Alachua County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Alachua County Growth Management Department
111 S.W. 1st Street, Room 6
Gainesville, FL 32601
Meeting Minutes
Members present: Darlene Pifalo; Don Davis; John Brunner; Juanita Biles; Mike Conroy; Robert Stroh; Shaun Wasdo;
Others present: Tom Webster, Housing Programs Manager; Abu Karim, Growth Management staff liaison to the committee; Chris Dawson, Development Services Planner; Mark Ludlow, services provider to the committee.
The meeting began at 5:20 P M.
Old business & Chair’s Comments
The minutes of the Committee’s meeting on July 30, 2008 were approved. Tom Webster gave a brief overview of the Alachua County Affordable Housing Symposium held during the day on August 13. Abu Karim noted that the Board of County Commissioners voted to direct staff to develop a Community Development Block Grant application in the Housing Rehabilitation category.
Shaun Wasdo (Chair) remarked that he was impressed by the extent of discussions during the previous (7-30-08) AHAC meeting and that he thought the committee made substantial progress in voicing the issues confronting affordable housing in Alachua County.
Affordable Housing Issues (Land Development regulations and development review process)
Chris Dawson discussed the County’s land development regulations and development review process as they relate to the eleven regulatory issues that the committee must review, as well as two other issues raised by members during the July 30, 2008 AHAC meeting. In particular, Mr. Dawson addressed the following:
- Flexibility in densities;
- Reservation of infrastructure capacity;
- Allowance for affordable accessory dwelling units in residential districts;
- Reduction in parking and setback requirements;
- Allowance for flexible lot configurations, including zero-lot-line housing configurations;
- Modification of street requirements, particularly landscaping requirements;
- Support for development and growth near transportation hubs, major employers, and mixed-use centers;
- Transfer of development rights;
- Development review process update.
Mr. Dawson pointed out the County’s existing policies and land development regulations for the above items and answered members’ questions as the discussion progressed. The majority of members’ questions concerned flexibility in densities, infrastructure capacity and concurrency, modification of street requirements, transfer of development rights, and updates to the development review process. Mr. Dawson noted that infrastructure capacity and concurrency primarily involve traffic and schools; it may be worthwhile for the committee to explore school concurrency. The issue of utility easements was mentioned by several members during the portion of the discussion related to modification of street requirements; several members voiced concern over problems encountered with accurate water and wastewater utility placement.
Concerning the development review process update, Mr. Dawson commented that the County is considering implementing a pre-application meeting with applicants, similar to the City of Gainesville’s “First Step” meeting. He noted that currently, projects require seven months to one year for approval; the objective is to reduce the time necessary for project approval to approximately four months. Several committee members expressed satisfaction with the potential four month approval target.
Tom Webster commented that the committee needed hard numbers on the cost increase to housing from the County’s landscaping requirements before a case can be made for changing the requirements. He also noted that Chapter 407 of the Unified Land Development Code (Alachua County’s land development regulations) contains many of the regulations that affect the committee’s work; initially, affordable housing issues might be most effectively addressed through changes in Chapter 407.
New Business
Mark Ludlow told members that, in accordance with the County’s standard guidelines for advisory committees and due to an earlier oversight, the Board of County Commissioners would appoint an alternate member to the committee. No change to the committee’s by-laws will be required. Mr. Ludlow asked the members present what date and time would be best for the committee to hold an additional meeting the week of August 18; the additional meeting is for the committee to examine and comment on the CDBG application. Taking into consideration that the grant consultant would be available on Thursday, August 21, members decided to meet on August 21, at 5:00 P.M. Mr. Ludlow noted that he had not yet heard from the City’s AHAC coordinator concerning a time for a joint County/City AHAC meeting and that he would find out the time before the next AHAC meeting.
The meeting ended at 7:10 P M.