Laserfiche WebLink
1 Councilmember Ranallo agreed, saying the Council expected no problem <br /> 2 with parking with a building next door owned by the same partnership who <br /> had promised there would be plenty of parking available for Kenzington <br /> residents' use after the offices closed evenings and weekends. He also <br /> 5 remembered that the developers had even asked permission to erect a six <br /> 6 foot fence along the back of their property against which their staff <br /> 7 and people servicing the building could park their vehicles, leaving 15 <br /> 8 parking spaces in front to be used for resident overflow parking if <br /> 9 needed. <br /> 10 The Councilmember reminded the residents that negotiations with numerous <br /> 11 developers for that project had gone as far back as nineor ten years <br /> 12 and involved many modifications of the original plans before the <br /> 13 building was finally constructed. He said he perceived it would be <br /> 14 necessary to research copies of minutes of meetings which preceded <br /> 15 acceptance of the final plans for the building so the Council would be <br /> 16 better prepared to discuss the parking problems in the future. <br /> 17 Council Warned About Potential Collapse of Garage Floor <br /> 18 Ms. Krajna and Mr. Mitchell then reported leakage between the first and <br /> 19 second floors of the garage which they believed had resulted from <br /> 20 deficient installation of seal coating on the floor surfaces. They said <br /> 21 they had copies of letters from the contractor in which Kraus Anderson <br /> 22, had admitted the defects and referred to litigation between the ' META <br /> 23 Partnership and the contractors over those defects. The Kenzington <br /> 24 residents indicated they would be furnishing the City with copies of all <br /> apertinent correspondence they had in their possession. They also <br /> indicated they thought the City should be made aware that there was a <br /> 27 potential collapse of the second floor garage floor similar to those <br /> 28 which had occurred at several parking ramps in downtown Minneapolis. <br /> 29 Mr. Mitchell added that in view of other problems with defective windows <br /> 30 and heating in the garage area and inadequate plumbing on the first and <br /> 31 second condominium floors which had resulted in leakage problems between <br /> 32 floors, he didn't believe the inspection of the building had been <br /> 33 adequate. <br /> 34 Mayor Sundland told him the City usually has state inspection on <br /> 35 projects like the Kenzington. He also said he agreed that it was very <br /> 36 important for the Council to know just exactly what the developers had <br /> 37 agreed to related to the provision of parking for Kenzington .residents <br /> 38 on the vacant lot just in case the owners decide to sell the property <br /> 39 to another developer who would have no responsibility for providing <br /> 40 parking arrangements for Kenzington residents. The Mayor indicated the <br /> 41 purpose of Mr. Hamer's letter had been to get the vacant lot owners to <br /> 42 at least blacktop a portion of the lot for Kenzington resident parking <br /> 43 with the assumption that such a surface would be the easiest to remove <br /> 44 when the lot is developed. <br /> 45 Ms. Hedberg insisted the Kenzington residents needed 24 hour parking <br /> 46 availability because part time parking would never solve the condominium <br /> • 5 <br />