HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/16/2002Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon
Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson
Phone: (H) 484-2034
Phone: (W) 416-7435
Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call: Meyer, Carpenter, Craig, Torgerson, Bernth, and Gavaldon. Member
Colton was absent.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Jones, Barnes, Jackson, Mapes, Alfers, and
Deines.
Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion
Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the November 1, November 15, and December 6, 2001
Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. (CONTINUED)
Discussion Agenda:
Recommendation to City Council:
2. Recommendation to City Council for the Spring 2002 Biannual
Revisions, Clarifications, and Additions to the Land Use Code.
The Planning & Zoning Board is the final authority on the following item:
3. #20-02 Garth Commercial Plaza, Modification of Standards.
Project: Recommendation to City Council for the Spring 2002
Biannual Revisions, Clarifications, and Additions to
the Land Use Code.
Project Description: Request for a recommendation to City Council
regarding the biannual update to the Land Use Code.
There are proposed revisions, clarifications and
additions to the Code that address a variety of subject
areas that have arisen since the last update in
December of 2001.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 16, 2002
Page 2
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Planning Director Cameron Gloss gave the staff presentation. He stated that one of the
discussion issues relates to big box standards and supermarkets. The second
discussion item is an amendment to the multi -family parking requirements regarding
additional fees for detached spaces.
With respect to the first item, Director Gloss stated that staff believes that two important
design standards should be applied to supermarkets. One relates specifically to the big
box requirement for multiple entrances. The second is distributed parking. It has been
discovered over the past month that this standard might be better eliminated from this
proposal. Staff feels that the other architectural design standards for large retail
establishments should be applied specifically to supermarkets, and that exemption
should be removed from the Land Use regulations. For that reason, staff is
recommending that we adopt those standards for supermarkets with the exception of
the parking lot distribution standard.
The second item deals with the multi -family parking requirements. There are problems,
in some instances, with spill -over of parking from some of the residential projects into
adjacent neighborhoods.
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator, stated that the Land Use Code sets forth the
minimum number of parking spaces that are required for multi -family developments,
based on the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit. There are instances where the
number of parking spaces provided is not adequate to meet the demand that is
generated by the development. We anticipate that some spill -over parking will occur on
the streets that are immediately adjacent to the development. There are increasing
complaints about the spill -over occurring on streets in front of detached single-family
residential properties. The spill -over is no longer being contained within the boundaries
of the development. We have determined that the cause is based on these
developments having a mixture of open surface parking spaces and enclosed garage
parking spaces in detached garage buildings. Some of the multi -family projects are
charging extra for garage spaces so therefore a percentage of these garage spaces are
remaining vacant. The original plans for these projects that came before the decision
maker were in compliance with the parking standards, using the garage spaces. Since
all the spaces are not being used, the plans are approved based on parking information
that is not accurate. Staff is proposing a Code change to the table that establishes the
minimum number of parking spaces based on bedrooms per dwelling unit. A qualifier
would be put in that says "spaces that are located in detached residential garages, but
not including parking structures, shall be made available to dwelling unit occupants at
no additional rental or purchase cost, meaning as an optional amenity separate from the
dwelling unit rental rate or purchase price." Garages will certainly be counted as parking
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 16, 2002
Page 3
spaces but they must provide documentation as to how they will ensure that these
parking spaces be made available. If they say they are going to charge extra, they will
then need to provide more parking than the minimum requirements.
Director Gloss stated that Clark Mapes, Advance Planning, would now present some
information relative to the accessory use limitations along East Vine Drive.
Mr. Mapes stated that this has to do with a tier of uses in the LMN zone district along
East Vine Drive which was put into place when the Structure Plan was first adopted with
City Plan. Property owners were concerned about neighborhood designations being put
in this area because of the presence of the railroad switching yard and all of its
operations and partly because of Vine Drive being shown as a potential interchange on
1-25. Vine Drive was also being considered for a truck route. In response to these
concerns, we put in a tier of non-residential uses. Light industrial is allowed along East
Vine Drive in this zone district; it does include some standards that aim to integrate
these uses into the neighborhood pattern. This item is a request to add a use — mini
storage units — to these permitted uses which are allowed in this particular area as a tier
according to these standards. These uses are intended as a buffer between the
neighborhood and the large transportation facilities; not something that necessarily
needs to contribute to the livelihood of the neighborhood. It would basically be a wide
wall or fence along the edge of the neighborhood.
