PC 07/28/82 - Laserfiche WebLink

area. He also said he does not feel this development should be treated any differently than past developments and urged the Commission to wait until the HPD ordinance is approved and that it should then be used consistently with new developments. Commissioner Doherty stated that a special meeting is being held on August 4 to review the HPD ordinance. He stated that at that time it would be decided what areas it was appropriate for or that perhaps it might be decided that the PUD would be more appropriate in some areas. Mr. Henderson stated that because the Commission would be reviewing the HPD ordinance in one week, he strongly requested that this case be continued until after the meeting of August 4th. Mr. Dunkley stated he did feel his property was specifically singled out when reviewing the HPD ordinance. He stated he felt the con- ditions of approval on this project covered any problems which have been brought up. Mr. Dunkley referred to the staff report which referred to the consistency of policies of the General Plan as well as the considerations he has outlined in his letter to the City dated July 26, 1982. Mr. Dunkley asked the Assistant City Attorney to respond to the question of whether the PUD can meet the policies of the General Plan. Mr. Swift replied that it could and that PUD zoning has been used in other areas. Mr. Henderson stated that the Committee reviewing the HPD ordinance did not single out the property proposed for development by Mr. Dunkley. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Jamieson stated he felt this case should not be acted on until after review of the HPD ordinance. Chairperson Lindsey stated he felt the Commission should review the HPD ordinance at the August 4th meeting and that a decision should be made at the August 11th meeting as to whether this should be consi- dered as a PUD or HPD. Commissioner Jamieson stated his opinion, that a decision should not necessarily be made at the August 11th meeting. Chairperson Lindsey moved that the public hearing be continued until the meeting of August 11, 1982. Mr. Dunkley stated he feels that the postponement of this project now would mean the beginning of many postponements in the future, and that he feels this has gone on long enough. He stated he has been dealing in good faith and has done everything that has been requested. He asked for a reasonably fast response. Chairperson Lindsey stated that at the August 4, 1982 meeting they would be reviewing the proposed document and would be better able to make a decision on this application. He stated he needed further clarification on the HPD. -18- .............._._ ,_.._ _,._.... ___ __. _ __.. .__. ___ .. .. _ _ . _...T.