Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-13 Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board Minutes, ApprovedCity of Bozeman Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board (CAHAB) January 14, 2013 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm City Commission Room, City Hall Attending:      Brian LaMeres, Ann Kesting, Melvin Howe, Kyle Terrio, Mary Martin, Chris Mehl, Dave Magistrelli Absent: Kris Keller, Margaret Boardman Staff: Tracy Menuez, Chris Saunders Public: none The meeting was called to order at 12:05 pm by Chair Brian LaMeres. Public Comment: None Action Items Approval of minutes from December 13, 2012. Mary moved to accept the minutes of the December 13, 2012 meeting; Ann seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. Non-Action Items – Continuation of work session re: affordable housing incentives Chris Saunders from Planning and Community Development was present to provide information and feedback to the board regarding the affordable housing incentives discussed in December. Chris (unless otherwise noted, Chris refers to Chris Saunders) discussed each items as follows: Expedited permit process for affordable housing/developments – Chris noted that subdivision development is primarily driven by state law, whereas zoning-based development provides the city with more flexibility regarding timelines. Chapter 19, Section 50 of the code discusses expedited review and the priority given to affordable housing projects. This is only to be applied if city planning were in a time crunch and were unable to meet deadlines for review, which has not been an issue. Brian asked if the public noticing requirements add time to the review process. Chris responded that the public noticing requirements typically coincide with the development process as a whole and that they do not generally add time to the process; of course, there are rare exceptions. Impact fee relief – Chris referred to the currently suspended workforce housing (WFH) ordinance, which did allow for impact fee relief. The new fee study’s methodology, as previously discussed by the board, will provide significant fee relief for smaller homes on smaller lots. He took the opportunity to remind the group that water supply is not included in the proposed fee structure. This cost, which represented about 20% of the former water fee will likely be added at some point, depending on how the City decides to increase supply. The City commission will also consider the possibility of deferring the fee to Certificate of Occupancy rather than at building permit. This may represent a small sum on a standard single family home (approximately $200), but on larger projects could create a significant benefit. Ann asked what other things the city has for impact fee relief; Chris cited reimbursements of impact fees paid on behalf of Habitat for Humanity and Western Montana Mental Health as examples of using City funds to subsidize affordable housing through impact fee relief. Chris Mehl added that the homes in the Trip Exchange District will have significantly lower impact fees; additionally, fees for most residential homes City-wide will be reduced from the previous structure. Parking reductions – Chris Saunders noted that affordable housing does have less parking demand, which is reflected in the code structure. In fact, over 10 years ago the City proposed deeper reductions for affordable housing that the CAHAB opposed. The current standard reflects the input of the CAHAB at that time, but has also evolved to allow for parking reductions for proximity to a bus stop and many other items that have been built into the code to ensure that reductions don’t require a variance. Parkland/open space reductions – Chris referenced the history of the City’s WFH ordinance; parkland reduction was a centerpiece of the ordinance, and one of the most hated of its provisions. Mixed use zoning – Chris referenced the historically mixed use areas of the City, namely the Northeast Neighborhood, which has included both residential and industrial uses. The city also has an urban mixed use designation, and the residential emphasis mixed use (REMU) designation. Brian asked about the ability to do “over/under” mixed use – commercial on lower level with residential on upper levels. Chris S. replied that is allowed in every commercial zoning district but a business park, and there is even a provision in the parking ordinance that essentially allows spaces to be counted toward both uses, thus reducing parking requirements for the project. This is not allowed in industrial park areas, as it results in too many conflicts between residents and industry. Donation of publicly owned land – The City recently conducted an inventory of their land. Most of it is in use, what is not is use is generally not suitable for housing, and the vast majority is in parkland. Programs to identify qualified buyers/renters – Chris S. referenced the programs of the HRDC that provide housing assistance to homeless, renter, and homeowner households. Density bonus – Chris explained that density bonuses are only available through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, as that is the process that allows for tradeoffs without creating the perception that an applicant is receiving preferential (or punitive) treatment. Only one development has used affordable housing as a way to secure a density bonus: the Creekwood Subdivision, which in the past year requested a relaxation of their affordable housing requirements. Chris further went on to explain that most developments don’t build to the allowable densities as is (32 units/acre in R-4, 8 units/acre in R-1). Accessory Dwelling units (ADUs) – ADU standards have been an ongoing debate in the City (and elsewhere) for some time, Chris noted. He referenced a proposed bill at the state level that would change standards for approval of ADUs statewide. Bozeman has had ADUs since 1998, and they have been generally well accepted with a few exceptions. Depending on the