1998-02-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 25, 1998 Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 will do what it takes to make people happy. David Freedman, 8644 Barby, stated that this is an area suited for this improvement and the comprehensive plan encourages this High Density Residential addition. Lana Weinbach, 8720 West Kingsbury stated she does not think the spa is just for the residents of the apartments. She wants to know what the increased tax revenue from the addition will be as compared to the tax revenue being received from the homes to be demolished. She suggested putting off the decision on this matter for another month. Tom Reily, 8651 Barby stated that he is concerned with the increased number of emergency vehicles that will be coming into the area due to the increase in the number of residents. Hal Stuhl, 3 Loren Woods inquired about the procedure for the application. No other members of the public wished to speak and the Chairperson closed the public hearing. Ms. Glassman asked Mr. Hill to clarify the parking requirements. He stated that there will 53 apartments requiring 2 spaces each with 7 additional spaces required for visitors. However, that amount is reduced to .75 spaces per unit because of the exception for apartments for the elderly. The requirement is reduced to 40 spaces as long as there is space set aside to build the required parking if the apartments are converted regular apartments. 114 spaces will be provided under the plan which exceeds the requirements by 74 spaces and provides rather than sets aside the additional spaces. Ms. Glassman asked Mr. Deutsch what retail/services will be located in the addition. Mr. Deutsch replied that the beauty shop, part of the fitness center, the reception area and three administrative offices will be located there. Mr. Deutsch stated that you must have relative living in the apartments to use the fitness center. Some affinity groups with resident sponsors hold meetings at the facility. That is less that 1% or 2% of the entire restaurant business. It is all used for the residents. Mr. Solodar stated that the letter to Mr. Freedman and a requirement for shaded lighting should be added to the conditions. He stated he was concerned with the south setback being located at 25 feet. Mr. Baron objected to the wording “full project” in the staff’s recommendation for condition #1. He stated that the staff’s proposed conditions #4 should be deleted because there is more than enough parking provided and the applicants do not have control over where individuals park. He stated proposed #10 should be deleted because the conditions for those projects are not relevant to this project. The Commission determined that a traffic study should be added to the conditions, the south setback should be studied, a construction parking plan should be provided, a condition should be added concerning interim parking for the facility during construction and the condition concerning exhaust should be for the common facilities. The Plan Commission determined that the evidence presented to the Plan Commission supports the conclusion that the proposed conditional use: a) complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Code; b) at the specific location will contribute to and promote the community welfare or wpoffice\wpdata\m-2-25.plc