First they proposed a competitive edge for developers who ante
up for sidewalk repairs or other
”
community benefits.
”
Now they want parks, pools and even cold hard cash in exchange
for permission to stray from local development standards.
Gilroy – First they proposed a competitive edge for developers who ante up for sidewalk repairs or other “community benefits.” Now they want parks, pools and even cold hard cash in exchange for permission to stray from local development standards.
A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amenity Policy that went before City Council Monday established a tiered system for extracting “value-added” items from developers. The more wiggle room developers ask for within existing zoning regulations as part of a PUD, the more they’ll have to pay. Council members were expected to postpone a final decision on the matter to gather more feedback from developers.
The people responsible for creating new homes and offices in Gilroy do not oppose the idea. But they are criticizing the first draft of the policy as out of whack, one in which developers must pay far in excess of what they get in return.
“I understand the reasoning behind it, but it seems to be overly punitive,” said John Donahoe, a project manager with Ruggeri Jensen Azar Associates, a local development consulting firm.
The first tier of the system, for example, would require developers who stray one foot from standard road widths to build a pool or clubhouse for the housing community.
“For such a minor deviation, the take-backs that the city is requesting are excessive,” Donahoe said, pointing out that an amenity such as a pool would drive up housing costs by creating the need for a Homeowners Association responsible for upkeep.
The second and third tiers of the PUD policy would require developers to pay for additions to city parks, use solar panels and other eco-friendly building designs, or pay into an affordable housing fund, among other things. The second tier would apply to developers seeking two or three minor deviations from city standards, including permission to decrease road width by more than one foot; the third tier would apply to those seeking a series of complex deviations, such as the ability to build more homes on a piece of land than existing regulations allow.
Local developer Sal Akhter likes the concept of a PUD amenity policy, but he has a laundry list of complaints about the city’s execution of the plan. Paying for amenities that do not directly benefit the proposed development and requiring 400 square feet of park space for every unit, regardless of type, number among his top concerns.
“If you’re in an apartment complex or condominium, then you need that extra park space because the people don’t have a private back yard or front yard,” Akhter said. “But when you deal with town homes with private yards, the need for that public space is much less so you don’t have to hold the developers to the same standard.”
Planning commissioners agreed with Akhter last week, recommending that city council table the matter to allow greater feedback from developers and other stakeholders. Commission Chair Tim Day likened the PUD amenity policy to a parallel effort to revamp the city’s Residential Development Ordinance, a set of regulations that govern the competitive process used to allot housing permits. City council has called for long-term revisions to the RDO that would give heavy preference to developers who offer park space, public art installations and other community benefits.
While the policies share some of the same concepts, it remains unclear if city leaders will charge a single task force with revising them. City council is expected to create a task force to review the RDO policy over the next few years, in time for a major permit competition in 2013. But City Administrator Jay Baksa believed the PUD revisions could proceed at a quicker pace.
“The RDO and PUD are two distinct processes,” he said, recognizing the need for more feedback on the PUD revisions to ensure that city demands are proportional to the benefit for developers. He supported the idea of creating a work group of city staff and officials to collaborate with developers on the next draft of the PUD policy.
“I think at this point the commission is doing the right thing,” Baksa said. “They basically said ‘Time out.’ … I think the (issues) are going to come out in that conversation.”
