My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2021 05 13
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2021 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2021 05 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2022 3:31:20 PM
Creation date
2/3/2022 3:26:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
5/13/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Quality Check
2/3/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 13, 2021 <br />Page 4 of 10 <br />housing prices; and preference should be given to applicants who had been historically been <br />subject to discrimination in housing based on the clear evidence that African Americans, <br />Hispanics, and Indigenous peoples have been discriminated against all across country, which <br />could be coordinated with the new EDI task force. <br />RJ Harrington, 457 Raintree Court, agreed with the need for affordable housing but asked <br />whether this was feasible in ordinance form given that there was not much more buildable <br />space, and a project would need to be quite large to take advantage of economies of scale. He <br />also noted that the next item on the agenda was commercial development asked where the new <br />housing would be for all the new jobs. <br />Brauneis clarified that the emailed public comments had been received had been distributed <br />and were posted online. Moline moved and Howe seconded a motion to enter those into the <br />record. <br />Moline asked who the ordinance applied to. <br />Zuccaro replied that anyone who had a current PDU or Plat approved would not be subject to <br />the ordinance. <br />Moline noted that the program would require a fair amount of City staff and analysis time, and <br />asked how quickly it would become operational after approval. <br />Zuccaro replied that it would go into effect about a month after the second Council reading. He <br />noted that there were probably opportunities to enter into regional partnerships with how to do <br />this. Staff right now could not do it based on time and expertise. <br />Howe asked about the disadvantages to raising the 12% figure. <br />Zuccaro replied there could be more costs associated with a new development and could <br />theoretically deter those project but he didn't want to say if 20% would or wouldn't do that. <br />Howe agreed that it was a tricky balance but he was interested in raising the threshold to an <br />extent and he asked if they had looked into Longmont's plan. <br />Zuccaro replied that in Phase II they hoped to look more into those other options such as fee <br />waivers, density bonuses, and process exceptions that could supplement the 12% requirement. <br />Howe asked about the Phase II timeline. <br />Zuccaro replied that staff hoped to have discussions with Council later this year. <br />Diehl asked about Superior's 15% threshold. <br />Zuccaro replied that it was a new ordinance that would not apply to their new downtown <br />development and he did not know the threshold for when it applied. <br />Moline asked about reaching the lower income residents. <br />Zuccaro replied that he would want to research more on that threshold and how to include those <br />residents. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.