THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA Assembly Committee Of The Whole Work Session Minutes. January 14, 2013

Transcription

1 THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA Assembly Committee Of The Whole Work Session Minutes January 14, 2013 I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Deputy Mayor Mary Becker called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers. Assemblymembers Present: Mary Becker, Karen Crane, Loren Jones (Teleconference), Jesse Kiehl, Jerry Nankervis, Merrill Sanford, Carlton Smith, and Randy Wanamaker. Assemblymembers Absent: Johan Dybdahl. Staff present: Kim Kiefer, City Manager; Rob Steedle, Deputy City Manager; John Hartle, City Attorney; Laurie Sica, Municipal Clerk; Hal Hart, CDD Director; Greg Chaney, Planning Manager; Teri Camery, Senior Planner; Beth McKibben, Senior Planner; Charlie Ford, Building Official; Dan Jaeger, Fire Marshal; Sven Pearson, Deputy Fire Marshal; and Heather Marlow, Lands and Resources Manager. Others Present: Nathan Bishop, Dennis Watson Planning Commissioners. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Monday, December 3, 2012 COW Meeting Minutes Hearing no objection, the minutes of the December 3, 2012 Committee of the Whole meeting were approved. III. HOUSING 101 OVERVIEW ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PROCESS Hal Hart, Community Development Director, distributed and presented information in a power point format. He said the Comprehensive Plan was the blue print for the future and provided general guidance for land use, transportation, housing, parks and recreation, natural resources, public and private utilities, and for management of the complex systems that assisted development. Each permit issued helped to implement the comprehensive plan. Mr. Hart reviewed the CBJ Code Title 49 which outlined the types of permits issued by the CDD. It outlined the subdivision process, and also the Planned Unit Developments and Cottage Housing. Mr. Sanford asked why cottage housing had not caught on. Greg Chaney said that with cottage housing, a developer had to build an entire community of housing at one time (a minimum of 8 units), with all details worked out up front. Bungalow Assembly Committee of the Whole Meeting 1 January 14, 2013

2 housing had been much more successful and he described it as a process that both developers and individual homeowners could use. Mr. Chaney spoke about subdivision review. A minor subdivision was four lots or less and did not require a formal pre-application meeting. A major subdivision was five lots or more and required a public hearing with greater public notice. Mr. Chaney said there were many types of zones, including single and multi-family residential zoning districts. The D-1 zone was one unit per acre; D-10 was ten units per acre, for example. He explained how the D-10 could translate in a subdivision of ten single owners or one condo with one owner and ten units. Mr. Chaney spoke about the Permit Center being a one-stop shop, incorporating four functions, including Planning and Zoning that reviewed land use code implementation, transportation safety, predictability and equity. Also the Engineering Department, Building Department, and Fire Department were part of the plan review process. The pre-application processes allow for all four departments to be in the room at one time with the applicant. Charlie Ford, Building Official, spoke about the building codes and reviewed the purposes of the codes. He reviewed how a new house project permit would proceed. The more complete the submitted plans were, the faster the plan review process proceeded. Mayor Sanford asked why there were so many different permits he referred to a permit for a driveway in his neighborhood that required 3-4 different permits. He asked for staff to consider simplifying the process. Mr. Ford said there were several different departments involved including engineering and streets division. Mr. Ford discussed the multi-family project processes. Design professional, mechanical and electrical administrators were required on these larger projects. There was a pre-application meeting to go over all issues with the applicant. A certificate of occupancy was signed off by all four departments planning, building, engineering and fire. Ms. Becker asked if there was a key staff person to help centralize the permit process. Mr. Chaney said a permit specialist tracked the work of the four departments to keep projects moving forward. Mr. Nankervis asked if there was a tickler file for projects. Mr. Chaney said yes, all projects were listed out and the timing was tracked by the permit specialist. Mr. Chaney spoke about the variance process for projects that may not meet the parameters of the code to allow consideration of variations to the code. Mr. Chaney said due to the installation of sewer, the North Douglas and Pederson Hill Rezoning Projects were long term projects with big payoffs. There was a potential for 18,000 dwelling units theoretically with water, sewer and maintained roads in those areas. CDD sent over 600 letters to the property owners in those areas explaining the rule changes on each parcel to let property owners know the potential on their property. Assembly Committee of the Whole Meeting 2 January 14, 2013

