City of Geneva Planning and Zoning Commission met Dec. 12.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
Chairman Stocking called the meeting of the Geneva Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call followed:
Present: Chairman Stocking; Commissioners Evans, Kosirog, Mead, Rittenhouse, Slifka
Absent: Commissioner DeBates
Staff Present: Community Development Director David DeGroot
Public Present: Ms. Tracy Manning with The Burton Foundation, 2019 Larkin Avenue, Elgin; Mr. Chuck Miles, 1015 Westfield Course, Geneva; Planet Depos Court Reporter Paula Quetsch; Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt.
Approval of the Agenda
Motion by Commissioner Evans, second by Commissioner Kosirog to approve the agenda. Motion passed by voice vote of 6-0.
Approval of the Minutes
Motion by Kosirog, second by Commissioner Evans to approve the Minutes of November 12, 2019 and November 14, 2019. Motion passed by voice vote of 6-0.
Public Hearing
Chairman Stocking read the procedures for the public hearing and administered the oath to those individuals that would be speaking on this matter.
A. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments – Request for text amendments to Chapter 2 (Definitions) of Title 11 (Zoning) of the Geneva Municipal Code, to add Chapter 16 (Inclusionary Housing) to Title 11 (Zoning) of the Geneva Municipal Code, and text amendments to Chapter 4 (Public Open Spaces) of Title 12 (Subdivisions) of the Geneva Municipal Code, all related to incentives for the creation of affordable housing within the City of Geneva. Applicant: City of Geneva
Community Development Director DeGroot read into the record the contents of the Planning and Zoning file.
Reviewing a PowerPoint presentation, Director DeGroot discussed the City’s goals and objectives for affordable housing over the years, the various policy discussions that were held over the past year, the action items that came out of those discussions and the steps taken to address affordable housing, to date. An explanation of the Affordable Housing Planning and Appeal Act (the “Act”) followed, the requirements of the Act, and the 2018 update under the Illinois Housing Development Authority (“IHDA”). Under the IHDA, the City was still cited in December 2018 as being a non-exempt local government with only 7.7% of its year-round housing stock considered affordable. Ten percent housing stock was required. Per DeGroot, this required the City of Geneva to submit an affordable housing plan to the IHDA. Further definitions within the Act followed as it related to affordable rental housing and affordable owner-occupied housing.
Per Director DeGroot, the City will be required to prepare an Affordable Housing Plan that will include: 1) a statement of the total number of housing units that are necessary to become exempt; 2) available and suitable land parcels; and 3) incentives the government can provide for the purpose of attracting affordable housing. Additional goals were listed. Recalling the City adopted the Homes for a Changing Region Plan in 2014, Director DeGroot reported the City must update its unit figures by the summer of 2020 and identify approximately 180 units of affordable housing to satisfy the ten percent requirement. (A map of homes identified in the 2015 Homes for a Changing Region were placed on the overhead.) Demand for affordable housing was reviewed on the overhead projector.
Director DeGroot explained that while there is a high demand for affordable housing in the City, land costs were expensive, low density based zoning existed and no other established tools existed to make projects feasible, such as incentives. As a result, staff prepared a number of amendments under the direction of the Committee of the Whole that would include the following:
- Title 11-2-2 - Definitions of Words & Terms;
- Chapter 16 – Inclusionary Housing, which included 9 Sections; - Section 3 - General Requirements;
- Section 4 – Incentives; and
- Title 12 – Chapter 4, Subdivision Ordinance
Staff provided more explanation on the individual amendments for clarification. Commissioners shared their thoughts on the pros and cons of the incentives, fees, and fee waivers.
Chairman Stocking invited the public to comment.
Ms. Tracy Manning, 2019 Larkin Avenue, Elgin works for the Burton Foundation which develops affordable housing. She clarified some of the information provided by Director DeGroot. When writing the City’s plan, she asked the commission to consider the definition for the rental side to be 80% due to the income averaging aspect and because the Burton Foundation used that percentage figure in its current underwriting. This would allow a majority of those individuals who want to live in Geneva to be able to do so. Ms. Manning provided an example as how the underwriting would affect the formula.
Director DeGroot explained the City had the ability to offer incentives through the Act and could also contribute property, i.e., sell below market rate or donate a property, if it was going to provide affordable housing consistent with the Act. Furthermore, Director DeGroot explained that staff was suggesting that in order for a development to be eligible for the proposed incentives, at least 15% of the units had to be affordable.
Ms. Tracy Manning retuned to explain that the calculation her foundation used for affordable housing was based off of Section 42 of the IRS Tax Code, which required to be at 60% of the area median income. However, because IHDA was now recognizing the area median income to be 80%, Ms. Manning was requesting that the City consider the number in its definition. An example followed.
