Laserfiche WebLink
391 <br /> <br /> Mr. Sweeney replied that the alternative was favorable when <br />compared to Option 1, but that it was not acceptable. He indicated <br />that he would prefer to have a project approved without having to <br />come back at a later time to have it approved by a different group <br />of people. <br /> <br /> Mr. Stanley Rathbone, 325 Ray Street, commented that <br />developers should not come in and have projects approved before <br />they have the money to build the projects. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bob Silva, 3766 Oakbrook Court, commented that some of the <br />residential projects on Exhibit B are units to be built in custom <br />lot subdivisions, where improvements have been done or are in the <br />process of being completed. He stated that a residential PUD goes <br />through a zoning approval process that meets all the obligations <br />required by the City once the final map is recorded and the <br />improvements are in place. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ted Fairfield, Consulting Civil Engineer, agreed with Mr. <br />Silva's comments. He pointed out that custom lots are not meant to <br />be built all at one time like tract housing and are not in <br />violation of the Growth Management agreement. He stated that the <br />proposed ordinance amendment is a retrospective change to a PUD and <br />would be a unilateral and autonomous one-way deal. He offered to <br />sit down with City Staff to discuss the issue and determine what <br />the problem is. <br /> <br /> Mr. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, stated that 100 of the <br />130 residential units listed on Exhibit B are in the process of <br />active Growth Management approvals, leaving a total backlog of 30 <br />units which are all custom lots. He indicated that the proposed <br />amendment would have a negative impact on the developer's ability <br />to take out loans to build residential units. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brad Hirst, Equity Enterprises, stated that the proposed <br />amendment is not viable and does not take into account the <br />realities of the marketplace, which is in worse shape than it was <br />five years ago. He pointed out that some of the properties listed <br />as "backlogged" have actually been foreclosed on and are now owned <br />by lenders, who would be reluctant to loan money in the community <br />if their zoning rights are taken away. He indicated that the <br />development process can take as long as two years from PUD approval <br />to tentative map approval. He added that the amendment may not <br />have a fiscal impact on the City but that it would have a negative <br />fiscal impact on the property owner. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired if the proposed amendment would affect <br />only PUDs. <br /> <br /> - 8 - <br /> 8-20-91 <br /> <br /> <br />