My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 06211994
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1994
>
PL PACKET 06211994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 5:28:22 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 5:28:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
20
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 1994
SP Name
PL PACKET 06211994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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
1 Planning Commission <br /> 2 May 17, 1994 • <br /> 3 Page 6 <br /> 4 <br /> 5 voting on the project,the conditional use or the variances, and that this is a concept review prior to <br /> 6 getting a developer and to find out if any objections are present before proceeding. He corrected <br /> 7 some items on his letter of May 9th, they are: zoning changes from R4 to R3; density changed <br /> 8 from thirteen to twenty-three units,not twenty-eight as stated in the letter; under the conditional use <br /> 9 permit, the townhouses would be owner-occupied; under the variances,the front yard setback from <br /> to 30 feet to 20 feet and the back yard setback from 40 feet to 20 feet to maximize land use and to <br /> 11 provide more green and common areas to deal with the unusual topography and lot configuration. <br /> 12 <br /> 13 Mr. Makowske stated the shape of the land is unusual which makes it difficult to put the units in <br /> 14 without the variances; the alley is privately owned and is a waste of property behind the buildings <br /> 15 now. If parking lots and driveways are added the coverage will exceed the required 50 percent. They <br /> 16 anticipate one identification sign near the driveway entry and possibly directional signage to identify <br /> 17 the buildings locations. The St. Anthony Development and Redevelopment Task Force has this <br /> 18 property on their list. Handouts regarding the alleys were distributed to the Commissioners. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Mr. Makowske was asked to clarify the status of the proposed buildings. He stated they would be <br /> 21 for sale,and that there would be no rentals. Commissioner Faust asked the price range of the units. <br /> 22 Mr. Makowske stated about $100,000. Commissioner Faust asked why the density was lowered <br /> 23 from twenty-eight to twenty-three. Mr.Makowske stated that the first proposal for the condominium • <br /> 24 building was scrapped, and all the new units would be uniform. Commissioner Faust asked what <br /> 25 the new plan is and Mr. Makowske responded that the drawing the Commissioners have is only a <br /> 26 concept;the number of bedrooms and garages is not set yet. Faust asked if the owners have talked <br /> 27 with the neighbors. Mr. Makowske stated they had and the neighbors were in favor of the site being <br /> 28 developed. Faust asked if the neighbors knew that townhouses were being planned for the site and <br /> 29 Mr.Makowske stated the neighbors did not know that because the owners still don't know what will <br /> 30 be going in there. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Chair Gondorchin stated he doesn't like variances for new construction and that he is not in favor <br /> 33 of rental property in that location. Gondorchin asked how many buildings are being proposed. <br /> 34 Interim City Manager Hamer stated that there would be six buildings. Commissioner Thompson <br /> 35 commented that even finding the property is currently difficult because of the brush. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Commissioner Franzese asked for a history of the current houses. Mr. Makowske stated that they <br /> 38 were single family homes. The 1800's house had been purchased by his parents while he was away <br /> 39 during the war. The building itself is stone and lime blocks, substantial but old. Chair Gondorchin <br /> 40 asked if complete demolition was planned versus upgrading. Mr. Makowske stated yes, and a small <br /> 41 retaining wall would be built on the street side. Hamer distributed a copy of the current plat to the <br /> 42 Commissioners. Commissioner Thompson asked if the rest of the buildings were owner-occupied. <br /> 43 Mr. Makowske stated they were. <br /> 44 <br /> 45 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.