Both Director DeGroot and Chairman Stocking clarified what the City was proposing as compared to what Ms. Manning was asking. Staff and the commissioners saw no issue with what the City was proposing.
Commissioner Evans asked if the incentives being proposed were successful in other communities, wherein Director DeGroot said some communities have had no activity while others included incentives in conjunction with a 15% affordable requirement with an option to pay a fee in lieu; unless the fee in lieu was high enough then it pushes developers to construct the actual units. Director DeGroot provided some of the challenges he encountered with affordable housing developers trying to construct in Geneva, explaining that having the option of providing affordable housing to them was a step in the right direction, since no affordable housing policy currently existed. Per DeGroot, the City Council was of the belief to take the first step. If development did not occur, then take another next step and make it a requirement.
Commissioner Mead voiced concern that developers could just write a check in lieu of instead of providing the actual affordable housing units, wherein DeGroot explained the proposal being presented was for the City to provide incentives to developers in order to construct actual affordable housing. No fee in lieu of was being requested at this time. Should no actual units get constructed, DeGroot explained City Council would re-evaluate the policy.
Asked what actual monies a developer would save with the proposed fees and incentives -- using the Lewis Avenue site as an example – Director DeGroot envisioned a six-figure number. He proceeded to explain how a market rate developer may view incentives and fees when developing a site. Dialog then followed on how this topic would have affected the zoning for the Greenhouse Point project on Western Avenue. Director DeGroot offered to provide the commissioners some spreadsheets breaking out the cash contributions and public improvement costs for various developments. Commissioner Evans was interested in seeing the Greenhouse Point project with applied incentives to a certain percentage of the units and to see if the project would have been viable.
Ms. Tracy Manning returned and explained how her foundation approaches affordable housing applications, noting incentives help enormously as well as land donations, noting points are used.
Asked if developers or non-profit agencies were asked to join in the City’s discussions on this topic, Director DeGroot said a number of discussions took place with affordable housing developers over the years, and in drafting the ordinance, staff spoke with 7 to 8 communities who used incentives or had an inclusionary requirement to see what was or was not working, how many units were created, etc. However, as DeGroot summarized, there were a number of different variables and the communities varied from each other. As he saw it, the City had no tools to work with and had to develop them in order to get affordable housing to come to the community. Frustrations voiced by DeGroot included trying to get affordable units built by developers given that limited parcels existed in the City, sites were being developed at market rate, and the fact that those sites will decrease in time. Commissioner Evans believed the policy needed to be a requirement if the City wanted to see affordable housing on its remaining sites.
Commissioner Mead relayed that staff’s recommendation could move forward with the commission’s recommendation that the City Council consider making affordable housing an inclusionary requirement, understanding that the number of parcels were diminishing. DeGroot also mentioned that Council could review the policy in two years. Per questions, Director DeGroot proceeded to explain how a fee in lieu worked. Commissioner Rittenhouse favored both a requirement and a fee in lieu.
Given the comments stated above, Commissioner Mead believed the commission could make its recommendations and also include a requirement for an inclusionary housing ordinance, understanding that the Council could remove it, if it wanted.
Reviewing language within the proposed amendments, Commissioner Mead had the following suggestions: Page 4, Affordability Controls for Sale - Affordable Units, A-1: consider verbiage that states the first purchaser should be a third-party (not related to the developer) who will use the property as a primary residence. On Page 4, Section 2 A as it relates to the verbiage discussing the calculation of the cost of replacement of heating, electrical, etc., Mead inquired how the figure was calculated. Regarding Section B discussing the “licensed appraiser” he further inquired whether the appraiser would be hired by the purchaser or the City. Lastly, he stated that if a house is sold at market value but determined that the market value is less than the initial cost of the house plus the promissory note owed to the City, the City should forgive that portion of the debt. (Debt forgiveness is income, which income goes to the homeowner.) He suggested wording that section so the homeowner is not penalized if the house is being sold at market rate.
Discussion followed on: 1) who would oversee the program (initially the department and eventually legal counsel); 2) whether some units could be approved without coming before this Commission; 3) the fact that the number of units could decline over time; 4) the mechanism used to maintain the affordable units (140% Rule); and 5) how one’s income was defined/determined.
The public was invited to speak again.
Mr. Chuck Miles, 1015 Westfield Course, stated he was part of the Homes for a Changing Region and was currently on the board for the Association for Individual Development. He explained that about 100 individuals with developmental disabilities are looking for affordable housing in Geneva. He reported that AID was working with the Burton Foundation to develop affordable housing, citing Water’s Edge as one of their projects, as well as senior affordable housing in Batavia (Windmill Manor). Mr. Miles appreciated the commission’s review of this matter. As for him preferring the ordinance to require developers to construct affordable housing or the use incentives, Mr. Miles explained that incentives were important for the developer due to the financial aspect as well as to receive points to obtain a property. He did not envision affordable houses for sale; instead, he recommended focusing on the rental aspect and letting agencies know that the City was open and willing to work with affordable housing developers.
