Peter:

Excellent and very much to the point.

Best,
Fred

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 11, 2019, at 5:15 PM, Peter Carpenter via Groups.Io wrote:
>
> Dear Council Members,
>
> I note that you will be discussing a review of the DSP at your meeting on 12 March.
>
> I have two suggestions for your consideration:
>
> 1 - The DSP needs a better definition of what might constitute a Public Benefit in order to qualify for a higher FAR.
> In my opinion a Public Benefit is a physical improvement that is accessible to and benefits the general public.
> Paying otherwise required taxes or building underground tenant use only garages, for examples, do not benefit
> the general public. It makes no sense to grant a developer millions of dollars worth of additional development
> rights in exchange for a very small one time cash payment to the city.
>
> 2 - The ECR NE - Low Density zone development limits should be revised to completely eliminate the Public Benefit
> bonus since the current Public Benefit bonus FAR is inconsistent with the designation of Low Density. This zone
> is primarily residential and a Public Benefit bonus FAR of 1.25 far exceeds what is appropriate for a residential
> area.
>
> Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions.
>
> Peter Carpenter
>
>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
>
> View/Reply Online (#135): https://groups.io/g/ParkForestPlus/message/135
> Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/30396149/1006639
> Group Owner: ParkForestPlus+owner@groups.io
> Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/ParkForestPlus/leave/3338764/913046227/xyzzy [fred_rose@sbcglobal.net]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>