Laserfiche WebLink
Ted stated that this ~/hole issue is driven by zoning. He said that problem exists <br />in that zoning doesn~ allow or promote this - he asked if there are changes that <br />can be made. DaSd added that problems also arise with having to provide <br />detention areas on site. With infill projects, there usually isn't adequate room to <br />provide detention. It is prohibitively expensive because of the requirements to <br />keep detention on sl[e. He added that parking issues can be controlled by the <br />market but they cotJId also pose a problem. You cannot use a suburban <br />development model fbr urban infill developments. <br /> <br />Jeff suggested that lhis might be one of the first fundamental changes that the <br />UDOAC would like to address - the provision of different standards for infill <br />development or redevelopment sites. <br /> <br />David stated that the standards ought to be such that if a catastrophe happened <br />and wiped out the downtown, could it be rebuilt under the current standards with <br />the existing lot sizes etc. If it can't, then the downtown regulations should be <br />revisited and be revised - that that was the true test as to whether or not the <br />standards were appropriate. He continued that the Committee needs to aim at <br />what model they are after. Another issue that the UDO Steering Committee <br />grappled with was related to the provision of multifamily housing (15-18 units) <br />How do we do develSpments like the Yuva apartments on South Union - that are <br />higher in density butithat blend into the neighborhood appropriately? He added <br />that the key to increSsed density has to do with design. To have the increased <br />density succeed it, and the standards associated with it, would have to be <br />allowed by right in order for it not to hurt property values. This would create <br />stability in neighborhl3ods. David didn't quite know how to suggest changes to <br />include these in tl~e regulations. His point was that if we can build <br />neighborhoods by previding a variety of housing, families would be more inclined <br />to stay in those neighborhoods as they grew or shrunk in size. Jeff added that <br />this was a good ~oint - that more housing choices within single family <br />neighborhoods shoultl also be considered. <br /> <br />Tim Foley suggeste~that he would far prefer to see more buildings like the Yuva <br />apartments or Corne~tone apartments and is not sure with projects like that why <br />people object to mult~amily housing. If they are done correctly, they are good. <br /> <br />Ted suggested that there is a certain level of fear associated with multifamily <br />buildings in single f,~rnily neighborhoods. The so-called American Dream is 1 <br />family = 1 house. <br /> <br />David said that "Forum Follows Finance" which is a model that the national <br />apartment complex I~uilders use. In order for an apartment complex to provide <br />certain public amenities (i.e. clubhouse and pools) they have to provide 200+ <br />units. How do you e~tice Yuva scale apartments instead of 200+ unit complexes <br />if you can't provide amenities with them? <br /> <br />UDO ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2003 <br /> Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />