The Community and Economic Development Committee met 10/27/2021. Alderpersons Matt Reed (District 8), Brad Firkus (District 3), Kristine Alfheim (District 11), and Nate Wolff (District 12) were all in attendance. Alderperson Maiyoua Thao (District 7) was excused.
They had one item on the agenda which was a request to approve the Development Agreement with MF Housing Partners, LLC for improvements and redevelopment of 6 parcels located on N. Oneida Street, E. Harris Street, and N. Appleton Street in Tax Increment Financing District No. 11.
Alderperson Wolff moved, seconded by Firkus, that the item be recommended for approval.
Director of the Community and Economic Development Department Karen Harkness spoke. She said the committee had the development agreement in front of them as well as a memo she had submitted. She touched on the highlights from the memo. MF Housing Partners plans to create a WHEDA Tax Credit project consisting of 43 units. 36 of those 43 units would be available to low-income persons. Per the memo, “The northern parcel will have 5 three-bedroom townhouses and 3 two-bedroom townhouses with attached garages. The southern parcel will include 4 three-bedroom townhouses, 5 one-bedroom apartments, 25 two-bedroom apartments, and 1 three-bedroom apartment.” Director Harkness aid that they were really excited to see townhomes being introduced as well as those additional apartments for affordable housing.
She said the project would include 38 surface parking spaces, 30 covered spaces, and 13 attached garages. No building plans were submitted and so she couldn’t tell the committee about the square footage of the living spaces.
The cost to develop the project is $10.5 million but, because of the WHEDA tax credits that are being utilized for this project, the assessed value of the project upon completion is estimated to be $3.4 million.
The request was for a 20% TIF which was just shy of $612,000. City staff recommended approval of the development agreement.
Alderperson Reed wanted to know if the low-income threshold was because the units were priced below market value or because they were available for subsidization.
Director Harkness answered that WHEDA tax credits are always for subsidized housing. The income level is based on a particular county’s median income and the number of people in a family.
Tom Klister from MF Housing Partners attended the committee meeting and he spoke. He said that the only thing he would add to Director Harkness’s comment was that the housing was subsidized in that the funding for the project subsidized it. The tenants would still pay their own rent and they would not be getting vouchers to pay their rent. The construction was subsidized but then the renters have to pay real money. [So, I took that to mean that they are able to provide apartments with lower rents because the cost of building the apartments was subsidize with WHEDA tax credits.]
Director Harkness confirmed it was not subsidized with tenant-based vouchers.
Alderperson Alfheim said that at the League of Municipalities meeting the prior week they had talked about the future of parking and about the idea of shrinking the need to utilize extra space for parking. She wanted to know if the plan for this development was based on the idea of including a parking spot for everybody or did it include minimal parking. Where they thinking in terms of how much land they were using for asphalt as opposed to utilizing for living space?
Tom said that there were 43 apartments planned and 81 parking stalls, so there would be more than enough parking to self-sustain the parking for the residents who live on that site.
Alderperson Alfheim responded that the question was not if there was more than enough parking but rather based on the idea that, going forward, the concept is to have less parking as opposed to more parking. She thought that obviously for the 3-bedroom homes, there may be 2 cars, but for the smaller apartments maybe they didn’t need as much parking. She wondered if the city had given any thought about that going forward.
Director Harkness answered that in the Central Business District there are no parking requirements, so if these parcels were zoned CBD, the city would not require parking. [The parcels do appear to be zoned as Central Business District.] A lot of that had to do with the fact that if a person was in the Central Business District, they were probably pretty close to a parking structure. So, the city thought they had addressed that and had really changed their parking standards. She noted that big box stores had really driven the “seas of parking”, but a lot of the reason they did that was because having all of that parking helped them fill their out-lots with places like Taco John’s or Popeye’s Chicken. She thought that they were going to see parking needs change over future years. [Honestly, I wouldn’t want to live at an apartment complex that didn’t include parking. The Yellow Parking ramp is 2 and a half blocks away from this project location. Appleton is a relatively safe city, but every once in a while, you run into unhinged people. I wouldn’t want to be a woman coming home at night after a long day at work having to park in a parking structure and walk two blocks in the dark to get to my apartment.]
Alderperson Alfheim said she was looking forward to having more affordable housing down there. She also loved the fact that they were installing townhouses.
Director Harkness said she was also excited about the townhouses.
Alderperson Firkus thought this was the perfect project for that area given all the boxes that it checked as far as affordable housing, family-suitable units, and being in such a good location close to the Building for Kids, the library, parks, etc. He thought it was a great fit for the neighborhood.
Alderperson Wolff agreed with all of that.
The committed voted 4-0 to recommend the item for approval.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=886725&GUID=79BDA93E-6E70-47F8-BA11-68AAC8F18608
Be the first to reply