PL PACKET 03181984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-3- 1 Commissioner Jones indicated he agreed with Commissioner Bjorklund 2 that there were many landscaping and security concerns which could 3 not be addressed without the full set of plans . Commissioner Franzese 4 indicated she wanted to wait until she had an opportunity to see just 5 how the western- side of the building which faces the parkway would 6 be treated and Commissioner Hansen indicated he shared her concerns 7 about the view of the building from the front and the concerns of 8 the other Commissioners related to the provision of security and 9 fire protection for the building. 10 11 -Mr. -Madsen--said.-he- knew there was an elaborate alarm system planned 12 for the building which would be paid for by the park board and indi- . 13 cated a delay of a month could pose real problems for the park board 14 since they planned to advertise for bids the next day and to apply for 15 a building permit right away. 16 17 Commissioner Jones indicated he wanted specific concerns about the 18 proposal addressed before a recommendation was made to the Council 19 and wanted the curb cut tied into the Minneapolis ' intentions re- 20 garding the maintenance of the roadway. Commissioner Bowerman indi- 21 cated he did not think that should be the Commission's concern at 22 that time since no formal request for a curb cut had been made and 23 the only matter before them was actually the determination .of whether 24 or not the proposed building was to be constructed in such- a manner 25 as to be compatible with the natural environment and reminded them 26 that the Manager had indicated the proposed construction would meet • 27 all the Zoning Ordinance-requirements and "merely needs Commission 28 and Council approval as a matter of formality" unless the Commission 29 perceives the material or -design would have a detrimental environ- 30 mental effect. The Commissioner said the Building Inspector has 31 been working with the planner all along and he questioned whether 32 the Commission would be acting in a legal manner to enter into the 33 planning process at this stage by questioning how the security would 34 be provided and whether or not the glass or interior finish was 35 vandal proof : ` He said "hots can you trade off a curb cut :which hasn' t 36 even been requested yet, for a building which is being constructed 37 by the park board on their own property?" . 38 39 Commissioner Wagner indicated he believed the Commission was acting 40 properly when they wanted to know about the security which would be 41 provided, since that is the City ' s responsibility and agreed that they 42 had a right to see all specific plans for the proposal before acting 43 on the request. 44 45 Commissioner Bjorkl:und reiterated that he believed the . connection 46 between the provision of a quality road for a quality building was 47 a valid one and he believed the City of Minneapolis should be willing 48 to negotiate in good faith on the matter. He did not see them as 49 acting in a fair manner and said he didn' t want to see his tax moneys 50 spent for a road they- would benefit most from. 51 • 52 The Manager commented . that 'if, when they first saw the agenda packet, 53 the Commissioners .had called him to let him know they wanted to dis- 54 cuss the matter directly with the Minneapolis officials, he could 55 have had them come. to the meeting and would have made certain all