PC 092403 - Laserfiche WebLink

horn.eo"VVDcrs cCHT1monly O"V\fn property. In t.his case,. the association vvould not ovvn property~ thc City "VVould ovvn the propert:y" but a n,aintenance association vvith the povver to levy assessments vvould maintail"1 th.c propert.y_ She noted that CC&Rs and a rnaintenance association V\1ould be created for this project,. but 110t a homeovvl1ers'" association because there is no commonly ovvI-:ted property. A discussion of the City"s responsibility vvitl-:t respect to CC&Rs and Code violatiol1s ensued_ 1Vfr_ Iscrson advised that generally" CC&Rs "V\fere private agreen"1ents betvveeI-:t property ovvners" but if there vvas a City interest. involved in one oTthen--." the Cit.y n,ay choose to cl1force it. He noted that the City eI-:t:torced all o:t-tl""l.e cOI""l.ditions o:t- approval" and tl""l.at those conditions and CC&Rs occasionally overlapped. The City typically has the right." but not the obligation" to enforce CC&Rs. :rvt:r. Iserson detailed tl'1e l'1istory of this application. and tl"1e o"V\fI"1ership ortl'1e property. Starr believed that because the hOl..1.se designs vvere the san--.e as those approved by tl""le City :tor tl""l.e Heil"1Z property,. that they vvould be acceptable in this case as vve:ll_ l-lovvcver., he noted that tl'1e minor modification '-Vas appealed by ChairperSOl""l. Arkil-:t,. and tl-:te request V\1ill be processed as a n,,,-jor rnodification_ ~rhe P'lannil'1g Con'1n'1issiol""l vviJI process the tlrst revievv and rccon1.Tn.endation., and City C-:ol..1.ncil vvould process the final revievv a-1'1d action. lVfr. Tserson noted that tl""l.ere vvas an issue dealil"1g vvith tl'1e current property ovvn.ers" tl'1e Hahn.ers,. and the developer-optionee orthe property" l'v:lardel LLC" vvl-:tich dealt ""V\fith the rights of l\Ilardcl to make this application. Stare processed the application because l'v:lardel had the original pun application signed by the Hahners" l'v:lardel has represented that it had and continues to have authority to submit. applications on the property,. al1d both l\Ilardel a.n.d the Hahners st:ate that there is an executed agreen,ent betvveen the tvvo_ Because l\Ilr. Hahner expressed concern about going torvvard vvith this IT1oditication" staf':e added a condition 01-- approval that protected l\Ilr _ Hah.ner" s interest such that if tl'1e property vvas not conveyed to l\Ilardel,. there vvould be SOlTlC flexibility if rvtr. I-Jahner or another ovvner did not vvish to use the nevv designs. Stat:t. vvrote a memo that proposed ch.a1""lging the condition., vvhicl-:t vvould give tl"1e Hahners tl"1at flexibility if- they decided to sell to a tl"1ird party. Tn response to at"l. in.quiry by COITlITlissioncr l'v1aas., 1V1r. Iserson. con.firmed th.at tl-"1e proposed PLJD lTI.odification vvol...dd only apply if- either the Hahners decided to go along vvitl"1 tl"1C project as currently proposed., or ir the .l-Ial"11-:l.CrS sold tl"1C property to a tl"1ird }::tarty '-Vho vvisI-:l.ed to develop according to tl"1ose plal-:ts. 111 those cases,. the plans vvould stay in effect; if they did not happen, the plan vvould becon"le void and expire .Tuly 1, 2004; the original pun vvould then. become e:f1:ective_ Tn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan" I\..-1:s_ Nerland replied that in this case", as option-holder l'vlardel has represented to the City that it has authority to sl..1.bn""l.i1: this application", bu.t t.he property o"VVncr has stated that their agreement vvith 1'v1:ardel did PLA~I~CJ CC>J'V1J'V1ISSIC>N J'V1I~UTES Sep1:cITIbcr 24, 2003 Page 4