Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Michelotti asked it Kottin~' Ranch or Walter Johnson Properties <br />would be tnciuded. Mr. Swift said that 20,000 square feet or larger lots probably <br />w i l l not be affected. <br />Chairperson Litldsey suggested that the future project exemption process should be <br />part Ot staff evaluation. Mr. Swift replied that probably the best way to do that <br />would be to add the language that says that custom lots may be exempted from the <br />one year tune constraint. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Ted Fairtteid, consulting engineer, representing Kottinger and Golden Eagle <br />Develap~r~s, requested a listing of specific pro)ects that are exempt. <br />Chairperson Lindsey asked staff it that would be a mayor project at this point. <br />ht. Swi/t ~Md that yes it would be. Thst information is already part of the <br />public record <br />Comrn#ssio~r hlkhelottt asked Mr. Fairfield It he understood tt-e intent of <br />Ca~niaatort action. Mr. Fairfield, retering to Mr. Swift's earlier graph, replied <br />that there is scot of curve flattening itN~erent In the current process. Growth <br />m~n~ is an urrucessary tool Dut he defends the ctxrent process against <br />inapprvpriste ts-at~es. He gave s 'real world' process example. <br />Mgce Caa~er, 204 ~Mese Aw~nut, representing Kristin Lamb, requested that the small <br />project e~oernptton be retained and that custom projects be exempt from the one <br />year restriction. <br />camtni~#onlrt!#t~tl~ti question the advisability of perhaps increasing the one <br />year tM11e traAMe. {~. Swift clarified different project time frame requirements <br />aru! rretid the flexibility #rM~erer-t in the curr~er-t system. It is staff and <br />Cotns-tssion #ntent to have developers ask only for bui ldabie projects. A di l agent <br />deve~a~er cas+ sMno~t always meet the appropriate time frame. Perhaps there <br />coutibe sane ti0ers#izstion of treatment of high density projects. It the Growth <br />Mana~rlertt process works as tt is designed to work, the one year time frame <br />actually is 1 ~- l6 months. <br />Commiasiarer Berger noted that the Commission 1s concerned that projects not <br />dragon for S years or longer. Perhaps 2 years is acceptable. <br />Commissioner Tarver suggested that developers are investing in land and getting <br />Growth Management approval, then holding onto the land for a higher profit , <br />without developing. Developers usually can live with the 12 month time frame. <br />Minutes 12 July 8, 1987 <br />