Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 04/07/2016MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD Date: Thursday, April 7, 2016 Location: CIC Room, City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave. Time: 4:00–6:00pm For Reference Jeff Johnson, Chair Ray Martinez, Council Liaison Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Staff Liaison 970-221-6753 Board Members Present Board Members Absent Jeffrey Johnson, Chair Diane Cohn Eloise Emery Terence Hoaglund Curt Lyons Jennifer Bray Kristin Fritz Staff Present Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist Dianne Tjalkens, Administrative Clerk/Board Support Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Clay Frickey, City Planner Ryan Mounce, City Planner Staff Absent Guests Andy Smith, Chrisland Commercial Real Estate Marilyn Heller, League of Women Voters Call to order: Jeffrey Johnson called to order at 4:03pm. Agenda Review: No changes. Public Comment: Oakridge crossing project update. Have submitted PDP to City. Members are invited to upcoming meetings. Mixed use—5000sf of commercial space on first floor. Eliminated a floor in response to neighborhood concerns for height. Colors of building are not settled, will be other minor changes. Planning staff and Sue have been very helpful in getting to this point. Can provide renderings and answer questions by email. • How many units? o 110. Originally about 20 more. • Retail forbidden due to zoning? o Yes. Retail is secondary use in Harmony corridor. Nonresidential still needs to adhere to primary and secondary. o 25% retail is part of overall area. This area’s primary use is commercial/light industrial. Can’t combine retail with residential because both are secondary uses. o Point of this?  Similar to employment zone district. Want it primarily used for base employment uses.  Plan identifies mixed use activity centers along the corridor as well. • Tax credit deal? Was it originally 100% residential? o Yes. There have been a number of changes. Will be asking for two modifications: parking. Have demonstrated that seniors use fewer parking spaces. City staff is auditing. There is also abundance of offsite parking. o Second modification is open gathering space requirement. Oakridge has walking trails, paths and detention areas that can be used by residents.  CHFA finds site is positive due to proximity to amenities. • Age restrictions? o Most likely 60. o Can that actually be restricted, or just demographic shooting for?  Part of qualifying for tax credits. • Meetings are April 15 breakfast kick-off meeting 7:30am at Egg and I on Harmony and Lemay. April 28, 7:00pm community open house/charrette. Will answer questions about planning process, architecture, development review process, etc. Review and Approval of Minutes Jen moved to approve the March 3 minutes as amended. Eloise seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0-0. Corrections: AMI numbers—Kristin will email correction. Construction defects section: 3rd bullet “consent of the declarant” (instead of owner). Eloise moved to approve the March 24 minutes as amended. Jen seconded. Motion passed, 3-0-1. Kristin recused herself. Correction: Eloise provided edits on her comment on wait times. Announcement: FCHA has pulled application for permanent supportive housing project. AGENDA ITEM 1: Old Town Plan and Accessory Dwelling Units—Clay Frickey Plan is a combined update of east and west side neighborhood plans. Exploring trends and issues, updating vision and policies, and looking at Shields and Mulberry corridors with respect to pedestrian and bike traffic. Collaborating with Downtown Plan update. Includes neighborhood districts. In policies and strategies phase though spring, will work on implementation and adoption in the summer. Have four topic areas for visions: unique, livable, connected, and sustainable. Recommending areas for preservation and enhancement. Zoning allows retail and commercial use in bridge areas between residential and campus. Considering changes to certain roads to reduce four lanes to two with center turn lane and buffered bike lanes. Other area improvements include enhanced bike lanes. Map shows possible places for improvements—crossings, entry points to neighborhoods. Neighborhood greenways are linkages of local streets where biking and walking improvements can be made, similar to Remington greenway. These correspond to Bike Plan’s low stress network. Will include wayfinding elements. Zoning Potential zoning changes in west side neighborhood. Downtown, neighborhood conservation buffer zone, decreased density in medium and low density districts. Also have LMN zoning which allows for mixed use—commercial, higher density, taller buildings. Conservation districts have strict zoning rules to preserve character. Some feel pockets of LMN are disruptive. Staff looked at existing land use, location and City goals. Continue to discuss potential changes with neighborhoods. LMN pockets have duplexes and triplexes. LMN and MMN zoned areas are typical in greenfield developments. In late 1990s and early 2000s these pockets were rezoned with intent for infill and redevelopment and reflected larger lots. Some of existing development was expected to change to more intense use. Many neighbors were unaware of these zoning pockets. Recently had controversial project that brought issue to forefront. Initial purpose of that zoning may not have been correct assessment, and may decide to go back to original zoning for smaller lots in established neighborhoods. Generally there is support for these changes. Maintaining future development opportunities for higher density in some areas. Plan may have a policy to preserve the stability and character of neighborhoods. Will look at zoning changes individually. Many potential benefits