City Council Minutes 2002 06 18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting June 18, 2002 Page 6 Mayer asked City Attorney Light to clarify the timeframe requirements. Light explained that existing Municipal Code requires that a PUD must be substantially completed within 36 months of approval. He explained that if a project were not substantially complete within 36 months, there would be no additional building permits issued and a request for extension would be required. If the ordinance is not adopted, the request would be pursuant to a Final PUD process, which requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. Mayer voiced concern that there may be confusion and a contradiction. He asked for clarification that a permit not substantially completed within 36-month will not be issued additional building permits. Light stated that building permits are valid for one year from the date of issuance, with an option of an extension. Planning Director Wood clarified that building permits are valid for 180 days from the date of commencement of the work. Mayer voiced concerns with a three-year extension on an administrative review. He noted an extension would be appropriate if the project were substantially complete. However, no extension should be granted if a building permit has not been applied for. Keany asked City Manager Simmons to explain the public notification process. Simmons stated that the notice is similar to the regular PUD procedures. He explained that if there were issues, no administrative extension would be granted. He noted that there is a potential for two processes, and administrative process and if denied, a formal process. He explained that the Planning Commission recommends that if there were an issue with a request, it would not be approved administratively. Wood stated that, due to the complex nature and the extent of the PUD process, the Planning Commission felt that notice was important to the property owners. Light commented that the administrative process would look more ad judicatory, with the City Manager in a position to deal with evidence issues and public comment. He noted that the ordinance could be restructured to eliminate the procedures in the administrative proceeding, with the exception of notice of the manager's decision. Additionally, if an applicant is denied, a right of appeal to the City Council could be added. He explained that the public hearing would be a one-step process in front of City Council for a review of an appeal as opposed to the current process, which is a two-step process. A request for an extension is treated like a Final PUD, before Planning Commission and City Council. Keany stated that he did not understand the Planning Commission's concern with a request for an extension of an approved PUD with no changes. He voiced concern that such notice to an applicant could give false hope that changes can be made to the PUD.