Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-14 Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board MinutesCity of Bozeman Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board (CAHAB) February 12, 2014 8:00 – 9:00 am City Commission Room, City Hall Attending:      Brian LaMeres, Mary Martin, Kyle Terrio, Anders Lewendal, Ann Kesting, Dave Magistrelli, SharlaRae Stuber; Commissioner Carson Taylor Absent: Melvin Howe, Kris Keller Staff: Tracy Menuez, HRDC; Wendy Thomas, Community Development Director Public: Chris Budeski, Madison Engineering The meeting was called to order at 8:00 am by Chair Brian LaMeres. Public Comment: None Staff/Board reports Wendy informed the board that she would be preparing the quarterly housing report for the Commission and would send it to the board when it was complete. Action Items Approval of minutes from 1-08-14. Dave Magistrelli moved to approve the minutes; second by Mary Martin. Motion approved. Request for letter of support by Campus Crest. Tracy provided the board with background regarding the project and the request. Campus Crest is requesting a letter of support as they request a zoning change for their project, The Grove. The project would consist of 224 units, creating 600 beds of housing marketed to students. The project is not requesting affordable housing funding, and will not be subsidized. The developers are requesting support of the concept of proving housing near campus to mitigate the impact of students competing for rental markets in the community. Chris Budeski of Madison Engineering, was on hand to represent the developers. He stated that the question goes beyond The Grove, and that they would like support for the concept that student housing near campus frees up affordable housing in the community. He noted that one comment heard at the Zoning Commission was that there was plenty of R-4 zoning near campus, and that rezoning this parcel was not necessary. However, he pointed to a zoning map showing the current R-4 zoned parcels, both of which are further away from campus and would require students to cross 19th. Other than those two parcels, no other lots with existing R-4 zoning are large enough to accommodate this project. Most of the multifamily housing in Bozeman is being constructed on the Northwest side of town, which leads to students driving to campus. Wendy added that for a long time, there was not much interest from private developers to provide student housing, but there is a recent surge in interest, however; interest in the lots west of 19th have not received much interest due to distance and lack of pedestrian access. Brian asked for clarification of Campus Crest’s zoning request. Chris responded that the request is from R-1 to R-4, he also added that there is an existing buffer of R-2 between the proposed site and the adjoining neighborhoods. Anders agreed that adding 600 units would create more housing opportunity, but questioned how Campus Crest could meet the community concerns. Anders asked where property accesses would be located, specifically if tenants would drive past the Morningstar school. Chris responded that access was located on 11th, unless a tenant was visiting someone to the east they would have little reason to travel that way. Wendy asked if the developers had any data from other communities where Campus Crest has done business that demonstrates increased availability of affordable housing in the community. Tracy commented that a request had been sent for this information but that she had not received anything to date. Mary commented that she did not feel as though it was in the scope of this board’s work to weigh in on zoning related requests. She further commented that she was skeptical of the claim that these additional units would result in lower rents in the community, as owners still have mortgages to pay. Until vacancy rates are far higher, this will have little impact. Anders agreed that this might help a little, but that a zoning recommendation was outside of this board’s scope. Mary asked if the City has any plans to extend pedestrian access to the current R-4 lots. Chris replied that improvements are development driven, and there is not sufficient interest in these lots. Ann commented that she is supportive of the idea of adding units, but that the concern generated by the potential zoning change was already impacting home sales in the adjoining neighborhood, where buyers had the expectation that the land would be R-1. Chris clarified that the adjoin land was R-2, which allows for duplexes. SharlaRae commented that there is a vast difference between a duplex and R-4. She, too expressed concern for existing property owners and questioned how this may impact property values. Chris replied that he had consulted with an appraiser (who wished to remain anonymous given the contentious nature of the issue). It was this appraiser’s opinion that the quality of adjoining development was generally more important than its actual presence. Brian asked if the developer was requesting support of the concept of adding student housing near campus to create affordable opportunity in the community, or support for this specific development. Chris said that he would like support of the concept. Mary responded that even tto provide general support of a concept she would need data. Carson commented that the commission does not need general support of a concept, the commission’s interest lies in the narrow support of a specific project. He asked the board