Minutes 01/27/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Violation # 2- The Developer failed to comply with the Special Use Permit Safety Regulation requirement. Specifically, the Developer failed to erect a Stop Sign at the exit of the townhouse development. _This is a continuin2, unresolved violation of the Special Use Permit. --t/ Violation # 3 - The Devdoper failed to comply with the Special Use Permit requirement that it submit and keep an accurate plan showing the location and approximate size of recreation areas comprising 10 % of the total area to be developed, having a maximum grade of 4 %. Specifically, the Developer does not have the required space set aside for recreation area, because it has built townhouses and developed Common Areas which cannot meet the 4% slope requirement of the ordinance. This is a continuing, unresolved violation of the Special Use Permit. Violation # 4 - The Developer failed to comply with the Special Use Permit requirement that it f'de an updated Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prior to construction. SpecifiCally, the Developer began construction on Phases VI and X without first filing such a Permit. We submit that the phrase "prior to the construction of each phase of the Droiect", appearing, in the Special Use Permit, in its plain meanins,, includes any tVDe of activity to initiate construction - lumberin9 is !and clearin9 - a nrereclnisite for Eradin~, - a prerequisite for buildin2, and so on. This omission on the part of the Developer, at least as to Phase VI, violated state law, and that may also be the case regarding Phase X F~olation of State law could subject the Developer to criminal prosecution and/or civil penalties. Violation # 5- The Developer failed to comply with the terms of the Special Use Permit in that it failed to comply with city ordinances requiring it to keep and update site and other plans required for the orderly construction build-out of the project. Specifically, the Developer failed to submit a revised or updated site plan with its Application for Extension, showing the location and size of the recreation area required by ordinance for such a project. This is a continuin9, unresolved violation of the Special Use Permit. We submit that this omission made the Developer's Application for Extension incomDlete and in violation of the requirement of the Special Use Permit - that the DeveloOer comnlV with all City Codes and Ordinances relatin2 to development and construction.