I was contacted by a reader interested to know my position on Lafayette Ballot Question 2C. I have since added my email address into my profile description in case anyone else would like to send me a note outside of this forum. If you ever would like to post a topic for discussion, send it to me at budanddakota@yahoo.com.
Lafayette Ballot Question 2C:
Passage would exempt the Countryside Village Shopping Center from the city charter’s housing growth cap limitations. Opponents cry foul that potential mixed-use redevelopment of the land (following WalMart’s exit to its new home on Hwy 287) is asking to violate the citizen-approved cap on housing units allowed per year. The sentiment against 2C tends to filter down to a chorus regarding the virtues of “small town feel” and the intent of the growth cap, but the inflexibility it champions sounds more like ideological no growth. If inflexible housing unit growth limits are still in favor we'll find out November 7. Just asking the question posed in 2C is as valid as asking voters to chime in on the Waneka property annexation, a land-use vote that is being championed by those likely to oppose 2C.
Suggestions for the property at the northwest corner of South Boulder Rd. and South Public Rd. have included parks, retail and office space and several hundred housing units. In reality, the housing units are both a long term benefit to the town and a necessary component to attract development. As opposed to the otherwise equally likely but less attractive “small town feel” of abandoned buildings and a vast parking lot in the center of town, approval of 2C will give city officials and citizens the opportunity to consider smart proposals to add a new community center to town. Without the specific exemption 2C provides, creative and feasible ideas won't even come to the table. For these reasons I support 2C.
See the letter of endorsement for 2C from Mayor Chris Berry and Mayor Pro-Tem David Strungis in the Lafayette News. Read an opposing view from former City Councilor Jeff Monica in the comments link.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
A MESSAGE FROM FORMER COUNCILOR JEFF MONICA
(I excerpted this from the Citizens for Lafayette newsletter; thanks to a Eastboco reader! - Dan Powers)
Lafayette voters as you decide how you will vote on Lafayette Question 2C, please consider the following:
· 2C runs contrary to the spirit and intent of Lafayette's citizen initiated residential growth management charter amendment that has been approved by voters TWICE and has been serving us well for over 10 years.
· 2C eliminates existing citizen control to authorize how residential growth will be managed.
· 2C promotes unrestricted residential growth with no limit as to the maximum number of housing units allowed.
· 2C does not restrict what type of residential units can be built three or more story apartment buildings would be allowed, for example.
· 2C has no deadline as to how long the exemption is in effect.
· 2C will increase Lafayette's population without any analysis or revision to the city's existing Comprehensive Plan.
· 2C could allow for removing existing businesses in the designated area, decreasing potential city sales tax revenues.
· Your NO vote on 2C will send a clear message to the Lafayette City Council to respect citizens' ongoing support of reasonable and responsible residential growth management and will be saying no to a blank check.
Jeff Monica
Dan, I would like to thank you for your clear and accurate comments on Lafayette 2C. I won't babble on given that you have precisely identified City Council's motivation in requesting this modification. We need this tool to do the best job we can on what will be a new asset to our city. Voters should be asking themselves whether in five years they want to see two empty big boxes or a thriving mixed use (civic, recreational, residential, retail, and office) center for Lafayette. A YES vote on 2C will move us toward our dream (sans abandoned Wal-Mart).
Chris Cameron
Lafayette City Councilor
Hi Dan,
First, I thought it was curious as to how you trust the judgement of the current city council when you testified and objected to their judgement regarding its approval of the low income housing project on So. Boulder Road.
You state that you believe the redevelopment project will not come to fruition if 2C is not passed. In my opinion, that is simply not true. The city admin has always said since 1995 the cap would hurt residential development. Yet there are some 900 units on the drawing board right now.
The current plan which is version 4 has many dependencies. It is already changing to version 5 and a version 6 is on the horizon. Let's review a few of the dependencies.
The county would have to agree to swap the land it owns north of the two big boxes for the Albertsons building and buy the Wal-Mart building. That building would still have to be on the market, now being listed. Lately I realized that would the county given the political climate be willing to spend tax payer money to buy a building from Wal-Mart? Probably not.
The city has to come up with $6M. Currently it doesn't have it. The only possibility today is that money may be coming from the possible sale of the Northwest Parkway. Yet the city administration constantly talks about the decaying infrastructure of the city that needs to be repaired. Which has a higher priority?
