Laserfiche WebLink
-- 6. MATTERS CONTINUED OF DECISION <br /> <br /> Item 6a <br /> OrdinanCe No. 1644, approving the application of Color Tile for a major modification a~ <br /> filed under Case PUD-80-15-5D-5M <br /> <br /> Brian Swift reviewed the provisions of the ordinance and conditions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated his intent in proposing the language of the conditions to the <br /> modification of the PUD was to make it clear there is to be no access for deliveries or other <br /> purposes to the are in question. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated the issue raised at the last meeting was whether the condition <br /> introduced by the Council constituted a taking of property. It is staffs position that the <br /> condition does not constitute a taking. If the matter is litigated and the court determines there <br /> is a taking, the situation could be remedied by Council deleting the condition regarding access <br /> or to condemn the property rights of the owner to the area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated the intention of his motion was to make this a PUD modification. <br /> If the condition were successfully litigated, he wanted the application of Color Tile to return to <br /> the hearing process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush agreed that if the applicant challenged the condition and a court agreed, then <br /> the project presumably would not have gone forward and the Color Tile application would be <br /> back before Council. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti requested clarification on the original PUD condition for this area and any <br /> subsequent changes. She asked if the tenants understood they could not use the area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated the original application proposed landscaping in the back of the building. <br /> Staff recommended a condition to allow construction of an access way to get to the storm drain. <br /> Measure X included conditions added by Council. He did not know whether the tenants <br /> understood there would be no access other than for emergencies. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated there had been a great deal of discussion at the time and the <br /> soundwall's construction (Condition #36) was added because of the concerns of the neighbors <br /> about the use of the back area. The City initiated the request to change the plan for access. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked when the gate requirement was added? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that was discussed when the building itself was under construction. <br /> <br /> 01/17/95 <br /> -4- <br /> <br /> <br />