Planning Commission Minutes 2005 07 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes JULY 14, 2005 Page 7 of 9 Commission Questions of staff and applicant: Loo requested a clarification on time limits of approval for projects. Wood stated that a preliminary PUD has a one year limit and a final PUD has a three year limit. The Fordyce application was submitted to the Planning Dept. within the one year expiration date. McAvinew ask if the Commission could request that the applicant develop a milestone list and if that list is not met then the project can be reviewed by the Commission for non- compliance. Wood stated that an SRU could be called up anytime as it carried no time limit or expiration. Public Hearing Closed / Commission Comments: Dalton expressed concern with approving another PUD when the 1990 PUD has what appear to be non-compliance issues. He would like to have the opportunity to review the project if approved before the 3 year time limit. Sheets reminded Dalton that the SRU can be called up at anytime. Pritchard stated that the location needs to have site improvements completed for compliance or the Commissions needs to immediately call up the SRU. Lipton reviewed the non-compliance issues with the applicant and stated that he is reluctant to approve the final PUD and does not favor approval. McAvinew stated that he has not seen any indication of improvement by the applicant to the property since the review of the preliminary PUD. He stated that he needs to see that effort from the applicant before he can approve the final PUD. Sheets stated that the applicant needs to demonstrate in good faith compliance with the current PUD before she can support approving the final PUD. She also questioned how the site would function during construction. Pritchard stated that perhaps the Commission should consider continuance. Sheets ask Wood if there is a way for the Commission to address the already non- compliance issues. Wood replied that the Commission could address the conditions of 1990 PUD. He also stated that Fordyce requested the Commission be made aware that he (Fordyce) has proof of purchase for the lift system. Wood also stated that the Commission could request assistance from the City’s attorney regarding options for ways to enforce either the existing PUD or an amended PUD. Lipton advised the Commission of their ability to call up the existing PUD and SRU which would provide the means to resolve, amend and enforce a PUD and SRU that does not function as originally approved. Pritchard stated he would like to continue the hearing for 30 days which would give the applicant time to clean-up the property and then seek approval of the final PUD.