CC PACKET 09282021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 14, 2021 Page 4 1 The project received concept review at a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City 2 Council earlier this year. Primary among the comments for this project were an interest in 3 affordability for the multi-family project, as that has been a policy related to reuse of the City’s 4 bowling alley property. Other objectives related to architecture and site planning at the 5 Kenzie/Lowry/Stinson corner that create an entry statement to the community, and supporting 6 retention of Bremer Bank as a commercial presence in the City. 7 8 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Preliminary Plan request on August 17, 9 2021. There were a few members of the public who submitted comment and/or appeared at the 10 hearing. The primary concerns related to impacts to Stinson Parkway, access to Kenzie Terrace, 11 and noise and congestion created by the new apartment building. Additional concerns related to 12 overall increasing density in this portion of the larger community expressed by residents of the 13 Minneapolis neighborhoods to the west and south. 14 15 The Planning Commission considered the application and staff report, along with the hearing 16 comments. The Commission ultimately voted to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plan 17 PUD, consistent with the required conditions of staff, with a particular note related to the 18 sustainability measures to be integrated into the project. 19 20 Since the action of the Planning Commission, the applicants have updated plans to address a 21 number of the recommended conditions, a summary of which is provided in email 22 correspondence from the applicant representatives. Many of those comments have been 23 addressed by the updated plans, however, each of the original PUD approval conditions are 24 retained to allow further review by the Council and staff, assuming that they will be incorporated 25 into the Final Plan PUD, to be submitted directly to the City Council, pending Preliminary Plan 26 approval. 27 28 There are two primary points to make related to the traffic on each of the two sites. First, the 29 City’s recommendation is that the reduced parking supply under the PUD, and under the newly 30 revised R-4 zoning district language, is dependent on all parking being available and utilized by 31 the tenants of a multi-family project. When additional fees are imposed, and utilization of the 32 underground parking is made options, there is a risk that the covered parking will go unused, and 33 tenants will overwhelm the “free” surface parking on the site, overflowing to the surrounding 34 streets. This would raise issues related to parking, congestion, winter snow plowing operations, 35 and other concerns. The reduction in parking to the newer standards presumes that all supplied 36 parking will be fully utilized to avoid the overflow conditions. 37 38 With regard to the new Bank site, staff has asked for additional stacking spaces beyond the few 39 apparent on the original site plans. The applicant’s have responded with a clearer illustration of 40 the available stacking in the drive-through area, showing 2-3 spaces at each station. The City 41 should consider whether this arrangement is adequate, given that the general standard for drive-42 through banking is often 4 to 6 spaces per station. 43 44 Staff has reviewed the project for land use compliance with the intent and policies of the City’s 45 Comprehensive Plan, and for zoning consistency with the Commercial and R-4 Multiple Family 46 8