Planning Commission Minutes 2021 05 13

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2021 Page 3 of 10 address it nearly enough. She explained that the Louisville proposal was on the lower end of affordable housing stock proposals in the area and noted that the big challenge was to reach the lowest income folks in the area. Jensen advocated for fewer landscaping requirements and a fast -tracked permit process to encourage developers and for lowering the 60% threshold to 50%, since even teachers and service workers could not afford housing at the higher level. She offered the Coalition's help with the project. Lara Weiss, 421 East Street, stated that she had sold her property to developers and suggested grandfathering projects currently under contract. Otherwise, property owners would get stuck with the increased tax amount as the original estimate would need to be raised, which is what had happened to her. Debbie Haseman, 247 South Lark Avenue, noted that she and her husband found a home 30 years ago that was entry-level and that they could afford, which was no longer the case for new homebuyers. She believed that Louisville was what it was today because people used to be able to afford to buy here. She noted that she was affiliated with the East County Housing Opportunity Coalition. Stephanie Mclaughlin, 1075 Falcon Court, asked to see something in the proposal that made it clear that affordable housing was doable in Louisville, and noted that housing wasn't keeping pace with jobs while at the same time Louisville was moving ahead with commercial developments. Kevin Byrne stated that he was a real estate agent whose recent project had increased by about $600,000 to add affordable units, which they had to negotiate out of the owner's side. He thought it was hard for a family to move to Louisville and it was also hard to get developers to build, as well, which would mean that builders would pay the fee -in -lieu, which made him wonder if this was really a solution or if people would just pay the cash. He advocated for a grandfather clause as Ms. Weiss suggested and requested full transparency for people building in the future. David Sinkey, 712 Main Street, of Boulder Creek Neighborhoods, stated that inclusionary zoning was not effective in getting affordable housing. He suggested a "carrot" methodology that supported larger projects with 100% affordable units, which were very different projects than market -rate ones. He thought that inclusionary zoning created more of an impediment for smaller projects where affordable wouldn't work, and the City should instead support larger affordable programs. He offered his company's expertise for the proposal development. Jennifer Samuels, 1388 Kennedy Avenue, supported affordable housing, and noted that she was a nurse and a mother and that her local school was worried that enrollment was dropping because people could not afford to live here. She asked if Louisville wanted to be the kind of community that only the wealthy could afford. She noted that the 12% requirement was too low to meet the overall 12% goal for the region because the housing stock was limited and offered 20% as a more realistic number. She noted that the income measurements were not enough for service workers and other lower income groups. Cathern Smith, 608 West Street, began her remarks before being informed by Chair Brauneis that the Redtail Ridge item was next on the agenda. Josh Cooperman, 216 Griffith Street, stated he supported inclusionary housing and offered the following observations and recommendations: 12% was too low, especially because there was very little land that could be developed for housing so 12% would not go very far; $7.90/square foot for fee -in -lieu was too low, as that the number was based on Longmont which had lower