04-21-98 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

neighborhood. A two-story building would be better. The pond should be bermed so 27th is screened. Brama said she appreciated the Commission for their consideration of her comments. Livingston asked staff about controlling the 27th Avenue access. Mattila said the Planning Commission could include that as a condition of approval that there be some type of deed filed and attached to the abstract to the property that there be no access from the parking lot to 27th Avenue NW. Mattila said he did not know exactly what vehicle could be used to accomplish that. Gould said he did not have any problem covenanting that there would be no access to 27th, with the proviso that should the City somehow take away our access off Mississippi Street that provision would be reconsidered. Livingston asked about the berm. Gould responded berming is used to separate different uses. We plan that many of the senior residents will be current New Brighton residents. We do not want to obstruct their view of the park. Gould said he believed the proposed coop will be aesthetically pleasing. The pond will not look like a cess pool. We will put in attractive landscaping and take advantage of the natural contours. Gould said he would have no problem changing the trees to spruce trees to screen the headlights from the garage. Routing the traffic to Mississippi Street will be easier for the residents of the coop. Gould stated, from a privacy standpoint, the coop residents will also be residents of New Brighton and will not violate other residents’ privacy. Schiferl asked to return to the headlight issue. How will the evergreen screen work? Schiferl said he had the feeling a single row of evergreens will not work. A double row of evergreens may be needed. Schiferl said he did not have the feel for exactly how much room is available there. Schiferl asked what is best screening for that area. Gould responded the evergreens could probably screen almost the entire building, and a have a heavier screen for a short distance. O’Brien asked Gould to address the issue of proximity or privacy. O’Brien said it looks like the closest house would be in excess of 150 feet away. Nordby said he saw the decks as a screening element. In looking at our past projects, the 6 foot by 12 or 14 foot decks with the required railings and roofs over them, provides another screening dimension. They will screen the windows and the sliding glass doors of the units themselves from the residents across the street. So the decks have an effect of screening for both the coop residents and the neighbors. Livingston asked if the lower decks will be screened. Gould said the landscaping should have a uniform look. If we get enough residents who would opt to want to screen their decks, we would look at that. We do not want one resident doing one thing and others doing something else. Schiferl stated Mrs. Stepanchak brought up the traffic issue. Schiferl said he wanted to put closure to the traffic issue. Has anyone talked to SEH in the last several months? Schiferl asked the staff and the developer if, in their professional experience, if these numbers make sense. The public may think the numbers are way too low. Mattila responded the City had asked SEH to take a look at this project because they are transportation experts. All we can do is rely on the letter they provided to us. The letter says that based on their calculations, the project would have a minimal impact on traffic. Glen Van Wormer of SEH is a well-known traffic engineer. Our own City Engineer, Les Proper, recommended we use Van Wormer to do this traffic analysis. Livingston asked if there other questions from the Commission or the audience. Larson asked if Gould has been asked by a resident for an evergreen screen after the project is completed and the resident has lived there for awhile. Gould responded they have never done so, but that does not mean it cannot be done. 12 I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1998\04-21-98.WPD