REP PC 122 10/30/2006 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Communication 1097 Bi11342 Page 3 of 4 At the October 30, 2006 Planning Committee meeting, no public testimony was presented on this matter. Applicant's representative Sidney Fuke gave a brief presentation of the project, noting that applicant already provides much needed student housing and rental housing and that given the proximity of the project site to the University, the applicant wanted to construct a project geared towards students. Council Member Dr. Holschuh noted concern that Condition E imposed a 20-year limit of use for student rentals and the limits disturbed him as it seemed to be an unreal expectation of the landowner, especially should the University later provide dormitories on-site for its students. Mr. Fuke stated Dr. Takase's intention was that the project be a rental housing project as opposed to a fee simple condominium, however, he stated that limiting rentals to students may be somewhat problematic in the long term. Mr. Fuke said although it was applicant's initial goal to rent to students, if student rental population declines, it would limit applicant's ability to rent units to the general mazket. Therefore, Mr. Fuke stated that applicant wishes to delete the term "student" and make clear that this project is a rental housing project. Planning Director noted that Condition E was a condition imposed by the Planning Commission and not the Department and that he had no problem with Dr. Holschuh's suggestion of deleting "student." Additionally, Mr. Yuen suggested that the remaining language of Condition E, referring to "affordable housing and applicable laws" would not apply and should be deleted as well. A motion to amend Condition E of Bill 342 was made by Dr. Holschuh and seconded, to delete the word "student" and the remainder of the paragraph that refers to affordable housing and applicable laws. Amendments to Condition E, as noted above were approved. Council member Jacobson noted that condition G provides for curbs, gutters and sidewalks to be constructed within five (5) yeazs of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and questioned why this language was different from the standard provision that these improvements be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Director Yuen confirmed that the standard language is "prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy" and had no explanation why Condition G refers to five years. Mr. Jacobson moved to amend Condition G to delete the words "within five yeazs of and replace it with "prior to" issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Amendment to Condition G as noted above was approved. Your Committee concurs with the Planning Commission and the Planning Director's favorable recommendation for approval of the Change of Zone request.