Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-27 Housing PACKET Ashland Housing Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: February 27, 2006 6:30 - 8:30pm Community Development & Engineering Services Building 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR. 1. (6:30) Approval of Minutes (5 min) - January 9, 2006 2. (6:30) Public Forum (10 min) - items not on the agenda 3. (6:40) Reports and Updates (25 min) - Subcommittee Reports - Liaison Reports 4. (7:05) Other Business from Housing Commission Members (5 min) - New and miscellaneous commissioner discussion items not on the agenda 5. (7:10) New Business - Planning Ordinance Review and Discussion (1hr) - Annexation/Zone Change Criteria Discussion - Density Bonus Criteria Discussion - Condominium Conversion Criteria Discussion -Staff Presentation - Commissioner Discussion - Pre-application Review Process (10 min) - Summary of Pre-app review process (In the event there any pre-applications forwarded for consideration this item shall be extended to 30 Minutes and the proceeding items reduced accordingly) - CDBG application preliminary review (10 min) -Staff summary; Commissioner Clarification Questions to be forwarded to Applicants. 6. (8:20) Old Business none 7. (8:20) Commission Coordination (5 min) Medford Housing Commission: Meets the first Wednesday of every month from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. (February 1, 2006). City Hall Council Chambers - 3rd Floor, 411 West 8th St Medford, OR 97501 th, CDBG Presentations and recommendation to the City Council April 47:00pm 8. (8:25) March 20, 2006 Meeting Agenda Items (5 min) CDBG Applicant Presentations and Commission Recommendations 9. (8:30) Adjournment Public Participation Unless an Agenda Item already has been the subject of a public hearing which has been closed, members of the public may speak upon any item on the Agenda. If such a hearing has been held this fact will be noted on the printed agenda. The Public Forum period is provided for the public to speak on items that are not on the printed Agenda for tonight's meeting. The time allowed each speaker may be limited by the Housing Commission Chair or presiding officer. If you wish the speak either during Public Forum, or to a specific Agenda item, please complete the Speaker Request Form below, and hand the form to a staff person before the beginning of the meeting if possible, or before the agenda item is discussed. Speaker Request Form City of Ashland Housing Commission The following information is required for you to speak, if you need to be contacted, or if information on an agenda item needs to be sent to you. Printed name:___________________________________________________ Complete Street Address (No P.O. Boxes) ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Phone: ____________________________ Email: __________________________________ I Wish to Speak during the Public Forum section of the meeting on the following topic. I do understand that this subject is not on the printed Agenda for tonight's meeting. (please note time during Public Forum is limited to 5 minutes per speaker at the discretion of the Chair) I wish to speak about Agenda Item number ________, The subject of which is: ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES January 9, 2006 CALL TO ORDER - Chair Faye Weisler called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: Faye Weisler, Chair Matt Small, Vice Chair Alice Hardesty Carol Voisin Don Mackin Liz Peck Bill Street Absent Members: Jennifer Henderson Sunny Lindley, Student Liaison Council Liaison: Cate Hartzell, present Staff: Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist APPROVAL OF MINUTES th Minutes from the December 19 meeting were not provided PUBLIC FORUM No one came forth to speak at public forum UPDATES Subcommittee Reports Education Î Carol Voisin said they are set for the Employer Assisted Housing follow up meeting scheduled for January 13th from 3p.m. to 5 p.m. The invitations have gone out to participants at the EAH workshop and its anticipated it would be a small group discussion. Voisin also discussed a tour she, Alice Hardesty, Bill Street, and Brandon Goldman took an informative tour around Ashland looking at potential sites for affordable housing. Liaison Reports Council, Parks, Schools Î A group comprised of representatives from the Parks Commission, School Board and City Council met on th January 4, 2006, and Hardesty and Voisin attended. The topics discussed included playgrounds, playing fields, maintenance and possible contribution from the Parks Department and City, in addition to School portion, to maintain the grounds to a higher standard. Hardesty said the concept of co-ownership of the grounds was brought up during the meeting. She noted the next ÐtripartiteÑ meeting was th scheduled for January 19 at 7:00pm in the City Council chambers. Cate Hartzell suggested the Housing Commission draft a scenario, or several alternatives, for affordable housing for schools and stated she could request the group further examine ÐsurplusÑ property at each campus. Peck asked whether there are examples of other school districts that have developed housing. Hardesty cited the Save our Schools and Playgrounds Report and Harvard Report \[on Employer Assisted Housing\] as having examples of housing on school property. She noted that Goldman had sent the article on Santa BarbaraÓs teacher housing to the School Board. Faye Weisler questioned whether there was a consensus on the commission that it would be best to forward the concept of Ðhousing for teachersÑ, as opposed to affordable housing in general, to the School Board. Don Mackin asked if the School Board had expressed recognition of a problem in having their teachers find housing. Street and Hardesty expressed that members of the School Board have shown interest in exploring the issue. Hardesty elaborated that the district is preparing for a retirement bubble and as such is aware of the pending need. Hartzell suggested that we work to define a project, perhaps working with Diana Shavey or another expert to help define the constraints. She stated the a subcommittee of the Ðtripartite groupÑ which includes Ruth Alexander, Jim Lewis and herself is focused on housing and Housing Commissioner members could come speak to that group. She stated that providing input to the facility bonds committee could also be a means to raise the issue. She also suggested that the Housing Commission potentially have a Joint Study Session with the School Board. There was general consensus to have a joint study session. Goldman asked for clarification whether the Commission wanted to be on the regular agenda Hartzell recommended that the chair of the Housing Commission draft a letter to the chair of the School Board requesting a joint session. