Laserfiche WebLink
? Corrunission thinks that the homeowners association and the Golf course are one in the same and they <br />are not. There is several issue that need to be discussed with the new owners of the Golf course which <br />, have not been discussed or agreed on. Therefore, she believes that the proposal should be tabled until <br />the homeowners association has an opportunity to thoroughly review the plans. She has brought a list <br />of issues that the association needs to discuss with the owners of the golf course, but it would be better <br />if they did it privately before the proposal came before the board. Mr. Dubelko commented that the <br />clerk requested to be advised regarding notices before this proposal coming before this board. <br />Unfortunately by the time he got back to the clerk with the answer, she had already sent notice to all <br />owners that abut the golf course. There is difficulty with 129.02 which is a section of the administrative <br />code, which provides for giving notice for developinents going before Planning Commission. It is not <br />tailored to address condominium situations, it is set up for addressing notices in a single-family area. <br />His opinion to notify just the association came after the notices were released. The Planning <br />Commission could request that notice be given to the homeowners association directly before the <br />proposal comes bac,k before this board which he recommends. He would also recommend that City <br />Council reevaluate 129.02 to address developments such as this. He does not feel that the proposal <br />should be held up, as the purpose tonight is only to give a recommendation on the variance requested <br />and then to send it to the Board of Zoning Appeals. There is sufficient time for the association to talk <br />with the developer before this proposal returns before this board. Mrs. Spalding questioned if there <br />would be an opportunity for the homeowners association to address Planning Commission. Mr. <br />Dubelko reviewed that the proposal is only here tonight to be sent to The Board of Zoning Appeals <br />with respect to a height variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals will make a ruling whether or not to <br />grant the variance or not and then, it will return to the Planning Commission for a full review. Mrs. <br />Spalding suggested that this was a unique situation and although the roof height is the only technical <br />zoning issue, this golf course area is the only green space for their community. There is more involved <br />then just one zoning issue, because they are infringing upon the green space that City Council approved <br />as beinb for the development. Neither the homeowners association nor the homeowners themselves <br />have had an opportunity to review these plans. There could be other issues involved besides the <br />roofline. Mr. Dubelko commented that the roof line is the only issue tonight that is going on to the <br />Board of Zonin.g Appeals, there will be many other issues that will be addressed by the board when the <br />proposal returns. 1VIr. Spalding suggested that the developers meet with the association prior to them <br />returning to the Planning Commission as Top's Market did. Mrs. Spalding questioned when the <br />proposal would return to the Planning Commission. The Clerk indicated that the proposal would return <br />to the Planning Commission on June 12, 2001. Mrs. Spalding felt that the period between meetings <br />would not be enough as there are 255 homeowners to notify. They need to get input from the owners <br />and then it would be up to the homeowners association to come up with recommendations for the <br />entire coirununity. There is also the Golf Association that needs to be worked into the schedule. Mr. <br />Conway reminded the board that Top's market met with the neighbors prior to the second meeting not <br />the first. This proposal will not just return June 12, 2001 it will also return to the Plaruling Commission <br />on June 26, 2001 which should be enough time. Mr. 1Vleyer the president of the Viewpoint Association <br />indicated that looking at the notification that he received he noticed that 80 homeowners were not <br />notified. The clerk reviewed the plotting that was done. The homeowners that were notified were only <br />those homeowners that property abutted the golf course. The homeowners that do not abut the golf <br />course they were not notified. Mrs. Spalding indicated that since the green space in question is for the <br />entire development she felt that every owner should be notified. Mr. Conway questioned if there <br />should be natification again for the next Planning Corrunission meeting. Mr. Dubelko indicated "yes" <br />just to the Association though. The clerk asked the secretary Mrs. Spalding of the association for the <br />mailing address. Mr. Dubelko indicated that it is the responsibility of the association to get the word <br />out to the owners. Mrs. Spalding remarked that she would like it a lot better if the City would send out <br />all those notices. Legally all the homeowners are supposed to be notified. Mr. Dubelko indicated that <br />he made a ruling that with this difficult code provision that all that is required is the homeowners <br />7