Laserfiche WebLink
150 <br /> <br /> report was being prepared, staff contacted those that were still at <br /> risk to let them know that this is the chance to apply for an <br /> extension, along with the Yee project. Staff received a letter <br /> from Mr. Shaull (Westbrook) and Mr. Shahbazian. The others on the <br /> list all indicated verbally that they would like their growth <br /> management approvals to be extended. PAN-CAL is not at risk any <br /> longer, given Council's approval of its final map earlier this <br /> evening. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if a response had been received from the <br /> Martinique group. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift thought that the project was dead. The option was <br /> dropped and the properties were listed for sale by different <br /> property owners. A representative from Martin DeCombs did, <br /> however, contact Mr. Swift's office and indicated that they were <br /> interested in an extension as well. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler commented that there are two projects which were on <br /> going projects and those are Bridgeman/Hunton and Kottinger Ranch. <br /> If the Bridgeman/Hunton has been approved, then that would leave <br /> only one. The rest of the projects haven't gotten into the process <br /> the way the ordinance requires them to. He has sympathy for <br /> Kottinger Ranch, but philosophically he was not in favor of <br /> granting any extensions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that this is the llth hour in terms of this <br /> request and thought that staff did more to alert everybody that the <br /> approvals were going to lapse and there wasn't that much concern <br /> until staff contacted them. This would require a change in the <br /> ordinance. This is the only time the lapsing provision actually <br /> might come into effect and he certainly understood that's because <br /> of today's economic climate. He wished that he knew the harm of <br /> not extending the Kottinger Ranch project in terms of the units <br /> still left to be built. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Scribner, and seconded by Mr. Butler, that <br /> the request be denied to extend the growth management approval for <br /> the projects whose approvals expire on December 31, 1991. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr discussed whether growth management approvals should <br /> be allowed to lapse. She would like to make the distinction <br /> between PUD's growth management approvals. If we allow growth <br /> management to lapse, the PUD's that have approved development <br /> plans are still on the books and the applicants can reapply. The <br /> function of growth management is to plan a growth rate for the <br /> ultimate build out of the City in a manageable process. These <br /> approvals have already been deducted out of that process. To put <br /> these back into the process means that we go through both staff and <br /> Council's time to count against a different year. Ms. Mohr did not <br /> feel that much would be gained by doing this. The downside of <br /> doing this could be that Council could be faced with another <br /> <br /> 12/10/91 24 <br /> <br /> <br />