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 1 MINUTES January 9, 2006 Public Participation Unless an Agenda Item already has been the subject of a public hearing which has been closed, members of the public may speak upon any item on the Agenda. If such a hearing has been held this fact will be noted on the printed agenda. The Public Forum period is provided for the public to speak on items that are not on the printed Agenda for tonight's meeting. The time allowed each speaker may be limited by the Housing Commission Chair or presiding officer. If you wish the speak either during Public Forum, or to a specific Agenda item, please complete the Speaker Request Form below, and hand the form to a staff person before the beginning of the meeting if possible, or before the agenda item is discussed. Speaker Request Form City of Ashland Housing Commission The following information is required for you to speak, if you need to be contacted, or if information on an agenda item needs to be sent to you. Printed name:___________________________________________________ Complete Street Address (No P.O. Boxes) ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Phone: ____________________________ Email: __________________________________ I Wish to Speak during the Public Forum section of the meeting on the following topic. I do understand that this subject is not on the printed Agenda for tonight's meeting. (please note time during Public Forum is limited to 5 minutes per speaker at the discretion of the Chair) I wish to speak about Agenda Item number ________, The subject of which is: Î no report (Peck is liaison) Planning Conservation Î Weisler questioned what the conservation density bonus is. Goldman briefly explained the proposed Density Bonus provisions for conservation measures and noted the proposed measures \[Earth Advantage\] had had first reading before the Council and is to go before Council for second reading. Hartzell further explained the program and the incentives. Peck expressed that the increase in density may allow more second homes as investments and that any increases in density should highly promote affordability. Goldman noted that during the review of housing priorities by the Land Use subcommittee that forwarding changes to the Density Bonus provisions was designated as a Ðlow priorityÑ. He further noted that the whole commission was to review the goals and priorities further down on the agenda. Hartzell recommended that Weisler , Liaison to the Conservation Commission to collaborate with them on the conservation density program. Hardesty noted that the idea of combining conservation and housing within the density bonus provisions had not come up before which may explain the low-priority designation from the subcommittee, but they may be more effective combined. th Hartzell noted than on January 29 the Council will undertake visioning and long term goal setting to establish fewer goals. She thought that it was a good time for commissioners to contact other Councilors to raise housing as an issue for the Councilors to consider it in their thinking . OTHER BUSINESS Hardesty stated that she wants the Commission to look again at the requirements for zone changes and annexations. Goldman clarified what those requirements currently are. Hardesty questioned whether the Commission could place the item on the next , or subsequent agenda. Weisler suggested the issue be on the next agenda. NEW BUSINESS Ashland Community Land Trust Î Handyman Proposal Goldman explained the staff memo and assessment of the Ashland Community Land Trust proposal. Goldman clarified that the memo should be corrected to note the Food Bank component still needs to complete a Planning Application for administrative approval. He explained that the proposal is conceptual and would need further refinement but at first glance the rents would need to be adjusted to be affordable to extremely low income. Tom Bradley, Ashland Community Land Trust Board, stated that the proposal at this point is conceptual and that ACLT was bringing the proposal to the Housing Commission to get some initial feedback to help evaluate the idea, collaborate, and restructure the proposal to take to the City Council. At this point the analysis and synopsis was kept simple to catalyze discussion. He noted that Alan DeBoer (property owner) has indicate a willingness to sell the property at below market value. Matt Small noted he thought it was a great idea and he really liked the concept to create a center for non profits. Further Small recognized the generosity of Alan DeBoer in providing the property at below market cost. He commented that the conceptual rents are nearly market rate, and theyÓd need to be lower. He also questioned the eligibility for CDBG funds. Goldman noted the use is eligible, as is the applicant (ACLT) , but sound attenuation would likely be required due to the environmental review given the proximity of the railroad and Highway 66 (Ashland Street). Hardesty expressed the Bradley interjected the imputed monthly rent was calculated as a division of units into cost per unit, however this was misleading and likely premature as a careful consideration of the unit sizes and the assessment of need has not been done. He elaborated that this is a first screening and that getting into