B-29 VMU Working Group Amendments.pdf — original pdf

Backup

Proposed Amendment Tracking # 2 General Amendments 1 3 4 5 Page # Topic Proposed Amendment Justification Notes Proposer WG Support Proposed Text Change (Underline added text/Strikethrough deleted text) Text Change Included in Amendment (YES/NO) Proportional bedroom count requirement Unbundle housing and parking costs Ensure that the proportional bedroom count requirement indicates that an applicant may provide an equivalent number of multi- bedroom affordable units as compared to the market-rate units or more Ensure that while an applicant is allowed to unbundle housing and parking costs, the unbundling for affordable units must be proportional to the unbundling for market- rate unit General: Compatibility Assess the impact of compatibility on the VMU program, and other density bonus programs, and consider addressing any impacts on housing capacity Assess the need to expand the VMU program so it is applicable beyond the principal streets identified in the LDC, to include areas within the walkshed of those principal streets Assess the distribution of the VMU program to examine the expansion of opportunities to add more housing, especially affordable housing, in high opportunity areas and ensure an equitable distribution of sites across the city General: Applicability General: Equitable Dispersion We definitely want to ensure that at least a proportional number of bedrooms are provided among the affordable units but at the same time we support an applicant providing an even greater number of multi- bedroom units than what is required This is to ensure that only affordable units do not have unbundled parking but rather reflect the overall strategy and planning for a development in relation to all of its housing units Based on Staff's research, the current VMU ordinance with increased height entitlements only 34% of VMU-zoned sites could build to their bonus height after compatibility is factored in. The areas in which this height can be achieved happens to be in vulnerable areas, which is inequitable. There should be a better balance of increasing density/affordability in existing neighborhoods. Several cases have come before Planning Commission where an Applicant requested VMU zoning but Staff didn't recommend because the site did not fit the exact definition of fronting on a corridor. This potentially takes many sites across the city out of receiving VMU zoning designation that really make sense in having increased density due to proximity and access to transit. Research from staff shows that only 33% of VMU-zoned sites are within a high opportunity area and 23% of sites are in areas vulnerable to displacement risk. NO NO NO NO NO This would complement and add to the staff recommendation. Awais Azhar AA, CH, RS, PH Awais Azhar AA, CH, RS, PH See 25-2-E-4.3.1. Applicability for reference Claire Hempel AA, CH, RS, PH Claire Hempel AA, CH, RS, PH Awais Azhar AA, CH, RS, PH