CC_Minutes_2008_0825 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 25, 2008 Page 15 under Minnesota Rule 4410.36610 did not apply; and requested that the City Council require an EAW for the plan in order to better understand impacts. Mr. Suh opined that the neighborhood supported "reasonable" development in the area. John Franey, 1950 Brenner Avenue (south side of Brenner, adjacent to pro- posed project) Mr. Franey advised that he'd built his home in 1979, but that he'd owned the land for several years prior to constructing the home to determine the nature of sur- rounding structures and their visual impact to his property. Mr. Franey opined that he was not interested in everyone in a 60-story building peering into his backyard, creating a "fishbowl" effect. Mr. Franey asked that the City Council look at what's right and wrong, consider the intent of the law rather than the letter of the law; and asked whether Councilmembers would like such a monstrosity ad- jacent to their single-family residence. Mark Ertl, 3064 Evelyn Street Mr. Ertl opined that, had he know such a development would come into the neighborhood, he would have never purchased his home. Mr. Ertl opined that this development would affect the welcoming nature and character of the existing neighborhood, and prevent interest in others wanting to move into the neighbor- hood. Pat Trudgeon Mr. Trudgeon corrected and clarified several assertions made by Mr. Suh regard- ing the project's consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan land use desig- nation of Business Park and anticipated office use within the Twin Lakes area and defined Business Park; opining that this use is consistent with the AUAR and Comprehensive Plan; and further advised that the zoning was not proposed as Business Park, but Planned Unit Development (PUD) allowing for deviation from City Code at the discretion of the City Council, being guided by underlying zon- ing. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the proposed building height is allowed; and clari- fied that the EQB does not provide any assistance, guidance, or make determina- tions, but only passes on a citizen petition to the RGU if the required twenty-five (25) signatures are evidenced, and not because of any assertions that they think there's validity or significance to the solar access concerns. Councilmember Ihlan opined that visual and solar impacts were significant envi- ronmental impacts. Councilmember Ihlan questioned whether these single-family homes would be impacted in installation of solar panels due to this project; and reiterated her opinion that there was basis for reopening the AUAR for further re- view and to address these additional environmental issues. City Attorney Anderson responded to legal considerations in reviewing the pro- ject's exemption; noting that anywhere the map in the AUAR discussed housing,