It’s funny how you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.
Tonight, at the plan commission we will be debating the project at 301 S. Livingston. If we vote for the project, we’ll be anti-business because we are not preserving areas of the City for job creation. If we vote against the project, we’ll be anti-business because we are standing in the way of development.
This project is complicated in that it has competing planning efforts. The East Rail Corridor Plan and a Willy Street BUILD plan conflict with each other. We, and the developer, have known this for quite some time and the Plan Commission and Council voted to follow what was outlined in the East Rail Corridor Plan and adopted it as part of the Comprehensive Plan, but the developer moved forward with his project that did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
It’s also complicated by the fact that MG&E was one of the main groups opposed to having residential, as opposed to commercial uses in this area, but they have now changed their mind. (Staff wonders if it has anything to do with plans to change from coal to natural gas at that location.)
The staff report isn’t so helpful in helping us reach a conclusion, but their observations seem to be:
– 6 studios, 27 one-bedroom and six 2-bedroom units doesn’t provide housing for families
– there are no common areas or amenities in the building
– there should be a lobby or waiting area in the entrance to the building
– landscaping is minimal
– they have landscaping and bike parking in the right-of-way
– the project is “far from being primarily an employment land use” because only 6,600 sq ft of non-residential space (20%)
– the area facing the internal driveway appears “somewhat grim”
– “There remains a concern that in the present market, even allowing consideration of predominantly residential projects at locations recommended for employment uses might encourage developers to look to those sites as residential devleoperment opportunities, rather than work to help generate and serve a demand for business development; and that this might eventually limit future employment growth in one of the few redevelopment locations where substantial employument growth is still possible by using up the most pomising sites.”
The other thing is that the developer has apparently performed a miracle. Without any help from the City they are saying that they will have 70% of their units available at 60% AMI. Of course, since this is rental the IZ ordinance doesn’t apply and we have no way of making sure that this promise is kept.
So, how would you vote? Would you be anti-business, or anti-business?
