Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes <br />Planning Commission <br />September 10, 1986 <br />Regarding the homeowners' association, Mr. Mix reported that <br />homeowners have met and voted as to whether or not to accept the <br />concept of a one-half acre park. They voted to accept it in <br />concept. It remains to have the legal proceedings completed. <br />This must be accomplished within 90 days. <br />Commissioner Innes asked if the developers would be willing to <br />accept a condition that says, there will be a fence on the edge <br />of Lot 3 no matter who has to pay for it. Mr. Mix indicated he <br />has no objection to a condition requiring fencing, but it is not <br />intended that it be paid for by the developer. Mr. Swift stated <br />that staff has recommended developer-installed fencing. <br />Commissioner Wellman then addressed the types of fencing which <br />could be installed. <br />Commissioner Berger discussed the possibility of having the park <br />on Lot 5 if Lot 3 was not approved. Mr. Mix explained the <br />results of this proposal. <br />Commissioner Berger commented that her residence has backed onto <br />a park for 18 years and she has found this situation to be a <br />disaster -- bottle rockets are thrown, litter and other nuisances <br />are uncontrollable. Mr. Mix indicated that he agreed with <br />Commissioner Berger but the situation of the park was the <br />recommendation of the neighbors and part of the developer's <br />compromise with them. <br />Tom Murphy, 498 Los Rios Court, addressed Conditions No. 4 and <br />No. 9 as revised. He expressed concern specifically with No. 4 <br />and that if the legal transactions don't take place with 90 days <br />the proposed development doesn't take place. Mr. Swift confirmed <br />that this is the situation. Mr. Murphy said there was lengthy <br />negotiations and a vote presented based upon the plan as <br />currently proposed but there was no discussion by homeowners of <br />any reconfigured proposal. Chairman Lindsey asked why Condition <br />No. 4 is being recommended. Mr. Swift stated that the park has <br />not been annexed into the homeowners' association. There is a <br />legal requirement of 75% affirmative vote to actually make this <br />happen. It will be a tough hurdle to overcome. The developer <br />feels the park shouldn't be private unless the homeowners' <br />association wants it. If the park is not annexed, the plan would <br />be changed and the park would disappear for this 12 unit <br />subdivision and the subdivision would be reconfigured around the <br />cul-de-sac, with 12 units but with no park. <br />Commissioner Innes felt 90 days may not be sufficient to obtain <br />75% affirmative votes and put all of the legal work together. <br />Condition No. 4 would provide for a drastic change to the plan <br />proposed. He would like a chance to look at the alternative plan <br />before casting a vote. It is difficult to visualize an <br />alternative. <br />Mr. Murphy felt that an alternative plan might adjust the roof <br />lines of homes behind Lot 46 which is his home. Mr. Murphy <br />reported that there is a homeowners' meeting set the first part <br />- 8 - <br />.r <br />