and concerns—preserving character vs. limiting opportunity for redevelopment. ADUs Exploring more options internal to existing homes—internal or attached units. Currently carriage homes and attached ADUs are considered duplexes. Could provide flexibility in areas where don’t currently allow duplexes (NCL zoning). People surveyed were concerned about lack of affordable housing in this area and generally want more income levels to be able to live in the area. Concerns about these units include them being taken advantage of, such as for short term rentals. Suggested standards around size limits, reducing minimum lot size, owner occupancy, and affordability covenant. Also got feedback that this is citywide issue. Currently allow ADUs in virtually all of the city, but call them various things. Benefits include affordability, aging in place, neighborhood character, alignment with City Plan, etc. Concerns around parking, paving alleys, privacy, vacation rentals, etc. Some potential changes: different review process, different fees, ownership structures (ex: owner occupied, etc.). Showed chart of existing restrictions on minimum lot size, maximum footprint, max floor area, max height, and parking for carriage houses based on zone (NCL, NCM, NCB). In eastside neighborhood, 25% of lots are 9-10K sf. On west side 24% is 6-7K sf. Showed map of eligible parcels with current standards. There are many carriage houses that were permitted before these standards were put in place. If change lot size requirements could significantly increase number of parcels eligible. Other communities waive or reduce fees for streets, water, environmental services, and parks, with savings up to $10K. In Portland the fee waivers are limited time only. Vancouver has lot width and lane access requirements only. Comments/Q&A • Kristin: How does FortZED boundary align? o Ryan: Not much overlap—that is in Downtown Plan. • Kristin: Bike crossing at Shields and Magnolia doesn’t seem safe due to proximity to Mulberry. o Pete: Corridors run through neighborhoods and bisect them—looking at ways to increase safety and connectivity, such as slowing traffic and widening sidewalks. o Kristin: Mulberry-Shields intersection is problematic. o Curt: People drive faster when you provide wider streets.  Pete: Vehicle service decreases as increase pedestrian and bike use. Limited in what we can do for pedestrian improvements with a limited right of way. Some opportunity on parts of Mulberry and Shields to reduce the lanes and add crossings, buffered bike lanes, etc. Balancing act.  Curt: Magnolia Street corridor makes a lot of sense. If have speed to move traffic, it is very unhealthy for bikes.  Pete: Carrying forward recommendations for West Central Plan. Opportunity for some improvements.  Kristin: Making sure residents have safe access to work and schools, especially for families that don’t have vehicles. • Jen: What qualifies as a notable tree? o Ryan: State champion. Have unique aspects. Quality of life issues, sense of place and character. Showing social/cultural things in map. Landscaping is very important to community. • Curt: If change zoning from LMN to prior zoning will it increase or decrease density? o Pete: Decrease.  Curt: Could it be seen as capitulating to NIMBY-ism? • Pete: No. When looking at individual lot size and patterns it is infeasible to consider an LMN project on an individual small lot. To be successful would have to acquire multiple parcels, which would change character of neighborhood. Have kept some LMN in larger lot areas.  Clay: Also not putting properties into non-conformance, such as mobile home park. Don’t want to impact affordable housing. Proposing changes that keep as many properties in conformance as possible. • Kristin: Intent of LMN was probably to get more mixed neighborhoods, but wherever feasible to add density to these lots, there is no reason to change the zoning. Changing the opportunity to do multifamily throughout the community would be unfortunate. o Pete: City Plan encourages infill and redevelopment, but also maintaining character of neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are historic and unique. Affordable housing presents more challenges for this area. Values in Old Town neighborhoods are increasing. Ex: Near Aggie Liquors there is no buffer between Old Town neighborhoods and commercial areas. Predominantly residential lots. o Kristin: There are many voices around neighborhood conservation, but many protections exist. Don’t want to lose opportunities for density as the community builds out. • Jeff: Down-zoning will preclude more density. No doubt getting neighborhood support for this. Looks like NIMBY down-zoning. From affordability perspective, the planners who rezoned may have gotten it right. Interested in more info on floor area ratios. o Ryan: Floor area ratio would apply if rezoned. LMN has codes on footprint for multifamily. Would apply when property is redeveloped. • Jeff: Consideration to historic preservation? It is an impediment to infill and redevelopment. Very challenging for those who want to do density. • Sue: What happens if we don’t change the density? There are possibilities under current zoning that would be closed. o Pete: If leave all of these in play will see larger parcels are more suitable for infill and redevelopment. For the smaller existing blocks of individual lots, it isn’t feasible for higher density development that needs drainage, parking, etc. Developer would have to consolidate parcels and remove historic homes to accomplish this. o Clay: People who live next to Shields and Mountain project are very aware of LMN issue. They were not happy about the redevelopment. Practicality of assemblage is unlikely—cost would be significant.  