Planning Commission Minutes 2015 12 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Page 14 of 29 Russell says we are not trading anything. You can't lose what you don't have. There is potential that has been there a very long time. Secondly, we are age -restricting this as a tool to manage demand in BVSD. We are now building age -restricted residential development in our city to manage the demand on BVSD. McCartney says yes and partly a mix of housing types as requested by the Comp Plan. I think the underlying theme is to try and alleviate the impact on the school district. Russell says what happens if you can't lease age -restricted units? Is it as simple as coming back to PC and asking for an amendment? Finally, what do you have against water towers? McCartney says we called it architecturally confusing. Tengler says the previous PUD had 48 residential units, is that correct? McCartney says the original submittal of this Foundry had 48 residential units. Moline asks if BVSD had a chance to comment on what would happen if this was not an age restricted project? McCartney says BVSD might have. When we get the original submittal, we sent it to them. I can check to see if staff has those numbers. We did consult with BVSD during this process and we asked them how they look at 55 years and older as far having an impact. They use the numbers found in HUD for senior housing which states 55 years and older. It is their assumption is that 55 years and older would have zero impact on schools. Russ adds from a senior prospective that the Comp Plan has broad reaching goals and the diversity of housing stock in serving our seniors is certainly very clearly stated in the Comp Plan. Yes, schools are a motivation but this residential development with required senior housing is more consistent with the Comp Plan than without. Brauneis asks about traffic. How would this proposal compare to alternatives? Russ says it would be less. Office and residential development are significantly higher trip generators than residential. Tengler asks about net fiscal impacts. It looks like we are talking about an annual differential between developer numbers, the model numbers, and the original GDP of literally $10,000 year and $20,000 a year. Russ says the numbers are very close. There are variables here. The original GDP produces about $400,000 additional revenue over 20 years than what is being proposed. McCartney says the BVSD numbers for the original submittal of 48 units were 3 for LES, 1 for LMS, and 5 for Monarch HS. Applicant Presentation: Justin McClure, RMCS LLC, 21 South Sunset Street, Longmont, CO 80501. 1 would like to begin by answering some questions. Commissioner Rice, McCartney is accurate. In 2006 was when the original GDP was approved. I was 26 years old, about a decade ago. What was reality then and what is reality now is different and we try to be as accurate as we possibly can when we come forward with comprehensive land development. I am personally very passionate about it. We have tried so many different ways to activate commercial space on that parcel through cooperation with 501(c)3 for which received final PUD approval. We spent money on construction documents that were unutilized. We are talking of hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment to try to get it off the ground. If you read the market analysis included in your packets, this goes back to 2006, listing the property with Becky Gamble. We couldn't ever make anything happen of substance. What we didn't want to do in the middle of the meltdown was fire -sale the property. To the north of us in Indian Peaks South, nothing disparaging against McStain and Indian Peaks South, but that property was sold at $1.11/sf for the 11 acres. I can assure this PC that it will be very difficult to get a high quality user at that purchase price on land. That is troublesome. For me personally as an investor and creator in Steel Ranch, I have a significant vested interest in making sure that that property develops as quality as it possibly can. I think it is indicative of the challenges that my company has faced with bringing an entirely commercial product to market. In the original GDP, we generated a 0.3 FAR, 72,000 sf, of commercial space. More realistically in complying with CDDSG, complying