Laserfiche WebLink
- meeting with.. -Mr. -Krier, Mr.. Hamel . and the Gaughan architect the day <br /> 11,1 <br /> 2 after, the Comn;ission hearing. The changes in the configuration of the <br /> 3 . medians and- .the existing project access road as well. as. the plans for <br /> 4 the CDBG funded, 5 phased, pedestrian and auto activated signal were <br /> 5 ' illustrated-on the .blackboard. by the H.R.A. consultant , who indicated <br /> 6, the redeveloper had approved the . changes in the access roadway. <br /> 7 He' also reported the redeveloper had just that afternoon agreed to <br /> 8 obtain a letter approving the connections with Minneapolis utilities <br /> 9 from the Minneapolis City Engineer, perceiving such .approval would be <br /> 10 necessary anyway before an excavation permit to cut into Lowry Avenue <br /> 11 would be issued. <br /> 12 Council Action <br /> 13 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to amend the Planned Unit <br /> 14 Development Concept and Detailed Plan adopted in November, 1986 , for <br /> 15 the final phases of the Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment Project to <br /> 16 include ( a) the revised site plans, dated November 10 , 1987 , as <br /> 17 presented by the Gaughan company during the Council ' s November 10 , <br /> 18 1987 meeting and (b) the conditions for approval as stipulated in the <br /> 19 four page November 6th letter from Development Advisory Services , the <br /> 20 H.R.A. Consultant. <br /> 21 The Council therefore grants the variances to the City Zoning Or- <br /> 0 2 dinance necessary for the project to include a four unit density <br /> 3 variance for 28 units - where the Ordinance allows 24 ; and a 7 foot <br /> 24 height variance to the Ordinance allowance of buildings no higher-:- than <br /> 25 35 . feet which would allow the proposed structures to be a little over <br /> 26 42 feet high from grade to roof peak. <br /> 27 The Council adopts all the following findings and recommendations from <br /> 28 the- Planning Commission, declaring that wherever there is a conflict <br /> 29 with .the November 6th letter from Development Advisory Services ; the <br /> 30 H.R.A. planning consultant ' s recommendations would override the <br /> 31 Commission' s : <br /> 32 *all drainage and utility features of the plan would be <br /> 33 reviewed by the City a building permit is issued; <br /> 34 *the traffic specialist ' s advice be followed to assure ade- <br /> 35 quate and safe vehicle and facility access to the project; <br /> 36 *the August plans dealing with basic structure exteriors and <br /> 37 grade elevations would become a reference for final approv:ad; <br /> 38' *the second access for emergency vehicles proposed by the <br /> 39 developers be provided through the parking lot; <br /> 40 *City Ordinance 'prohibition of unnecessary storage on balconies ; <br /> •1 <br /> 5 <br />