Director Gloss stated that he wanted to cover one more item. He distributed an e-mail
from Monica Sweere, a for -profit developer working on an affordable housing project.
Ms. Sweere raised an issue relating to item #531 of the annotated list. It is an
amendment that would reduce the bonding for construction maintenance of public
streets for officially -designated affordable housing projects. The way this section is
written, it relates specifically to those certified projects for non-profit groups. Ms. Sweere
is asking to expand that for for -profit land developers that are trying to do affordable
housing projects.
Public Input
Steve Pfister, 531 Del Claire, gave his testimony to the Board. He stated that he was
representing several apartment developers and that he, Larry Stroud, and Peter Cast,
met with Peter Barnes earlier to discuss the parking issues. He stated that in general,
they would like some more time to deal with the issue. He added that there may be
better solutions to the problem. One concern is that it has become a general lending
requirement to have garages. Therefore, the garages must work in the overall economic
Performa for the developer. The 1.75 spaces per two -bedroom unit is not enough, that
should be increased City-wide. Other possible solutions would be a penalty system to
issue fines for those complexes not renting out garages; limit the number of garages
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 16, 2002
Page 4
that a particular project could have; or to place a positive requirement on a project
owner to keep the garages rented. Mr. Pfister asked the Board for more time to consider
this issue.
Shannon Phelps, Property Manager of The Seasons Apartments, 1020 Wabash Street,
gave her testimony to the Board. She stated that her property does have a parking
problem, though they are meeting requirements for the number of parking spaces
required and 90% of the garage spaces are filled.
Steve Pfister stated that one of the apartment developers asked him to call around to
some of the apartment complexes and he found that, in one instance, the main reason
residents are parking away from the complex is that it is more convenient for them since
the front door is closer to the road than the parking spaces.
Ms. Phelps stated that part of the problem is also related to guests of tenants.
Public Input Closed
Chairperson Gavaldon asked if any kind of outreach was done relating to the parking
issue.
Mr. Barnes replied that it was just part of the overall package and there was no
particular outreach on any specific item. He stated that he did not receive a lot of
feedback from the informal contacts Planner Ted Shepard made.
Member Craig asked about the established neighborhoods along Vine Drive —
Waterfield and Waterglen — and stated that it seemed we had already gone beyond the
established buffer that Advance Planners were looking for when City Plan was adopted
Mr. Mapes replied that was correct.
Member Craig stated that it seems that a lot of doors have already been opened along
Vine with light industrial uses being allowed. She stated that it surprises here that we
want to keep adding uses. There seem to be enough approved uses to buffer the
neighborhoods without having to add mini -storage. There is quite a long section on Vine
that is zoned Employment, which also allows mini -storage.
Mr. Mapes replied that mini -storage in E zones is limited to the 25% secondary use
provision.
Member Craig asked if it had been made so that residential was not allowed along the
north side of Vine.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 16, 2002
Page 5
Mr. Mapes replied that was not the case. This tier of alternative uses is only there if
developers want to use it. These uses are not normally allowed in the LMN zone district,
just within 500 feet of Vine Drive. The difference is the switching yard and the possible
tie of Vine Drive to 1-25.
Member Carpenter stated that the parking issue seems to be focused on rental units
only as opposed to owner -occupied units. She asked why that was the case.
Mr. Barnes replied that the proposed ordinance includes those where the unit and
garage are purchased together. He added that the ordinance does not preclude
developers from charging for the garage spaces but they will have to provide more
spaces if they do choose to charge.
Member Carpenter asked if there was anything stopping a developer from putting in
more parking than the minimum requirements.
Mr. Barnes replied that nothing prevents them from providing more parking spaces and
added that developers seem to be aware that the requirements are minimums but they
do not provide enough extra to take up the slack for the residents, let alone guests.
There is enough street frontage on most of the developments to accommodate the spill-
over. Now, when the number of spaces is being decreased even more because of the
garage issue, the spill -over is occurring to a greater extent.