3 Ms. Becker thanked the CDD staff for their information and presentation. IV. AD-HOC HOUSING COMMITTEE UPDATE Ms. Becker said the Assembly identified housing as a top goal and appointed a four member Ad Hoc Housing Committee to identify things that could be done to facilitate housing in the community. The committee members were Mary Becker, Jesse Kiehl, Carlton Smith and Randy Wanamaker. They solicited answers to the following questions from four groups developers, land owners, lenders and realtors. What are the challenges for you to provide housing within all price ranges and throughout the community? What strategies can the Assembly employ to alleviate the situation? Ms. Becker said the Assembly s goal was to listen, learn and see if there were suggestions made that the Assembly could carry out. The developer s group was led by Wayne Coogan, and included Murray Walsh, Richard Harris, Dave Hanna and Jeff Grant. Mr. Coogan said the housing shortage was an accepted fact. He said that most development was built by developers, financed by private sector banks for nonsubsidized occupants. He spoke about housing developments history and said by the late 1980 s, things started to tighten up, and zero lot line and condo projects took place. In the 1990 s and beyond there were fewer privately funded housing projects and more government funded projects. Developers of private markets can be counted on one hand. The lots and houses are smaller and more compact than in previous decades. Open market apartment construction had come to a virtual standstill. The Juneau housing industry could not provide enough homes to buyers and renters at prices they could afford. The industry was capable of providing homes, but the cost of the homes had gone beyond the reach of too many buyers and renters. The cost was driven by the ingredients of land, materials, labor, insurance, regulations, profit and inflation. Regulations were an ingredient over which the city had much control, and impacted all other costs. The most overreaching regulations were the local zoning and building codes administered by the city and when the regulations were excessive, industry could not provide housing at a desired price. His firm was currently building 60 apartment units in West Juneau. He said he was working with housing professionals and there was unanimous agreement that the city s regulations were excessive and out of control and were the primary cause of the housing shortage other than inflation. There was a fear of speaking out because we could be vilified for making trouble at city hall. Some feel they had received retribution and the city held a monopoly over a builder s right to work. The city must be cautious over the power wielded over the building industry. They were a hard-working and long suffering group of people. They worked hard and took risks and were regulated by those who had never walked in their shoes. Homeowners who have bought homes and developers with projects underway, which reflect full regulations, would be damaged by de-regulation of construction. He offered the floor to his counterparts prior to outlining his suggestions for actions the city could take. Assembly Committee of the Whole Meeting 3 January 14, 2013

4 Richard Harris said he was present to answer any questions. He had issues with some of his past projects, which he outlined in a previous letter. He said he agreed with most of the things that Mr. Coogan said. Jeff Grant said they developed over 30 lots six years ago and they had 30 more they would develop this summer in the valley at Erin Manor and Easy Street. They sold eight lots this year, and had seven left, but only one private individual bought this year and the rest were purchased by private developers. They had three developers in all for the 30 lots. He spoke about the issues with people getting loans to buy undeveloped property and also a loan for home construction. They looked at cutting down the size of the lots but it changed the look of the entire subdivision. His father, Hugh Grant, told him to let the Assembly look at what was done in the 1980 s and he was not sure what he was referring perhaps a city financing program for housing. Dave Hanna said the major overriding concern was the effect of regulation on building. There was some discussion and disagreement within the industry of the city putting more land out or be in the subdivision game. He said Lena Point was an example that showed the city should not develop subdivisions. There was already a lot of buildable land out there that we heard about tonight, so if the city could help through regulations, that would help. The accessory apartment ordinance was good. Legislation regarding abatement of taxes on properties when subdivided until the homes were built could help. Financing for mobile homes is nearly impossible and those are entry level homes which are critically needed and perhaps the city could encourage AHFC financing of mobile homes. Murray Walsh said there were a lot of little things that could be done and he encouraged the city staff to work on them. He said the east side of the Mendenhall River was zoned D-5 in the 70 s. After many years, the sewer was extended to the West side and the area was zoned D-3, even though the sewer was designed to D-5 capacity. The neighbors in the area swayed this decision because they didn t want to see population growth there. Thousands of dwelling units that could be accommodated were foregone. He said it was a humiliating experience going in front of the Planning Commission knowing that you would be subjected to the jibes of fellow residents there needed to be more manners demonstrated at hearings. He should not be subjected to disdain and the Planning Commissioners needed to uphold the law and not vote against project just because they don t like them. When planning staff and the Planning Commission had discretion, he asked that they lean toward the developer a little more. D-3 zoning for the West Valley harmed this community more than any other change. Wayne Coogan said there was no overall solution. He had spoken with his colleagues and competitors and they were encouraged by what was happening here. We are seeing that you need to take it upon yourselves to connect with the people being regulated and the Assembly should create relationships with the industry make phone calls check in with us. There was a list of all the building permits issued. He asked the Assembly to get the list and make phone calls, ask if it was easy to get the work done and what could be done to help. This would give you insight over time to slowly and gradually de-regulate. For every new code provision created, take three or four out of the code. If we do anything dramatic, people Assembly Committee of the Whole Meeting 4 January 14, 2013

