2019-08-15 Leeward Exh C (Admin Matter 1 re Condition Deadlines)

Home

straying away from that because that's really not the way to do it; that's more contract zoning or spot zoning or, yeah, it's not, it's more like a permit almost. The other thing that I've seen in the past is that if—and, again, this is what happens when you look at zoning from a project standpoint—is they'll put in conditions specific to a project. They'll say if the applicant proposes a use other than what was originally proposed, they may have to do this —a traffic study and do the improvements on a traffic study and stuff. But, again, we want to look at it as the highest and best use in the zoning. If that is going to require curb, gutter, sidewalk, a left turn, signalization, so be it. Then, it's taken care of. That's part of the approval for the ordinance. So, anyway, that was one of the, one of the options was once the zoning is in place, there shouldn't be time conditions. That was the consideration, because whenever it gets built, it gets built. People think, oh, the longer you delay, the more it's going to affect everybody else. And logically—I'm trying to figure that out—but the reality is if they were to build something today, for a developer, the cost would be far less than if they waited ten years and built it then. The costs for development are going to be much greater. Not only that, the requirements on some of the ordinances would be much more expensive. The infrastructure costs, if there's a fair share condition associated with it, every year, once it passes, through years that goes up yearly, so their costs for the fair share go up significantly. I've seen it as much as go up a third from people waiting to develop, you know, and there comes a point that they come back to the Commission and we bring it up to that higher level at that point. And, they're like wow, I wasn't expecting that, you know, it's like well, that's what happens when projects get delayed. The other discussion was considering utilizing phasing for larger projects. We have to keep in mind, and I've spoken to a couple people on this, it's not a one shoe fits all kind of thing. Each project is different, or each, you know,there are projects that come in that involve hundreds of acres, and then there are projects that come in that involved 20,000 square feet. So, when we place the same conditions on a project that's quite large versus a project that's small, we've got to keep in mind that there has to be some sort of relevancy as far as, okay, this guy is going to take some time here, he can't do this in five years, he's probably just going to get his permits in five years, right? This guy here, he may be able to get off the ground and get this done in five years. But, so the idea of phasing is, was recommended that as we consider conditions in these permits —because a lot of this may not require any kind of code change or rule change; it's, a lot of this is going to be dependent upon conditions placed in these ordinances. And, again, it sometimes comes down to these projects and how big they are and what sort of time we think is considerable for a project like this. Even with the so-called possible delays that could happen— economic or health or whatever conditions arise that cause delays. The other consideration was currently what happens is in the ordinances and permits is there's an administrative time condition. It's usually a standard condition for the first original ordinance or permit. So, it says the applicant shall construct this within five years, and then at the end of the ordinance or permit, there is an allowance that if these certain things happen, if the applicant wasn't able to meet that time condition, they have the opportunity to get one administrative time extension for that timing condition. And, it's not to exceed what was originally permitted; so, if it was five years, they could be granted an additional five years. The Planning Director has been 4 EXHIBIT C