Developer of Rathbone Frustrated With APC’s Antiquated And Bloated Bureaucracy

Developer of Rathbone Frustrated With APC’s Antiquated And Bloated Bureaucracy

Subject: Rathbone

Mayor

Good morning. 

 I left a voicemail with your secretary on Friday (26 July 2019) afternoon and wanted to follow up with you via email.

To date I have kept every promise I have made to the City.

I have taken a historic landmark that was previously derelict, purchased it for around $2M from a local bank and invested another approximately $2M to successfully restore it to its former grandeur as promised.  Over 90 percent of the approximately $2M renovation budget utilized services provided by local construction, architectural, engineering and other businesses as promised.

Despite this am continuing to struggle to open-up the newly renovated units at the Rathbone, due to continuously needing to re-verify with APC that sufficient parking spaces are available.  This despite APC’s 31 May 2019 concurrence at the site review, wherein they acknowledged that the site had sufficient parking to open the majority of the units in the original building.

I just need 22 more Certificates of Occupancy to complete the Rathbone’s leasing requirements.  Given my experience to date, I am anticipating having to fight for every inch of ground; and expend even more time and capital to obtain these remaining certificates.

Frankly, there are too many City review boards and, those that occur, do not generate clear understanding of the requirements.  The resulting decisions from these hearings are not clearly recorded and/or certified by APC so all parties have a clear understanding of the requirements.  Trying to lock down what APC exactly requires has been a confusing, bureaucratic and cumbersome process.  This entire experience has added unnecessary cost and time delays to my project, which inhibit the downtown redevelopment efforts.  As I previously said, it also wastes taxpayer money by having numerous unproductive APC meetings that resolve little and trigger numerous/excessive City inspections.

The time and effort associated with this is ridiculous.  Especially in light of the fact that officials have acknowledged that the parking code is out of date and is currently being updated.  As my existing parking lot at the Rathbone sits over half empty, I struggle to get permission to market and lease up vacant units.  Despite the fact that I have; 1) purchased the adjacent lot, 2) received a change of use to use it as a parking lot, and 3) began the process of clearing this new lot to use as overflow parking.  I only have about 20 of our 57 units rented.  It is extremely unlikely that I will be at full occupancy before I can open the overflow parking, which should be done by the end of September 2019 (at the latest).  By some miracle, even if my team achieved full lease-up, the reality is that over half of my tenants (even the 2 bed units) will only have one car.  So right now, I have over 70 parking spaces for about 15 cars, with an additional 70 plus parking spaces being added in the next 30-60 days, but I am still having to beg APC to open up my vacant units because I don’t have sufficient parking!  This does not even include the overflow parking arrangement I have secured with Culver school; that I had modified and recorded to meet APC’s requirements.

There is no reason I should not be able to open up all of my units for lease so long as I keep our promise to open up the additional parking.  So far we’ve kept every promise we’ve made.  Yet, despite this fact, I am still being penalized continuously, while neighboring apartment complexes sit in states of vast disrepair to include cracked parking lots and poor signage.  I am unsure why the City’s enforcement is so arbitrarily placed upon those who are trying to do good for the community while absent for others.  I am hard pressed to see how this benefits the downtown redevelopment efforts.

With this said, I am beyond frustrated with APC’s antiquated and bloated bureaucracy.  This process has been so painful I am reconsidering moving forward with my additional $20M anticipated investment in other areas of the City.  To date, I am unsure how many thousands of dollars my investment group has incurred in our ongoing discussions with APC.

I am aghast that I am yet again having to ask you for help in addressing this ongoing issue so I can successfully move forward with this small project.  We would much rather be working to do further good for the neighborhood.  Instead, we are still spending our time fighting with City agencies, who should be our partner in these endeavors.***

Highest Regards,Shannon

Shannon Huffer Esq.
Broker, Attorney, Investor, Entrepreneur