Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-16-2008 Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Meeting Meeting Minutes-September 16, 2008 Attendees Stephanie Morgan, Chair, All About You Kenneth Fuchs, SDZ Construction Skeet Jernigan, Community & Economic Development Council of South Florida Al Rivett, St. Lucie INTACT Scott Wingfield, Realtors Association of St. Lucie County Staff Peter Jones, St. Lucie County Growth Management Jennifer Cruz, St. Lucie County Community Services Heather Young, St. Lucie County Assistant County Attorney Others In Attendance JP Gellerman, UF IFAS Extension Patricia Scott, St. Lucie Habitat for Humanity Excused Absences Rick Carreno, St. Lucie County Fire District Diana Weslowski, St. Lucie County Citizen Louise Hubbard, Treasure Coast Homeless Services Council Mike Smith, Riverside National Bank Colleen Jeeves, Workforce Development Board Minutes Stephanie Morgan opened the meeting at 2:00 P.M. and postponed the approval of minutes due to a lack of quorum. The meeting began with Ms. Morgan starting the discussion of the meeting’s agenda items: (1) The processing of approvals or development orders or permits (3) The allowance of flexibility in densities for affordable housing (5) The allowance of affordable accessory residential units in residential zoning districts (6) The reduction of parking and setback requirements for affordable housing (7) The allowance of flexible configurations, including zero-lot-line configurations for affordable housing. Peter Jones discussed the absence of various protocols on affordable housing in the County’s plans and codes. He stated in item number one, that the mention of affordable housing was not specific. He suggested additional policies and objectives regarding expedition and approval should be placed in the housing element. Mr. Jones continued with information on the absence of any mention of affordable housing in the Land Development Code (LDC). He described subjects relative to affordable housing in the LDC like procedures for obtaining development orders. He made suggestions to add modifications in respect to expediting affordable housing to the LDC’s Chapter XII, Decision Making and Administrative Bodies. Mr. Jones moved forward to item number three. In his memorandum he displayed sections in the Housing Element reflecting “language” that can be interpreted as allowing flexibility in densities for affordable housing, Policies 5.1.1.2 and 5.1.3.1 and Objectives 5.1.2 and 5.1.3.1. He described how with modification, the LDC could better consider density flexibility for affordable housing. Mr. Jones discussed item number five. He stated that Chapter III Zoning Districts, of the LDC could be some modified to include accessory units. He also informed the committee the LDC chapters and sections will be reviewed for modifications that would include policies on reduction of parking and setback requirements. Lastly, Mr. Jones discussed item number six. He informed the committee of an upcoming review in LDC chapters and section modifications to allow flexible lot configurations and inclusion of zero-lot-line configurations. Skeet Jernigan stated that allowing greater density could cause a higher threshold for transportation and questioned if this would be researched. He used West Palm Beach’s density issues as an example. Mr. Jones stated that there was already an anticipated discussion on this issue regarding rules for affordable housing, mixture of use and transportation. Scott Wingfield asked for details on the process and approval of permits and development orders regarding Development of Regional Impacts (DRI’s). He questioned if an entire DRI would be expedited if one of its components was affordable housing. Mr. Jones stated since DRI’s are processed through the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC), the expedited permitting might have no effect. Al Rivett asked how expediting DRIs in the local sector would affect the TCRPC’s processes. Mr. Jones stated that the TCRPC has an affordable housing strategy or policy. He said that they could possibly have a standard review period for DRIs and he would research further and report more in the next meeting. Mr. Jernigan commended Mr. Jones’s report on how it highlighted essential information needed for the items in discussion. He added that Mr. Jones’s findings have placed before the group, the specific question of how to move forward in relation to completing the task of creating a report by December 1, 2 2008. He said Mr. Jones has helped to pinpoint how much detail is needed in response to the requirements the statutes set forward for the committee. He stated the committee had two options. They can provide a response to the commission regarding the meetings’ items and inform them of the absence of certain policies and procedures and request that the next committee, which has three years to complete the task, implement them. Mr. Jernigan brought forth a second option, take each item and recommend specific goals, objectives and policies relating to lot sizes and issues with parking. Mr. Jernigan stated ideally option two would be the best option, but it is a 3-year task. It would become very tedious to make