5 could be hurt financially, such as opening a huge subdivision with no roads or no streetlights. Changes had to be done gradually. Mr. Nankervis asked what was meant by housing tightening up in the 80 s. Mr. Coogan said that a large house on a large lot constructed in Lakewood in the 80 s cost $80,000 new today it would be $400,000 for a small house on a 7,000 square feet. It had all changed due to regulation. Mr. Walsh said the market had changed and gas prices were also a greater part of a person s paycheck. Mr. Coogan said inflation in its own right was a problem - the cost of things, but the Assembly had no control over that. Mr. Coogan granted that a certain number of regulations were necessary, but it was overdone. Mr. Walsh spoke about the cost of infrastructure, such as paving and sidewalks, adding to the cost of housing. Mr. Smith asked for comments about the CBJ subdivision code. Mr. Walsh said there were a lot of improvements in the code such as the cottage housing and bungalow housing ideas. The code was not bad unless you were asked to do things outside of the code, which was a recent case in his experience. Requiring a homeowners association to clear the snow is not required. Mr. Harris said he understood the subdivision code and it was predictable when all his competitors had to do the same thing. He had issues when codes were applied to his developments and not others. Mr. Coogan said there was a dearth of starter homes. Currently the standard subdivision street development cost was $1000 per lineal foot and with a 60 foot front; lots were going for $85,000 90,000, which was not entry level housing. We have painted ourselves in a corner with a high priced situation and we can t indiscriminately change it as it would have an effect on other projects to deregulate the community. Mayor Sanford said one way to do it was to increase density to build to a higher density and get the entry level costs down. He asked if this would bring the cost per unit down. Mr. Coogan said that was true and it was a highly complicated topic. For everything that is said there was a counter-point, so it was important for the Assembly to stay connected due to the housing crisis. Mr. Harris said density was a solution and he thought D-10 was a somewhat useless zoning designation. As long as you can get parking and greenbelt development should be able to go to a higher density. Mr. Coogan related the purchase of property in West Juneau zoned D-36 and got approval to build 200 units of apartments on the property. In the 1980 s the economy crashed and he gave up the project. His approval expired. The property was down-zoned in 1984 which devalued everyone s property. A few years later he attempted to start the project and the traffic clause requiring a traffic study crept into the code. He had been zoned for 101 units, but the traffic study only allowed him to build 24 units. He paid an engineer for a traffic study who told him the level of service on the intersection three blocks from the property was changed for 15 Assembly Committee of the Whole Meeting 5 January 14, 2013

6 minutes a day. Because neighbors didn t want to get up 5 minutes earlier to go to work, they could not build those apartments. Mr. Hanna said there was talk about encouraging city staff to work with builders and developers and he had seen an improved attitude. He had also seen a level of frustration because staff did not have the ability to do variance type work, and they should be given the ability to grant exceptions at a staff level to allow exceptions to the rules. He had seen staff spend hours to find a way around a silly rule. Mr. Coogan said that staff s hands were tied and they operated in a box they had to worry about being attacked by neighboring people and he did not envy their position. They may have had a hand in creating the regulations but they are responding to what they see, feel and hear in the community. He would like to see a culture change to free up builders. Mayor Sanford said that some fault resides with the Assembly which has instituted code changes, little changes at a time, which bound the staff to certain rules and it was the Assembly s job to look at the situation and see how to make things work better for builders and private citizens to get the housing needed. Mr. Smith thanked the speakers for their participation and asked what the next logical step was. Mr. Walsh said at the risk of being too flippant, it took a long attention span to work through things. It took a long time to get too complicated. Make density more generous, but there is a practical limit to what can be done with light wood construction. He did not know how to instruct people to have a more pro-development attitude. Mr. Nankervis said no one should experience any retribution and the manager s would act it that happened, or the Assembly. He said he was looking at changes that could benefit people now, not fix what happened in the past. The Assembly would not penalize people who had to comply with past rules, but had to move forward. Mr. Coogan said that was encouraging but he wanted to proceed carefully as there were people who had a lot of money invested and if someone was allowed to start without those rules, that would be fundamentally unfair so it was tricky. Mr. Kiehl said the speakers had talked about the costs of shared infrastructure and regulatory costs of quality of community items, also the cost of safety/quality of construction rules. Is there a general sense that we just take the international code and we are all safer and that may or may not be true. He asked the developers if there was a better approach. Mr. Coogan said CBJ had the ability to adopt and amend the codes and we could talk specifics for a long time. If approached with an attitude of making things workable and not just protect everyone s safety at whatever cost, and not concern ourselves with the cost a change there would help. He referred to the idea of narrowing further the 4 distance between handrails. Mr. Harris said there were so many codes and some that do not apply to a smaller development he related an example of a requirement that there must be a 50 Assembly Committee of the Whole Meeting 6 January 14, 2013

