CITY OF TALLAHASSEE
CITY COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM
ACTION REQUESTED ON: September 23, 2009
SUBJECT/TITLE: Discussion of Ox Bottom Meadows Concurrency Agreement
TARGET ISSUE: N/A
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The developers of Ox Bottom Meadows, William J. Boynton, III and Hancock Bank, are requesting approval to utilize the July 1, 2006 Concurrency Manual (instead of the 2008 Concurrency Manual) for any changes that may be requested for a period of two years from date of approval of the proposed Concurrency Agreement. The Ox Bottom Meadows development is a mixed-use project that will include 62 single-family detached residential units, 36,000 square feet of general office uses, and a 7,500 square foot bank/credit union.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Option 1: Approve staff’s recommendation and the attached agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT
Authorizing use of the July 1, 2006 Concurrency Manual will result in less mitigation costs being collected compared to what would be generated under the 2008 Concurrency Manual. The City Attorney’s office has reviewed this proposal for legal compliance.
Robert L. Herman, Growth Management Department
Anita Favors Thompson, City Manager
For information, please contact: Robert L. Herman, Growth Management Department, Ext. 7015.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL/ISSUE ANALYSIS
HISTORY/FACTS & ISSUES
The Ox Bottom Meadows development is a mixed-use project that will include 62 single-family detached residential units, 36,000 square feet of general office uses, and a 7,500 square foot bank/credit union. The concurrency application for the project was submitted prior to the adoption of the 2008 Concurrency Manual so the mitigation dollars were calculated under the manual that was in effect at the time (2006 Concurrency Manual). The developers are requesting approval to utilize the July 1, 2006 Concurrency Manual (instead of the 2008 Concurrency Manual) for any future changes to the development that may be requested for a period of two years from date of approval of the proposed Concurrency Agreement. The proposed Concurrency Agreement is included as Attachment 1.
Approval of the applicant’s request would result in a decrease in the amount of mitigation dollars collected by the City. However, in light of the challenging economic times, staff is recommending approval of the request because it maximizes the likelihood that the development will be constructed. It provides a time-limited incentive to stimulate development activity and job creation in the short term.
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
Not Applicable
OPTIONS
1. Approve the agreement.
Pros: Allows the development to move forward under old rules for two years with reduced mitigation costs for amendments.
Cons: Use of the old manual rather than the current manual for amendments will provide reduced mitigation payments and will treat the increased impacts differently from other developers’ impacts that will come in for review.
2. Deny the agreement.
Pros: Will treat development impacts the same as any other development coming in for review at the same time.
Cons: Developers state this will make the changes too costly.
3. Provide staff alternative direction.
ATTACHMENTS/REFERENCES