Laserfiche WebLink
1 concerns had been about adding another driveway on Kenzie terrace and <br /> 2 the provision of less brick on two of the buildings than had been <br /> 3 promised in the Redevelopment Agreement, he indicated. <br /> 4 Commissioner Werenicz told the Council the Commissioners had been <br /> 5 unanimous in their opposition to another curb cut off Kenzie Terrace, <br /> 6 perceiving it would defeat the purpose of the traffic signal the City <br /> 7 had just installed to serve the project's main entrance as well as the <br /> 8 Kenzington across the street. He said the developers had indicated <br /> 9 they would have a traffic study done to see if the Commission concerns <br /> 10 were warranted and had even suggested they might be able to turn <br /> 11 Building A around to maintain the necessary flow of traffic within the <br /> 12 project. <br /> 13 The other "bone of contention" had been the Commissioner's perception <br /> 14 that the developers were not providing as much brick as promised <br /> 15 originally, and which Commissioner Werenicz conceded might have been a <br /> 16 tradeoff for a better building design, but still didn't seem to meet <br /> 17 the terms of the Redevelopment Agreement. <br /> 18 Developers Defense of Changes <br /> 19 Paul Brewer, Gene Nelson, and Greg Bronk of Lang/Nelson Associates and <br /> 20 a representative of Leonard Lampert Architects were present to answer <br /> 21 questions from the Council. <br /> 22 Nr. Brewer confirmed the changes in the site -plans which would: <br /> 23 *move the 50 unit, 3 story senior Building A away from the street and <br /> 24 farther from the "huge mass of the Kenzington" across Kenzie Terrace; <br /> 25 *at the same time, time that building and the other 75 unit senior <br /> 26 Building B and the 76 unit general occupancy Building C closer <br /> 27 together; <br /> 28 *provide drainage for the site into a pond adjacent to the pool in the <br /> 29 center which would provide a focal point for the buildings; <br /> 30 *relocate the parking lot,.exits farther away from the main entrance <br /> 31 where there would be less incline and more room for stacking. <br /> 32 Nr. Brewer indicated the developers had perceived a real marketing <br /> 33 advantage to providing the villa, clustered entrance type design for <br /> 34 Buildings B and C because those are the types of amenities prospective <br /> 35 renters seem to be looking for in multi-family housing. He pointed <br /> 36 out, however, that whenever more angles and roofing are added to a <br /> 37 building, it has to cost more money than it would to just construct a <br /> 38 three story building which looks more like a dormitory. That cost <br /> 39 factor, and the architectural design which was decided on, called for <br /> 40 brick exteriors on the first two floor exteriors of Buildings B and C, <br /> 41 wood siding on the highest center portion. <br /> 7 <br />