Member Carpenter asked if "No Parking" signs or other means would help the problem.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the bonding issue brought up by Monica Sweere
and if it should be a candidate for discussion at the fall changes.
Director Gloss replied that he just received notice of the issue from Ms. Sweere at about
4:00 and had not had time to discuss it with the Engineering or Affordable Housing staff.
Ms. Sweere is essentially asking to extend some of the privileges that are being called
for in this Code revision to for -profit developers that do affordable -housing projects that
are within the City standards. Director Gloss stated that the Code change could be
adopted as stated by staff, to not include the for -profit developers, and spend additional
time looking at the issue for the next set of revisions.
Member Carpenter stated that she did not see a problem with passing the item as
written and looking at it further in the future.
Chairperson Gavaldon agreed.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 16, 2002
Page 6
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked if the Code revisions being proposed, aside from
Ms. Sweere's suggestion, apply equally to for -profit and non-profit developers.
Director Gloss replied that the reduction in bonding would only be for those projects that
would go through the affordable housing program.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that he though Ms. Sweere was asking for this not
to be related to the ratio of affordable housing units in a project but rather a total waive
of the bonding requirement if you meet that 10% threshold. It is not a distinction
between a non-profit and a for -profit developer.
City Attorney Paul Eckman stated that the language is found on Page 5 of the
Ordinance and it pertains to affordable housing projects as defined in the Code. If it is
100% affordable, the security is entirely waived and if it is less, it is proportional. It does
not make a difference who the developer is to qualify. It may just be that not too many
for -profit developers are willing to commit to that level of affordability.
Member Carpenter stated that she would like to pull item #509 for discussion.
Member Craig stated that she would like to pull item #543 for a separate vote.
Chairperson Gavaldon stated that the Board would leave item #531 in the changes as
written with the caveat that more discussion would happen regarding Ms. Sweere's
inquiry.
Member Craig moved to recommend approval of the Spring 2002 Biannual
Revisions, expect for #509 and #543, to City Council.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0.
#509
Member Carpenter stated that everyone seems to agree that the parking issue is a
problem but questioned whether this was the way to handle it. She suggested perhaps
putting it off until Fall for further discussion.
Member Craig stated that she would like to see the parking change moved forward as it
does solve the current problem.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 16, 2002
Page 7
Member Carpenter stated that it does not address the problem comprehensively. She
stated concern about the spill -over into the neighborhoods. She added that she would
consider passing it with the knowledge that it will be addressed again.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked if there had been any instances where the landscaping
was compromised in order to meet parking requirements.
Mr. Barnes replied that they were not aware of someone removing landscape and
installing parking, without first getting approval.
Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he felt like more outreach was needed. He asked
where in the Land Use Code revisions outreach was included. He added that he would
like the market prices to adjust themselves.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked if interested parties are typically notified when an
issue like this comes up.
Director Gloss replied that staff uses their judgment as to which parties would be
affected and try to contact them, with revision issues. There is nothing analogous to an
APO list.
Mr. Barnes stated that, at a minimum, the Chamber of Commerce and Board of
Realtors are contacted for all Land Use Code change cycles.
Chairperson Torgerson suggested using an e-mail list for notification of these issues.
Director Gloss replied that would be difficult because of the wide range of issues.
Member Bernth moved to continue item #509 to the fall cycle of Land Use Code
revisions.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
Member Craig stated that she would not support continuing the item because the one
issue, having to do with paying for garages, is being dealt with. She added that parking,
in general, could be discussed in another separate possible Code change in the fall.
Member Meyer stated that she did not have a problem moving it back to the fall but
stated that she did not want to have people in at the last minute with testimony.
The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Craig voting in the negative.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 16, 2002
Page 8
#543
Member Craig stated that she had concerns about opening up the LMN zone to mini -
storage, even though it is along Vine Drive. She stated that mini -storage is in enough
zones.
Member Craig moved for a recommendation of denial of #543.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that he tended to think that once the Vine
interchange is constructed, Vine will turn into a truck bypass whether welcomed or not.
To the extent that residential uses can be buffered, he would like to see that happen.
Mr. Mapes stated that if the Board was inclined to make a recommendation that would
allow the mini -storage only on the south side of Vine Drive, they could do that.
