PC 052108 Special Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker noted that with respect to the discussion about homeowner associations, there was no real common open space area; the lots were divided to the street frontage, which was the 20-foot access way. She noted that a maintenance agreement would be provided because there was no landscaping or other common area to manage. She noted that a maintenance association would probably be the preferred method for this site, which led to the question of parking and storage in garages. She noted that the Planning Commission and staff have discussed the issue numerous times with developments and that particular requirement was generally placed in CC&R's because the City did not want to act as garage policemen. She noted that was an issue with many developments and that this particular project, like many others, would not be conditioned where the City would be responsible for insuring that garages did not have storage. She noted that would be an instrument or disclosure and that the residents in this particular PUD would be self- managing in terms of storage of materials or ensuring that the garages remained clear to provide parking. With respect to the lack of common open space area, Commissioner Fox inquired if staff would recommend a common open space area as was done in similar types of developments of this size, such as the one on Vineyard Avenue with a tot lot. She noted that some of the statistics provided by the applicant stated that the community park was aten-minute walk. She indicated that she was confused by that as the Dolores Bengtson Aquatic Park was afive-minute walk, which was in the Amador Valley Community Park. She noted that Main Street Green was afive-minute walk but that it did not have a tot lot. She noted that Kottinger Village Community Park maybe more than aten-minute walk. She inquired whether staff ideally would like to see a common open area with a tot lot. Ms. Decker replied that when this prof ect originally came in, staff was concerned that this particular development did not provide any open space area for a common area, even if the units were to be moved together. She noted that they had discussed attaching the units, having duets, and several different alternatives, thinking it would be appropriate to have a common open space area. She noted that the argument for the Silverstone prof ect was that there was a park across the street. Although the Kottinger Park was across the street from Silverstone, the Planning Commission and City Council felt that there should be some open space for the families there, and a very small tot lot was created for the residents on that site. She noted that this prof ect would not be required to have open space on-site because of the proximity of existing parks. She noted that staff requested direction from the Planning Commission for area, particularly with respect to revisiting the site plan in some manner. Commissioner Fox inquired whether the closest tot lot play structure was at Amador Valley Community Park, which was aten-minute walk. Commissioner Narum noted that she had not walked it, but believed it was less than ten minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 12 of 26