Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 06/07/20181 | Page MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD Date: Thursday, June 7, 2018 Location: Colorado River Room, 222 Laporte Avenue Time: 4:00–6:00pm For Reference Diane Cohn, Chair Ken Summers, Council Liaison Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Staff Liaison 970-221-6753 Board Members Present Board Members Absent Diane Cohn Jen Bray Curt Lyons Catherine Costlow Jeffrey Johnson Kristin Fritz Rachel Auldridge Staff Present Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Policy & Housing Project Manager Ryan Mounce, Planner, City of Fort Collins Clay Frickey, Planner, City of Fort Collins Brittany Depew, Administrative Assistant/Board Support Guests Greg Wells, Senior Advisory Board Adam Boyd, Resident Call to order: 4:00 Agenda Review: No changes Public Comment: Adam Boyd—Has seen great examples of housing solutions in both South America and Hawaii, would like to see similar projects considered here. Review and Approval of Minutes AGENDA ITEM 1: Continued City Plan Update conversation—Ryan Mounce & Clay Frickey, City Planners Looking at scenarios as a visual communication and decision-making tool. There will be three scenarios; those sent to the Affordable Housing Board are not final but show where they are headed. Scenario 1 will show business-as-usual, Scenario 2 will be “next steps,” and Scenario 3 will be the Curt moved to approve May minutes as amended. Jeff seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0. 2 | Page “stretch goals” option. Underlying these scenarios, there are some policy changes, and their impact is not quite clear. Some outcomes are clearer than others. Comments/Q&A: • Curt: Are you talking to Denver at all? Last year at the Housing Summit they had a great map showing how changes to code would affect the city. o Ryan: I haven’t but this information is great to have. o Kristin: I’m wondering if there’s a comparable city that allows ADUs and what are their percentages. o Sue: And knowing what made it viable. o Kristin: These scenarios plug in 5-10% for ADUs, but do we know if that’s realistic? o Clay: We haven’t seen as many small cities with ADUs but we could keep digging. • Ryan: The only areas where you can realistically do detached units right now are in Old Town. The consultants originally threw out 5%. We are looking at places like Portland and Vancouver. Portland is often used as a model for ease of building ADUs and they only have 2% of their lots with ADUs. o Diane: There is a difference between allowing and incentivizing. o Jeff: What does Portland do about fees? I imagine even tap fees could be a deal breaker for many. o Clay: Fees are a big part of this conversation. Portland cut their fees by a third for ADUs, and then they became uses by right. That combination is what made the ADU program accessible. But it’s not affordable, these are $300-$400k units. o Ryan: Part of our conversation is deciding if they are just allowed or if they are incentivized. o Clay: I think the reason they had reduced fees was to study and see how it went. They’ve seen several hundred ADUs built, but it’s still a small percentage. The parking requirement was another thing that was a big deal, so in Portland they don’t require additional parking for ADUs. o Kristin: It shows the difference in Fort Collins, all the residential neighborhoods around CSU are permit parking. o Clay: It might be more acceptable further from CSU where overflow parking isn’t such an issue. • Ryan: Are there thoughts from the board about the middle scenario, the “next steps”? o Curt: I feel strongly that if you can’t sell it off separately, there shouldn’t be a tap fee. That’s a huge expense. o Kristin: You can rent a room in your house without paying a tap fee, why should you pay a tap fee to rent an ADU? • Curt: I’m assuming internal ADUs would include duplexes? o Clay: I think the way we’re looking at it would be a unit significantly smaller than primary residence, whereas a duplex is generally around similar size. o Sue: This makes me wonder why we’re not more generous with duplexes. o Kristin: Because of density. That doubles the density. o Jeff: It’s a big change. • Jeff: With ADUs there are so many other related issues and pressure points that our community is wrestling with. o Kristin: I think ADUs are super important but what are we looking at? What is 2%? 