My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 12201988
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1988
>
PL PACKET 12201988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 3:38:46 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 3:38:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
15
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 1988
SP Name
PL PACKET 12201988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
118
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
15 <br /> • *indicated that by making each building three stories high in the <br /> 2 middle and two stories high on each side, the project could retain the <br /> 3 dormitory effect in the middle but provide separate entrances for the <br /> 4 units on the end. This would get away from the long hallway and still <br /> 5 maintain the number of units on the site necessary to provide enough tax <br /> 6 base to retire the tax increment; <br /> 7 *said they had also been able to move the mass of the buildings away <br /> 8 from the boundaries of the property which with two of the buildings <br /> 9 dropping down to two stories at the ends, would make the project more <br /> 10 pleasing to the eye from a distance; <br /> 11 *told Chair Wagner the 50 unit senior building would remain a three <br /> 12 story structure. The other senior building would have the dropped roof <br /> 13 effect and would have 75 units. The third building with the same <br /> 14 configuration would be 76 units of high quality general rental; <br /> 15 *indicated the new proposal provided one to one underground heated <br /> 16 parking in the buildings and matching 201 spaces of surface proof of <br /> 17 parking outdoors with perhaps only 144 constructed initially. <br /> 18 The Lang/Nelson representative told the Commissioners his firm perceived <br /> 19 the all and all sense of this plan was really designed with the <br /> 20 community in mind and would be a better appearing project than the one <br /> Wthey had presented before with interior parking. <br /> 22 Commission Reaction <br /> 23 Chair Wagner was concerned that the new plan hadn't provided for an <br /> 24 emergency vehicle access which the City had included in their original <br /> 25 project requirements. He was assured that would be worked into the <br /> 26 plan. The Chair also noted the interior walkway did not appear on the <br /> 27 plans. <br /> 28 Commissioner Hansen expressed what appeared to be a common Commission <br /> 29 concern, that the plan included another curb cut off Kenzie Terrace <br /> 30 which they perceived would intensify , what are already traffic flow <br /> 31 problems on that street in that particular area. The Commissioner <br /> 32 told the LaNel officials the City had already spent thousands of dollars <br /> 33 to provide a traffic signal in front of the Kenzington which was <br /> 34 designed to control traffic from this development and it was feared the <br /> 35 new entrance would only encourage drivers to make a U-turn. to get into <br /> 36 the senior building. Commissioner Hansen pointed to the Nativity <br /> 37 Lutheran Church parking lot traffic as a prime example of drivers <br /> 38 ignoring traffic signs and said the same problems were being experienced <br /> 39 in front of Kentucky Fried Chicken farther south on Kenzie Terrace. <br /> 40 Chair Wagner said he was afraid another driveway in that area would <br /> 41 just create the need for another traffic light three hundred feet from <br /> the one in front of the Kenzington. He said he considered this to be <br /> "a real problem. " <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.