recommendations for every item. He expressed this task could not be done correctly by December 1, 2008. He suggested option one to be the best choice. Mr. Jernigan stated that he felt the committee would meet the statute requirements and requested Heather Young’s view. She stated that option one met the basic committee and acknowledged the time issue. Ms. Morgan agreed and stated it shouldn’t be rushed through and half-done. Mr. Jernigan feels we should make suggestions regarding density, and have general comments added but the second option is not feasible. Mr. Wingfield suggested the committee place forth deadlines and target dates in order to continue to move further. Mr. Jernigan agreed that deadlines would be a good idea. He felt committee recommendations should fall into timelines relative to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Processes. He suggested they work with Mr. Jones to parallel the Comp Plan Amendment timeline. Mr. Jernigan informed the committee of an informal Commission meeting with affordable housing as an agenda item on Tuesday September 23, 2008. He suggested it should be decided what option would be taken in order for Mr. Jones to convey this to the Commission at their informal meeting. He feels this could help direct them on how to go forward on affordable housing. Mr. Jones requested any ideas or suggestions. He stated that over the next three years when the next committee convenes, amendments and other modifications might be made to accommodate the affordable housing issues. He stated that Growth Management would soon be working on the Evaluation Appraisal Report (EAR) and will be following up with recommendations ranging from housing to environmental guidelines. Mr. Jernigan questioned Mr. Jones regarding the EAR and asked if any of the items addressed were specific to affordable housing. He felt they were mostly 3 environmental. He stated transportation would be touched upon but real affordable housing issues may not be addressed. Mr. Jones informed the committee that the EAR wasn’t the only option to make modifications. The EAR would be the formal assessment and recommendation in amendment processes. Mr. Jernigan suggested assigned tasks for committee members. He stated in lieu of the economic situation members wouldn’t feel pressed to do things in a slip shot way. He stated things should be presented as so, “Here’s our report. Here’s what this committee should do and tasks to begin in 2009.” Mr. Rivett: discussed another item to evaluate, the modification of Impact Fee requirements. He discussed how Martin County has had their Impact Fee requirements in place for over a year. He stated there is no reason to “reinvent the wheel.” He suggested using Martin County’s Impact Fee requirements as an example and modifies it to fit St. Lucie County. He stated the most economic and efficient way is to follow Martin County’s lead and use a deferred payment method. Mr. Jernigan says he agrees with that suggestion and he mentioned the county is working with Dr. Jim Nicholas to re-write their Impact Fee ordinance, is still pending review with the Planning and Zoning Board. He suggested the committee request Dr. Nicholas to make recommendations to the Commission, a waiver of fees or an alternative method. Mr. Jernigan felt Mr. Nicolas should bring forth information on what other communities may be doing. The committee discussed further the timing on this issue. Mr. Jernigan requested a review of the first group of items from the previous meeting. He asked that items two be moved to group B and nine, ten & eleven be last. He asked Mr. Jones about the inventory of locally owned land. Mr. Jones stated they were still locating conservation public land first. Ms. Young added that she recalled Community Services’ housing division had a list of local land appropriate for housing. Ms. Morgan questioned whether there was a legal definition of what was affordable housing. She made an example of someone bringing forth an affordable housing plan. She questioned who would have the authority to deem it affordable. Mr. Jones answered questions and described the various housing: low-income, affordable, moderate-income, workforce, and moderately priced dwelling units, Mr. Jernigan suggested the next committee make specific goals, objectives and polices and that they define affordable housing. He stated, with exception of 4 State Housing Initiative Program (SHIP), local community sets all the rules. He said a committee with more time would be able to define affordable housing. Mr. Rivett questioned whether this committee was authorized to define this. He said the BOCC should make a policy decision on what’s affordable. He also suggested a discussion on defining “suitable.” Mr. Jernigan elaborated on this subject and stated the committee should have the discourse based on conversation and investigation and then make specific recommendations to the commission since they’ll be making policy decisions. The next meeting’s date and time was discussed. The committee was informed the next meeting date to be Monday, Sept 22, 2008. Confirmation of its location would be e-mailed to committee members. There was no further comment. The meeting adjourned. 5