Laserfiche WebLink
Exemptions <br />Commissioner Wilson indicated he would like to see a project with <br />25 or less dwelling units be exempted as it reduces staff work and <br />takes care of the small guys. Commissioner Lindsey asked how many <br />projects have been looked at with 25 or less units. <br />Mr. Swift said that they are almost all townhouses or apartments and <br />that you won't see many single-family more than four and less than <br />twenty-five. <br />It was pointed out that Mr. Schneider has 16 single-family lots on <br />Foothill which were granted a RAP exemption for lot size. <br />Commissioner Wilson asked if the Commission concurred to endorse <br />exemptions for 25 of less units. Mr. Swift said that if large <br />parcels don't get split and resplit for 100 units then 25 probably <br />would be more than would be needed because there aren't that many <br />projects of that size. He said 25 or even 20 would take care of <br />most of the one acre lots or smaller. <br />Mr. Levine addressed exemptions for large lots, and large projects <br />as well as rentals vs. condominiums and that the current ordinance <br />allows for exemption of rental units of 10 or less, further that in <br />the past the City has used the ordinance to encourage the type of <br />development needed in the City. <br />Mr. Harris suggested that perhaps a lower exemption 'number' shouldn't <br />be assessed at this time until an analysis of potential projects can <br />be carried out. Commissioner Lindsey said he is inclined to agree <br />with Mr. Harris' comments and perhaps there should be a down-side <br />number of some sort. <br />Commissioner Wilson said that 25 would be a good figure. <br />The Commission agreed that the 20,000 sq. ft. lot exemption should <br />stay in the ordinance. <br />Frequency of RAP <br />The Planning Commission indicated they are in favor of an annual <br />allocation program which would take place August or September of <br />each year. <br />Design <br />Commissioner Lindsey asked if the design of structures was a big part <br />of RAP in the past. Mr. Levine stated it was. <br />Mr. Knox indicated that in the past developers have been disposed <br />to put expensive siding and other expensive treatments to their units <br />to compete in RAP. He said this increased the common area costs <br />and cost of the units. He felt that Wellington could have probably <br />been offered for sale at approximately $10,000 less if it wasn't <br />for the amenities. He realized that the City didn't impose the <br />extra items, but the developer felt it was necessary for the <br />competition. He urged that the design not be used in the criteria <br />for selection of projects. <br />-4- <br />