2004-09-03 Planning Commission Minutes

Home

project, which will be triggered by Conditions 4 and 5 after construction of Phase I is completed. In response to Commissioner Springers inquiry, Mr. Hayashi said that the applicant would not have to return to the Planning Commission to do Phase II as long as they comply with the existing conditions of the permit. He then read into the record Condition 4 of the permit which states, Plans for the second phase of the proposed development, including a landscaping and parking plan, shall be submitted for Plan approval within one year from the date of completion of Phase I. Commissioner Graham said the SMA law warrants protection of resources and public participation in the process and he felt like the SMA process was being subverted by the approval of Phase II without specific plans and not knowing the impacts of the 177 units. InresponsetoCommissionerSpringersquestionwhetherthosewhooriginallyrequested a contested case hearing were aware of the project being developed in phases, Mr. Fuke said besides these parties, they also had separate discussions with the association of apartment owners adjacent to the second phase area who raised concerns not so much with viewplanes but more about the present unkempt condition of the area. He noted a concession was made between the developer and the homeowners association that they would do all of the landclearing in the area to make it look more like part of the existing golf course fairway. He then clarified that what happens to this area in the subsequent phases would probably be either a continuation of what was previously approved and represented to the Commission or a combination of the condominium units and single- family units, depending on the market condition. For the Commissions information, Mr. Fuke explained that when Condition 3 is complied with and subsequent phases are entered into, the applicant would have to go back to the Planning Department for plan approval review, at which time the staff would be obligated to review all of the pertinent conditions of the SMA permit to make sure issues such archaeology, access, etc. are addressed. Commissioner Springer questioned how the spirit of the SMA law to engage the public in the planning process is accomplished in the Commission taking action today. In response Mr. Fuke said the surrounding property owners were notified of the time extension request and have had the opportunity to express their concerns to the Commission, as well as to the applicant. Mr. Fuke added that it was fully disclosed that this entire area was the project; but more specifically, as it related to the time extension on this particular component, the project concept has been somewhat modified to have a reduced density rather than an equal or higher density. Commissioner Springer then said that with Mr. Fukes explanation, given the amount of time the Commission has spent in a number of public hearings, and public notices were published in the newspapers, it appears as though there has been opportunity for public input. 8