PC 091510 - Laserfiche WebLink

He stated that what he envisions is to build the models and then get buyers into consignment, contingent upon construction loans. He added that this would minimize their risks. Chair Olson commented that reducing the speculative nature of the project is really smart because it is difficult to obtain loans from banks at this time. Commissioner O’Connor referred back to trees and stated that he was not asking for more trees to be planted but wanted to make sure that whatever is put along the streetscape will grow a little taller over time. He acknowledged, however, that the developer is constrained by the City’s requirements for Stanley Boulevard. Michael Palza, project architect, stated that during the work session in 2008, the 70-percent FAR presented by staff was incorrect and that they believe most of the Commissioners’ comments were based on this percentage. He referred to page 18 of the staff report and stated that at that time, one Commissioner suggested that a study be conducted regarding other developments in the area and compare densities and FAR’s. He noted that the City did the comparison and indicated that they are at 54-percent average FAR, which is considerably less than 70 percent. He further noted that the new homes built in the area, with the exception of one, are all above 75 percent, 65 percent, and 97 percent. Emilie Cruzan voiced her objection to the development, stating that she is concerned about the density. She pointed out that at 54 percent, the project’s FAR is greater than the townhome complex in which she lives, which is 44 percent. She inquired if there would be a condition addressing residents being required to park in their garages because she noted that neighbors are already impacted by parking and that after the modernization on Stanley Boulevard, parking will only be allowed on north side of the street and none on the south side. Ms. Cruzan expressed concern about the type of housing proposed. She stated that she feels there is a need for more affordable housing, and the proposed development is for single-family homes which are among the more expensive types of housing. She suggested developments featuring smaller, affordable homes for younger families and seniors due to the proximity to the Downtown. She added that home prices in the $700,000’s are steep for even moderate incomes and requested that more affordable housing be built in the neighborhood. Ms. Cruzan objected to the cutting down of almost all but two of the heritage trees. She acknowledged that the developer will pay $60,000 to replace the trees, but it appeared to her that the trees will be planted elsewhere in the City and inquired whether this was a fair trade for the neighborhood. She added that it will also take a long time for trees to grow back to the size they are now. She disagreed that the existing trees are ugly, noting the existing habitat in the area, and asked that the number of housing units be decreased to save a few more heritage trees. She noted that trees provide more than just aesthetics; they also preserve neighborhoods, filter out particulate matter created PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 15, 2010 Page 14 of 23