PC 08/12/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

~- private neighborhood park. In response to further questioning, Mr Swift replied that the park at the end of Stoneridge Drive is a 5-acre park. Commissioner Wright noted that he also had met with the applican. He further questioned Mr. Swift about a second access road and how the surrounding nei hbors feel about it. Commissioner Wright discussed the matter of the park with Mr. S if!, asking whether enough fees would be received to put in a public park. Mr. Swift ndicated there would not be enough fees derived from the proposed project to develop a 5-a re public park. However, staff feels that the applicant's offer to dedicate a 5-acre park is ve generous; even though he prefers a private 2-acre park. Mr. Swift continued to say that the park does not show up on the s te plan that was included in the packet. He pointed out that large play areas such as for r would not be possible, as it is a rather hilly area. The developer has hired a park planner to see what can be done in the area. Chairman Hovingh noted that he also had met privately with Mr. F orfield. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Ted Fairfield, Consulting Civil Engineer, represented the applicati . A number of large renderings were displayed, along with a model of the proposed pro ect. He stated they have worked a long time on the project, and added that if this project is ot approved that some other project will eventually go in as it has been zoned Residential, He noted that the total project size is 562 acres; the golf course would take up 150 acres d open space would be 330 acres. The balance would be housing. He felt this is a unique project that will not come about very often. Mr. Fairfield stated that they have worked closely with Mr. Swift and Scott Erickson; they have done a number of mailings to the neo hbors and have met with the adjacent homeowners a number of times. Mr. Fairfield also presented photos to the Commission and staff an further explained the project. He noted that he had other members of the team with him that would make a brief presentation. Mr. Fairfield addressed a number of issues. Is the project entitled 0 a density bonus of 25 percent; in other words, is their requested 122 units what they will e entitled to, or 98 units as recommended by staff? He felt the number of units is debateabl as the applicant has promised to provide some very real benefits for the City. He said e General Plan indicates a 25 percent bonus could be in order if the applicant provides some amenities to the project. He noted that the applicant has promised a golf course that is open 0 the public, along with access to hiking trails; they are obligated to build a 5-acre park (pu lic or private); they are dedicating about 200 acres of open space for hiking trails, etc. and ey are obligated to spending about $250,000 for emergency vehicles. ~ Mr. Fairfield instructed a member of his team to put up an overlay n the mapped rendering to show the difference between 98 and 122 units. Mr. Fairfield str ssed they do strongly Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1992 Page 3