12 - Laserfiche WebLink

The Housing Commission held a public hearing on February 19, 2009 to review the draft Affordable Housing Agreement provided as Attachment 3. Staff presented the draft Affordable Housing Agreement to the Housing Commission. Andy Byde, representing Braddock and Logan, was present to answer questions. There was no public testimony. Excerpts from the Housing Commission meeting minutes are provided as Attachment 5. The Housing Commission voted 4 -0 to recommend approval of the Agreement. Planning Commission The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 25, 2009 to review the proposed project. Staff presented the proposal to the Planning Commission with conditions of approval. Andy Byde, representing Braddock and Logan, spoke in favor of the proposal and answered questions. My Byde stated that the high demand for Civic Square Apartment units is the main purpose for the proposal; that the tennis court is infrequently used and has become a maintenance liability; and that Braddock and Logan surveyed the Civic Square Apartment residents and 185 respondents supported the proposal, 3 opposed it, and 58 were indifferent. There was no other public testimony. The Commission discussed the following issues related to the proposal: Photovoltaic panels for the new and remodeled buildings: The Commission discussed the feasibility of providing photovoltaic panels on the roof areas of the new and remodeled buildings or making them photovoltaic ready. Staff replied that the two new apartment buildings by the pool /recreation area will have roof mounted solar water heating panels for the pool, and that the other proposed building locations did not provide clear solar access to these buildings due to the proximity of the existing apartment buildings and /or shade trees. The Planning Commission agreed with staff's conclusion that photovoltaic panels were not feasible. No additional condition was required by the Planning Commission. Reserving the 12 new units exclusively for moderate /low- income households: The Commission questioned staff on the advisability of reserving the new units exclusively for moderate /low- income households. Staff replied that the City's standard practice and the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance require affordable units to be dispersed throughout the development, and clarified that the affordable units would be spread throughout the development, not concentrated in the new units. The Planning Commission concurred with staff's statement. No additional condition was required by the Planning Commission. Excerpts from the Planning Commission meeting minutes are provided as Attachment 7. The Planning Commission voted 4 -0 to recommend approval of the application, subject to the staff recommended conditions. Page 4 of 6