CCMIN120396 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pico indicated his preference to have a 32 foot street so that if necessary in the future, parking could be allowed on both sides of the street. Mr. Tarver referred to parking concerns in the Verona development. He was concerned that the garages be kept clear for parking in this development and felt there could be parking problems if people do not use their garages for their cars. He asked what the City can do if there is a parking problem and the conditions to keep the garage clear are in the CC&Rs but not in the conditions of approval. Mr. Swift stated the City generally does not enforce CC&Rs, however it can make a requirement that garages be made available for parking. In some instances the City can enforce the CC&Rs. However, there is significan~y more parking in this project than in the Verona project. Mayor Tarvet declared the public hearing open. Douglas Krah, 3825 Hopyard Road, Suite 195, representing Standard Pacific, felt this was a superior project to the previously approved townhomes and would be more readily accepted in the market place. He agreed with the staff report recommendations and urged Council to approve the project. Ms. Michelotti asked about some decorative pavers in the court areas. Mr. Krah indicated he had visited 20-25 of these types of project, took pictures, walked through them and talked to people who live in them, and reached the conclusion that the simpler, the cleaner, the better for long term maintenance. The designers want to draw the eye to architecture and landscaping, not paving. Mr. Pico asked if each of the floor plans had a front porch. Mr. Krah said they did. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Dennis referred to the newly adopted General Plan and the desire to have medium density property developed at the mid-range. This single family residential will be nearly eleven units to the acre and is not a typical single family layout. She reviewed the prior townhome proposal and noticed that some elements were omitted in the new proposal, which is basically the same density and same number of residents. The dressing rooms at the pool area, two tot lots, interior common areas for social gatherings, etc. have been eliminated. She was concerned that people are still living in a townhome setting. She wondered what the residents' expectations and needs will be. The fact that this is across from a park and school with open space would .... nicely counterbalance a townhome project. She preferred keeping the original proposal because of the amenities, common space, and the ability to walk in the interior of the project. She asked 8 12/03/96