Laserfiche WebLink
124 <br /> <br /> Farms project by the time the Oak Tree project wanted a final map, <br /> then the funding for those public improvements would have to be <br /> provided as a condition of approval to the final map. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner was concerned with the hillside lots and felt <br /> that the open space should have a permanent restriction on it. She <br /> asked that a condition be added regarding water availability. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that he did not understand how the Planning <br /> Commission arrived at the justification for increased density above <br /> 51 units merely because the project is surrounded by a park. He <br /> felt that increasing the density because of an amenity was an <br /> important issue for the public good. He could support. allowing 51 <br /> units. Concerning conformance to the overlay district, he did not <br /> have a problem with a set-back of 120-125 feet. He agreed with the <br /> lot sizes and felt that there should be a homeowners association. <br /> He agreed with the remaining staff recommendations. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler did not object to having 55 units. He felt that <br /> the design efforts were focused on the Planning Commission's <br /> conditions as best as possible. He was concerned with the 120 foot <br /> minimum set back. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer stated when this project was originally proposed, <br /> it was within the County's jurisdiction and was planned to have 114 <br /> units. Mr. Tarver and the Mayor met with Jack Smith to address <br /> concerns with the number of units. He felt that the project that <br /> was being presented now was completely different then what was <br /> originally proposed. He felt that the applicant had been trying to <br /> meet the City requests. He believed that the open space should <br /> remain in private ownership. <br /> <br /> It was movedby Ms. Scribner, and seconded byMr. Tarver, that <br /> this item be referred to the Planning Commission to address the <br /> concerns of Council and bring it back by April 7, 1992. <br /> <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Scribner, Tarver and Mayor <br /> Mercer <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Item 6e <br /> <br /> This item was continued to the March 17, 1992 City Council <br /> Meeting. <br /> <br /> 3/3/92 <br /> 22 <br /> <br /> <br />