUs as well
as other density.
• Does the board want to have a subcommittee to push this issue along, and use the Old Town
Neighborhood Plan as a vehicle?
o Sue is on the technical team for the Downtown Plan and will ask if someone else in
SSD can be on the Old Town Neighborhood Plan technical team.
• What are the requirements to be a stakeholder?
o Must be a business owner in the area, but can still attend all public events.
o Sue offered to ask staff if a board member can participate on the stakeholder group or
other committee.
o Planning studies usually have technical team and advisory committee as well. One
should be a good fit.
• Should this topic be a standing item? Or convene a subcommittee?
o Is there somewhere we can go with this?
o Now is a good time for the board to steer these ideas with Old Town Neighborhood
plan.
• When was FAR (floor area ratio) added to code?
o Been around a long time, but has had changes. Last revision 4-5 years ago.
o FAR restrictions were in response to extremely large homes taking entire lots going
in next to smaller houses.
o Neighborhoods wanted minimum setbacks.
o Also addressed eave height restrictions and light easements.
o FAR prevents McMansions, but if prevents ADUs as well, it is our purview.
o If have to pay full impact fees, there is more incentive to build as big of an ADU as
possible. Perhaps the City can give a little on lot size for ADUs.
• With capital impact fees of $15,000, and water tap fee of $15,000, to get just permission on
paper, people may be tempted to build ADUs without proper permitting.
• Does Cameron have any studies in the pipeline that look at fee rebalancing?
o Jessica is looking at typical building permits; does not address this issue.
• What if board could address ratio in code and ask to consider different ratio for separate
dwelling unit that is de-facto affordable based on size?
o Can talk about trickledown effect.
No current data to support this.
o But include increasing affordable units.
o Might also be an argument to support owners’ aging in place. Priced out by property
taxes, could do ADU to supplement costs with rent. Not just affordability of person in
ADU, but also for existing homeowners.
o Gentrification issue as well. Gives people another tool to stay where are as
neighborhood changes.
• Curt and Eloise would like to participate on Old Town Neighborhood Plan committee.
Updates will be standing item on agenda.
o Members agreed to provide information/research to Eloise and Curt to take to the
stakeholder group.
• Can a planner on this project present to the board?
o Sue will request Pete Wray present at the April meeting.
• Landmark Preservation Commission is important to conversation as well. Must address
preservation in their plan. Fees could be a minor piece in comparison to other issues.
• Instead of calling it fee waivers, change to “fair fees” based on impact.
• Hypothetical: If all households are one and two people, and seniors or couples, they could
argue against paying school fees. Does that kind of argument affect your fees discussion?
Hard to measure impacts. Need to match impacts to funding.
o What is history of adoption of fees? Original logic of implementing the fees?
o Eloise agreed to research.
o Legal guidelines: health, safety, and welfare.
o Must have nexus about people paying also benefiting. Taxes benefit everyone.
o No democracy in impact fees. New homebuyers were not there yet to decide on fees,
but pay them.
• What is definition of ADU? Basement apartment? Renovating an existing building? Are
these really all the same thing, or do we need to separate conversions from new construction?
• Have subcommittee to talk about ADUs and FAR for the Old Town Neighborhood Plan, and
another to talk about fees.
o But ADUs are subject to fees.
o Strategic plan can recommend these be studied. Rebalancing is a recommendation
from HAPS.
• This group is saying to Council that ADUs should be encouraged, and fees are one
impediment. Tiny houses are becoming popular. Some are terrible, but many are really great.
o Does this trend have staying power?
o Leave tiny homes on trailers out of this conversation, as it is a different legal issue.
o Pushback on ADUs will be character of neighborhood and parking. People do not
want to change neighborhoods. NIMBY. Will have less public pushback on fee
rebalancing. Won’t have organized neighborhood opposition for fee rebalancing.
• Sue will determine if any studies already in works, otherwise board can make
recommendation to Council.
AGENDA ITEM 4: Spring Competitive Process Presentations Discussion
Board had requested ability to ask questions at applicant presentations. CDBG Commission denied
request. They were concerned board was overstepping limited function in ranking, and board is
permitted to submit questions in advance via email and view presentations online. Commission feels
this is sufficient information. City Clerk’s Office requested a memo about this subject, and it has
been forwarded to Lisa Poppaw (liaison to both boards). Lisa forwarded to City Attorney’s Office,
and it was assigned to Ingrid Decker. The board should assume the process will remain the same as
in the past for this cycle at minimum. All members have been provided access to applications. Sue
will request login credentials be resent to board members. Members are to begin reviewing
applications and send questions to Sue; may attend the public meeting or view online. Can send
questions again after presentations as well. Sue will check with Ingrid on coordinating effort. Will
organize meet and greet for AHB and CDBG Commission. March 24, presentations begin at 6:00.
March 26, AHB ranking meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 5: Council Comments
Tatiana attended Tuesday, March 3. Brought up construction defect litigation/legislation and super
board meeting. Mayor said legislative review committee is working on construction defect laws.
Senate Bill 177: establish alternative dispute resolutions, majority vote of all association homeowners
to start a class action lawsuit, require disclosures to all homeowners.
Comments/Q&A
• Late March/April: follow up on super board meeting. Tatiana will present.
• May: ADUs, discuss concept as becoming more prevalent. Show examples from Santa Cruz.
Tell Council that other communities are finding helpful in housing issues, taking on as area
of study, etc. Curt will present.
AGENDA ITEM 6: Other Business
Open Board Discussion
• Sue received a suggestion to have a board meet and greet with the CDBG Commission. Plan
for June meeting.
o Members agreed this is a good idea.
• Interfaith Council banquet upcoming. Accepting donations for affordable housing providers.
Please RSVP to Diane Cohn.
• Boulder Council is doing 2nd reading on impact fees for commercial buildings for affordable
housing fund, within certain districts. 10 proposed projects that would be affected.
o “Commercial linkage fee”
• Midtown TIF District Process Review: to identify infill in area. Commercial only or housing
too?
o Passed financial guideline that includes additional TIF if includes affordable housing.
• West Central Plan to Council March 17, first reading. Landlord licensing and registration
included. Outside of area will not be impacted yet. Will increase costs for tenants and
owners. Also discussing program to track noise complaints, landlord/tenant issues, etc.
o Idea of landlord registration is coming up around city. More safety issue than revenue
source. Sue will get more information and share.
o This concept was brought up in HAPS and was not supported. Would negatively
affect affordability.
o What would this cost a landlord?
Unknown.
o Concerned about potential impacts of costs for renters.
o Board would like to be invited to “exploratory committee” on this topic.
Sue will send request to staff.
Liaison Reports
• Eloise attended Human Relations Commission, and will attend Commission on Disability this
month.
• Troy will report on P&Z next month.
• Tatiana will discuss landlord licensing with Board of Realtors and debrief board next month.
Future Meetings Agenda
• March 26: Spring Competitive Process special meeting
• April 2: Will be held in Conference Room 1A.
• May 7: Tentative Murphy Center and/or Redtail Ponds tour
• Unscheduled: Update from FCHA
Review of City Council 6 Month Agenda Planning Calendar
• Not discussed.
Meeting Adjourned: 6:15pm
Next Meeting: April 2