October 12, 2022

CITY OF TITUSVILLE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MINUTES

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2022

4:00 P. M.

The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee meeting was held at the Harry T. Moore Social Service Center, 725 S. DeLeon Avenue.

XXX

Members present were Committee Chairperson Joe C. Robinson, Vice-Chairman Sid Chehayeb (remotely), Member Bill Gary, and Member Joe Richardson.  City Staff present were Terrie Franklin, Neighborhood Services Director, Sheila Martin Neighborhood Services Special Projects & Administrative Coordinator, and Brad Parrish Community Development Director.

XXX

I.          Meeting was called to order at 4:15 p.m.

XXX

II.        Roll Call

XXX

III.       Quorum established by roll call.

XXX

IV.       Approval of Minutes

September 21, 2022 Minutes:  Member Richardson moved to approve minutes; seconded by Member Gary.  Motion carried by unanimous voice vote of yes.

XXX

V.        OLD BUSINESS

A.  Incentive B: Modification of Impact Fee Requirements including Reduction or Waiver of Fees and Alternative Method of Fee Payment

Chairman Robinson stated that no further insight was garnered from the THA meeting regarding Incentive B, therefore, the recommendations of the 2022 AHAC remain adequate.

Member Richardson motioned to leave Incentive B AS IN; seconded by Member Gary.

Motion carried by unanimous voice vote of yes to leave Incentive B AS IS.

XXX

B. Incentive C: Increase Allowable Density Levels

Chairman Robinson stated that currently, there is not a lot of flexibility for this Incentive regarding accessory dwellings because the AHAC has already previously included recommendations pursuant to current codes and ordinances. Chairman Robinson then asked if there was anything that could be done to improve upon or enhance Incentive C, to which Brad Parrish replied that the City requirements for accessory dwellings can be reviewed for flexibility.

Terrie Franklin stated that during the previous AHAC meeting, Brad Parrish had discussed flexibility for landscaping buffers, which seems to be a challenge for a lot of the developments, and including language within Incentive C to address this.

Brad Parrish stated that along public rights of way, there is a minimum landscape buffer requirement of 20 feet, and a recommendation could be to have requirements similar to the Urban Mixed-Use zoning district requirements, wherein setback and landscape buffer requirements are the same, and if there is a conflict, you go down to whatever the minimum is.

Chairman Robinson stated that he liked Brad Parrish’s recommendation, to which Terrie Franklin clarified the language of the recommendation for Incentive C, specifically, to research and discuss landscape buffers and setbacks similar to the Urban-Mixed Use requirements, which ever gives the greatest enhancement of the property.

Member Richardson motioned to include the recommendation for Incentive C to research and discuss landscape buffers and setbacks similar to the Urban-Mixed Use requirements, which ever gives the greatest enhancement of the property; seconded by Member Gary.

Motion carried by unanimous voice vote of yes.

XXX

VI.       NEW BUSINESS

Terrie Franklin explained that the State’s purpose for Incentive I is to require local governments to consider how proposed actions may affect the cost of housing development, and that this level of review may be led by governmental bodies; and currently for this Incentive, the City has a P&Z liaison serving in that capacity as the in-between to ensure that when new policies and procedures go before the board, that we have a set of eyes at that level and report back to the Committee regarding any negative effects that may arise.

Chairman Robinson asked if there was anything that could be done to enhance this Incentive, to which Terrie Franklin responded that the Committee could consider implementing a process which requires an affordable housing economic impact analysis to be provided to elected officials in considering new policies and procedure, and could also have a process that requires staff assigned to determine if decisions have a financial impact on affordable housing and consider utilizing the collective experience of the AHAC Committee to determine whether a proposed action affects the cost of housing.

Chairman Robinson stated that Incentive I should include the enhanced language provided by Terrie Franklin.

Member Richardson motioned to add the enhanced language for Incentive I regarding “implementing a process which requires an affordable housing economic impact analysis to be provided to elected officials in considering new policies and procedure, implement a process that requires staff being assigned to determine if decisions have a financial impact on affordable housing, and to utilize the collective experience of the AHAC Committee to determine whether a proposed action affects the cost of housing”; seconded by Member Gary.

Motion carried by unanimous voice vote of yes.

XXX

Terrie Franklin stated that this Incentive is specifically referencing City owned lands, and that there have not been any changes to the available inventory list from last year, and there are still only two properties on the list, one on Kenilworth and one on First, therefore there is not anything for the Committee to consider regarding this Incentive.

Member Gary motioned to leave Incentive J AS IS; seconded by Member Richardson.

Motion carried by unanimous voice vote of yes to leave Incentive J AS IS.

XXX

             3. Incentive K: The Support of Development Near Transportation Hubs and Major Employment Centers, and Mixed-Use Developments.

Chairman Robinson stated that this Incentive appears to apply to larger Cities, and is it possible to make this language more applicable to a smaller City, to which Brad Parrish responded that last year, when working on this Incentive, the idea was to prioritize affordable housing projects regarding public transportation, and that the closest hub within City limits is at Titus Landing, along Hopkins.

Terrie Franklin read the State guidelines for Incentive K, specifically, Incentives could include: density bonuses for developments that provide affordable housing, expedited permit review, which the City already does, funding priority through scoring proposed developments near public transit, which the City already does, flexible residential development strategies such as density and site criteria, reduced impact fees, inclusionary housing programs, land acquisition and land banking reserved sites, and reduced parking requirements.

Chairman Robinson stated that it is important to consider the issue of redevelopment.

Brad Parrish stated that there are several properties that specifically have a restricted land use for zoning, mainly only commercial or non-residential, especially along the major arterial roads, and asked if the Committee would be willing to propose or recommend supporting the amendment of the zoning for these properties to residential, in the event that someone is willing to redevelop them, including some kind of inclusionary zoning limit.

Chairman Robinson asked how the City captures land to be used for funding affordable housing projects, to which Terrie Franklin responded that the State dictates where affordable housing has to be located when considering State funding, but locally, the City is not subject to such requirements.

Member Gary moved to leave Incentive K AS IS; seconded by Member Richardson.  Motion carried by unanimous voice vote of yes to leave Incentive G AS IS.

XXX

VII.     Petitions and Requests from the public

            No action.

XXX

VIII.    REPORTS

No action.

No action.

Terrie Franklin went over additional strategies and incentives that the Committee could consider adding to the 2023 Plan pursuant to the examples provided by the State, and stated that any examples that the Committee liked would be included on the 11/2/2022 AHAC Agenda for discussion.  These examples were (1) inclusionary zoning as a land use planning tool that requires certain market rate developers to include a percentage or number of affordable units within the market rate development, (2) community land trust, which is a strategy that would allow a nonprofit to ensure that permanent affordable housing in Titusville, and allows the community or land trust to maintain ownership of the land and sell the homes or rent the structure, but the land stays as a 99 year lease, (3) locally sourced funds, in addition to looking into how SHIP funds can be expended, the AHAC could make recommendations on how the City could raise or utilize other local funding for affordable housing developments, (4) adaptive reuse, to reuse abandoned or under-utilized structures for affordable housing, (5) manufactured housing, (6) increase partnerships with local school boards, universities, major employers, community based nonprofits, religion based institutions, and for-profit housing providers.

Chairman Robinson stated that he liked the first two examples and recommended that they be included in the plan.  All members agreed.

XXX

IX.       Adjournment

With no further business or discussions, Chairman Robinson adjourned the meeting at 5:09 p.m.