Comments on: Moravian Moves Forward, Despite Protests

By: Alan Goldsmith

Alan Goldsmith — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:48:50 +0000

“It’s not the City’s obligation to help Jeff Helminski and Newcombe Clark turn a profit on a bad idea.”

Tom, I’m confused. Newcombe Clark was just appointed to the DDA wasn’t he? Why would the Mayor and Council appoint members to boards and commissions where there could be obvious financial conflicts of interest?

Until the Mayor and certain members of council are replaced, the appointments to City Boards and Commissions are going to continue to be rubber stamps for this kind of out of place development. Something to keep in mind if anyone on the Planning Commission decides to run for Council in the 4th Ward in August.

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:20:53 +0000

I have commented on the library site in the “Apples, Pears” article.

I do not believe in public subsidies for private development, which all of the library lot building proposals require in one form or another.

The Moravian seeks a subsidy of another type. These developers would like us to waive all of our planning and zoning so they can build on cheap land, with the City getting nothing but negative impacts in return.

If they can’t make the project work downtown, where our zoning permits this type of building (and bigger!), then it isn’t viable. It’s not the City’s obligation to help Jeff Helminski and Newcombe Clark turn a profit on a bad idea.

By: CDBF

CDBF — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:48:10 +0000

Tom @#25, I hope that you support one of the built options for the library lot and not one of the open space proposals. Your argument is that that is where density belongs. Have you offered an opinion?

By: Piotr Michalowski

Piotr Michalowski — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:20:03 +0000

I think that Tom Whittaker has succinctly presented the best argument against the Moravian. We can complain about many aspects of the project, including its ugliness, but in the end the decision is not about how nice it is or is not, but whether it deserves a PUD, that is an exception for legally established zoning regulations. The developer has presented arguments that are supposed to support granting a PUD, but almost all of them are required by law or regulation, that is they apply to ANY new construction. All the others actually result in a negative balance, as is the case with the issue of affordable housing. By approving this project, the commission is essentially saying that zoning does not matter, and any building project that meets code should be granted a PUD, thus obviating the PUD regulations and suggesting that we should just have a free-for-all construction boom. I assume that this was not the intention, and therefore it may be useful for them to rethink the matter and review their decision.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 03:12:10 +0000

Tom, yes, I meant 20%, not 40%.

If the existing 19 units do indeed meet the affordable criteria, and they are larger, i.e., contain more bedrooms, it might be more meaningful to compare occupancy than units. We don’t want buildings (near) downtown, per se, we want people.

I also think that you might have a valid point (in #18) about LEED certification. I’m not clear on their connection to that credit, but geothermal systems are becoming more popular and may not be the significant investment that they were originally thought to be anymore. I’ll ponder it and ask around.

You can click my name and then get my email from the environmental commission web site if you want to contact me.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 02:31:23 +0000

BTW–Margaret, I live right around the corner from what must be your new warehouse (Parkland Plaza, right?). Congratulations on a cool business. Amazing that it got its start at Harry’s!

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 02:27:08 +0000

Margaret–good to hear it’s been renovated. I lived behind it in the early 80s, when it was very sketchy (my landlord and housemate Walt Spiller, pictured and quoted in the article, no doubt remembers a lot more of the history than me).

I think your point is valid, by the way–it’s not always easy to draw the line between cheap urban space and scary-sketchy space, and people are going to draw it in different places. Thanks for pointing out a different interpretation.

By: Margaret S

Margaret S — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:36:13 +0000

@Rod – The space I am referring to is 551 S. Fourth Ave. Maybe 15-20 years ago the first floor was an auto shop (some say chop shop) but it was later converted to a rough apartment & loft (complete with spiral stair case). One long-term tenant was an artist/musician who held events there. The rear unit was used as a workshop for the apartment management company. Not sure what’s been going on there since 2004. My point is that structures like this ARE appealing to young creative types and entrepeneurs who need a place to start. It is not a scary, sketchy place that should be razed. I thought we had learned something from the failures of urban renewal in the 60/70s.

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:17:39 +0000

Steve: The frustrated property owners and residents of this neighborhood would welcome any help we could get. Thank you. On the heels of this, we have Heritage Row (formerly City Place) coming back, too. It seems we may never see an end to the targeting of our residential neighborhoods for out-of-scale development. I would hope downtown businesses, which we support with our consumer dollars would speak out in our defense, too. We are the best customers they have, yet the Chamber BOD has issued a statement calling for us to be forced out for new developments.

This community has invested a tremendous amount of time, money and effort into reworking the downtown plan and zoning so that large developments like this would find a welcome home in the downtown core. The greenbelt is the companion program that is intended to restrict development sprawl and force it into the core. Because money is tight and land is cheaper just outside the core, we still have these developers trying to force big developmentd into our near downtown neighborhoods. This will weaken an already weak market for large scale housing and other developments in the downtown proper, where we had consensus that they should go. Just like the greenbelt restricts development in rural areas, our existing zoning and master plans call for restricting it outside the D1 and D2 areas (roughly the DDA boundary). We just want to see them enforced!

On the math, because the project exceeds the underlying allowable density for the site, it must provide 15% of its units as affordable, or, as an equivalent option, pay a designated amount into the housing fund. 15% of 62 total units is 9.3 units. Policy is to round up, so therefore 10 are required. The developers are providing 12 units, which is 19.3% of 62. Thus, Commissioner Bona’s assertion that the project was providing 4% more units than was required. (I suppose one could also say that 12 is 20% more than 10, but not sure where the 40% came from. Regardless, it is only two units more than required. I don’t think this is enough justification for waiving our zoning and master planning when our PUD ordinance requires substantial benefits be provided in trade for such a windfall.)

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:07:27 +0000

Tom, wouldn’t that be a 40% exceedance? In any case, percentages with such low numbers aren’t a good way to evaluate that benefit.

Thanks for continuing to draw attention to the details that deserve consideration though. I know most of the commissioners and would be willing to act as a mediator of sorts if you plan to approach any of them to request a motion to reconsider. I haven’t been involved in this issue at all and might be able to offer an objective perspective (assuming that you would see mine as such — I’m thinking that the fact that they know, and presumably trust, me would be in your favor relative to going it alone.)