CCMIN012285 - Laserfiche WebLink

201 widened at the intersection of Tawny and Bernal Avenue. He stated that in order to subsidize the elimination of the units, he is requesting a purchase price of the additional park land for an apmroximate amount of $120,000; and the City to develop and maintain the mark. Mr. Brian Hovt, 546 Touriga Court, representing Vintage Hills Homeowners Asso- ciation, stated that representatives of this group have discussed the park, and are very anxious to have it developed. He stated this is the only flat land in the area suitable for a park. This group supports the project as presented by Mr. Dunklev. Mr. Frank Belecky, 892 Madeira Drive, speaking on behalf of the Vintage Hills Homeowners Association, stated they would like to have the park completed at the same time or prior to completion of the apartment project. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to this item. Mr. Dunklev expressed appreciation to the Vintage Hills Homeowners Association for their input relative to this matter. There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed on the application and the negative declaration. It was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Councilmember Butler, that Resolution No. 85-52, determining on the basis of a review of initial environmental study done for this project, that no significant environmental impact would occur as outlined in the City's guidelines and that a negative declaration is appropriate in connection with PUD-84-13, application of Castlewood Properties, Inc., to prezone an approximately 8.8 acre site to PUD (Planned Unit Deve!opment)-High Density Residential and "A" (Agricultural) Districts and for development plan approval for an 84 unit multi-family residential complex and proposed City park on the site located on the east side of Bernal Avenue between Tawny Drive and Vineyard Avenue, be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilmember Butler stated that he and Councilmember Brandes had been appointed to meet with the developer and the homeowners to discuss the project and park. He stated the original proposal was for 84 units and a 3.8 acre park. He advised that after considerable discussion on how to configure the park land, the homeowners sug- gested a 78 unit project with 3.9 acres of park land. He stated the real advantage is the opening up at the corner of Bernal and Tawny, making it wider and possibly more usable. He stated that what Council is really being presented with is a option to in- vest $6,000 per s~. ft. for a very small additional section to the park, which he frankly did not see as a good use of City funds. He stated Council has three options regarding the application: approve the project as originally submitted with 8~ units and a 3.8 acre park; deny the project because of dlssatlsfaetlon with the park; or approve spending additional money for a small increase in park land. Councilmember Butler stated that as a member of the committee he could not support raising the price of park land by $120,000 for such a small usable land increase. Councilmember Brandes stated he was unable to meet with the homeowners, but had attended several Park and Recreation Commission meetings at which time this park was discussed. He stated he shares Councilmember Butler's feelings regarding this matter~ He advised he supports the park being opened up at the corner but is concerned about spending $120,000 for such a small additional amount of park land. Discussion ensued with Mr. Dunkley relative to possible compromise for number of units in the project and size of the park land. 5. 1/22/85