Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-07-26 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION Minutes July 26, 2022 I.CALL TO ORDER:7:00 PM,viaZoom Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:03p.m. Commissioners Present:Staff Present: Michael DawkinsBill Molnar, Community Development Director Haywood NortonBrandon Goldman, Planning Manager Kerry KenCairnDerek Severson, Senior Planner Lynn ThompsonMichael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Lisa Verner Doug Knauer Absent Members:Council Liaison: Eric HerronPaula Hyatt II.ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcement: The City Councilwill be discussallowing staff and the Commission to explore more allowances for food trucks at their August 2, 2022 meeting.City code requires this step and it is expected to be a formality. Beth Goodman from ECONorthwest will be providing the Council with an update on the Housing Production Strategy (HPS) at their August 15, 2022 meeting. Staff is expected toprovide an early draft ordinance for food trucks to the Commission in August. The Commissionshould expect to discuss housing in Employment Zones in August, as well. The Commission will review the annexation and site review of the Highway 99 project after the Land Use Board of Appeals reversed the Commission’s approvalof said project.The Commission will then advise the Council on the consistency of the application with annexation standards before the Council makes a final determination.The Commission should anticipate a full docket in September and October. Chair Norton drew attention to a memo distributed to the Commission from the City. This memo spoke to the City’s potential decision to relegate some standing commissions to ad hoc commission status, where they would only meet when necessary. He expressed concern with losing the tree Commission’s expertise in reviewing planning actions, as the Commission has relied on this expertise in the past. Mr. Molnar stated that he had spoken with City Manager Joe Lessard about the Commission’s reliance upon the Tree Commissionin terms of technical expertise, and that staff is currently discussing ways to keep the Tree Commission involved. III.PUBLIC FORUM David Runkel:Mr. Runkel expressed concern with KDA Homes’ plans to expand the Mountain Meadowsdevelopment. His concerns included: the proposed housing density; limited ingress and egress areas;potentially congestedtraffic in narrow streets and alleys; and environmental concerns. Mr. Runkel and many of his neighbors have sent letters voicing their concerns to staff and the Commission. Daniel DeRoux:Mr. DeRoux echoed Mr. Runkel’s concerns, emphasizing the danger that narrow andpotentiallycongested streets would cause emergency vehicles, makingany necessary evacuationsdifficult. He stated that these could create Ashland Planning Commission July 26, 2022 Page 1of 4 dangerous or life-threatening conditions, particularly in light of the Almeda Fire. He added that he and his neighbors have no objection to the development itself, merely the proposed density andthe resultingtraffic issues. IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Ashland Housing Production Strategy Update –ECONorthwest Presentation Planning Manager Brandon Goldman informed the Commission that the HPS was now halfway through its15 monthdevelopment process. There havebeen three advisory committee meetings whichwere attended byCommissioners KenCairn and Verner. Presentation Beth Goodmanfrom ECONorthwestprovided the Commission with a summary of the HPS’s findingsand potential strategies that have been developedthus far. First they examined the City’s housing needs as it relates to income, and how the HPS could be used to support development of new housing for certain income levels, specificallythosehouseholds earning 50% or less of the Median Family Income (MFI) ofJackson County. Ms. Goodman stated that their data indicated that approximately 36% of City households areextremely low to very lowincome, even iftheirincome levelswere toincrease. Additionally, those of middle income households could not afford to purchase a house, but could afford market-rate rentals. Ms. Goldman related howlooking at cost burden was important in determining housing need. A household is considered cost- burdened if it spends 30% or more of its income on rent, or were severely cost-burdened if theyspent 50% or more of their income on rent. Their data showed that 63% of Ashland’s renters were cost-burdened, and 35% were severely cost-burdened. Fewer homeowners are cost-burdened, though 31% were still considered to be cost-or severely cost-burdened. Ms. Goodman detailedhow the City’s housing needs differed by groups, particularly the homeless population. Over 800 people were homeless in Jackson County per a 2021 Oregon Housing and Community Services study, with 10% of those being from Ashland. She pointed out that certain groups were more likely to be homeless, including racial or ethnic groups, individuals over 65, and people with disabilities. Ms. Goodmanlauded the City’s existing policies to