Member Bernth stated that that would make a difference to him. He added that mini -
storage is appropriate on the south side but perhaps on the north.
Member Carpenter stated that she would change her mind given that as well. She
asked if more landscaping could be required since it is the LMN zone.
Mr. Mapes replied that the landscaping section already allows us to totally screen them
however is appropriate.
Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he could not support this at this time because we
could make the mini -storage sites much better. He would support the idea if it could be
restricted to the south side of Vine Drive.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that for a good part of Vine Drive, there is really no
developable land along the south side. If we're looking for a buffer, that isn't going to
occur.
Mr. Mapes replied that if this does apply only to the south side, it would virtually apply to
just one parcel, though it does have''/: mile of frontage.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked if there was anything keeping trucks from driving
down Vine Drive. He stated that buffers would be need for a "truck bypass."
Mr. Mapes replied that there was not.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 16, 2002
Page 9
The motion was denied 4-2, with members Meyer, Carpenter, Torgerson, and
Gavaldon voting in the negative.
Member Bernth stated that he would look favorably on the item if it were recommended
only for the south side. He added that the Board could always consider a modification to
add the use to the north side.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson moved to recommend approval of item #543.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would like to see the use be allowed only on the
south side.
Member Carpenter stated that she would not support the motion because there are a lot
of things that residential could be buffered with besides mini storage.
The motion was denied 4-2, with members Carpenter, Craig, Bernth, and
Gavaldon voting in the negative.
Member Bernth moved to recommend allowing the mini -storage use for the south
side of Vine Drive only, with respect to item #543.
Member Craig seconded the motion.
Mr. Barnes stated that a modification could not be done for a use that is not permitted. If
the Code is changed so the use is only allowed on the south side adjacent to the
railroad tracks, a modification could not be considered to allow the use on the north
side. The property would either have to be rezoned or the Code could be amended
again to allow enclosed mini -storage elsewhere along Vine Drive.
Member Carpenter asked if there was any way to limit it to a certain amount of mini -
storage.
Mr. Mapes replied that it would be possible.
Member Carpenter asked if the item could be continued to determine how to limit the
amount.
Mr. Mapes replied that it would be possible but it may not be worth it.
Member Meyer asked what the north side of Vine was zoned as.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 16, 2002
Page 10
Mr. Mapes replied that it is a mix of City and County. The LMN goes form Timberline to
Lemay. On the south side of Vine, the LMN goes east of Timberline.
Member Craig noted that from Timberline to Waterglen on the north side of Vine Drive,
the zoning is E — Employment, which will allow mini -storage as a secondary use.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked, in general, what it was the Board liked about light
industrial that it does not like about mini -storage units.
Member Craig stated that her concern involved the amount of frontage taken up by min -
storage.
Chairperson Gavaldon reminded the Board of the motion to approve #543, limiting the
mini -storage uses to the south side of Vine Drive.
The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Meyer voting in the negative.
Member Carpenter asked Mr. Mapes to look into allowing the mini storage uses on the
north side of Vine Drive as well, with some limitations.
Mr. Mapes replied that he would do that prior to sending the Board's recommendation to
City Council.
Chairperson Gavaldon thanked staff, the public, and the Board for their hard work on
this process.
Member Carpenter thanked staff as well.
Project: Garth Commercial Plaza, Modification of Standards.
Project Description: Request for modification of standards to Section 3.5.3
(B)(2), which requires that no vehicle use area be
located between the building and the street. The
property is located just southwest of the intersection
of Boardwalk Drive and Mason Street.
Staff Recommendation: Denial
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 16, 2002
Page 11
Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
City Planner Troy Jones gave the staff presentation, recommending denial. He stated
that the applicant has changed their argument to the hardship argument, in support of
their request for modification. Planner Jones showed site shots of the area, noting the
anticipated pedestrian and transit networks for the Mason Street Corridor Plan. He
noted buildings in the area that do and do not have vehicle areas between the building
and the street. There is a mixture of properties with autos between the building and the
street and without. The Code no longer allows autos between the building and the
street. The applicant is requesting a modification to that requirement.
