Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Swift pointed out that is one of the conditions listed in <br /> the modified conditions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bartleson then referred to Condition No. 7a and asked if <br />this condition pertains primarily to Village I. He said that he <br />accepted this condition for Village I, because it has all public <br />streets and detached single-family homes. However, he believed <br />that Villages II and III residents should maintain their own front <br />and side yards because the villages have more of a village <br />atmosphere. He then referred to Condition 7e and asked for <br />clarification. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that it was the intent that the <br />association would maintain the landscaping just outside the <br />soundwall where the project would be. This did not include the <br />median and buffer area. Condition 9, regarding the fees for <br />schools is currently being discussed bythe School District, staff <br />and some developers and has not yet been resolved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bartlesonthen referred to Condition No. 16, regarding the <br />linear park and the five-acre park. He asked that that be changed <br />to allow rough grade of the linear park all in one operation and <br />the improvements be installed in stages along Stoneridge Drive. He <br />asked that the five-acre park improvement be completed with Village <br />II. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift clarified the intent of the condition. <br /> <br /> Mr. Battleson referred to Item 4c2 and asked that Council <br />consider only requiring three tot-lots at the most, because four <br />lots would impact the land planning of the project. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer indicated that would be something that Council <br />could consider. <br /> <br /> Glenn Hulett, 2201 Martin Avenue, spoke in opposition to this <br />project. He explained that he had discussions with the developer <br />requesting realignment of the project to put in low density <br />residential buffering the properties on Martin Avenue. Mr. Hulett <br />mentioned the transposition of the school and the park sites. He <br />had meetings withthe school district and they have no problem with <br />that. He believed that would mitigate traffic for the school <br />delivery problem at the end of Martin Avenue. The developers said <br />they would ask for houses at the end of a cul de sac on Martin Ave <br />to be 20,000 sq.ft. lots. Mr. Hulett wanted to be sure Council <br />approves houses on the cul de sac, instead of the 50 ft. buffer <br />zone. He had no objection to residential properties adjacent to <br />his fence, but objected to his side fence becoming the park fence <br />because of street traffic and loitering problems that could arise <br />in a buffer zone. <br /> <br />04/01/92 Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />