Art Hall
Dr. Francine Romero
THE VESTED RIGHTS TASK FORCE CONVENED IN TRAINING ROOM “A” OF THE ONE STOP BUILDING AT 8:30 A.M. TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING:
- Deliberation and consideration of
vested rights issues:
·
Will follow up
on schools being exempt and identify requirements for schools at the 12/17
meeting
· Discussed idea of allowing 10% +/- change in acreage on entire MDP without losing vested rights or 10% +/- change in acreage by land use. Will revisit the scenario of 900/1000 acres being increased to 990- keep vested rights for that portion but lose vested rights only on the 10acres that was decreased from 100acres (more than 10% change).
· General consensus that there is the ability to create a new dormancy provision or new definition of when a project/vested rights expires. A project does not go into eternity just because nothing is done on a project. The intent is to allow vested rights to continue (for 20 yrs) if progress is being made on a plat. Dormancy is tied to the MDP. Need to define dormancy on those projects not tied to a MDP, such as a single lot plat (Residential development, etc.).
· In instances when the City is trying to encourage development in a certain area, there should be an incentive to improve the property and increase taxes within certain guidelines rather than giving it vested rights if that is not appropriate under the new guidelines.
·
General consensus to place a check box on the Project
Affidavit form to specifically acknowledge no project and therefore no vested
rights. This would be for applicants filing a plat with no project
attached in order to make the lack of vesting clear.
·
“Permit alone will not qualify for VR unless it
contains definition of a project” is worded wrong. There was general consensus
that the language should change to read, “Permit alone will not qualify for VR
unless the application includes definition of a project as required by the project affidavit”.
·
Consent agreements should be the last step to avoid
litigation after exhausting every other possible method of resolving the
dispute.
·
“A completed
project is determined by the electric meter installed on the last structure”. There is a concern
that the last structure on a
single-phase project may not be completed for 20 yrs. Apply same MDP rules to
single-phase projects as with multi-phase projects? Need to think about this
and revisit at 12/17 meeting
· Need to determine a % requirement that shows progress (construction), a % of improved property. What will measure progress: dollars? Construction? Think about this and revisit at the 12/17 meeting.
· Need to discuss the exceptions to when you vest and the City’s interpretation in respect to Public Works construction. Vested Rights Task Force should make a statement on what that entails and whether it includes street construction, streetscape, etc. (how that is interpreted by the City).
· Need to clarify language on the Project Affidavit form that clarifies how other ordinances would still be appropriate and applicable, i.e. you could get an affidavit and have the ability to vest on a project but the project might be dependant on zoning. If there is no zoning, you don’t vest that project.
· Ordinance No 86715 may be repealed by Council. There was consensus that the Task Force would make that recommendation. Need to distinguish between those applications that relied on Ordinance No 86715 and those that did not.
· Pre 1997 plats and/or other permits should be identified more clearly to differentiate those eligible for vested rights to1997.
- Public Input:
Development Stakeholder Input:
· General concern that 10% change is too limiting.
· Task Force need to reach consensus on how 10% +/- will be applied in order for stakeholders to render an opinion.
AGUA
input:
· See attached.
- Approval of December 3, 2004 minutes:
No action; Item postponed to 12/17.
Meeting adjourned at approximately 10:45AM
Susan M. Wright, Chair
Attest:
Andrew Martin
City Attorney