address its housing needs, and provided a further list of actions that could be taken. She noted thatthe City is not required to follow any of these initiatives, but it would be required to address any necessary accessibility standard changes. The initiative list recommended to the City include: Encourage development of low-and moderate-income affordable rental housing Increase opportunities for affordable homeownership Encourage development of income-restricted affordable housing units Preserve existing supply of low-and moderate-income affordable housing Ms. Goodman also recommended that the City consider multiple funding sources to enact theseinitiatives, including the establishment of a Construction Excise Tax(CET),Urban Renewal,and identifyingadditional funds to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Ms. Goodman strongly recommended that the City consider utilizing Urban Renewal funds because of its flexibility to assist new developments and necessary infrastructure(see attachment #1). Questions and Deliberation Mr. Goldman cautionedthe Commission against attempting to develop more code changes than can be accomplished over the HPS’s eight-year period.He recommended that the Commission consider strategies that would have the greatest impact over the long-run or are considered ahighpriority. Commissioner Thompson inquired how ECONorthwest had acquired its data regarding income in Jackson County, and expressed concern that the MFI of the City was lower than that of both Eagle Point and Central Point.Ms. Goodman responded MFIs were self-reported on a census sent to county residents, and that it should be noted that Ashland has a high number of college students which couldaffectthe findings. Commissioner Thompson wondered what the implications of using income as a metric for gauging MFI were when considering the increasing number of seniors in the City.This could result in a high number of people reporting a low income, while holding onto a significant amount of accumulated wealth.Ms. Goodman agreed that those in the middle-income might have more accumulated wealth, but stated that those reporting less than $20,000 MFI were likely accurate. Ashland Planning Commission July 26, 2022 Page 2of 4 She stated that thesefindings were alsocorroboratedby the reported number of cost-burdened homeowners, and that this is a pattern seen in other cities experiencing similarhousing needs. Commissioner KenCairn expressed concern thatthe Historic District could be adversely affected bycodechanges proposed by ECONorthwest whichwouldallowthe development of higher density housing in R-3 Zones. Ms. Goodman responded that the presentation had not yet been updated, but that Commissioner KenCairn’s concerns had been included inthe HPS. Commissioner Verner requested more information regarding land banks andtrusts.Mr. Goldman gave a brief history of land truststhat existed inthe City.The Housing Commissionhadworked closely with the City Council at the time to create the Ashland Community Land Trust, a non-profit organization, in the early 2000s. The organization used Community DevelopmentBlock Grants (CDBG) and other funding sources to purchase properties, and then developedaffordable housing on those properties. The organization retained ownership of the land,and provided aviable way for homeowners to purchase a house without being subjected to rising land costs.Rogue Valley Community Development was another non-profit that hadexisted to develop the land trust modelin order to provide affordable housing.Neither organization wasable to keep up with rising land costs and have since dissolved, and the housing units that were land trusted went to two other non-profit organizationswho maintain the leases on the land. There is no organization that is actively pursuing the acquisition of properties to add to a land trust, but NeighborWorks Umpqua has indicated that this could be a valuable modeland has shown interest in creating a new lease-hold agreement that could be implemented for the acquisition of additionalparcels. Commissioner Thompson questioned how land trustscould be a viable strategy if past organizations had been forced to dissolve. Mr. Goldman responded that Ashland Community Land Trust was a volunteer organization, unlike NeighborWorks Umpqua which can seek out funding outside the boundaries of the City. Ms. Goodman described land trusts as one of the few ways to create affordable homeownership, but pointed out that they don’t create a large number of units because of the cost barrier. She then described a land bank as the City’s acquisition of parcels over time for the purpose of developing affordable housing.Ms. Goodman suggested a CETand Urban Renewal grants as a good source of funding for such endeavors. She concluded by relating how Hood River had assembled several parcels of land and then selected a developer who proposed the development of mixed-income housingas a way to address its housing needs.She noted that Hood River is considering a general obligation fund to provide the capital necessary for the project and