pf07-006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� • `'a�e ? c?f ? The proposed construction of a 4-story high rise building does not seem consistent with modern planning theory that would call for a much less abrupt transition between residential homes and high rise developments. Verbally the past Community Development Director commented to me that the most preferred development by the city for the Cleveland property would be single-story industrial/commercial high tech/flex type development and that high rises would not be considered an appropriate use given its location adjacent to single-family homes. The elevation of the proposed high- rises will have a significant impact by both reducing privacy to owners while working in their backyards and will reduce substantially the degree of effective sunlight available to these properties, particularly in their backyards. The proposed high-rises is 59 feet tall according to the United Properties, and as compared to 1 8 feet , the average height of the home along the south of Brenner Avenue, the proposed building is certainly too high and too close to single family residential homes in its neighborhood. It is also notable that according to the analysis done by one of us, the shadow study commissioned by the United Properties is misleading and does not adequately capture the magnitude of solar access right impaired by the proposed structure. Sangwon Suh is willing to substantiate this argument with the results of his analysis, if an opportunity is provided. If the city considers that some type of access be provided from Brenner Avenue to either the development or to the park I would request that specific plans and specs for the proposed design for such a path be provided as part of the conceptual plan for public review. We and other members of the neighborhood would be very concerned if rather than a pedestrian-only trail this city easement were to be developed as a road for vehicular access. If there was to be a street connection from Mount Ridge south to Langton Lake Park, the residents of this private neighborhood would find significant traffic directed either along Brenner, Evelyn, or Mount Ridge to the park even if the United Properties development had a separate access road. In summary, We do not consider the generalized concept plan provided by United Properties to have sufficient details to warrant approval by the Roseville Planning Commission. This conceptual plan does not provide adequate buffer and transition to the adjacent neighborhood to the north. Conceptually, the plan may be in accordance with Roseville planning procedures, but it is not a plan that cities interested in protecting the quality of life of neighborhoods should be supporting, in my opinion. If the city decides to support this plan we still would urge the Planning Commission not to approve such a general concept plan without additional details regarding the proposed pedestrian access road, and the type of buffers that will be provided between the neighborhood and the northern edge of the development. Respectfully, Rick Jolley (Owner of 1990 Brenner Avenue) 908 Cannon Avenue Shoreview, MN 55126 rick. j olley@comcast.net 651-638-9930 Sangwon Suh 1960 Breruler Avenue Roseville, MN 55113 sangwon o,umn.edu 651-633-6623 6/6/2007