Laserfiche WebLink
Hoyt disagreed with Public Works response relative to development agreements, that it only <br />determined location. In fact, it determined when things would happen based on a number of units in <br />the development, which he felt was very integral to how many units got developed in Centennial II. <br />On disclosure, they had changed their policy on disclosure prior to the last single family development, <br />Pine Street Park. Prior to that they had always had the plan on the wall. They went to a written <br />disclosure with several items, one of which was they were not representing what the surrounding land <br />uses are. He felt the intent and execution of this deal had been clear and he asked Council to pay <br />attention to that. <br /> <br />Davidson closed the public comments. <br /> <br />Davidson felt the key question that needed to be resolved was, is there a contract and to what extent? <br />He wondered if this shouldn't go into binding arbitration to save everyone a lot of money. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that he'll base his decision on whether McStain had complied with the Special Review Use <br />and whether, based upon the zoning in place, they are entitled to build 105 units. He did not feel they <br />had met their requirement. There was also the question of the contract. <br /> <br />Howard stated that, from the evidence that had so far been presented, he did not feel a $45 - $50,000 <br />salary required was affordable housing. He felt R-E was the underlying zoning. He agreed with <br />Davidson's comments. <br /> <br />Keany felt "affordable housing" should be defined. On school overcrowding and impact fees, if the <br />Use tax gets passed in November, the impact fee for single family homes would be $3,500/student <br />generated by that development and a townhouse would be $5,500/student. Concerning the taxable <br />value, the single family taxable value would be $1,400/year and a townhouse would be $3,300/year. <br />On traffic, the townhouses generate about 100 more trips/day. He stated that the Planning <br />Department had considered the Master Plan of the entire Centennial section to be part of the <br />Comprehensive Plan, so to say that this does not conform to the Comp Plan would be incorrect, if <br />the Master Plan is considered to be a part of the Comp Plan. He did not feel the issue of private <br />roads and sidewalks being substandard was applicable, because this is not a public development. As <br />far as Recreation Center over-use, that is happening with or without this development. He stated that <br />Council had the moral and ethical obligation to uphold the intent of past councils. If this was going <br />to be multi-family and the developer developed a road structure in the outer surrounding areas with <br />that intent, he felt Council had an obligation to uphold the intent of past councils where or not there <br />is a contract. <br /> <br />Mayer felt the word "conceptual" on the Master Plan was significant. He felt it was particularly <br />appropriate that Council evaluate this in terms of Special Review Use. He saw no evidence of <br />financial injury to McStain by development of R-E that had been demonstrated. He mentioned that <br />Pine Street is only a collector on one side. He felt there would be advantages, if a substantial portion <br />of this property became city property and part of the Recreation Center, with the rest developed in <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br /> <br />