In yesterday's Daily Camera, Lafayette was everywhere, with three of the ten articles in the entire paper (not counting sports) focused on Lafayette growth issues.
One article described the potential for re-routing Hwy 7, which is years away, unfunded and at this point just a nice idea.
Another article - from the front page - described the concerns some have over annexing Chuck Waneka's land for a Lowe's, and the February election that will allow or deny the annexation.
But the big shocker was the incorrect reference in the online version of the article on Ballot Question 2C, which we've been debating here (see earlier posts). Councilor Kerry Bensman was specifically named as a supporter of 2C - an outspoken one at that - and he is most certainly against 2C.
He sent me the following comment: "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. "
As more comments come in to the post below on 2C, it is important people know who is on which side.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I posted on the previous item on 2C, but with everything going on, I worry that it will drop off the screen (literally!), so I thought I would post on this topic as well.
Please count me among those strongly in FAVOR of 2C.
I am starting to hear people in the community who have been misinformed (I don't know by whom) and believe that 2C is lifting the growth cap throughout the city. This is patently untrue.
Without being tedious, I think I need to describe the permit process. When a development is approved, the city guarantees that developer a certain number of permits a year for X years -- a given development may take 5 years at 40 units a year, say. Thus, there are a number of developers "in line" whose permits add up to the magic 200. Maybe next year there will be 30 extra for someone new, maybe 80, maybe none.
Permits that aren't purchased ("trickle down permits") can be claimed by those further down the line. But developers don't want to begin a project with only the prospect of trickle down permits -- they want to KNOW that if they invest up front in the infrastructure, they will be able to also build the houses.
So how does this relate to 2C? Say we want to build a mixed use development with commercial below and lofts above and it is going to include 60 housing units. What developer wants to start working on ground level retail not knowing if s/he will have the permits for the second floor residential? I would argue not many.
The real question here is how long do you want to look at an empty Wal-Mart and a big ugly parking lot? Until we can find developer/s who are willing to piecemeal this project together, or in a timely manner that allows for comprehensive planning and building?
Chris Cameron
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.
October 24, 2006 4:36 PM
Kerry, I thought the higher amount of housing was a de-facto requirement for attracting the type of overall development being considered there?
As to your question, no, the proposed housing is not key to the entire proposal. It's really an after thought.
The basic problem today is to demolish the existing buildings would cost around $12M. The city did a study when it was trying to get Wal-Mart to build its super store there. That is what tanked the first three proposals. For some reason, no one told the consultants that. After they did those three at a cost of some $25,000, I went to the city administrator and asked him where the $12M was going to come from. He then pulled together a meeting and that's where the current proposal came from.
The key to the entire thing is what the county will do with its proposed building and current land. If they "swap" the land for the current buildings, then the city is stuck with the land and what to do with it. That's where this 40 units came from. And the next key item is the sale of the existing WM site. And then the city has to come up with $6M for the development too.
Anyway, one has to ask would any developer want to build mixed use or residential in that area? I don't think so. The 40 unit site has more potential than the mixed used.
By the way, there is going to be an assisted living complex built south of the Vitamin Cottage. They didn't need 2C to go forward on that, did they?
Kerry Bensman
Just a technical note: The St. James assisted living facility does not require residential permits. The use is considered "institutional" so long as the facility has a state permit. This was explicitly addressed during development review for the project.
Dan, I am struggling a bit to continue this debate when versions of reality differ so radically, but I think it is important that the voters are informed.
Yes, housing absolutely is important to the development and was a critical component from the beginning of the process. The only unknown regarding housing was the appropriate density and mix with other uses. At the time we needed to write the ballot language, we did not have a handle on what the appropriate mix might be. Today we are much closer to pinpointing that number.
How great it will be if because of 2C we are able to see the revitalization come to fruition!
For those who haven’t been following the process, it might be helpful to understand that the first three proposals were a set of alternatives based on Staff and City Council’s “wish list” for this property. Personally, I have been collecting data by talking to the public about this since the start of campaign season last fall.
We were asked to dream to allow for some innovation, knowing that economic realities would require rescaling of the project. The fourth plan developed because of the accumulated concerns and reactions to the first set of plans by all seven individual council members. Consequently, we held a workshop on July 11th and identified 12 points (http://www.cityoflafayette.com/News.asp?NewsID=1298) to address Councilmembers’ concerns. The current proposal is the consultants’ answer to those concerns.
This current (second) iteration of the plan is much more feasible, as well as being more in line with what the Council believes maximizes the use of this piece of property. The process allowed us to arrive at this point. There will certainly be adjustments as the planning process continues. Is this not appropriate?
The beauty of the current plan is the capability of phasing. Yes, existing businesses are “colored over,” but most of them are designated for similar uses should owners or buildings change. Perhaps they will not change.
Note the “red” commercial development covering existing commercial property in the plan (http://www.cityoflafayette.com/News.asp?NewsID=1298).
The vast majority of action in this proposal involves turning a giant parking lot and two big boxes into county facilities, a park/plaza, a mixed-use urban village, and a small residential area.
I remain baffled as to why there are those who prefer to see the south anchor of our downtown remain an abandoned shopping center.
Chris Cameron
clcameron@peakpeak.com
In response to cyclorado:
One thing we can be sure of is that the site, if redeveloped, will not conform to the current plan. Plan four as I call it.
The city bought the old Albertsons site a couple of years ago to facility their move to the new Albertsons in the Waneka Marketplace. No buyer has appeared on the scene.
Wal-Mart owns their own building and once they build their new store, they can sell it. It is listed.
There are some 9 or 10 property owners of the site. The city is only one of them. Some of owners are leasees of the pads, like the auto parts store there.
The city did a study a few years ago to see what it would cost to own and demolish the big box building. $12,000,000. The city doesn't have that kind of money. And currently it doesn't have the $6,000,000 to fund the new streets and infrastructure.
Much depends on what the county will do and where it will build its building. And then who buys the Wal-Mart building. And if some developer appears with big bucks.
Proponents who believe passing 2C will make a difference simply aren't dealing with the facts.
Post a Comment