pf_03104 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 1 of 1 Beets, Neal -~---"'-----'-~"~'~----'-~~~-'------'~'-"'------'-- -'-~""-"'."--'~'~----'--~--'-"'----- From: Beets, Neal Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 7:32 PM To: Bloom, Deb; 'Joel J. Jamnik'; Paschke, Thomas; Welsch, Cc: Driscoll, Margaret Subject: Har Mar All, I'd like to schedule a follow-up meeting to discuss the next steps. Here is my memory of what happened at the meeting relating to those neighbors' concerns: . safety of pond: NO ADDITIONAL FENCING WILL BE ERECTED AROUND THE POND BUT HAR MAR WILL LOOK AT MOVING THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS POINT/S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE POND TO PERHAPS REDUCE THE CHANCES THAT CHILDREN WILL PLAY IN THE POND. . Trash: Cub and/or Har Mar will monitor. . Grocery Carts: Cub and/or Har Mar will monitor. . Landscaping: CITY WILL LOOK AT COMPLIANCE WITH THE 75% OPACITY REQUIREMENT THAT APPARENTLY EXISTS NOW, AND THE 90% OPACITY REQUIREMENT RESPECTING THE NEW LANDSCAPING. . Truck route: No change. . "Hard" Perimeter Fencing: Dave Brown will consult Cub, but it does not look like there will be wholesale changes, such as extending the board-on-board fencing around the south and east perimeter. . Pedestrian access point: In addition to the pond access point/s, which Dave Brown will look at, at least one neighbor thought the access point about half way down the most eastern fence line was too narrow. Don't know if that is on Dave Brown's list or not. Among other things, maybe we ought to look at: . Some amendment to our Code to take the place, prospectively, of an "opacity requirement" - what do other metro cities do? . Some way to get more dense/lush year-round landscaping in the buffer area, at least at what may be sensitive spots along the street perimeter - either through "code enforcement," our "Buffers and Borders" Program, "jawboning" of Dave Brown to persuade him to do so on Har Mar's or Cub's nickel, or some combination of the above? . A letter to the neighbors who left their address informing them about the status of these issues - and perhaps beginning or ending by at least briefly recounting the many meetings that apparently have been held with "the neighborhood" and/or selected or self-selected neighbors regarding landscaping and perhaps other issues, where information and potential solutions/resolutions were indeed shared with the neighborhood, or the neighbors who chose to attend, in advance of any decisions being made. Please share any suggested corrections, additions, or deletions to the above. Joel, I remember you mentioning after the meeting the potential legal issue respecting the approved site plan; is there room to construe the potential pedestrian access and landscaping changes as minor site plan adjustments that can be made administratively? I'm thinking that if field conditions, or some other reason, were to result in minor dimensional proposed construction deviations from the approved site plan for sidewalks or pedestrian access points or tree locations or or planters or such, the Staff would not take those minor differences through the City Council for approval. Margaret, please try to schedule a meeting of all of us for the week of Aug 13 - perhaps Wed. during Joel's office hours, or before then with Joel participating via phone. Thanks. Neal 8/15/2001 '\\4 0\ ~",