Laserfiche WebLink
206 <br /> <br /> Ms. Buxton displayed another exhibit showing how the homes <br /> have been re-configured to provide larger setbacks away from ' <br /> Stoneridge Drive. She added that the one-story commercial <br /> buildings across the street are ten feet from the back of the <br /> sidewalk, while Bren has gone back 16 feet behind the bus stop, <br /> and the rest of the yard has a substantial setback. At the <br /> corner, the distance from the edge of the sidewalk to the property <br /> line is 40 feet. Landscaping has also been considered throughout <br /> the whole project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that the concerns raised at the last <br /> meeting were legitimate, and the improvements that have been made <br /> in the corner area are significant. He added that this is a good <br /> project and meets the parameters of high density. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr commented that there were six points where she felt <br /> a one-story roof line would benefit a sense of space and view so <br /> that anyone entering the project would not be met by a 30-foot <br /> wall. She asked Ms. Buxton if she would be willing to include a <br /> minimum of six lots to be limited to one-story models, to be <br /> decided upon by the staff. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Brandes, and seconded by Mr. Mercer to <br /> approve AP-90-2/PUD-89-22, the application of Bren Company for PUD <br /> rezoning and development plan approval for a ll2-unit single- <br /> family residential complex located on a 13.7 acre site at the <br /> northeast corner of Santa Rita Road and Stoneridge Drive, as set <br /> forth in the Staff Report. <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmember Brandes and Mayor Mercer <br /> NOES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr and Tarver <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> The motion failed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler inquired if it would be possible to reduce the <br /> unit size of the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that this is a high-density piece of <br /> property and that merely approving the project would be going the <br /> wrong direction. He commented that when this project was <br /> initially considered, reference was made to the Summerhill Project <br /> across the road on which a condition of donating to the Affordable <br /> Housing Fund was added to compensate for the loss in density. He <br /> said that he would like to add the same condition to this project <br /> since the City will lose the site without getting any <br /> affordability out of the project. <br /> <br /> - 20 - <br /> 4-17-90 <br /> <br /> <br />