to not weigh in on issues outside of their scope, and to keep recommendations as specific as possible. Mary agreed that this board should only provide input on affordable housing, which we do not have adequate data to comment on with regards to this project. Anders agreed that this board need not comment on the basic concept of supply and demand, and should stay focused on affordability. Brian asked if there was a way to support the concept without making any comment on this specific project. Carson reiterated his request to be specific and narrow in our recommendations, and stay away from recommendations that did not fall under our purview. Ann asked if we could make a second request for data from Campus Crest that demonstrated a direct impact on housing affordability. She agreed that if that data was not available, the board did not need to make a general statement supporting the addition of new housing units. Anders commented that this board does not need to make any recommendation. Brian asked if the commission needed to hear from the CAHAB. Carson replied that the commission needs to hear from the CAHAB when we have material data regarding the affordable housing merits of a specific project, not broad comments on supply and demand. If student housing has an impact on the general affordable housing market, he would want to see a precise calculation of that impact before hearing a recommendation. Ann moved to request information from Campus Crest regarding the impact of their previous developments on affordable housing in those communities. Anders provided the second. The motion carried unanimously. Chris asked if information was made available before the zoning request went before the Commission if the board would have a special meeting to weigh in. The board declined this request and agreed to provide further recommendations at the next regularly scheduled meeting after the information was received. Non-action items Subcommittees and informal meetings Tracy reviewed the guidelines for subcommittees, informal meetings and e-mails discussions. Subcommittees are allowed to meet as needed and do not have to provide public notice, as their work will be heard by the full board in a publicly noticed forum. The subcommittee can consist of 2-4 members, as long as a quorum (five for this board) is not present. Anders expressed interest in creating a “Small Homes” subcommittee consisting of Anders, Melvin, and Kyle. She reminded the subcommittee that emails and other correspondence related to the subcommittee still fall under the city’s public information guidelines. She then addressed email in general, clarifying that it’s fine to point out a link or other item of interest via email to the group, however; the City does not allow for discussion of items, as email, while public information, is not a forum where the public can actively participate in discussion. Tracy commented that some of these items are covered in the City’s Rules of Procedure, which she’ll address during FYI. Tracy asked the group to prepare for an April discussion of the City’s Workforce Housing Ordinance. She will begin sending the group background information for all board members relating to workforce housing, inclusionary zoning, and related topics in an effort to get all board members to a base level of understanding of how the Bozeman ordinance and ordinances in other communities work. She will attempt to cover both the “for” and “against” points of view to help prepare members for discussion. She asked the board members to share information as well, the more everyone can prepare, the better our discussion will be. Anders asked Tracy to compile a list of 10 or so questions that the board be able to consider. Carson agreed, and said that the first question should be a review of why we are discussing the issue. He also asked for a definition of terms. Anders commented that he would like to see the board seeking out ideas. To that end, he suggested that board members take time each month to “ask an expert” – it can be anyone, a builder, developer, housing provider, and doesn’t necessarily need to be someone in Bozeman, just anyone that can help us to learn more. FYI/Discussion Tracy informed the board that she had been approached regarding utility costs at Norton, which were higher than average. As the CAHAB had expressed concern regarding this issue, she wanted them to know. She spoke with Kevin Spencer regarding the costs; he felt that the home in question was not representative in their usage patterns, and said that Norton was preparing information to demonstrate that their overall utility bills were comparable to similar homes. That information was not available at meeting time. Tracy let the board know that all board liaisons have received a copy of the City’s proposed Rules of Procedure (Bylaws), which she will have prepared for the CAHAB’s review for the March meeting. Mary expressed concern about the term bylaws, which represent a legal definition, however; Wendy stated that this was the language the City attorney had requested that all boards use. The City is asking all boards to adopt the Rules of Procedure (Bylaws) to create consistency among the City’s numerous boards. The CAHAB discussed that the March meeting falls over spring break, and discussed moving it, ultimately settling on keeping the meeting as scheduled. The next meeting will be held on March 12, 2014 at 8:00 am in the City Commission room. Adjourn – Meeting was adjourned at 9:15 am, motion by Mary Martin.