Presentation to
Council’s H&ND Committee
Assisted Multi-Family Housing
at Transit Station Areas
September 7, 2011
Objective
“The City shall evaluate
and assess the progress
of the policy within
12-24 months after the
first rapid transit line
opens to determine if
additional changes or
modifications are
needed.”
Stakeholder Policy Review
Two Citizen Advisory Group meetings were
convened on August 16, 2011:
Meeting 1 - 12:00 Noon
Housing Development Professionals
Meeting 2 - 6:00 p.m.
Neighborhood Leaders
(neighborhoods along existing or future
transit corridors)
Participants at each meeting were asked to
evaluate the City’s policy for Assisted MultiFamily Housing at Transit Stations, and assess
whether or not it should be modified or
amended by City Council.
Citizen Advisory Groups
Development Professionals
Lee Cochran – Charlotte Mecklenburg
Housing Partnership
Fred Dodson – Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Housing Partnership
David Furman – Centro Citiworks
Bert Green – Habitat for Humanity
Darryl Hemminger – Crosland
Jud Little – Crosland
Jim Merrifield – Merrifield Patrick
Vermillion
Dionne Nelson – Crosland
Joe Padilla – Real Estate and Building
Industry Coalition
Peter A. Pappas – Pappas Properties
John Porter – Charter Properties
Monte Ritchey – Conformity Corporation
Chris Squier – Charlotte Housing
Authority
Neighborhood Leaders
Elizabeth Barnhardt – Charlotte Regional
REALTOR Association
Martin Doss – Madison Park HOA
Mark Francis– Montclaire Neighborhood
Association
John Fryday – Fryday & Doyne (Dilworth)
Ed Garber – Eastside Political Action Committee
Maureen Gilewski – Mixed Income Housing
Coalition/Grove Park Neighborhood
Sherrill Hampton – Johnson C. Smith University
Mary Hopper – University City Partners
Mary Klenz - Mixed Income Housing Coalition
Chad Maupin – NoDa Neighborhood Association
Nancy Mosier – Montclaire Neighborhood
Association
Nancy Pierce – Merry Oaks Neighborhood
Ken Szymanski – Greater Charlotte Apartment
Association
Janelle Travis - New Bern Neighborhood
Jill Walker – Dilworth Neighborhood
Assisted Multi-Family Housing
at Transit Station Areas
Introduction
Staff opened both meetings with an overview of transit in Charlotte, showing development
projects near transit stations that have either been completed or planned, and an explanation of
the purpose and desired outcome of the meetings.
Development Professionals
Sampling of Comments
Assisted Housing at Transit Stations:
• Transit station areas are good locations for
housing due to access to transportation
and other services.
• If it’s a good location for housing then it is
a good location for assisted housing.
• The profile of who needs assisted housing
is changing; it is not just the stereotypical
single mother with children it is also
elderly, students, singles and the working
poor.
• In 15 years I have never moved anyone
into one of our condominium units who has
a child with them. The divorcees with child
on weekend, 1 in 8 is elderly at market
rates that want to be near youth.
• In an ideal world you want to be as close
to the transit station as possible. The
practical experience is that developers are
having more difficulty making the numbers
work in terms of the price and availability
of land in order to do affordable housing as
they get closer to a transit station.
Incentives:
• In this economy, we have to lose the thought
that the transit is enough of an incentive.
• The question is, how do you also incentivize
the area to get (supportive) services, so you
then have both the ingredients you need.
You have the transportation piece through
the transit, but we need the services.
• When you say services, you mean retail
(grocery stores), which naturally are always
going to follow the rooftops. The incentive
levels to make a retailer come in and do
something that doesn’t have base demand –
not sure how you would do it.
• Ideally you would have the office use leading
the program. Having the jobs in place, the
housing will follow more easily.
• We are in a cycle, that will be with us for
awhile, so if we are really looking at policy,
let’s look comprehensively and ask what else
does it take to get some of those nonresidential pieces, which then makes the
housing piece more logical.
