1985-12-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Minutes - Plan Commission Page 5 December 18, 1985 Mr. Smith felt that the condition that employee work rules and consultant contracts provide that no part of a public street be used for parking at any time, punishable by dismissal or termination of the contract was unreasonable. He stated that in planning the project he and Mr. Deutsch had done all they could to assure adequate parking for the project, submitted a traffic study and would seek to enforce parking on the site by employees and consultants to the project. After much discussion the commission members agreed to delete this condition. Staff recommendation that a portion of the building that parallels the property at 8636 West Kingsbury be set back at least 40 feet from the west property line was the next subject for discussion. Revised site plans for the project showed a 35 foot setback. On the original site plan the building was not close to the western periphery of the site. Many suggestions were made about how to achieve proper 40 foot setback. Commission members agreed to make this a condition of the project. If the setback indeed proved unfeasible to the developers, they must explain this to the City Council and receive its approval. Given the fact that the developers and Commission members agreed to maintain 230 parking spaces and work diligently on public access to the site from Delmar Boulevard, the recommendation that the kitchen service area and employees parking be relocated to create a different traffic pattern was agreed to be deleted by commission members. Commission members insisted that a detailed landscaping plan be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director and that landscaping be installed and maintained in general conformity to the approved plan. Mr. Goldman also suggested keeping the recommendation that walking paths around the perimeter and outdoor active recreational facilities be provided. Mr. Smith questioned the condition that the cost of all public improvements related to the project be borne by the developer. Mr. Goldman explained to Mr. Smith that this basically included any changes in curb cuts, sewer connections or other common public improvements related to any project. Mr. Smith agreed that this was a given and Commission members agreed to delete this condition. A lengthy discussion ensued concerning the condition that the construction be in general conformity with the appearance shown in the sketch on the cover sheet of the site plan. Some Commission members were under the impression that all the exterior walls of the building would be brick. The developer stated that this was not the case, and after much discussion Commission members agreed that approximately 30 percent of the exterior walls should be brick, some of the exterior walls finished in masonite hardboard siding, the balconies being of cedar and the remainder of the exterior walls of different materials to keep the look of the building interesting.