CCMIN082091 - Laserfiche WebLink

395 Mr. Tarver commented that units are not being developed in the way they should under the conditions of the Growth Management ordinance. He stated that while impacts and mitigations are deducted from commercial projects upon approval, these projects pay their mitigated share only upon development. He indicated that the developers of those approved PUDs that have not shown any activity should be contacted, and their approvals would either be revoked if there is no intention to build or reviewed by Council in terms of how appropriate its use would be for the community at this time. Mr. Mercer commented that controlling the building time of the development community falls under Growth Management; not PUD approval. He stated that the PUD process was initiated to require more conditions and mitigations from the developer for the benefit of the community. He added that the proposed ordinance would encourage developers to go into straight zoning rather than PUD. Ms. Scribner recommended that Council review projects three years after they are approved, and those projects that Council determines to be still appropriate to the site would be offered to other developers for construction, while those that are no longer suitable should move on to something more fitting. Mr. Butler stated that it is not the City's role to determine the levels of development in the community. He indicated that the real estate development community is ultimately the risk-taker in the free enterprise business and that property owners who have invested in the development of their projects represent the real investment and enhancement of the value of property. He pointed out that the number of units allocated and built each year is not very important because the growth rate is allocated and fixed through the concept of Growth Management, and the ultimate level of building is determined by the zoning process. He added that the property owner has the right not to build if he prefers to invest in a paper approval which may enhance the value of his land through a free market. He continued that curtailing some other development on the site because of the unbuilt project's approved traffic and other impacts would provide an economic incentive to other developers either to purchase the property or propose something different. He emphasized that the City should be more concerned with the concept of using and implementing the zoning process and applying its standards to development rather than trying to exact performance from the developers. Ms. Mohr commented that it would be ideal but unrealistic to think that the City can control the economy and the marketplace. She pointed out, however, that this is not an issue at this time because the City has not reached its limit with respect to traffic - 10 - 8-20-91