rent numbers would come later. Peck saw the proposal as a noble effort and believed that affordable housing could not be located next to railroad tracks. Goldman clarified that it is difficult to apply federal funds such as HOME and CDBG given the noise impacts, but that privately funded, or local funding would not have those restrictions. Bradley stated that ACLT was not planning to apply for CDBG funds but was rather believed it was something the City could support without federal fund involvement. Peck questioned whether the location itself was accessible to the clients of the social service providers. Small noted that the bike path, and bus line does go to the property and thus its very accessible. Hartzell echoed that the property was accessible and that although issues will come up at any location, this site has some advantageous being commercially zoned. Bradley explained that Pathways, a non-profit, had expressed interest in the site, He also noted that he had not yet spoken with Interfaith Care Community of Ashland, but the zoning is appropriate for the use and that he is hearing that transitional may be preferable to affordable. Hardesty saw it as a good idea but not a one she felt comfortable to recommend the project due to the fact that the use of CDBG was unlikely, and she was opposed to the use of Strawberry Lane money on the property. Bradley stated that his goal is to see if the idea is worthy enough to flush out the details, he sees that its an opportunity where someone is willing to sell the property below market, there is ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 2 MINUTES January 9, 2006 a need in Ashland for transitional and affordable housing, and that this proposal is a potential solution. Again the analysis to date has been on what the site is capable of providing. With support from the Housing Commission ACLT can further refine the proposal and engage in further discussion. He noted again that federal funding is not part of the proposal and that there is an income stream to support operations from financially viable tenants on the first floor. Hartzell questioned the interest in Pathways Mackin stated that it seemed if the project could not survive without subsidy in some form, and he questioned whether there were other sources, aside from HUD. He felt it would not be a recommendation to use all of Strawberry funds to buy it, but rather as a source to leverage. Mackin said ÐThe misconception is that it may be unrealistic to say the City is going to pay $650,000 to buy it, thatÓs putting all the eggs in one basketÑ, elaborating that the assumption that weÓve operated on is that the Strawberry property is being held to fund affordable housing. He stated the commission had not discussed bankrolling a whole project. He said there are a lot of potential to be discussed and if we could find a source of subsidy it would be great for the City to provide leverage. Bradley stated that the input was helpful and that he had a clearer sense of what will and wonÓt work for the Commission. OLD BUSINESS Action Plan and Housing Commission Goals Goldman distributed the outlined goals and priorities and explained the references within the tables. He noted that it was unfeasible to address all the identified priorities in any given year, and thus a refinement of the priorities would help the Commission articulate at the th Council presentation scheduled for January 17 which items were intended to be the focus for the coming year. Goldman went through each item listed individually to further describe their intent and status. He responded to clarification questions from Commissioners. Hartzell advised that the Commission shows Council the entire list of goals and not necessarily focus on the prioritization. Street questioned whether it would be good to list the top four priorities from each subcommittee. Hardesty felt the lists were too detailed and would not work as materials to present to Council as formatted. Hartzell agreed that it could be simplified but that their was value in seeing all the items. Weisler noted that the additional detail columns. Goldman asked whether the Commission wanted the priorities listed in their presentation to Council. Weisler spoke to the fluid nature of revisiting items as opportunities arise. Hartzell recognized that the dynamic nature of affordable housing and the preparation provided by the full list allows the Commission to move on opportunities. Street said that looking at 30+ goals he expected a question from Council of what are the top priorities. He stated that the top three might be land acquisition, establish the housing trust fund and educating the community about the seriousness of the situation. Peck noted that putting units on the ground was part of that short list. Hartzell explained that protection of vulnerable property acquisition should also be combined with acquisition to ensure such opportunities are not lost. Housing Commission Update to Council Presentation Goldman stated that he was prepared to present the distributed power-point that defined affordable housing. Street recommended that the definitions include Ðfamily housingÑ. Goldman explained the charts and tables within the materials. The powerpoint also touched on projects completed and projects pending. Additionally the presentation showed examples of built units to show that the perception of affordable housing is not necessarily what it ultimately looks like. The Commission coordinated on how they will present individually. Weisler recommended individuals from each subcommittee present on behalf the sub groups. Hardesty encouraged Goldman to explain each chart or graph, but just show the photos quickly. Members of the Commission indicated who would present. Hartzell said there was a value in having each commissioner come forward to allow the Council and audience to see each person. Street stated that each commissioner represents different neighborhoods and communities and as such its better if all are present. Weisler stated that after GoldmanÓs brief presentation