CC PACKET 11241987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•.J C I P.U.D: Amendments Accepted for P. J. Gaughan Proposal for Kenzie • Terrace Redevelopment Project 3 Commissioner Wagner prefaced his report on the above. - by offering his 4 congratulations to the staff and Council for scheduling 'a good 5 neighbor communication meeting before the Planning Commission hearing, 6 which— he perceived had expedited the public hearing process and 7 resulted in no real concerns or objections to the project being 8 vocalized during the hearing. The Commissioner stated that it was a 9 privilege for him to• be able to present what he perceived was finally 10 a solution to previous problems with getting a workable project for 11 the ,final phase of this redevelopment endeavor. 12 The Gaughan proposal was well received by the Commissioners, and the 13 few residents who participated in the discussions , according to 14 Commissioner Wagner; who then reported -the Commission' s recommendation 15 related to the variances to the P.U.D. which would be necessary for 16 the Council to grant before the project could go forward. The 17 Commissioner then pointed out that the variance having to do with the 18 setbacks resulting from having to resite the building after a new 19 survey was made had not been specifically stated as intended in the 20 Commission' s recommendation of approval. The designation of hours 21 when construction would be restricted was also corrected to indicate 22 no disruption of the neighborhood would be allowed during the evening 23 or early morning hours. 24 Consultant ' s Report Accepted for Council Approval • 25 Councidmembers had been provided with copies of a 4 page memorandum 26' from Mr . Krier in which the H.R.A. Consultant. had made some recommen- 27 dations based on his review of the site and had cleared with the 28 redeveloper which Mr. Childs indicated he thought should be incor- 29 porated into the Council ' s motion of approval. 30 Mr. Krier reported "monumental" problems with the legal description of 31 the property and the survey which Arkell had used for the project, 32 _which had not been resolved until after the Planning Commission 33 hearing. These included a loss of 40 feet on the Kenzie Terrace side, 34 Mr. Hamel said. 35 Even though there was now less land to work with than originally 36 planned for, the H.R.A. Consultant reported the developer had been 37 able to redraw the site plans in such a manner as to require no 38 setback variances , except for the side of the building closest to the 39 vacated Coolidge Street , however , where there would be ample space 40 between the structure and the proposed public walk. 41 Mr . Krier specifically discussed some of his recommendations , includ- 42 ing the redesigning and signalization of ' the Kenzie Terrace intersec- 43 -tion between' the project and the Kenzington accesses which had been 44 proposed by the Rieke Carroll Muller traffic engineer during his • 4