Laserfiche WebLink
114 <br /> <br /> through a deed restriction recorded against the property. The <br /> details of said restriction shall be subject to review and approval <br /> by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits for <br /> the project and shall be in place prior to occupancy of any units." <br /> <br /> Mr. Madden said he had no objection to this revised condition <br /> and would agree to it. It's been the goal to provide senior units <br /> at an affordable rate. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler asked if Mr. Madden was proposing a minimum of five <br /> units of very low income. <br /> <br /> Mr. Madden answered yes, assuming that they would not be <br /> receiving any help. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked if the project would consist of 17 units at <br /> market value and 5 at very low. <br /> <br /> Mr. Madden replied there would be 16 at market rents; 5, at <br /> low income; and 1 at very low income. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked Mr. Madden estimated what the market rents <br /> would be? <br /> <br /> Mr. Madden felt that the market would support these units at <br /> $600-$625. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked what would happen to the balancing of prices of <br /> the units if the upstairs unit on the St. Marys end was removed. <br /> She was concerned that the St. Marys frontage was a residential <br /> block and the Division frontage was a commercial block. She felt <br /> that by removing that one unit it would be more architecturally <br /> consistent. <br /> <br /> Mr. Madden answered that he was not sure of the amount but <br /> that it would change the prices. It could possibly threaten the <br /> fifth of the low income units. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fiedler, Pleasanton Gardens, spoke in favor of this item. <br /> Mr. Fiedler believed that this type of housing and its <br /> affordability was greatly needed by the elderly, especially for <br /> those whose incomes are too high to qualify for federal housing <br /> subsidies but too low for full market rent in this community. He <br /> felt that the project was of appropriate size, design, and location <br /> to meet the housing needs of the community. It had enough parking <br /> and that the traffic on Division Street would not be a problem. <br /> <br /> He agreed with the Planning Commission's condition that this <br /> project should remain for elderly only because of the parking and <br /> density ratios. He believed that a private developer should not <br /> get involved with the calculations of income levels set up by HUD. <br /> <br /> 3/3/92 <br /> 12 <br /> <br /> <br />