CCMIN011480 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Fairfield stated he felt the high pressure water system should also be considered as a Missing Link as the system there now ultimately would not be sufficient to serve the proposed shopping center and future development in the southerly hill area. 79-3 Wilson, PUD ,7~7.4 Mr. Ted Fairfield, Consulting Civil Engineer representing DeWitt Wilson, stated this project was doomed from final completion as the remaining uncompleted lots would r~=~ver score high enough under RAP to receive the necessary permits. He urged Council to recognize that a project started must be finished and to allow the necessary 6 permits to.complete th'is project. He stated he felt it would be unfair not to allow the developer to complete his development. 79-4 Stoneson Developments, S.to~erid.~e Condominiums Mr. Ted Fairfield, Consulting Civil Engineer representing Stoneson Development Corporation, presented an exhibit showing the p~oposed development. He stated that Stoneson Development Corporation had built Stoneridge Drive in their first phase development. He stated that now Stoneridge Drive is to be upgraded in connection ~ith the Stoneridge Shopping Center and that this improvement would cost the developer approximately $250,000. Mr. Fairfield stated he felt consideration and points should be a!loweci for this type of improvement, if not on this project, then for the 95 acre area nort~ ef Stoneridge Drive. Mr. Fairfield stated he felt Stoneson was also short- changed on De.~ign Features and Environmental Issues. 79-5 Northwood Home~0akhill Mr. Ron Harrison, represenzing Northwood Homes, presented a site plan showing this proposed development. He stated he felt that Design should receive 10 points instead of 9, that Aster Court should be considered as "In-fill", and that additional points should be allocated for the completion of Muirwood Drive. Mr. Brown stated it was not clear if residents of this proposed project would be required to participate in the cabana club. Mr. Harrison advised that it was not mandatory. 79-6 Crocker Homes, Parkside Mr. Harvey Kameny, representing Crocker Homes, stated he felt this project should receive additional points for Design, Traffic Circulation, and Environmental Considera- tions. He reviewed the layout of the project, the street pattern and pedestrian/bike traii system, as well as environmental considerations which he felt merited additional credit. He stated the proposed road would serve the Sports Park as well as the develop- ment and he felt the $53,000 cost differential for the oversized street should receive consideration under In-kind Services, because it would be of more benefit to the City than to the project itself. He also requested that phasing be allowed on this project because of economic reasons. Mr. Peter Turner, Attorney representing Mr. T. K. Mcb~nus, requested that phasing be allowed on this project. He felt points should be given for the proposed tennis courts and that over improvements be considered under Environmental Considerations and Missing Linkages. Mr. Chuck Weagel, Pleasanton Valley resident, spoke in favor of this project, stating that the traffic problem at the Sports Park was getting worse all'the time and this project will benefit the area and relieve the traffic problems. 79-8 Morrispn.~ Black Avenue Condominiums Mr. Bob Miller, representing Morrison Homes, stated he felt extra points should be allocated for this project in the following categories: (1) Design should receive 12 points instead of 10 points, with 1 additional point for Architecture and 1 addi- tional point for Special Features; (2) Traffic Circulation should receive 9 points 2. 1/14/80