PC 061108 - Laserfiche WebLink

permit is issued and construction has commenced" and that the public would not know that unless they did the due diligence and had extensions. Ms. Giffin noted that based on the information available in 1985, Condition No. 17 in the project-specific conditions of approval referenced and incorporated the standard conditions of approval and should have excluded Condition No. 14. She noted that this was not a design review approval but a PUD approval. Chair Blank noted that Commissioner O'Connor's point included being rigorous about the expiration of appeal periods and noted that it would appear that the design review should be redone. Ms. Giffin stated that she understood Chair Blank's points and reiterated that this was a PUD application, not a design review application. She added that had it been a design review application or had atwo-part PUD and design review been done, the design review action would have lapsed because the applicant did not pull a building permit within one year. She stated that this section should not have been included and although it was included, it said "design review" and not "PUD." Chair Blank believed the Commission should be very careful about counting some things but not others. Commissioner O'Connor noted that he had read documents that he thought he understood but where the meanings were more complex and that if a member of the public read these documents without having expertise in these matters, it would be very easy to misconstrue the nuances of the language in the documents. Commissioner Olson noted that had no questions for staff at this time and that he would like to hear the presentation before making any comments. Commissioner Narum had no questions for staff. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Frank Rockwood, applicant, Sunrise Senior Living, discussed the background and goals of the company, which was to offer a residential setting close to the residents' original homes. He displayed slides of the exterior and interior of the building. He noted that it was accessible and adjacent to medical services, shopping, and a park. He noted that Sunrise did not expect to be exposed to additional cost and risk for downsizing its project within the constraints of the current approval. He noted that the reduction from four, three, and two stories to three and two stories was not positively received by many of the neighbors. He stated that the property was marketed as an approved senior living site for several years and that during Sunrise's due diligence period in 2006, it made inquiries with staff, City officers, and Councilmembers regarding the continued validity of the current entitlements. He added that the neighbors' idea of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2008 Page 12 of 28