CCMIN120396 - Laserfiche WebLink

if the applicant were willing to make changes and to put back some of the amenities that were removed. People are still living close together; they are just not sharing a common wall. Ms. Ayala visited the Avila project and talked to various potential buyers. These people wanted private yards in the back and preferred this design over townhomes. She also talked to people who live in the first phase of this project and they were very supportive of this modification over the original proposal. Mr. Tarver shared the concerns of Ms. Dennis in terms of the loss of amenities. He agreed that people like private yards and want a single family home, however these are small yards and may not meet the expectations many people have for a single family home. At the same time, he liked the porches and the layout of the houses. It is a difficult decision. He wondered if the applicant could redesign the project to add some of the amenities that had been removed. He does not like to see PUD's modified because of marketing. Certain commitments are made to those residents who come to the Council meetings when a plan is approved and he does not like to see changes made. He hoped Phase III will not be modified. Ms. Michelotti also believed people prefer single family homes. The thing she likes about this project is its minimal fencing. However, she prefers some type of design with pavers or variegated concrete to make the courts more attractive. She would consider a narrower street if some additional landscaping were providing or the front yards are enlarged. She believed the developer had a good plan, although she was not opposed to the townhouse concept. People really prefer their privacy. Mr. Pico appreciated the concerns of some of the Council. He wanted the recreation area expanded to provide more of a clubhouse environment, however that could entail the loss of three units. He wanted flexibility to expand the amenities. These backyards are small and the parents may want their children to stay within the neighborhood rather than go down to the Aquatic Center. The project needs to be more livable, although he does appreciate the design concept, the front porches and the garages not facing the street. We are close to finding a solution and suggested a continuance be granted to allow some discussion with staff regarding design changes. Ms. Dennis agreed with a continuance. She felt there will be a lot of children in this project due to its proximity to the school and urged the developer to work on the plan. Mr. Krah asked for guidance from Council on what changes it wanted, for instance an additional recreation center. He thought he heard Mr. Pico suggest a larger recreation center and for clarification indicated the proposed recreation center is about as big as the area previously proposed; it is just in one place instead of spread out. He indicated he would be willing to work with staff and Council to add additional recreation facilities, even if it meant losing a few units. With regard to street widths, he preferred 28 feet. The cost is about the same whether it is 28 or 32 feet. This project has 50% more parking than the curren~y approved townhome project. 9 12/03/96