05-18-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Not Approved proposed language would provide the same standards for both PRD's and PUD's. The impetus for this code amendment was the Brighmndale PRD approval in May of last year. Many Commissioners may recall that this PRD approval to construct a dining room addition was controversial in that neighbors to the west had two concerns relating in noise and landscaping. The Commission end staff worked diligently with the neighbors and Brighmndnle m ensure these issues were addressed to everyone's smisfection. Amjor condition of that PRD approval involved extensive landscaping improvements. At this point, Brighmndnle has not obtained a building permit or commenced construction end has informed stuff of financing delays. The Site Plan approval expired in November of 2009 but the PRD approver] remains valid. The concern is that with this approval lingering, Brightormide does not have to complete the Imdscapaq wtil they are ready to emceed with the Project. Meanwhile, the neighbors feel they have been deceived and thin Brightcndede has once again not lived up to their cmmnimsents and the ]=damping issues continue to be neglected. Staff believes that by placing an expiration date on the project, BrightmMnle will have greater mgenry in deciding to move forward. If they don't move forward, the project approval will expire in 6 months and they can come back for re -approval i9when they are ready to proceed with the project, which will require re -notification to the neighbors on 28"s Ave. This sceasrio bas been discussed with Brighmndale and they have indicated they still would like to Interested with the project, but they continue to experience financing delays through HUD. Commissioner McPherson stated he thinks this is a good idea, and questioned if the City can enf the six month requirement on Brightondale. Ms. Gundlach confirmed, pointing out the six mouth period begins upon ordinance adVirm. Commissioner Nichols-Matkaiti suggested including existing PBDs men the ordinance. Ms. Gundlach reported Brightoralm has not taken any steps towards completion, mod their site plan has expired. The City wants to avoid obligations to approve site plans when there are lingering PRDs for a property. Commissioner Danger questioned if Here were any otber applicanrs that would be affected by this ordmmce. Ms. Gwdlach neplied Brightrndale is the only one. Commissioner Zisla question if the landscaping issue is relined to new landscaping or maintenance of the current Ms. GuMlach stated there is a counrem issue of lack of maintenance but the approval conditions are specifically related to new landscaping obligations in addition to a maintenance program. The City was hoping the declaration would address the maintenance program. Commissioner Zisha asked if it was fain for the City to require landscaping prior to the financing being secured. Ms. Gundlacb explained they were not required to do any thing within 20 feet of the proposed edition, and the intent was to deal with particular problem areas. Councibnember Phillips reported it is not uncommon not to stun a project until the bank provides financing for the project. Motion by Commissioner Zisla, seconded by Commissioner Danger W close the Public Hearing. Approved 6A, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Nichols-Matkaiti had a couple questions in the reduction sections 100-2, and IM -7. Ms. Gmdlwb offered cladtication. Ms. Gwdlach pointed out the ordinance does allow the request for an extension. Motion by Commissioner Zola, seconded by Commissioner Danger to make a motion to approve staff recommendation to the City Council to adopt the revisions to Zoning Code Section7-100(2), 7-100(7), and 7-250 Approved 6-0