Laserfiche WebLink
m <br />i k- f <br />#02*2789/02>2840 Dablstrom Development LLC <br />November 22,2002 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />Issues forPiscussion <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />Review of General Development flan elements. See the Planning Commission memo and <br />minutes, Exhibits G & H. Also review the comments by Vally Case (Exhibit B) in regards <br />to building massing and character, and especially in regards to landscaping. Staff and the <br />developer have not yet met to discuss the many suggestions included in this memo. <br />Housing Affordability . Applicants and staff met with the City ’s financial consultant, Mark <br />Ruff of Ehlers and Associates, on November 20. Ruff indicated that his review of the <br />developer’s financial information indicates the level of profitability of this project is within <br />the normal ranges of expected profit, hence the developer is not reaping “windfall” profits <br />that could potentially be used toward a higher level of affordability. <br />The developer has suggested that without City participation it will be very difficult to realize <br />an affordability component with this project. Council has suggested that the 3-4 units <br />proposed to be kept affordable have the appearance of a token effort on the part of the City <br />and the developer. It has been suggested by Council that instead, the City should educate <br />itself regarding what “affordable”, “workforce” and “life-cycle ” housing is, and the <br />multiplicity of factors that affect the ability to provide those types of housing, then determine <br />the types of efforts necessary to achieve these types of housing. An option to consider is that <br />this developer, rather than constructing a few “affordable ” units, would contribute <br />significantly to a fund established by the City to assist in the development of affordable <br />housing. <br />Development Fees. Applicants have submitted a development fee proposal in response to <br />staffs Fee Estimate provided to the developer in August. Please review Exhibit D. <br />Applicant has accurately portrayed the staff estimates regarding Park Dedication fees as well <br />as City sewer & water connection charges and stormwater trunk fees. The essential <br />differences between staffs estimates and the developers request are as follows: <br />a.Park Fees. Pre-Dev. Fair Market Value-staff estimate: $8.92 million <br />.............................. - stated purchase price: $5.86 million <br />Aside from the difference in land value. Developer is taking issue with the <br />residential minimum per-unit fee of S3250 and proposing an 8% cap at $2,265 <br />per residential unit. Developer suggests that our fee structure also do not <br />account for the public and private recreational amenities provided in the <br />development. However, the private amenities are a separate RPUD <br />requirement, so only the public trails might be a subject for discussion in <br />temis of reductions... <br />Total res./comml. park fees per staff estimate $683,400 <br />Total res./comml. park fees per dev. proposal $468,737 <br />; <br />( <br />J