City Council Study Session Agenda and Packet 2016 10 25

Home Browse Search

-a 1 rn 0 2 0 0 a a to E 1t; a 0 u 0 CO ■ ■ ■ ■ Conclusion: City of Boulder, Longmont and Boulder County have provided a menu of incentives for affordable development. Those incentives have been used consistently by affordable housing developers. Both municipalities and the county, have successfully partnered with private and community based de- velopers to create a variety of affordable products including permanent supportive housing projects. Affordable development has occurred at a more infrequent pace in the communities without formalized policies and programs to address affordable housing need. The lack of more proactive policies in the com- munities without affordable housing policies, is a constraint to development in those jurisdictions. Research completed by CSI in other communities, indicates that homeless individuals and households, who are experiencing homelessness or the threat of homelessness, will pursue assistance in communities that have a more robust infrastructure for meeting their needs. It is likely, that residents in Lafayette, Louisville and Superior are accessing support in other Boulder County communities that have a range of housing and services to address homeless- ness. (e) Review and permitting processes The complexity of the local government review process can impact the development costs of affordable projects as they work their way through the process to obtain the necessary regulatory clearances to begin construction. Depending on the scope of the project, it is not unusual for a multifamily, new construction development to spend two years in the precon- struction pipeline. Before a project is ready for review, devel- opers spend significant amounts of cash creating architectural and engineering plans, as well completing other technical and legal activities to complete the "due diligence" necessary to demonstrate to lenders and funders that the project is econom- ically feasible. The expenses for these activities are usually paid through high interest pre -development loans. The longer the review period continues,the more money will be spent on carrying charges for the predevelopment activities. This timeline can be shortened by the jurisdiction's willingness to adopt a fast tracking review procedure that places affordable housing developments on the top of the pile of applications. By giving preferential treatment to those projects, the jurisdic- tion can shorten the time a proposal is under review. In addi- tion to moving those priority projects to the front of the line, the jurisdiction can institute other time saving procedures to shorten the review period. Giving authority to planning and city administrators to approve projects through an administra- tive review rather that conducting ongoing hearings and public reviews is one method to shorten permit timelines. Some municipalities have moved to an electronic submittal system that allows developers to submit required plans and supporting documents electronically. Electronic distribution of the appli- cation packet can speed up the time needed for various depart- ments and authorities to review proposals because they can all receive the packet at the same time instead of waiting for one office to sign off before the packet gets passed to the next sig- natory authority. By conducting concurrent reviews, approvals and necessary communication between agencies can occur much faster than waiting on a more sequential and linear process. Conclusion: Longmont has a policy that spells out the avail- ability of a fast track review process. The city sets an expectation that eligible affordable projects will be reviewed in half the time it would ordinarily take for other development projects. Based on the research and key informant interviews conducted in preparation of this report, Longmont is the only municipality with a fast track review policy in place. The City of Boulder has a lengthy development review process and affordable proj- ects in the pre -development phase could benefit financially from the adoption of a fast track review process. The other, smaller communities, do not have fast track review policies but based on the review of their development and permit applica- tion processes, the amount of information required for submis- sion is less than is required in the larger jurisdictions. Savings on carrying costs for projects in the review pipeline could be achieved in the communities which have not adopted fast track and concurrent review policies for affordable developments by shortening the time period needed to move to the construction phase. (g) Building regulations The communities and Boulder County surveyed for this report all administer the International Building Codes and the Na- tional Electrical Code. Longmont and the County have updated their codes to the 2015 versions of the International Building Codes. The other municipalities, except Lyons utilize the 2012 version of the International Code. Lyons has adopted the 2006 version of the IBC. All of the municipalities and the County have adopted amendments to the national codes which reflect unique conditions in the jurisdiction that are not adequately addressed in the national code. Because of recent experience with forest fires, several of the jurisdictions have banned the use of wood based roofing materials. Boulder County has also adopted amendments that address unique topographical and climatic conditions in the diverse parts of the County including the mountain areas. Some of the communities have design standards that require or