|
Making your neighborhood a better place to live |
|
You need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this document |
|
October 20, 2005 Notes from meeting with developer
1. Romero said that the City does NOT recognize our Homeowners Association????
2. There are presently planned 67 structures, 4-plex or 268 units. Structures will be sold individually for between $450,000 and $480,000. Rent for individual units will be about $1050 to $1150 for a 3-bedroom unit and $850 to $950 for 2-bedroom units.
3. It will be a gated community. Access for residents and guests only. Surrounded by a security fence. Main entrance in the center of the development and a second exit only near the arroyo.
4. There is presently planned a 15 foot set back from our existing wall. Sounded like they would be willing to try to increase that distance if at all possible.
5. There will be one management company for the entire development and it will be located onsite. Asked if the company will have eviction authority or if that will rest with the absentee owners. Told that they could include that authority as part of the deed.
6. There will be a homeowners association for the development. Asked if representatives from adjacent HOA's might participate in the association meetings as non-voting members. Did not get a definitive answer, but believed they will consider this.
7. Participants at the meeting, those not firmly opposed to any apartments, made the following suggestions for reducing the impact on the homes immediately adjacent to the development: a. Single story along our wall. This was a non-starter with the developer. Stated that the project would not be economically feasible if they lost 20 some odd units by limiting the apartments along the wall to single story. b. Widen the buffer to more than the required 15 feet. Developer seemed willing to consider doing this. c. Raise the existing wall to the maximum city allowed height of 8 feet. This would screen at least the first floor of the apartments. Developer seemed agreeable to this. I noted that the existing wall would probably have to be torn down to raise the wall to 8 foot as I doubted that it was structurally capable of being raised that high. d. Discussed screening of apartments using trees. Suggestion that the trees be tall enough to screen the second floor of the apartments -- about 20 feet. I mentioned that both deciduous and coniferous trees be used so that there would still be some screening in the winter.
8. Increased pressure on the already over crowed schools from the apartments was noted.
9. Developer mentioned that someone else was currently planning to develop the west side on Golf Course across from this development - apartments would go in there also.
10. Developer would have to provide the city funds to complete 1/2 [one lane] of Westside between Golf Course and the end of Westside currently.
11. Vocal anti-development couple were collecting names and contact info on everyone who opposed the development. They also said that they had spoken with our Councilor and that he would be introducing legislation of prevent apartments from being built on land zoned C-2 as this land is zoned.
12. Developer will file paperwork in middle of December, which would put them on the agenda for the January hearing. I believe he stated the January meeting would be the third Wednesday of the month, but I would have to double check this. Assuming the initiative passed the hearing, it would then proceed along to the Environmental Planning Commission.
13. It should be mentioned that the developer did take some of our suggestions into consideration from the previous meeting. In the previous meeting, our members mentioned they would be strongly opposed to a second story balcony that could look directly into their backyards. The developer took this into consideration, slightly changed the floor plan, and made the units along the Association border without rear balconies. Those units would instead have front balconies which would face westward.
14. The developer also made a change to the appearance of the units. The previous sketches looked fairly cookie-cutter and somewhat cheap. The newer drafted versions added decorative stone on parts of the exterior along with better coloring. I spoke with the developer after the meeting and he explained the units will not all be exactly the same color and there will be a nice variations of the colors throughout the complex. He also said the new design was what he called a "mansion" style and was made to look more like a single house.
|
|
Here is an idea that may be proposed at the annual meeting |