to fund similar developments tofurtheralleviate itshousing needs. Commissioner Thompson inquired if land trusts were used as rentals or for purchase. Ms. Goodman responded that it is typically used to increase homeownership, but that it would be at the City’s discretion. She pointed out that Eugene had used publicly owned land for income-restricted affordable housing developments. Commissioner Knauer remarked that he would be hesitant to utilize the Urban Renewal fundingprogramforany of these initiatives. Ms. Goodman responded that Urban Renewal has changed over time, and that the technical term for it is now Tax Increment Financing.A city would select ablightedareaneedingUrban Renewaland would freeze its tax basefor a 20 year period. As newdevelopment occurredin that areathe property taxes generated would increase and result in a tax increment. The developmentsfunded by this taxcould beusedfor market-rate housing or income-restricted housing, but she cautioned that the funding shouldlargelybe utilizedfor projects that would generate additional tax revenue. The goal would be to attractnew developmentsinthe area, which would increase the tax revenue and assist in funding the project. Ms. Goodman mentioned that this program would not causeschool districtstomiss out on new fundingbecause they would be reimbursed by the state. Chair Nortonvoiced concerns overusing Urban Renewal funding in the City, particularly due to the City’s lowlevelsof blight. He suggested that the private propertiesand private developersbe entrusted with creatingneeded housing.Chair Nortonhighlighted the need to get feedback from developers in order to ascertain the best way to encourage development. Ms. Goodman responded that the HPS would be getting feedback from developers as a next step, and recommended that the Commission not rejectUrban Renewalwithout further study. Commissioner Knauer asked if Urban Renewal would lead to displacement, andMs. Goodman emphasized that this form of Urban Renewal was different thanpast models and would not cause displacement. Commissioner Thompson remarked that the difficulty in creating manufactured home parks would be the lack of a viable location in the City. Ms. Goodman clarified that the development of manufactured home parks would likely not be possible in the City, particularly due to the fact that very few developers build them in Oregon.Commissioner Thompson asked if there was any predictionofhowmuch the recentstate required code changes would alleviate the City’s housing needs, namely the duplex and Ashland Planning Commission July 26, 2022 Page 3of 4 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinances. Ms. Goodman replied that ADUsand duplexeswould not significantly improve the City’s residential inventory.She elaborated that existing developments would be unlikely to increase housing or be converted into quadplexes. Ms. Goodman impressed upon the Commission that there would be no simple fix to the City’s housing needs, and that any changes would be incremental. She added that any significant changes would likely not be seen within their lifetime. Mr. Goldman added that the Snowberry project off of Clay street was the result of wide variety of factors over an extended period of time, and no one fix would have led to the development of thatneighborhood.Mr. Molnar reminded the Commission that the recent Housing Capacity Analysis (HCA) found that land available for housing lay outside the city limits and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). He noted that one element that these areas had in common was their lack of expensive infrastructure, and recommended that the Commission not dismiss Urban Renewal as a potential funding source.Ms. Goodman stated that she strongly recommended that the Commission consider Urban Renewal. Commissioner Verner asked if a CETwould work in the City.Ms. Goodman responded that it had worked well in Medford and that there was not reason it could not work in Ashland. She noted that Medford conducted extensive outreach to gather feedback from developers before enacting their CET,and recommended similar outreach. She pointed out that the City could set the tax at any level for commercial and industrial developments, but cautioned that it not be set unreasonablyhigh in order to not repel businesses. Chair Norton supported keeping Urban Renewal on the list of viable funding strategies, especially if freezing the tax base was a firmly established facet of that plan.Commissioner KenCairn pointed out that Talent, Phoenix, and Medford appearedto be using Urban Renewal to great effect. Ms. Goodman explained that Urban Renewal wasone ofthe only flexible funding sourcesforthis type of project. V.