My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-18-97
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Minutes-Board Or Commission PLZ 00900
>
1997
>
03-18-97
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2007 12:54:10 PM
Creation date
5/24/2007 12:54:08 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
answer the public’s demand for one-story townhouses. Once we eliminated the possibility of building two- <br />story units, designed 1,096 square foot units with two-car attached garages. The fact the units are so large <br />creates the problem. The Planning Commission seems to be saying smaller, two-story units with more <br />greenspace would be a more attractive development. It would, however, be less marketable. If we cut back to <br />22 units, the price would be $175,000. We are trying to build one-story units with a base price of $115,000, <br />which become affordable housing for the City of New Brighton. In our present development, we have 4 New <br />Brighton residents selling their two-story homes and buying our townhouses. <br /> <br />Baker said Cadwallader made a statement that the consultant recommended this project. The consultant <br />recommended multi-family residential, not that the property be rezoned. Baker said he wanted to make that <br />point clear. <br /> <br />Cadwallader said that, if the Planning Commission wants to go to an R-2 zoning with a PUD overlay, our <br />density is under those requirements. <br /> <br />Baker said he meant an R-1 PUD. Cadwallader talked about the neighbors wanting a one-story development. <br />However, the only choice Cadwallader gave them was a 32-unit development. If the neighbors were to choose <br />between a 32-unit and a 22-unit development, they would choose the 22 units. It is not meaningful to give the <br />neighbors the choice between 32 two-story units and 32 one-story units. There are other options. <br /> <br />Allan Potter, a resident of East Innsbruck, said he would like to comment on the tree situation. Potter said he <br />owned the property next to Mike’s at 281 9th Avenue NW. Potter said he moved into the East Innsbruck area <br />in 1978. I’m sure the developer will do his best to save the oak trees. The fact is all the oaks in East <br />Innsbruck are gone. Oak trees are very sensitive to construction and oak wilt. There’s little chance of saving <br />the oaks on the proposed site. Potter commented it must be difficult for a developer to solve the problems of a <br />site. However, Potter said the site should remain zoned R-1. <br /> <br />Lawrence Rice, 103638 Brookview Road in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, said he bought a home on 2nd Street NW <br />in New Brighton in 1948. He said he is familiar with the problems of living near Old Highway 8, such as <br />noise, dust, and safety. The buffer zone is needed. The speed on Old Highway 8 should be reduced also. Forty <br />years ago, my house had a redwood fence, a row of trees, and a boulevard. Along came the Highway <br />Department and moved the curb of Old Highway 8 within two feet of the property line, 35 feet from the door <br />to my house. They threw salt and snow way into my yard. My son and grandson still live in that house. There <br />should be a buffer zone for the sake of the environment. Rice said he was a licensed architect and had <br />construction experience. Fire access is also an important consideration. Rice said sympathized with <br />Cadwallader’s problem, but a buffer is important. <br /> <br />Livingston said he feels trees are very valuable. They add value to the land and provide a buffer between the <br />project and the pole yards. The buffer is not for the people driving by but for the people living in the project. <br />Livingston stated Cadwallader mentioned a couple of other developments that had higher density. One of the <br />projects was off I-694, which is an area with more traffic. Part of the reason it was allowed to develop that <br />way was to create a buffer between the single family homes and I-694. The traffic near the proposed project <br />does not compare to the traffic on I-694. Livingston pointed out that it is not the job of the Planning <br />Commission to see that the developer makes a profit. Livingston said Cadwallader should consider building <br />fewer units and adding more trees in case some oaks die. <br /> <br />Baker stated that, if Cadwallader rezones the property to R-3B, Multiple Family Residential, the Planning <br />Commission is not rezoning the property based on this development. The rezoning would be based on R-3B, <br />which would allow 43 units. There is no guarantee this layout if approved, will be built. <br /> <br /> <br />I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1997\03-18-97.WPD <br />5 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.