Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />City. He indicated he did not want the surrounding neighborhood being impacted by apartments <br />residents taking up off-street parking. <br />Gina Bauman, 1385 Mississippi St, commented on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan that was approved <br />by the City Council. She expressed concern that the community did not have input on the Comp <br />Plan. She noted the City was only 164 affordable units short in the 2030 Comp Plan and the <br />proposed development would bring the City significantly over that goal. She reported this <br />development was not what the community wants but rather was what the City Council wants. She <br />expressed concern with the fact the developer was not meeting basic City requirements in the PRD. <br />She feared that residents did not understand what the Council did not have to abide by the 2040 <br />Comprehensive Plan. She explained the Council had made the decision to go with the proposed <br />density and the PRD. She recommended the 2040 Comp Plan not be the genesis of this project. <br />Jack Brunell, 2133 10th Street NW, stated he was all for senior and affordable housing in New <br />Brighton. However, he did not recommend senior and affordable housing be located on this site. He <br />feared the development would create an atrocious parking problem. He reported the development <br />had inadequate visitor parking and this parking would spill into the adjacent neighborhood. He <br />recommended something less dense be considered for this site and that this development be moved <br />to the New Brighton Exchange. <br />Michelle Desautels, 2908 Brookshire Ln, asked why the City was considering allowing double the <br />density within this development than was seen anywhere else in New Brighton. She stated she felt <br />for the residents living in this neighborhood. <br />John Christofferson, 704 9th Avenue NW, stated he lived one block from the proposed development <br />and has lived in his home for the past 25 years. He recommended a less dense proposal be <br />considered to ensure the development has adequate parking. <br />Gary Chapman, 772 7th Avenue NW, indicated he would be selling his house in the next five to seven <br />years. He feared he would not be able to sell his home given the proposed heights of the adjacent <br />apartment complexes and the loss of views he would have. <br />Timothy Givens, 742 7th Avenue NW, explained he lived directly across from this development and <br />his driveway was proposed to be adjusted. He expressed concern with the traffic that would be <br />generated by the proposed development. He stated he supported closing off 7th Street. He <br />recommended the height of the townhomes be reconsidered to lessen the impact on the adjacent <br />neighbors. He recommended the workforce housing complex be required to provide additional <br />parking in order to meet the needs of the future residents. <br />Jenny Helgason, 3031 Linden Drive, requested further information regarding the TIF financing. She <br />questioned the term of the TIF District. Assistant Director of Community Assets and Development <br />Gozola deferred this question to Stacie Kvilvang with Ehlers. <br />Jeffrey Nelson, 690 8th Avenue NW, stated he lived across the street from the play area and has lived <br />in his home for the past 37 years. He expressed concern with how quickly this development has <br />moved through the City for approval. He indicated the proposed development was too urban for <br />New Brighton. He explained he moved out of Minneapolis to New Brighton to get away from the <br />urban feel. He encouraged the City to not push the blame onto the residents for not being informed <br />on this matter, given how quickly it has moved through for approvals. He questioned if the Council <br />was on the resident’s side or the developer’s side. He reported there was a growing level of angst