Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />MARCH 8, 2007 <br />Page 3 of 8 <br /> <br />Commission Questions of Staff and Applicant: <br />Sheets asked at what point we review change in a development, if there is one requested. <br /> <br />Wood stated that review is done only if a change is requested. <br /> <br />Sheets asked how this request is related to the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Wood stated the density of the property is less than the Compo Plan. <br /> <br />Lipton stated that the Comp Plan actually allows for more than 7 units on the east side of <br />McCaslin. It would allow for 14 units. <br /> <br />Dalton inquired if the applicant could sell lots individually without coming before the Planning <br />Commission. <br /> <br />Lipton stated yes. <br /> <br />Wood reminded the Commission there is common property that must be taken through an HOA <br />ownership. <br /> <br />Deborski inquired if that included fencing. <br /> <br />Wood stated it includes detention pond and fence. <br /> <br />Deborski asked if the extension is denied could the property owner sell off lots and build. <br /> <br />Dalton asked if the PUD is in existence, then the lots exist on plat maps and the zoning is current <br />then could the new owners just build. <br /> <br />Wood stated he was not sure, however, with the PUD timeline extension they have the <br />entitlements. <br /> <br />Lipton stated the property is more valuable with the entitlements than without. <br /> <br />Keefer stated that the seller is most interested in having the PUD in place so the individual <br />buyers don't have to go through the process. He also stated that having the entitlements in place <br />is most desired. <br /> <br />McAvinew asked who is responsible to renew the timeline. <br /> <br />Wood stated the property owner. <br /> <br />McAvinew asked Keefer ifhe was the one responsible. <br /> <br />Keefer stated yes. <br /> <br />Lipton questioned if there should be a condition to Council to have discussion with the City <br />Attorney. <br /> <br />Public Hearing Closed / Commission Comments: <br />McA vinew stated he was uncomfortable with approval. He suggested that City Council should <br />decide how the issue of time lapsing should be enforced. <br /> <br />Pritchard stated he does not know why this is that much of an issue because they are requesting <br />no changes to the PUD. <br /> <br />Sheets stated that she agrees with the applicant. She expressed concern that it does not match the <br />Comp Plan density. <br />