PC 081215 - Laserfiche WebLink

the neighbors, first, there was not a dislike of very small residential housing and that is because they do not like the large tent that is there; second, they are concerned about what else could go there and it could be worse; and third, the traffic and water impacts for this project will be equal to or less than what would otherwise happen. Chair Allen stated that she has similar thoughts as everyone about the project and is most closely aligned with Commissioner Nagler. 1. Density. There are too many houses for the small amount of acreage for this project. This is very different than the Ivy Lane project because it is much more visible; the Ivy Lane project is tucked into a little side area, and the only people who really walk most to the homes are the those who live in that area. There is not a four -side design and not the same FAR for the Ivy Lane houses. A FAR comparable to the Classics project of 56 percent is appropriate and more compatible with the other homes in the community. Commissioner O'Connor inquired if that would affect the density. Commissioner Allen replied that it would be a 5,500- square -foot minimum lot and would change the number of homes by probably 3 to 5. 2. Site layout. The bifurcation is not ideal but, given the school, it is what it is. There is not enough green space, however, and 54 trees are being removed. There should be a much more robust landscaping plan that deals with buffering and creating a nice look from Valley Avenue. For the same reason, separated sidewalks add some greenery, puts in some trees that are being removed, and makes it more compatible with the Ironwood development in general. This is a huge, highly visible walking area, and people from the Iron Horse Trail are going to be walking through this area; it needs a top -notch look. 3. Concern for adequate parking overflow for the Gardens. Thirteen to sixteen parking spots that are now being reserved are not adequate. This is a serious issue, and it is not right that the residents cannot have family and friends come over to visit. A solid study should be done that would indicate what is needed before this land is completely built out and gets rid of potential parking. 4. School. Increase in enrollment should not be approved without a traffic analysis and doing that due diligence as part of the standard practice. This is so important, given that the other parking concerns are tight and that historically and most recently, parking problems surface a year or two after a project is completed. 5. Amenity. This is a big issue, especially when land is being rezoned to residential when it is not necessary to do so. This is a much more lucrative land use than what it currently is at, and it is incumbent on the Commission to make sure there is a robust amenity provided for this project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 12, 2015 Page 17 of 34