| The cross-access issue was discussed at length between Mr. Williams and |
|
| the Chair. The Chair had stated earlier that the original plan was to have |
|
| cross-access to the adjacent site, the condominium office plaza. Mr. |
|
| Williams stated there was never an agreement with the condominium |
|
| association regarding cross-access; however, Mrs. Kralik was correct in |
|
| stating that there was a provision in a specific purchase agreement -- with |
|
| Dr. Soloman, owner of Unit #1 -- but that provision was waived at closing |
|
| when Lone Star could not provide that to the doctor. Mr. Williams wanted to |
|
| add that the original plans submitted in 1995 by Lone Star did have access |
|
| into the adjacent parking area. The problem with that was that Lone Star |
|
| could not get an agreement with the condominium association. The |
|
| association did not want a cross-access; they wanted a roadway. That was |
|
| one of the reasons Lone Star asked for the 40-foot strip to be rezoned from |
|
| residential to commercial -- to accommodate the condominium |
|
| association. But the condominium association opposed that also. Lone |
|
| Star had prepared plans that most of the association members agreed to, |
|
| there was cross-access in those original plans, they could not get an |
|
| agreement with the condominium association. |
|
| The Chair repeated that cross-access was part of the original plan but is |
|
| not part of the plan now. He asked when the last time was that efforts were |
|
| made to obtain that cross-access agreement. Mr. Williams responded |
|
| when they attempted to rezone the 40 foot strip in April 1996 approximately. |
|
| Negotiations broke down when Mrs. Kralik wanted a roadway right across |
|
| the 40 foot strip they were attempting to rezone. They indicated a road |
|
| would not be possible. Mr. Williams did not believe the roadway was the |
|
| idea of the condominium association. |
|
| The Chair then discussed landscaping and screening issues. He referred |
|
| to the Staff Report under Environmental Standards, Page 3, and asked the |
|
| applicant to reconcile those with comments contained in Linda Lemke's |
|
| letter dated August 19, 1996 received at the meeting this evening. Mr. |
|
| Walton responded that he had not had time to study the letter, but there |
|
| would be no objection to increasing the density along the western property |
|
| line at the rear of the site with additional trees and removing some of the |
|
| wall. However, the Planning Department had told them if there was no six |
|
| foot wall, they would have to create a six foot berm with plantings on it. |
|