Development Professionals
Sampling of Comments (continued)
Incentives (continued)
•
•
The economy itself suggests a tweaking of
the policy, so that we can get not only the
housing but the jobs there and really have
a balance at these stations. You look at the
places we all aspire to have on the south
corridor, they really are multi/mixed use
developments and to do that is going to be
harder now than it has ever been.
It is difficult to incent developers with
density bonuses because you can already
do as much as you want to do (in TOD
zoning).
Mixed Income Housing:
•
Affordable housing often leads, and we
(CHA) think because of the high quality
product it actually brings market rate
units.
Mixed Income Housing Integration
•
At some stations the market is going to lead
and the affordable has to follow, but we don’t
know who will lead or follow.
•
A development that mixes affordable buildings
with market buildings – this is when you
actually mix in affordable units and market rate
units - our experience is that tends to depress
the market rate.
•
We have to offer rents at less than market,
therefore it creates a subsidy. The units cost
the same to build so it creates another gap you
have to fill with subsidy to create the same
number of affordable units. There maybe very
specific places where that is not true (e.g. Trade
& Tryon), most places where there is choice
that is what happens.
Neighborhood Leaders
Sampling of Comments
Assisted Housing at Transit Stations:
• My goal is to support affordable housing
and we are lobbying for it. I want the rules
to be as clear as possible so that when we
ask developers to navigate this, that there
aren’t any roadblocks or confusion.
• I understand on many levels why this is
happening, but my question is why this
makes sense to increase assisted housing
at transit stations?
• We have found people are afraid of
affordable housing in an already challenged
area.
Incentives:
• I understand (from the ULI) that the city is
buying up land along Independence? I
think our concern is that assisted housing
would be there and then the transit, which
may be bus rapid transit, may not show up
for another 20 years at which point the tax
credits have run out or the apartments
have deteriorated.
Incentives:
• If the City is interested in encouraging
development along transit corridors, what is
the process to engage in spending City
money on a project in a future transit
corridor if there is no bus or true transit –
there will be some day, but not now.
• In 2007 Planning staff learned of the
developers’ interest for the four market rate
deals, did anyone on city staff or Council
approach the developers and say there are
economic development incentives, we want
you to set aside (affordable/assisted units) –
did those conversations take place?
Mixed Income Housing:
• Need to encourage that units are integrated
into the same building
• The language included in the LHP should be
used for this policy as often possible i.e.
definition of assisted, maximum percentage
of affordable
Assisted Multi-Family Housing
at Transit Station Areas
Policy A
The City shall aggressively pursue opportunities to develop assisted housing1 within a ¼ mile of
transit stations2 when participating in joint development projects such as building or providing
loans for infrastructure, acquiring land, and/or other economic development initiatives.
1
Includes CHA Section 8, NC low income Tax Credits, Housing Trust Fund and Hope VI Developments serving households earning 60% or
below the area median income. 2 The area within a ½ mile walking distance of an identified rapid transit station.
Discussion
• Need to define “assisted housing” preferably consistent with Locational Housing Policy.
• The policy says the City shall “develop” assisted housing. However, the City is not a
“developer”. Perhaps the word “develop” should be changed to “facilitate development of” or
“encourage development of”.
• ¼ mile vs. ½ mile –Why does the policy only focus on ¼ mile. Cost to develop increases as
you get closer to the transit station.
• Bus routes should be integrated into the light rail system.
Assisted Multi-Family Housing
at Transit Station Areas
Policy B
This policy only applies to transit corridors with adopted transit stations.
Discussion
• Need to clarify difference between transit station and rapid transit station. This
policy refers to rapid transit stations (LRT or BRT), not community bus transit
facilities (e.g. Eastland Mall).
• Expressed concern about when TOD zoning could be applied.
• Need to clarify that an adopted transit stations refers more to a location than to
an adopted station area plan.
Assisted Multi-Family Housing
at Transit Station Areas
Policy C
The City shall encourage the development of a minimum of 5% up to a maximum
of 25% of any development with multi-family units to be assisted.
