Laserfiche WebLink
156 <br /> <br /> Item 6e(1) <br /> PUD-90-14, Application of Joseph W. Callaban, Jr. for Planned Unit <br /> Development Rezoning to PUD-HDR and Development Plan Approval to <br /> Allow the Construction of 88 Single-Family Detached Zero Lot-Line <br /> Units, 46 for Rent In-Law Units and 24 Attached Townhouse Units on <br /> an Approximately 12.76 Acre Site Located at 3801, 3963, and 3967 <br /> Stanley Boulevard, the Area Generally Bounded byStanley Boulevard <br /> on the South and East, the Union Pacific Railroad on the North, ana <br /> the Country Roads Condom~nium~ on the West <br /> <br /> Consider Adoption of a Negative Declaration <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 90:493) regarding the <br /> matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the <br /> application. <br /> <br /> Mr. Joseph Callahan, Callahan Property Company, 5674 <br /> Stoneridge Drive, expressed concern regarding the provisions under <br /> Condition No. 4i of the Staff Report that the public service <br /> easement on Stanley Boulevard and Del Valle Parkway be maintained <br /> by the homeowners' association for the development. He explained <br /> that the maintenance of approximately 67 000 square feet of <br /> landscaping would cost about $3,000 a month ~nd wouid come down to <br /> about $15 per unit. He stated that this could defeat the purpose <br /> of the program since it could reduce the ability of some applicants <br /> to qualify for either ownership or rental. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brent Wilcox, representing George and Mary Lou Wilcox, <br /> 3988 Stanley Boulevard, property owners across the project, <br /> indicated that he had no objection to the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Robert Cordtz, 262 West Angela, member of the Task Force <br /> for Affordable Housing, spoke in favor of the application. He <br /> inquired if there would be an implementation plan on how the <br /> project will be financed and if the closing costs and commission <br /> for the real estate brokers would be reduced. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer referred the question to staff. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta replied that since the City would probably be <br /> managing the resale of the units, there would be no commission on <br /> their resale; however, there would be a fee to cover the cost of <br /> administering the resale. She added that there would be a market <br /> rate charge for the escrow fees which could be reduced, depending <br /> on the company that would handle the transaction. <br /> <br /> - 18 - <br /> 12-11-90 <br /> <br /> <br />