Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />would be a better fit for the setting and the house. Mr. Figler stated they could probably <br />incorporate the suggested setback without detracting from their goal. <br /> <br />-The issue was not that the wall would not be appropriate, but with everything so close to <br />the street, the foreground for the existing house would be lost. <br /> <br />Mr. Wesenberg made a motion to approve the proposed construction with the recommendation <br />that the wall be set back at least three feet from the sidewalk. The motion was seconded by Ms. <br />Marin. The motion was approved unanimously. <br /> <br />3. 733 Limit Avenue Design review for proposed construction of a parking lot on a vacant <br />property in the Delmar Loop Parkview Gardens Historic District (National Register of <br />Historic Places) <br /> <br />Mr. Smith disclosed that his firm does legal work for Washington University. <br /> <br />Mr. Greatens provided background information, pictures and maps for the project and <br />summarized the applicable Zoning Code Section (34-77). <br /> <br />Ms. Cheryl Adelstein with Washington University introduced herself to the Commission and <br />stated that the project would be managed by Quadrangle, a student housing branch of the <br />University. <br /> <br />Mr. Dave Mastin described the project and the proposed layout. He stated that they were <br />attempting to balance security and aesthetics. A gate with restricted access to Quadrangle <br />tenants was proposed since the proposed lot would provide parking for adjacent properties, some <br />of which have no parking available. He stated that they were trying to address parking issues in <br />the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Mr. Greatens stated that the project was yet to be reviewed by City staff for final review and <br />approval, as well as review from MSD. He stated that as the project is reviewed, there might be <br />minor adjustments due to potential recommendations from City staff and/or other agencies. He <br />stated that, regarding any recommendations made by the Commission tonight, they should keep <br />in mind that there could be minor changes based on further review. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith stated that the obligation in the Code was to review for overall consistency and any <br />vote should be whether or not the proposal meets the Code. <br /> <br />Questions/Comments from Commission members and responses included: <br /> <br /> <br />-A question was asked regarding further clarification of proposed sight lighting. Mr. <br />Mastin stated that it would be in the island as shown on the plans and the height was to be <br />determined. He stated they wanted it as short as possible but still effective; tall enough to <br />be secure, but not too bright. <br /> <br />-Would the material on the proposed wall be face brick? Mr. Mastin stated that was <br />correct. <br /> <br />tm; šE <br /> <br /> <br />