Packet - 9-27-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

There were three speakers: 1) Dan Wald, 8420 Delmar Blvd. Mr. Wald, the owner of the property to the north of Crown Center at 8350 Delcrest Drive, stated that he was unaware of the Crown Center proposal for a Final Development Plan Amendment (PC 17-07) and its review before the Plan Commission in July. He stated that he was concerned for the sightlines of his tenants north of the Crown Center property, given the proposed ten- foot setback from the property line. He stated that he never received notification from Crown Center and they are currently erecting a fence 20-feet from his building for security reasons. He stated that he did not understand what the benefit to the City was from Crown Center since they are tax exempt and are 100 percent occupied by low-income seniors. He further stated that he was concerned he will lose a contract he has to sell his property to a potential hotel developer because of the close proximity of the Crown Center redevelopment. The potential hotel developer and Crown Center were to meet the following day to discuss the issue. Mr. Wald stated that the public notification issue needs to be rectified. 2) Ben Senturia, 7031 Waterman Mr. Senturia stated that he is the Vice Chairp of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) in which he serves with Ms. Moran. He described the history of the comprehensive planning process in which a consultant was hired and various iterations of comments have been relayed as a result of their dissatisfaction. He stated that he understand this is not an easy process but it must continue. Mr. Senturia requested that the Plan Commission come to terms with what needs to be done as a next step and to notify them of what the status is, given the amount of hours spent working on this plan update. Ms. Moran stated that she will work with staff on this. nd 3)Councilmember Paulette Carr, 7901 Gannon Ave. Ms. Carr stated that she is the 2 Ward Councilmember. She discussed the Crown Center Final Development Plan Amendment in regards to Plan Commission is advisory to City Council. In City Council decisions, she had to consider the law, facts, and her discretion. Something cannot be turned town because of a personal opinion; the law needs to be followed. She stated that Ms. Riganti was perfectly clear of the procedure regarding the Crown Center amendment and it is not a variance request for the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Carr explained a personal example of public notification she experienced in Michigan. She stated to the Commission that when things do not feel comfortable, they had every right to postpone. She stated that no one asked for the Board of Adjustment and only for a landscape plan. Ms. Carr noted that this particular case was for the convenience of Crown Center, and Crown Center owed it to inform the neighboring property owners, and the City should take additional consideration. The Plan Commission should have postponed their decision Riganti was correct in assuring the law and discretion was considered in this case, but The Commission did not ask for the missing facts to be provided. Ms. Carr further tğŭĻ ЊЉ ƚŅ ЊЊ