PC 052108 Special Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Fox noted that it appeared to her that there were no sidewalks since this was a private road. She inquired about the width of the proposed private road versus the width of a normal public street. Ms. Decker replied that a normal street with one side available for parking would be 28 feet and that typically, most developments were 32 to 36 feet in width. The applicant proposed a width of 20 feet, which was the same dimension used for EVAs; this road had no sidewalks and potentially would have a curb. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Dave DiDonato, applicant, noted that he had created responses to the staff report and added that there were some inconsistencies that were lost in the translation. He distributed those responses and believed that the information would clarify some of the confusion. He noted that his architect and landscape architect would address the technical questions and that he would address the questions of density. He noted that the initial staff comments, dated November 9, 2007, indicated that the densities of the 14-unit development were consistent with the land use designations. At that time, staff asked whether the applicant would be able to increase the densities for the site, which he took under consideration. He noted that after review, he returned with his findings and had determined that it was not feasible for this site for economic and environmental reasons, including the additional cost and liability associated with multifamily attached housing. He stated that he felt the 14-unit layout with the mixture of the existing greenery, the houses, and the layout created a good blend of ahigh-density site in that area. He noted that he believed that to go any higher would require more concrete, congestion, and roofs; those were the reasons they proceeded with this prof ect. He noted that there was some conversation about setbacks and the heights of buildings and that the document he distributed should clarify some of those concerns. Terry Camp, Camp + Camp Associates, Landscape Architect, complimented staff on being extremely helpful. He added that he had along-term relationship with Mike Fulford, City Landscape Architect, who had been very helpful in identifying the streetscape on an otherwise nondescript street tree theme. He displayed a PowerPoint presentation and noted that they were able to attempt to unify the streetscape. He added they had received the improvement section for the right-of--way from George Farrell of the Engineering Department so they could see how they would interface with the public right-of--way, and how the private access drive has its own character. He noted that Commissioner Fox was correct in that his site plan was different. He noted that there were some descriptions of the fire apparatus turnaround on the slide, which was the defining criterion for the amount of space. He noted that they pierced the perimeter of the turnaround with the planting islands and described a grass ring product within the island. He noted that it was built similar to turf stone, built on a road base that was built on a fiberglass mat, backfilled with soil, and had a compressive strength to handle the 40,000-pound apparatus. He noted that the cities and Fire Departments buy off on this material, which enables them to get away from athree-point turn quasi-cul-de-sac design just for the purpose of the apparatus. He added that it would also enable them to get more greenery. Mr. Camp noted that they included private courtyard entries with three different examples of Mediterranean motifs in the vernacular of the architectural characters and materials, including a flagstone, a pattern tile, and an impressed concrete product. He stated that a visitor into the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 4 of 26