Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 12, 2018 <br />Page 5of6 <br />Williams stated that some extensions pan out and some do not. The question was whether or <br />not they wanted to make the applicant start over. Since they wanted to get the project done, she <br />thought they should stick with the current PUD. <br />Rice stated that there was broad support for saving the Grain Elevator and developing the <br />project. The Commission could not make people develop their property, but he thought the <br />extension was a good idea to continue the project. <br />Hsu asked Williams for clarification on her earlier point about the amendment clock. Williams <br />stated that she did not think there was a process that would allow a restarting of the clock with <br />an administrative PUD. She would entertain the idea of restarting the clock on this proposal if it <br />were possible. <br />Hsu responded that the applicant mentioned an upcoming PUD Amendment and he was trying <br />to figure out if the Commission could make the extension for a shorter time to cover until the <br />applicant's next PUD Amendment. <br />Rice commented that uncertainty was the enemy of the project, so the Commission should keep <br />the extension as clean as possible and address other issues as they arise. <br />Hsu shared the frustration over no visible progress, especially since there was not much <br />direction given tonight about timelines and groundbreakings. He did not have confidence that <br />something would be achieved in three years, except that maybe the addition of marketing would <br />have a positive effect. He understood the uncertainty argument, but would have appreciated a <br />more concrete timeline. He stated he was leaning against voting for a three-year extension, but <br />might support a shorter extension. <br />Howe asked staff if a PUD would need an additional approval if only part of the project is <br />completed by the three-year deadline. <br />Howe observed that there were many challenges and changes ahead. He stated that he would <br />be disappointed to see phase one started in three years and construction continuing for years <br />after that. He admired their efforts to develop a historically friendly project. He added that three <br />years should be sufficient to complete the project. <br />Zuccaro clarified the earlier point on partial completion of the project. The Code stipulates that <br />no permit shall be issued more than 36 months after Council approval of the plan unless an <br />extension is approved. The other phases would expire after 36 months as well. <br />Brauneis stated that it was an ambitious project and that it was hard to predict a timeline. <br />However, there are other vacancies, for example on Highway 42, so vacancies could be hard to <br />fill. He stated that if he felt the approval was driven by profit motive on the part of the applicant, <br />he would be suspicious. However, there was no money the applicant could make by sitting on <br />the project. <br />Motion made by Rice to approve Resolution 9, Series 2018. Seconded by Howe. Roll call vote. <br />Motion passes, 4-1. Hsu voted no. <br />STAFF COMMENTS <br />Event on April 2611, 6:30 PM <br />Dean reminded the commissioners that they would have an opportunity to voice their thoughts <br />and ideas on how to improve the Design Guidelines, Standards, and the Sign Code. The <br />