As for inclusionary zoning, Mr. Miles did not support the fee in lieu because he said no one pays it. However, he did point out that the developer (Shodeen) for the project at the former St. Charles Mall brought in an affordable housing developer to separately develop just that portion of units due to the complicated process of working with the federal government.
Hearing no further comments, the Chairman entertained a motion to close the public hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Mead to close the public hearing, second by Commissioner Kosirog. Roll call:
Aye: Evans, Kosirog, Mead, Rittenhouse, Slifka, Stocking
Nay: None
MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 6-0
Some commissioners voiced that the inclusionary housing requirement should be included (incentives built in) and, should the developer not take advantage of the inclusionary provisions then he/she be charged a fee in lieu. However, the concern voiced was that the fee would be paid but no units would be constructed. Chairman Stocking emphasized the need for a more active process to help people or another mechanism to make the process work. Commissioner Mead suggested language to revisit the matter a year from now to review its effectiveness, if any, and if no units were constructed to then remove the fee in lieu and require units to be built; other commissioners concurred.
Commissioner Slifka raised the point that most developers of smaller housing would probably be paying the fees. Therefore, he questioned where the largest impact occurred – making it a requirement versus providing incentives. He believed affordable housing developers would not use incentives because they would not need to be told what is required. The largest benefit would be there because the largest number of units would be built. Staff concurred, explaining that such affordable house developers were already specialized and were familiar with the lengthy application process whereas other smaller developers were not.
DeGroot pointed out that if the City used the affordable housing requirement many developers would probably pay the fee in lieu but the challenge would be how to use those funds -- such as for down payment assistance or to acquire properties. Commissioner Kosirog thought that was a fair idea. However, as DeGroot pointed out, the fee in lieu was still getting passed along to the cost of a developer’s other units. On the flip side, Slifka queried if affordable housing was a requirement would it then keep developers from developing in the City? In response, Director DeGroot confirmed there were interested developers who wanted to come into the City, citing the interest in the Lewis Road parcel. Responding to Commissioner Evans’s question, DeGroot explained that for the smaller market developer interested in building 6 to 8 units, he or she would probably not go to the state for tax credits for one or two affordable units. The development would be either all affordable or the City would have to support density that allowed, for example, 50 units to be a percentage of a larger development.
Considerable discussion followed on what language and/or options (incentives, requirement) should be included or not included in Section 4: Incentives – Cost Offsets, to be forwarded to Council.
A motion was made by Commissioner Mead to approve the text amendments to Chapter 2 (Definitions) of Title 11 (Zoning) of the Geneva Municipal code, to add Chapter 16 (Inclusionary Housing) to Title 11 (Zoning) of the Geneva Municipal Code, and text amendments to Chapter 4 (Public Open Spaces) of Title 12 (Subdivisions) of the Geneva Municipal Code, all related to incentives for the creation of affordable housing within the City of Geneva, subject to staff’s Findings of Fact and subject to the recommended changes by staff as follows: 1) Section 2 is fine as submitted; 2) Section 4, to add “or partial waiver”; and with respect to Title 12, Chapter 4, revise the word “shall” to “may.”
Also, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the City Council direct staff to bring forth language to include Inclusionary Housing requirements for the Planning and Zoning Commission’s consideration and that whatever is adopted at the Council level, should be reviewed by staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission annually. Second by Commissioner Evans. Roll call:
Aye: Evans, Kosirog, Mead, Rittenhouse, Slifka, Stocking
Nay: None
MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 6-0
Public Comment – None
Other Business
Commissioner Kosirog raised discussion on whether the City should consider signage requirements as it relates to the upcoming recreational cannabis law and the community itself, wherein staff explained what the State’s sign restrictions already allowed, i.e., content neutral. DeGroot reviewed what requirements were within the City’s historic district. Commissioner Evans proceeded to ask staff to shed some light on how the commission’s previous recommendation on the cannabis topic was changed significantly at the last Council meeting. General questions also followed.
Director DeGroot announced the American Planning Association has offered to hold an on-site training session for the commissioners. He asked if there was interest. Commissioners were open to the training and asked that other plan commissions from neighboring communities be invited.
No meeting was scheduled on December 26, 2019. Staff was working on some text amendments for the first meeting in January 2020.
Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Kosirog. Second by Commissioner Rittenhouse. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote of 6-0.
https://www.geneva.il.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_12122019-1545
Alerts Sign-up