CC MINUTES 01221980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-3- 2): it may be the impetus for a major improvement of • that underdeveloped area in St. Anthony in confor- mance with the proposed Comprehensive Plan; 3) neighbor input indicates the project will not have a detrimental effect for. -adjacent property owners; and 4) the density of the zoning for the project would seem to create no. hardship for that neighborhood. Motion carried unanimously. The wording of the Planning Commission' s motion recommending Council approval of the variances necessary for the proposal was modified, at the City- Attorney's suggestion, to reflect their conformance to the conditions set by City Ordinance for such variance approval and to stipulate specifically their approval for that particular pro- posal. Other suggested changes- by staff and the Council were ac- cepted in the final motion, including the addition .of one and a half feet to the height variance as requested by the architect. Motion by Councilman Sundland and seconded by Councilman Ranallo to grant the following variances exclusively. to the Northeast Minneapolis/St. Anthony Senior. Housing Corporation to permit the construction of the 134-unit elderly apartment structure as proposed • on Parcels 07-029-23-24-003 and ' 07-029-23-24-j04 a) building height .variance of two and one half feet (35 to 37. 8 feet) as well as the variance necessary to permit construction of four full floors .without building the structure into the ground which would seem to be detri- mental to the psychological well being and security of the elderly occupants, finding that the site necessitate such a four-story configuration; 4. b) an increase in the permitted floor area ratio from 1. 0 to 1.18 because the existing R-4 zoning does not address elderly housing which requires less square footage than family-oriented housing and because there is. a large e portion of floor space to be dedicated for community usage proposed for the building; c) a density increase from -54 to 134 .units because the ex- pected. occupancy rate of 1.3 per unit for the- eldetly would almost match that of a family-oriented 54-unit building and it would. not be economically feasible but would create a hardship for the developers to restrict the building to the permitted 54 units; and d). reduction of• parking. stall size to 9 x 19 feet to con- form to the new City Ordinance requirements.