Garden City delays final decision on 7‑unit Live/Work project; asks applicant for ACHD paperwork and signed agreement

Council President James Page moved and the Garden City Council voted June 8 to continue consideration of a fifth extension request for DSR FY2021‑0011, a seven‑unit ‘‘Live Work Create’’ development at 208 East 33rd Street, to the city’s July full council meeting to allow the applicant and staff to place a signed settlement agreement and ACHD correspondence into the public record.

The item drew sustained questioning from council members and city staff about whether the applicant had shown the ‘‘good cause’’ required under the city’s extension criteria. Development Services Director Dr. Thornborough summarized staff’s packet materials and noted that prior extensions included a condition stating a prior extension would be final; she said staff had prepared draft decision documents for both approval and denial.

City Attorney Mister Adams reviewed the legal standard and told the council his office could defend either outcome. Adams said he had been informed that the applicant had threatened litigation if denied and that the applicant had provided a written statement this morning agreeing the next extension would be the last. Adams recommended that if the council intended to grant an extension it accept the applicant’s written commitment and request that the settlement be included in the record.

Applicant Mister Jones, joining the meeting by Zoom, described the principal hurdles to completing the project as an ACHD stormwater requirement that his team could not meet on‑site and uncertainty about financing. He said ACHD had offered a path that would require a payment into an ACHD road fund (a figure council members described in earlier questions as about $12,000), rather than allowing the project’s previously proposed on‑street stormwater approach. Jones told the council he had some funds to cover the ACHD fee but preferred not to pay a nonrefundable fee until financing was secured; he estimated the probability the project would be built at roughly 40 percent.

Council members repeatedly asked whether documentation showing ACHD’s position or the alleged fee had been submitted; both development services staff and the city attorney said no ACHD correspondence was in the city file. Several council members said the lack of corroborating documentation made a grant of the extension harder to justify.

Page proposed and then moved a continuance to a date certain at the July full council meeting (the clerk noted the July full council meeting date is July 13) so the applicant could submit ACHD communications and the draft settlement agreement could be placed into the public record for review. The motion passed on a roll call vote; Clerk Claro recorded affirmative votes.

What happens next: the council’s continuance requires that the applicant submit the ACHD correspondence and an executed agreement before the July meeting. Staff said the draft approval decision in the packet contemplated a six‑month building permit extension with two‑month status reports; if the council desires a final one‑year entitlement extension staff will prepare decision language consistent with code and the council’s direction for the July hearing.

Authorities and process notes: the city attorney and development staff discussed which version of code applies to extension requests and referenced prior ordinances and code amendments governing extensions and entitlements. If the council wishes to accept a settlement limiting future claims, staff said the settlement text should be put into the record and the legal memorandum and draft decision updated before a final vote.

Ending: The council continued DSR FY2021‑0011 to the July full council meeting and instructed staff to add the applicant’s signed agreement and ACHD documentation to the record.