7 separation between doors to meet code, which was an expensive work around but not logically necessary. Mr. Coogan suggested legal research to see how much liberty the city had to modify the code for its own use. Mr. Walsh said a developer is not going to want to take the time to amend the international code - they want to get their project going so positioning city staff to detect these things was a good instruction to give. Mr. Wanamaker said this was good food for thought and he would be asking more questions as follow-up and he would like to hear more information in the future. He wanted to find solutions to benefit the community, which would benefit the builders. Mayor Sanford asked if private industry could provide for the full spectrum of housing senior citizens, assisted living, low income, starter homes and the entire range of housing. There were segments that needed a certain amount of housing how do we get to some of the segments that don t have the private industry doing the developing. Mr. Walsh said he would rather see people be given assistance to purchase private housing, but we have both specifically subsidized developments and subsidized people. He thought subsidizing people was a better idea due to perceived social status. Mr. Harris said there were developers looking at senior housing and generally they were from out of state, it was not his specialty. Mr. Coogan said the city should be careful about participating in public housing and it should only be done when the private industry would not get involved. The wet housing developers will have the same costs due to complying with the same regulations. The city has vast land holdings and if there was a way to liquidate land to the private sector in a prudent, careful manner that didn t dump land on the market, that should be considered. Ms. Crane asked if there were incentives that CBJ could develop that would make it more attractive to do some mixed housing so that you could afford to build some smaller homes as well as larger homes, so we get more starter homes on the market. Mr. Harris said if CBJ land was liquidated, it should be done carefully. There was a lot of private land out there if the infrastructure was there, i.e. streets in place but no utilities. Many times there are issues you don t see and costs due to conditions imposed at meetings. Drainage, water, sewer, paving perhaps offer to change the zoning if the developer paves the street increasing density for infrastructure improvements. Mr. Walsh said that sometime the city requires the last developer in to address an ongoing problem in a neighborhood and related a situation with drainage. Assembly Committee of the Whole Meeting 7 January 14, 2013

8 Mr. Nankervis asked Mr. Harris is there was a lot of property to infill. Mr. Harris said he thought there was. Mr. Coogan said JEDC has a map showing availability for developments. If the market was unshackled it could produce the products. Mr. Coogan agreed with Mr. Walsh s point about the last developer being required to pay the cost for improvements and the renters in the apartments he was developing could not afford those extra costs associated with the project. Mr. Hanna agreed and said perhaps in those situations the city or state should participate so that the developer does not have to pay the entire burden for the neighborhood. Mr. Hanna suggested offering density credits for community improvements such as an increase from D-5 to D-10 zoning if adding a community playground. Mr. Hanna said whether it was city staff, the Planning Commission or the Assembly, there was often a buckling under pressure due to lack of decorum in the public process. The applicant usually conducts themselves well and the public can be very slanderous. He asked for enforcement of basic rules of conduct. Mr. Hanna said there was a big focus on housing and the housing crisis, but we have a low wage in this town, which was tied to the economy and jobs. A major hurdle of providing jobs was providing sufficient commercial and industrial land. Creating more commercial and industrial areas could create jobs. Ms. Becker thanked the speakers and provided the address for anyone to send in comment: city_clerk@ci.juneau.ak.us She opened that offer to the public to get as many comments as possible. V. ASSEMBLY GOALS The Assembly reviewed the draft goals presented, had some discussion, and hearing no objection, the goals were accepted in the provided form. VI. STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING REQUESTS Ms. Kiefer reviewed a draft list distributed in the red folder and said this list would be reviewed by the city s lobbyists and provided to the upcoming Finance Committee on January 23 for final review and submission to the state by the February 4 deadline. The Assembly discussed its upcoming meeting and event schedule. VII. ADJOURN 8:10 P.M. Submitted by Laurie Sica, mmc Municipal Clerk Assembly Committee of the Whole Meeting 8 January 14, 2013