The County has already approved more retail development on this total site than is allowed in PTC without a SUP being given. So it could be made smaller.

Also may be able to get more switched to office from retail.

It would go from County to PTC standards plus some concessions to PTC in other ways, including sewer control.

I really don't want any retail built there at all. With sewer versus spray septic field, they have incentives to concede some thing to us, like footage, standards and sewer expansion control to cap it off from the County.

But, I am also very leery of another 54 W repeat here. So there are both internal and external concerns.

The only way we can actually discuss this is to allow the Step 1, which is no commitment to actually annexing it in.

I sincerely hope the 74S development goes into next year and next Council. One of the first actions I want to take, if elected and there is a change in majority thinking, is to remove the Special Use Permit from the GC Ordinance. I also want this discussed from the perspective of demanding true gain for PTC instead of growing PTC for growths sake. I want to feel there would be a will to deny it if we don't get more than we lose.

But they want to have it all ready for Step 2 by October to avoid the next Council since there is no way they would be breaking ground any time soon. I hope that proves non feasible.

As a side note McMurrain is back on the 54 W development wanting 11,857 sp' more than originally granted on the total and changing 3 Big Boxes to 1, but one that is 18,230 sg' larger than originally granted at 63,830 sq'.

And Callula Hills has been postponed, not eliminated. Yet another concern and issue that needs to go into next Council.

In that arena we need to get an Airport Overlay in place that bars houses being built. Also a Council that would never even consider such a development as acceptable.

I hope everyone understands how critical this election is.

Don Haddix
PTC Councilman
Post 1
donhaddix.com

Did you vote in favor the step 1 deal? It's hard to tell by what you said.

I agree, those developments are not something we need. Do you think the lame duck mayor is going to push them through before he leaves?

Because this one is going to be built, either in the County or PTC. In the County it has already been approved, construction can start whenever they wish, will be larger, have more retail and be built by County Standards. In PTC it would be smaller without a SUP and by PTC standards plus some other concessions.

If successfully voted down on Step 1 it would not have killed the project. I think that is being missed. So the issue is where do we get the better result for PTC and will a good one be negotiated?

I would never vote for a SUP on this site. But I am not confident some others would not, and that concerns me a great deal. Nor can I answer if this will be pushed through this year or if it will be good, bad or mediocre.

So yes, we need to see actual proposals, but no, I don't have confidence where this will end up.

Remember, there is another 18 acres of retail and 5.8 of OI still in the County to negotiate as well at some time, including whether in the County or PTC.

Too many unknowns to have a comfort zone while known realities do not let us just walk away from it right off the bat.

Don Haddix
PTC Councilman
Post 1
donhaddix.com

Voting to listen to a proposal just gives him a forum to rail against it later. No brainer for a serious pol.