Laserfiche WebLink
The Planning Director is recommending approval of the time extension request, but is requesting <br />the following language be approved: Instead of the proposed language from the applicant, he is <br />requesting approval of that the language for Condition 2 be “Construction of the proposed <br />development shall be completed within seven years from the date of this amendment.” The reason <br />for that is it’s not standard practice for us to propose conditions that it leaves it open-ended as far <br />as completion of a project. The proposed request would have allowed a start date but no finish <br />date, and so it could linger on for however long. In this particular case we are giving them a little <br />bit more time, and we did speak with the representative of the applicants and they were amenable <br />to this. We are giving them a little bit more time but that is to complete construction, and if <br />something doesn’t work out, they can come back before the Planning Commission and request <br />additional time. <br /> <br />With that, that concludes our presentation. If you have any questions. Thank you. <br /> <br />UNGER: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of staff? Commissioner Carr Smith. <br /> <br />CARR SMITH: I have a couple of questions. The one photo – am I on? Jeff? <br /> <br />DARROW: Oh, there you go. Okay. <br /> <br />CARR SMITH: All right. The one photo that you showed me that looked like the single-family <br />has the same access or shared access, is that true or is that? That’s what looked like to me. <br /> <br />DARROW: It is true. <br /> <br />CARR SMITH: Okay, it is a shared access. <br /> <br />DARROW: Yeah. <br /> <br />CARR SMITH: Okay. <br /> <br />DARROW: The applicants have an access easement over those, there’s two actual properties <br />before the subject property and they have access and utility easements over those properties for <br />their property. <br /> <br />CARR SMITH: Okay. <br /> <br />DARROW: That brings up another point, is that one of the issues, previously going through the <br />original request, was that the access easement wasn’t wide enough, and they were able to work out <br />an agreement with the area that was limiting access to be able to provide a minimum 20-foot wide <br />access easement, which is Condition Number 3. And they’ve been working with the Department <br />of Public Works on that access issue, and that was a request that be placed in as a condition, which <br />they’ve provided information that they secured that access easement. <br /> <br />3 <br />EXHIBIT A <br /> <br />