The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-06-19 Housing PACKET Ashland Housing Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: June 19, 2006 6:30 - 8:30pm Community Development & Engineering Services Building 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR. 1. (6:30) Approval of Minutes (5 min) 2. (6:35) Public Forum (5 min) items not on the agenda 3. (6:40) Other Business from Housing Commission Members (10 min) Discussion regarding a Housing Project Task Force Î Cate Hartzell (5min) Ballot Measure Regarding RETF - Bill Street (5 min) 4. (6:50) New Business Pre-application Reviews (40 min) RVCDC Park Street Project (20 min) Park Street Condominium Conversion (20 min) Lithia Lot Proposal (30 min) Kendrick/Access Inc. 5. (8:00) Reports and Updates (min total) Subcommittee Reports (20 min) Education (5 min) Land Use (5 min) Finance (5 min) Liaison Reports (5 min) 6. (8:20) Commission Coordination Joint Planning and Housing Study Session th June 27 7:00-9:00 (Condominium Conversion) City Council: June 20, 2006 (SDC Deferral Program) th July 18 (Potentially Lithia Lot Review) 7. (8:25) July 17, 2006 Meeting Agenda Items (5 min) 8. (8:30) Adjournment ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 15, 2006 CALL TO ORDER Î Chair Faye Weisler called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building. Commissioners Present SOU Liaison Faye Weisler, Chair Sunny Lindley, absent Bill Street Jennifer Henderson Council Liaison Carol Voisin Cate Hartzell, arrived at 7:00 p.m. Aaron Benjamin Commissioners Absent Alice Hardesty Staff Present Don Mackin Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist Liz Peck Sue Yates, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Street made a correction to the minutes of the April 17, 2006 meeting. Under ÐNew BusinessÑ amend the first sentence to read: ÐGoldman explained to the Commissioners that they are to look at the Condominium Conversion Ordinance and forward any recommended changes to the Planning Commission.Ñ Voisin/Street m/s to approve the amended minutes. The minutes were approved as amended. PUBLIC FORUM RON DEMELE, RVCDC, handed out a flyer that has been distributed to all the schools advertising affordable homeownership with RVCDC. He gave an update on the Siskiyou and Faith project. As with any project, there are always ups and downs, but overall the construction is progressing well. The project should be completed in the fall. Six more units are proposed for property located on Park and Siskiyou and RVCDC is moving ahead with that. OTHER BUSINESS FROM HOUSING COMMISSION MEMBERS Street announced that Melissa Mitchell Hooge, who has worked on Save Our Schools and Playgrounds (SOSP), is receiving this yearÓs Ragland Volunteer of the Year Award prior to the City Council meeting on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at the Council Chambers. He encouraged the Commissioners to attend. OLD BUSINESS Community Development Block Grants - Commission will discuss this item when they have a quorum. NEW BUSINESS Election of Chair and Vice Chair Ï Weisler opened the floor for nominations. She said that Hardesty, though not in attendance, said she would be happy to serve as Vice Chair. Voisin nominated Weisler for Chair and Hardesty for Vice Chair. Street seconded the motion and everyone voted favorably for the slate of officers. REPORTS AND UPDATES Subcommittee Reports Education Î Street reported theWorkforce Housing Forum was attended by 35 to 40 people. They received good feedback from several participants. They are coming up with a list of 50 things we can do. Street is hopeful these kinds of events will trigger forward progress. Hartzell arrived at 7:00 p.m. Weisler welcomed Aaron Benjamin to his return on the Housing Commission. Benjamin expressed his delight at returning. Land Use Î Goldman said the committee talked about condo conversions and land acquisitions. Condominium Conversions - They are waiting for legal opinions from the City Attorney for how to proceed. The committee also talked about the potential of doing a tenant protection resolution establishing things like an eviction period. Hartzell said that is an alternative in case they get blocked trying to change the condo conversion ordinance. Land Acquisition Î Goldman reported they are having Diane Paulson working more aggressively on the next property on the list of potential properties to purchase. Housing Trust Fund Î Hartzell believes it is important to get this going. There is no money to buy the Clay Street property. The money comes initially from the Open Space Fund, but the Housing Commission has to reimburse that fund upon purchase of the property. The only money floating around right now is potential sale and use of the proceeds for the Strawberry Lane property. SheÓd hoped that when we got this influx of money from Strawberry Lane they could somehow finance the purchase of property in such a way that it would be similar to a revolving loan fund. Goldman said the memo to the Budget Committee did state that $111,000 (plus) from the Strawberry Lane funds would be used to buy the property on the Clay Street Park in order to do five affordable housing units. ThatÓs not to say that the $100,000 that goes into that property could not be recaptured by selling that property to a non-profit thatÓs doing affordable housing. Hartzell said she was thinking of the housing trust fund as an endowment. Hartzell said the idea of an entertainment tax has come up. She thinks there is a relationship between OSF and what is happening with housing. Goldman said the Finance Committee had talked about the potential taxes that are available to the City. A consultant could look at the complete array of funding sources to determine what proceeds could be collected ($10,000 was requested in the Community Development budget this year for consulting services for housing). Finance Ï Weisler said she would like to look at the Housing Trust Fund handbook again to see how feasible it is to start working on the platform. Liaison Reports Î Street met informally with the AmaroticoÓs regarding various lands that the City owns that might be used for affordable housing. In particular, they discussed using some of the land at the golf course for affordable housing. The Amaroticos were receptive and positive about the idea and willing to look into it further. Their interest is in green affordable housing. Street also met with Don Robertson, Parks Director and Mayor John Morrison. They were interested in the idea, but very cautious about the process and felt it should be a very open process as there would be considerable opposition from both golfers and residents. He urged the Commissioners to drive by and look at the property. Benjamin was interested in knowing if there is a subcommittee consisting of Housing Commissioners and Planning Commissioners on the golf course item. It would seem to be an appropriate forum to discuss these types of projects. Has consideration been given to workforce housing on the Brammo Motors project (Jefferson Street)? Is the Housing Commission aware of all the upcoming projects that might be considered affordable housing projects? An agenda item will be included for the next meeting to discuss what criteria the Housing Commission will follow when they review a pre application. The Commissioners will be noticed if there is a review scheduled, with the ad hoc review committee meeting only in the event an applicant could not come to the full commission. Messaging Training Update Goldman said there was training by Grassroots PR attended by Henderson, Hartzell and Goldman. They provided public relations training on how to talk about affordable housing. They described what kind of terminology is most effective in talking about affordable housing. The four statements they used were: 1) support of hard-working people, 2) children deserving opportunities, 3) people needing opportunities to better their lives and 4) people need a safe place, decent place to live. Henderson said she learned that when writing a letter to the editor, be sure to use a senatorÓs name in some way because the senatorÓs offices ÐGoogleÑ letters to the editor containing their senatorÓs name and they will read it. OLD BUSINESS Community Development Block Grants Henderson recused herself and left the room. Goldman said they have not received any comments during the 30 day comment period on the Action Plan. The Action Plan is unchanged from the last review by the Commission. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 2 MINUTES MAY 15, 2006 Voisin/Street m/s to approve the CDBG Action Plan. Voice Vote: The Action Plan was unanimously approved. Henderson re-joined the meeting at 7:55 p.m. COMMISSION COORDINATION th Oregon Senate Interim Revenue Committee meeting Ï They will meet at the Medford City Council Chambers on May 17 from 9-3 in order to take testimony from several valley housing agencies and individuals concerning the state of affordable housing in the Rogue Valley. Goldman said if the Commissioners speak, the issues of interest to the Senate Revenue Committee will be in the real estate transfer fee, document recording fee, lottery funds, kicker funds, and any state revenues. The Housing Alliance is asking for $100 million. Henderson suggested the Commissioners memorize the top four messages from Grassroots PR and use them if they are testifying before the Senate Revenue Committee. She will see where the Senators on the committee are from and let the Commissioners know. th SDC Program Changes to Council on June 6, 2006 th Goldman said the Legal Dept. has completed their review. They are prepared to go to the Council on June 6 for a review. Hartzell said it always makes a positive impression if the Commissioners are present. If members speak, even for a minute, she believes it is important to maintain some direct encouragement. Goldman sent a survey to all City employees concerning workforce housing. Of the 220 surveys sent out, 102 have been received. They also provided the hospital with a sample questionnaire to send out to all the hospital employees, however, it did not seem that well received. Hartzell is considering going to the hospital and handing out the surveys. th Fair Housing Workshop Î It will be held on June 26 and Weisler will attend. Hartzell suggested if those holding a meeting want better attendance, then meetings should not be held on Monday mornings. Goldman said they are working with Fair Housing to do four trainings next year. They will include: Housing Advocates, Real Estate, Tenants, and Builders and Planners. TH , 2006 MEETING AGENDA ITEMS JUNE 19 th Lithia Lot Presentation/Discussion Î Kendrick will be going to the Council possibly on July 18 with their final format. Condo Conversion Ordinance/Tenant Protection Resolution Discussion Î They will meet with the Legal Department and the Land Use Committee and then bring it back to the full Commission. Create a process for the pre application. Annexations Î The next step is to form an ad hoc committee of two members of the Housing Commission and two members of the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT Î The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 3 MINUTES MAY 15, 2006 NEW BUSINESS RVCDC Park Street Pre-application (6 units) Park Street Condominium Conversion (25 units) Lithia Lot Proposal Review Ashland Housing Commission Packet RVCDC Park Street Pre-application Ashland Housing Commission Packet June 19, 2006 716 Park Street Condominium Conversion Pre-application Ashland Housing Commission Packet June 19, 2006 U RBAN D EVELOPMENT S ERVICES, LLC 320 East Main Street, Suite 202 Ashland, Oregon 97520 June 13, 2006 City of Ashland Brandon Goldman Î Housing Officer 52 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: 719 Park Street Dear Brandon: th I write on behalf of our client, Park Street Apartments, LLC to request a position on the June 19 Housing Commission Meeting Agenda. The purpose of the request is to present the proposed th project to the Commission prior to submitting our application on July 7, 2006. As we discussed in our recent meeting the applicant is proposing to convert the existing 30 units into 30 condominium units. 