CCMIN091796 - Laserfiche WebLink

felt that within a year, the applicants would be willing to exercise the allocation and build the project. He did not think the 26 units would substantially affect the growth management program over the next few years. Mr. Roush indicated the growth management agreement is premised on the fact that growth management approvals in fact exist. If the tentative map, upon which the growth management is based, lapsed, then the growth management allocation lapses as well. In this case, that is what happened. He acknowledged there is an agreement, but the basis for the agreement has collapsed and that is why the allocations were removed. Staff recognizes this is a small in-fill project and has been working with the applicants to get it back to Council as quickly as possible. Staff feels the owners are most likely to be in a position to make an application later in 1996 or early 1997 and that is why staff recommends waiting until that time. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Mr. Tarvet, seconded by Ms. Dennis, to adopt Resolution No. 96- 108, approving Option 3, as amended, to allocated units as follows: 96/650, 97/790, 98/620, 99/531 and 2000/50; establish the growth management fee at $2,400 for the new project approval; and authorize the City Manager to approve amendments to the respective existing growth management agreements. Mr. Tarver felt this was moving in the right direction from the standpoint of the number of units that are approved but now built as well as getting the numbers to that stated by the ordinance. The only year that fails is 1997, but it is very dose and it is possible that all the years will be in alignment in February. Ms. Dennis felt that the Suncrest project will fit in future allocations. Mr. Tarvet indicated the growth management committee had tried to get Prudential's development in 1996 and 1997 (231 units in each year) moved to 1999 and 2000 because the committee did not believe it was in a position to proceed. At this time, Prudential is not prepared to move the 1997 units. Ms. Mohr clarified that the apartment project is allocated to have the units in the first year, nothing in the second, and the remainder in the third. She felt that was economically impossible. So Council is saying that will not happen but allows for renegotiation in February. Mr. Swift stated that because the project could not be built in the year for which it applied, it has priority over any new project to come back to an earlier year. Staff and the committee recognize that the project only exists on paper at this point. Ms. Mohr asked about the projects that have reallocated their units and asked if any had hit the maximum for reallocation and will not be able to do that again. 09/17/96 -17-