Laserfiche WebLink
7. MATTERS INITIATED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS <br />PV-Ready Condition vis-à-vis the Proposed Green Building Ordinance <br />Commissioner Blank stated that Commissioner Narum had brought up a good point. He <br />noted that if he were a builder or developer and had a pending PUD that had PV-ready <br />as a condition of approval, and this new Green Building Ordinance has now been <br />passed, he would be very upset and would want the condition removed from his project. <br />He requested staff to review this scenario. <br />Chair Olson concurred and indicated this was a good point. <br />Commissioner Blank recalled a situation where a developer had estimated it would cost <br />over $100,000 to put automatic sprinklers in a $2 million downtown building, and the <br />Fire Chief explained at the time that it would cost only $10,000. He noted that this is the <br />reason he would like additional cost information because he is skeptical about cost <br />estimates received from those with a vested interest in the process. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that the only contact staff has had in this regard is the reverse, where <br />the developers' concern is having to go back and redesign their approved projects, not <br />so much because of the additional cost involved as of the “hassle factor” of having to go <br />through the entire process once again. <br />8. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION’S REVIEW/ACTION <br />a. Future Planning Calendar <br />No discussion was held or action taken. <br />b. Actions of the City Council <br />No discussion was held or action taken. <br />c. Actions of the Zoning Administrator <br />No discussion was held or action taken. <br />9. COMMUNICATIONS <br />No discussion was held or action taken. <br />10. REFERRALS <br />No discussion was held or action taken. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, September 29, 2010 Page 20 of 21 <br /> <br />