Laserfiche WebLink
The regulations of extending a PUD plan are outlines in Section 17.28.200 – Construction <br />Procedures and Building Permits – E. “Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter <br />17.28 for any area covered by a final planned development plan for a commercial or industrial <br />planned unit development approved after November 9, 1998, no building permit shall be issued <br />more than 36 months after City Council approved the plan unless an extension of time is <br />approved pursuant to subsection 17.28.210 B and issuance is within such extended time.” <br /> <br />Section 17.28.210 B states, “All changes in use, density, or the outline development plan, <br />changes in arrangement of lots, blocks and buildings, any changes in the provision of common <br />open space, and all other changes in the approved final plan, except those where are minor <br />changes under subsection A of this section, must be approved by the Planning Commission and <br />the City Council under the procedures authorized for final plan approval.” <br /> <br />Martell concluded by stating that no changes are requested to the overall PUD site plan and staff <br />supports the request for the extension to the existing PUD. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br />Commissioner Tom McAvinew requested a clarification of the CDDSG guidelines for <br />landscaping. Martell stated that the landscape requirements for perimeter landscaping have not <br />changed. The original requirements of landscaping the site called for one (1) tree per 20 lineal <br />feet; the updated CDDSG reduces the number of perimeter trees to one (1) tree per 40 lineal feet. <br /> <br />Commissioner Chris Pritchard asked how many times a request for an extension can be <br />requested. Martell stated that it could occur every three years. <br /> <br />Commissioners Michael Deborski, Kalish and Loo had no questions. <br /> <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Lipton requested an applicant presentation. <br />John Gstalder, representing Venture Development LLC, thanked Martell for the completeness of <br />the Staff Report and that he had no additional information. <br /> <br />Members of the Public: <br />Lipton asked for public moment. <br />None heard <br /> <br />Staff Summary and Recommendation: <br />Lipton asked for summary comments from Staff and Applicant. <br />Neither had additional comments. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br />Lipton called for Commission questions. <br />None heard. <br /> <br />Public Hearing Closed Commission Comments: <br />Lipton closed the public hearing and requested Commission discussion. <br /> <br />McAvinew stated that he no conflict with the request. <br /> <br />