Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-15 -CAHAB DRAFT minutesMinutes July 8, 2015, 8:00 am – 9:30 am 2nd Floor Conference Room, Stiff Building, 20 E. Olive Mr. LaMeres Calls to Order – 2nd Floor Conference Room – Stiff Building Attendance: Brian LaMeres, Wendy Thomas - staff, Kevin Thane, Anders Lewendal, Melvin Howe, Mary Martin Mr. LaMeres asks if there are any changes to the agenda. Mr. Lewendal motions for Approval of Minutes, May 13, 2015 Mr. Thane seconds the motion. Mr. Thane moved to make changes to minutes – Chris was not present, so all board members were not present and at 8:52 on May’s minutes he suggested they change where he discussed the UDC update regarding inclusionary zoning wording. Unanimously accepted with the changes. Public Comment – please limit your comments to 3 minutes or less. George Thompson spoke and said that the City should consider reducing lot size and park land dedication. A large piece of the cost of building is for the land and having people swallow the cost of parkland and larger lots for smaller homes creates unnecessary costs. Mr. Thompson provided documents to the Board discussing monthly costs associated with land. He suggested reviewing financial constraints placed on home owners based on house sizes. Mr. LaMeres closed public comment. Action Items – Mr. LaMeres moved the conversation from public comment to the motions. Ms. Thomas said that the below items were just proposed incentives. She briefly went over a power point presentation reviewing items brought before the commission previously on June 15th, high lighting that proposed incentives assist with offsets, financial aspects and expedited timing. She addressed that there is a need to hold the affordable housing for qualified individuals and that to achieve some of these goals, there needs to be an update to the UDC to amend lot definition, parking requirements, etc. The proposed motion was: Affordable Housing Incentives A) I move to approve all of the incentives outlined in the Incentive Table for ownership housing meeting the needs of households with 70% AMI B) I move to approve the following incentives for ownership housing meeting the needs of households with 80% AMI: Down Payment Assistance, simultaneous infrastructure construction and waiver of subdivision pre-application. C) I move to approve the following incentives for ownership housing meeting the needs of households with 90% AMI: utilization of the innovative housing ordinance, 1+1 building permit expedited processing and subdivision exemption for cottage or townhouse developments. Mr. Lewendal suggested that the board discuss each line item of the proposal and make recommendations instead of focusing on which income tier they apply to. Ms. Thomas said that the commission does not have it on their agenda to set a policy into place until September14th, but timeliness in finalizing a proposal to take to the commission is important to be able to have other boards make recommendations prior to the City Commission meeting. Mr. Lewendal made a motion for the City Commission to adopt all of the July 1st affordable housing incentives. Ms. Martin seconds Mr. LaMeres asks if they would like to discuss them all now. Mr. Lewendal said that it would be best to discuss each line item in the proposal making changes where needed, and then vote on it. Mr. Lewendal starts the discussion on impact fees. Mr. Thane wondered how the funding would work. He felt that instead of focusing on income percentages, we should apply funding on a first come first served basis. For the benefit of builders, it would also be beneficial to have individuals prequalified, so they are not building these homes and no one is applying. Mr. Lewendal said that who qualifies would be very detailed in the end. We don’t need to discuss now who qualifies, but instead should focus on whether the plan will work. It is up to the planners to detail who is qualified for the impact fee funding. He felt that they should accept the impact fees as worded to cover 70% and 80% because if stretched to 90% AMI, it would cut into the funding significantly. Mr. Thane wants to know if a builder can build a home that fits into the 80% AMI? Mr. Lewendal said that as a builder he can use the subsidies to get down to the 80% - he said builders build to demand, if there are people there who need these homes, they will build them. The incentives will help them satisfy those needs. Ms. Martin also pointed out, that this money would be recycled – with regards to Mr. Thane asking if it was first come first served. It is not a finite resource. Mr. Lewendal made a motion to accept the language in the impact fees section as is. Mr. Thane Seconds the motion. The board began discussing the fees portion of the proposal. Mr. Howe wanted to know how many affordable housing units would be approved with the incentives they were discussing. Ms. Thomas advised him that there would be a goal based on a percentage of building permits. Based on prior year permit applications, the goal would be 54 housing units. The commission recommended phasing the project in, with only about ¼ of those homes in the first 9 months; reaching 100% over a 2 year span. Mr. Howe wanted to know if these plans would produce those 54 units. The board agreed that until the plan is put into place, there is no way of knowing for sure. Mr. LaMeres advised the board that the things outlined in the proposal will do what inclusionary zoning could do, without actually creating that zoning. Mr. Lewendal added that we need to focus on providing housing for all three tiers, not just the 70% based on a percentage of total homes built in a year. The board votes on the impact fee portion and accepts it unanimously. Mr. Thane moves to accept the down payment assistance portion of the proposal as it is, for the sake of discussion. Offering $10,000 in down payment assistance for 70% and below and 80% and below. Mr. Lewendal seconds. Mr. Thane adds that maybe we should add “70% and below” so that builders don’t feel as though they have to stay at 70%. Mr. Lewendal said that if the funding is there, then he thinks that it should be left as is. Mr. LaMeres said that there’s $240,000 available. Mr. Thane said we should set it up on a first come first served basis for the down payment portion. Mr. LaMeres explains different options with the available funds. For example set aside $60,000 for impact fees. Individuals some get their share of that and when it’s gone, it’s gone. Then set aside a chunk for down payment assistance. Ms. Thomas highlighted that some funding will be local and some federal. Instead of focusing on dollar amounts and where money will be coming from, The Board should instead focus on the incentives and whether they will work or not. Mr. Thane said he wanted to stick to money for a moment longer and asked Ms. Martin of HRDC if they run out of