PC 04/22/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Commissioners Barker, Dove, Kumaran, and Wright -- NOES: None ABSENT: Chair Cooper ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. PC-98-28 was entered and adopted as motioned. c. PUD-91-11-3M, Standard Pacific of Northern California Application for a modification of an approved planned unit development plan to replace 146 cluster single-family detached units with 143 interlocking single-family detached dwellings on a 16.1 acre site on the southeast corner of Stoneridge Drive and Trevor Parkway. Zoning for the property is PUD-LDR (Planned Unit Development-Low Density Residential) District. Mr. Iserson presented the staff report and gave a history of the application. He described the proposed location and site, noting that it is within the Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan azea. Mr. Iserson stated that the subject property was previously approved for a master PUD when owned by Chu and Gahrahmat. At that time, the plan included three separate housing types with a maximum allowance of 390 units. Standard Pacific has since purchased the property, and Village One and Two are currently under construction. The applicant would now like to modify the PUD for Village Three, proposing small lots which are interlocking, instead of the previously approved motor court plan. Mr. Iserson noted that this would be a new housing concept in the area. In addition, he reported that staff accompanied the applicant to southern Califomia to view this type of housing, and photographs aze included in the Commissioners' packets for review. Mr. Iserson gave a description of the interlocking home concept. He stated that the major component of the plan is that there are alternating plan types. He also pointed out that the design would minimize the predominate gazage view often found on small lot developments. He further stated that the houses would be staggered and many of the privacy issues are solved by the resulting staggering window placement. However, staff did identify a privacy issue with Plan 4 in that there is a view from the master bedroom window into the rear yard of the adjacent unit. The applicant has agreed to work with staff to correct that issue, and a condition of approval has be included reflecting that. Mr. Iserson described the proposed parking and stated that the long driveways on two of the plans allow for additional resident and guest parking. He also noted that since the City receives so many complaints relating to on-street parking, staff has included a condition of approval that the CC&R's require residents to use their gazages for parking their vehicles. Staff feels that by having public streets with parking on both sides, the garages, and the long driveways, this development has an abundance of pazking, and staff does not anticipate any pazking problems. When not needed for parking, the long driveways could serve as outdoor open space since the rear of the driveway is accessible from the kitchen. In addition, Mr. Iserson reported that public streets would be provided for the proposed development and would be 32 feet in width, including two travel lanes and parking lanes on each side. There would also be sepazate sidewalks with planting strips on both sides of the street which would enhance the development's street scene. Planning Commission Page 5 Apri122, 1998