deny the use of certain finish materials particularly for mul- tifamily and mixed use developments. Those stipulations result in exterior finishes that are more durable and present a more upscale appearance from the street. While those items do contribute to new construction costs, the trade-off is that larger buildings in the community will experience less exterior dete- rioration due to climate conditions. The design guidelines also enhance the appearance of the built environment. Conclusion: Building regulation requirements do contribute to the cost of development. However, the extra investment is offset by the benefits of health, safety, energy conservation, less maintenance and greater aesthetic appeal for the community. (h) Group care homes regulations An important finding of this report is that there is a deficit of suitable land for development of new permanent supportive housing complexes. While the need is a pressing current need there are not many viable options that are suitable for imme- diate development. One opportunity for housing some of the chronically homeless populations is the use of the group home model. Group homes could be utilized to house smaller numbers of individuals in residential settings that could be acquired and modified to accommodate groups of same sex residents more quickly than the time needed to develop new stand-alone complexes. There are some regulatory issues with the use of group homes for chronically homeless. State statute defines group home uses for developmentally disabled, mentally ill and elderly. The statutes do not speak specifically to the use of group homes for chronically homeless. The local jurisdictions have generally followed the dictates of state statute in how they address group homes in local zoning codes. Most of the local group home code items, stipulate that such facilities have a state license. However, there is no state licensing process for homes serving chronically homeless. State statutes proscribe occupancy limits for the homes. Those limits are placed at 8 residents not including any live in staff. The state statute also contains spacing restrictions that allow for a spacing requirement of 750 feet between group homes. Many of the local ordinances follow the state statute on occu- pancy limits. One municipality limits occupancy to six residents. One city bases occupancy levels on the factor of having 200 square of living space per resident in the group home. One city allows the City Manager to make an administrative decision allowing up to 10 residents in a home. Some communities reviewed, consider group homes as a residential use by right and don't require special permitting in order to place a group home in a residential zone. Several of the communities and the County, treat group homes as a non -conforming use in residential zones and require a special use review for approval. Some communities have adopted spacing requirements that are more liberal than the state limits and allow for group home spacing to be separated by 300 feet. The communities with group home zoning regulations, should review their regulations and determine if they are compliant with Fair Housing Laws. The U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have issued a joint opinion (https://wwwjustice.gov/crt/us-depart- ment-housing-and-urban-development) on the relation oflocal zoning and land use regulations and the Fair Housing Act. This opinion questions the legality for local jurisdictions to place any special restrictions on group home occupancy in zone districts that allow residential uses. The federal opinion views occupancy limits, spacing limitations and special permitting procedures as potentially discriminatory against protected classes under the Fair Housing Act. The opinion is clear that federal law does not preempt local land use regulations but cautions that if protected populations are denied a reasonable accommodation under local ordinanc- es that the local jurisdiction may be subject to suits by those who feel aggrieved by local restrictions. Because the population of chronically homeless is comprised of many with various disabilities covered under Fair Housing Law and the Americans with Disabilities Act, homeless agencies could request accom- modation for the placement of group homes serving chronical- ly homeless in local communities. Some Boulder County communities may choose to accommodate chronically homeless populations in a group home setting and follow their local guidelines for those facilities. Other communities may choose to amend their group home regulations to define a group home use for chronically homeless. Others may choose to remain silent on a new classification and treat requests as they would any other residential use. Conclusion: The group home model may be a cost effective and expedient way of providing decent housing to chronically homeless individuals. The group home facility is probably not a good model for families and it may not be feasible to open group homes serving mixed sexes. Housing and service pro- viders would also have to consider the feasibility of coupling service needs to a relatively small population at one location. Because of the challenges of managing a population with mul- tiple disabilities and behavioral challenges, it may be necessary to provide resident staffing in such facilities. However, the group home model could house some chronically homeless individuals faster than the time needed to design and construct new, stand-alone PSH units. 1 1 1 1 1 rn m 0 2 w 0 0. a w w ra E L w a 0 U Ql 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ 26 28 29