Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 14, 2019 <br />Page 3 of 17 <br />Rice asked about one of the points in the applicant's letter. <br />Zuccaro replied that the applicant had submitted building permits for all the residential <br />buildings and building F right around when the City had switched building codes. The <br />applicant wanted assurance that the application would be reviewed under the 2012 <br />codes and staff had confirmed that it would be. <br />Hsu asked if there was a possibility under the current language that there would be no <br />commercial building at all. <br />Rice replied that the only thing that would be held back would be a CO on one of the <br />residential buildings, so they could complete the others and then not complete the fourth <br />residential building or any of the commercial buildings. <br />Ritchie replied to Commissioner Rice's earlier question, noting that the PUD had been <br />approved on January 19, 2016. <br />Williams asked if the Commission had to approve an extension, since it had been over <br />three years, and how the Commission could approve something that had been expired. <br />Zuccaro recommended that the Commission proceed with the item and that staff would <br />bring a request for an extension if necessary. He suggested that the Commission could <br />note its concern and make a continuance if they wanted. Since the Commission had the <br />information in front of them, they could also make a recommendation on the issue of <br />concurrence. <br />Williams asked if a permit had been pulled. <br />Zuccaro replied that a building permit had been submitted and was under review for the <br />four residential buildings and building F. <br />Brauneis stated that the permit process did not have a bearing on the Commission's <br />decision. He asked the commissioners if they were comfortable continuing the <br />discussion with the caveat that the PUD might be expired and their recommendations <br />would be contingent upon renewal. The commissioners voiced general agreement. <br />Hsu asked about the 0% occupancy estimates for the commercial buildings. <br />Zuccaro replied that he ran the model with no commercial development. That scenario <br />resulted in a fiscal impact of $157,000 over 20 years, which he deemed a neutral impact <br />for this application. When the values are relatively high, as in cases with more <br />residential development, the larger the income assumption, the generation of some <br />sales tax and property taxes, et cetera. <br />Hsu asked if the basis of staff's recommendation was the fiscal model, and why the <br />Commission should trust that model. <br />Zuccaro stated that in the three years he had been with the City, they had been using <br />the model. They hired TischlerBise, Inc., a consulting firm out of Maryland that <br />