Laserfiche WebLink
J <br /> •1 meeting-with Mr. Krier ,, Mr . .. Hamel• and the Gaughan .architect- the day <br /> 2 after t;:le Commission 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 /> 462 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 approval; <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 />