district, the requirements for approval of an ADU vary. Brian asked how parking requirements apply to an ADU. Chris S. replied that parking requirements are calculated considering the number of bedrooms, and available off-street options. Not every proposed ADU can meet the parking requirements; this is particularly the case in subdivisions from the 1960’s and 70’s, the designs of which are not as accommodating to ADUs. Brian about inspections of rentals and the frequency for different types. Mary Martin replied that buildings that received state/federal funds are subject to annual inspections (this would apply to Low Income Housing tax Credit buildings); HUD properties are given a comprehensive review every 3 years at a minimum; if violations are present then reviews are done annually. Chris S. added that larger buildings will be subject to more inspections even if they are not subsidized – there are just more trigger points – but a basement ADU is unlikely to ever be inspected after initial construction. The City is in the process of rolling out a voluntary rental certification program through the building department. While in its beginning stages, the hope is that the rental certification will provide value to landlords and encourage more to participate, enhancing the safety of rental units in the City. Setback reductions – Chris S. noted that the City’s setback reductions were pretty tight at this time – 5 ft on the side, 20 ft to the rear, and 15-25 ft street front. This issue has been considered by many communities that often use them as a way to engineer a very expensive community by requiring large setbacks. Bozeman has chosen to use the smallest feasible setbacks to encourage more affordable housing. Zero lot line configuration – Chris S. noted that the zero lot line configuration is allowed in all zones. He referenced The Knolls as a development that has recently taken advantage of this option. Zero lot lines can be used on any part of the lot but the street side, and simply require an agreement between lot owners. The advantage is that each home essentially gets a bigger lawn. Land assembly strategies – Chris noted that the City has a formal process for acquiring and disposing of land. Mary asked if there was a method to facilitate swapping of lands. Chris spoke to working with developers early in the process to identify areas appropriate for certain types of development, and cited the example of working with 3 developments to create 1 large park for 3 subdivisions, rather than 3 separate, smaller parks. Chris Mehl added that the City’s system of acquiring and disposing of property is intentionally slow to allow for the maximum amount of public input and due diligence. Mary asked how, keeping the City’s process in mind, to make sure that the process for assembling land makes sense. Chris S. responded that there are lot of effective ways to transfer interest in property, and that perhaps easements may be the easiest way to set assemble land for future use. Financing assistance for affordable housing developers – City has sponsored grants for affordable housing developers in previous years. Down-payment assistance for buyers – Addressed above with HRDC homebuyer’s assistance programs Mary Martin asked Chris Saunders what hurdles he saw from his side of the desk. Chris replied that the biggest issues arise from developers that have designed their subdivision before reviewing the code, and now find they have limited flexibility because they are locked into a price, financing, etc. Mary asked if he feels there is anything in the code that presents an impediment to housing affordability. Chris S. replied that that while there are things in the code that do have costs, there is nothing that is there without reason, and that no, he does not feel like the code impedes affordability. He explained that the City has to take a 200-year look at a proposed subdivision, and that once lot lines are drawn and streets are platted, there is no going back. Whereas a builder may have a 120 day timeline, and a developer has a 3-5 year timeline, the City is committed to servicing that particular home for the 200 years; as such, the City has to consider infrastructure replacement, proximity to services, walkability, etc. Some of these features can be more expensive upfront, but are necessary to preserve long-term affordability and functionality. Ann Kesting asked if there was anything that he could recommend to the CAHAB as a “top perk” to promote affordability. Chris Saunders replied that the top inquiries he receives regard acquiring affordable land for a product. For affordable rental projects, the question is always how to make the rents work with the financing package. Bozeman is still an expensive place to live, which is true for the whole valley. Encouraging people to consider that affordability is a function of both housing price and cost to live in a particular home and to consider transit, services and other amenities when evaluating housing choices may be helpful in the long run. Chris will send some links to the group. Kyle Terrio asked about the impact of covenants on affordability. Chris Saunders replied that some developments have covenants that dramatically increase the cost of housing, however; unless the covenants contain illegal language (for instance, prohibiting certain races or ethnic backgrounds), there is nothing to stop a development from taking them on as their own form of self-governance. Montana law is very clear in protecting that private property right. The group thanked Chris Saunders for all of his input and expertise. FYI Tracy let the group know that she would contact Anna Rosenberry for information regarding the budget and affordable housing funds. The results of the scheduling poll have moved our regularly scheduled meeting to the 2nd Monday of each month, from 12-1 pm in the Madison room. Kyle informed the group that he would be unable to attend February’s meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 pm by Chair LaMeres.