PL PACKET 11191996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 15, 1996 Page 4 1 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 7:21 P.M. 2 Commissioner Gondorchin stated he favored approval of the proposal but noted City Attorney's 3 concern of removing one non-conforming structure and replacing it with another. 4 Chair Bergstrom stated he would have concerns regarding that issue if this were an easier lot to 5 work with. In working with what is available, he felt this was a reasonable development for the 6 City. Under the circumstances he was inclined to support the variance. 7 Commissioner Horst stated he was concerned with the non-conforming issue. He noted however, 8 that he felt this proposal was in the spirit of redevelopment of the area and the Planning 9 Commission should find a way to grant approvaL 10 Commissioner Franzese stated once the building is leveled the non-conformance will be gone. 11 The Planning Commission will then only be addressing the allowance of a new non-conforming 12 structure. 13 Chair Bergstrom reiterated that Commissioner Franzese was stating that once the non-conforming 14 structure is demolished, it will be no different than a builder requesting to build on a vacant lot 15 within the mandated setbacks and asking for a variance to build ten feet closer to the west 16 property line than City Code allows. He stated he had read the Code several times and it is 17 difficult to interpret. He stated he understood the intent but was not certain if this decision was 18 bound to the Code if interpreted as stated by Commissioner Franzese. 19 Motion by Gondorchin, seconded by Thompson,to recommend City Council approval of the 20 request for a 10 foot side yard variance and a variance to continue the non-conforming use for St. 21 Anthony Unocal Service Station,Roger Bona, 2801 Kenzie Terrace as it meets the variance 22 criteria as follows: 23 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship as this proposal will not alter the character 24 of the area and economic interests are evident but are not the primary consideration. 25 2. Circumstances are unique due to the configuration of the lot. 26 3. The proposal is in the spirit of revitalization and redevelopment of the City of St. Anthony. 27 4. There was no opposition form neighboring property owners but in fact there was support. 28 5. The design offers potential safety improvements for motorists. 29 6. The building will be aesthetically pleasing due to the lower profile. 30 Vote on the motion: Bergstrom,Franzese, Gondorchin,Horst, and Thompson voted aye. 31 Commissioner Makowske abstained. 32 Motion carried. 33 Chair Bergstrom noted this issue will be considered at the October 22, 1996 City Council 34 meeting.