Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, August 5, 2015 <br />Page 2 <br />expiring shortly, and was being held up pending several conditions yet to be completed <br />46 <br />by the Vogel Company (e.g. fence installation). <br />47 <br />At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Community Development Director Paul Bilotta <br />48 <br />responded that the City’s Building Official typically sets a date based on when they think <br />49 <br />work can be completed. However, Mr. Bilotta noted that it was not unusual for the <br />50 <br />Certificate of Occupancy to be extended if completion of the work was out of the control <br />51 <br />of the applicant (e.g. weather related or third-party contractor or subcontractor <br />52 <br />schedules). In the case of the Vogel Certificate of Occupancy, Mr. Bilotta advised that the <br />53 <br />issue was not of a statutory nature, but was a case of waiting for private utility companies <br />54 <br />to address a buried cable (CenturyLink) and overhead electrical lines (Xcel Energy); and <br />55 <br />noted that Vogel was diligent working with those private firms to resolve the delays. Mr. <br />56 <br />Bilotta advised that from a staff perspective, they had no concerns that the work would be <br />57 <br />completed, whether by the deadline of August 16, or shortly thereafter. Mr. Bilotta <br />58 <br />advised that while the private utility companies were notoriously slow to respond, he was <br />59 <br />aware that a surveyor had been sent out by CenturyLink recently, so progress was <br />60 <br />continuing. <br />61 <br />Chair Boguszewski asked that staff provide an update at next month’s meeting on this <br />62 <br />issue; advising that if the delay is due to legitimate reasons it was understandable; <br />63 <br />however, if the owner was delaying progress, it was of concern to the Commission. <br />64 <br />Mr. Bilotta noted that the Vogel Company had received a bid on the fence; opining that <br />65 <br />they were as anxious as staff and the Commission to resolve these outstanding issues. <br />66 <br />Mr. Bilotta advised that staff would send an e-mail update to the Commission as <br />67 <br />additional information became available between now and the next Commission meeting. <br />68 <br />5. Public Hearings <br />69 <br />Chair Boguszewski reviewed the protocol for public hearings and subsequent process. <br />70 <br />MOTION <br />71 <br />Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Bull to approve amendment of <br />72 <br />tonight’s agenda to hear Planning File No. 15-010 before the remaining cases. <br />73 <br />Ayes: 7 <br />74 <br />Nays: 0 <br />75 <br />Motion carried. <br />76 <br />a. PLANNING FILE No. 15-010 <br />77 <br />Request by Art Mueller for approval of a PRELIMINARY PLAT of property <br />78 <br />addressed as 2201 Acorn Road <br />79 <br />Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for Planning File 15-010 at approximately <br />80 <br />6:40 p.m., noting this hearing had been continued from the July 1, 2015 meeting and <br />81 <br />tabled at that time; with subsequent withdrawal by the applicant of that application. Based <br />82 <br />on that withdrawal, Chair Boguszewski sought formal action by the body to officially close <br />83 <br />the public hearing for Planning File No. 15-010; noting that a new application had been <br />84 <br />submitted by the applicant and will be heard in the future as a new and separate case. <br />85 <br />MOTION <br />86 <br />Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to CLOSE the <br />87 <br />public hearing for Planning File 15-010: Request by Art Mueller for approval of a <br />88 <br />PRELIMINARY PLAT for property addressed at 2201 Acorn Road, due to <br />89 <br />withdrawal of the application by the applicant. <br />90 <br />With Member Bull noting the timing for an open house for the new case and public <br />91 <br />hearing if scheduled for September, Mr. Paschke clarified that the timeframe for those <br />92 <br />events applied to when the application was actually submitted, in accordance with current <br />93 <br />City Code provisions. <br />94 <br /> <br />