|
187 Public Comment
<br />188 Mr. Paschke noted the re'ce'iipt bar. hand de'l�iive'ry of written comments dated June 15, 2011 from
<br />189 Attorney Robert J. Haje'k, wiffi the firrn of Haje'k & Be�au�cl�aiire', LLC, Attorney of re'cord for XTRA
<br />190 Lease', Inc., own�e'r of the parcel located at 2700 Cle've'land Avenue N (PICA #04-29-23,-3,3,-002) we're
<br />191 re'ce'ilve'd in opposiItilon�; and attached hereto and made a part hereof.
<br />192 Mr. Paschke the reference in Mr. Hajek; s le'tte'r (second paragraph t® "Lifestyle Ce'nte'r" type
<br />193, zone itn was not appl�itcabl�e', as the Cilty was not cre'atitn design standards of zone itn designation for
<br />194 th�iis type of ulse'. Howe've'r, Mr. Paschke wanted to get iin�to t the official record thl at the' y were in
<br />195 opposition to the proposed Re' guIl�atiln Map and Plea.
<br />196, Me'mbe'r Wozn�iiak asked Mr. Lamb to identify th�e'iir parcel on the diispl�aye'd m�ap, l�ocate'd on Twiin
<br />197 Lakes Parkway between Cle've'land Avenue and Mou�n t Ridge Road.
<br />198 Mr. Paschke cl�ariifiie'd thl at the parcel was where the hotel proposed several years ago h�ad been
<br />199 pl�an�n�e'd.
<br />200
<br />Mr. Paschke adviise'd that Mr. Lamb and Ciity staff h�ad met wiffi sortie of the prope'rty own�e'rs
<br />201
<br />immediately priior to ton ii gh�t"s mme'e'tiin to provide thern wiffi proposed re'viisiion s to the Plan and to
<br />202
<br />receive th�e'iir feedback on the more re'laxe'd design standards since the open h�oulse'. Mr. Paschke
<br />203,
<br />advilse'd that there rernained sortie opposition even wiffi re'vilsilon�s; progress was be'iIn made in
<br />204
<br />addre'ssiIni g those con�ce'rn s. Mr. Paschke advilse'd that sortie additional th�iln s couIl�d be modified.
<br />205
<br />Howe've'r, in mme'e'tiin wiffi the representative for the PIK prope'rty on Twin Lakes Parkway between
<br />206,
<br />Mou�n t Ridge Road uIp to Cou t�ty Road C (norffi to sou�th , in the Gre'e'n�way Frontage de'sii gn�ate'd
<br />207
<br />area (norffi siide' ), there rernained very prescriptive buliil�diin place'me'nt for those parce'l�s, to whi&
<br />208
<br />the prope'rty own�e'r obje'cte'd based on l�iimmiitatiion s to whet cou�l�d actulal�l r be de've'l�ope'd on that siite'.
<br />209
<br />While not opposed to all requirements, Mr. Paschke adviise'd that the prope'rty own�e'r was opposed
<br />210
<br />to whet was proposed there and the required widffi of the gre'e'n�way itself; and has asked for fuIrth e'r
<br />211
<br />con�silde'ratilon�. Mr. Paschke advilse'd that staff wouIl�d continue to work wiffi the prope'rty own�e'r on a
<br />212
<br />re'sol�ultilon�.
<br />213,
<br />Re'l�ate'd to the buliil�d-to Iine on that parcel adjace'n�t to Langton Lake Park, if there was parkiin in
<br />214
<br />cuIrre'n�t design standards as proposed for that area, Mr. Paschke noted there wou�l�d be sorne
<br />215
<br />flexibility of the 5 -25''; howe've'r, he noted that, at th�iis tiirme', the parkiin wou�l�d have to be scre'e'n�e'd
<br />216,
<br />wiffi a well uIp to the rninirnurn of 3,6" wiffi n�oth�ilnI g be'h�ilnId ilt: no trial or park or oth�e'r uses. Mr.
<br />217
<br />Paschke opiln�e'd that ilt seerned to make sorne sense to look at ilt sornewhat differently, pe'rh' app by
<br />218
<br />re'q�uliiriin more l�an�dscapiin , bu�t no well or fence to screen from the woods as part of Langton Lake
<br />219
<br />Park. While wan�tiin to be sensitive to the wal�kway, Mr. Paschke opiin�e'd that cuIrre'n�t design
<br />220
<br />standards as proposed m�ay be a h�ii gh�e'r standard that sh�oull�d be implernented re'al�iistiical�l r and in
<br />221
<br />that partiicull�ar area.
<br />222 Mernber Wozn�iiak soul Ott clarification on the location of the trail in the park at thl at poiin�t.
<br />223, Mr. Paschke was unsure how the trail rme'ande're'd th�roul gh the park, th�iin�kiin iit was more iin�ward
<br />224 than e'xte'riior in thl at area, bust if adjace'nt to the prope'rty Iine, offered for staff to work wiffi the
<br />.1 .1
<br />225 de've'l�ope'r to provide a gre'ate'r screen from th�at, rath�e'r than re'q�uli�ri�n g a well for the entire l�e'n gth
<br />226, thl at seerned to be overkill in th�iis specific siitulatiion�.
<br />227
<br />Mr. Paschke re'viie'we'd anoth�e'r itern diisculsse'd, the puIbl�iic realrn corridor off Iona, mostly restrictive
<br />228
<br />wiffi little flexibility wiffi buliil�diin siitiin on those parce'l�s and in those areas, wiffi iit all consiide're'd an
<br />229
<br />open parce'l�. Mr. Paschke adviise'd that comments from prope'rty owne'rs were whe'the'r there was a
<br />23,0
<br />way for more flexibility on where the pedestrian corridor l�ay in final form, and whe'the'r iit needed to
<br />23,1
<br />be 60'1 wiide', as culrre'ntl r pre'scrii be'd. Mr. Paschke noted that th�iis wou�l�d be dou�bl�iin over the
<br />23,2
<br />e'xiistiin g Metropolitan Cou�n�ciil�'i s se'we'r easernent of that wiidth�. Mr. Paschke adviise'd that parkiing
<br />233
<br />couIl�d go over the easernent, bu�t not a strulctulre'; and staff h�ad been q�ule'stilone'd ilf that dildn�"t take
<br />
|