My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 01202009
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2009
>
PL PACKET 01202009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/19/2016 4:29:50 PM
Creation date
4/19/2016 4:29:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
33
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 2005-2011
SP Name
PL PACKET 01202009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
0 <br /> Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes <br /> December 16, 2008 <br /> Page 2 <br /> 1 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> 2 <br /> 3 None. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 VIII. CONCEPT REVIEWS <br /> 6 <br /> 7 VIII.1 3055 OLD US HWY 8 LOT SPLIT <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes presented the staff report for the requested lot split at 3055 <br /> 10 Old US Hwy 8. She stated Mr. David Lutz, General Counsel for The Wirth Companies met with <br /> 11 staff regarding a proposal to split their property located at 3055 Old Highway 8. This property is <br /> 12 zoned as Industrial and is approximately 237,000 square feet. The City Ordinance requires that a <br /> 13 lot in the Industrial Zoned District must be at least 15,000 square feet. If the lot is split <br /> 14 approximately in half as proposed by Mr. Lutz,the resulting lots would meet the requirements of <br /> 15 the ordinance. According to the latest information from Hennepin County regarding this site, it <br /> 16 appears that a second, much smaller lot that is shown on the original survey map is no longer <br /> 17 part of this property. It was likely sold off and became a townhome development that now exits <br /> 18 to the north of the parking lot. Assuming that the current site meets the front and back yard <br /> 19 setbacks, the property owner would have to insure that the side yard setbacks at the newly <br /> 20 formed lot line,which is proposed to be north of the building,would conform to the 15 foot side <br /> 21 yard setbacks as required by the City's ordinance. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes stated when Mr. Lutz was asked about future parking <br /> 24 needs he indicated that the intent is to build underground parking for the proposed building on <br /> 25 the parking lot portion of the property and under the existing building. Staff provided Mr. Lutz <br /> 26 with additional information regarding the Parking Ordinance. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Mr. David Lutz, General Counsel for The Wirth Companies, presented an updated survey on the <br /> 29 subject property. He stated essentially The Wirth Companies is looking to do this lot split <br /> 30 because of the current timing. They have recently paid off a loan on this parcel and the property <br /> 31 is currently debt free. It is anticipated that there will be new debt placed on this site very shortly. <br /> 32 It would be ideal to complete the lot split before the new financing is put in place in order to free <br /> 33 up the vacant lot for future financing and potential development. Mr. Lutz stated it is requested <br /> 34 that the lot split be allowed under the current ordinance,with the requirement that no new <br /> 35 development be allowed on the newly created parcel without the filing of a plat. Due to the short <br /> 36 window of time with the financing that will be proceeding, it is requested that the lot split be <br /> 37 completed as quickly as possible. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Mr. Lutz reviewed the survey and answered questions of the Commission on the requested lot <br /> 40 split. He explained the idea is to create a parcel that is as large as possible on the portion of the <br /> 41 lot that will be developed.An easement would need to be put in place for parking issues. He <br /> 42 stated they are happy to entertain the idea of a deed restriction which would state that the City <br /> 43 would look at both of the parcels when addressing zoning requirements. <br /> 44 <br /> 45 Chair Stromgren asked whether the applicant has looked at parking requirements for the existing <br /> 46 building. Mr. Lutz replied the exact parking requirement has not been reviewed. Parcel A and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.