CCMIN121879 - Laserfiche WebLink

9 79-04 - Stoneso~} Stoneridge Condos. (1 or 3. year phased pro3ec..t) Mr. Ted Fairfield, representing Stoneson,' stated that the RAP does not recognize what a developer did in previous years on improvements for a phased project and he felt this was unfair because it allowed newer projects with improvements to receive more points than older projects with improvements already installed. He further stated that phased approval was warranted because of the high costs in the first phase - recreation building, pool, lakes - which, without phased approval, meant an uneconomical project or higher prices. He stated he felt credit should be given for Stoneridge Drive. 79-05_.% North~0pd Homes, Tr. 3458 (Oak Hill) (11 unit~ B-2~ or 16 unit project) Mr. Ron Harrison, representing Northwood Homes, stated he felt additional credit should be given on this project for "Design" and "Other Environmental Considerations". He stated that many improvements had been put in last year to receive points and now only 16 units were left. He added that this project was tied for last on the present list and could not get higher points unless consideration was given for those things previously done. 79-06 - Crocker Homest Parkside (McManus site) (1 or 3 year phased project.) Mr. Peter Turner, representing Mr. McManus, stated he was concerned about im- provements being installed in one year and not allowed points in subsequent years for them. Mr..Turner discussed in-kind services that were a condition for approval of this project which he stated would be of benefit to the entire City, which he felt should receive special recognition, such as tennis courts and a wider entrance roadway into the project. He noted that if not phased, later applications would not have available some of the point features gained in the first phase. He hinted that if plans have changed since the site's rezoning, the conditions of the rezoning may not have to be met. In summary, he urged the Council to fairly look at what each project, in its entirety, was doing for the City and make the determination based on that. Mr. Harvey Kameny, representing Crocker Homes, reviewed the conditions to the project approval regarding signalization and widening of the road, and stated he felt these improvements should be considered in-kind services. He stated he felt special consideration should be given to proximity of the project to the Central Business District and the Freeway, as discussed at a previous Council meeting. Mr. Kameny stated he felt extra points should also be allowed for design as this project has many special features that should be taken into consideration, such as varied types of housing, heavy landscaping, road into park with 20 ft. buffer, trees on park road, wood poles with carriage lights, cul-de-sacs opening onto arroyo, and other extra features which should increase points for environmental concerns as well as design features. 79-07 - Vintage Htlls~ Ltd..(Vintage Hills Commons) (1 or 2 year phased project) 79-12 - Vintage ~ills~ ~td...~. Tr. 3187 (.Fairland.s Dr...) Mr. Doyle Heaton, representing Amador Associates, Ltd., who recently purchased the Vintage Hills Shopping Center and the remaining property of H. C. Elliott, stated he felt more consideration should be given to design and total links and dedications, especially the widening of Tawny Road. 79.-08 - Morrison~ Black Avenue Condos. 79-09 - Morrison, .TF. 334.4 (Herita~.eValley) (30 unit, B-2 .~roJect) 79-09 - Morrison, Tr. 3344 (Heritage Valley) (4Q unit project) Mr. Bob Miller, representing Morrison Homes, stated he would respond to their concerns by letter this week. 3. 12/18/79