4/12/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APR `12 i9�4 . BOOK 9 FacE107 Commissioner Bird commented that the parking lot would be relatively inactive, except for morning and after school traffic. Commissioner Macht stated that the details of the berm should be spelled out and make sure that it is maintained. Attorney Barkett wanted to be sure this plan would accommodate the school's needs for future planning. He questioned Mr. Ugowski about details of the design. He conceded that this new plan looks nicer than the original, but it was not distributed until just prior to this meeting and he was not given the opportunity to study it. He asserted that there was no advance notice, which violates the rules of judicial proceedings and deprives the property owners of the ability to cross-examine witnesses. Mr. Barkett stated that he would like an opportunity to review the new proposal and contended that the Board cannot vote on the plan as presented but they must remand it to the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Commission. Discussion ensued regarding the differences in the plans, and Director Keating advised that the plan presented today is not substantially different from what was presented previously to P&Z. Attorney Vitunac advised that with that evidence from staff, the Board can choose to send the application back to P&Z or to rule on it. Further discussion ensued regarding the changes in the plan, and Commissioner Macht thought that if Mr. Barkett and his clients had an opportunity to meet and study the new proposal, the Board will not have to go through the process. Peter Armfield, from the appraisal firm Armfield Wagner, Inc., having been duly sworn, stated that he researched the adverse influences which may occur from the special use and he estimated that the impact to the value would be in the range of 15 to 20 percent less than without those influences. He could not comment on the new plan because the new plan is substantially different. Robert C. McNally, owner of property in Sandpointe West, having been duly sworn, stated that he is a builder and developer, and that the issue is compatibility and the impact on the character of the neighborhood. He is a member of a -group of owners who purchased lots in Sandpointe West. They have great respect for St. Edwards and favor St. Edwards expanding their campus but they do not want it to impact adversely on their neighborhood. Mr. McNally requested the opportunity to sit across the table and discuss alternatives so that everyone will benefit. 16