PL MINUTES 04151986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-8- . • 1 Motion by Commissioner -Madden and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend 2 the City Council grant to the META Partnership the following variances in con- i junction with the commercial fac ility they propose to develop at 2701 and 2709 4 Kenzie Terrace in accordance with the plans presented by the architect during 5 the Commission hearing April 15, 1986: 6 7 1 . A variance from the maximum height regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to 8 construct additions to the existing structure, portions of which will not 9 be greater than 42 feet by 6 inches in height where the City allows 35 feet; 10 11 2. A setback variance for parking which would waiver the five foot side yard 12 setback requirement on the southwest side of the property and the ten foot 13 front yard setback requirement on the southeast side for a total of 42 14 parking stalls on site. 15 16 In recommending approval of these variances, the Commission further recommends 17 they be granted on the following conditions: 18 19 1 . That the developer would have _to- make a binding commitment to provide at 20 least six tenant parking stalls in the underground parking in the Kenzington 21 building which would make up for that number of stalls lost when this project 22 had to be redesigned for dimensions less than originally proposed; 23 24 2. Because their use of the alley behind their property would probably be as 25 much or more than its current use, the project owners should be required 26 to blacktop the alley surface; and • 27 28 3. Due to the unique layout and traffic flow on the site in relation to the 29 facility which is to be constructed, the property owner should also be 30 required to provide clear, concise traffic flow markings to identify en- 31 trances, exits, and one ways so as to control the traffic flow in such a 32 manner as to minimize a potential conflict between vehicles and pedestrian 33 traffic in that area. 34 35 In recommending these variances be granted, the Planning Commission finds that: 36 37 1 . The proposed project would provide an obvious improvement and possibly better 38 mai,htenance.., for that site; 39 40 '2. The setback encroachments can be perceived to have been caused by the tri- 41 angular shaped dimensions of the site and the owner should therefore be given 42 full consideration to properly develop this project within the confines of 43 those difficult dimensions; 44 45 3. This proposal would be compatible with the Kenzington and Walker on Kenzie, 46 as well as the previously approved upcoming senior .rental project to be 47 developed by Arkell Development, in the surrounding area; 48 49 4. It should be recognized that there is an alleged difficulty-.or hardship not 50 created by persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land but 5 1 rather by the City ordinance because the developers are attempting to improve . 52 their property and to refuse their request to do so would impose an undue j 53 hardship on them; 54 55