Terrance Hoaglund, Vignette Studios, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that
his client is proposing a hardship argument in support of his modification request. He
stated that their proposed site plan offers a more direct pedestrian connection from the
hotel all the way through the complex. He stated that they would comply with all the
landscape regulations and other Mason Street Corridor Plans. He stated that his client,
Mr. Holter, would discuss the economic issues surrounding the hardship case.
Mr. Holter stated that he did not have any potential tenants willing to take the rear
portions of the building should the building be constructed meeting Code requirements.
Public Input
There was no public input.
Public Input Closed
Member Bernth asked the approximate percentage of buildings without parking along
the street.
Planner Jones replied that, between Horsetooth and Harmony, the percentage of
properties that have no vehicle frontage between the building and the street is roughly
8.5%, maybe as much as 12%.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked Mr. Holter if this particular lot had been master
planned.
Mr. Holter replied that he had a plan for the whole thing at the time the first building was
built, about 15 years ago.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 16, 2002
Page 12
Mr. Hoaglund stated that, back when the hotel site was planned, there was a PUD
approval for the second retail building that is being proposed now, in pretty much the
same location. That was under the LDGS.
Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he did not recall anything other than the hotel being
part of that approval.
Mr. Hoaglund replied that the preliminary PUD approval covered the hotel site and the
retail site. The final PUD was only on the hotel.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that it seemed Mr. Holter was acting under the
Codes that were available to him in master planning the area and just because codes
change does make it seem like a bit of a hardship to all of a sudden mess up an entire
master plan because of the adoption of a new Code. Mr. Torgerson added that the
current Code certainly does have to be enforced.
Member Craig stated that she believed there was no hardship created because the
building can still be built, just situated differently
Member Bemth stated that there is such a significantly high number of properties with
drive areas between the building and street, that it may be a bit of a hardship to make
this particular area different.
Member Craig expressed concern about Mr. Holler owning the property across the
street from this site which is quite a bit of street frontage. If that side was master
planned the same way, we have lost everything we hoped to gain along Mason.
Member Bernth stated that the site across the street is totally different in depth and
width. From a leasing standpoint, it would make sense to orient those buildings the way
we desire in the Code.
Planner Jones stated that, regarding the other side of the street, there was a conceptual
review from Nadine Holter, which showed the building pulled up to the street. The
master plan to which Mr. Holter referred also plans the buildings to be brought up to
Mason Street.
Member Carpenter asked why it did not work for the client to leave the building facing
the preferred way but pull it up to the street.
Mr. Hoaglund replied that he did a study of that option and it would work with on -street
parking. By pulling the building to the street, cars will be going to the back of the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 16, 2002
Page 13
building anyway. The back of the building will also have garage -type service doors. It
would also not allow for a continuous pedestrian connection.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked if approving this plan would affect the Mason Street Plan
Planner Jones replied that he did not believe it would but the issue is whether we want
to adhere to the Land Use Code or make an exception in this case. Staff cannot support
the modification because we feel it would lend to a better pedestrian orientation to not
grant it. If the modification is granted, it would be a Type I PDP. Staff would be sensitive
to the screening of the building either way.
Member Meyer noted that she would like to see all the landscape rules enforced as
well.
Member Bernth moved for approval of Garth Commercial Plaza, Modification of
Standard, File #20-02, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the
applicant's justification letter dated 5/10/02.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson seconded the motion.
Member Craig stated that she would not be supporting this as a hardship is not justified
The land does not have any shape or topographic problems. If the modification were
denied, something could likely go on the lot that would meet everyone's needs.
Member Carpenter stated that she was having a difficult time with this as a hardship
though it did make sense contextually. She stated that she probably couldn't support it
under a hardship criterion.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that the hardship was that the client embarked on a
master plan for all this property, in compliance with the Code in existence at the time;
therefore there are unique physical limitations on this property because all the
connections and master planning were created to allow a layout that is now not allowed
Member Carpenter asked if there was any kind of vesting with a master plan.
Planner Jones replied that any preliminary LDGS approval has expired. There was a
process to extend the expiration date.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the master plan was on the City books as an Overall
Development Plan.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 16, 2002
Page 14
Mr. Hoaglund replied that it was not. Just the original preliminary plan included the hotel
and retail site.
