My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 09282021
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2021
>
CC PACKET 09282021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/20/2022 9:38:18 AM
Creation date
1/20/2022 9:37:42 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br />September 14, 2021 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />Councilmember Jenson asked if the setback requirements are compatible with the setback 1 <br />requirements for the new building on the north side of this project. Mr. Grittman stated the 2 <br />property going up on the north has a 60-foot setback. Councilmember Jenson asked regarding 3 <br />the setback on Stinson Blvd. Mr. Grittman stated this building would be 30 feet from Stinson (R-4 <br />4 Standard) and the property to the north is quite a bit further to allow for entry and parking. 5 <br />Councilmember Jenson asked if that will look ok and Mr. Grittman stated he believes it will. 6 <br />They will not look out of place. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Ms. Victoria Perbix, representing Interstate Development, attended via Zoom. Councilmember 9 <br />Jenson asked how many surface parking spaces will be on the site. Ms. Perbix stated there will 10 <br />be 60 surface stalls on the exterior and 66 on covered ground level parking. Ms. Perbix stated the 11 <br />overall concept of the project to have affordability for the residents. This building is not overly 12 <br />amenitized and residents can make decisions on what they want and do not want and have 13 <br />control over their rent amount and manage their budget. The underground parking would be fully 14 <br />utilized. Councilmember Jenson asked about where the surface parkers park when snow removal 15 <br />is being done? Ms. Perbix stated she doesn’t have a good answer but they may have utilized 16 <br />phased snow removal. Councilmember Jenson asked if the NE Minneapolis residents would need 17 <br />to be notified there may be cars parking on streets during snow plowing. Ms. Perbix stated that 18 <br />would not be the developer’s intent. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Councilmember Walker asked if there were other rationales other than affordability to charge 21 <br />extra for underground parking. During the winter months, from an operational point of view how 22 <br />would plowing of the parking lot be done. Ms. Perbix stated the concept of the covered parking 23 <br />making it first come first serve, it would not be fair to charge everyone. Bike storage is being 24 <br />considered in the front of the underground stall. The open underground parking stalls may be 25 <br />utilized temporarily. 26 <br /> 27 <br />Councilmember Randle stated there is always the issue with plowing of multi-family parking 28 <br />lots. Everyone cannot afford underground parking. The management needs to notify residents 24 29 <br />hours ahead of time prior to plowing. There are ways to work around the parking issue. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Mayor Stille stated every project he finances, charges more for covered parking. 32 <br /> 33 <br />Councilmember Webster stated she thinks about since it is workforce housing. There was a study 34 <br />that one-third of 18-year -olds do not have a driver’s license. Since this project is on a bus line, 35 <br />the residents may wish to take a bus or bike to work. This is not a unique situation to this project. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Councilmember Jenson asked if the 14 recommended conditions were acceptable to the 38 <br />developer. Commissioner Morita stated the reason the Planning Commission made an issue of 39 <br />this is because of the limited off-site parking available adjacent to the project. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Mayor Stille stated the public hearing was held at the Planning Commission Meeting but 42 <br />welcomed any residents with comments to make them. 43 <br /> 44 <br />Mr. Thomas Isaacson, 2604 Pahl Avenue, asked for clarification and noted he is not in favor of a 45 <br />driveway off Stinson to the multi-family development. He asked about a future driveway being 46 <br />11
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.