8 of the units shall become Affordable units. All 30 units are 2 Bedroom with 2 Bathrooms so the 8 Affordable units will be that size as well. The applicants will propose to locate the 8 units in one location on the site. Based on discussions with the housing agencies, lenders appear to desire that units be in one location. The applicants feel that clustering the Affordable units may allow for greater flexibility in actually getting units filled versus the choice of spreading units throughout the buildings which is harder for the agencies to deal with financially. The project is dense and therefore the proximity of the Affordable units to the Market Rate units will be close and in some cases adjacent to each other so the clustering should not have a negative social result. The applicant is aware of the 120 day notice of conversion and will be sending this notice to tenants imminently and also plan to follow up with the State required 60 days first right of refusal for that tenant to purchase their respective unit. They will also commit to not displacing the tenants during this 60 day period even if their rental agreement would allow it. Additionally, following the meeting we had with you recently we are very clear about the Deed Restriction that must be recorded for each unit stating the period of affordability, this along with the CC&RÓs for the property will be recorded along with the final plat. Thank you for your consideration to be placed on the agenda. Regards, Sent by email Mark DiRienzo Managing Member Phone: 541-482-3334 Fax: 541-482-3336 The comments of this pre-app are preliminary in nature and subject to change based upon the submittal of additional or different information. The Planning Commission or City Council are the final decision making authority of the City, and are not bound by the comments made by the Staff as part of this pre-application. SITE: 719 Park Street ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE 39 1E 15AA 5200 APPLICANT: Bob Mayer & Steve COMMENT SHEET DATE: January 18, 2006 Lawrence REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to convert apartments into condominiums(Site Review if exterior changes or site changes proposed) ZONING: R-2, Low Density Multi-Family Residential LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS: 35% of site, size, and species specific landscaping & irrigation plan required at time of formal application. If existing landscaping has been subject to Ðdeferred maintenanceÑ landscape upgrades will be required. Avoid using lawn. Provide irrigation system. Include street trees, 1 per 30' of street frontage. Also include trees in parking area Î 1 tree per 7 parking spaces. PARKING, ACCESS, AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION: Multi-family developments with: Studio Units less the 500 sq. ft. Î 1 space per unit 1 bedroom units require Î 1.50 spaces per unit 2 bedroom units require Î 1.75 spaces per unit 3 bedroom units require Î 2.00 spaces per unit LOT COVERAGE: A maximum of 65% if the lot may be covered with impervious surface. SETBACKS: 20Ó for front yard, 6' for side yards (10Ó for side yards abutting a public street), 10' per story for rear yard -- plus applicable solar setback. STAFF COMMENTS: Public Hearing Î Some of the Planning Commissioners have expressed concern regarding the conversion of rental units to ownership units using the Conditional Use Permit process. As a result, the item will be scheduled for a public hearing. 719 Park St. 6/15/2006 Page 1 Affordable Units o Number of Units - 25% of the units are required to be affordable for moderate income persons in accordance with the City of Ashland Housing Program. Fractional numbers have been rounded up in past conversion applications, and as a result, Staff believes 8 units will be required by the planning commission. An agreement is required to be signed after approval and prior to the condominium survey identifying the affordable units. This agreement is recorded on the deed to the property. o By-Laws Î The condominium by laws are required to identify the affordable housing units in accordance with the City of Ashland program and note the current tenants shall have the first right of refusal. The by- laws are required to be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Division prior to signature of the condominium survey. o First Right of Refusal Î Current residents of rental units are required to have first right of refusal to purchase the unit. Documentation of offer to current residents to purchase condominiums shall be submitted with building permit submittals for interior work, and/or prior to signature of the condominium survey. o Housing Information Meeting Î Meet with Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist, 552.2076 for details on AshlandÓs Affordable Housing Program requirements prior to submission of application. o Housing Commission Pre-Application Review Î Prior to submission of application, submit preliminary materials to Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist, for review by the Housing Commission Review Board. Materials should include the affordable units by location and purchase price or rental cost (see Brandon Goldman for program limits). Building Code Requirements Î Meet with the Building Official prior to submission of application to review the most current code requirements for condominiums. o Accessible Parking Spaces - Note that the number and configuration of Handicap Parking spaces may have increased and require updating Î confirm with the Building Official. If this reduces the total number of spaces on site, this will interfere with meeting the land use requirements of 18.92. 53 off-street spaces are required for the development, and 53 719 Park St. 6/15/2006 Page 2 spaces appear to currently be in place. If spaces are taken away for van accessible isles and not replaced elsewhere on site, the site will become Ðnon-confirmingÑ and require a parking Variance. Utilities Î If a change in the public utility services is proposed, a utility plan needs to be created and reviewed with the Building, Engineering, Water, Sewer and Electric Divisions prior to submission of the application. Plan must include existing and proposed connections to systems, meter locations, utility easements and copies of maintenance agreements. Bike Parking Î In accordance with 18.92.040, 45 covered bike parking spaces are required ((1.5 sheltered space per 2-bedroom unit). The site is required to be brought into conformance with current requirements. The original approval mentioned two bike parking facilities with one being detailed on the site plan in the location of one of the current trash enclosures. o Bike Parking Location and Design - The bike parking must be located in accordance with 18.92.040.I, and racks and shelters designed in accordance with 18.92.040.J. (see below) 18.92.040.I. Bicycle Parking Design Standards 1. The salient concern is that bicycle parking be visible and convenient to cyclists and that it provides sufficient security from theft and damage. 2. Bicycle parking requirements can be met in any of the following ways: a. Providing a bicycle storage room, bicycle lockers, or racks inside the building. b. Providing bicycle lockers or racks in an accessory parking structure, underneath an awning or marquee, or outside the main building. c. Providing bicycle racks on the public right of way. This must be approved by City of Ashland Public Works Department. d. Providing secure storage space inside the building. 3. All required exterior bicycle parking shall be located on site within 50 feet of well-used entrances and not farther from the entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking space. Bicycle parking shall have direct access to both the public right-of-way and to the main entrance of the principal use. For facilities with multiple buildings, building entrances or parking lots (such as a college), exterior bicycle parking shall be located in areas of greatest use and convenience for bicyclists. 719 Park St. 6/15/2006 Page 3 4. Required bicycle parking spaces located out of doors shall be visible enough to provide security. Lighting shall be provided in a bicycle parking area so that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent walkways or motor vehicle parking lots during all hours of use. Bicycle parking shall be at least as well lit as automobile parking. 5. An aisle for bicycle maneuvering shall be provided and maintained between each row of bicycle parking. Bicycle parking shall be designed in accord with the illustrations used for the implementation of this chapter. 6. Each required bicycle parking space shall be accessible without moving another bicycle. 7. Areas set aside for required bicycle parking shall be clearly marked and reserved for bicycle parking only. 8. Parking spaces configured as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter meet all requirements of this chapter and is the preferred design. Commercial bike lockers are acceptable according to manufacturer's specifications. A bicycle parking space located inside of a building for employee bike parking shall be a minimum of six feet long by 3 feet wide by 4 feet high, unless adequate room is provided to allow configuration as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter. 9. Sheltered parking shall mean protected from all precipitation and must include the minimum protection coverages shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. 