Mr. Holler stated that he did not try to get the building approved under the LDGS
because he did not have a tenant. Without a tenant, it would not make sense to build
the building.
The motion failed, 3-3, with Members Carpenter, Craig, and Gavaldon voting in
the negative.
Member Carpenter moved for approval of Garth Commercial Plaza, Modification
of Standard, File #20-02, citing the fact that it would not be detrimental to the
public good and that it works equally well or better than the standard given the
existing physical environment.
Member Bernth seconded the motion.
Member Craig asked what was going to happen when the buildings to the south wanted
to seek modifications for the same thing.
Member Carpenter stated that a change cannot be started with the last one or two
developments. We are anywhere close to redevelopment in the area.
Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he would support the motion, entrusting staff to make
the most of the Type I review.
The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Craig voting in the negative.
Chairperson Gavaldon announced that tomorrow is the open house for the new CSU
Performing Arts Center.
Member Carpenter announced that there is an historic preservation mixer tomorrow at
the Museum from 5-7PM, in celebration of Historic Preservation Month.
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Approved by the Board March 18, 2004.
05/16/2002 09:57 19702429477 KWAL PAINT GJ #65 PAGE 01
3900 Joliet Street Denver, CO 80239
May 15, 2002
George Holier
Holter Realty
$509 So. Mason St
Pt. Collins, CO 90525
Ph.(970)226-1900
Fax(970)223-6934
Re: Store Site Plan
Mr. Holier,
From our conversations, the site plan as now proposed for the relocation of our Ft. Collins
store is currently not acceptable for the following listed reasons.
Items of concern are:
1. Layout does not allow for front parking.
2 Layout does lend easy access from North lot entrance. Customers will have to
drive around to the south side entrance.
3 Layout does not accommodate separate customer access for both retail and
professional. Second side door entrance would not have close parking.
4. Layout will not allow for easy access of company delivery truck and
satisfactory door placement to receive material goods
The original proposed site plan is more conducive to our needs to accommodate our existing customer base It
is imperative that both access and parking be similar to both individual entrances. The alternative proposed
plan as it exists does not provide for these measures
Should Holier Realty decide to go forward with the curmit site plan as proposed, Kwal Paint may elect not to
continue to pursue tenant space.
Please advise me on the ongoing negotiations with the City of Ft. Collins in these matters.
If can be of any assistance or if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us here at Kwal Paint.
Respectfully,
Phil Long
District Manager
Cc: J. Gamberg
From:
Monica Sweere<monica0palladian-construction.com>
To:
FCI.CFCPO(cgloss)
Date:
5/16/02 4:13PM
Subject:
P&Z item 531 5-16-02
Dear Mr. Gloss,
As a for -profit land developer and home builder focused on creating
affordable housing with our city, I would like to comment on P&Z item
531 pertaining to a reduction of bonding requirements for officially
designated Affordable Housing projects. This item is an excellent
proposal that can greatly benefit non-profit entities creating
affordable housing projects. In addition to this well intentioned
proposal, I respectfully suggest that more could be done to create
incentives for for -profit companies, as well.
Currently, this item would reduce bonding proportional to the amount of
affordable housing provided within a given development project. Such a
proportional reduction is beneficial, but it is not enough of an
incentive for for -profit companies. A for -profit company must
internally subsidize affordable units by charging more for market -priced
homes.
Please consider changing this proposed amendment by utilizing the
existing fee delay structure, as described in Ordinance 19,1999. Under
my proposed scenario, if a project contained a minimum of 10% affordable
units, the requirement for bonding or letter of credit would be
eliminated for the entire project. This would create more incentive for
for -profit companies to create affordable units with their projects.
Ordinance 19, 1999 stipulates that for projects containing at least 10%
affordable units, certain building impact fees are delayed for the
entire project, not just the proportional percentage. The interest
carrying costs that are saved by the fee delays off -set the cost of the
affordable units. This fee delay program helps a developer balance the
cost of internal subsidy.
I believe that we can create a community where the housing needs of all
citizens can be met. By structuring incentives for for -profit companies
to create affordable units, we can come closer to meeting the current
demand for affordable housing.
Sincerely,
Monica Sweere
President
Palladian Construction Company