Saturday, July 21, 2018

Another Watermark Vote at the BMA

The agenda for the BMA meeting this Monday shows the following item: 

"10.Project Development Contract No. 1223 and Final Plan – Forest Hill Heights Amended Planned Development – Phase 19 (The District at Watermark)" 

This is surprising because I was under the impression that Watermark Apartments had all the approvals necessary. Last December seven warrants were approved for the project by the BMA, and the density allowable in the area was increased. 

The resolution on the density:  



The resolution to increase the density passed 3-2 with Gibson, Janda and Owens voting yes, and Massey and Barzizza voting no.  

The entire December meeting is described in more depth in Anatomy of the BMA meeting December 11, 2017.

Here is the Agenda Packet for the July 23 meeting. 



One item states the purpose of the agenda item:


The actions taken at the December meeting must have been deemed insufficient to grant full approval to Watermark Apartments.  For the better part of this year, the City has been tied up in a court case over the increased density allowed in the area. This was addressed in You Can't Fight City Hall, or Can You? Two citizens (representing themselves) sued the City. Earlier this summer the judge ruled against the citizens on a technicality-- they had inadvertently failed to notarize the claims they made in the lawsuit. This, of course, was due to their not being able to pay thousands of dollars for retaining an attorney, who would have known about the necessity of getting the statements notarized. I will discuss a bit more about the lawsuit at a later date. 

As I understand it, the Planning Commission requested that the developer increase the density of the Watermark project from 12 units an acre to 17.5 units per acre, and the developer complied. The Planning Commission made this request despite the fact that this action alone caused the number of rental units in the entire Forest Hill Heights area to greatly exceed the total number envisioned by the Forest Hill Heights Small Plan. This was discussed in City Officials Misrepresent and Ignore Forest Hill Heights Small Area Plan


I will be listening to the Executive Session and hope to glean an explanation as to why another vote on the Watermark is necessary.  

*Correction July 22, Originally this read "As I understand it, the Planning Commission requested that the developer increase the density of the Watermark project from 12 units an acre to 17 units per acre, and the developer complied." Corrected statement: "As I understand it, the Planning Commission requested that the developer increase the density of the Watermark project from 12 units an acre to 17.5 units per acre, and the developer complied."










No comments:

Post a Comment