10. Bicycle parking shall be located to minimize the possibility of accidental damage to either bicycles or racks. Where needed, barriers shall be installed. 11. Bicycle parking shall not impede or create a hazard to pedestrians. They shall not be located so as to violate vision clearance standards. Bicycle parking facilities should be harmonious with their environment both in color and design. Facilities should be incorporated whenever possible into building design or street furniture. 18.92.040.J. Bicycle Parking Rack Standards. 1. All required bicycle parking racks installed shall meet the individual rack specifications shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. Single and multiple rack installations shall conform with the minimum clearance standards shown in the figures at the end of this chapter. Alternatives to the above standard may be approved after review by the Bicycle Commission and approval by the Staff Advisor. Alternatives shall conform with all other 719 Park St. 6/15/2006 Page 4 applicable standards of this section. Bicycle parking racks or lockers shall be anchored securely. 2. The intent of this Subsection is to ensure that required bicycle racks are designed so that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience and will be reasonably safeguarded from intentional or accidental damage. a. Bicycle racks shall hold bicycles securely by means of the frame. The frame shall be supported so that the bicycle cannot be pushed or fall to one side in a manner that will damage the wheels. b. Bicycle racks shall accommodate: i. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a high- security U-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists removes the front wheel; and ii. Locking the frame and one wheel to the rack with a high- security U-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists leaves both wheels on the bicycle; and iii. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a chain or cable not longer than 6 feet without removal of the front wheel. c. Paving and Surfacing. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced in the same manner as the automobile parking area or with a minimum of two inch thickness of hard surfacing (i.e., asphalt, concrete, pavers, or similar material) and shall be relatively level. This surface will be maintained in a smooth, durable, and well-drained condition. Building or Site Modifications Î Any changes to the exterior of the buildings, additions or new structures, or changes to the site layout and landscaping requires a modification of the previous Site Review approval. If any of these changes are proposed, the plan requirements of 18.72.060 must be addressed as well as the written findings addressing the approval criteria of 18.72.070. (see below) Finally, an additional fee is required of $832 + $57 per unit. o Landscaping Î Existing landscaping on site appears to be mature and well cared for. If there are any changes proposed, the application will need to include a landscape plan in accordance with 18.72.060 below. The area which appears to need replanting is the area around one of the trash enclosures. 18.72.060 Plan Requirements for Site Review 719 Park St. 6/15/2006 Page 5 The following submittals shall be required in order to determine the project's compliance with this Chapter: A site plan containing the following: A. Project name. B. Vicinity map. C. Scale (the scale shall be at least one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet or larger.) D. North arrow. E. Date. F. Street names and locations of all existing and proposed streets within or on the boundary of the proposed development. G. Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines. H. Zoning designations of the proposed development. I. Zoning designations adjacent to the proposed development. J. Location and use of all proposed and existing buildings, fences and structures within the proposed development. Indicate which buildings are to remain and which are to be removed. K. Location and size of all public utilities in and adjacent to the proposed development with the locations shown of: 1. Water lines and meter sizes. 2. Sewers, manholes and cleanouts. 3. Storm drainage and catch basins. 4. Opportunity-to-recycle site and solid waste receptacle, including proposed screening. L. The proposed location of: 1. Connection to the City water system. 2. Connection to the City sewer system. 3. Connection to the City electric utility system. 4. The proposed method of drainage of the site. M. Location of drainage ways or public utility easements in and adjacent to the proposed development. N. Location, size and use of all contemplated and existing public areas within the proposed development. O. All fire hydrants proposed to be located near the site and all fire hydrants proposed to be located within the site. P. A topographic map of the site at a contour interval of at least five (5) feet. Q. Location of all parking areas and all parking spaces, ingress and egress on the site, and on-site circulation. R. Use designations for all areas not covered by building. S. Locations of all existing natural features including, but not limited to, any existing trees of a caliber greater than six inches diameter at breast height, except in forested areas, and any natural 719 Park St. 6/15/2006 Page 6 drainage ways or creeks existing on the site, and any outcroppings of rocks, boulders, etc. Indicate any contemplated modifications to a natural feature. T. A landscape plan showing the location, type and variety, size and any other pertinent features of the proposed landscaping and plantings. At time of installation, such plans shall include a layout of irrigation facilities and ensure the plantings will continue to grow. U. The elevations and locations of all proposed signs for the development. V. Exterior elevations of all buildings to be proposed on the site. Such plans shall indicate the material, color, texture, shape and other design features of the building, including all mechanical devices. Elevations shall be submitted drawn to scale of one inch equals ten feet or greater. W. A written summary showing the following: 1. For commercial and industrial developments: a. The square footage contained in the area proposed to be developed. b. The percentage of the lot covered by structures. c. The percentage of the lot covered by other impervious surfaces. d. The total number of parking spaces. e. The total square footage of all landscaped areas. 2. For residential developments: a. The total square footage in the development. b. The number of dwelling units in the development (include the units by the number of bedrooms in each unit, e.g., ten one-bedroom, 25 two-bedroom, etc). c. Percentage of lot coverage by: i. Structures. ii. Streets and roads. iii. Recreation areas. iv. Landscaping. v. Parking areas. 3. For all developments, the following shall also be required: The method and type of energy proposed to be used for heating, cooling and lighting of the building, and the approximate annual amount of energy used per each source and the methods used to make the approximation. 18.72.070 Approval Criteria for Site Review The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: 719 Park St. 6/15/2006 Page 7 A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right- of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) ****************************************************************************** BUILDING DEPT: See attached comments. Obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. Contact Mike Broomfield of the Building Division for further information - 552.2073. ENGINEERING: No comments. Contact Karl Johnson of the Engineering Division for further information - 552.2415. ENERGY CONSERVATION: No comments. Contact Robbin Pearce of Conservation Services for further information - 552.2062. FIRE DEPARTMENT: See attached comments. Contact Margueritte Hickman of the Fire Department for further information - 552.2229. STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION: No comments. Contact Karl Johnson of the Engineering Division for further information - 552.2415. WATER AND SEWER SERVICE: See attached comments. Contact Mike Morrison of the Water Quality Division for further information - 552.2326. STORM WATER DRAINAGE: No comments. Contact Karl Johnson of the Engineering Division for further information - 552.2415. ELECTRIC SERVICE: See attached comments. Contact the Electric Department for further information Î 488.5357. CODE COMPLIANCE: See attached comments. Contact Adam Hanks for further information Î 552.2046. 719 Park St. 6/15/2006 Page 8 ****************************************************************************** Application Process: Type I Î Administrative Decision Application Materials (2) Copies of Plans as required for Site Review in 18.104.040. A. The plan or drawing accompanying the application shall include the following information: 1. Vicinity map. 2. North arrow. 3. Depiction and names of all streets abutting the subject property. 4. Depiction of the subject property, including the dimensions of all lot lines. 5. Location and use of all buildings existing and proposed on the subject property and schematic architectural elevations of all proposed structures. 6. Location of all parking areas, parking spaces, and ingress, egress and traffic circulation for the subject property. 7. Schematic landscaping plan showing area and type of landscaping proposed. 8. A topographic map of the site showing contour intervals of five feet or less. 9. Approximate location of all existing natural features in areas which are planned to be disturbed, including, but not limited to, all existing trees of greater than six inch dbh, any natural drainage ways, ponds or wetlands, and any substantial outcroppings of rocks or boulders. (2) copies of the site plan, landscaping plan and elevations on 8.5" x 11". Note: The 8.5" x 11" copies are used for the notices mailed to neighbors. Please submit clear, reproducible copies. (2) copies of written findings addressing the following criteria from Chapter 18.104 for a Conditional Use Permit: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of 719 Park St. 6/15/2006 Page 9 the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. (2) copies of written findings addressing the following criteria from Chapter 18.72 for Site Review Approval: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. NOTE: The following Site Design and Use Standards must be addressed in the written findings: Multi-Family Residential Standards, pp15-16 Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards, pp27-28 D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) 719 Park St. 6/15/2006 Page 10 NEXT APPLICATION DEADLINE: February 10, 2006 at 3:00 P.M. NOTICES MAILED: February 22, 2006 PLANNING COMMISION MEETING: March 14, 2006 FEES: $832.00 Note: If a Site Review request is included, and additional $2,542.00 in application fee is required to be added to the $832.00 for a Conditional Use Permit. ________________________________ ___________________________ Maria Harris, Senior Planner Date 552.2045, harrism@ashland.or.us NOTE: Applications are accepted on a first come-first serve basis. The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed. Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) and property owner(s), all required materials and full payment. Additional or incomplete applications will be processed the following month. 719 Park St. 6/15/2006 Page 11 Lithia Lot Proposal Kendrick Enterprises ACCESS Inc. Ashland Housing Commission Packet June 19, 2006 Housing Commission Memo Title: Lithia Lot Development, Kendrick Enterprises Negotiations Dept: Planning Department Date: June 19, 2006 Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Housing Program Specialist Lithia Lot Development The City of Ashland and Kendrick Enterprises have been working on the development proposal for the Lithia Way City owned parking lot since selection of Kendrick Enterprises as the preferred offeror on August 30th 2005. Kendrick Enterprises was selected as the lead proponent out of four proposals received by the City Council in response to an RFP issued in February 2005. City Staff was directed to negotiate with Kendrick Enterprises to address numerous issues raised by the Housing Commission and City Council and return to Council with a more solidified proposal for consideration. Excerpt from the Minutes of the August 30, 2005 Council special meeting: Councilor Jackson/Amarotico m/s to accept Kendrick as the lead proponent on this project and direct Staff to work with them to refine the proposal with respect to the parking issue, the rental adjustment , the idea of commercial return on the air rights and that there be discussion about an appropriate size for the units. Voice Vote: Councilor Chapman, Hardesty, Jackson, Hartzell, Silbiger and Amarotico, YES. Motion passed. Through the negotiation process a greater understanding of the project finances was obtained through a revised project pro-forma, an opinion of value on the subject property, and an analysis of the potential grant funding available. Ashland Community Land Trust, one of the original partners in the Kendrick Enterprise proposal, determined that their organization was not in the position to undertake this project at this time and therefore ACCESS Inc. became the principal partner regarding the affordable housing component. Throughout the investigation and negotiation process it became evident that should the project go forward as originally envisioned, a considerable shortfall of funding would exist. Without an identified source for the shortfall (approx $250,000- $400,000) it appeared that the project as originally designed to provide affordable would not be financially viable without additional subsidy beyond that which already anticipated through State affordable housing grants (HOME). In aiming to close this potential funding gap, Kendrick Enterprises and ACCESS Inc. have suggested that the project could be modified in a number of ways to assist in closing the financing gap: 1) Increase the number of residential units from 10 (originally proposed) to 13, of which three would be sold as market rate units. 2) Reduce the unit sizes to 1 Bedroom and Studio Units (reduce per square foot construction costs and allow for the added density) 3) Shift the a portion of the allocation of common areas and parking costs from the affordable housing component to the commercial development costs as well as a proportional allocation to the for market residential units. 4) Extend the lease period for the commercial component from 40 years as proposed to 60 years. It is likely that to be effective a combination of the items listed above would be necessary to make the affordable housing component financially viable. Through negotiations with Kendrick Enterprises the City has identified a number of substantive issues that remain as points of consideration: The number and type of residential units provided The allocation of parking to the various uses and the public The period of affordability The Bureau of Labor and Industries determination of a public work The commercial components reversion period Maintenance responsibility for the parking level Responsibility for relocation of existing utilities (water, sewer, electric) currently located on site Number and type of Units One of the primary issues discussed by the Housing Commission and the City Council in reviewing the original proposal. It was stated at that time that it was preferred that all units be targeted to low income households earning less than 60% the Area Median Income (AMI). The original concept, to provide some units at very low income, some at low income , and some at moderate income was revised through the negotiation process to establish that all affordable units would be exclusively for households earning 60%AMI or less. This was agreed upon by Kendrick Enterprises and ACCESS Inc. and is part of the project as proposed at this time. In examining the funding shortfall ACCESS and Kendrick Enterprises proposed the inclusion of some market rate units to assist in closing the financing gap. As the goal was to provide at least 10 affordable units the negotiation team determined that the only way to add additional units would be to provide small units (less than 500sq.ft.). Staff determined that as units of less than 500 sq.ft. are considered .75 of a unit in Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), for thirteen studio units would be calculated at a density of 9.75 and therefore conform to the maximum zoning density. The Housing Commission and City Council had deliberated at length on the issue of unit size and as such this reduction in unit size is a substantive change in the original proposal. The original proposal identified a range of unit sizes including studios, 1bedroom and 2bedroom units. As the proposal has changes to be exclusively studios this remains a point for further consideration. The size of the units (being less than 500 sq.ft. each) will not likely be attractive to families with children and will instead predominately serve single individuals and couples. Although this type of housing may be attractive to service sector workers within the downtown it is a shift in the potential demographic served by the proposal. In the modified proposal, for 10 affordable units and three market rate units, the proceeds from the sale of the market rate units would directly benefit the affordable housing component. The financing gap previously mentioned previously would be effectively closed by the contribution of 100% of the proceeds from the sale of market rate condominiums, and the contribution from Kendrick Enterprises including architectural fees, developer overhead and developer profit. The addition of for-market units into the proposal simultaneously reduces the pro-rata share of the common area and parking for the affordable housing component as a proportional percentage of each would be attributable to the market rate units. A mixed income development also has additional advantages as it would eliminate the potential stigma associated with Ðlow-incomeÑ housing development. Both the market and ÐaffordableÑ units would have identical floor areas there would be no external distinction between them. In order to obtain a maximum sale price for any for-purchase units it would be advisable to locate them on the top floor to add the value of the viewscape to the units. Units offered for sale would be condominiums distinct from the rest of the facility and would not revert to City ownership at any time in the future. Further Kendrick Enterprises has raised the prospect of developing these three units as tourist accommodations to make the units most marketable. The reduction in size of units was also proposed to reduce the per-unit cost to thereby help close the funding gap and to make the development more competitive for HOME funds. The Housing Commission had originally seen value in providing larger units (one and two bedrooms) but through this investigative process it appears the cost of development of such units, while maintaining the high quality design proposed in the Kendrick Project, would increase the per-unit cost above the maximum typically funded through the State HOME program. Ultimately the increased density achieved by providing smaller units, from 10 to 13 actual units, raises the question of whether the three additional units would best serve the community as market rate units or subsidized affordable units. Obviously the monetary value of the market rate units is precisely their contribution to the remaining ten affordable units. However, if the City saw a greater community value in retaining these units as affordable the city could essentially cover the cost of their development ($776,651) and additionally provide the $273,349 in anticipated proceeds from their sale (combined $1,050,000). Parking Parking was also identified by the Housing Commission and City Council as an area of the proposal that needed further clarification. According to the identified principal funding source for the affordable housing units (Oregon Housing and Community Services Îcompetitive HOME awards) the lack of designated parking would raise concerns about the marketability of the affordable units. In discussing the issue with OHCS representatives, although they can not provide an affirmative minimum number of parking spaces needed from their perspective, the suggestion of four designated parking spaces reserved exclusively for affordable housing was well received. Additionally any market rate units would necessitate one reserved parking space per unit to allow these units to be marketable. The potential result of the inclusion of reserved affordable housing parking (4 spaces) and reserved market rate housing spaces (3 spaces) would leave a remainder of 9 spaces within the subsurface parking lot available to the public. The proposed parking level would contain a total of 16 parking spaces including a handicap accessible space. Under the proposal seven would be reserved and not available to the public. The existing parking lot has 13 public spaces and no handicap accessible space, thus if the project goes forward as indicated above, a net four space reduction of on-site Ðpublic parkingÑ would result from the dedication of reserved parking as proposed. It is important to note however that the reconfiguration of the entrance onto Lithia Way would allow for one-additional on-street public parking space in addition to those provided on-site within the subsurface structure. Cumulatively there exists 13 public parking spaces today and the proposal would increase the total parking provided to 17 with 7 of those spaces being unavailable to the public at large. Question was raised whether providing a gate, for limited hours of public parking, was desirable. The concept being that in order to provide the housing component with dedicated overnight parking the lot could theoretically be private in its entirety (gated) from 8:00 pm to 7:00 am. This has implications for public parking in the late evening (theatre, restaurants, movies) but could potentially balance the desire for residential parking with potential impacts upon the availability of on-street parking in the vicinity. In the event OHCS sees no additional need for private housing parking, the incentive to provide a gated/timed lot may be eliminated. However this potential is one that the City Council, as property owners, could evaluate in conjunction with ACCESS Inc.