Laserfiche WebLink
-Wouldkeeping the eight-story Weinberg building negatethe logic of the proposed new five- <br />story building?Mr. Cooper stated that they wished to transition to a newer, more <br />contemporary development and that the second tower is still in compliance and would notbe <br />demolished for many years. <br />-The Commission stated that the site design and cost of relocating residents are the present <br />issues, especially regarding the tension on the proposed ten-foot setback to the north. Ms. <br />Riganti stated that these issues are why this development was presented to the Plan <br />Commission, as but for the yellow portion of the site plan (indicating existing buildings on <br />the site) there would be no issue to accommodate the proposed building within the required <br />setbacks. <br />-Why can’t the building in phase II be constructed first and moved south of its current <br />position? Mr. Lang stated that relocating 125 residents would be a significant expense and <br />they were concerned that residents and other users of their services would no longer feel <br />connected to the Crown Center community. <br />-Some Commission members questioned the number of residents to be relocated as a result of <br />the proposed buildings.Mr. Cooper stated that the numbers would differ depending on if the <br />Tallin building was emptied during construction. <br />-Is it possible for the displaced residents to return upon completion? Ms. Goldstein stated that <br />she appreciated the Commission’s attention to the aesthetic aspects of the proposed buildings <br />but noted that the bigger concern is relocating seniors. She stated that the amenities such as a <br />new stove for example and overall newer unit finishes would increase the quality of life for <br />the seniors. <br />Public Comment -None <br />A motion was made by Ms. Williamsto recommend approval ofan additional condition to <br />staff’s recommendationthat staff seek a landscaping plan that provides a visual screen from <br />the service drive to the north that is to include a combination of evergreen and deciduous <br />trees.The motion was seconded by Mr. Millerand carried unanimously. <br />A motion was made by Mr. Ruben to recommend approval of the proposed Final <br />Development PlanAmendment including the additional condition of a landscape plan as <br />stated. The motion was seconded by Ms. Head and carried unanimously. The <br />recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for a public hearing and consideration of <br />final approval. <br />6.e.Major Subdivision –Preliminary Plat -PC 17-08–Proposed subdivision of a 0.518 <br />acre tract of land into five lots in the “MR” Medium Density Residential District for <br />attached single-family and townhouse dwellings–Magnolia Townhomes, LLC –7634 <br />Delmar Boulevard and 565 N Central Avenue <br />Mr. Laiexplained the proposal and showed slides of the site and its surrounding properties. <br />The proposalwas for the subdivision ofa 0.518 acre tract of land into five lots in the “MR” <br />Medium Density Residential District for attached single-family and townhouse dwellings. <br />The proposed subdivisionwould allow for each of the five dwellings onindividual lots.Mr. <br />Lai also noted that a recent text amendment approved by City Council allows for this typeof <br />Page 8 of 11 <br /> <br />