Laserfiche WebLink
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether the applicants must <br />get updated bids if the project were to be delayed unti12015, Ms. Decker replied that it <br />would be beneficial for staff to work on language to address timing. She did not believe <br />it was the Chrismans' intent to inconvenience the Brosozkys by delaying the project so <br />long that it would cost Mr. Brozosky a great deal of money. She noted that the language <br />of "up to five years" may be workable. While she believed that there was every intent to <br />construct, such developments were market-driven. She noted that the approvals went <br />back to 2001, and she believed the Chrismans intended to move this project forward as <br />quickly as possible. <br />Commissioner Narum suggested changing the language from "400 feet" to <br />"bringing it to an existing waterline on the Brosozky property." <br />Ms. Decker suggested that the Commission consider that the timing be tied to the <br />anticipated construction. The applicant would go through the final map recordation, bond <br />the project, and submit the improvement plans for Road A. Before the grading permit <br />could be issued, the City would provide estimates 60 days prior to the grading permit. <br />Before the grading permit on-site could be issued, the issue of the estimates and deposits <br />would have been resolved to reflect current costs for on-site work. <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Narum regarding the trigger to have the <br />money paid and cleared if the work cost more than anticipated, Ms. Decker replied that <br />there were generally contingency costs and "not-to-exceed" limits which the contractor <br />would be responsible for meeting. Any change orders would be handled between the <br />parties, and a reputable contractor would not exceed the estimated costs without <br />agreement by the builder. She noted that the waterline was generally an uncomplicated <br />structure. She did not anticipate that a reputable contractor would substantially exceed <br />the bid. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: Commissioners Narum, Olson, and Pearce. <br />NOES: Commissioners Fox and O'Connor. <br />ABSTAIN: None. <br />RECUSED: None. <br />ABSENT: Commissioner Blank. <br />Resolution No. PC-2008-10 recommending approval of PUD-OS-02M was entered <br />and adopted as motioned. <br />EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 27, 2008 Page 13 of 13 <br />