2004_0621_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Summary of Comments: Concept 3 Positive • Offices at Cleveland/C2 (2 comments) • Lessening of residential intensity from commercial west of Langton Lake toward the park • Good views along parkway Negative • Residential locationilayout: split by roadway, too close to commercial, etc. (4 comments) • Big box location too close to iake/residential (4 comments) • Parkway Summary of Comments: Concept 4 Positive • Good views along parkway Negative • Big box location (4 comments) • Residential locationilayout: split by roadway, not safe feeling (3 comments) • Parkway (2 comments) • PotentialtrafficonFaiwiew Overall Summaryllnterpretation of Comments • Concepts 1& 2 had many comments in common — Positive: retail location and layout — Positive: considerincluding hotel/conf. centeras engine — Positive: communiiy asset possible on south end of Langton Lake • A notable positive on Concept 1 was the inclusion of office at Cleveland and C2 (the absence of this was also a negative on Concept 2). �� � �. t ry . � Overall Summaryllnterpretation of Comments � • Concepts 3& 4: panel had concerns about both residential and retail location and layout, as well as concems about parkway • Concepts 3& 4: only positive comments dealt with office at Cleveland/C2 and good views along parkway, both of which can be addressed by other concepts • Concepts 3& 4 were not explored further. Overall Summaryllnterpretation of Comments . The largest numberof negative commeritson Concept 1 had to do with the presence of Twin Lakes Parkway (7 �artxrwk� . The largest number of poeitive commerits on Concept 2 had to do with the absence of Twin Lakes Parkway (10 commerits) • There were many positive commerits on Concept 2 regardingthe extent and arrangementof residential use (6 �r�r+��] . Concept 2 had the most total commer�s and the most positive commerits, with fewer negatives than Concept 1 (the majority of which dealt with wanting office at Clevelend/C2). �