PC 022708 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Narum believed there should be a Document 5 received from Mr. Schlies to the effect that if the actual cost exceeds the amount on deposit, the applicant will satisfy that before the first building permit is issued. With respect to the 400 feet, she preferred to see language that would get the pipe to an existing line in the event that it would be needed. She believed the language should state that the intent was to get the line to an existing water line on the Brosozky property. Ms. Decker noted that Commissioner Olson wished to add Condition No. 114 as stated within the body of the staff report regarding the replacement of any damaged road surface. Additionally, Ms. Decker noted that Condition No. 22 would be struck as it was a timing constraint that conflicted with the Development Agreement. The Commission concurred with those modifications. Acting Chair Pearce noted that she was uncomfortable with a 60-day timeline as proposed by Mr. Schlies and would like to see it in conjunction with the recording of the final map. She would like to see a longer timeline and believed that afive-year timeline would be more reasonable. She wished to ensure that the proposed condition included having the bids submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval and for the funds to be deposited with the City. Commissioner Olson noted that with respect to the five-year timeline, the clock was ticking on the Development Agreement. He believed that timeline would cut the Development Agreement too closely. Commissioner Fox inquired about the timing of the lapse of the Development Agreement. Ms. Decker noted that the earlier the construction estimates were reviewed by the City Engineer, and the more distant from the final map recordation, the lapse and deposit may vary greatly. If Council approved the project, the final map may not be recorded within 60 days, and there was considerable work to be done before that occurred. Commissioner Fox believed the original Council ordinance was a better choice than Option 2. She inquired why the City was required to get the three bids and suggested that the onus be placed on the property owner. Commissioner Narum noted that she was not tied down to the 60-day timeline but was uncomfortable with five years. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Narum regarding the meaning of "intent to proceed," Ms. Decker replied that clarification would be necessary whether it meant intent to proceed with designing improvement plans, developing a final map, or actual construction and installation of infrastructure, which may be dependent on having a final map and the payment of all fees. The Commission may wish to state that it would occur within 60 days from the time of final map recordation or prior to or at the same time as final map recordation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 27, 2008 Page 12 of 26