Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERGLEN PUD PDP - 71 93A - CORRESPONDENCE - AFFORDABLE HOUSING MEMO. (3)i DECISION MATRIX COUNCIL PLANNING AND AFFORDABLE BOARDS AND STAFF ZONING BOARD HOUSING BOARD COMMISSIONS Overall project Site plan Is this a project the Parks Board - use of Development Agreement community wants to parkland fees. invest in? Does it Recommendation on meet affordable purchase of property. housing criteria? Specific community Variances - street How much financial Transportation Board Final approval of investment options widths, off -site assistance is needed - issues and plans in accordance improvements, by the developer? recommendations: with council and landscape standards, access to public board guidance. drainage plan transportation. Purchase of parkland What specifically can Natural Resources Processing of plans be done to provide Board - issues and and documents. the needed financial recommendations, assistance? Purchase of Cooper What is a reasonable Stormwater Board - Recommendations to Slough property profit for affordable only if flood plain various boards and housing development? variances are council. requested. RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE P A Z BOARD DECISION RECOMMENDATION TO RECOMMENDATION TO I AGREEMENTS & COUNCIL AHB COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS NOTE: Waterglen proposal was briefly reviewed by the Affordable Housing Board in December, but neither decisions, guidance or recommendations were provided. ., PRELIM P & Z 2/28/94 ZVI NOW / Provide land use conditions that must 1/3/94 - \ be satisfied. 2/28/94 \ o Financial analysis of proposed project. PRELIM AHB 3/10/94 o Decisions on proposed variances. o Is this a project the o Land use review. community wants to invest in? o Explore community o How much financial investment options. assistance is needed? o Process ,� o What is a reasonable presentation at profit? 1/13194 AIi13 o Work with PR-1, various boards. oT"*6%k o Provide guidance and direction on specific community investment options. AHB = Affordable Housing Board UT nC-U C C /TT-X4-P1 TIMTF o Have conditions \ j Have conditions been satisfied? been satisfied? o Make final recommendation to Council. AL CO IL RESOLUTION \ 7/5/94 Project GOINO The need for a financial analysis know how much of a community fin project go, I believe we have the investment is prudent. The only on the financials of the project. avoid the..current situation of th or community investment options decisions, or beinq able to alternatives. of the project. Whil ancial investment is responsibility to en way to do this is to Also, by knowing t e developer proposing without us knowing ascertain and re e the developer may needed to make the sure the community's make decisions based his information, we specific variances the impact of our commend comparable Extending the timeline a month. The developer hopes to take the project before the January 24, 1994 Planning and Zoning Board meeting for preliminary review. While we can accommodate this, I recommend they postpone until the February 28, 1994 meeting. Staff and other boards need this time to wrestle with the policy issues, as well as the specifics of the Waterglen proposal. Hope this helps. Once we agree on the process and timeline, I suggest we run it by a couple members of the Affordable Housing Board and Council to ensure they are comfortable with it. I'll work with other Staff to help keep us on track. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Attachment cc: CSteve=0l-t-,-Project_P_lanner Mike Herzig, Planner Engineer I believe the Affordable Housing Board has a primary role in addressing these questions. The Board was created to "advise the City Council on matters pertaining to affordable housing issues of concern to the City;" and "to aid and guide the development of city-wide affordable housing programs to address currently existing and potential affordable housing issues." The intent seems to be for the Board to play a significant role in figuring out what affordable housing should look like, finding ways to provide it, and ensuring any community investment in affordable housing is maximized. Which brings us to the proposed Waterglen development. Essentially, the developer's proposal jumps from the P.U.D submittal directly to the guts of the third question above - "Which land use variances is the City willing to support?" In other words, the first two -and -a -half questions haven't been answered. This, coupled with the "newness" of the first significant affordable housing project, has created a Catch-22 situation - we can't do much more until the developer provides us more information, yet the developer can't provide more information until we provide additional information. To help with this situation, I recommend that the Affordable Housing.Board play a major role in reviewing the project and providing guidance. I am also suggesting Council wrestle with the big -picture pieces of the project up front to avoid the problem of the developer, the Affordable Housing Board, and staff pressing forward in one direction only to have Council nix the project at a later date. Ultimately, there will be a need for Council to approve the total package - particularly any community investments in the project. The attached process and timeline outlines in greater detail my recommendation. While I believe the attached process enables us to answer the three questions mentioned above in a timely matter - and thus sets the necessary precedence for future affordable housing project proposals - I suspect Bill Reynolds may have a couple of concerns. Specifically: ■ The Affordable Housing Board's role. Obviously, if this were a standard proposal, the Board would not have a responsibility to review the project, nor make recommendations. However, this is not a standard project, but specifically one proposed as affordable housing. Thus, I think the intent of Council is for the Board to necessarily be involved, whether or not a community financial investment is being requested. Part of the Board's charge seems to be to influence and monitor the character of affordable housing in the community. ■ Council's involvement. Ultimately, Council will need to be involved at some level - I suggest they make final approval of the project via resolution - even if it is only to authorize the purchase of the proposed park land by the City, as requested by the developer. While Council' supports the development of affordable housing in concept, they haven't had the opportunity to wrestle with a specific project to see how their policy will look as it is carried out. I suspect there may be some concerns with this specific project, and because Council will potentially review it at some level, it makes sense to get their guidance, direction, concerns and input up front to minimize problems later on. E City of Fort Collins Utility Services Streets Department MEMORANDUM DATE: December 22, 1993 TO: Greg Byrne, CPES Director Ron Phillips, Planning Director FROM: Jon Ruiz, CPES-,-I,---- RE: Waterglen Development I thought it would be helpful to discuss a few aspects of the proposed Waterglen development, as well as propose a process and timeline for carrying the project through review and approval. While it -is important to remove obstacles for the developer, it is also appropriate to ensure the right precedent is set for similar proposals in the future. For any affordable housing proposal, I believe we have essentially two primary responsibilities: support the Council's affordable housing policy by creatively working with developers, and ensuring the community receives maximum value for any community dollars - i.e. fee waivers, incentives, financing arrangements, etc. - invested in an affordable housing project. Practically, what this means is the need to treat each affordable housing proposal individually. Because the Waterglen project has been submitted prior to many of the policy issues being resolved, I am recommending that the policy issues be addressed concurrently with the review of the Waterglen proposal. In other words, Waterglen will be the catalyst and example for discussion and resolution of several policy issues by various boards and Council. The advantage of this approach - rather than resolving all policy issues and then reviewing the Waterglen proposal - is that Bill Reynolds will have decisions about Waterglen sooner than he would otherwise. Essentially, the decision -making process for an affordable housing proposal can be viewed similarly to the Economic Development Incentive Program. The three basic questions that need to be answered are: ' ■ Is this a project the community wants to invest in? In other words, does it meet a set of established criteria? ■ If yes, how much financial assistance - in whatever form - is needed by the developer to ensure the project is completed, and how much is the community willing to invest in the project? ■ What specifically can be done to provide the needed financial assistance? This would include land use variances, financing arrangements, grants, loans, fee waivers, etc. 700 Wood Street • P.O. Box 580 0 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6615