3A Public Hearing 2006 0905 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerptfrom the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Agenda No. 06-12 June 22, 2006 Page 2 of7 . The arbor structure spanning the central driveway has been strengthened. Several perspective views were provided to illustrate the arbor's appearance. The arbor has stucco columns with a 24x24 base, 6x6 posts, and 6x 12, 4x 1 0 and 4x6 beams overlaid upon each other in the arch, which produces a heavy timbered appearance with a nice shadow pattem · The front elevations of the residences have been markedly enhanced with a full shed roof element that introduces an attractive variety of roof lines. Planner Penaranda said that staff believes the quality of the project is strengthened by the proposed revisions. He said staff continues to support a Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council for approval of the rezone, the planned development and the vesting tentative map. He offered to answer questions from commissioners. Chair Kleebauer, hearing no questions from commissioners for Planner Penaranda, invited Applicant Langon to step forward. Applicant Langon presented a massing study with an alley view that had been requested at the last meeting by residents of the Garden Terrace Condominium Project. He said the massing study shows the proximity of the existing Garden Terrace project and the proposed project. He said that, at the last meeting, he had misstated the actual distance between the two buildings. He said there is a ten-foot setback to the property line for the proposed project and a twelve-feet setback to the property line for the Garden Terrace project for a combined total of 22 feet between the two buildings, which, he noted, is four feet less than the width of the interior Garden Terrace courtyard. The Applicant presented another view of the massing of the proposed project next to the Garden Terrace project that depicts the actual height and scale of the two projects. The Applicant addressed previously-stated concerns about insufficient community outreach. He said he had met with some of the neighbors of the Garden Terrace earlier this week, to discuss and evaluate features of a site plan that had been proposed by Mr. Williams at the last meeting. He said Mr. Williams' Plan proposes the location of four out of the six total units onto the north side of the property with a five-foot setback at the rear of the property, with relocated visitor parking spaces and a setback of five feet from the sidewalk. He said he had subsequently met with his architect who had advised that the new placement of the units would make it almost impossible to get the width needed for garage doors and an entry door. He said that the setbacks of five feet to the interior property line and five feet on the sidewalk to Hays are not deemed sufficient and that there also would be insufficient room to back cars out of garages. He said that the ideas proposed by the Williams plan could not be incorporated into the project. The Applicant said the alleyway massing study illustrates that substantial open space is already being provided between the projects. He said the project as proposed is under- zoning what the current zoning would allow. He noted that the existing zoning would allow the creation of a six-foot setback that would move the building four feet closer to Garden Terrace, with a total of just 16 feet between buildings, and, with a 50-foot height limit, it would be possible, for the applicant to create a building that would exceed the