2. MetroCOG workforce housing study

education institutions on student housing and to involve others in changing building codes, tax structure and existing zoning. It was acknowledged how difficult it may be to get four cities and two counties in two states to completely level the playing field. Some joint city work has been done, but there are some key disagreements. Two comments related to the goals of the working group: reaching a consensus on what the set-aside for affordable housing should be, and that the goal should be owner-occupied housing. Development Regulations, Policies, Plans. A number of specific suggestions as well as suggestions to do development differently emerged. Some typical comments are: Would like to see integration of affordable housing in market rate neighborhoods such as smaller units attached to larger homes, but don't want to sacrifice livable neighborhoods for affordable housing. There is a need for both. Look at cUrrent developments and what they cost. Find out what works and what existing plans have done, and expand on the ones that have worked. Analyze the ones that did not succeed. More imaginative affordable housing developments are needed, not just 30- plex apartments on the least desirable lot. It would be much easier to create a set of row houses that are smaller but still look nice and have amenities and are affordable, than to try to do the same with twin or single-family houses. Target incentives to workforce housing along with economic development strategies. There was recognition that design standards are still important. Suggestions addressed the following: higher density, common walls, smaller lots and smaller square footages typical of row houses and condominiums. Suggestions for reducing infrastructure costs focused on street layout (cul-de-sacs were cited as an expensive example). Building codes could be changed to allow 24"-on-center 44 Linda S. Donnelly_ A.l.c.p. Augusl 2(1(16