The current plan calls for possible housing on two lots, 40 on one and 80 on another. That can easily be accomodated under the current growth cap. I also wonder what the residents of west Old Town will think if there is proposal on the table for high density multi-story condos, apartments, or low income housing right in their backyard.
There is no expiration date on 2C or no limit to the number of units involved. In fact, when the amendment to limit it to 5 years and 150 units was proposed, it was defeated. There is no guarantee that the current plan 4 won't morph into something much less desirable.
We were told Cheese Importers would open a store in the Coal Creek Shopping Center. Hasn't happened in three years.
We were told the old Albertsons building would be sold in a year. Hasn't happened.
ACE Hardware is struggling, now under local ownership.
Those three have tied up $5M of city money.
Those of us who have followed city politics for years have heard the promises and proposals. Which is why I have grown skeptical when it comes to this kind of thing. And I get to see it from the inside now.
Voting NO on 2C keeps the city council and city government from being handed a blank check. And any housing involved can be addressed under the current cap.
Kerry Bensman
Councilor
City of Lafayette
The Daily Camera has come out in opposition of 2C in their editorial column today. Read their rationale here.
Oh Dan,
This statement
“The sentiment against 2C tends to filter down to a chorus regarding the virtues of “small town feel” and the intent of the growth cap, but the inflexibility it champions sounds more like ideological no growth.”
makes me laugh! As co chair of the successful Vote for Both for Managed Growth campaign a few years ago, I think I have a pretty good grasp on this subject and its history in Lafayette.
That campaign added 50 extra permits every year to be used only for affordable housing. Exemptions that were brought to the public prior to that election included allowing Boulder County to build senior housing on land adjacent to the future “Great Park” site and allowing for mixed use in the Urban Renewal District. My husband and I wrote the only letter in support of that last exemption. It’s important to note that there have been no mixed use projects in the Urban Renewal District, nor has there been any housing built by Boulder County. Yet we were told those exemptions were needed, and needed now.
We are being told that yet again. In this case 5 councilmembers are asking us to “trust them” on the details.
Prior to the council’s final vote on the ballot question, (which by the way received a no vote by two of Lafayette’s most experienced councilors, ) Jeff Monica, (the other co chair of the Vote for Both campaign) and I met with Gary Klaphake, then with David Strungis and Chris Cameron, and before running out of time, also Frank Phillips.
We had the following document with us:
Our concerns center on the vagueness of the language in the currently proposed ballot
Question Number 3. Specificity is needed. Areas that need to be addressed include:
1. Impact on the city as a whole – Revise the Comprehensive Plan to recognize this change by reducing elsewhere a number equal to increase caused by this. Net equals zero.
2. Units permitted – Establish a not to exceed number of units.
3. Time – Establish sunset date.
4. Height density – No three story residential/mixed units.
Other
• There has been mention of addressing the issues described outside of the ballot question (Resolutions, the planning process, etc.). While we support getting creative to address the unique opportunity this area presents, we do not support this approach since councilors, planning commissioners and city managers change over time and the good intentions of folks around today could be changed quickly and relatively easy in the future by new faces. This issue belongs in the hands of the citizens.
• Lafayette's residential growth management amendment has been supported by voters each time it has been presented to them – the last time voters approved the amendment by 59% in 2001.
____
Hardly sounds inflexible. Just looking for some specifics that reflect the citizens’ desires. As shown by vote after vote.
You say:
“ Suggestions for the property at the northwest corner of South Boulder Rd. and South Public Rd. have included parks, retail and office space and several hundred housing units. In reality, the housing units are both a long term benefit to the town and a necessary component to attract development.
As opposed to the otherwise equally likely but less attractive “small town feel” of abandoned buildings and a vast parking lot in the center of town, approval of 2C will give city officials and citizens the opportunity to consider smart proposals to add a new community center to town.
Without the specific exemption 2C provides, creative and feasible ideas won't even come to the table. “
Dan I’d like very much to see proof that the statements above are true, not just opinion.
I’d especially like to see some proof on this one
“ Without the specific exemption 2C provides, creative and feasible ideas won't even come to the table”
How on earth do you know that?
Don’t forget, developers aren’t even using all of the yearly 200 available permits now, and we have 50 yearly affordable housing permits on top of that. Permits can also be borrowed from the following year, that includes general housing permits and affordable. Again, hardly inflexible. Also we are being told that the housing portion of the development is to go next to Sonic, and that there really won’t be many housing units anyway. If that’s the case why is this exemption needed? If the housing can be built as a separate entity, especially if it’s affordable rate, the need for this exemption hasn’t been proven.
