PL PACKET 11171987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i Krier told P,ir. Steiner it was almost impossible to know what the I '2 purchase pricelfrom Saliterman would be, but City appraisals indicated 3 a lower value of under a million dollars, which, of course, Mr. 4 Saliterman would not necessarily agree with. 5 Project Additions 6 *12 foot access road for the exclusive use of emergency 7 vehicles to be developed on the northeast side of the 8 project within the area reserved for future parking; 9 *provision of a walkway on the southeast side of the 1.0 property to allow residents of Lowry, Coolidge, and 11 Harding Streets in Minneapolis access to the shopping 12 center to which all vehicle access would be barriered; 13 *oversight in plans for a walkway between the commercial 14 and residential areas on Kenzie Terrace would be cor- 15 rected to benefit the residents of the .proposed struc- 16 tures as well as the Kenzington. 17 Commission Concerns 18 Commissioner Hansen questioned -whether- the concerns .of the Kenzington 19 residents had been given the same weight as the Minneapolis residents . when decisions relating to prohibiting a .Lowry access were made. He. was told that access had been one of Alderman Dziedzic ' s greatest 22 concerns about the project. Mr. -Childs pointed out that the City 23 would probably have to make Lowry a standard size roadway if that 24 access were provided at this time. Mr. Krier indicated the Kenzie 25. Terrace access would be more advantageous for the residents of the new 26 project because the more active building would be sited closest to the 27 transportation routes and its garages sited on Kenzie. 28 Commissioners London., Hansen, and Wagner all expressed concerns about 29 the configuration of the existing access road- off Kenzie Terrace which 30 they perceived. might not be adequate for increased traffic from the 31 two apartment buildings , and which might be unsafe when the roadway 32 became icy. 33 Mr. Hamel said he was certain. the developers would- be widening the 34 existing jog in that roadway. 35 Commissioners Hansen and London questioned . whether one elevator 36 located at the entrance of the senior building would be too far away 37 from the farthest unit., which would be over 250 feet away. 38 Mr. Hamel told them the occupants of the over 55 building would be 39 expected to be active , functioning persons, and not types of seniors 40 found in nursing or care centers . He said the buildings would be almost identical- to the LaBelle 2 and 3 buildings , which have over 55 residents and only one elevator in each building. 3 i I