CC PACKET 09142021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

September 14, 2021 Page 2 related to overall increasing density in this portion of the larger community expressed by residents of the Minneapolis neighborhoods to the west and south. The Planning Commission considered the application and staff report, along with the hearing comments. The Commission ultimately voted to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plan PUD, consistent with the required conditions of staff, with a particular note related to the sustainability measures to be integrated into the project. Since the action of the Planning Commission, the applicants have updated plans to address a number of the recommended conditions, a summary of which is provided in email correspondence from the applicant representatives. Many of those comments have been addressed by the updated plans, however, each of the original PUD approval conditions are retained to allow further review by the Council and staff, assuming that they will be incorporated into the Final Plan PUD, to be submitted directly to the City Council, pending Preliminary Plan approval. There are two primary points to make related to the traffic on each of the two sites. First, the City’s recommendation is that the reduced parking supply under the PUD, and under the newly revised R-4 zoning district language, is dependent on all parking being available and utilized by the tenants of a multi-family project. When additional fees are imposed, and utilization of the underground parking is made optional, there is a risk that the covered parking will go unused, and tenants will overwhelm the “free” surface parking on the site, overflowing to the surrounding streets. This would raise issues related to parking, congestion, winter snow plowing operations, and other concerns. The reduction in parking to the newer standards presumes that all supplied parking will be fully utilized to avoid the overflow conditions. With regard to the new Bank site, staff had asked for additional stacking spaces beyond the few apparent on the original site plans. The applicant’s have responded with a clearer illustration of the available stacking in the drive-through area, showing 2-3 spaces at each station. The City should consider whether this arrangement is adequate, given that the general standard for drive-through banking is often 4 to 6 spaces per station. STAFF RECOMMENDATION With the comments noted above, staff has reviewed the project for land use compliance with the intent and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and for zoning consistency with the C, Commercial and R-4, Multiple Family Residential Districts as baselines. In summary, the Comprehensive Plan promotes use of the subject properties that reflect the proposed uses of commercial and high density multiple family residential uses of up to 40 units per acre. The proposed PUD meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for many of the baseline standards. The principal areas of flexibility under the PUD include: (1) Building height (code is 35 feet/3 stories); applicant proposes approximately 56 feet to top of parapet and 4 stories. (2) Lot coverage/impervious surface (R-4 code limits this to 50%); applicant’s proposal is approximately 50.5%. 34