Ós application for State funding. Lease Duration Affordable Housing We have learned through the negotiation process that the affordable housing component having a limited lease period of 40 years would make it less competitive for grant funds. Grantors, including the State of Oregon HOME Program, aim to provide subsidy to projects that provide affordable housing for the longest period attainable. Thus ACCESS Inc has requested any lease with the City be for a period of not less than 60 years. The intention of a reversionary period was to allow the City to re-evaluate the future use of the affordable housing component and apply its use to the most pressing need at that future date (senior, disabled, people with AIDs, homeless or other target population). As the City recognizes the need for affordable housing will likely persist it seems reasonable to extend a lease period to a minimum of 60 years or longer in order to support the provision of affordable housing for that duration while increasing the competitiveness of an application for affordable housing grants. ACCESS Inc. has also indicated that a purchase of air-rights by ACCESS Inc. ($1) would secure permanent affordability and may resolve issues outlined under the Bureau of Labor and Industries section below. Bureau of Labor and Industries Through negotiations the City and Kendrick Enterprises, ACCESS Inc raised the issue of whether the project will be regulated as a public works project by the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI). BOLI requires Ðpublic worksÑ projects to pay prevailing wages during construction. In the event the City maintains an interest in the affordable housing component of the project (reversion at a set time, or design control) it is reasonable to assume that this portion will be subject to BOLI wage scales adding considerable development costs. It is clear that the parking level, being public parking, is a public work. The commercial portion reverting to City ownership is also likely a public works project and subject to BOLI wage scales. If the City essentially provides ACCESS Inc with ownership of the affordable housing component there may be a cost savings in its construction. Should the City consider transfer of the air-rights to ACCESS Inc. the City could establish a provision of ÒsaleÓ that required perpetual affordability for this component or reversion to the City. As part of the BOLI determination of whether a project is a public work the City can not have control over design. This does not mean that the project is exempt from Historic Design Standards and Planning Site Review requirements rather that the design team does not take explicit direction from the City, nor requires City review prior to submission for planning approval. ACCESS Inc. has requested that any lease or purchase agreement clearly articulate the limits of City oversight so they may make a BOLI Determination request. Commercial Component In Kendrick Enterprises original proposal the commercial space would be leased out to businesses by the developer and at the conclusion of a 40 year period would revert to the City in its entirety. During the 40 year period the proceeds from the commercial space would go to the developer to pay for the commercial units construction and provide the profit incentive to undertake the project. Through the process of refining the project financial pro-forma and factoring in the increase in construction costs and interest rates Kendrick Enterprises has requested the City consider an extension of this commercial lease-hold period to 60 years. The obvious public benefits of any reversionary period is that at the conclusion of the leasehold period the City would own the entire facility and could lease, or sale, the commercial space and at that time utilize the proceeds to create or rehabilitate affordable housing units on site or elsewhere in the City. In consideration of a request to extend the originally proposed period from 40-60 years the City must consider the loss of the future revenue stream against the developer incentive and compensation for undertaking the project and maintaining it through the lease hold period. From the time that the original proposal was received (Feb 2005) the anticipated construction costs have increased considerably (approximately 10% annually) and they are likely to increase further by the time funding is available for the affordable housing component (construction is slated to begin in 2008) Given the value of a dollar today is considerably high than of a dollar in the distant future it is reasonable of the developer to request an extension of this lease-hold period. Specifically the proposal being made at a time when interest rates were at an all time low had a measurable impact upon the lease period needed to recapture the private investment. As interest rates continue to rise these projected periods are consequently extended to compensate for the additional carrying costs. Further in assessing the opportunity cost of completing a like project elsewhere without a reversionary clause the City should consider the risk/return ratio (opportunity cost) faced by the commercial component with this restriction. This lease-hold period should be evaluated by the City Council to allow the City and Kendrick Enterprises to draft a mutually agreeable lease. Facility Maintenance The development of a single project with multiple interests is a complicating factor when attempting to determine the responsibility of maintenance of common facilities. Maintenance includes both the long term upkeep and repair of the physical structures as well as the regular maintenance associated with cleaning and deterioration. Three main components fall into this category of common facilities and they include the parking lot, the common areas between the buildings, and the elevator. The use of the common areas and the elevator primarily benefit the commercial and residential components and do not functionally benefit the public (as does the parking), there for it is the City negotiation team contention that the maintenance of these facilities should not be a city responsibility. The division of maintenance costs between the commercial component and the housing component(s) (note market rate units would need a pro-rata share) should be outlined and acceptable to Access Inc. but is not a city concern. The maintenance of the parking lot however is a more complicated component. The use of the parking lot by all parties, either reserved or public, provides a direct interest to each. The commercial component, even without reserved spaces, benefits from the on-site parking which would translate to a higher per square foot lease value than comparable downtown businesses without such an amenity. In the event 4 spaces are reserved for the affordable housing these th spaces (1/4 of the spaces), as well as the remaining public spaces, directly benefit the residents of the affordable units. Any market rate units having dedicated parking would obviously have a direct interest in the maintenance of what would be their private property. Lastly the City itself having 9 or more public spaces would have a interest in seeing those spaces maintained and the parking structure maintained in the long term. It would be possible to simply assign the responsibility (and corresponding costs) to one party but in the interest of equity it may be prudent to divide the maintenance and create a reserve fund through the Condominium bylaws to set funds aside for any substantive repairs (repaving, structural repair etc). In this scenario each entity would have a defined proportional share and the City would be required to contribute its pro-rata share to the reserve fund annually. Relating this issue to the lease-hold period outlined above, the city could also consider a longer lease-hold period in exchange for application of the maintenance responsibility to the Commercial component. Concerning the more regular upkeep of the parking lot the City could be in a position to regularly clean the facility although there is concern that the CityÓs scheduled upkeep may not satisfy the other parties. If this is the case this responsibility could be re-negotiated. Existing Utilities There exists an electric transformer in the southeast corner of the property that is within the proposed building footprint. Further, yet to be identified sewer lines may bisect the site as facilities installed to serve the buildings along East Main Street to connect to the Lithia Way sewer lines. The precise location and costs associated with relocation of these lines to accommodate a subsurface parking lot have not been identified and will likely not be known until excavation uncovers any such lines. The City Council and the developer need to determine to what degree each will be responsible for this contingency. The cost of relocating the above ground electrical transformer could be determined by the Ashland Electric Department and the cost associated with its relocation are another point of for the Council to consider in approving the project to go forward. Supplemental Information (not an agenda item) SDC Resolution Council Communication(s) Draft Resolution (to be reviewed by Council June 20, 2006) Charts Ashland Housing Commission Packet June 19, 2006 Council Communication ADDENDUM Resolution Amending Resolution 2005-46 Meeting Date: June 20, 2006 Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman 552-2076 Department: Community Development E-mail: goldmanb@ashland.or.us Contributing Departments: Legal Secondary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar 552-2042 Approval: Martha Bennett E-mail: molnarb@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: 30 Min. Addendum to the Council Communication regarding the th Resolution amending 2005-46 dated June 6, 2006. The Housing Commission held numerous