City of Charlotte
Housing Locational Policy
Public Input Review
Housing & Neighborhood Development
Committee Meeting
August 25, 2010
Definition
• The Housing Locational Policy provides a guide for the
financing and/or development of new multi-family
rental housing projects designed to serve households
earning 60% ($40,300) or less than Area Median
Income
Springcroft @ Ashley Park
Senior Living
CMHP
2005
McCreesh Place
Special Needs
St Peter’s
St.
Pete ’ Homes
Home
2003
Seigle Point
HopeIV/Mixed-Income
CHA
2008
Revision Purpose
Adapt the City’s Housing Locational Policy to address
current realities
• Most recently revised in 2003
• Increasing demand
• Neighborhood dynamics
• Economic environment
A draft update to the policy was created to present
to the public for input and feedback through:
• Public forums
• Email (HLP@charlottenc.gov)
• Other written communication
Feedback Model
Held five Public Forums in all areas of the City
- 174 total participants
- 158 unique participants
South Region
West Region
East Region
Central Region
M d
Monday,
August
A
t 9,
9 2010 @ M
Mountt
Wednesday,
W
d
d
July
J l 7 @ St.
S M
Matthews
tth
Carmel Baptist Church
Catholic Church
- 28 citizens attended
- 29 citizens attended
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 @ Hickory
Grove Baptist Church
- 31 citizens
iti
attended
tt d d
North Region
Wednesday, August 4,
Wednesday
4 2010 @
Vance High School Auditorium
- 24 citizens attended
Monday, August 16, 2010 @
Charlotte Mecklenburg Government
Center
- 63 citizens attended
Forum Approach
• Provided a brief overview of existing policy and
proposed changes
• Staff facilitated small group discussions of 6-8
people asking the following
follo ing questions:
q estions
1. What is important
p
to y
you when it comes to
affordable housing?
- Affordable housing should be dispersed
throughout the community and it should be
mixed income developments.
Forum Approach
2. Do you think the City needs an affordable
housing locational policy?
- Yes, a locational policy is needed so that
affordable housing
g is geographically
g g p
y dispersed
p
and to prevent undue concentration.
3 Do you agree with the proposed revisions to
3.
the policy? If not, what would you like to see
changed?
- Yes, it’s easier to understand and makes it
easier for developers to develop affordable
housing.
housing
Feedback Themes
• Waivers
• Policy application to
State/Federal projects
• Aesthetic and
management concerns
• ½ mile radius
restriction
• Using the Quality of Life
study
y to create policy
p
y
• Property values
• Special needs
exemptions
• Inclusionary zoning
• Proximity to
transportation,
goods, and services
Feedback/Input Trends
Waivers
• The new policy should be strictly enforced – no waivers.
(10)
Policy Application to State/Federal Projects
• If City money is not involved in a project, the policy
should not be applied. (3)
• The policy should expand to state and federally assisted
initiatives. (3)
Feedback/Input Trends
Aesthetic/Management Concerns
• Citizens show support of affordable housing (new, rehab,
and conversion) in any location provided it was built and
managed properly. Dictate a design, maintenance and
management (huge emphases on management) standard
within the policy that is enforced throughout the life of
the property to avoid building
g deterioration over time.
(52)
Feedback/Input Trends
½ Mile Radius Restriction
• Should decrease or remove the ½ mile restriction (17)
• Avoid over concentration of assisted housing units in one
area but ½ mile radius rule may be to crude. Suggested
taking an area and analyzing the percentage of assisted
housing compared to all other housing in area. For
e ample if less than 20% of the units
example,
nits in the area
a ea are
a e
assisted housing units, the project should be allowed
within the ½ mile radius. (3)
• ½ mile buffer is appropriate. (2)
• ½ mile buffer should be increased – specifically in already
highly concentrated areas. (4)
Feedback/Input Trends
Using Quality of Life (QOL) study to create policy
• The (QOL) overlay doesn’t
doesn t account for market and cost of land
land.
There will be limited sites available. Developers need access to
land that is affordable. (5)
• Object to QOL defining permissibility for building – QOL may
state a neighborhood is stable but it could be trending down.
(3)
• You should build only in stable neighborhoods. (8)
• Allow new development in challenged and transitioning areas as
well
ll because
b
good
d housing
h
i
projects
j t can help
h l stabilize
t bili them.
th
(9)
• Concern the data collection for the study may not be accurate.
g information on how NSA boundaries are created
Not enough
what may qualify a NSA as “Stable” – concerning to create a
policy around a study that may or may not be reliable. (2)
Feedback/Input Trends
Property Values
• There was no negative impact on property values due to
assisted housing. (2)
• C
Concern about
b t declining
d li i
property
t values
l
– additional
dditi
l
assisted housing will contribute to declining property
values. (4)
Special Needs Exemption
• Special needs/senior housing should remain exempt from
the policy. (12)
Feedback/Input Trends
Inclusionary Zoning
• Inclusionary Zoning should be part of the policy. (32)
Proximity to transportation, goods, and services
• Proximity to public transportation, goods and services is
critical in considering affordable housing location. (25)
Feedback/Input Trends
General Comments
• Concern about
b
tenants lliving in affordable
ff d bl h
housing units
and bringing crime to the area – require background
checks and any tenant that breaks the rules or is
convicted should be required to leave.
leave (11)
• Place time limits on residents with the exception of
elderly and disabled.
disabled (4)
• Provide programs that assist people in becoming selfsufficient.
su
ce
(9)
• Policy should expand beyond multifamily units. (4)
Housing Locational Policy
Review Schedule
H&ND Committee review citizen
recommendations
Aug 25, 2010
H&ND Committee review and approve
revised Housing Locational Policy
Sept 1, 2010
Public Hearing on revised Housing
Locational Policy
Sept 13, 2010
City Council approval of revised
Housing
g Locational Policy
y
Sept
p 27,, 2010