1987-05-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I 1 Council Meeting Minutes May 26, 1987 Sinda stated, even when the project is completed, there will be problems (unknown at this time) that will have to be corrected within the warranty period by the contractor which is normal pro- cedure. Mattila briefly reviewed slides of existing site and the staff report, and indicated this proposal is consistent with zoning and early development proposals. Brama summarized the proposal; and commented the neighbors were concerned with density but have been advised the apartment units will be used by empty-nesters which will mean less population, even though there are more units per acre. Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Blomquist, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PL-158 AND PRD-48. 4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried In response to Al Logelin1s, 933 - 11th Avenue N.W., inquiries re- garding the development on the east side of the street, Benke stated the city needs a development which will be financially and aesthetically acceptable and which will be close to the original plan. Logelin asked why the city couldn't do something with downtown first; Benke explained the city has not yet found a developer for the downtown area and indicated when a project comes forth, the city will go through the hearing process. In response to Logelin's question on traffic, Mattila stated the Ramsey County engineer felt the impact of the development in the neighborhood would be minimal. Benke stated, when the north side of Tenth Street is built and 1-694 bridge is reconstructed, a sig- nal light may be warranted in the area. 4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried Brama indicated groundbreaking would be after the June 23, 1987, council meeting pending final approval of the project. Mattila reviewed area and history of the site as well as the coun- cil report regarding an application for a variance from Section 4- 040 (d) of the Zoning Code to allow for the construction of a sin- gle family home on a 50 foot wide lot. Mattila stated the lot was subdivided many years ago, the owner owns Lot 4 (the subject lot), Lot 5, and Lot 6; the Planning Commission requested the applicant look at splitting out ten feet of Lot 5 and adding it to Lot 4; due to the loan-to-value ratio, the mortgage company would not co- operate. Blomquist asked about pursuing further discussion with the mort- gage holder; LeFevere did not feel it is relevant to the inquiry. Page 6