Kristin: Creating a precedent for down-zoning. Practically speaking, probably right. With NCM could still do duplexes. Need to be very careful.  Jen: No vacant lots? To prevent concern that people will buy section of $500K homes, scrape them and put up multifamily. Unlikely. o Pete: When asked neighbors about support for non-residential units, response was no, but would be upset if lost Beavers.  Curt: Force people to drive for services and groceries if downzone.  Kristin: In-home businesses. • Ryan: Can still have in-home business, but without employees. • Eloise: Design standards? o Ryan: Not for residential. Commercial would have standards. Through development review process would try to make blend with neighborhood. • Kristin: ADUs should be considered de-facto affordable. Having affordability covenants would be administratively challenging. o Jeff: As regulate more, create more difficulties. • Curt: ADUs shouldn’t have same requirements as single family homes, like tap fees. Makes them unaffordable. o Clay: Agree that fees may not be commensurate to impact. Must continue internal discussions. Have leverage with AHSP. ADUs will be big topic in City Plan as well. o Kristin: Once ADUs become policy, development of them will happen. • Jen: What differentiates a dwelling unit from renting a room? o Clay: In building code o Sue: Rule of thumb is including an oven. o Jeff: Confusion about lot sizes and other requirements that are very difficult to process. Lot size, FAR ratios, historic preservation, etc. all impede ADUs. If City is serious about ADUs, must simplify. o Clay: Have discussed developing a guide on how to do ADUs.  Sue: Some even have designs that have been pre-approved. A chart of existing regulations would even help current customers.  Ryan: In Old Town they are carriage houses. In Rigden Farm they would be called single family homes. They are allowed in Rigden, but must pay full fees. • Kristin: Every lot is configured differently. If it has to go through development review staff can determine appropriate placement, etc. o Curt: Other cities have percentage of lot coverage restrictions. o Sue: How is that different than FAR?  Clay: FAR includes each level. o Jeff: If want to give this a serious chance, make this simple. Too easy to get tripped up based on unique characteristics of each lot. • Curt: Portland has had 1200 ADU permit applications in last decade. Several years ago waived a number of fees, but recently reinstated them. o Ryan: Old Town carriage houses—get about 5 permit applications annually. Can’t track illegal garage conversions. o Sue: Limited time fee waiver might be way to kick start program. If can rebate fees or waive them for a limited time will incentivize.  Clay: And fee structure discussion will take a lot of time. o Ryan: Planning is not in control of capital expansion fees.  Sue: Elevate discussion to leadership. • Kristin: 63% should not be a scary number because number of people who would actually build is much lower. • Jeff: Short term rental restrictions might abate some concerns. If have long term lease requirement will discourage Airbnb game. o Clay: Exploring a cap in Old Town neighborhoods for short term rental. Will be a challenge to enforce standards. o Sue: Could also limit incentives to a certain number of units or a certain pot of money.  Curt: Portland has history of ADUs; fee waivers helped jump start them again. After WWII needed housing so much, threw restrictions out the window. Many homes were cut up into 3-4 units. • Pete: As get into more details, some items will require more discussion. Can return mid- summer to provide an update, at which time the board could provide a recommendation on particular aspects. • Sue: Board interest in fee issue. What is best way to connect them to this work? o Clay: Fees are separate from this plan. o Jeff: Having trouble getting traction on fees at higher level, but would like to start with something small like limited fee waivers or rebates. o Kristin: Will fees be in neighborhood plan or city code?  Clay: Can write exploration fee waivers into the plan.  Pete: Have list of implementation items. When bring neighborhood plan forward will recommend actions ripe for implementation.  Ryan: Planning to submit a budget offer to do a revamp to City Plan as early as next year. On radar to visit this.  Kristin: Scoping City Plan right now. Any way for AHB to have input/be involved. Can board get an update? • Sue: Will explore. AHB encourages updating the Plan. That is the offer in development now. • Pete: City Plan will undergo fundamental reconsiderations. Will be a lot of opportunity for boards to have input once the project starts. • Sue: What is scope of offer? o Ryan: Combined offer to update transportation master plan as well. o Kristin: Affordable housing will be huge issue in these revisions. ACTION ITEMS: Neighborhood Plan team will come back to board in the summer. AGENDA ITEM 2: Planning for 2016—Topics and Speakers Not discussed. AGENDA ITEM 4: Other Business Council Comments Planning • Will not make comment this month. Open Board Discussion • Members can email topic ideas to the board. • Sue is lining up land bank and land trust speakers. o Jeff: Board would like to stay parallel to staff discussion on land bank. o Sue: Can discuss if subcommittee becomes necessary. Looking at ordinance this year. Liaison Reports • Jen: CSU legislative affairs group presentation on required signatures for changing You+2 to You+3. Board of Realtors considering their position on reforms and approach to density. • Curt: Liaisoned to Economic Advisory Commission. Had state demographer presentation. Could she present to AHB? o Sue: Possibly. Review of City Council 6 Month Agenda Planning Calendar/Future Agenda Items • Members should send meeting topic ideas to Sue via email. Meeting Adjourned: 6:04pm Next Meeting: May 5