Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes <br />Planning Commission <br />September 10, 1986 <br />of October and all of the issues should be discussed at that <br />time. <br />Commissioner Hoyt addressed the number of people who supported <br />the proposal presented. Mr. Murphy indicated that as he recalls <br />it, the vote was approximately 64-4 in favor of this proposal. <br />Chairman Lindsey asked how many homeowners are in the <br />association. Mr. Murphy reported that there are 104. <br />Commissioner Hoyt asked if Mr. Murphy was sure they could get 75$ <br />affirmative votes from this number. Mr. Murphy responded that <br />there has been heavy discussion regarding this. <br />Condition No. 9 regarding the removal of dirt was discussed <br />between the Commission, staff and Mr. Murphy. It was explained <br />that the plan would be null and void if the dirt cannot be <br />removed over the school property. Mr. Swift stated that the City <br />would not allow any dirt to come down Dolores Drive. <br />Mr. Murphy asked about the validity of the General Plan should <br />the PUD become null and void. Mr. Swift explained that the land <br />use designation would remain in place as changed. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Mr. Swift then clarified the haul route for the removal of the <br />dirt to the Lund Ranch or the school sites. <br />Mr. Mix reviewed Condition No. 4 and stated that if in 90 days <br />the legal work has not been completed, the project would probably <br />not be viable. Commissioner Lindsey expressed concern with all <br />legal matters of the homeowners' association being taken care of <br />in 90 days. <br />Commissioner Innes asked the developer and staff if the condition <br />requiring 90 days could be modified to allow just a letter of <br />intent if all of the legal work has not been completed. <br />Mr. Swift explained that the 90 days starts from the time of the <br />second reading of the ordinance. <br />Art Dunkley, 205 Main Street, said time is of the essence for <br />this project. If this project gets out of 'synch' with the Lund <br />Ranch project, this one would be abandoned. The General Plan <br />amendment was done at the City's request for a park exchange, <br />subsequently they have submitted a PUD to address the neighbors' <br />concerns. He urged that this project go forward as quickly as <br />possible. <br />Chairman Lindsey stated that should an alternative plan become <br />necessary, it can be brought before the Commission in the form of <br />a minor modification with notice to the homeowners' association. <br />The Commissioners agreed this would be a good way to handle the <br />change should it become necessary. Commissioner Innes wanted the <br />fact that the homeowners' association would be notified of a <br />minor modification to be shown in all of the records so that it <br />will not be missed. Mr. Swift stated the next door neighbors <br />- 9 - <br />_ _ .__ _ _.._ _... _ . . _ ___ ._ T <br />