PC 01/11/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Bates described the project as a transitional property because it is surrounded on three sides by multi-family units and it fronts onto a neighborhood of single-family homes. They proposed a small-lot detached home development with two-story homes on 50x80 lots. The architectural style was specifically designed to complement the architectural characteristics of the existing neighborhood. The applicants so liked the landscaped/canopy effect down Pleasanton Avenue, they proposed to retain the same sidewalk planter area and curb design. Also proposed is front yard landscaping, a park with a tot lot, and a trail connecting the park to the Arroyo trail system. The park and Arroyo acreage to the center line of the Arroyo will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. The houses backing up to the Arroyo will have open metal fencing to preserve the view. In consideration of the increased density, the applicants propose to give public access easement to the park and Arroyo. Mr. Bates advised they agree to the added window articulation on the sides and rears of houses visible to the street. Regarding the applicant predetermining the home colors, they prefer to offer their buyers some choices in house color. Regarding staff's recommendation to increase the size of the garage to 20 x 20, Mr. Bates advised the small lot PUD has some trade-offs and the houses are designed with additional inside storage as well as inside laundry facilities. Increasing the size of the garage would mean loss of square footage inside the home. Regarding staff's recommendation of adding six one-story homes, Mr. Bates stated that the economics of the project preclude them from replacing a plan for six units. The single story unit requires a larger footprint, therefore, they would only fit on the corner lots and would not provide staff's desired effect. Furthermore, staff's request to widen the planter strip on one side of Pleasanton A venue could have an adverse effect by moving houses and lot lines back. This could result in a total change of the proposed plan and a loss of density. The request to open up St. John Street for an EVA access is not contested by the applicants, nor is there a problem with following the guidelines of the horticulturist's tree report. Regarding the density issues, the applicants believe the entire property is zoned PUD-MDR and the density calculation should be 43 units divided by the total 7.6 acres resulting in a density of 5.67 units per acre. This is five units over the capacity which staff's December 21, 1994, memo states would be satisfactory. Section II-5 of the General Plan states all gross developable acres shall include ... "arroyos not owned by a public agency." Mr. Bates referred to the PUD of the Victorian homes on Division Street and the related density calculations, which divided the number of units into the total project acreage. Mr. Bates stated they do not feel the park and trail should be considered a public staging area because that will disrupt the quiet character of the neighborhood. The original proposed winding trail has evolved into a bridge structure. The applicants do not want this project held up waiting for a lengthy Fish and Game Department approval. They propose to have an engineer estimate the bridge construction costs and will set that money aside with the City to Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 11, 1995