Response provided by Amanda Hernandez, Director of Planning & Development Services:
Why are the conditions in the ARF different from the list of conditions in the presentation? (The list is the resolution matches the presentation.)
The conditions were being crafted up until the day the packet was processed. I apologize I missed going back to the ARF to clean up the conditions. Please refer to the conditions in the presentation and resolution attachment – I can make this part of my speaking points for the item so the Council and Public are looking at the right attachments.
What happened to the item to allow the existing tenants (at The Elms and Lindsey Oaks) to rent a space at the new place at a price comparable to what they are paying now? I do believe the developer agreed to this. This is not in the ARF list. It is in the presentation and resolution I found after I typed this. Correct, this is in condition #7.
I also thought he had agreed to 12 months notice to vacate instead of 6 months. In speaking with the applicant 6-months is what they agreed to. If the applicant agrees to a year this condition could be modified at the meeting.
AND what happened to the parking issue? I thought he would be allowed to work out the parking across the project (all 3 parcels) and this was confirmed at the meeting by staff that it would be allowed. Given that he was getting a break on the west side at one parking space per front door instead of bedroom, he would get less of a discount on the east side which would likely end up with .85 total, or thereabouts across the project. The applicant worked with their architect and held conversations about the topic of parking and assisted in crafting condition #5. As a single project, when staff reviews permits we will look at the single parking garage for the entire development to make sure they are meeting the parking requirement.
How many spaces will be lost to fee-in-lieu? He can't do that for the west side, correct? Correct, the west side must comply with parking per Code (1 per unit). There won’t be an exact number of spaces determined until detailed plan sets are submitted. The condition does not allow the applicant to pay for more than 0.20 spaces per bedroom.
Why is the list of conditions in the resolution that will be filed permanently including the P&Z action column and Council action column? Good to know but why keep in the resolution? Staff intends to remove the columns when the resolution is filed – this expansion is provided for informational purposes.
Is item 4 "The development shall offer both rent-by-the-bedroom and conventional leases where units may be rented in their entirety." for east and west both? Yes, this applies to the whole development, the applicant agreed to also offer conventional leases on the student housing side.
Why is there a maximum on the demolition delay? The developer has the incentive to get this done. If it takes a little longer to find a location for those houses, why not allow it? The applicant has the ability to take as long as they like to relocate the structures, however, if the applicant determines demolition is their option, they have offered to extend the demolition delay up to one year. Condition #2 allows HPC to extend the demo delay 9-months instead of the 3-months allowed by Code.
AND for LEGAL
Don't we need a separate document to really firm up #10) The developer shall not sell the property to a non‐taxpaying entity for 7 years from the effective date of the Conditional Use Permit. ??
From Legal: Regarding the prohibition against selling to a tax exempt entity, this was discussed only as a condition along with the other conditions. A recorded restriction would provide greater assurance of compliance. To do this, we need a motion to amend such as: “I move that the condition prohibiting sale to a tax exempt entity for seven years from the date of this approval be memorialized in a restrictive covenant approved by the city attorney that is recorded in the Official Public Records of Hays County.”
