Laserfiche WebLink
APpiicar�t, Al�x Hal[ and Brian Carey, United Properties with own�rship <br />interest in 2(}08 — 2010 Cleveland Avenue <br />Mr. Hal1 noted the eiimination of �h� praposed twin homes in the spirit af <br />corr�prornise, to create an access raad for ihe park, noting the great impact on <br />fhe praposed praject. <br />Mr. Hall advised that, if this pfan is �ursued, it was ihe appficant's infeni tn seek <br />waiving by the City of the park dedication fees and patentia! tax incrernent <br />finartcing assistance, given the impacts io the project by efimination of the twin <br />hames. <br />�iscussion ar�ong Comrni�sion�rs and t�e applicants ir�clud�d: tre� <br />preservation; screening beiween the project and existing residential properEies to <br />the narti�; a simi[ar project campieted by the applicant in New Brighton; parking <br />demands of similar seniar hausing develapmen�s; outstanciing sidewallc <br />Incatinr�s, due tn staffs recorr�rnendatian fnr a separation between the sidewalk <br />and road, creating a bo€alevard ef%ct; fu�ure pathway improvernents and privacy <br />cancerns between hor�es ar�d pathways; and shadow studies performed by tha <br />applicant, pravided under three difFerent scenarias at difFerent times of the day. <br />Jim Caulcus, of Shale Madsen, pr�sented the shadow study and provided <br />detaited conditions taken into consideration thraugh the sofiware program <br />applicafior�. <br />Public Camment <br />Sangwon Suh, 196� Bremer Arre�ue {north side of subj�ct property) <br />Mr. Suh advised that he hel� a PhD in �ngineering; and presented a <br />saphisticated shadaw study, with salar access and sun path diagrams related tn <br />€rnpacts of the pro�os�d str€actur� tn neighboring praperiies. Mr. S�h advised <br />that he represen�ed concerns of neighbors along �renner A�enue as weil, and <br />�roceeded to demanstraie ihrough a computer software prograrr� a more detailed <br />study of the impacts fo various proper�ies wiih a scaled �ersian of the fo�r (4) <br />story building, fhat wnuld in effeet f�e fifty-nine feet (59'} and rr�nre like a five tn <br />six (5-6) story building allawing for ihe une[erground garage and roof heigf�t. Mr. <br />5uf� noted that his sttrdy provided points of shadow for existing conditions in <br />winter versus summer rr�onths and at more axtensive tirr�es, tither than those <br />studies provided by Unite� Properties anly €or haurs with high sun altifudes. Mr. <br />5uf� concluded that solar access along Brenner would be substantia€ly irr�pairec{ <br />and that a reasonable transitiortal deve[opment shauld be considered rather than <br />the current proposal, recognizing pri�acy, traffc, parking, naise and [ight poilufion <br />irr�plicat€ans to �he neighbarl�ood and widespr�ad concerns of neigh�ars. Mr. <br />5uh respectfufly asked �hai tl�� Plann€r�g Comrr�€ssion consid�r rejecting th� <br />proposal. <br />MlGI11E3� G1E,��y �970 �re��erAvenue <br />�r. Giga expr�ssed coneerns of other neighbars as wel{, regarding the <br />ne€ghborhood� current zoning for single-family residential, allowing for single� <br />family ar dupiexes. Mr. Giga noted ihat, while a buf�er may be put in �{ace, it lei� <br />adjoining properties exposed ta another road that substantiafly impacted their <br />properties and �rovided €ncreased noise and dist�rbance fram th� propnseci fnur <br />(4) stary developmeni. Mr. Giga suggested a co€r�parison with the Applewood <br />Pp[f�t� �3f4j�C�, 3�1CI IfT1j�IICB�lQf1S �a �i13t �C��, with disiances appearing drasticaily <br />reduced �o ne[ghbaring properiies. Mr. G€ga respectfu{iy requesfed th�t the <br />proper�y rernain zoned R-1 or R�2, witt� an �xt�nsion nf the current r�eighbnrhond <br />ar�d a eontir�ua�ion of housing s€milar to that already in place — sing[e family or <br />duplexes. <br />