hearings on the proposed resolution for the Affordable Housing Program and SDC Deferral program and the various components contained within the resolution. During this process concerns were raised by both for profit and non-profit developers regarding potential impacts of the changes. Although the Housing Commission weighed these potential impacts in their deliberations, some specific concerns were not raised until the day of the th scheduled City Council review of the proposed resolution on June 6, 2006. As the Council is aware, the proposed resolution amending 2005-46 was not reviewed at the meeting and as such the City was able to further evaluate those newly raised concerns th In meeting with Merry Hart and Cindy Dyer of Access Inc on June 7 to address the SDC resolution presently before Council, we examined some potential issues with the Affordable Housing Program as presented. ACCESS Inc had identified a number of valid concerns with the program as presented in the resolution during this meeting and their efforts to work with staff to identify remedies to the foreseeable issues is appreciated.The letter submitted previously by ACCESS Inc (July 14, 2005) did not address the issues below. The concerns raised in the previous letter were known by the Housing Commission and deliberated as part of the initial review of the programs. All new concerns raised related to the methodologies proposed in the resolution and are outlined below. The Ashland Legal Department is reviewing the issues and the proposed remedies to draft language for incorporation into the resolution amending 2005-46. The Legal Department anticipates th that this revised resolution will be complete and available to the Council on Monday June 19 for th consideration at the regular meeting on June 20, 2006 Maximum Purchase Price The calculation of the maximum purchase for covered units under the new resolution created three areas of concern. Below the issues of household size, qualifying income level, and assumed interest rate are addressed to structure the resolution to provide a consistent and predictable calculation for both buyers and sellers. Household Size The variable pricing structure which is dependant in part on the household size could have the unforeseen consequence of having developers, that are required to sell units at an affordable rate, being selective on which household could buy the unit to hold-out for a household with a greater number of individuals, therefore a greater purchase price. Doing so would permit a developer to sell a unit for a greater amount, but would also unfairly discriminate against any smaller household size that is otherwise income qualified for the unit. This form of household selection, although favoring large households, could be seen as discriminating against a single mother in favor of a married couple with the same number of children. Such a consequence was not intended by the resolution. Potential Remedy The maximum purchase price shall be established to not exceed the affordability limits indicated in following table: Studio = 1 person household income for the designated income level 1 Bedroom = 2 person household income for the designated income level 2 Bedroom = 4 person household income for the designated income level 3 Bedroom = 6 person household income for the designated income level 4 Bedroom = 7 person household income for the designated income level Households with a greater or lesser number of occupants shall remain eligible for covered units but the sale price shall not be adjusted due to household size above the limits established above. Qualifying income level The variable pricing structure establishes that the purchase price can be Ð not exceed more than 30% of their monthly income on total housing costs which includes Principal, Interest, Taxes and Insurance (PITI) and any homeowners or regular maintenance fees.Ñ This provision was in large part the goal of the restructuring of the program to ensure households were not cost burdened by the housing cost of units, and that the sale price was correlated to the income level of the occupant households. ACCESS Inc. identified that in a similar capacity to the household size scenario outlined above, this could effectively cause developers to restrict the sale of units only to households at the maximum of the target income range. Therefore this could result in limiting participation in the ownership housing provided by functionally restricting households of lower incomes. ACCESS Inc., raised the issue of the 30% cap in their letter dated 7-14-05, noting that such a limitation would be more restrictive than some lenders that allow a qualified household to borrow up to 38% of their incomes to cover PITI. The concern raised indicates that some households of lower incomes could potentially purchase a covered unit if allowed to exceed the 30% cap and thus the limitation may restrict their participation unnecessarily. Staff believes that the 30% cap is an important threshold to maintain as it functions to ensure units are provided at a lower asking price, and therefore truly affordable to the target households. However in the remedy to this issue presented below the issue of discrimination in favor of only the highest income households (within the designated categories), as well as the concern regarding the 30% limitation is addressed. Potential Remedy The maximum purchase price shall be established by calculating the ability to pay for a household at the 60%, 80%, 100% or 120% income level and not for the income of the specific occupant household. In this manner a seller would establish a purchase price for a covered unit assuming the hypothetical buyer (4 person household) was qualified at 80%AMI and establish the asking price with that standard (ie $115,000). An actual purchaser earning only 72%AMI would still be required to pay the $115,000 asking price which would account for a combined PITI and homeowners fee payment equal to 34% of their household income. This methodology provides greater consistency of expectations for both buyers and sellers of covered units and ensures that households with incomes below the threshold (60,80,100,120%AMI) would not be bypassed in favor of households at the precise level to maximize sale prices. Interest Rate With variation in interest rates it is foreseeable that a seller would restrict the sale of a covered unit to only those households that could obtain a very low interest rate loan. As structured currently the maximum purchase price allowable increases as interest rates decrease. Therefore the resolution could effectively promote interest only loans, adjustable rate loans in addition to the subsidized loans available. To level the field ACCESS Inc. and Staff believe that establishing an interest rate to be used in calculations provides a predictability to both buyers and sellers. To accomplish this it is important to utilize an interest rate index that adjusts and is in large part commensurate with a 30 year fixed rate loan. The Oregon Bond Loan RateAdvantage home loan provides such an index. Buyers would not be directed to use this loan program, rather the established interest rate (currenty 5.4%) would be used as the benchmark to calculate units affordable sale price. Potential Remedy The maximum purchase price shall be established by utilizing the interest rate for the Oregon Bond Loan RateAdvantage, as adjusted, in calculating the maximum amount of a households payment toward PITI. Buyer Protection The resolution as drafted does not explicitly address the resale of units and how the preceding (first) purchaser is protected against loss of equity in the event Area Median Incomes decline, or any circumstance where the calculated purchase price for the subsequent owner is less than the original purchase price. It was not an intention to allow a first purchaser to lose their investment in response to external market forces (incomes, interest rates, closing costs, realtor fees) that would effectively limit the resale price. Additionally for consideration in this issue is also whether a owner could recapture any voluntary investments made into the improvement of a covered unit such as additions, remodels, or other physical alterations to the unit. Due to the incentive such a provision would provide, to increase a sales price by adding amenities or square footage, staff questions whether such a provision is in the best interest of the long term affordability of covered units. Potential Remedy In no case shall a purchaser be required to sell the covered unit for less than their original purchase price, plus any applicable closing costs and realtor feesÑ Although such a provision would effectively create a greater disparity between the ability to pay of the subsequent purchaser and the actual purchase price of the unit over time, it seems appropriate to mitigate the risk any purchaser of a covered unit would otherwise face. Further, without such assurance that a buyer will be able to recapture at least 100% of their original investment many lenders would not finance a loan as in the event of foreclosure a lender will want to ensure their risk is minimized. Occupancy Qualification The resolution as drafted does not explicitly address whether an occupant household, which was originally income eligible for a covered rental or ownership, that experiences an increase in income over their period of occupancy will be permitted to remain in the unit. For ownership units it seems evident that in the event a low-moderate income household purchases a covered unit and achieves the stability of home-ownership, there is an increased possibility that they will experience a raise in household income. Further, movement of household out of low income status is a primary goal of providing ownership opportunities. For rental projects covered by federal funding (HOME) there are provisions to allow a previously qualified household to remain in the unit after an increase in household limit to again encourage the transition from low to moderate income and above. In both ownership and rental housing the resolution for AshlandÓs Affordable Housing Program should ensure that displacement of what were initially qualified households does not occur as a consequence of strict adherence to the income re-qualification annually. Potential Remedy The ownership section of the proposed resolution only requires units be sold to qualified occupant households and does not address a continued qualification process. Thus this does not need to be altered to ensure a purchasing household will not be displaced due to increased incomes. The rental section of the resolution does establish a requirement for yearly certification and alteration to 2.3.1 allowing for retention of households (that entered the program as income eligible but experienced a