6.7.23 PB Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1044 Whitney Watson: I heard and saw some references to the historic asset on the corner of business 70 and Lawrence 1045 Road. But I was surprised to see in the packet that it is not listed as a historic asset that needed to be considered for 1046 development. Did I misread that letter? 1047 1048 Cy Stober: Yes Mr. Watson, it’s on a property across Lawrence Road, so it’s not on the property itself. It was considered 1049 as part of the traffic impact analysis, but it’s not included in the site. 1050 1051 Statler Gilfillen: Is that something that comes under the purview of the historic review board? 1052 1053 Cy Stober: Yes it does. 1054 1055 Statler Gilfillen: Did Peter Sandbeck make any comments about it? 1056 1057 Cy Stober: He did, and felt that our landscaping requirements would offer buffering requirements… 1058 1059 Whitney Watson: So in the consideration of the staff analysis, one of the things we are asked to consider is whether the 1060 COCAs next residential neighborhood definition supports this use, so I’d like to hear some more about if that really is a 1061 walkable/bikeable from the surrounding residential areas to the sites particularly the athletic sites. And, does that mean 1062 there will be sidewalks put in place if there are not existing bike lanes as well? 1063 1064 Cy Stober: So probably no, not on the public roads, there is a sidewalk provided on the private road network, internal to 1065 the site, but no because these are DOT maintained roads and not connected to a public road network. The DOT made 1066 the determination that the complete streets policy is inapplicable because they would not connect to a larger network. 1067 We did require that the internal site may be walkable, and we had a discussion with DOT about the need for offsite 1068 walkability and safety, and they stuck to their current interpretation of their streets policy. 1069 1070 Whitney Watson: I guess technically it meets the definition of being walkable for residential units, dwelling units… 1071 1072 Cy Stober: It’s arguable that the existing development is not walkable, the proposed development was walkable, as the 1073 regulatory agencies would allow, the county requested sidewalks negotiated with the applicant they were provided and 1074 DOT disallowed them. 1075 1076 Whitney Watson: One final question; I noticed in the packet the page about superfund sites. There are three inactive 1077 ones within a mile of this location, what’s the plan to continue to monitor those and to see if there is any impact and see 1078 if the site has to draw well water for schools as well as recreation? 1079 1080 Cy Stober: Superfund sites are regulated and monitored by the state and not by the county. I do not have that 1081 information at this time, I would have to get back to you. 1082 1083 Lamar Proctor: So, there is an indoor facility proposed, is that correct? 1084 1085 Patrick Byker: For? 1086 1087 Lamar Proctor: Tennis, I believe. 1088 1089 Patrick Byker: In the long run, yes. 1090 1091 Lamar Proctor: So the parcel would be subdivided into three parcels, is that correct? 1092 1093 Jim Parker: Four if you count both schools would have their own parcel. 1094 1095 Lamar Proctor: Two schools: baseball and tennis. So the school’s, baseball, tennis, what is the fourth? 1096 1097 Jim Parker: Each school has a parcel. 1098 24