HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit A - Staff Findings - Extension of Vested RightsExhibit A Staff
Findings
Section 26.308.010. Extension or reinstatement of vested rights.
The City Council may, by resolution at a public hearing noticed by publication, mailing
and posting (See Subparagraphs 26.304.060[E][3][a][b] and [c]) approve an extension
or reinstatement of expired vested rights or a revoked development order in accordance
with this Section.
1. In reviewing a request for the extension or reinstatement of vested rights the City
Council shall consider, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
a. The applicant's compliance with any conditions requiring performance
prior to the date of application for extension or reinstatement;
Staff Response: The Subdivision Planned Development Agreement, including the
final plat, for the Molly Gibson Lodge Planned Development and Subdivision was
recorded at Book 115, Page 1, dated July 21, 2016 – reception number 630851.
There are no other conditions to be met prior to the application for an extension.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. The progress made in pursuing the project to date including the effort to
obtain any other permits, including a building permit and the expenditures
made by the applicant in pursuing the project;
Staff Response: A building permit application has not been submitted, however,
the Applicant has indicated progress has been made in pursuing financing for the
project, including the pursuit of construction quality documents. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
c. The nature and extent of any benefits already received by the City as a
result of the project approval such as impact fees or land dedications;
Staff Response: Since no building permit has been submitted or reviewed at this
time, no impact fees have been collected. The City has not received any other
benefits at this point. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d. The needs of the City and the applicant that would be served by the
approval of the extension or reinstatement request.
Staff Response: The desire to extend vesting would serve the Applicant’s need
for additional time to prepare for building permit submission and reduce the
complexities of developing two hotels projects at the same time.
With regard to the City’s needs, given that a new Land Use Code has been
adopted that changed certain dimensional standards in the MU zone district,
extending the vesting for a project that does not comply with current standards is
problematic. Furthermore, Staff believes that while an extension of vested rights
would potentially allow for consecutive construction sequencing of the two
lodges, given the process and timeframe for the Molly Gibson building permit
review and the stated construction start date for Hotel Aspen, the Applicant may
have the ability to time the projects such that overlapping construction is
minimal.
At this time, Staff does not believe that an extension of vested rights serves the
needs of the City. Staff will be available to speak to alternative approaches to a
potential extension should City Council desire this discussion. Staff finds this
criterion to not be met.
2. An extension or reinstatement may be in the form of a written agreement duly
authorized and executed by the applicant and the City. Reasonable conditions
may be imposed by the City Council including, but not limited to, compliance with
any amendments to this Title adopted subsequent to the effective date of the
development order and associated vested rights.
Staff Response: If approval is granted, draft conditions have been provided in the
ordinance. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. If the request is for reinstatement of a revoked development order, the City
Council shall determine the financial impacts of the investigation and may require
the applicant to pay the reasonable costs of investigation, enforcement and
reporting by City staff.
Staff Response: The request is for an extension, not a reinstatement. Staff finds
this criterion to be not applicable.