PC 102203 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner lV'laas noted that the Council requested the presentation by l.V1:s. Sommer because they did not completely understand the green building guidelines. Chairperson Arkin noted that he had spoken VV"ith some of the Bridle Creek residents vvho VV"ere not happy about a maintenance association as opposed to a homeovv-ners association. He asked 1\/ls. Nerla..nd to clarify the distinction betVV'een the tvv"o.,. and "V'Vas not sure he VV"as comfortable in recommendirLg a maintenance association over a l"lomeovvners association. Commissioner 1\/laas noted that she belonged to a homeovvners association". and VV'ould not be in it given. the choice. l'v'Is. Nerland explained that a homeovvners association ovvns property but a maintenance association just maintains property o"V'Vned by someone else such as the City. She noted that Greenbriar did not ravorhomeovvners associations as they seemed more likely to sue the de-veloper. Greenbriar had proposed that if someone else", such as the City.,. o"VVTl.ed the property" they VV'ould maintain it" but they did not "V'Vant an entity to ovvn it. The maintenance vvould be attended to" but the maintenance association vvou.ld not have the broad authority that a homeo"V\1ners association vvould have. Discussion. of AD 1160 and ac-t-ion. on. draft: Dosit:ion. le-t-....er. Chairperson Arkin complimented 1\/ls. Nerland on the letter". a..nd inquired "V'Vhether school districts ""auld req-uire staff to support the process. .A discu.ssion of use in the zoning district for schools ensued. 1'V'1r. Iserson noted that the use VV'ould be subject to a design revicVV' or subdivision revieVV'. He belie-ved this vvould automatically apply to a use that "V\1ould be permitted", and that the intent vvas t.hat residential uses be alloVV'ed by right. I'\Ifs. Nerland noted that the use may not exceed the maximum density alloVV'ed in the area. She noted that it did not preclude any City invol-vement or oversight" but it. did tie the City"'s hands" VV'hich ""as the central issue concerning staff a..nd the League or California Cities. It vvas staf-rs opinion that. that decision-making should be made on the local le-vel.,. and that it VV"as not appropriat.e for the State le"VeL Commissioner Fox believed that the paragraph vvhich addressed the school selling ofT land VV"as the strongest paragraph", and suggested moving it before the paragraph addressiI1g second units. The Commissioners concurred that the letter "VVas vvell-vv-ritten". and agreed vvith its contents. PLANNING COl'Vll'VlISSION l'VlINUTES October 22, 2003 Page 17