SR 06:013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Staff has met with the Nolan Farms residents to discuss the proposed project. The concerns in general of the Nolan Farms residents were related to the potential extension of Rose Avenue to Valley Avenue west of the site. Staff has presented to the residents information regarding the General Plan Update process and that the consideration of the extension is a part of that discussion. Staff has confirmed to concerned neighbors that the pr~iect is feasible with or without the street extension. Additionally, the residents in attendance confirmed that there is support for the project as long as it does not drive a need to extend Rose Avenue to Valley Avenue. On November 10,2005 the City received a letter from the Nolan Farms Maintenance Association stating support for the project as long as Rose Avenue is not extended to Valley Avenue. Staff notes that the Rose Avenue extension is not a part of this PUD. Jones Familv On August 24,2005 the heirs of the Jones family lands, who do not hold title to the property, requested a continuation of the project due to concerns of potential impacts to their family's land holdings. They indicated that, in their opinion, their father, Mr. Ernest(Ernie) Jones, signatory for the Jones Family Trust, had not adequately researched issues related to grading, drainage, underground utilities, landscaping, and access at the time the agreement had been executed in February, 2005. They believed and advised their father that he should retain various consultants to evaluate the effects of the proposed project on his land. The Planning Commission continued the project until such time as the applicant could negotiate with the Jones family to resolve the issues and bring resolution to the Commission for consideration. Negotiations occurred in September and October, 2005, and staff participated in facilitating discussions leading to some amendments to the original agreement. However, those negotiations subsequently broke down, and both interests retained attorneys to consider the validity of the signed agreement. There remain opposing viewpoints as to the validity of the document. Mr. Jansen continues to wish to honor his agreement with Mr. Ernest Jones, land owner, and has requested that the points of agreement be included as conditions of approval. These have been added and constitute Conditions Nos. 119-130. Similarly, negotiations with the westerly property interests, the Alteri family, are included as Conditions Nos. 131-132. At this time, communication between the interested parties, consultants, and attorneys has all but ceased. On November 6, 2005 the Planning Commission heard testimony from Mr. David Jones, who is one of the sons of the adjacent property owner, Mr. Ernie Jones. Mr. David Jones raised several concerns on his father's behalf. These included: . A desire to ensure that the new homes on Lots 6, 7, and 8 should be single story, be landscaped to provide screening to the Jones' property, and not be allowed to have windows on the rear elevations towards the Jones' residence; . Lot 9 should be not be allowed to be a custom lot; . The realignment of access to the Jones' residence is not acceptable; SR 06:013 Page 7 of 17