down payment funds even for qualified buyers? Or are there enough pots available to provide funding for all qualified families. Ms. Martin said that yes, occasionally funding is not available. It really depends on how many qualified buyers are coming in, and how much money is available. However, currently, Bozeman does not have enough qualifying homes. Ms. Martin said that more than funding, Bozeman needs the incentives to get more homes that could qualify for the program. Currently there is funding that is not available in Bozeman because of home prices. Mr. Lewendal said that it’s a long term goal. We need to prove to the community that it can work so that they are willing to fund it. The Board unanimously approves the down payment assistance portion of the incentives as it is written, after the discussion. Mr. Lewendal motioned waiver of the subdivision pre-application process. Mr. Thane seconds the motion. Mr. Lewendal felt that we should apply the waiver of the pre application process should also apply to the 100% and 90% tier as well. Ms. Thomas said that the proposal states that with mixed income housing, for all subdivisions that meet the required minimum number of affordable housing, the city would waive the requirement for a pre application. Mr. Thane requested more information about the pre-application and what its purpose is. Can we just waive it in general? Ms. Thomas explains the benefits of a pre application process – largely that at the time of application, they have an application that will move through easily. She said that the planning department would continue to work with the builders to have complete applications without the pre application process – and they still have the ability to go through the process if they prefer, but they have the option to waive it for simple subdivisions that meet the minimum Affordable Housing requirements. Mr. Thane questions why we do the pre-application process at all, if it is avoidable. Ms. Thomas mentioned that it is a part of the Montana state code and therefore it is used in Bozeman. However, they have the ability as a local government to amend it as they see fit. She expresses that “time is money” and by cutting out this step for builders, it saves them money in the building process. Mr. Lewendal explains the benefits of the pre-application process for a complicated development, but feels that it would be beneficial to make it optional for all projects in an effort to make the system as effective as possible. If we know our project will pass without complications, why do it at all? Ms. Thomas states that if that were the case, then it would no longer be an incentive. There is a unanimous vote by the board to accept the incentive to skip the pre-application process when meeting the minimum number of Affordable Housing Units in a subdivision. Board begins discussing the reduction of park land dedication. Mr. Thane asks Ms. Thomas to discuss what is currently in place and to detail what the proposed incentives would allow for. Ms. Thomas says that currently it is required to provide .03 acres of dedicated parkland per residential unit. This would be reduced by one sq foot for each square foot allocated to affordable housing. One lot of 5,000 sq ft would reduce required parkland in a subdivision by 5,000 sq foot. Mr. Lewendal moves to adopt the parkland portion of the incentives as written. Mr. Howe seconds. Mr. Lewendal suggests that instead of parkland, buyers should give money to the city based on the price of the home, for the city to purchase and design parks. He feels this would create more connectivity and better quality parks. In addition, it would keep builders from doing the minimum to meet the requirements. He said he’s in favor of approving it, but doesn’t believe this will do much. It’s only at the 70% tier, which will be hard for builders to hit, so he feels they should approve it and put it out there, even if The Commission is going to cut it – but there are other alternatives to consider. Mr. Thane thinks they should change it to encompass the 80% tier as well as the 70% tier to be more effective. Mr. Lewendal thinks that adding it to 80% tier would be more effective than just at 70%, but ultimately we need to look at how we do parks, in general. Mr. Thane thinks that we should still move it to the 80%, but that the commission should further explore other alternatives for how they dedicate parkland in the community. Ms. Thomas mentions that the park land allocation is usually done at the subdivision level, so using home size or sale price may not be effective. Parkland is dedicated at the subdivision level, but no one may know exactly what size home or the cost of the home going onto a particular piece of land. In addition, it puts restrictions on the homeowner when they want to amend their home, because the plat determines what square footage is allowed on a specific property. Mr. Thane moves to amend the original motion so that it encompasses the 80% tier. Mr. Lewendal seconds the motion. Ms. Martin wants to know why The Board is trying for this if they’ve already determined it’s not going to be too effective. Smaller lot size, in her opinion builds a demand for more parkland. Mr. Lewendal argues it will be more effective at a high tier, but not at the 70% tier – he just doesn’t see builders doing that much at the 70% level, but added to 80% it could be more effective – no harm in keeping it in. Mr. Howe requested clarification about whether this applies to the subdivision or to single units. Ms. Thomas says that park land can be allocated during subdivision or with a site plan. Mr. Thane asked what happens if the developer specifies a 4-plex, but builds an apartment complex. What happens for the discrepancy in park land in that situation? Ms. Thomas said that they can either pay cash-in-lieu, or they can dedicate more space, on undeveloped properties within the subdivision. Mr. Lewendal moves to amend to approve the reduction in park land and to encompass the 80% tier as well as the 70% tier. Mr. Thane seconds. The board unanimously approves. Mr. LaMeres makes the motions for the reduction of parkland for both 70 and 80% AMI Mr. Thane seconds. All vote in favor of reducing park land for both 70 and 80% AMI as incentive for Affordable Housing, except for Ms. Martin. The board chooses to stop the discussion there and to pick it back up at their next meeting at 9:00AM on July 23rd. Non-Action Items Mapping information available on City Webpage - Ms. Thomas lets The Board members know where they can go online to see recently submitted applications or properties that were recently acted on. Suggested items for upcoming agendas FYI/Discussion Mr. LaMeres Adjourns the meeting Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board meetings are open to all members of the public.  If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).