|
Applicant,, Alex Hall and Brian Carey, United Properties with ownership
<br />i-nteriest in 2008 — 2010 Cleveland Aven.ue
<br />Mr., Hall noted the elimination of the proposed twin homes in the spirit of
<br />compromise, to create an access road for the park, noting the great impact on
<br />the proposed project.
<br />Mr. Hall advised that, if this plan is pursued, it was the applicant's intent to seek
<br />waiving by the City of the park dedication fees and potential tax increment
<br />financing assistance,. given the impacts to the project by elimination of the twin
<br />homes.
<br />Discussion among Commissioners and the applicants included; tree
<br />preservation;. screening between the project, and existing residential properties to
<br />the north; a similar project compllete,d by the applicant in New Brighton; parking
<br />demands of similar senior housings developments; outstanding sidewalk
<br />locations, due to staff's recommendation for a separation between the sidewalk
<br />and road, creating a boulevard effect; future pathway improvements and privacy
<br />concerns between homes and pathways,; and shadow studies per-formed by the
<br />applicant, provided under three different', scenarios at different times of the day.
<br />Jim Gau.1cus, of Shole Madsen, piresente,d the shadow study and provide
<br />,detailed conditions taken into consideration through the. software progral
<br />11 an 41
<br />Sangwon sub, 1960 Bremer Avenue (north side of subject property)
<br />Mr. Suh advised that he held a PhD in Engineering; and presented a
<br />sophisticated shadow study, with solar, access and sun path diagrams related to
<br />impacts of the proposed structure 'to neighboring properties. Mr. Suh advised
<br />that he represented concerns of neighbors along Brenner Avenue as well, and
<br />proceeded to demonstrate through a computer software program a more detailed
<br />study of the impacts to various properties with a scaled version of the four (4)
<br />story building,, that would in effect Ibe fifty-nine feet (59') and more like a five to
<br />six (5-6) story building allowing for the underground garage and roof height. Mr.
<br />Suh noted that his study provided points of shadow for existing conditions in
<br />winter versus summer months and at moire extensive times, other than those
<br />studies provided by United Properties, only for hours with high sun altitudes.- Mr.
<br />Suh concluded that solar access al:ongi Brenner would be substantially impaired
<br />and that a reasonable transitional devellopment should be considered rather than
<br />the current proposal, recognizing privacy, traffic, parking, noise and light pollution
<br />implications to the neighborhood and widespread concerns of neighbors, Mr,
<br />,huh respectfully asked that the Planning Commission consider rejecting the
<br />proposal.
<br />Michael Giga-, 1970 Brenner Avenue
<br />Mr, Gig-a expressed concerns of other neighbors as well, regarding the
<br />neighborhoods current zoning for single-family residential, allowing for single-
<br />family oir duplexes. Mr. taiga noted that, while a buffer may be put. in place, it left
<br />adjoining properties exposed to another road that substantially impacted their
<br />properties and provided increased noise and disturbance from the proposed four
<br />(4), story development. Mr. taiga i suggested a comparison with the Apple wood
<br />Pointe project, and implications to that area, with distances appearing drastically
<br />reduced to neighboring properties. Mr. taiga respectful'ly requested that the
<br />property remain zoned 1 -1 or 1 -2, with an extension of the current neighborhood
<br />and a continuation of housing similar to, that allready in place — single family or
<br />duplexes,
<br />
|