Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2014

Home

Last revised July 24, 2014 • On & Off -Site Options —in certain locations and market contexts, it may be more financially feasible or logistically practical to "split off" the market rate units from the affordable units rather than physically combining them into a single structure. While this may run the risk of diluting goals pertaining to economic and social integration, allowing a developer to pursue a market rate project portion in one location and the affordable project portion in another, presumably proximate, location is another option to consider. • Cross -Typology Approaches —Similar to On & Off -site Options, Cross -Typology Approaches add housing typology to the list of flexible features. Depending on the local price and availability of land, the local desire to expand housing types available, and other factors, cross -typological inclusionary strategies may or may not be desirable. Essentially, however, this concept —under which a developer may have the flexibility to include two or more different types of housing (such as single family, townhome, or multifamily rental) as part of an inclusionary effort —could be attractive. • Inclusionary'A la Carte" —for cities with strong capacity and experience in using local planning, land use, and finance -oriented tools and controls to benefit housing and community development, it may be desirable to offer developer choice in what benefits, provided at which key points in the project's life, make the most financial sense given other project dynamics. • "As of Right" Approach —developers value predictability and go to great lengths to identify potential delays in a project's schedule. Growing construction finance interest and other holding costs can become deal -breakers or at least eat into profit. A city that is interested in encouraging affordable or mixed -use development might explore developing a package of incentives that, when certain parameters are met (for example, other finance sources are secured, the developer has site control, the project has passed environmental review, etc.), the developer receives the incentives "as of right" and does not have to make special efforts or applications to receive the inclusionary-focused set of financial or procedural benefits. • Payment in Lieu Strategies —allowing a participant under a voluntary or mandatory inclusionary policy structure to effectively "buy out from" the scheme, on a limited basis or for an agreed upon period of time, with proceeds funding affordable development or an affordable development fund elsewhere. • Promoting the Availability of Land —while it is clear not all local jurisdictions have the same level of financial and technical resources, promoting the availability of parcels that can support density and provide adequate economic potential to make the inclusion of affordable units and the development overall not only feasible but profitable can make a big difference in the likelihood of attracting development interest. In addition, where public acquisition or conveyance of a site is possible, a community can be in position to achieve affordability objectives and possibly secure developer investments in community infrastructure by significantly reducing costs and making the parcel available for developer competition. The track record and literature on inclusionary policies is growing over time, as is the number of cities employing some form of inclusionary strategy. While questions remain for many about their effectiveness, the important public policy objectives of achieving greater social, economic, and community integration will likely keep these potential tools at the fore over the long-term. Whether the approach is cooperative and incentive -based, or mandated by law or policy, this area remains an important opportunity for impact. Council Role • Convene regional conversations about inclusionary housing strategies. 2040 HOUSING POLICY PLAN I METROPOLITAN COUNCIL DRAFT RELEASED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Part IV: Opportunities for Impact I Page 66