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:26p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission July 26, 2022 Page 4of 4 Ashland: Housing Production Strategy Planning Commission Meeting #2 July 26, 2022 Tonight’s Discussion… Housing Need in Ashland Initiatives Approach to Strategies Strategies to Accommodate Housing Need Next Steps 2 Project Schedule and Primary Tasks We are here 3 Housing Need in Ashland Financially Attainable Housing HUD’s Median Family Income (MFI) for Jackson County in 2020 is $73,100 Median Home Sale Price in Ashland: $549,900 A household would need to earn between $140,000 and $157,000 (192% if MFI) to afford these prices. Median Gross Rent in Ashland: $1,085 A household would need to earn about $44,000 or 60% of MFI to afford this rent. 5 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Jackson County, 2020. Oregon Employment Department. . Share of Households by Income Level, Ashland This chart is based on the HUD MFI for Jackson County and the ACS household income distribution for Ashland. Publicly Subsidized AffordableMiddle Income Market Rate 0%-60% MFI60%-120% MFI 120%+ MFI 6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2015-2019, Table B19001; HUD, FY 2021 MFI. Housing Need in Ashland Housing Cost Burden by Tenure, Ashland, 2014-2018 About 63% of Ashland’s renters, and 31 % of homeowners, were cost burdened or severely cost burdened. About 35% of Ashland’s renters were severely cost burdened, meaning they paid 50% or more of their gross income on housing costs. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 ACS Tables B25091 and B25070. 7 Cost Burden by Tenure and Income, 2015-2019 Cost Burden by Income for RenterHouseholds, Cost Burden by Income for OwnerHouseholds, Ashland, 2015-2019Ashland, 2015-2019 Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2015-2019 8 Increasing Housing Costs Median Home Sale Price, Ashland and Comparison Cities, November 2021 – January 2022 The median price of a home in Ashland increased 33% from $415,000 in the November 2018 to $550,000 in November 2021. 9 Housing Needs Often Differ by Group Point-in-Time Homelessness Estimates, Jackson County, People experiencing 2017-2021 homelessness: 831 Temporarily or chronically 712 679 Alone or with children Ashland: about 10% of Jackson County’s population of people experiencing homelessness Racial or ethnic groups People over 65 years old People with disabilities Source: Oregon Housing and Community Services. 10 Note: OHCS reported two counts in 2021 –estimated and reported counts. This is the estimated counts. Existing Policies to Address Ashland Housing Needs Affordable Housing Programs: Reduced / Waived Building Permit fee, Planning fees, or SDCs • •Density Bonuses Affordable Housing Trust Fund • •CDBG funds Land Trusts • •Public Land Disposition Parcel assembly • •Inclusionary zoning for annexations/ certain zone changes Tenant Rights (Ordinance 2939) • Market-rate Housing Programs: •Middle housing code ADU code update –removed barriers • •Live-Work housing or Mixed-use housing in commercial zones Zoning provisions to encourage density • •SDC Financing Credits Vertical Housing Tax Credit 11 Strategies to Accommodate Housing Need in Ashland Initiatives Approach Encourage development of low-and moderate- income affordable rental housing. This initiative seeks to increase the housing options for unregulated rental households earning between 60% and 120% of MFI ($43,900 to $87,700). Increase opportunities for affordable homeownership. This initiative seeks to increase the housing options for homeownership for households earning less 120% of MFI (less than $87,700). Encourage development of income-restricted affordable housing units. There are limited options available in Ashland that are affordable to households with income of less than 60% of MFI ($43,900). This initiative supports development of housing affordable in this income group. Preserve existing of low-and moderate- income affordable housing. This initiative seeks to increase the housing options for households earning less than 120% of MFI (less than $87,700). 13 15 Questions for the Planning Commission Are the actions included in this presentation the appropriate actions to address unmet housing need in Ashland? Are we missing any actions that should be included in the HPS? Should we remove any of the actions from the list to include in the HPS? Are there actions that we need to do additional research or refinement on to better fit them to address Ashland unmet housing needs? 16 Next Steps Final HPS & Contextualized KickoffStrategiesDraft HPS Adoption Housing Need JanMar –Sept Jul –Feb Nov –Apr Feb –May 202220222022 -2023 2022 -2023 2022 •Identify policy gaps & •Project Kickoff •Adopt the strategy •Analyze housing need & •Compile and have potential strategies anti displacement public review of the •Evaluate strategies considerations report •Engage housing producers & service providers •AC meetings (3) •AC meeting #5 •PC presentation •Presentation to PC •HHSC presentation•HHSC presentation •CC presentation •AC meeting #1 •PC work session •PC work session •Interviews •CC presentation w/developers or •Open House service providers (8) •3 memos summarizing •Summary of major •Engagement •Draft HPS report •Final HPS report existing / potential tasks preparation measures •Project schedule •Housing need & anti- •Summary of developer displacement memo interviews We are here Los AngelesPortlandSeattleBoise