CC - Applicant's Response to Staff Report 2-1 TfieHdusingCompany
Brought to you by Idaho Housing and Finance Association
February 1, 2022
Joseph Dodson
Current Associate Planner
City of Meridian Community Development
33 E Broadway Ave., Meridian Idaho 83642
RE:Staff Report for 1160 W Ustick Zoning and Annexation Application, Meridian, ID
This letter provides additional comments to the staff report and Planning Commission recommendations for the
zoning and annexation of 3.8 acres in Meridian, Idaho.We provided comments on these topics on January 3, 2022
as well prior to the Planning Commission Meeting.
We understand there is a desire to memorialize the affordability restrictions for the proposed project.
The staff report suggests having affordability restrictions in the Development Agreement with the City and having
the City Added as a third party beneficiary to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Regulatory Agreement.The Idaho
Housing and Finance Association has never added a municipality to the tax credit regulatory agreement before,
and if it is addressed in the Development Agreement,there is no need for the City to be a party to the tax credit
regulatory agreement.
There are two types of Low Income Housing Tax Credits that we can apply for.The first is the 4%Housing Tax
Credit.This is a "non-competitive"credit that relies on State American Rescue Plan Act(ARPA)funds to fill the gap.
There is currently$50 Million dollars under discussion at the state legislative session for housing.We were hopeful
that a plan for utilizing those funds would have been reached by now but due to the uncertainty at the present,we
feel the need to disclose that if that does not go through,we will need to enact plan B if you will,which would be
applying for the competitive 9%LIHTC.The 9%Housing tax credits application are due in August and will be ranked
using a scoring system that gives points for mixed-income developments with some of the units"market rent" or
not income restricted. Under this scenario,we would need to have 11.5%(6)of the units not income restricted.
The remainder of the units would then have a range of income restrictions from 30%-60%AMI. The staff report
currently suggests that all units be at 60%AMI or lower.We ask that this be left open to final determination based
on the final regulatory agreement and Development Agreement which will depend on whether this ends up being
a 4%tax credit or a 9%tax credit. Mixed income housing is seen as a way to facilitate or preserve economic
integration,create well-maintained and amenity rich housing options for low-income individuals and families,and
increase community acceptance of affordable housing, particularly in higher-income neighborhoods.
Finally,as mentioned in our January 3rd letter,staff and the Planning Commission are recommending a gravel
pathway along the north boundary and suggested that we talk with the HOA of the Woodburn Subdivision to see if
the path could go on their property. I have spoken with the HOA manager Amanda,and send her some materials
to review.She said the HOA Board is very involved in these decisions. I followed up a couple times but have not
heard back from Amanda. In checking with the Parks and Recreation Department we were told that the internal
sidewalk configuration shown on our site plan is sufficient. If we were to put a path along our northern boundary,
it will be very close to our buildings on the north side of the property.To illustrate this we have put together the
following diagram showing how close the path would be to our buildings(see attached).
We are requesting to remove the condition that there be an additional path along the north boundary for the
following reasons:
1. The likelihood of the Woodburn Subdivision HOA agreeing to put it on their property is very low.Who is
going to maintain it? How will it be paid for?This would require both the HOA and the neighboring single
family property to the west provide an easement to build the path.
2. If it is on our property it is too close to our buildings. Below section shows path is where existing trees are
planned,and would be seven feet away from the building with air conditioner next to them.The only
other place for the air conditioners would be the front of the buildings which would be unattractive.The
sides of the buildings would not be feasible because of the length of the condensate line for the middle
apartments.
3. If we move our buildings further south to make additional room for the path it will mean that the fence
along Ustick will need to be eliminated because we will not have adequate setback for a fence. So this
decreases privacy for residents of those buildings.
4. We have concerns about the feasibility of maintaining a gravel path so that it looks good. In order to do it
right it would need to be concrete or asphalt which would be very expensive(4000 sf of pavement if five
feet wide).
Thank you for the opportunity to work together to bring quality housing to Meridian. Please contact me with any
questions.
Sincerely,
Erin Anderson
The Housing Company
PO Box 6943
Boise, Idaho 83707
Office 208-943-1636
w
z
J
}
Q
Z
O
m
w
r
Woodburn Subdivision
Va
New Development
o U
w AC
UNIT
5-0"
PROPOSE
PATH
LOCATION
17-0
AREA FOR DRAINAGE
SWALE
_ . . _ __
_ _ _ _ _,_
- ,., _
� � � w � ��
6 ,_ ,�. --
,_ � _— -- -
.
`� � --
���—�-
_ a�F ,..
_ ..�...-,::-.- _ .moo � _
.- -� � _-
��"3 -. _
•. _ -w �k
__ �c t ._� -- -._.. _ - _ » -- �� _
'::. _ � r. ''.. _
- �. - - - e -
.-s ..� .� ...�.::-� v .:. -... .: .. -.:-_
4 "
��
..- ' �3
�-.4\ ...RP -
5
_=
� _ r
_ � ,.
b>;
,,�,
-��-
�� <"� a
�� �.
-r,� � y
_�' � �`
_- ,�� +�
-
� a
4:
a:
ti
i
.'r f ifs •. i /w•+ i..i'f. '•f �^ � .. v' ....min �S YI�iF
i Ja 1 r. f
J `f
ir
Al I
oil
Ae
S
I �
'� � ��? ay'l�. �•�•� .�. s�'� �, � 4¢ key - a�' ���°
Request to remove condition for additional path
_ L
Al
.f .
l A,
f