she would summarize the goals, and then a representative from each subcommittee would speak to the Council about the subcommittee work. Regarding the presentation on the Housing Commission request to be involved in Planning Review functions, it was stated that Bill Street and Jennifer Henderson would present on behalf of the Commission on that topic. ADJOURNMENT Î The meeting was adjourned at 8:50pm. Minutes Respectfully submitted by Brandon Goldman, Housing Program Specialist ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 3 MINUTES January 9, 2006 Memo TO: Housing Commission Title: Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to Affordable Housing Date: February 27, 2006 Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Housing Program Specialist The Housing Commission will be more directly involved with current planning actions through the review of pre-applications for projects that contain affordable housing components. Having a thorough understanding of the current code requirements is vital to providing feedback to applicants at the pre-application hearings. Additionally as the Housing Commission endeavors to propose modifications to existing ordinances to promote the development of affordable housing the existing codes function as a good starting point to examine what changes will manifest the desired outcomes. In a summarized format, below are specific sections of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) that pertain to affordable housing requirements. Depending on a particular application other sections of ALUO would likely be applicable such as those provisions addressing such things as Site Review standards, subdivisions criteria, transportation, tree preservation and compliance with density and environmental constraints protection requirements. Only those sections specifically requiring some percentage of affordable units are included in this summery Preface on State law In Chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, the Legislative Assembly creates a series of statutes to address the development of needed housing in urban growth areas. Cities must detail the need for housing, including the need for lower, middle, and fixed income housing. The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan should also consider higher density residential development and financial incentives for such development. Cities have the authority to implement ÒvoluntaryÓ financial activities to increase the supply affordable housing. The statute also requires local governments to use only clear and objective criteria to judge development proposals. Within this Chapter of the Oregon Revised Statutes, section 197.309 specifically prohibits cities and counties from Ð enacting mandatory regulations which assign a certain percentage of housing units in new residential developments to be sold or rented to lower or moderate income households at an affordable rate.Ñ This law is commonly referred to as the Ðstate pre-emption on inclusionary zoning.Ñ Although inclusionary zoning is a tool utilized in many states throughout the country to require a percentage of new housing units to be ÐaffordableÑ, it is not a tool that can be implemented in Oregon cities or counties without legislative changes (elimination of 197.309). As a result of this existing law, only voluntary inclusionary housing provisions can legally be implemented. Given this restriction incentives that encourage developers to provide a certain percentage of units at prices affordable to low income households is the primary means to achieve the development of affordable housing. Incentives frequently used include density bonuses, financial subsidies, city-paid development fees, options to produce inclusionary units off-site, relaxed development standards, delayed or city-paid system development charges, donations of land or money, and property tax abatement. Annexations Approval of annexation requests currently provides the City with the most substantive regulatory means of achieving the development of affordable housing units. As a subject property would currently be located outside the City Limits, but within the urban growth boundary, an annexation request is processed to receive City approval to extend the City Limits, and city services, to include the property. This expansion of the City Limits is a legislative action requiring City Council approval. Further the annexation requirements (18.106.030HF) stipulate that residential annexation applications demonstrate that there is less than a 5 year supply of land zoned appropriately within the City Limits. This provision is intended to ensure an orderly development of the City in an effort to utilize existing infrastructure (streets, sewer, water etc) efficiently. It is understood that the act of applying for an annexation is a voluntary request on behalf of the property owner to allow the development of the property to the City standards, as opposed to the existing county zone. Although municipalities can be more assertive in annexing property into the CityÓs jurisdiction, Ashland has historically relied upon property developers to proposed annexations. As such proposals are ÐvoluntarilyÑ in nature it has been opined that applying affordability requirements is not in violation of Oregon Revised Statue. Currently the City of Ashland is the only City within the state that has enacted such annexation requirements establishing a percentage of afforble units targeted to different income levels as outlined below (18.106.030). SECTION 18.106.030 Approval Standards. An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria: F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90% of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35%, shall not be included. G. For all annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay): 1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below '100% of median income; or 3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project. The total number of affordable units described in this section G shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent. H. One or more of the following standards are met: 1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. "Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five- year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or 2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request; or 3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or 4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or 5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and accepted by the City of Ashland; or 6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. (ORD 2792, 1997) Condominium Conversions In an effort to encourage the retention of existing rentals the Ashland Land Use Ordinance established a disincentive to converting existing apartments into condominiums. Currently such conversions are a "Conditional Use" and require that 25% of the units converted be sold as "affordable" to households earning less than 130% of area median income, and those units shall be affordable for 20 years. These requirements had in the past provided a financial disincentive to such ÐcondominimizingÑ, and conversely the ordinance provided an opportunity to create ownership opportunities to AshlandÓs workforce (130% median). In the current market the cost of providing an affordable unit, and associated building and survey costs, may not function to preserve rental housing stock as is evidenced by increasing numbers of condominium conversions. However these conversions continue to provide the least expensive market rate ownership units within the city, and at least 25% of these units are regulated as affordable. As described under inclusionary zoning above this ordinance enacts mandatory regulations which assign a certain percentage of housing units in new residential developments to be sold or rented to lower or moderate income households at an affordable rate. This provsion in the ordinance was established in 1991, prior to the statewide pre-emption on inclusionary zoning (ORS 197.309 est. 1997) In the event it was legally permissible to alter the ordinance without violating ORS 197.309, The R2 and R3 zoning ordinances could be modified to either preclude such conversions or allow them only in cases where a percentage of units are secured as affordable in the long term (60years) to households earning less than 80% median income and/or establish requirements that displaced households are provided with relocation benefits by the developer. Currently the unintended potential exists to create Ðtown-homesÑ out of some existing apartments (when the ground underneath the unit is included in the proposed unit of ownership) and the Ðcondominium conversionÑ rules would not apply to the platting of town-homes through outline and final plan approval. This potentially eliminates the conditional use procedures for Ðcondominium conversionsÑ and thus the requirement for affordability. This oversight could be addressed by modifying 18.24.030J and 18.28.030I to further define condominium conversions: Ð the conversion of existing multifamily rental units into units that can be sold individually, such as condominiums, row houses, town-homes, or single family detached residences.Ñ Again this raises the legal question as to whether a change in this grandfathered ordinance would require compliance with 197.309, or whether an applicant requesting a Ðconditional useÑ is a voluntary undertaking as opposed to a permitted type of development. The following Language is contained with the R-2 and R-3 zoning ordinance to address conversion of existing apartments into condominiums: 18.24.030J 18.28.030I Condominium conversion of existing rental units subject to a Type I procedure and demonstration that at least 25% of the residential units are affordable for moderate income persons in accord to the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in said resolution. Current residents of rental units proposed for conversion to condominiums shall have first right of refusal to purchase the unit. (Ord. 2624 S3, 1991) Zone Changes The Zone Change criteria relating to affordable housing are identical to the stipulations within the annexation ordininance. Additionally the issues raised regarding the legality of assigning affordability requirements to what is in effect a voluntary request to increase residential density (above the base density established for the propertyÓs existing zoning) is consistent with that of the annexation opinion. A property owner could develop their property at the density it is currently zoned at. The City, through establishment of criteria for a zone change, provides path by which that density could be increased if established targets of affordability are met. In any zone change application the primary issues involve the compatibility of the project within the established neighborhood and whether the change serves a public need. Within the ALUO one of the standards specifically states that Ð The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan...Ñ(18.108.0601a). It is important to note that although Ðprovision of affordable housingÑ may be a public need, this section stipulates that providing such is not in of itself necessary for a zone change if it can be demonstrated the change in zone implements a public need (ie Library, Fire Station, Hospital etc) otherwise supported in the Comprehensive Plan. However when the change in zone results in the creation of residential units section 18.108.060(1)(d)(1-5) establishes the standard of affordability that must be met to allow for the proposed zone change. As legislative decisions of the Ashland City Council, both annexations and zone changes are two of the most complex types of planning actions (Type III) and the burden of proof is the responsibility of the applicant to show that the need exists, and that the criteria of approval are met. Ultimately if these mechanisms are to be used more aggressively to promote the development of affordable housing it may be advisable to establish a Ðprescriptive pathÑ to enable applicants to more effectively address the need for affordable housing, while simultaneously reducing their risk of denial. The vulnerability of these types of actions to neighborhood Ðnot-in- my-backyardÑ concerns functions as a deterent to such proposals. Establishing that a project meeting established parameters satisfies the Ðpublic needÑ criteria in solely through to provision of affordable housing, would decrease the vulnerability of a project and therefore encourage such projects to be considered by the development community. 