3 | Page o Ryan: Just looking at single-family lots, if we’re aiming for 10% over 20 years, that’s about 3k ADUs. Even if there are incentives, land use changes, there are so many other factors going into where or not they get built. o Sue: I think in this case, if we’re assuming most people wouldn’t opt to build an ADU, shouldn’t we make it appealing to the most number of people? o Kristin: The stretch goal, getting to 5-10% has to include incentives for more units to be built. o Diane: If scenario 2 is 2%, why does the distinction between internal and external matter? o Ryan: That’s based on current land use patterns. It might be easier to construct in Old Town because of existing alleys. In neighborhoods where units are closer, less parking. o Curt: So there needs to be flexibility for case by case. o Diane: If the goal is additional density without sprawl, the distinction between internal and external seems irrelevant. • Ryan: Another question for the board: Should ADUs be allowed everywhere in the community? o Curt: I think it needs to happen in RL for sure. As far as LMN, you can’t do an ADU, you have to subdivide, give an easement for a road that may never exist. There’s a high tax rate on that. o Sue: What’s the downside of making ADUs legal everywhere? o Ryan: Zoning is all about expectations. If you do allow a change like this, it’s a big change for a lot of people. Where we traditionally have these units, there are still owners who feel it’s too much. Concerned more rentals will change the feel of the community. o Kristin: The fear is that every house will build one and the density will go way up. o Curt: Fort Collins has changed so much, that’s the reality now. People can’t expect everything to stay the same. o Ryan: Housing comes up as such an important issue in the community, and that will require change, but that change is difficult for a lot of people. o Diane: It’s about figuring out how to manage your success. o Kristin: It’s important to remember the lens we are coming from and to remember what others are worried about. Some of that fear has to alleviated somehow. • Ryan: Book “Backdoor Revolution” all about ADUs with a big focus on Portland. The average cost is around $150k and they can be really hard to get financed. o Curt: They have a hard time appraising. o Clay: Yes, that’s a big part of it. • Ryan: We also want to talk about affordable housing. There are currently some bonuses and incentives. Is there a next step and stretch goal for affordable housing? o Jeff: This is land use code-defined “Affordable Housing”? o Ryan: Yes, City-defined. o Curt: We’re going to have to talk about covenants. Can they just shut all of this down and then the code doesn’t matter? o Sue: That’s true but there are ways covenants can be trumped. Laundry lines are an example of that. • Diane: What are you referring to when you say “density”? 4 | Page o Ryan: The only incentive right now in LMN, can increase by 3 units/acre. Changes to density could mean many things moving forward, all the options are on the table. o Jeff: But units per acre would create the biggest change? o Kristin: Depends on the height. o Curt: Height restrictions right now are what? o Ryan: It depends on the zone. o Curt: Kristin, what would you like to see for density? o Kristin: I think LMN should be 20 units per acre. o Curt: And that kind of density would bring costs down? o Kristin: Right, but you have to address the limit of 12 units per building as well. o Sue: What if it was still 12 per acre but you could build 16 units per building? o Kristin: That would save some development costs but that isn’t passed on to the residents. I don’t think it would generate nearly as much benefit as changes to units per acre. • Ryan: In the big picture, we will likely see the addition of some incentives, but what would the stretch goals look like? o Jeff: Is the main difference between scenarios 2 and 3 money? o Ryan: Yes, scenario 3 would require a dedicated funding source. o Sue: We could increase fee waivers under scenario 2. • Diane: Why aren’t there percentages for affordable housing goals like there are for ADUs? o Ryan: It’s tough to figure out the percentages and goals for affordable housing. There are so many pieces, what is the goal? o Kristin: As a planner, it’s hard to predict because it’s so market driven. o Sue: Especially with incentives. It’s hard to know who’s going to choose to leverage the incentives. • Ryan: Are we on track to meet current housing goals? o Sue: We’re probably going to fall a little short but not by much. We’re waiting for the 2019 report. • Kristin: What about homelessness as an indicator? Another piece is tracking our homeless counts, the significant strides we’ve made in reducing veteran homelessness. Is there a way to carve out that piece? It’s a housing solution. o Sue: Our point in time count is staying stable and population is increasing, so those numbers aren’t going up. But there is a perception that our homeless population is growing. o Diane: I do think it’s something people are committed to in this community. o Ryan: We are hearing homelessness, social services, mental health. People are looking