The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes_HOUAB_10.20.2010Housing Advisory Board Minutes, October 20, 2010 Page 1 of 2 City of Georgetown Housing Advisory Board Minutes October 20, at 3:30 p.m. New Planning Conference Room —Georgetown Municipal Complex 300‐1 Industrial Ave., Georgetown, Texas 78626 Members present: Tim Todd; Chair, Dollene Thompson; Secretary, Lalena Parkhurst, Patsy Williams, Morris Greenberg, Arnold Tijerina, Gary A. Leissner Members absent: Betty Craig, Kyle Fisher(New Member) Staff present: Jennifer Bills, Housing Coordinator; Avery Craft, Recording Secretary This is a regular meeting of the Housing Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown. The Board, appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, makes recommendations to the City Council on affordable housing matters. Regular Session ‐ To begin no earlier than 3:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 3:34 by Dollene Thompson. Agenda 1. Welcome new Board members. New members Arnold Tijerina and Gary A. Leissner introduce themselves. New member Fisher is absent. 2. Consideration and possible action to approve minutes from the September 15, 2010 meeting. Motion to approve the September 15, 2010 minutes by Greenberg. Second by Thompson. Approved 7‐0 (Fisher and Craig absent). 3. Discussion about the direction from City Council given during the workshop presentation on September 28, 2010. Todd provides basic history of the Housing Advisory Board for new members. Todd states that the Housing Advisory Board was formed as the outgrowth of a task force that was formed in 2004. The task force suggested the following to City Council:  Hire a Housing Coordinator (Jennifer Bills)  Form the Housing Advisory Board  Create the Housing Element which is part of the 2030 Plan for the City of Georgetown (Long Range Planning) Housing Advisory Board Minutes, October 20, 2010 Page 2 of 2 City Council allowed the Housing Advisory Board to hire a consultant to come up with recommendations; completed in 2008. There were 15 recommendations that resulted from the Housing Element study. Todd states that the Housing Advisory Board has been struggling to put the Housing Element in place, as City Council consistently wants the Board to come up with additional information and ideas. Todd believes that if the Board focuses on the following four items that were presented to City Council, it will give Board a good starting point: “High Priority (One to five years) 1) Treat affordable housing as a major policy issue in Georgetown. Each January when the City is establishing its overall policy and programmatic goals for the coming year, the City and its appointed Housing Advisory Board should review affordable housing achievements from the prior year and establish new goals for the year ahead. The City may wish to define specific point‐in‐time benchmarks against which performance in implementing the Housing Element’s recommendations can be judged. The Housing Advisory Board in conjunction with the City’s Housing Coordinator should prepare an annual report of accomplishments. One very important task that should be added to the Housing Coordinator’s to‐do list involves updating the calculation of the City’s affordable housing deficit. Using the methodology described in Part 10, the City should update its affordable housing deficit when 2010 census data is made available. In particular, HUD data on cost‐burdened households is needed to perform this calculation. Unfortunately, this information is generated by HUD only once every ten years. Given the magnitude of growth and change in Georgetown during the past decade, it can reasonably be assumed that there will be significant changes in the factors that influence affordable housing demand. The City’s affordable housing deficit is by nature a fluid phenomenon and efforts should be undertaken to monitor the production of affordable housing on an annual basis. This calculation will be made easier by including affordable housing production in the annual report of accomplishments. 2) Waive all municipal impact fees and development fees for housing units affordable to 80% of the area median income and below. Waiving impact fees and development fees is the sole method the City has at its disposal to finance affordable housing. These costs represent a significant portion of the development budget for an affordable housing initiative. As a matter of policy, the City should continue this practice for all projects that involve the creation of affordable housing as defined in the Housing Element of the City’s Housing Advisory Board Minutes, October 20, 2010 Page 3 of 2 Comprehensive Plan. The waiver of municipal impact fees and development fees is not an issue that should be debated on a project‐by‐project basis. Affordable housing developers should be able to rely on this support from the City when they prepare their financing plans. 