Greeley council approve unique build-to-rent community, with unfinished plans

GREELEY — The Greeley City Council approved one of its first, if not the first, build-to-rent  community in west Greeley on Tuesday, after an almost two-hour discussion on plans for a second parcel in the large, L-shaped housing development just west and south of the Tointon Academy of Pre-Engineering.

While most council members agreed with the new concept of “horizontal” apartment complexes as was the plan in the Boomerang Planned Unit Development, the prospect of single-family housing units for rent was still a unique concept in Greeley, evoking a lot of questions from the council.

Hartford Homes officials presented plans to the council to turn the small, winding, 43-acre parcel off 71st Avenue and 10th Street into about 200 rental homes that they call cottages, duplexes and alternative dwelling units atop garages. The homes would essentially run the gamut from small, 800-square-foot apartments over detached garages to single-family homes and duplexes, directly west of the school.

But perhaps more perplexing to the group was the unplotted, or unplanned, 17-acre area at the end of that L-shaped property at the corner of 71st Avenue and 10th Street, a slab of property that would essentially come along for the ride with no concrete plans on paper, while the developers decide at a later time exactly what they want to do with it.

Hartford applied for the entire acreage as a planned unit development with specific plans for the rental housing in planning area A, which winds around to the west side of the school.

David Derbes, director of multifamily development for Hartford Homes, told the council that the project has helped the company shift from apartment complexes. He explained that the build-to-rent concept is growing throughout the country, with perhaps  Arizona being the epicenter. Typically, he said, such projects are located in areas of high housing appreciation.

“Typically, it is a dedicated rental community with a common ownership and is professionally managed,” Derbes said. “An easy way to look at this is horizontal apartments. All aspects of apartment ownership and management carry over, but the housing type is more like single-family.

“(Build to rent) is the missing middle, it is a housing type that a strong demand is there … not just in this community but nationwide. We see that as a driver for us —  so much so that we really shifted our focus away from apartments to focus on this BTR product type.”

Derbes explained to some skeptical council members that Hartford intended to be long-term owners of the community.

The community would have the amenities typical of apartment complexes, including a weight room and club house, recreational areas and a pool.

What they wouldn’t have is the option for renters to buy the homes in which they are renting, much to councilmember Tommy Butler’s disappointment.

But, Derbes said, the corner property that they didn’t have absolute plans on yet, would more than likely be commercial uses that would service the community.  Essentially, the developers said they didn’t want to have continually come back to the council for approvals on the planning area. They had hoped that a planned unit development would allow them to develop the second lot based on the success of the first rental areas.

Council members, much like the planning commission members who voted 4-1 in November to approve the project, didn’t seem to like an unplanned planned unit development, but they also understood the developers concerns about their efficient use of time.

“Hope is not a strategy for us. We can hope you guys do something,” said council member Johnny Olson. “We can hear you and tell us wat you’re going to do. It’s more about, how do we set up future councils and how this comes through. We might be a totally different council (when this is developed). I don’t want to kick the can” down the road.

Ultimately, the council opted 4-2 to approve the project, with Butler and council member Deb DeBoutez voting against it. DeBoutez said she was concerned about the potential uses that the developers could put on that corner property under the PUD zoning, including warehouses, auto centers, gas stations or even pawn shops.

“Those won’t be attractive on a really important corridor for our community,” DeBoutez said. “If we can’t limit that right now, and I understand and respect the need to be efficient, but those uses won’t be compatible for a very nice community.”

Mayor John Gates said the council should have handled the request much differently. The body should have entered its concerns and questions about the project on first reading, not putting the concerns on the developers on the night the project was set for approval on second reading.

“I am really uncomfortable putting additional (requirements on this project),” Gates said. … “I think our questions are good, but I don’t think we’re being fair to the developer, springing this on them at 7:57 p.m., springing this on the night we’re supposed to make a decision.”

Derbes said Hartford’s intent was more about compatible uses on that corner.

“Our intent and our desire since we’ll be heavily invested is to have commercial uses that will be compatible,” Derbes said.  “We wouldn’t want conflicting uses there because it would negatively impact a significant investment.”

on Facebook on LinkedIn