180108.060 Standards for Type III Planning Actions. 1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes subject to the Type III procedure as described in subsection A of this section may be approved if in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the application demonstrates that: a. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan; or b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances; or c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; or d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide one of the following: 1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 100% of median income; or 3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the aroa or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project; or e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment or industrial zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City of Ashland's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide one of the following: 1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 100% of median income; or 3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for dedication. Ownership of the land and/or air space shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project. The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Sections ÒdÓ and ÒeÓ do not apply to council initiated actions. Commercial and Employment Zones including Residential Within these zones there exists a limitation on the amount of residential that can be included in a proposed project. The intention is to ensure the development of job producing commercial buildings that support AshlandÓs economic development. Additionally within these zones is a provision that for developments that include ten or more residential units at least 10% of the units shall be affordable. This requirement pre-dates the state pre-emption on inclusionary zoning. 18.32.025 C1-and C-1-D zones D. Residential uses. 1. At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential. 2. Residential densities shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1 District, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-D District. 3. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the underlying C-1 or C-1-D District. 4. Off-street parking shall not be required for residential uses in the C-1-D District. 5. If the number of residential units exceeds 10, then at least 10% of the residential units shall be affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units required to be affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit. 18.40.030E E-1 zone E. Residential uses. 1. At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential. 2. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. 3. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the E-1 District. 4. Residential uses shall only be located in those areas indicated as R-Overlay within the E-1 District, and shown on the official zoning map. 5. If the number of residential units exceeds 10, then at least 10% of the residential units shall be affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units required to be affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit. Density Bonuses A density bonus is a provision to allow a builder or developer to exceed the established base density in a given zone under certain conditions. In Ashland, density bonuses are permissible for added conservation measures, excess open-space or recreational amenities, and for providing a certain percentage of affordable units in a given development. In terms of promoting the development of affordable housing this tool, as currently employed, may have limited potential as a voluntary bonus. In simplistic terms as it costs more to develop an affordable unit than it can be sold for, therefore there is no financial incentive to increase the density of a project at a loss given the current bonus only allows 1% additional density for every 1% of affordable units. Under the current ordinance the actual density can be increased only to accommodate the affordable units themselves (1 for 1). Although it was originally intended to be an incentive based tool, unless it was amended to provide an additional percentage of market rate units in exchange for a percentage of affordable units it will not likey be utilized in todayÓs market except in support of projects that are specifically catered to low income or senior housing. Potential Modifications provided for discussion only: Increase Density Bonus opportunities for affordable housing development Means: Modify various chapters (R1, R2, R3, E1, and Commercial zones with residential overlays) to establish formulas for awarding a density bonus commensurate with the level of affordability provided. Example 1% density increase for each % of units targeted to households between 80-100% area median (25% maximum increase) 1-1.5% density increase for each % of units targeted to households between 60-80% area median (35% maximum increase) 1.5 -2.5% density increase for each % of units targeted to households less than 60% area median or that are donated to a Community Land Trust (50% maximum increase) Additionally the density increases could be also be limited a maximum increase to the next higher density zoning district, for example from 13.5 units per acre in R2, to a 20 units per acre density in R3. Preliminary Review of 2006 Proposals Hearing Scheduled for March 20, 2006 Ashland Housing Commission Packet February 27, 2006 Housing in the NEWS Ashland Housing Commission Packet