rise in income after taking residence in a covered unit) would ensure displacement did not occur. ÐThe owner of record, or the designated agent of the record, owner, shall annually file with the City of Ashland a signed certificate stating the occupants of the record ownerÓs rental housing units continue to be qualified households, or are a household that qualified at their initiation of occupancy, within the meaning of this Resolution, and any amendment made to itÈÑ. The numerous issues outlined above, and the proposed remedies, are currently being examined by the Ashland Legal Department. The precise language necessary to draft a resolution is to be provided as part of a revised Resolution Amending 2005-46 prior to the Council review scheduled for June 20,2006. Although the issue of how to craft a functional and predictable Affordable Housing Program is a complicated one, the provisions of the resolution currently being proposed will be more effective at supporting affordable housing and in securing protections for the occupant households of covered units. Council Communication Resolution Amending Resolution 1993-39 and Resolution 2005-46 Meeting Date: June 6, 2006 Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman 552-2076 Department: Community Development E-mail: goldmanb@ashland.or.us Contributing Departments: Legal Secondary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar 552-2042 Approval: Martha Bennett E-mail: molnarb@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: 30 Min. Statement: The Ashland Housing Commission is forwarding a proposed Resolution, to amend Resolution 1993- 39 and Resolution 2005-46, to establish a new methodology for designating qualified affordable housing units, to establish qualified rental costs and purchase housing costs based on a range on incomes (60%, 80%, 100%, and 120% AMI), and to establish a minimum 30 year period of affordability for units assisted with a System Development Charge Deferral. Additionally the proposed resolution would allow for a waiver of Community Development and Engineering Services fees for eligible affordable units that are voluntarily provided exclusive of a Land Use condition of approval. Background: The Housing Commission discussed the System Development Charges deferral program at length on thth , 2005, on August 15, 2005, and concluded their review and recommendations on June 13 th December 19, 2005. During these deliberations evaluated the SDC program to comprehensively address issues regarding the period of affordability, determination of sale price and rent costs for covered units for various income levels, and the potential waiver of Community Development and Engineering Fees for voluntary affordable housing projects. The City of Ashland currently defers System Development Charges (SDC) for ÐAffordable Housing UnitsÑ for up to a 20 year period, at which time they are forgiven (waived). Currently the SDC Deferral Program is the only mechanism in place to define units as affordable under the ÐAshland Affordable Housing ProgramÑ. As it stands this program does not distinguish between income levels but instead states an affordable rental is one that is affordable to households earning 80% Area Median Income (AMI), and an affordable purchase unit is one that is affordable to households earning 130%AMI. The Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) establishes specific levels of affordability to meet specific criteria of approval for annexations, zone changes and density bonuses indicating a range of target households at 60%, 80%, 100%, and 120% AMI. In part the proposed changes to the SDC deferral program are intended to address the variation in income ranges allowed through the land use process. There was general consensus by the Housing Commission that affordability should be considered met when a household spends no more than 30% of their income on housing costs. Housing costs for any for-purchase units were considered to include Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance (PITI), plus any homeowners association or regular maintenance fees. Currently the ordinances and the SDC program are incongruous. For example, currently it is possible that a 2 bedroom unit required to be affordable to households earning 60%AMI could be sold to them for up to $148,989 , whereas their true ability to afford would limit the purchase price to approximately $75,000. Revising the SDC program to accommodate a range of income levels and corresponding rents or purchase prices will resolve this disparity. The proposed resolution eliminates a Ðnot to exceed purchase priceÑ (as outlined in the existing resolution 2005-46) in favor of a ability to pay methodology that ties the purchase price of a covered unit to a percentage of household income at the various income limits. Essentially the purchase price of a covered ownership unit would no longer be a set cap, but rather adjusted dependant upon variations in Principal, Interest, Taxes, Insurance, (PITI) and any homeownerÓs fees. The qualified household would pay no more than 30% of their monthly income on these collective housing costs. Attached to this Council Communication are tables that estimate how this methodology would effectively establish an estimated purchase price for each income level (60%,80%,100%, 120%). The proposed resolution also amends the methodology for establishing rental costs for covered units. Rental units provided to serve 60% and 80% AMI households would now have established rents commensurate with their ability to pay. Rental units provided serving households earning more than 80%AMI would not be considered affordable. At the 80%AMI level the affordable rental methodology outlined in 2005-46 would be unchanged which establishes maximum rents to be no more than 23% of a household income based on average household sizes dependant on the number of bedrooms. Under the proposed resolution rental units provided at the 80%AMI level would no longer be eligible for the SDC deferral. The existing resolution did not address what was considered affordable to households earning 60%AMI and as such the proposed rental cost for such covered units in the proposed resolution would be established by referencing the State HOME program index for households at 60%AMI as adjusted annually. Rental units provided at or below 60%AMI would be eligible for the SDC deferral. In addition to the establishment of a new methodology for determining affordability of both rental and ownership units, the Housing Commission evaluated the SDC program to comprehensively address issues regarding the period of affordability and the potential waiver of Community Development and Engineering Fees for voluntary affordable housing projects. In discussing the period of affordability the Housing Commission deliberated on whether a unit that voluntarily entered the program could buy-out of the program by paying off the deferred SDCs with interest or an assessed penalty. The Commission determined that a strict 30 year period of affordability was necessary to ensure the SDC deferral program did not simply function as a loan program but rather as an incentive toward promoting the long term provision of affordable housing. Therefore the proposed resolution establishes that any unit that is provided with an SDC deferral be required to remain affordable for not less than 30 years or longer as required by a Land Use regulation. The Housing Commission attempted to address in what cases the waiver of SDCÓs and Community Development Fees should be granted and determined that covered units would only include those rentals targeting households with incomes at or below 60%AMI or ownership units benefiting households at or below 80% AMI. Further the Commission determined that although SDC deferrals could be available for both units required to be affordable by a Land Use approval, and affordable units provided voluntarily, that the Community Development and Engineering Services fees should only be waived when affordable units are provided voluntarily in excess of any requirements unless receiving specific approval of a waive by the Ashland City Council. The proposed resolution maintains the requirement that the owners of covered units be required to agree to the City of Ashland Affordable Housing Resale Restriction Agreement. The new resolution establishes a requirement that the owner of a covered unit shall annually file certificate that demonstrates that the covered unit continues to be occupied by an eligible household. Related City Policies: The Affordable Housing Action Plan supports the continuation of waiving SDCs as a means of lowering the costs of building and operating affordable housing (Strategy2) and further recommends that it be limited to units that remain within the pool of affordability (no voluntary exit). Resolution 1993-39 Resolution 2005-46 would be amended by this proposed resolution Fiscal Impact The waiving of System Development Charges and Community Development and Engineering Fees represents fees that go uncollected by the City. The System Development Charges waived are intended to cover City wide improvements to Transportation, Parks, Sanitary Sewer, and water systems associated with the impact of added residential units. Community Development and Engineering Services fees are assessed as a percentage of the unitÓs valuation (0.9% and 0.75% respectively). The System Development Charges for an eligible unit would be approximately $6,500. This amount in its entirety is currently deferred by the existing SDC Deferral Program for all eligible units. The existing Resolution (2005-46) does not address Community Development and Engineering Services fees which account for approximately $2000 in fees per unit. The Council has established a goal of creating 200 affordable units by 2010, essentially anticipating 50 new affordable units per year. Assuming this goal is achieved the City would forgo the collection of approximately $325,000 annually in SDCs. However, as the proposed resolution does not provide for a waiver of Community Development and Engineering Services fees for affordable units provided to satisfy a requirement of a Land Use approval, but rather only for those voluntarily provided, staff believes the units eligible for the waiver of these fees will be limited to approximately 5-10 per year. Therefore the City could forgo the collection of up to $20,000 in Community Development and Engineering Services fees annually. Council Options: The Ashland City Council can approve, deny or direct Staff to modify the proposed resolution. Recommendations: The Housing Commission and Staff recommend approval of the proposed resolution as presented to amend resolutions 1993-39 and 2005-46. Potential Motions: Motion to approve the proposed resolution amending resolutions 1993-39 and 