to the City for some movement in those areas. On the consultant side, we don’t have a lot of knowledge in those areas so we are looking to City staff. • Ryan: For zoning and land use code in general, City Plan has pretty strong policy guidance for certain things, but a lot has changed in the last 10-15 years. Some communities are considering where to include duplexes/quadplexes, for example. Allowed anywhere? o Curt: I’m thinking big picture, allowing duplexes in single family zones feels like a stretch. You can do so many that blend in in single family neighborhoods. o Sue: There are neighborhoods in Denver where they fit in really well. o Clay: Would this jeopardize some other considerations of ours? 5 | Page o Kristin: You could put it out there and these other ideas wouldn’t feel as challenging in comparison. o Ryan: Duplexes could be a big leap, but the other side of that is we have Boulder home prices in 10 years. o Kristin: Traffic is a huge consideration as well. o Sue: I have heard the last City Plan tried to give everything to everyone, but it’s still a vision people are comfortable with. How do we pull away from that? Can we backtrack on some of these ideas? o Ryan: It’s harder to take something out than add it. o Kristin: I think allowing duplexes in scenario 3 is a good thing to include, it allows for comparison. • Adam Boyd: You mentioned the character of Fort Collins. Is that driven by citizens of Fort Collins or by the City? o Ryan: We hear it most frequently at neighborhood project meetings. I feel like it’s more driven by the people. o Adam: What kind of population attends those meetings? o Sue: City Plan kickoff meeting had 500 people and it was pretty diverse. o Ryan: For City Plan events, we’re trying to conduct outreach to many different populations. Overall, we’re getting a good mix. o Adam: As for ADU success stories, Hawaii allowed them a couple years ago, within a few months of that policy, they had an explosion of ADUs. It was great for Hawaii because they have housing affordability problems. o Kristin: Was it state policy that changed? o Adam: Yes. o Curt: Going back to character, it wasn’t that long ago it meant you had to be white to own a home here. There are a lot of beautiful homes in Old Town, and they were built when women couldn’t vote and people of color couldn’t live in them. There’s room for evolution. o Sue: I think Curt is onto something. When you do presentations about city character, remind them about the change that has happened, that change isn’t all bad. o Curt: Yes, let’s put things in perspective. o Adam: What is driving the height limit concerns? o Sue: Concerns over lack of light, lost views. o Kristin: People were upset when taller buildings went up on College and they couldn’t see the foothills while driving anymore. • Sue: What is the next step for this board? o Ryan: The end of June/beginning of July, we will be confirming the scenarios. End of August we will have some large public events after CSU is back in session. o Sue: Do you encourage board members to attend those events? o Ryan: Absolutely. AGENDA ITEM 2: Business A. Council Comments—Affordable Housing Incentives work session got moved to August. The Internal Housing Task Force will be reporting out what their incentives have done to date. Asking Council what they want energy focused on. 6 | Page a. Historic Preservation—had a work session, but currently on the unscheduled list. B. Review 2017 Work Plan—not discussed C. Open Board Discussion—Mason Place going to Planning and Zoning in a week, and Housing Catalyst needs updated letter of support to Planning and Zoning Board, could update previous letter. D. Liaison Reports—not discussed AGENDA ITEM 3: Board Member Reports A. Fee Work Group & City Plan Housing Group Discussion—Diane Cohn Diane presented on Affordable Housing to the Fee Work Group. It was a small group but went well. Walked people through some of the numbers, partly with the goal to educate that affordable housing developments don’t have “fees waived,” but only a small percentage of fees are waived. The Chair of the Parks Board expressed interest in talking about how certain dollars are used. For example, the City Park update is slated to cost $12 million – is there a better place for this kind of money to go? There may be room for a conversation between the two boards. AGENDA ITEM 4: Other Business A. Future AHB Meeting Agendas a. July: Meeting is canceled b. August: Diane will invite Jake Joseph, has done national conferences on housing c. September: Invite planners back B. City Council Six-Month Planning Calendar Meeting Adjourned: 6:08 Next Meeting: August 2 Curt moved to write letter of support for Mason Plan to provide to Planning and Zoning. Jeff seconded. Motion passed 5-0-1. Kristin abstained.