PC 10/25/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

of tree such as a Coastal Redwood. Mr. Goldsworthy stated that past experience indicates the Coastal Redwood would not work in this project because of their large spread. They have not yet discussed this with a landscape architect and advised that a landscape plan would have to be designed and reviewed by staff. Mr. Goldsworthy does not particularly like cypress trees and will most likely substitute another tree. Commissioner Barker stated she likes very much the first project and asked if the project went through a design review. She feels the first project has more attractive design treatments than the current project. Mr. Goldsworthy advised that the design architecture emulated the surrounding Victorian neighborhood, whereas the current project is designed to fit the existing architecture on Stanley Blvd. Commissioner McGuirk inquired about the parking lot lighting. Mr. Goldsworthy advised that the illumination planned is considered low directional walkway lighting, not more than eight feet high. Moreover, the walkways would also be lighted by the apartment porch lights. Commissioner McGuirk asked for Mr. Goldsworthy's rationale for not providing covered parking for senior citizens who could benefit from such an amenity. Mr. Goldsworthy stated his reasons were the cost and detracting appearance. Further, the walkways will not be covered, so covered parking will not be very beneficial. Larry Plisskin, 275 Rose Avenue, #216, is the manager of the Division Street project and will be the manager of the proposed project, as well. He advised that he currently has 55 names on a waiting list. Most residents and the people on the waiting list are single persons. He feels there is a great demand for this type of housing. In response to Commissioner Barker, Mr. Plisskin stated the rents range from $450 up to $700 per unit. The overall rent has not been raised in two years. Commissioner McGuirk asked Mr. Plisskin his opinion on how the noise of the train/whistle will affect the senior citizens. Mr. Plisskin does not believe the seniors will have difficulty with the noise. Gregg Buckley, 420 Division Street, initially opposed the Division Street project based on the high density, traffic concerns, parking. He now states his concerns were not valid and feels the project is very nice and is an asset to the neighborhood. Regarding the train noise, after living with it for a period of time, one becomes accustomed to it such that it is not noticeable any longer. Ray Oestreich, 443 Division Street, #23, spoke in favor of the current application. He stated the residents at the Division Street project are not bothered by the train noise. He likes his apartment and is in favor of more being built like it. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 October 25, 1995