presented by: econorthwest march 17, 2011
DESCRIPTION
City of Newport Housing Needs Analysis Technical Advisory Committee #4 Preliminary Discussion of Housing Policy Options. Presented by: ECONorthwest March 17, 2011. Agenda. Project progress report (5 minutes) Overview of potential policy options (ECO, 30 minutes) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
AgendaProject progress report (5 minutes)Overview of potential policy options (ECO, 30
minutes)Prioritization and discussion of policy options
(All, 80 min) Prioritization Refinement of options
Next steps (5 min)
Key issuesLimited multifamily apartment developmentHigher-density residential land located in the
wrong place (inconsistent with the zoning intent or with constraints)
Aging housing stock—particularly multifamily. This provides a limited inventory of multifamily units with amenities such as open space
Lack of affordable workforce housing in Newport
Substantial in-commuting by workers at Newport businesses who live in outlying areas
Work with Lincoln CLT/LCHA and other nonprofitsCLT’s purchase land for development and
enter into long term leases with ownersPrice of home is separated from price of landFocus appears to be on owner products
Housing Authority’s develops low-income/cost housingFocus on a variety of populationsHave access to a range of funding programs
Land aggregation/site assemblyPotential Goals:
Provide sites for rental apartments in appropriate locations close to services
Reduce the cost of developing multifamily rental units
Potential funding sources:URD tax increment, lodging tax, grants,
donations, in lieu of fees or special assessments, general fund
Potential issues:Restrictions on use of funds, on sale of land
Inventory/Evaluate Surplus City LandsPotential Goals:
Provide sites for rental apartments in appropriate locations close to services
Reduce the cost of developing multifamily rental units
About 110 city-owned acres in residential areas
Not all developableWould require a detailed evaluation of each
property
ECO RecommendationsCreate a land bank program that involves the
City and nonprofit partners (CLT, LCHA, CDC, etc)
Evaluate city-owned propertiesFurther research potential funding optionsFurther research issues related to sale of
city-owned properties
Restructure SDCsLegal analysis for Wilder indicates city has the
ability to provide SDC reliefPotential equity issuesNot clear that the city can use higher rates to replace
lost revenuesSome cities use “in lieu of” fees to help support housing
programs
ECO Recommendations: Table SDC discussionECO conduct further analysis of in lieu of fees
Use URD fundsUse of urban renewal is possible for housing
projectsWould probably require establishing a new
district on the North side of the bay
ECO Recommendation:Consider URD as a lower priority strategy, but
retain on list of options as a potential medium-term option (2-5 years)
Use lodging tax revenueCurrent rate is 9.5% and generated $2.2 M in
200970% of revenue must be spent on tourism or
tourism-related activitiesWorkforce housing is probably not a tourism-
related activityUse of funds for housing would compete with
other uses
ECO Recommendation: City staff to conduct further analysis in short-term (1-2 years)
Consider additional exemptions from School TaxTax is $1 per 1000 sfTax already exempts affordable housing
projects that are available to households than earn less than 60% of median HH income for area
ECO Recommendation: drop this option
Research grant programsOHCS department has a range of grant
programsHUD programs, include dollar home programLCHA already uses some of theseOthers would be available to the City
ECO Recommendation: Staff should work with project partners to identify which programs have the most promise for Newport
Establish exclusive multifamily zoneNewport’s multifamily zones (R-3/R-4) allow
single-family housing typesMany are located in areas that are not conducive
to multifamily housingMore than 50% of land is designated HDRIt is not clear that the prohibition of single-family
types would result in more rental dwellings
ECO Recommendation: Reassess as a medium-term option (2-5 years)
Evaluate regulatory barriers to multifamily housingECO’s preliminary evaluation did not identify
any major barriers
ECO Recommendation: Consider adding more housing types to definitions and allowable housing type list (row houses, co-housing, etc)
Reduce minimum lot sizeThis strategy would apply to R-1 and possibly
R-2 zoneSmaller lot sizes would reduce housing costCould address a segment of workforce
housing need
ECO Recommendation: Consider as medium-term strategy (2-5 years)
Allow tiny homesTiny homes are structures that range from 80-400 s.f.Preliminary research identified a lot of activity on the
design side, but less on the regulatory sideTAC suggested requiring tiny homes comply with
applicable building code standardsIdentify a list of pre-approved designsMany potential options for how to address tiny homes
Rec0mmendation: Develop a more refined concept for tiny homes
Accessory dwelling unitsADU: an independent dwelling unit that
shares, at least, a tax lot in a single-family zone
Many policy variations—some are controversial
Our research in other cities suggests low production
Recommendation: Consider as a mid-term strategy (2-5 years)
Allow narrow streetsReduces housing costs by reducing land used
and infrastructureSome precedence in Newport (Wilder)TGM has a lot of materials on narrow streets
Recommendation: Consider as a middle-term option: 2-5 years
Multifamily housing designCreates amenity that may make multifamily
housing more attractiveIncludes amenities such as open space, play
areas, covered parking, etc.Regulatory standards may add cost
Recommendation: Consider as a middle-term option: 2-5 years