2005-46. Attachments: Resolution 2006- ___________ A Resolution Amending Resolution 1993-39 and Resolution 2005-046 Housing Affordability Tables (60%, 80%, 100%, 120% AMI) Housing Commission Memo dated May 25, 2005 th Housing Commission Memo dated Dec 19, 2006 Housing Commission Minutes Dec. 19, 2005 Housing Commission Minutes Aug 15, 2005 Housing Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 Resolution 1993-39 Resolution 2005-46 RESOLUTION NO. 2006- A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESOLUTION 2005-46 RECITALS: A. WHEREAS, in 1993, the City of Ashland passed Resolution no. 1993-39 which established affordable housing income levels and rental and purchased cost levels. B. WHEREAS, in 2005, the City of Ashland passed Resolution 2005-46 which required provisions for homeowner and maintenance fees to be included in the affordability calculations for its affordable housing program. C. WHEREAS, neither resolution contained provisions establishing rent levels or purchase price levels for households earning 60%, 80% 100% or 120% of the area median income (AMI). D. WHEREAS, neither resolution required Principal, Interest, Taxes and Insurance (PITI) to be included in the maximum housing costs of eligible households in the affordability calculations for the purchasing part of its affordable housing program. E. WHEREAS both resolutions used Ðnot-to-exceed purchase priceÑ as a qualifying criterion for purchasing housing units, which criterion requires annual revision, and the current resolution seeks to replace the Ðnot-to-exceed purchase priceÑ with a Ðpercent of household incomeÑ criterion which does not require annual revision. F. WHEREAS, the City considers that a range of qualifying incomes maximizes the potential for success of its affordable housing program. G. WHEREAS, the City desires that PITI be included in the affordability calculations for the various income levels of qualified households and that the Ðpercent of household incomeÑ criterion be used in place of the Ðnot-to-exceed purchase priceÑ criterion. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Resolutions 1993-39 and 2005-46 are hereby amended in their entirety as follows: SECTION 1. GENERAL ELIGIBILITY Î RENTAL AND PURCHASED HOUSING 1.1 All qualifying ownership or rental units required to be affordable through density bonuses, annexation, zone change, condominium conversion, or other land use approval under the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) shall not be eligible to receive a waiver of the Community Development and Engineering Services fees associated with the development of said affordable units unless a waiver is approved by the Ashland City Council. 1.2 All qualifying ownership or rental units required to be affordable through density bonuses, annexation, zone change, condominium conversion, or other land use approval under the ALUO shall be eligible to receive a deferral of the System Development Charges associated with the development of said affordable units. 1.3 All qualifying ownership or rental units voluntarily provided as affordable to low income households, consistent with section 1.1 and 1.2, above, shall be eligible for a System Development Charge, Engineering Service, and Community Development Fee deferral or waiver without obtaining approval from the Ashland City Council. 1.4 Affordable Housing Units covered under this Resolution can only be sold or rented to occupant households from the same income category as the original purchasers or renters for a period of not less than 30 years, or as required through the condition of approval for a unit required to be affordable through a land use approval. 1.5 System Development Charges, Engineering Services, and Community Development Fees may be deferred or waived when units are sold or rented to low- income persons. For purposes of this subsection, "low-income persons" means: a. With regard to rental housing, persons with an income at or below 60 percent of the area median income as determined by the State Housing Council based on information from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; and b. With regard to home ownership housing and lease to purchase home ownership housing, persons with an income at or below 80 percent of the area median income as determined by the State Housing Council based on information from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2. RENTAL HOUSING -. Units designated for affordable rental housing in developments which have qualified for density bonuses, annexation, zone change, condominium conversion , or other land use approval under the ALUO shall be rented to individuals or households whose annual income is consistent with the target income identified in the planning approval. Incomes shall be qualified at the 60% or 80% median income levels for households in the Medford-Ashland Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This figure shall be known as the "qualifying household income" and shall be determined by the City's Department of Community Development in May of each year from the annual family incomes published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Medford-Ashland Metropolitan Service Area (MSA). 2.1 Area Median Income Î 80%. The rent charged for such affordable rental housing benefiting households earning 80% Area Median Income or greater, including any home-owners association or maintenance fees, shall not exceed 23% of the qualifying monthly income (qualifying family income divided by twelve) as provided in the following formulas: Studio Apartment 23% of the average of 1 & 2 person qualifying monthly incomes 1 Bedroom 23% of the average of 2 & 3 person qualifying monthly incomes 2 Bedroom 23% of the average of 3, 4, & 5 person qualifying monthly incomes 3 Bedroom 23% of the average of 4, 5, 6, & 7 person qualifying monthly incomes 4 Bedroom 23% of the average of 5, 6, 7, & 8 person qualifying monthly incomes The City's Department of Community Development shall maintain a table of maximum rent levels permitted under these formulas and shall annually update the table in May of each year. 2.2 Area Median Income Î 60% or lower. The rent charged for such affordable rental housing benefiting households earning 60% Area Median Income or less, including any home-owners association or maintenance fees, shall comply with the maximum rents established by the State of Oregon HOME Program based on the target income qualification as adjusted annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Medford-Ashland Metropolitan Service Area. The HOME program indexed allowable rents are adjusted annually by the State of Oregon Housing and Community Services Department (OHCS). 2.3. OwnerÓs Obligation. The owner of the affordable rental housing shall sign a 30-year agreement, or longer depending on the period of affordability established through the ALUO, with the City of Ashland that guarantees these rent levels will not be exceeded and that the owner will rent only to households meeting the income limits. The agreement shall bind subsequent owners who purchase the rental housing during the established period of affordability. The agreement shall also require the owner to allow the unit to be rented to HUD Section 8 qualified applicants and agree to accept rent vouchers for all of the affordable units when applicable. The City shall file the agreement for recordation in the County Clerk deed records, Jackson County, Oregon. 2.3.1. Certification of qualifying occupants. The owner of record, or the designated agent of the record, owner, shall annually file with the City of Ashland a signed certificate stating the occupants of the record ownerÓs rental housing units continue to be qualified households, or are a household that qualified at its initial occupancy, within the meaning of this Resolution, and any amendment made to it. The City of Ashland shall provide the record owner or the record ownerÓs agent with access to a form to complete and sign to comply with this provision. 3. PURCHASED HOUSES - QUALIFYING. Units designated for affordable housing available for purchase in developments which have qualified for density bonuses annexation, zone change, condominium conversion , or other land use approval under the ALUO must satisfy two criteria. 1. They shall only be sold to occupant households whose: a. Annual income is consistent with the target income identified in the planning approval for the development. Incomes shall be qualified at the applicable 60%, 80%, 100% or 120% median income levels for households based on number of people per household as adjusted annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Medford-Ashland Metropolitan Service Area. i. The maximum monthly payment for a covered unit shall be established to not exceed the affordability limits, established above, indicated in following table: Studio = 1 person household income for the designated income level 1 Bedroom = 2 person household income for the designated income level 2 Bedroom = 4 person household income for the designated income level 3 Bedroom = 6 person household income for the designated income level 4 Bedroom = 7 person household income for the designated income level Households with a greater or lesser number of occupants shall remain eligible for covered units but the sale price shall not be adjusted due to household size above the limits established above. b. Net assets, excluding pension plans and IRA's and excluding the down payment and closing costs, do not exceed $20,000 for a household or $130,000 if one household member is 65 years or older. c. Mortgage payment does not exceed more than 30% of the monthly income for the target income level indicated in 3.1(a)(i) on total housing costs which includes PITI and any homeowners or regular maintenance fees. d. The maximum monthly payment for a covered unit shall be calculated by utilizing the interest rate for the Oregon Bond Loan RateAdvantage as updated by the State of Oregon Housing and Community Services Department. 2. They shall remain affordable as follows: a. The purchasers of the affordable housing units shall agree to the City of Ashland Affordable Housing Resale Restriction Agreement establishing a period of affordability of not less than 30 years. In no event will a purchaser be required to sell the unit subject to the aforementioned Agreement for less than his or her original purchase price, plus any applicable closing costs and realtor fees. b. For housing financed by FarmerÓs Home Administration (FmHA), the affordability shall be assured by the FmHAÓs recapture provisions FmHA which require sellers to repay FmHA for all the subsidies accrued during the period the sellers resided in the housing unit. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2006. Letters Received Ashland Housing Commission Packet June 19, 2006