3) Increase the amount of land zoned specifically for multi‐family housing development. One of the public policies that affect the development of affordable housing is zoning. If the City wishes to put a meaningful dent in the affordable rental housing deficit identified in Part 10, additional housing units affordable to residents below 80% of median household income will need to be constructed. In order for units to be constructed, the proposed development must be consistent with the City’s zoning ordinance. A quick glance at the City’s zoning district map reflects few undeveloped land areas designated specifically for multi‐family housing development. A deeper investigation of the ordinance reveals provisions for medium and high density residential units as a component of mixed use developments, which, to its credit, the City encourages. Expanding the supply of affordable housing means accepting the need for a higher level of residential density. There are two ways for the City to expand the quantity of land zoned for medium and high density residential development. The indirect approach is to encourage developers to seek rezoning, variances and other forms of relief from the zoning district regulations. However, these actions typically require public hearings. Neighboring property owners are often fearful that higher density development patterns will lead to lower property values. It is not uncommon for neighboring residents to organize vocal opposition to site‐specific development proposals that involve higher density living arrangements. Most developers prefer to avoid the time, expense and potential humiliation of a public hearing and will not actively pursue higher density projects. Relying on developers to rezone the City is not an effective method of expanding the supply of land zoned specifically for multi‐family development. A more direct and proactive method of expanding the amount of land zoned for higher density residential development would entail an internal evaluation of the zoning ordinance. The City’s planning staff should be asked to identify additional land areas that would be suitable for higher density residential development and prepare a report to City Council. This self‐evaluation serves as the foundation for future amendments to the City’s zoning regulations and zoning map. Once land is rezoned, developers proposing medium and high density residential development should understand that their proposals will be Housing Advisory Board Minutes, October 20, 2010 Page 4 of 2 reviewed more favorably if they provide a certain percentage of affordable units in the overall unit mix. Mixed use projects represent a beneficial addition to the City and as such, the City should be commended for encouraging this type of development. However, the City should recognize that it is very difficult for an affordable housing developer to incorporate commercial space in their developments due to the nature of the financing mechanisms typically used to create affordable housing. It is impractical to think that providing for medium and high density residential development in mixed use zoning classifications, in and of itself, will significantly expand the supply of affordable housing in the City. 4) Treat nonprofit and for‐profit affordable housing developers as a special class of developer. Whenever a development proposal is presented to City officials that involves an affordable housing component, it should be identified as such and treated with special care and attention. The City’s housing coordinator should be assigned as an internal advocate to shepherd the project through the land use approval process. The City’s review process for projects involving affordable housing should be streamlined in a way that results in a fast track towards approval and permitting. The City’s planning staff should be asked to identify an abbreviated critical path for such projects to move through the approval process. Reducing the time period required to obtain local land use approvals will significantly enhance the feasibility of these special projects. Certain developers of affordable housing may not be oriented to the rigors of the approval process. The City’s internal advocate will not only speed the process, but make it more understandable and user friendly to non‐traditional developers who may be confused and overwhelmed by the complexity of the process.” Bills states that it the next time the Housing Advisory Board will present for City Council will most likely depend on the census numbers coming out early 2011. Todd suggests that the Housing Advisory Board be provided data at the next Board meeting to help formulate response to City Council pertaining to the four “High Priority” items. 4. Discussion and possible action on future meeting dates. Todd states that the Housing Advisory Board is only required to meet three times per year but has been meeting almost every month this year. Todd suggests Board meeting on November 17th, 2010 but not in December. 5. Adjournment Motion to adjourn by Dollene. Second by Greenberg. Approved 7‐0 (Craig and Fisher absent) Housing Advisory Board Minutes, October 20, 2010 Page 5 of 2 Adjourned at 4:36 pm. __________________________________ _______________________________________ Approved, Tim Todd, Chair Attest, Dollene Thompson, Secretary