Karen Norback
Hello Kerry:
I did indeed question the judgment of the current Lafayette Council re: the Eagle Place development that was approved this year. That was a bad overall development option for the city, as will be borne out once Lafayette sees how Louisville develops their section of a main transit corridor (South Boulder Rd) right across the street from Eagle Place.
I'm concerned that the overall growth cap of 200 units/yr could, in any given year, be taken up by other proposals/approvals elsewhere.
Any development proposal still has to be approved by Council; the lack of a sunset on the exemption 2C provides shouldn't be a deal-breaker. If the Countryside Village Shopping Center is always in competition for permits that could be allocated elsewhere, I'm worried the lot will sit effectively vacant (no offense to the current tenants) because proposals will either fail to gain Council approval or proposals simply won't come forward.
My understanding is that economic realities dictate a high density residential component is necessary to attract a developer. For this specific parcel, I believe 2C's exemption becomes a necessary tool.
I was not aware of the city's requirement to come up with $6 million as part of the deal here. The plot thickens...
If South Boulder Road is such a powerful transit corridor, shouldn't we be doing better at the WalMart/Albertson's redevelopment site than putting a big public park space along the road? Big expense and little benefit. And that empty park will cost the city money to maintain. Plus the city is putting a park into the parking lot directly across the street that will have farmer's markets. So it is duplicating the idea, only larger and emptier.
Dan -- perhaps it would help your readers to be able to look at the current sketch plan (http://www.cityoflafayette.com/page.asp?navid=1256), which will, of course have additional adjustments during the process of going through the Planning Commission and the concomitant public input.
As far as city subsidies, I believe there is a distinct possibility that the city will spend money to eliminate the blight that will exist due to the presence of a vacant Wal-mart. The most recent plan for this project has incorporated a phasing plan that will allow us to phase the financing as well. It is limited to think that a potential NW parkway sale is the only possibility for financing.
As far as plenty of building permits being available – perhaps they ultimately become available, but building permits are assigned in advance – a given builder may have 60 permits for a given year and only use 30 of them, but that doesn’t help the developer who finds this out mid year – developers need to know in advance that they will be able to obtain the permits they need for their project. The idea that they might be available is unlikely to convince a quality developer to take this risk.
Higher density housing for this area is a must not only for attracting developers, but for the future of our downtown in general. Increasing the residential, pedestrian core of our downtown should result in greater success for both existing and new businesses and restaurants. The mixed use nature of this development will bring additional opportunities to existing residents of Old Town.
The sentiments of the anti-government crowd will only be fueled by a no vote on 2C. Will council be hearing from the same people two years from now that Council never followed through on the 2005 commitment to revitalize this property?
Regarding the issue that the council is trying to undermine the will of the people – it is hardly subversive to give the citizens a chance to vote to make a change that wasn’t anticipated in the original growth amendments – to support the redevelopment of blighted property, as opposed to decreasing urban sprawl. A YES vote on 2C is progress for Lafayette.
Thank you,
Chris Cameron
clcameron@peakpeak.com
Today's Daily Camera article says I am a proponent of 2C. The reporter never contacted me before the article was published. Needless to say, the article is in error.
Vote No on 2C
Hi Dan,
The Camera now tells me the foul up was on their web site, not the paper.
Ironically, the housing component of the version four, now morphing to version five as I write this, is not a key element. It's a wish.
The first key element is convincing the county to swap that land it bought north of the site for the old Albertson's building and Wal-Mart site. However, nothing prevents Wal-Mart from selling the building before the county makes its decision. We are told the county land would hold 40 single units.
The next key element is the city coming up with some $6M to put the streets and infrastructure. The sketch plan on the city web site is misleading because it colors over existing pads with current businesses who either own them or lease them. They are not going to go away quickly or easily. (Note that in today's Camera the city can't come up with $20,000 to reinvigorate the cemetery it purchased.)
Then there is the question of mixed use development on the site. Commerical vacancies currently abound in the urban renewal district. But the number of potential housing units is speced between 80 to 120.
Now where did 2C come from? It was put on the table and started by the city PRIOR, I repeat PRIOR, as part of the plan for the first three, now DISCARDED, proposals. At that time, those defunct and unrealistic proposals showed over 200 housing units. The city started the process for 2C because of the election deadlines. It is as obsolete as the 3 defunct proposals.
So the plan has changed but 2C keeps rumbling one.
Post a Comment