CC MINUTES 06241986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- him that the META Partnership had not been associated with the project when that had occurred. The developer reacted to Mr. Kemma's suggestion that.a deadline be imposed on the variances the Manager had indicated remained to be granted for the project, by saying no such restrictions had ever been considered necessary for any other project with which his firm had been involved, Mr. Gustafson also mentioned that it was con- ceivable the developers might end up with a smaller building because they had "a pretty tight site with little flexibility to work with", and he told Mr. Kemma he hoped with the discussions META is holding now with a group of prospective tenants, that construction could be started this fall . He reiterated that, as owners of the Kenzington next door, it would be. to the developers' advantage to get the site cleaned up as soon as possible to aid condominium sales, The developer then assured Councilmember Marks that more definitive plans with colors to designate landscaping would be made available in the Kenzington for any residents who had been unable to attend the meeting that evening and to let prospective con- dominium buyers know what is planned next door. Councilmember Makowske indicated she perceived the developers had responded to the neighbors' concerns by providing greater setbacks from the alley and she complimented the residents for getting the changes they had sought. Motion by Mayor Sundland and seconded by Councilmember Makowske to grant the META Partnership, 7400 Metro Boulevard, Bloomington, MN, a setback variance for parking which would waiver the five foot side yard setback ordinance requirement on the south- west side and the ten foot front yard setback requirement on the southeast side of the property at 2701 and 2709 Kenzie Terrace, for a total of 42 parking stalls to accomo- date a building which would not exceed 35 feet in height, and for which there would • be no alley access, which META proposes to erect in conjunction with a commercial facility in accordance with the revised project plans presented by the architect at the June 24, 1986 Council meeting. In granting these variances the Council further stipulates that: 1 . The developers would have to make a binding commitment to provide at least six tenant parking stalls in the underground parking in the Kenzington building which would make up the same number of stalls which were lost when this project had to be redesigned for dimensions less than originally proposed; and 2. Due to unique layout and traffic flow,;ion the site in relation to the facility which would be constructed, the property owner would also be required to provide clear, concise traffic flow markings to identify entrances, exits, and one ways so as to control the traffic flow in such a manner as to minimize a potential conflict between vehicles and pedestrian traffic in that area. In granting these variances the Council finds, as did the Planning Commission, that: 1 . The proposed project would provide an obvious improvement and possibly better maintenance for that site; 2. The setback encroachments can be perceived to have been caused by the triangular shaped dimensions of the site and the owner should therefore be given full con- sideration to properly develop this project within the confines of those difficult dimensions; • 3, It should be recognized that there is an alleged difficulty or hardship not created by persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land but rather, by the City ordinance, because the developers are attempting to improve their property and to refuse their request to do so would impose an undue hardship on them;