pm_020501 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Thomas Paschke described the two site plans (March 4 and April 15, 2002). Generally the revised (April 15th) plan places the supportive housing slightly further from Roselawn Avenue (27 feet); places the office structure approximately 70 feet behind (east of) the Lexington Avenue property line and 50 feet from (south of) the Roselawn Avenue property line; increased the office structure height to three stories; and places the parking lot nearest the street. The email messages received from Lois Forsblad and Debra Brown were submitted to the Planning Commission by Thomas Paschke. Thomas Paschke described the process of review from the City Council. Chair Troy Duncan asked if March office and April housing could be recommended to the Council (Yes). Mike Cronin and Dan Billmark, Accessible Space, reviewed the process, noting the Council concurred with the Planning Commission on uses, but asked the developer to review setbacks and pond locations. As the developers tried to respect normally required setbacks along Lexington, the Council liked the 27-foot Roselawn Avenue setback with modified pond. The developers rearranged the site based on setbacks along Lexington, then created a smaller, but taller office-building footprint with three stories. This conformed to some Council concerns of providing a more suburban (parking in front, building in back) site plan. Chair Duncan asked Mr. Cronin which site plan was preferred. Mr. Cronin prefers the April 15 site plan. The housing is further from the street and protects the view of the neighbor to the east. The office is more typical of what is developed along suburban corners (similar to 1950-1960 development). Member Cunningham asked for more information on tenant security with sheltered parking between buildings. Is there more parking security in front or behind the building? Brent Thompson noted that security has not been an issue; the parking lot will be well lighted. Member Olson asked if the "L" shaped building with parking in front would have worked? Mr. Thompson said the issue with some Council members was the setback from Lexington Avenue. The "L" shape does not work well except at the Lexington setback. Member Cunningham asked if more parking is available in April 15th plan? (Yes, 2 to 3 spaces). Joan Bierscheid, 1065 Harriet Lane, explained that residents were accepting of the "L" shaped office building placement along Lexington Avenue. Marlene Struve, 1056 Harriet Lane, asked if the design could be two stories with a basement. Developers have said the land is contaminated and no below grade projects can be built. Neighbors were happy with original land use concept and do not understand why the site plan changed. Even a one story (with basement) office building would be better. What is the difference between staff proposal and current proposal? (Thomas Paschke explained the differences between the March 4th and the April 15th plans.) Nancy Hendrickson, 1020 W. Roselawn, asked if medical office would generate more traffic study. Deb Bloom reviewed traffic studies done by Glen VanWarner of SEH. The main traffic addition was on Lexington Avenue. Ms. Hendrickson said she was concerned about the height and contamination. Thomas Paschke explained the federal requirements for funding and relation to contamination. Dan Billmark explained that HUD is restrictive regarding where HUD Section 8 financing and housing are placed on a site. HUD will not allow a basement dwelling unit. The cost of soil removal and replacement is prohibitive. Brent Thompson stated that a 2-% story building would require a significant cost in removal of soil because of excavation. Member Cunningham asked if a three-story building was more efficient. Mr. Thompson said three-story rectangle building is much more efficient and his choice for development. Member Wilke asked for clarification of excavation depth (four feet).