Laserfiche WebLink
Decatur City Plan Commission <br /> January 2 , 1992 <br /> Page Three <br /> Mr. Mark Wolfer was present and spoke for the petition <br /> stating that changes suggested by City Planning had altered <br /> his petition the month prior. Mr. Wolfer distributed a <br /> hand-out regarding the proposed condominium project. He <br /> noted that there is a requirement of 9 , 000 square feet of <br /> land per residential unit which will be exceeded by 4 , 000 <br /> square feet. The entrance and exit will be located on South <br /> Lost Bridge Road. Traffic counts have been checked and <br /> compared to the Lake Shore Drive Condominiums which have <br /> five times the traffic. Mr. Wolfer stated that there is <br /> currently no control of the storm water. If the lot is <br /> developed, the storm water detention will discharge the <br /> water at a controlled rate. The units would be sold at a <br /> cost of $135, 000 each and Mr. Wolfer noted that two units � <br /> would be sold before the ground breaking. <br /> Mr. May questioned if the entrance is on South Lost Bridge <br /> Road. Mr. Wolfer stated that is correct. <br /> Mr. May questioned what had been omitted from the first <br /> petition. Mr. Wolfer stated that one 2-story unit had been <br /> omitted from the petition. <br /> Mr. Hunt questioned the proposal for landscaping. Mr. <br /> Wolfer stated that the lot will be landscaped and referred <br /> to the plan depicting the plantings. City Planning will <br /> have final review of the landscaping proposal. <br /> There were objectors present: <br /> Mr. Jim Shafter, Attorney, was present and spoke against the <br /> petition representing a group of area residents who had <br /> filed a petition in opposition to Mr. Wolfer's proposal. <br /> The petition in objection had been presented to the <br /> commission in December. Mr. Shafter stated that the <br /> omission of one unit and moving the location of access is <br /> not enough difference to reconsider the petition. The area <br /> residents do not believe that the multi-family development <br /> to the north (Timber Cove) is part of the subject <br /> neighborhood. Mr. Shafter stated that there is no assurance <br /> that the units will remain as condominiums and could be <br /> rented. <br /> Mr. Kaptain questioned if Mr. Shafter had seen the � <br /> subdivision covenant. Mr. Shafter stated that he does not <br /> dispute the covenant although it was written in the 1940's. <br /> He stated that the subject lot was not intended for a <br /> business use. <br />