Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />March 11, 2010 <br />Page 5 of 13 <br /> <br />Light stated it could be as many times as it takes. Additonal information would be <br />required for another review. <br />Lipton stated he understands the agreement could have anything it. Does that <br />mean the City can condition the agreement with things like infrastructure <br />improvements and timing of construction? <br />Light stated such conditions could be performance bench marks within the <br />agreement. <br />Lipton asked if the Planning Commission can request more detail at the <br />preliminary PUD review, if they know there is vesting or vesting is going to be <br />requested. <br />Fleming stated “yes”. <br />Lipton asked how the Commission will know in advance of a vested rights <br />request. <br />Fleming stated the code amendment includes a 30-day notice requirement. <br />Light added the applicant would typically request the vesting at the time of <br />submittal. <br />Lipton stated a vested rights request would probably set the bar higher for <br />applications at the preliminary review process. <br />Fleming replied in agreement with Lipton’s statement. <br />Lipton inquired, in a vested rights agreement can the city set a deadline for the <br />submittal of a final PUD so we don’t have a preliminary out there for 10-15 years <br />while the applicant just sit on it and yet the city has made a commitment through <br />the vested rights agreement. <br />Light stated the current timeline would continue to apply – preliminary is good for <br />one (1) year with a one (1) year extension if requested by the applicant. The final <br />is good for three (3) years with an extension if requested by the applicant. The <br />Planning Commission could also require a Phasing plan (performance <br />benchmarks). <br />Brauneis asked questions regarding risk management and if there is any way to <br />characterize the risk on potential litigation. <br />Light stated risk could be resolved by clarity of the terms of the agreement. <br />Pritchard asked if the agreement transfers with the property. <br />Light confirmed it would transfer. <br />Brauneis asked about forfeited rights / breach of contract. <br />Light stated how important the language of the agreement will be and the <br />importance of detailed wording within the agreement. <br /> <br />