Laserfiche WebLink
-Will the unit types and amenities remain similar to what is being proposed? Mr. Land stated <br />that they are still considering the unit mix but anticipate mostly one-bedroom units with some <br />two-bedroom units. He added that new amenities would include covered parkingand <br />updated common and outdoor areas. <br />-Is there an age restriction? Mr. Lang stated that all units, including the proposed market-rate <br />units, are restricted to seniorsof age 62 and above. <br />Ms. Riganti stated that staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the Final <br />Development Plan with conditions. She stated that the height, massing, and use are <br />appropriate, whilestaff has concerns regarding the buffering and screening along the north <br />property limits. A larger buffer than proposed is required between zoning districts but this <br />issue can be reconciled. She further stated that a variance would not be approved because <br />there is no topographical hardship presented by the site, and from a land use perspective there <br />is no hardship endured by relocating residents to render a variance. <br />-If the property to the north is redeveloped in the future, is there an opportunity to recommend <br />larger buffering on that property? Ms. Riganti stated that while this is a possibility, the <br />property ownerto the north may also request a decreased buffer like Crown Center and that <br />this redevelopment should not bind the future development potential of the north property. <br />She further stated that the ordinance requires a 30-foot bufferin this instance; however, the <br />“PD” District zoning classification could havesome allowance through recommendation by <br />the Plan Commissionto City Council for final determination. <br />-The Commission determined that since the property boundary of the subject is the southern <br />edge ofthe service drive to the north, and since the ground level will be parking, there would <br />not be a lack of privacy although they recommendedconifer type trees in company of <br />deciduous trees to provide a thick green visual buffer. <br />-Commission members discussed the quality of life for the residents in this proposed building, <br />and that any screening on the ground level would only affectthe parking space and service <br />drive. <br />-Some Commission members were concerned with safety in relation to the practicality of <br />construction. Mr. Cooper explained that the means and methods of construction is not in <br />their firm’s scope for this proposal although they have spoken to some construction managers <br />that approved a tighter workspace of 10 feet. <br />-Why is the proposed building to the west so far back? Mr. Cooper stated that this was to <br />maximize the efficiency of the proposed parking and residential spaces. A central court <br />space will be created while the existing amount of parking will be maintained. <br />The Commission asked for staff’s recommendation. Ms. Riganti briefly restated staff’s <br />opinion and concerns with the proposal and invited Mr. Cooper to explain their decision on <br />this orientation of the site plan.Mr. Cooper stated that moving the west building to the south <br />would result in the loss of a few parking spaces, re-orientingthe buildings into a “T” shape as <br />opposed to the proposed “L” shape, and that this proposed orientation was most efficient. <br />The close proximity to the Weinberg building and resulting sightlines were also less <br />desirable. <br />Page 7 of 11 <br /> <br />