Discussion
• Why not require assisted housing rather than encourage it?
• Some questioned why there is a maximum of 25% (or any maximum at all).
• It was suggested that the minimum be raised from 5% to 10%.
• Perhaps there could be Housing Trust Fund monies or other incentives available
to developers willing to set aside 5% to 25% of units in a development as
assisted housing.
Assisted Multi-Family Housing
at Transit Station Areas
Policy D
The number of assisted multi-family housing units shall not be greater than 20%
of the total housing units within a ¼ mile of the transit station.
Discussion
• Do we even need minimums or maximums for this policy?
• It doesn’t seem that the problem today is too much assisted housing near transit
stations. Let’s focus our energy on policy that fixes the current problem and cap it
later if we feel we are approaching a point where there is too much.
• You have an area that is essentially non-residential – it is not a greenfield, it is
more a brownfield – industrial area without a whole lot of residential. If there
were only 100 units in a ¼ mile, to say we can do only 20 units is not enough.
Assisted Multi-Family Housing
at Transit Station Areas
Policy E
At least 30% of the assisted multi-family housing units developed at a particular site shall be
reserved for households earning 30% or less than the area median income.
Discussion
• If you are trying to get a market rate developer to include some affordable units
in a project, this percentage is an excessive burden.
• Consider applying this requirement only to those developments that are 100%
affordable.
• Many market-rate apartment developments do not accept Section 8 vouchers.
Perhaps there is an opportunity to draw lower-income households into existing
development already in the transit station area by simply encouraging those
developers to change their policy on how they rent to residents.
Assisted Multi-Family Housing
at Transit Station Areas
Policy F
The assisted multi-family housing in transit station areas shall always be developed
as part of a larger mixed income development.
Discussion
• Consider using “should” instead of “shall.”
• The affordable may lead or market may lead but don’t know sometimes at the
outset of a project.
Assisted Multi-Family Housing
at Transit Station Areas
Policy G
The assisted multi-family housing shall be similar in appearance to the
portion of the project that is developed as market rate housing.
Discussion
• Should read “similar in quality” instead of “similar in appearance”.
• “Similar to appearance” could be changed to “attractive and well designed”. You
don’t want the entire development to look alike, you want to have variety in
appearance.
• “Indistinguishable” could be the description.
• Want to avoid an “us vs. them” situation.
Assisted Multi-Family Housing
at Transit Station Areas
Policy H
The assisted multi-family housing units shall be scattered throughout
the development and not concentrated in one area.
Discussion
• Maybe the “shall be” can be changed to “are encouraged to be.”
• Change the word “units” to “development” and the word “development” to “areas”.
• Leave statement as is, but add “unless the project is 100% affordable”.
• When you mix assisted units with market units the market units cannot command the true
market rate. The market-rate renter has choices and they expect something more. It never
becomes true market rate and mixed income; it is mixed, but not true market.
• The rent levels won’t be as high as they would be otherwise because you could go across the
street to a 100% market rate development and pay that amount. Why would you pay fullboat price when the person next door is paying a third of it?
• Is it truly that important that assisted multi-family units be in the same building?
Assisted Multi-Family Housing
at Transit Station Areas
Other
The following types of housing are exempt from the requirements of this policy:
•
Single-family detached, housing designed to serve the elderly and physically disabled
Waiver Process


Considered by City Council on a case-by-case basis.
Waiver Process:

Requested by the developer

Staff prepares information for Council review

Adjoining property owners and neighborhood organizations are notified two weeks prior to City Council
review
Discussion
• The developer has the right to request a waiver. The Council must approve waiver.
• The process should be similar to the Locational Housing Policy to encourage consistency.
Next Steps
Proposed Schedule
• Citizen Advisory Group – Follow-up Meeting
TBD
• H&ND Committee Approval
October 5, 2011
• Dinner Briefing (tentative)
November 2011
• Public Hearing
November 2011
• Council Approval
November 2011
Questions?