Agenda 09-24-2001 - 4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

housing developments in the disbursement of CAPS and calculating multi-family and affordable housing projects at a lower student production ratio than standard single family detached dwelling developments. I welcome your comments and input on these responses. 1. The APFO could exempt proposed developments of 40 units or less. Unlike the private sector, affordable housing developers generally create small developments,which have a great deal less impact on their area school district's population. By exempting developments of less than 40 units from the APFO requirements, the County government could address concerns about larger developments,which have the most impact on schools,but avoid placing new burdens on the majority of affordable housing developments. The major problem with exempting developments of 40 units or less is that larger developments may attempt to avoid APFO by proposing their developments in phases. This would eventually lead to longer delays by tying up more time of the Board of Commissioners in approvals and actually increase the costs to all developers, including those of affordable housing. In the present version of the ordinance, the impact of multi-family housing, of which most affordable housing units are, is being treated as a lower impact in terms of CAPS, and would therefore require fewer CAPS for the same amount of units as a large, single family detached development. Furthermore, at the last Joint Schools and Land Use Committee meeting on June 13, 2001, suggestions were made to give developers of affordable housing preference in the CAPS approval process. A final decision on this proposal has not yet been made. 2. The APFO could exempt small houses of less than 1200 square feet. Most affordable homes are 1200 square feet or less in size,whereas most private sector homes are 2000 square feet and larger. This exemption would therefore ease the development process for low and moderately priced homes. Such a scenario has not yet been discussed by staff or elected officials. An alternative suggestion is to qualify detached homes under a certain square footage as multi-family so that their impact is not as great, yet the students they will produce are still counted toward membership additions. Your suggestion will be discussed at a future Joint Schools and Land Use meeting. 3. The APFO could require that in areas where developable land is scarce, such as in the southern part of the County, priority would be given to permitting affordable housing developments before private sector developments. This requirement would offset the extra burdens created by the APFO for affordable housing developers who are working in areas where it is most challenging to develop affordable housing. It would also help promote economic diversity in the southern part of the County. As mentioned above,priority to all projects that include an affordable housing component has been discussed at the committee level. No recommendation has yet to be made. We welcome your ideas and input, and I will be sure to share them with the committee chairperson.